Appendix A: Glossary of Terms

1. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AFB Air Force Base AHPA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act BCC Birds of Conservation Concern BOD biological oxygen demand BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BRT Biological Review Team CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second cfu colony-forming units dB decibel DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DEA Draft Environmental Assessment DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DNT/TNT di- and tri-nitrotoluelenes DoA Department of the Army DOI Department of the Interior DOT Washington State Department of Transportation DPS Distinct Population Segment DU Ducks Unlimited EA Environmental Assessment EE environmental education EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESU evolutionary significant unit FHA Federal Highway Administration FR Federal Register FTE full-time equivalent FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, Service) FY Fiscal Year GIS Global Information System GMA Growth Management Act GPS Global Positioning System HABS/HAER Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record HB House Bill HUD Housing and Urban Development I-5 Interstate 5 Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 MHHW mean higher high water MHW mean high water

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS MLLW mean low low water MOU Memorandum of Understanding mph miles per hour MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization NA Nisqually Agriculture (zoning designation) NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NGOs non-government organizations NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGDV National Geodetic Vertical Datum NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NMML National Marine Mammal Laboratory NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS National Park Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NRTF Nisqually River Task Force NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWR National Wildlife Refuge NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System OAHP Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation OFM Washington Office of Financial Management ORV off-road vehicle PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PDR Purchase of Development Rights PGFSPDC Ad-Hoc Pacific Groundfish Fishery Strategic Plan Development Committee PHS Priority Habitats and Species ppm parts per million ppt parts per thousand PRISM Program for Regional and International Shorebird Monitoring PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council PUNA Public Use Natural Area PWC personal watercraft RA Research Activity Management RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCW Revised Code of Washington RI/RA/FS Remedial Investigation/Risk Assessment/Feasibility Study RNA Research Natural Area ROD Record of Decision RONS Refuge Operating Needs System RRP Refuge Roads Program RTPO Regional Transportation Planning Organization SEPA State Environmental Policy Act Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, FWS) SHB State House Bill SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SoC Species of Concern SPI Superintendent of Public Instruction SUP Special Use Permit

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS TES Threatened and Endangered Species TM Thematic Mapper TNC The Nature Conservancy TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon UGA Urban Growth Area USC United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources WDOE Washington Department of Ecology WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation YCC Youth Conservation Corps

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS 2. GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Achievement Strategy. See Strategy.

Adaptive Management. Refers to a process in which policy decisions are implemented within a framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and assumptions inherent in management plan. Analysis of results help managers determine whether current management should continue as is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired conditions.

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

Alternative. 1. A reasonable way to fix the identified problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 1500.2). 2. Alternatives are different means of accomplishing refuge purposes and goals and contributing to the System mission (draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Amphipod. Any of a large order of small, usually aquatic crustaceans with a laterally compressed body (for example, beach fleas).

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

Basin. A region drained by a river system.

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

Biological Diversity. The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur (USFWS Manual 052 FW 1. 12B). The System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, and ecological processes. Also referred to as Biodiversity.

Bivalve. Common term for pelecypods, members of the Mollusca in which the hard parts are composed of 2 sections fitting together to enclose a space that contains the soft part of the organism.

Brown Farm Dike. The approximately 5-mile long dike that was built in the late 1800s and early 1900s to convert salt marsh areas into farmland by preventing saltwater inundation.

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

Categorical Exclusion. A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4).

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Class A Noxious Weed. Those noxious weeds not native to the state that are of limited distribution or are unrecorded in the state and that pose a serious threat to the state.

Class B Noxious Weed. Those noxious weeds not native to the state that are of limited distribution or are unrecorded in a region of the state and that pose a serious threat to that region.

Class C Noxious Weed. Any other noxious weed.

Compatible Use. A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the Mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge (Draft Service Manual 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). A document that describes the desired future conditions of the refuge, and provides long-range guidance and management direction for the refuge manager to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to the mission of the System, and to meet other relevant mandates (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Concern. See definition of “Issue.”

Cover Type. The present vegetation of an area.

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

Cultural Resource Inventory. A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. Inventories may involve various levels, including background literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for the National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7).

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

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

Disturbance. Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be natural (e.g., fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight).

Ecosystem. A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities and their associated non-living environment.

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-5 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Ecosystem Management. Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at viable levels in native habitats and basic ecosystem processes are perpetuated indefinitely.

Endangered Species (Federal). A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Endangered Species (State). A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in Washington within the near future if factors contributing to its decline continue. Populations of these species are at critically low levels or their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree.

Environmental Assessment (EA). A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9).

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A detailed written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts of a proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long- term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 1508.11).

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

Estuarine. Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually partly enclosed by land but have some access to the open ocean and are diluted by freshwater.

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

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

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). A document prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly presents why a Federal action will have no significant effect on the human environment and for which an environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13).

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

Gastropod. Any of a large class of mollusks, usually with a univalve shell or no shell and a distinct head bearing sensory organs, such as snails and slugs.

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-6 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Gill Net. A type of fishing net utilized by commercial, tribal, and occasionally recreational fishing operations. These nets are the center of much controversy due to the high incidence of by-catch associated with their use.

Goal. Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units (Draft Service Manual 620 FW 1.5).

Habitat. Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for survival and reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives.

Habitat Type. See Vegetation Type.

Habitat Restoration. Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired conditions and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems.

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

Intergrade. An individual occurring on the boundary between adjacent subspecies and which possesses intermediate characters or traits.

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

Inversion. A state in which the temperature of the air increases with increasing altitude and keeps the surface air and pollutants down.

Issue. Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision (e.g., a Service initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, a threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition) (Draft Service Manual 602FW 1.5).

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

Landbird. A category of birds that obtains at least part of their food from the land and nest in mainland areas (though some can also be found on islands). Landbirds include raptors and songbirds among others.

Management Alternative. See Alternative.

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

Minimal Critical Staffing. The core staffing needed at Nisqually NWR to meet minimum resource needs, approved by the Service pre-CCP.

Mission Statement. Succinct statement of a unit’s purpose and reason for being.

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-7 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Monitoring. The process of collecting information to track changes of selected parameters over time.

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

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Requires all Federal agencies, including the Service, to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision making (from 40 CFR 1500).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. A branch of the Federal government under the U.S. Department of Commerce. The mission of NOAA Fisheries is to rebuild and maintain sustainable fisheries, promote the recovery of protected species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and protect and maintain the health of coastal marine habitats for marine animals.

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

National Wildlife Refuge System. Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species threatened with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction; wildlife ranges; games ranges; wildlife management areas; or waterfowl production areas.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). Under the Refuge Improvement Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to develop 15-year Comprehensive Conservation Plans for all National Wildlife Refuges outside Alaska. The Act also describes the six public uses given priority status within the NWRS (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission. The mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

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

Nematodes. Non-segmented roundworms of the phylum Nematoda. They range widely is size and can be free-living or parasitic.

Neritic. Pertaining to the marine zone between low tides and the edge of the continental shelf, a depth of roughly 200 m. A neritic environment supports marine organisms, also described as

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-8 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS neritic, that are capable of surviving in shallow water with moderate exposure to sunlight.

Nisqually Reach. Portion of south Puget Sound extending northwest from DuPont Wharf, including Nisqually River delta, to the southern end of Case Inlet at Johnson Point.

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

Noxious Weed. A plant species designated by Federal or State law as generally possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive or difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insect or disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the United States, according to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious weed is one that causes disease or had adverse effects on man or his environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of the Untied States and to the public health.

Objective. An objective is a concise target statement of what will be achieved, how much will be achieved, when and where it will be achieved, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives are derived from goals and provide the basis for determining management strategies. Objectives should be attainable and time-specific and should be stated quantitatively to the extent possible. If objectives cannot be stated quantitatively, they may be stated qualitatively (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

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

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

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

Palustrine. Freshwater wetlands that are less than 2 meters deep at low water. They do not include areas regularly impacted by waves or part of a bedrock shoreline. They are familiarly known as marshes, swamps, bogs, wet meadows, prairies, and small shallow ponds.

Passerines. See songbirds.

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

Personal Watercraft. Personal watercraft (PWC) are small vessels that use inboard motors powering water jet pumps. They are known by such trade names as Jet-ski, Waverunner, and Sea-Doo. Personal watercraft are high performance vessels, designed for speed and maneuverability and are often used to perform stunts. They typically have loud 50 - 100 horsepower engines and are capable of traveling more than 60 mph.

Pinniped. A suborder of carnivores that are marine mammals, have flippers, and eat mostly fish and marine invertebrates (e.g., sea lions, seals).

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-9 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Plant Association. A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in dominants of all layers of vascular species in a climax community.

Plant Community. An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or integration of the environmental influences on the site such as soils, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes a general kind of climax plant community (e.g., Sitka spruce).

Polychaetes. Any of a class (Polychaeta) of chiefly marine annelid worms (such as clam worms), usually with paired segmental appendages, separate sexes, and a free-swimming trochophore larva.

Preferred Alternative. This is the alternative determined [by the decision maker] to best achieve the Refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the Refuge System mission, addresses the significant issues; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management.

Priority Species. Fish and wildlife species that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife believe require protective measures and/or management guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. Priority species include the following: (1) State-listed and candidate species; (2) species or groups of animals susceptible to significant population declines within a specific area or statewide by virtue of their inclination to aggregate (e.g., seabird colonies); and (3) species of recreation, commercial, and/or tribal importance.

Public. Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, State, and local government agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may include anyone outside the core planning team. It includes those who may or may not have indicated an interest in Service issues and those who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them.

Purpose(s) of the Refuge. The purpose of a refuge is specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorization, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit.

Raptor. A category of carnivorous birds, most of which have heavy, sharp beaks, strong talons, and take live prey (e.g., peregrine falcon, bald eagle).

Refuge Goal. See Goal.

Refuge Purposes. The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, a refuge unit, or refuge subunit (Draft Service Manual 602 EW 1.5).

Rhizomes. A rootlike stem growing horizontally below the surface. The rhizome is used for food storage and can produce roots and shoots.

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-10 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Riparian. Refers to an area or habitat that is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems; including streams, lakes wet areas, and adjacent plant communities and their associated soils which have free water at or near the surface; an area whose components are directly or indirectly attributed to the influence of water; of or relating to a river; specifically applied to ecology, “riparian” describes the land immediately adjoining and directly influenced by streams. For example, riparian vegetation includes any and all plant life growing on the land adjoining a stream and directly influenced by the stream.

Riverine. Freshwater wetlands and deepwater habitats within a channel containing periodically or continuously moving water. It includes wetlands with primarily or mostly submerged vegetation but does not include those wetlands with mostly emergent vegetation or shrubs and trees. This habitat encompasses a river or stream, its channel, and the associated aquatic vegetation.

Seabird. A group of birds that obtain at least some food from the ocean by traveling some distance over its surface. They also typically breed on islands and along coastal areas. Seabirds include gulls, alcids, pelicans, albatrosses, storm-petrels, and cormorants, among others.

Songbirds (Also Passerines). A category of birds that are medium to small, perching landbirds. Most are territorial singers and migratory.

Spionids. A type of polychaete.

Step-down Management Plans. Step-down management plans provide the details necessary to implement management strategies identified in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Strategy. A specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to meet unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Study Area. The area reviewed in detail for wildlife, habitat, and public use potential. For purposes of this CCP/EIS the study area includes the lands within the currently approved Refuge boundary and potential Refuge expansion areas. See page 3-1 for more details.

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

Subsidence. Movement to a lower level or elevation.

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

Threatened Species (Federal). Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range.

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-11 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Threatened Species (State). A plant or animal species likely to become endangered in Washington within the near future if factors contributing to population decline or habitat degradation or loss continue.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission. The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.

Vegetation Type, Habitat Type, Forest Cover Type. A land classification system based upon the concept of distinct plant associations.

Vision Statement. A concise statement of the desired future condition of the planning unit, based primarily upon the System mission, specific refuge purposes, and other relevant mandates (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Page A-12 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process and Release of the Draft CCP/EIS

The following distribution list was used to notify interested individuals, agencies, tribes, and organizations of the release of the Draft CCP/EIS. Those who requested a Draft CCP/EIS and/or Executive Summary were provided copies. This list, with some names added following release of the Draft CCP/EIS, was also used to announce the release of the Final CCP/EIS. A Planning Update was sent to all those on the distribution list, as well as all those who commented on the Draft CCP/EIS, listed in Appendix M, Section 4.0. Individuals who originally requested the complete Draft CCP/EIS and all those who commented on the Draft document were sent the Summary of Changes and Appendix M (Comments and Responses). Those commentors that sent emails were notified by email and provided websites where they can read the Planning Update. All others received hard copy Planning Updates in regular mail.

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process and Release of the Draft CCP/EIS

INDIVIDUALS Blakely, Archie Christoffer, Jerold F. Blanchard, Dale & Michelle Christy, George & Arlene Abreau, Daisy & Joe Blencoe, Lucille M. Christy, Robert Adams, Bill Bock, Thais Chumbly, Edward W. Adams, Keith Boden, David W. Churilla, Robert J. & Glenda F. Ahearn, G.B. & M. Boesche, Chris Cirrito, Carolyn B. Aitken, Kevin Bolding, Richard Citrak, Micheal Alaimo, Julie Bontemps, Helen & Jeff Clapper, John & Cecil Aldrich, Glenn Borgford, Norma J. Cleaver, Marcie Allen, Chris Borley, Clarence A. Trust Clement, Kendall S. & Maribeth Allen, Donna L Bosworth, Donna Clinton, Jon P. Alvestad, Carey D. Boudman, Rock Cole, Clara M. Ambrose, Jerry & Jessie Boulet, Angelle Collins, James R. & Jodi K. Anderson, Bruce C. Boyer, Margot Coloff, June M. Anderson, Jon Brady, Patricia M. Cook, Thomas A. Anderson, Kenneth A. Braget Trust Cooper, Mary Jane Anderson, Laurie Braget, Ken Cooper, Ruby M. Anderson, Lee D. Brazel, Chuck Coots, Dean E. Anderson, Susan Bressi, Paul M. Corkum, Ellsworth E. Anderson, Todd D. Brewer, Larry Cornette, Loretia Angle, Bob & Ilene Bridges, Theresa Maisell Corwin, Alan & Robin Atkins, Rodney Brigham, Jim Crabb, Bob Atkinson, Doug Brigs, Dorris Cragin, Vera Attwood, Larry E. & Linda L. Brineman, Scott Crihfield, Carol Attwood, Sally J. Brooks, Norma Crouse, Carl L. Axelson, Elisabeth & Robert R. Brough, Roger D. Cummings, M. A. Baarslag, Ralph & Carrie Brown, Arthur E. Curda, Verne Babare, George M. Brown, Bob & Peggy Curtis, Richard Babare, Robert M. Brown, Garry Darroch, Dave Babare, Robert S. Brown, James C. Davidson, Glen E. & Gwen Bacak, Joyce E. & Walter L. Brown, Sue Davis, Joanne Bailey, Robert and Sally Buckley, Patrick Davis, Karin K. Baird, Charles R. Bruder, Russ & Teresa Davis, Scott A. Baker, Doug Buckner-Rother, Sherry Dawes, Janet Balcom, Mabel I. Budack, Marietta E. Dazell, Michaele Banker, Naida Buffo, Gary Dean, Mary Louise Baratz - Trustees, Julius & Lois Buis, Sharon Debes, Jan D. Barber, Pat Bullington, Pam Deckman, Jill Bartlett, Arthur Burton, Carol Derickson, Douglas Bateson, Don Busler, Cindy Dethoper, Paul & Melinda Batker, Nell & Kenneth E. Butler, Ann T. Deyoe, Dick Bednar, Ray & Glenda E. Cabaniss, Vicki Dibiase, Paul Begley, Jerry Cadenhead, Jimmie W. Dion, Linda Bell, Brooke Cahoon, Jennifer Dixon, Jerry & Carrie Bellona, Larry Campbell, Lois M. Do, Sang V. Belting, Dan Campbell, Robert J. Dock, Jerald & Jacqueline Benghart, Richard Carleton, Kenneth Doering, Aaron M. & Amy L. Bennet, John & Lizlie Carpenter, Lanny & Linda Dolkiewicz, Christina Berg, Lucille Carr, Shelley Donally, Elfriede H. Bernard, Rebecca Carter, David E. & Ursula E. Doolittle, George Berry, M. K. Casner, Hubert Duncan, Rachel & Beth Bielefield, Beth Chamberlain, Jessie M. Dunkin, Kristie Biggerstqaff, Mike and Ruth Chambers, Chuck Dunson, Kayleen Bjork, Barry Char, P. DuVal, Jerry & Joyce Black, Jeffery S. & Connie M. Chase, Pamela L. Earl, Lonita M. Black, Sharon Chojnowski, DAniel & Patricia Earles, Robert & Karen

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process and Release of the Draft CCP/EIS

Early, Jim Goldstein, Larry Hollison, Robert V Jr. & Kathleen M Eberling, Marshall E. Goodwin, Robert B. Holmstrom, Carol J. Ella Dickson & John Patterson Gordon, Robert H. & Patricia M. Hook, Judi Ellis, Randy H. Gorgen, Diane Horner, Carol Ellison, Dennis Gors, Merle & Diane House, Chris Elmgren, Lloyd & Lucille Gottfriedson, Henry F. & Alison K. Huber, P. J. Elwess, Gene & Annie Grassi, Nello L. Hudon, Mary Ely, Vincent C. Graves, Lynn Hukari, Molly Emerson, Vicki Green, Norma Hull, Olive Emery, Nancy Green, Robert Jr. & Kimberly S. Hunter, Rhonda Engle, Stan & Helen Greer, Preston Hvidsten, David A. Era, Brandee Greetham, Jim Hyatt, Goldie Erickson, Curt Grettenberger, John Ida, Jane Taylor Erickson, Mark Griffin, Betty Ikari, Larry Evans, William & Kathleen L. Griffin, Scott & Liesa Ingersoll, James W. Evenson, Joseph R. Griffith, Tom Inman, E. Leon Fabing, Keith Gudger, David & Pam Inman, J.R. Faires, April Guy, Robert Inman, Ronald B. Farler, Thomas T. & Lovey Gwill Ging & Joanne Stellini Jacobsen, Lawrence Farone, Steven M. Gwynn, Sylvia Janny, Jay & Alice Farrow, John Haiducek, Timothy J. & Joy E. Jarrett, Sue Ferguson, Ann Haigh, Rick Jauquet, Joseph Fisk, Janet Halverson, B. Jennings, Hugh Fiske, Winnifred Hamilton, Betty Jensen, Richard & Sylvia Flynn, Margaret E. Hamilton, Janeen Jensen, Ros Foote, Tom Hammersmith, Ed Jensen, Roy Ford, Donald Hancock, Margaret Jewell, Sharon Fortune, Bruce Handly, Jeff Jiby, Barbara Frank, Willie Hang, Chanlip Man Johnson, Brenda Franzen, Woody Hardy, Wayne Johnson, Lee E. Fraser, Doug Harmon, Bill Johnston, Mark Freelund, Ed Harmon, Carolyn Jones, Allan Freeman, Hazel Harmon, George Jones, Deke Friend, Vic D. Harold, George F. Jones, Kathleen M. Fries, Mary A. Hauf, Herbert & Mary Lou Jones, Vicki Froelicher, Julie Hayden, David Jonietz, Carla Frost, Helen Hayes, Penny Joy, Charles Fuller, Len Healy, Tom Jungbluth, Donna Gable, Adrian L. Hecht, Edith Kaminsky, George Galitelo, Gary Heilman, Paul Kara Larsen & Greg Tolbert Galitelo, Peter D Trust Helligay, Thom Kareta, William Garrison, Eric Hellman, Glenn Kavanaugh, Rob Gatzka, Joseph A. Hempleman, Christine Kavouse, An Gendron, Kathy Hennessey, Diane Kawasaki, Joy Getz, D. Herman, Steve Keith, John & Donna Gibbs, Carl W. & Laura L. Herz, Warren Kelley, Mark Gibson, Terrill Hilburn, Maury Kelley, Phil Giddings, Roxy & William Hill, Dorothy H. Kelly, Janet Gillmer, Jean Hill, William K. Kenney, Ed Gilmer, Thelma Hines, James Kildahl, Ken Ginal, Tom Hines-Bergstrom, Kenna Killgrove, Gerald & Linda Glastetter, Howard & Colleen Hitchcock, Tim Kimmel, Alan G. Gleason, James T. Gleason Hobbs, Michael C. & Jana M. Kinch, Karen Glecker, Jan Hocutt, Gene Kingley, Susan Godina, Lisa M. Hoenig, Elizabeth Kinzner, Delores Goheen, Bryan C. & Sylvia Hoffman, Jim & Allison Kirkland, Dave

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process and Release of the Draft CCP/EIS

Kirkland, Kirk Marston, Sally Muller, Gretchen Kivlehan, Jim Martin, Dick & Dawn Murphy, Thomas J. Knudson, Gary Martin, John & Ann Murray, Regina Knudson, James C. Martin, Kathy Nastansky, Ray Knuth, Beverly Martin, Mary Nastansky, Tony Knutsen, Mack & Merrily Martinsen, Fred Neff, Sylvia Knutsen, Robert Mathews, Maureen H. Nell Fuller & Stephen Green Koch, Joyce P. Matteson, Jon Micheal Nelson, Jim & Carolyn Kohlenberg, David & Elizabeth McBride, Delbert Nelson, Lin Kramer, Jan McBride Jr., Albert E. Newcomb, Tim Krett, Paul McBride, Malcolm Newling, Charles J. Krishnamoorti, Signa R. McCall, Tom Newman, Barbara Kuciej, Walter McCartan, Clarice Nickel, H. K. Kyle, Paul McCartan, Richard Nightingale, Celia Lantor, Judy McDonald, Eiko & Mark Noonan, Michael F. Larry, Kenneth M. & Martha V. McFarland, Martha Norbeck, Jim Larson, Betty McGillis, John W. Nordstrom, Gail Larson, Bill McGovern, Maryanne Nowlin, Victor S. Larson, Lawrence A. Jr. & Joyce A. McIntosh, Brian Nunze, Cindi Lathrop, Elizabeth L. McMahon, Virginia Nye Jr., Timothy S. Law, Laurie McNett, Dave O'Brien, Mike Leaman, Dennis H. McPhail, John O'Herin, Charles Lears, Mark McQuarrie, Linda Obert, Bill Lee, Heidi L. McQueen, Bruce & Patricia Oestreich, Troy D. Lees, Suny McWha, Sandra Ogle, Barbara Legwold, Rocky L. Mead, Frank Olmstead, Judy Leigh, Joann M. Meadows, David Ortiz, Marjorie P. Leland, Norman C. Melby, Ward Ortman, Dave Lewis, Karen Mellish, Wiley & Nina Ost, Janna Leyser, Selig Metcalf, Alan W. Overby, Anne Lind, Ellis Meyer, Bryant Paradise, Peggy Link, Charles Meyer, Herbie Patterson, Pauline M. Lipscomb, Jean C. Meyer, Wallace K. Pauler, Walter & Karen Lisi, Mark Meyers, John Pavey, Art Lockhard, Frank Miceli, Tom Pearson, J. Norris Lockwood, Cal Michelson, Fred Pelela, Micheal E. Loeliger, David & Elenaor Mikkelson, Earl Pelletier, Greg Loftin, Fred E. & Claire Miller, David J. Peters, Jo Loncar, Paul Miller, Jackie Peterson, Barb Lonergan, George A. Miller, Kathleen Phillips, Douglas S. Long, Harold G. & Dianne L. Miller, Leslie Picha, Thomas Longley, Jim Miller, Rhett Pickel, Tommie H. Losey, David L. & Sharon Mills, Liz & Scott Pigman, Dean A. Loucks, Tina Minelga, Antanas Pittmon, JoAnn & Douglas Lovik, Dena L. Mitchell, Lea Potter, Irene Luhr, Pat Miville, Mary E. Potter, Jack Luhr, William R. Moe, Gregory C. Powell, Don & Bobbie Lund, W. R. Moore, Greg Pruske, Jim Lundin, Steve Morello, Roberta Pudists, Marc Lundstrom, Steve Moreno, Connie Puhich, Julie Lux, Mary Morhous, Mike Quinn, Eric Lyle, E.B Morrison, Scott Rader, Aaron Lyon, Micheal & Judy Morton, Randy Ragland, Isabel M. Piper and C. Costello Mostue, Brian Ramsey, Richard Magee, Kathleen R. Mowrey, Robert Ramsey, Robert & Georgia Manos, Henry & Elaine Mr. Kluh Rants, Rozanne

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-5 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process and Release of the Draft CCP/EIS

Ray, Emily Shiner, Clyde Thompson, Jan E. & Pamela B. Raymant, Cory Shiotani, Tessie Thompson, Mary Reale, Dom Shlichta, Rena Jess J. Thomsen Trust Redfield, Cavour E. Shoal, Robin Thomsen, Paul & Margo Reehling, Meghan Simmons, Brian Thomsen, Torden Reese, Gary Fuller Simmons, Ron Threatt, Lorena E. Reese, Katie Singh, Bajinder Tihonovich, Phil Reintjes, Maurine Skjervold, Tom Tobiason, Fred Rice, Donna H. Slaby, Sandia Todd, Tom Rieck, Carroll Smit, Julie L. Tossey, Mel Riffero, George Smith, Curtis W. Toth, William J. Rippe, Rodney Smith, Joann M. Townley, Ves Rivers, Richard Smith, Kathy Townsend, Caroline Roa, Linda Smith, Kay Trautman, Len Rocks, Jan Smith, Peggy Traver, Bob Traver Rodgers, Linda Smith, Robert Trivett, Joslyn Rodrick, Elizabeth Smith, Stan & Dory Troje, Fran Rodrigues, Dennis & Irene Snell, Lloyd E. & Rose M. Tsiokas, Chris Rodriguez, J.F. Solen, Hermine Tucker, Gabriel Rogers, Betsy Sparkman, Ronald E. Tuggle, Jim Rogers, Velma Sperl, Duane A. Tuig, Frances Roller, Jon & Gail St. Germain, Matt Umphaus, Maillian Roper, Robert Stannard, Daphne Umphres, Ralph Rotter, Carl Stedman, Gary Unsoeld, Jolene Runneite, Creighton Stenklyft, James A. Usher, Ann Rzesutek, Richard Stevens, Bert & Sandy Vadai, Christine Salterbach, Lucy Stevens, Bob Van Deman, Richard Salva, Angela Stevens, Greg Van Sweringen, Anne Samuels, Jack & Key Stevens, Naki Velikanje, Joan M. Sayonc, Betty L. Stewart, Dave & Eve Verhei, Bruce Sayonc, Helen F. Stewart, Will Vicencio, Louise Schaap, Tina Stines, Dorothea Vikan, Victor Schanzenbach, Rosalie Stoker, Gerrit Vo, Tri M/Trinh, Dunk K Schaufler, Paul G. Strasser, Charles A. Vogel, Sally Scheuerman, Carl & Alexis Strong, James Vogt, Bernard Schilter, Fred & Patty Stuffler, Sonja von Tobel, Irene Schlorff, Eric Sturdivant, Andy Wackerle, Louise Schmauder, Allen Sumner, Ray & Ann Wahl, Barry Schmidt, Harold Superfisky, Joe Walker, Lester B. Schmidt, Kirt Sutton, Robert E. & Cristan C. Walkling, Lee Schneider, Roland V. Suzuki, Nobuya Wallin, Beverly Schols, Herman & Jean Swan, Nick Walter, Karen Schols, Mariann J. Swenson, Walter Ward, Dana Schooley, Tom Szymarek, Dick Ward, Hugo F. Schoyen, Kris Tanaka, Frances Warnell, Fred Schrempp, Gwen Tate, John & Juanita D. Warner, Angela Schrum, Joseph A. & Devon L. Tate, Larry Warren, Dorothy G. Schulz, Carol Taylor, Gary & Janet Watson, Elizabeth Schwartz, David P. Taylor, Jeanette M. Watson, Rita Scott, Sarah Taylor, Peter Watts, Kelly L. & Susan A. Scully, Mike Terry, Gwen Weaver, Vita Seldomridge, Charles B. Theoe, Florence Weaver, William Sheldon, Dyanne Thiel, Sherry Weber, W.H. Shelton, C. D. & K. E. Thom, Ronald M. Webster, Jeff Sheridan, Carole Thomas, Erick P. Wechsler, Stewart Sherman, Jack E. & Carrie L. Thomas, Nancy Weeks, Bonnie & Dennis

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-6 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process and Release of the Draft CCP/EIS

Weidman, Monica Weihs, Katherine Weixler, Gigi Weller, Ryan Wells, Tony Weppler, Eric H. Wertz, Susan Westberg, Ray Westerfield, Jack Westervelt, John & Marilyn Westlin, Bertha L Estate Whitesell, Ted Whitson, Samuel A. & Ardith Wick, Rolf F. Wicklund, Rey Wiedebush, David G. Wilhelm, Laura Wilkinson, Charles Willette, Jon F. & Guila K. William B. & Jane T., Trustees Williams, Daphne L. Williams Family Williams, Marcella Williams, S. Willis, Debbie Wilson, Jim Wing, David Winskill, Edward Wisti-Peterson, Deborah Wohlers, Lanette Wolf, Mark Wood, Barbara Wood, Debra & Brandon Wood, Francis C. Woodin, Robin Woodman, John & Carol Wooster, P. & G. Wunder, Laurie Wysocki, Dori Yankers, Madlain Yarab, Ken Yates, Dave & Dolly Yi, Greg Yochem, Gene & Karen Young, Bob Young, Rickey M. & Gisela Yung, Marjorie Zarp, Byron Zens, Roberta Zeutenhorst, Phillip L. Ziemke, Jack A. Zink, Dave

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-7 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process and Release of the Draft CCP/EIS

Name Organization

LOCAL LIBRARIES Borden, Norma William G. Reed Library - Shelton Diaz, Carlos The Evergreen State College Library Heriot, Angus Olympia Public Library Johnson, Andrew University of Washington - Suzallo Library Stroup, Liz Timberland Libraries

ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS Frenkel, Robert E. Oregon State University Friesema, Paul Northwestern University Goodwin, Peter University of Idaho, College of Engineering Grue, Chris University of Washington -School of Fisheries Hacker, Sally D. Washington State University Henkels, Mark Western Oregon University Humann, Stan University of Washington - Packwood Exp. Forest Karr, James R. University of Washington Kellogg, Brieanne Western Washington University Kessel, C. Stadium High School Martinson, A.D. Pacific Lutheran University Maun, Chris Yelm School District McGregor, Jean The Evergreen State College Meyers, John Lydia Hawk Elementary School Mr. Pill Sumner High School Patterson, Margaret Tacoma Public Schools Paulson, Dennis R. Slater Natural History Museum, University of Puget Sound Prehmus, Cyndie University of Washington Reynolds, Arlene Garfield Elementary School Simenstad, Charles University of Washington Svendsen, Claus Skagit Valley College Wiedeman, Al The Evergreen State College

ORGANIZATIONS All Marine Inc All Marine, Inc. Arctic Connections Arctic Connections Arrabito, John Washington Duck Hunters, Inc. Austin, Will Austin PNW Beck, Stephen Green Pages Belt Ent Inc Belt Ent., Inc. Bennett, Matt The Coot Company Borde, Amy B. Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory Breithaupt, Ph.D., Stephen Foster Wheeler Environmental Bridges, Teresa M. Puyallup International Broadhurst, Ginny Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Burco, Robert A. Recreational Access Calambokidis, John Cascadia Research Collective Calhoun, Rory Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Campbell, Ken Tahoma Outdoor Pursuits Canning, Douglas Nisqually Reach Nature Center Casbolt, Clark Outdoor Odysseys Chaun, Melissa M.P. Williams Consultants Conservation Chair Audubon Society - Black Hills Chapter Conservation Chair Audubon Society - Rainier Chapter Conservation Chair Audubon Society - Seattle Chapter Conservation Chair Audubon Society - Tahoma Chapter

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-8 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process and Release of the Draft CCP/EIS

Name Organization

Conservation Chair Grays Harbor Audubon Society Conservation Chair Mountaineers - Seattle Branch Conservation Chair Mountaineers -Tacoma Branch Conservation Chair Mountainers - Olympia Branch Conservation Chair Sierra Club - Cascade Chapter Corp Of Latter Day Saints Corp. of Latter Day Saints Creveling, Jenni The Watershed Company Dahl, Barry Black River Canoe Club Davison, Robert P. Wildlife Management Institute Dean, Tom People for Puget Sound Dearborn, Amy Shannon & Wilson Dewey, Bill Taylor Shellfish Farms Dodge, John The Olympian Dunwiddie, Peter The Nature Conservancy Dwyer, Tom Ducks Unlimited Erler, Eric Capitol Land Trust Fields, Robert National Wildlife Refuge Association Ford, Gloria Tuesday Trotters Garner, John Tacoma Nature Center - Snake Lake Greenhagen, Liz Citizen Environmentalists Hansen, Ingrid Sierra Club - Sasquatch Chapter Hawkins, Chris South Sound YMCA Hedrick, Wanda Nisqually Delta Association Hirsche, Evan National Wildlife Refuge Association Howard, Esther Cooke Scientific Services Howdeshell, Tom South Sound Native Plant Society Hull, Daniel Nisqually Reach Nature Center Industrial Forestry Industrial Forestry Jacobs, James A. All Marine, Inc. Jess Thomsen, Inc Jess Thomsen, Inc. Kauffman, Kris Water Rights, Inc. Khangaonkar, Tarang Foster Wheeler Environmental Koch, Daniel E. Gig Harbor Sportsman's Club Krause, Fayette The Nature Conservancy of Washington Kuntz, John Olympic Outdoor Center Le Beuf Ltd Partnership Le Beuf Ltd. Partnership Levings, Colin Fisheries & Oceans Canada Lippy, Karen Hood Canal Watershed Liske, Steve Ducks Unlimited Local Manager IFA Nursery IFA Nursery Manning, Sandra Society of Wetland Sciences McAllister Creek Homeowners Assn McAllister Creek Homeowners Association Miller, Doug Nisqually River Basin Land Trust Miller, Pamela K. Alaska Community Action on Toxics Minbashian, Jasmine Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project Montgomery, Bob Montgomery Water Group Mortensen, Hugh The Watershed Company Mottram, Bob Tacoma News Tribune Moulton, Peter Nisqually River Council Moyer, Lee Pacific Water Sports Myers, Dick Shapiro & Associates Myers, Doug Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Myers, James & Liz Medicine Creek Farm Myrick, Bob PSRC Enhancement Committee

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-9 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process and Release of the Draft CCP/EIS

Name Organization

National Audubon Society Audubon Society - National Neilsen Pacific Ltd Neilsen Pacific Ltd. Nielsen Pacific Ltd Neilsen Pacific Ltd. Nisqually Delta Association Nisqually Delta Association Nisqually Plaza Rv Park Nisqually Plaza Rv Park Nisqually Sportsmen Club Nisqually Sportsmen Club Norman, Christi WetNet Nourse, Steve & Barbara Affirm Able Action Association Nye, Dick Trout Unlimited Oliver, Simone Talasaea Consultants Olsen, Ann Talasaea Consultants Olympic Peninsula Audubon Society Audubon Society - Olympic Peninsula Chapter Owner Or Manager Texaco Food Mart Texaco Food Mart Papouchis, Chris Animal Protection Institute Paulus, Stuart ENSR International Property Tax Department Puget Sound Energy/Electric Quarterman, Phil Wett Pacific, Inc. Raines, Charlie Sierra Club - Seattle Chapter Ranson, Timothy Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Resources NW Consultants Resources NW Consultants Rink, Mary Tahoma Outdoor Pursuits Shanewise, Steve The Coot Company Sider, Kathy Seattle Aquarium Skanes, Bob Pierce County Sportmen's Council Smith, Andrea North Star Design Smith, Colleen Tetra Tech EM, Inc. Soper, Curt The Nature Conservancy of Washington Stensland, Gary Harding Lawson & Associates Stephei, Merle NW Outdoor Center Stromstad, Ronald Ducks Unlimited Stumpf, Herb Tahoma Land Conservancy Summers, Ron Lonestar Northwest Torden, Thomsen Inc Torden, Thomsen Inc. Tredennick, Cam Resources Law Group, LLP Valentine, Brett Puget Sound Pilots VanAssche, Terese TerraSolutions Warner, Mike Heritage Resource Center Wash Div Inv Corp Wash Div. Inv. Corp Washington Ornithological Society Washington Ornithological Society Way, Bill The Watershed Company Wetlands Restoration Specialist Agua Tierra Environmental Consulting Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Co Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Co. Whitaker, Dan Northwest Landing White, Jacques People for Puget Sound Williams, Mike SER NW Wiltermood, Bob Wiltermood Assoc., Inc. Wise Use Movement Wise Use Movement Wishart, Bruce People for Puget Sound

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-10 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process and Release of the Draft CCP/EIS

Name Organization

CITY AGENCIES & GROUPS Biles, Stan City of Olympia - Mayor Clarke, Dennis City of DuPont - Planning Dept. Crooks, Drew Lacey Museum Cunningham, Mary City of Everett Cuoio, Greg J. Lacey City Hall Cushing, Richard C. City of Olympia DeCillo, Victoria Olympia Public Works Dept Dennis-Perez, Lisa City of Lacey Stream Team Eadie, William Metro Executive Director City of Lacey Chamber of Commerce Folsom, Pam Olympia Chamber of Commerce Haub, Andy City of Olympia Krill, Judy City of DuPont - Mayor Osgood, Ralph C. City of Tumwater Planner City of Lacey Community Development Rivas, Adam City of Yelm Sackrison, Graeme Lacey City Council Sheler, Jim City of Lacey Parks & Recreation Svobda, Paul Tacoma City Light Talley, Donna City of Seattle Waite, Leanna Metroparks Tacoma Wulfsberg, Carla City of Tumwater Museum Young, Debbie Tacoma Public Utilities

COUNTY AGENCIES & GROUPS Beale, Perry Thurston County, Noxious Weeds Bertolotto, Chrys Pierce County Environmental Services Bowles, Mason King County Dept. Developmental and Environmental Services Council Members Pierce County County of Thurston Thurston County, Building Permit Center Dickman, Bob Pierce County Public Works/Utilities Hartley, Jamie King County Kearsley, Janet Island County Public Utilities District Ladenburg, John Pierce County Executive Meehan-Martin, Paul Snohomish County Public Works Morrison, Steve Thurston Reg. Plan.Council Nygaard, David Thurston Conservation District O'Sullivan, Kevin J. Thurston County Commissioners Oberquell, Diane Thurston County Commissioners Pierce County Fire District #3 Pierce County Fire District #3 Ritz, Crilly Snohomish County Public Works Rose, Katherine Pierce County Planning Smith, Deborah Pierce County Conservation District Stevenson, Shanna Thurston County Planning Dept. Vanderburg, Susie Thurston County Stream Team Watkins, Nancy Tacoma/Pierce County Conv. Vis. Bur. Welter, Michael Thurston County Parks & Recreation White, Gordon Thurston Community & Environmental Programming Wolcott, Jan Pierce County Parks & Recreation Dept. Wolfe, Cathy Thurston County Commissioners

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-11 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process and Release of the Draft CCP/EIS

Name Organization

STATE AGENCIES & GROUPS Barela, Martin J. Government Information Services - Wilson Library Bates, Ken Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife Berry, Helen Washington Dept. of Natural Resources -Aquatic Resources Blocher, Stu Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife Brittell, Dave Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife - Wildlife Mgt. Program Cadwell, Jim Oregon Dept. Fish & Wildlife Carman, Randy Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife - Habitat Program Caudill, David Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife Christiansen, Gunnar Washington Parks & Recreation Commission Cornu, Craig Oregon South Slough Reserve Costello, Rich Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife Craig, Steve Washington Dept. of Ecology -Southwest Regional Office Dahmer, Paul Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife Dickes, Betsy Washington Dept. of Ecology Duffy, Bob Washington Dept. of Ecology - Southwest Regional Office Ehinge, Stephanie Washington Dept. of Transportation Ehlers, Paula Washington Dept. of Ecology Freymond, Bill Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife Gabel, Betsy Washington Division of Tourism Garrett, John Skagit Wildlife Management Area Gersib, Dick Washington Dept. of Ecology Gibilesco, Chuck Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife Hill, Margaret Washington Dept. of Ecology Koss, Bill Washington State Parks Kraege, Don Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife Llanso, Roberto Washington Dept. of Ecology Lorenzo, Judy Washington Dept. of Transportation McAllister, Kelly Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Moody, Sandy Washington Dept. of Natural Resources - NHP Nisqually River Council Washington Dept. of Ecology Patnude, Sue Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife - Region 6 Pratt, Cynthia Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife Rubey, Jane Washington Dept. of Ecology Savage, Meredith Washington Dept. of Transportation, Enviromental Affairs Schirato, Greg Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife Simmons, Don Washington Parks & Recreation Commission Skirletz, Jeffrey Washington State Dept. Fish & Game - Fish Program Smitch, Curt Washington Executive Policy Office Steege, Ted Washington Dept. of Social Health Services Tillett, Gene Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife Trefry, Stu Washington Conservation Commission WA State Dept of Natural Resources Washington Dept.of Natural Resources Wagner, Paul Washington Dept. of Transportation Ziegler, Bob Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife Zillges, Gordon Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife Zink, David Washington Dept. of Ecology

TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS, STAFF & Baldwin, Key Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe Dorner, Jeanette Nisqually Indian Tribe DuBlanica, Keith Skokomish Indian Tribe Kautz, Georgiana Nisqually Indian Tribe Lear, Cathy Hoh Indian Tribe

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-12 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process and Release of the Draft CCP/EIS

Name Organization

Scott, Stephanie Nisqually Indian Tribe Tribal Chair Nisqually Indian Tribe Tribal Chair Puyallup Indian Tribe Tribal Chair Squaxin Indian Tribe Troutt, David Nisqually Indian Tribe USA-Trust For Brown, Thomas Trust For Brown, Thomas USA-Trust For Martin Sampson Trust For Martin Sampson USA-Trust For Nisq Ind Tribe Trust For Nisq Ind Tribe USA-Trust For Theresa Bridges Trust For Theresa Bridges Walter, George Nisqually Indian Tribe Wells, Richard Nisqually Indian Tribal Office Wright, Terry NW Indian Fisheries Commission

FEDERAL AGENCIES & OFFICES Ahlstrand, Gary NPS - Mount Rainier National Park Baca, Tom USFWS Region 2 Planning Coordinator Badgely, Anne USFWS Regional Director's Office Berg, Ken USFWS Western Washington Fish & Wildlife Bohan, Carolyn USFWS National Wildlife Refuge System Brown, Julie S. Ft.Lewis Cameron, Forrest USFWS Refuge Supervisor Castineira, Wendy USFWS Division of Realty, Regional Office Chaney, Marty USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Clark, Dick US Environmental Protection Agency Coleman, Rick USFWS External Affairs Office Concannon, Julie USFWS Regional NEPA Coordinator Cook-Tabor, Carrie USFWS Fisheries Assistance Branch Crawford, Phillip Ft. Lewis Curry, Nancy USFWS Turnbull NWR Davis, Phyllis Department of Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Drescher, Dave USFWS Refuge Planning-Cartography/GIS EIS Filing Section US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities Gibbs, Harold USFWS Region 4 Planning Coordinator Gloman, Nancy USFWS Chief, Division of Conservation Planning and Policy Hagedorn, Gary USFWS Mid-Columbia River NWR Harrison, Jean USFWS Division of Visitor Services, Region Office Houghten, Chuck USFWS Refuge Planning Hughes, Greg USFWS Hanford Reach National Monument Kentula, Mary E. US Environmental Protection Agency Kilbride, Kevin USFWS Refuge Biology Kolar, Margaret USFWS San Francisco Bay NWRC Larson, Tom USFWS Region 3 Planning Coordinator LaTourette, Joe Pacific Coast Joint Venture Lehmann, Gary US Army Corps of Engineers Lew, Leslie USFWS CA/NV Refuge Planning Lowe, Roy USFWS Oregon Coastal NWRC Martin, Robert US Army Corps of Engineers Marxen, Mike USFWS Pacific NW Refuge Planning Mauermann, Susan Dept. of Energy - Environmental Planner McAuliffe, Chris US Army Corps of Engineers McCorkle, Loretta USFWS CA/NV Refuge Planning Melanson, Tom USFWS Ridgefield NWRC Moore, Patty Ft. Lewis Moore, Stephen USFWS Refuge Operations Support - Regional Office

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-13 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS APPENDIX B. Distribution List for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process and Release of the Draft CCP/EIS

Name Organization

Nunn, Mike USFWS Sheldon-Hart Mountain NWR Olson, Norm USFWS Region 5 Planning Coordinator Osugi, Cathy USFWS Land Protection Planning Parks, Virginia USFWS Cultural Resources Branch Paveglio, Fred USFWS Refuge Biology Peterson, Don USFWS NEPA Coordinator Rauch, Paul USFWS Engineering Rice, Ken USFWS Region 7 Planning Coordinator Rogers, Ralph Thomas US Environmental Protection Agency Roy, Anne USFWS National Conservation Training Center Library Ryan, Kevin USFWS Washington Maritime NWRC Shepard, Randy USDA - Gifford Pinchot Nat'l Forest Sheppard, Cathy USFWS Division of Realty, Regional Office Sherrod, Brian USGS - Geo. Science Dept. Smith, Carey USFWS - Migratory Birds & Habitat Programs Spratt, Michael USFWS Region 6 Planning Coordinator Stenvall, Charlie USFWS Willapa NWRC Storm, Linda US Environmental Protection Agency Tanner, Curtis USFWS Watershed Protect. & Restoration Van Hoesen, Bill Ft. Lewis Walkinshaw, Eric NPS - Mount Rainier National Park Webber, Ralph USFWS Tualatin River NWR Wesley, Dave USFWS - Migratory Birds & State Programs Worthy, Belinda USFWS - SMAO Zimmerman, Tara USFWS - Migratory Birds & Habitat Pograms

WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE Locke, Gary Governor of Washington State Reed, Sam Secretary of Washington State Swecker, Dan Washington State Senator - District 20 Fraser, Karen Washington State Senator - District 22 Bush, Roger Washington State Representative - District 2 Alexander, Gary Washington State Representative - District 20 DeBolt, Richard Washington State Representative - District 20 Hunt, Sam Washington State Representative - District 22 Romero, Sandra Washington State Representative - District 22

U.S. CONGRESS Cantwell, Maria United States Senator for Washington State Murray, Patty United States Senator for Washington State Inslee, Jay United States Representative - District 1 Baird, Brian United States Representative - District 3 Dicks, Norm United States Representative - District 6 McDermott, Jim United States Representative - District 7 Dunn, Jennifer United States Representative - District 8 Smith, Adam United States Representative - District 9

Appendix B: Distribution List Page B-14 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS APPENDIX C: References

Adams, M.J. 1999. Correlated factors in amphibian decline: exotic species and habitat change in Western Washington. J Wildl. Manage. 63(4):1162-1171.

Aitkin, J.K. 1998. The importance of estuarine habitats to anadromous salmonids of the Pacific Northwest: a literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office, Aquatic Resources Division and Puget Sound Program, Lacey, Washington.

Bartelt, G. A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family groups in east central Wisconsin. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:517-522.

Bauer, H. G., H. Stark, and P. Frenzel. 1992. Disturbance factors and their effects on water birds wintering in the western parts of Lake Constance. Der Ornithologische Beobachter 89:81-91.

Beacham, T.D. 1986. Type, quantity, and size of food of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus) in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, British Columbia. Fishery Bull. 84:77-90.

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1995. Hunting and waterfowl. Pages 243-256 in R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiler, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington D.C. 372 pp.

Berge, B., C. Burkhart, C. Joslin, K. LaGory, K. LaGory, R. Oakley, and H. Ulmschneider. 1974. Fall birds of the Nisqually Delta: population fluctuations, habitat utilization and hunter harvest. Pp. 113-160 in The Nisqually Delta, unpublished research report. The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington.

Bishop, S. and A. Morgan. 1996. Critical habitat issues by basin for natural chinook salmon stocks in the coastal and Puget Sound areas of Washington State.

Blue Water Network. 2000. Jetski noise and pollution to continue in National Parks. www.earthisland.org/bw/npsjetskipress.shtml.

Boersma, P.D. and J.K. Parrish. 1998. Threats to Seabirds: Research, education and societal approaches to conservation. In Avian Conversation (J.M. Marzluff and R. Sallabanks, eds.). Island Press, California.

Bortleson, G.C., M.J. Chrzastowski, and A.K. Helgerson. 1980. Historical changes of shoreline and wetland at eleven major deltas in the Puget Sound region, Washington. Hydrological Investigations Atlas HA-617. U.S. Geological Survey.

Boule, M.E., N. Olmsted, and T. Miller. 1983. Inventory of wetland resources and evaluation of wetland management in Western Washington. Prepared for Washington State Department of Ecology. Shapiro and Associates. 102pp.

Boulva, J. and I.A. McLaren. 1979. Biology of the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, in Eastern Canada. Bulletin (Fisheries Research Board of Canada) 200. 24pp.

Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. Pp. 109-156 in Wildlife and Recreationists (R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.). Island Press, Covelo, California.

Bowman, K.J. and A.M. Dobos. 1976. Distribution and abundance of some small mammal species on the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, Thurston County, Washington. In Contributions to the natural history of the Southern Puget Sound Region, Washington.

Boyer, M., ed. 1993. The Delta Plan.

Appendix C: References Page C-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:110-116.

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

Brix, R., G.J. Husby, G. Roberts, and B. Ward. 1974. 1974 report of juvenile salmonid seining in Grays Harbor and tributary rivers and electro-fishing and river seining in the Chehalis River in the vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System’s Project Numbers 3 and 5. Washington Department of Fisheries, Fisheries Management Report. Olympia, Washington.

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

Brueggeman, J.J. 1992. Oregon and Washington marine mammal and seabird surveys. Final report prepared by Ebasco Environmental, Bellevue Washington for U.S. Department of Interior, Mineral Management Service, Los Angeles, California.

Burg, M.E. 1984. Habitat changes in the Nisqually River delta and estuary since the mid-1800s. Master's thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. 113pp.

Burg, M.E., D.R. Tripp, and E.S. Rosenberg. 1980. Plant associations and primary productivity of the Nisqually Salt Marsh on southern Puget Sound, Washington. Northwest Science. 54(3):222-236.

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

Burger, J. 1998. Effects of motor boats and personal watercraft on flight behavior over a colony of Common Terns. Condor. 100:528-534.

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1998. Effects of ecotourists on bird behavior at Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Environmental Conservation 25:13-21.

Burton, N. H. K., P. R. Evans, and M. A. Robinson. 1996. Effects on shorebird numbers of disturbance, the loss of a roost site and its replacement by an artificial island at Harlepool, Cleveland. Biol. Conserv. 77:193-201.

Caicco, S.L. 1989a. Public Use Natural Area Proposal for Nisqually surge plain, Nisqually national Wildlife Refuge, Washington. In fulfillment of Order No. 13530-89-00135. The Nature Conservancy. 16pp.

Caicco, S.L. 1989b. Research Natural Area Proposal for Nisqually Delta, Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, Washington. The Nature Conservancy. 18pp..

Calambokidis, J., S.M. Speich, J. Peard, G.H. Steiger, D.M. Frye, and L.J. Lowenstine. 1985. Biology of Puget Sound marine mammals and marine birds: population, health, and evidence of pollution effects. NOAA Technical memorandum, NOS OMA18. 159 pp.

California Air Resources Board. 1998. Proposed regulations for gasoline spark-ignition marine engines, draft proposal summary. Mobile Source Control Div., State of Cal. Air Resources Board. p. 2.

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

Canning, D.J. ed. 1986. Nisqually River Management Plan: final environmental impact statement. Shorelands and CZM program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia. 371 pp.

Cassidy, K.M., M.R. Smith, C.E. Grue, and R.E. Johnson. 1997. The role of Washington State's national wildlife refuges in conserving the State's biodiversity. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vancouver, Washington. 86pp.

Appendix C: References Page C-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Cederholm, C. J., D. H. Johnson, R. E. Bilby, L.G. Dominguez, A. M. Garrett, W. H. Graeber, E. L. Greda, M. D. Kunze, B.G. Marcot, J. F. Palmisano, R. W. Plotnikoff, W. G. Pearcy, C. A. Simenstad, and P. C. Trotter. 2000. Pacific salmon and wildlife - ecological contexts, relationships, and implications for management. Special Edition Technical Report, Prepared for D. H. Johnson and T. A. O’Neil (Managing directors), Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

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

CH2M Hill, EDAW Inc., BEAK Consultants Inc., Office of Public Archaeology, and Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge staff. 1978. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge conceptual plan. Prepared for the U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. 81pp.

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

City of DuPont. 1985 Comprehensive plan and land use zoning code. DuPont, Washington.

City of DuPont. 1995. Comprehensive Plan. Adopted July 25, 1995. DuPont, Washington.

City of DuPont. 2001. Comprehensive land use plan. Adopted November 13, 2001.

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

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

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

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

Congleton, J.L., S.K. Davis, and S.R. Foley. 1982. Distribution, abundance and outmigration timing of chum and chinook salmon fry in the Skagit salt marsh. Pp. 153-163 in Salmon and trout migratory behavior symposium (E.L. Brannon and E. O. Salo, eds.). School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Consoer, Townsend, and Associates. 1974. Engineering report, Nisqually River basin water quality management plan. Water Resource Inventory Area No. 11, consolidated basin planning area No. 13-11-6. 145pp.

Cook-Tabor, C. 1999. Fishes of the Nisqually River, Estuary, and Reach. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office, Aquatic Resources Division, Lacey, Washington. 65pp.

Copping, A. 1990. Puget Sound update, first annual report of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, Washington. ??pp.

Cordell, J.R., C. Tanner, and J.K. Aitkin. 1999. Fish assemblages and juvenile salmon diets at a breached-dike wetland site, Spencer Island, Washington 1997-98. University of Wahington School of Fisheries, Fisheries Research institute FRI-UW-9905, Seattle Washington.

Cordell, J.R., H. Higgins, C. Tanner, and J.K. Aitkin. 1998. Biological status of fish and invertebrate assemblages in a breached-dike wetland sites at Spencer Island, Washington. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Report Number: FRI-UW-9805.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. For: Office of Biological Services, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. 131pp.

Appendix C: References Page C-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Cronan, J. M. 1957. Food and feeding habits of the scaups in Connecticut waters. Auk 74(4):459-468.

Crone, R.A. and C.E. Bond. 1976. Life history of coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch, in Sashin Creek, Southeastern Alaska. Fisheries Bull. 74:897-923.

Dahlgren, R.B. and C.E. Korschgen. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: an annotated bibliography. Resource Publ. 188. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Wash., D.C. 62pp.

Davis, S., C. Hansen, and L. Hofstad. 1997. Nisqually Reach non-point remedial action, final project report. Thurston County Public Health and Social Services Department, Olympia, Washington. 76pp.

Dean, T., Z. Ferdana, J. White, and C. Tanner. 2000. Skagit Estuary Restoration Assessment-Puget Sound, Washington. 20 pp.

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

DeLong, A.K. and J.T. Schmidt. 1998. Literature review: effects of recreation on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Draft report. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge, Fallon, Nevada.

Dickes, Betsy. 2002. McAllister Creek water quality survey for fecal coliform bacteria, total suspended solids, turbidity, and nutrients. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication Number 02-10-017.

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

Dorcey, A.H.J., T.G. Northcote, and D.V. Ward. 1978. Are the Fraser marshes essential to salmon? Westwater Lectures No. 1, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Drut, M S. and J.B. Buchanan. 2000. U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Portland, Oregon.

EDT Workgroup. 1999. Factors affecting salmon production in the Nisqually Basin: summary of an EDT analysis using fall chinook as an indicator, February, 1999 - draft. The Nisqually EDT Work Group.

Emmett, K. 1995. Watershed approach to water quality management. Needs assessment for the South Puget Sound water quality management area. Washington State Department of Ecology. 42pp.

Emmett, R.L., S.L. Stone, S.A. Hinton, and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in West Coast Estuaries, Volume II: species life history summaries. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, ELMR Report Number 8, Rockville, Maryland.

ENSR. 1999. Nisqually National Widlife Refuge - Habitat Management and Restoration Project. Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model Development, Final Report. ENSR Document Number 2334-001-800(2).

Evans-Hamilton and D.R. Systems. 1987. Puget Sound environmental atlas, Volume I. Prepared for the U.S. EPA, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, and U.S. Army corps of Engineers. 157pp.

Forsman, L.A., D.E. Lewarch, M.J. Madsen, and L.L. Larson. 1998. McAllister Springs transmission line, Thurston County, Washington, cultural resource assessment. 23pp.

Fox, A.D. and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge design. J. Appl. Ecol. 34:1-13.

Fraley, J.J., and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River system, Montana. Northwest Science 63(4):133-143.

Appendix C: References Page C-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Frenkel, R.E. and J.C. Morlan. 1990. Restoration of the Salmon River salt marshes: retrospect and prospect. Final Report to U.S. EPA, Seattle, WA. 142pp.

Fresh, K.L., D. Rabin, C. Simenstad, and et al. 1979. Fish ecology studies in the Nisqually Reach area of South Puget Sound, Washington. University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute FRI-UW-7904. 229pp.

Friedman, J.M. 1987. Proposed change in boundary for Nisqually Delta National Natural Landmark. Washington State Dept. Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program. 15pp.

Gibilisco, C. and G.M. Filipek. 1998. The economic benefits of wildlife-watching activities in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Management Program. 15pp.

Giebelhaus. 1998. Shoreline Maser Program for the Thurston Region, Prepared by Thurston County Regional Planning Council. May 15, 1990.

Gilbert, C.H. 1912. Age at maturity of Pacific coast salmon of the genus Oncorhynchus. Bulletin of the U. S. Fish Commission. 32:57-70.

Goetz, F. 1991. Bull trout life history and habitat study. Master's Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 49pp.

Gunderson, D.R., D.A. Armstrong, Y.B. Shi, and R.A. McConnaughey. 1990. Patterns of estuarine use by juvenile English sole (Parophrys vetulus) and Dungeness crab (Cancer magister). Estuaries. 13(1):59-71.

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

Gutzwiller, K.J., R.T. Wiedenmann, K.L. Clements, and S.H. Anderson. 1994. Effects on human intrusion on song occurrence and singing consistency in subalpine birds. Auk. 111:28-37.

Harris, S.W. and W.H. Marshall. 1963. Ecology of water-level manipulations on a northern marsh. Ecology. 44(2):331-343.

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

Havera, S. P., L. R. Boens, M. M. Georgi, and R. T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20:290-298.

Hays, D.W., K.R. McAllister, S.A. Richardson, and D.W. Stinson. 1999. Washington State recovery plan for the western pond turtle. Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildl., Olympia. 66pp.

Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pp. 311-393 in Pacific salmon life histories (C. Groot and L. Margolis, eds.). University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Healey, M.C. 1982. Timing and relative intensity of size-selective mortality of juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) during early sea life. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 39(952-957.

Heitmeyer, M. E. and D. G. Raveling. 1988. Winter resource use by three species of dabbling ducks in California. Dept. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, Univ. of Calif., Davis. Final Report to Delta Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Center, Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, Canada. 200pp.

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

Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. No date. National Recreation Trails, Information and Application Procedure. U.S.D.I.

Appendix C: References Page C-5 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Hesselbart, W.B. 1977a. Summary narrative mini-report for Dungeness, Nisqually and San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuges, July 1, 1975 - December 31, 1975. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, Olympia, Washington. 5pp.

Hesselbart , W.B. 1977b. Annual narrative report, calendar year 1976. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, Olympia, Washington. 17pp.

Hoffman, D.J. 1989. Embryotoxicity and Teratogenicity of Environmental Contaminants to Bird Eggs. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 115. Pp 41-50.

Hoffman, R. and K. Kearns. 1997. Wisconsin manual of control recommendations for ecologically invasive plants. Bureau of Endangered Resources, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin.

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

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Conserv. Dept. Tech. Bull. No. 33. 212 pp.

Iwata, M. and S. Komatsu. 1984. Importance of estuarine residence for adaptation of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) fry to sea water. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 41:744-749.

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

Jamieson, R.C., Gordon, R.J., Sharples, K.E., Stratton, G.W. and Madani, A. 2002. Movement and persistence of fecal bacteria in agricultural soils and subsurface drainage water: a review. Canadian Biosystems Engineering, 44:1.1-1.9.

Josselyn, M., M. Martindale, and J. Duffield. 1989. Public access and wetlands: Impacts of recreational use. Technical Report #9. Romberg Tiburon Centers, San Francisco State University, California.

Kahlert, J. 1994. Effects of human disturbance on broods of red-breasted mergansers Mergus serrator. Wildfowl 15:222-231.

Kaiser, M.S. and E.K. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:561-567.

Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Special Publication 5. Illinois Natural History Survey.

Kauffman, J.B., M. Mahrt, L. Mahrt, and W.D. Edge. 2001. Wildlife of riparian habitats. in Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington (D.H. Johnson and T.A. O'Neil, eds.). Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Kennedy, W.A., C.T. Shoop, W. Griffioen, and A. Solmie. 1976. The 1975 crop of salmon reared on the Pacific Biological Station experimental fish farm. Fisheries and Marine Service (Canada) Technical Report 665, Nanaimo, B.C., Canada. 20pp.

Kerwin, J. 1999. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors, water resource inventory area 11, Final Report, Washington State Conservation Commission.

Kirby, R.E., J.K. Ringelman, D.R. Anderson, and R.S. Sojda. 1992. Grazing on national wildlife refuges: do the needs outweigh the problems? Trans. 57th N. A. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 611-626.

Appendix C: References Page C-6 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Kjelson, M.A., P.F. Raquel, and F.W. Fisher. 1982. Life history of fall-run juvenile chinook salmon, Onchorynchus tshawytsca, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Pp. 393-411 in Estuarine comparisons (V. S. Kennedy, ed.). Academic Press, New York.

Klein, L.R. and J.P. Reganold. 1997. Agricultural changes and farmland protection in western Washington. J. Soil Water Conserv. 52(1):6-12.

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

Klein, M.L., S.R. Humphrey, and H.F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution of waterbirds in a wildlife refuge. Conserv. Biol. 9(6):1454-1465.

Klotz, S.A., S.J. Madsen, P.A. Miller, and D.F. Smith. 1978. A survey of terrestrial organisms on the Nisqually river delta, Washington. Final report, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington. Reprinted by Cascadia Research Collective. 166pp.

Knight, R.L., D.P. Anderson, and Marr. N.V. 1991. Responses of an avian scavenging guild to anglers. Biological Conservation. 56:195-205.

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pp. 51-69 in Wildlife and Recreationists (R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.). Island Press, Covelo, California.

Knight, R.L. and S.K. Knight. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:999-1004.

Knopf, F.L., R.R. Johnson, T. Rich, F.B. Samson, and R.C. Szaro. 1988. Conservation of riparian ecosystems in the United States. Wilson Bull. 100:272-284.

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

Korschgen, C. E., L. S. George, and W. L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a migrational staging area. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:290-296.

Kraemer, C. 1994. Some observations on the life history and behavior of the native char, Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) of the North Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Wildlife. (Draft).

Kunze, L.M. 1994. Preliminary classification of native, low elevation, freshwater wetland vegetation in western Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program. 120pp.

Kunze, L.M. 1984. Puget trough coastal wetlands; a summary report of biologically significant sites. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 8pp.

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

Lane, R.C. and W.A. Taylor. 1996. National water summary-wetland resources: Washington. United States Geological Survey. Pp. 393-398.

Larson, R.A. 1995. Balancing wildlife viewing with wildlife impacts: a case study. Pp. 257-270 in Wildlife and Recreationists (R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.). Island Press, Covelo, California.

Laughland, A. and J. Caudill. 1997. Banking on nature: The economic benefits to local communities of National Wildlife Refuge visitation. Division of economics, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 118pp.

Appendix C: References Page C-7 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Lemberg, N.A., M.F. O'Toole, D.E. Penttila, and K.C. Stick. 1997. 1996 forage fish stock status report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management Program, Olympia, Washington, Stock Status Report No. 98-1.

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

Levings, C.D. and D.J.H. Nishimura. 1997. Created and restored marshes in the lower Frasier River, British Columbia: summary of their functioning as fish habitat. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada. 32:599- 618.

Levy, D.A. and T.G. Northcote. 1981. The distribution and abundance of juvenile salmon in marsh habitats of the Fraser River Estuary. Westwater Research Centre, Technical Report Number 25, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Levy, D.A., T.G. Northcote, and G.J. Birch. 1979. Juvenile salmon utilization of tidal channels in the Fraser River Estuary, British Columbia. Westwater Research Centre, Technical Report Number 23, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.

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

Mace, P.M. 1983. Predator-prey functional responses and predation by staghorn sculpins (Leptocottus armatus) on chum salmon fry (Oncorhynchus keta). Doctoral dissertation. British Columbia University, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, Denmark. Biol. Conserv. 33 :53-63.

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

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

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 2001. Regional Seabird Conservation Plan. Manomet Massachusetts. Second Edition. May 2001.

Manzer, J.I. 1969. Stomach contents of juvenile Pacific salmon in Chatom Sound and adjacent waters. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 26:2219-2223.

Martin, L.C. 1999. Caught in the wake. The environmental and human health impacts of personal watercraft. Izaak Walton League of America. 20pp.

Mason, S., E. Ratajak, J. Schuett, and P. Searles. 1974. Vegetation of the Nisqually Delta. Pp. 33-64 in The Nisqually Delta, unpublished research report. The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington.

McAllister, K.R. and W.P. Leonard. 1997. Washington State status report for the Oregon Spotted Frog. Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildl., Olympia. 38pp.

McConnell/Burke, D. Clarke, R. Untermann, J. J. McCament, and P. Calthorpe. 1995. Comprehensive plan, City of Dupont. 60pp.

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

Menashe, E. 1993. Vegetation management: a guide for Puget Sound bluff property owners. Washington Department of Ecology Publication #93-31.

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

Appendix C: References Page C-8 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Miller, J.A. 1993. Juvenile chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawyscha) and coho (O. kisutch) salmon in natural and created estuarine habitats: foraging and daily growth. Master's Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 84pp.

Mitchell, D.L. 1981. Salt marsh reestablishment following dike breaching in the Salmon River Estuary, Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 171pp.

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

Momot, J. 1993. Summary report, Contaminants investigations at Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, 1985 to 1988. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington. 56 pp.

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

Morton, J. M., A. C. Fowler, and R. L. Kirkpatrick. 1989a. Time and energy budgets of American black ducks in winter. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(2):401-410 .

Morton, J. M., R. L. Kirkpatrick, M. R. Vaughan, and D. F. Stauffer. 1989b. Habitat use and movements of American black ducks in winter. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:390-400.

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

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

Muratori, A., Jr. 1968. How outboards contribute to water pollution. The Conservationist Vol. 6, No. 6.

Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-35. 443pp.

Naiman, R.J. and J.R. Sibert. 1979. Detritus and juvenile salmon production in the Nanaimo Estuary: III. Importance of detrital carbon to the estuarine ecosystem. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 36:504-520.

National Association of Counties. 2000. National Association of Counties homepage. Available at: http://www.naco.org/counties/counties/index.cfm. Date accessed 11/1/2000.

National Park and Conservation Association. 1997. Preliminary briefing materials and resources on personal watercraft and their use in the National Park System.

Nehlsen, W., J.E. Williams, and J.A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries: 16(2) 4-21.

Nelson, L.M. 1974. Sediment transport by streams in the Deschutes and Nisqually river basins, Washington, November 1971-June 1973. Open file report. Tacoma, Washington. 31 pp.

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

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

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

Nisqually River Task Force. 1987. Nisqually River Management Plan. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. 19pp.

Appendix C: References Page C-9 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1997. Impacts of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals on salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and California. NOAA- NWFSC Tech Memo-28. Available at: http://research.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pubs/tm/tm28/mammal.htm. Date accessed 1997.

North Cascades National Park. 1999. Analysis of appropriateness of personal watercraft in North Cascades National Park service complex (determination to prohibit personal watercraft).

Northcote, T.G., N.T. Johnston, and K. Tsumura. 1979. Feeding relationships and food web structure of lower Fraser River fishes. Westwater Research Center Technical Report 16. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. 73pp.

Northwest Landing. 2001. Northwest Landing homepage. Available at: http://www.nwlanding.com. Date accessed 1/10/2001.

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

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

Nysewander, D.R. and J.R. Evenson. 1998. Status and trends for selected diving duck species examined by the Marine Bird Component, Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife . Proceedings of the 1998 Puget Sound Research Conference. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, Olympia, Washington. 2:847-867.

Odum, W.E. 1971. Pathways of energy flow in a South Florida estuary. Sea Grant Technical Bulletin No. 7, University of Miami Sea Grant Program, Miami, Florida. 162 p.

OFM. (Office of Financial Management). 2000, 2001. OFM homepage. Available at: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/demographics.htm. Date accessed 11/2/2000, 2/20/2001.

Olson, A.F. 1989. Some aspects of the behavior of Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in estuaries. Masters Thesis, University of Washington. 146 p.

Oregon-Washington Partners In Flight. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in lowlands and valleys of western Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. 111pp.

O'Tool, M., D. Penttila, and K. Stick. 2000. A review of stock discreteness in Puget Sound herring. A briefing statement. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management Program, Marine Resources Division, Forage Fish/Shellfish Unit, LaConner, Washington.

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

Pacific Coast Joint Venture. 1996. 1996 Update, strategic plan, Washington State Component, North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Focus areas 7-11. 88pp.

Page, G.W. and Jr. R.E. Gill. 1994. Shorebirds in western North America: late 1800s to late 1900s. Studies in Avian Biol. 15:147-160.

Palsson, W.A., J.C. Hoeman, G.C. Bargmann, and D.E. Day. 1997. 1995 status of Puget Sound bottomfish stocks (revised). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management Program, Olympia, Washington, Report No. MRD97-03.

Pashley, D.N., C.J. Beardmore, J.A. Fitzgerald, R.P. Ford, W.C. Hunter, M.S. Morison, and K.V. Rosenberg. 2000. Partners in Flight, Conservation of the Landbirds of the United States. American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA.

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

Appendix C: References Page C-10 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Pearce, T.A., J.H. Meyer, and R.S. Boomer. 1982. Distribution and food habits of juvenile salmon in the Nisqually Estuary, Washington, 1979-1980.

Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at a migration staging area. Biological Conserv. 60:115-126.

Phillips, R.C. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows in the Pacific Northwest: a community profile. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-84/24. 85pp.

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

Pierce County. 1992. County-wide Planning Policies for Pierce County, Washington. Pierce County Planning and Land Services. June 30, 1992. (Amended 1996).

Pierce County. 1993. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Comprehensive Plan for Pierce County, Washington. Pierce County Planning and Land Services. September 1993.

Pierce County. 1998. Title 20, Shoreline Management Regulations. Pierce County Planning and Land Services. Effective 2/2/98.

Pierce County. 2001. Pierce County homepage. Available at: http:www.co.pierce.wa.us/abtus/ourorg/parks/cfutures.htm. Date accessed 1/12/2001.

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

Pierce County Public Works and Utilities. 1997. Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed Management Committee, Watershed Characterization. Water Resources Division. 204pp.

Pringle, R.F. 1982. Soil survey of Thurston County, Washington. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 283pp.

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

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

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

Quiñonez, K. 2001. Estuarine and diked area habitats for Puget Sound waterfowl in relation to dike breach restoration: a literature review . Draft Report. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office, Watershed Protection and Restoration Division, Lacey, Washington.

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

Raveling, D. G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference to control of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252.

Regional Response Team, Northwest Area Committee. Continuously updated. Northwest area contingency plan. Available at the following website: http://www.rrt10nwac.com/files/nwacp/0000_TOC.pdf.

Reijnen, R. and R. Foppen. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. I. Evidence of reduced habitat quality for willow warbler (Pylloscopus trochilus) breeding close to a highway. J. Appl. Ecol. 31:85-94.

Richter, K.O. 1995. Wetland restoration, enhancement and creation-suggestions based on amphibian habitat preferences. Draft report. King County Environmental Division, Seattle Washington.

Appendix C: References Page C-11 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Richter, K.O. and A.L. Azous. 1995. Amphibian occurrence and wetland characteristics in the Puget Sound Basin. Wetlands. 15(3):305-312.

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. U. S. Department of Agriculture, U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, General Technical Report INT-302.

Riffell, S.K., K.J. Gutzmiller, and S.H. Anderson. 1996. Does repeated human intrusion cause cumulative declines in avian richness and abundance? Ecol. Appl. 6(2):492-505.

Rodgers, Jr., J.A. and S.T. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. Conservation Biology. Vol. 16, No. 1:216-224.

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

Salo, E.O. 1991. Life history of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Pp. 231-309 in Pacific salmon life histories. C. Groot and L. Margolis, eds.). University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Sargeant, F.J., T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz, and C.R. Kruer. 1995. Scarring of Florida's seagrasses; assessment and management options. Florida Department of Environmental Protection FMRI Technical Report TR.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon, and G. Gough. 2000. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis, 1966-1999. Version 98.1. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

Seto, N. 1998. Waterfowl hunting activity, Nisqually Delta. Hunter Bag Check Summary, Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, 1990-1997.

Seto, N. 1999. Waterfowl hunting activity, Nisqually Delta. Hunter Bag Check Summary, Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, October 1998-January 1999.

Shanewise, S. 1996. Nisqually Delta saltmarsh restoration, restoration plan. The Coot Company, Olympia, Washington. 7pp.

Shepard, B., K. Pratt, and P. Graham. 1984. Life histories of westlope cutthroat and bull trout in the upper Flathead River basin, Montana. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Kalispell, Montana. 85pp.

Shreffler, D.K., C.A. Simenstad, and R.M. Thom. 1990. Temporary residence by juvenile salmon in a restored estuarine wetland. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 47:2079-2084.

Shreffler, D.K., C.A. Simenstad, and R.M. Thom. 1992. Foraging by juvenile salmon in a restored estuarine wetland. Estuaries. 15:204-213.

Sibert, J., T.J. Brown, M.C. Healey, B.A. Kask, and R.J. Naiman. 1977. Detritus-based food webs: exploitation by juvenile chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Science. 196:649-650.

Simenstad, C. A., K. L. Fresh, and E. O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pp. 343-364 in Estuarine comparisons (V. S. Kennedy, ed.). Academic Press, New York.

Simenstad, C.A., J.R. Cordell, J.A. Miller, W.G. Hood, and R.M. Thom. 1992. Ecological status of a created estuarine slough in the Chehalis River Estuary: assessment of created and natural estuarine sloughs, January-December 1991. University of Washington School of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute FRI- UW-9206, Seattle, Washington.

Skagen, S.K. 1980. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity on the Skagit River, Washington. Seattle, WA. 231-241 pp.

Appendix C: References Page C-12 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Skagen, S.K., R.L. Knight, and G.H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbances of an avian scavenging guild. Ecological Applications. 1:215-225.

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

Smith, L. and J.D. Hunt. 1995. Nature tourism: impacts and management. Pp. 203-219 in Knight, R.L.; Gutzwiller, K.J. (Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research, eds.). Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Snow, S. 1989. A review of personal watercraft and their potential impact on Everglades National Park. National Park Service, Everglades National Park, 1988.

Speight, M.C.D. 1973. Outdoor recreation and its ecological effects: a bibliography and review. University College, London, England, Discussion Papers in Conservation 4. 35 pp.

Stalmaster, M.V. 2001. Status of the wintering and nesting Bald Eagle population during 2001 on Fort Lewis, Washington. U.S. Army Public Works, Fort Lewis Washington. 20pp.

Stevenson, S. 1998. Draft Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge context statement, August 28. Thurston County Advance Planning and Historic Preservation. 45pp.

Stewart, H. 1977. Indian Fishing. Early methods on the northwest coast. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 181 p.

Stout, H.A., R.G. Gustafson, W.H. Lenarz, B.B. McCain, D.M. VanDoornik, T.L. Builder, and R.D. Methot. 2001. Status review of Pacific Herring in Puget Sound, Washington. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-NWFSC-45. 175pp

Suckley and Cooper. 1860. Explorations and surveys, to ascertain the most practicable and economical route for a railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, made under the direction of the Secretary of War, in 1853-5, according to acts of Congress of March 3, 1853, May 31, 1854, and August 5, 1854. Executive Document Number 56, Volume XII, Book II. Thomas H. Ford, Printer, Washington, D. C.

Tacoma-Pierce County. 2001. Tacoma-Pierce County homepage. Available at: http://triton.co.pierce.wa.us/edb/html/pierce_employment.html. Date accessed 1/10/2001.

Tanner, C.D. 1999. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge GIS Analysis: the regional context of intertidal habitat restoration in the Nisqually River Delta. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office.

Thom, R.M., C.A. Simenstad, R.C. Wissmar, and E.O. Salo. 1985. Nisqually River estuary study design project: an environmental baseline and monitoring program. Prepared for the Nisqually Tribe. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle. 114pp.

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

Thurston County. 1992. Thurston County County-Wide Planning and Policies, Thurston County, Washington. Board of County Commissioners. August 16, 1993.

Thurston County. 1995. Thurston County Comprehensive Plan. Adopted April 1995. Amended/Updated 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000.

Thurston County. 2001. Thurston County homepage. Available at: http://bpc.iserver.net/codes/thurston/index.htm. Date accessed 2/9/2001, 6/26/2001, 8/22/2001.

Thurston County Advance Planning and Historic Preservation. 1994. Thurston County critical areas ordinance, Washington. 179pp.

Appendix C: References Page C-13 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Thurston County Department of Water and Waste Management. 1993. McAllister/Eaton Creek comprehensive drainage basin plan, final draft. Storm and surface water program, Olympia, Washington. 257pp.

Thurston County Economic Development Council. 2001. Development Council homepage. Available at: http://www.thurstonedc.com. Date accessed 2/9/2001.

Thurston County Parks and Recreation Department. 1996. the comprehensive parks, recreation, preserve, and trails plan 2015. Adopted by the Board of Thurston County Commissioners. 55pp.

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

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

Thurston Regional Planning Council. 1997. The profile for Thurston County and the cities of: Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater, Bucoda, Rainier, Tenino, Yelm. 190pp.

Thurston Regional Planning Council. 1998. The profile for Thurston County and the cities/towns of : Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater, Bucoda, Rainier, Tenino, Yelm prepared by Thurston Regional Planning Council. October 1998.

Thurston Regional Planning Council. 2000. The Profile for Thurston County and the cities/towns of: Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater, Bucoda, Rainier, Tenino, and Yelm. Prepared by Thurston Regional Planning Council. October 2000.

Thurston Regional Planning Council. 2000. The profile for Thurston County and the cities/towns of : Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater, Bucoda, Rainier, Tenino, Yelm. 18th edition, October 2000.

Tjarnlund, U., G. Ericson, E. Lindesjoo, I. Petterson, and L. Balk. 1993. Investigation of the biological effects of 2- cycle outboard engines' exhaust on fish. Institute of Applied Research, University of Stockholm.

Tuite, C.H., M. Owen, and D. Paynther. 1983. Interacton between wildfowl and recreation at Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63.

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

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) Washington Statistics Service. 1999. 1997 Census of Agriculture County Profile.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 1999. Management of conflicts associated with non-migratory (resident) Canada geese in the Puget Sound area. Environmental assessment. April 22, 1999.

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

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

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

USFWS. 1978. Adoption and implementation of management and development plans for the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, Environmental Impact Assessment, Olympia, Washington. 111pp.

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

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

Appendix C: References Page C-14 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS USFWS. 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 160 pp

USFWS.1996. Fish and Wildlife Service manual. 341 FW3.

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

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

USFWS. 1998. ESA Status-Washington State anadromous salmonids-March 1998 and endangered and threatened marine mammals and sea turtles under the jurisdiction of National Marine Fisheries Service that may occur in Washington and Oregon. 2pp.

USFWS. 1998. Listed and proposed endangered and threatened species, candidate species and species of concern which may occur within the vicinity of the proposed Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan in Thurston County, Washington. Attachment A. 2pp.

USFWS. 2000. Refuge Manual. 603 FW1.

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

USFWS. In Preparation. North American Waterfowl Management Plan.

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of great blue herons to human disturbance in northcentral Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22.

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

Walters, G.E. 1984. Ecological aspects of larval and juvenile Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma), and Pacific tomcod (Microgadus proximus) in Port Townsend, Washington. Master's thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 129pp.

WDOE (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1991. 1989-1990 Annual report, Air Quality Program. Publications 91-32. 135 pp.

WDOE. 1997. Nisqually River geographic response plan. Publication No. 97-254 (Rev. 3/03).

WDOE. 2003. Former DuPont Works fact sheet. Publication No. 03-09-031, January 2003. Ecology Southwest Regional Office, Toxics Cleanup Program, Olympia, Washington.

Washington State Department of Health. 1997. 1997 annual inventory of commercial and recreational shellfish areas in Puget Sound. Office of shellfish programs, Olympia, Washington. 35 pp. + 15 maps.

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

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph. 7:

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

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1998. 1998 Washington salmonid stock inventory: bull trout/Dolly Varden. Olympia, Washington.

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

Appendix C: References Page C-15 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.G. Kope, and R.S. Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-24. 258pp.

West J.E. 1997. Protection and restoration of marine life in the inland waters of Washington state. Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Environmental Report Series: Number 6.

Whiley, A J. and G.F. Walter. 1996. Investigation of fecal coliform sources within drainage to the Nisqually Reach. Technical Report No. 2. Water Quality Program, Nisqually Indian Tribe. 66pp.

Whiley, A.J. and G.F. Walter. 1998. Analysis of fecal coliform concentrations in the Nisqually River drainage. Water Quality Program, Nisqually Indian Tribe. 31pp.

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

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

Williams, W.R., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization, volume 1 - Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington.

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

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

Wisseman, R.W., S.F.J. Cook, M.E. LaGory, T.A. Pearce, and P.A. Searless. 1978. A survey of the intertidal macro- fauna in the vicinity of the proposed Weyerhaeuser/DuPont Deep Water Port and the adjacent Nisqually Delta. Final Report: May 1978. The Evergreen State College.

WNHP (Washington State Natural Heritage Program). 1998. Natural community element abstracts, Northern Puget Trough. Department of Natural Resources. Six abstracts + maps of Nisqually delta. 13pp.

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

Zulauf, A.S. 1979. Soil survey of Pierce County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 131 pp. + maps.

Appendix C: References Page C-16 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Appendix D: Applicable Laws and Executive Orders.

Law, Regulation, or Guideline Description

Agency Coordination

Executive Order No. 12372, Intergovernmental Review Requires that Federal agencies afford other agencies of Federal Programs. review of documents associated with Federal programs.

Human Rights Regulations

Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice. Requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of February 11, 1994 projects and policies on minority and lower income population.

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

Cultural Resources Regulations

Antiquities Act of 1906 This act authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on Federal land. It prohibits and provides penalties for unauthorized search for or collection of artifacts or other objects of scientific interest. The Act also authorizes the president to establish national monuments and cultural areas on Federal lands.

Executive Order No. 11593, Protection and States that if the Service proposes any development Enhancement of the Cultural Environment activities that may affect archaeological or historical sites, the Service will consult with Federal and State Historic Preservation Officers to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Regulations for the treatment of Native American Act of 1990 (PL 101-601; 25 USC 3001 et graves, human remains, funeral objects, sacred seq.)(NAGPRA) objects, and other objects of cultural patrimony. Requires consultation with Native American Tribes during Federal project planning.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (PL Protects archaeological resources on public lands. 96-95; 93 STAT 722; 16 USC 470aa-47011), as amended (ARPA)

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites. 24 May, Provides for access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian 1996 sacred sites on Federal lands used by Indian religious practitioners and direction to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sites.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act 1978 (PL 95- Provides for freedom of Native Americans to believe, 341; 92 STAT 469; 42 USC 1996) express, and exercise their traditional religion, including access to important sites.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 Provides for the preservation of historical buildings, (PL 93-291; 88 STAT 174; 16 USC 469) sites, and objects of national significance.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (PL 89-665; Requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of 50 STAT 915; 16 USC 470 et seq.; 36 CFR 800), as any actions or programs on historical properties. amended (NHPA)

Biological Resources Regulations

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et Provides for protection of plants, fish, and wildlife that seq.), as amended (ESA) have a designation as threatened or endangered.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Requires analysis, public comment, and reporting for (42 USC 4321 et seq) (NEPA) environmental impacts of Federal actions.

Appendix D: Applicable Laws & Executive Orders Page D-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Appendix D: Applicable Laws and Executive Orders.

Law, Regulation, or Guideline Description

Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Instructs Federal agencies to conserve migratory birds Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. Jan. 10, 2001. by several means, including the incorporation of strategies and recommendations found in Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans, the North American Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, into agency management plans and guidance documents.

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (16 USC Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, 661-667e), as amended identify species of management concern, and implement conservation measures to preclude the need for listing under ESA.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 Provides protection for bald and golden eagles. USC 668 et seq.)

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

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 USC 1361 Provides protection to marine mammals et seq.), as amended (MMPA)

The Clean Water Act of 1972, Section 404 (33 USC Provides for protection of water quality. 1344 et seq.), as amended

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

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 Requires equal consideration and coordination of wildlife conservation with other water resource development programs.

National Natural Landmarks Program (PL 74-292; 36 Sets forth process for establishment of National Natural CFR 62) Landmarks.

Hazardous Materials Regulations

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (PL 101-380; 33 USC 2701, et Provides oil pollution policies and protections. seq.)

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Provides mechanism for hazardous waste clean up. Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (PL 96-510; 42 USC 9601, et seq.) (CERCLA)

Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (33 USC 1221 Promotes pollution controls for ships. et seq.), as amended

Land and Water Use Regulations

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1451- Protects environmental quality of coastal areas. 1464)

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act Administration, management, and planning for National of 1966 (16 USC 668dd-668ee) Wildlife Refuges.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of Amends the National Wildlife Refuge System 1997 (PL 105-57) Administration Act of 1966. Requires development of CCPs for all refuges outside of Alaska.

Appendix D: Applicable Laws & Executive Orders Page D-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Appendix D: Applicable Laws and Executive Orders.

Law, Regulation, or Guideline Description

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Recognizes compatible wildlife-dependent recreation Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System uses, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and photography, and environmental education and interpretation as priority uses of the NWRS.

Executive Order No. 11988, Floodplain Management Provides for the support, preservation, and enhancement of the natural and beneficial values of floodplains.

Executive Order No. 11990, Protection of Wetlands Provides for the conservation of the natural and beneficial values of wetlands and their associated habitats.

The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended Provides for recreation use that is compatible with the primary purpose of a refuge.

Tribal Coordination

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and with Indian Tribal Governments, 6 November 2000 meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have tribal implications.

Medicine Creek Treaty Act of 1854 Recognizes Nisqually Indian Tribe’s fishing, hunting, and gathering rights within their usual and accustomed areas.

Appendix D: Applicable Laws & Executive Orders Page D-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix D: Applicable Laws & Executive Orders Page D-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Appendix E: Nisqually NWR Species Lists

E.1 PLANTS

Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Trees Abies grandis Pinaceae grand fir FACU- Acer macrophyllum Aceraceae big-leaf maple FACU * Acer saccharum Aceraceae sugar maple Alnus rubra Betulaceae red alder FAC Amelanchier alnifolia Rosaceae western serviceberry FACU Arbutus menziesii Ericaceae pacific madrone Cornus nuttallii Cornaceae pacific dogwood Crataegus douglasii Rosaceae Douglas’s (black) hawthorn FAC * Crataegus laevigata cv. Rosaceae Paul's scarlet * Crataegus x lavallei Rosaceae hawthorn * Crataegus monogyna Rosaceae common hawthorn Fraxinus latifolia Oleaceae Oregon ash FACW * Ilex aquifolium Aquifoliaceae English holly Malus fusca [Pyrus f.] Rosaceae Oregon crab apple FAC+ Picea engelmannii Pinaceae Engelmann spruce Picea sitchensis Pinaceae Sitka spruce FAC Pinus contorta var. c. Pinaceae shore pine FAC- * Populus alba Salicaceae white poplar Populus balsamifera Salicaceae black cottonwood FAC ssp. trichocarpa [P. t. ] * Populus nigra var. italica Salicaceae Lombardy poplar Populus tremuloides Salicaceae quaking aspen FAC+ * Prunus avium Rosaceae sweet cherry Prunus emarginata var. mollis Rosaceae bitter cherry FACU Prunus virginiana var. demissa Rosaceae choke cherry FACU Pseudotsuga menziesii var. m. Pinaceae Douglas-fir * Pyrus communis Rosaceae cultivated pear * Pyrus malus Rosaceae cultivated apple Rhamnus purshiana [Frangula p.] Rhamnaceae cascara FAC- Salix scouleriana Salicaceae Scouler’s willow FAC * Sorbus aucuparia Rosaceae European mountain ash Taxus brevifolia Taxaceae pacific yew FACU- Thuja plicata Cupressaceae western redcedar FAC Tsuga heterophylla Pinaceae western hemlock FACU-

* Note: * indicates non-native (introduced)

Appendix E.1: Plant List E-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status

Shrubs, Brambles & Vines Acer circinatum Aceraceae vine maple FACU+ Arctostaphylos uva-ursi var. u.-u. Ericaceae kinnikinnick FACU- Berberis aquifolium Pursh [Mahonia a.] Berberidaceae tall Oregon-grape Berberis nervosa Pursh [Mahonia n.] Berberidaceae dull Oregon-grape FACU Ceanothus sanguineus Rhamnaceae redstem ceanothos NI Chaenomeles japonica Rosaceae flowering quince Chimaphila umbellata Ericaceae prince's-pine Clematis vitalba Ranunculaceae travelers-joy Cornus sericea Cornaceae red-osier dogwood FACW ssp. s. [C. stolonifera var. o.] Corylus cornuta var. californica Betulaceae hazelnut NI * Cotoneaster franchetii Rosaceae cv. cotoneaster * Cytisus scoparius var. s. Fabaceae Scot’s broom * Euonymus fortunei Celastraceae euonymus Gaultheria shallon Ericaceae salal FACU * Hedera helix Araliaceae English ivy Holodiscus discolor var. d. Rosaceae ocean-spray * Humulus lupulus Cannabaceae hops NI Linnaea borealis ssp. longiflora Caprifoliaceae western twinflowerFACU- Lonicera ciliosa. Caprifoliaceae orange honeysuckle Lonicera hispidula var. h. Caprifoliaceae hairy honeysuckle Lonicera involucrata Caprifoliaceae bearberry honeysuckle FAC Oemleria cerasiformis Rosaceae Indian plum FACU Oplopanax horridus Araliaceae Devils'-club FAC Philadelphus lewisii var. gordonianus Philadelphaceae mock orange Physocarpus capitatus Rosaceae pacific ninebark FAC+ * Prunus laurocerasus Rosaceae cherry laurel Ribes divaricatum. var. d Grossulariaceae straggly gooseberry NI Ribes sanguineum var. s. Grossulariaceae red-flowering current NI Rosa gymnocarpa var. g. Rosaceae baldhip rose NI Rosa nutkana var. n. Rosaceae Nootka rose NI Rosa pisocarpa Rosaceae clustered wild rose FACU * Rubus discolor Rosaceae Himalayan blackberry NI * Rubus laciniatus Rosaceae evergreen blackberry FACU+ Rubus leucodermis var. l. Rosaceae blackcap Rubus parviflorus var. p. Rosaceae thimbleberry FACU+ Rubus spectabilis var. s. Rosaceae salmonberry FAC Rubus ursinus ssp. macropetalus Rosaceae pacific blackberry FACU Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra [S. lasiandra] Salicaceae pacific willow FACW+ Salix sitchensis Salicaceae Sitka willow FACW Sambucus caerulea Caprifoliaceae blue elderberry FAC- Sambucus racemosa Caprifoliaceae coast red elderberry FACU ssp. pubens var. arborescens * Solanum dulcamara Solanaceae bittersweet FAC * Spiraea x vanhouttei Rosaceae spirea Spiraea douglasii ssp. d. Rosaceae Douglas' spirea FACW Symphoricarpos albus var. laevigatus Caprifoliaceae common snowberry FACU

Appendix E.1: Plant List E-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status Shrubs, Brambles & Vines (continued) Symphoricarpos hesperius [S. mollis] Caprifoliaceae creeping snowberry Toxicodendron diversilobum Anacardiaceae poison-oak FACU [Rhus diversiloba] * Ulex europaeus Fabaceae gorse Vaccinium ovatum Ericaceae evergreen huckleberry NI Vaccinium parvifolium Ericaceae red huckleberry NI

Grasses * Agrostis capillaris [A. tenuis] Poaceae colonial bentgrass Agrostis exarata var. e. Poaceae spike bentgrassFACW * Agrostis gigantea [A. alba var. a.] Poaceae redtop FAC Agrostis scabra Poaceae hair bentgrassFAC * Agrostis stolonifera Poaceae creeping bentgrass FAC+ [A. alba vars. major & palustris] * Aira caryophyllea Poaceae silver hairgrass * Aira praecox Poaceae early hairgrass * Alopecurus geniculatus var. g. Poaceae water foxtail OBL * Alopecurus pratensis Poaceae meadow foxtail FACW * Anthoxanthum odoratum Poaceae sweet vernalgrass FACU * Arrhenatherum elatius Poaceae tall oatgrass * Bromus hordeaceus subsp. h. [B. mollis] Poaceae soft brome Bromus pacificus Poaceae pacific brome Bromus sitchensis var. s. Poaceae Alaska brome * Bromus tectorum Poaceae cheatgrass Bromus vulgaris Poaceae Columbia brome UPL Cinna latifolia Poaceae wood reedgrass FACW * Cynosurus echinatus Poaceae hedgehog dogtail * Dactylis glomerata Poaceae orchard grass FACU Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. beringensis Poaceae tufted hairgrass FACW Deschampsia danthonioides Poaceae annual hairgrass FACW- Distichlis spicata var. s. Poaceae seashore saltgrass FACW * Echinochloa crusgalli Poaceae large barnyard-grass FACW Elymus glaucus Poaceae blue wildrye FACU Elymus mollis ssp. m.[Leymus m.] Poaceae dune wildrye FACU Elymus trachycaulus Poaceae awned wheatgrass FAC- ssp. t.[Agropyron trachycaulum] * Elytrigia repens [Agropyron r.] Poaceae quackgrass FACU * Festuca arundinacea Poaceae tall fescue FACU Festuca rubra Poaceae red fescue FAC Glyceria elata Poaceae tall mannagrass FACW+ Glyceria leptostachya Poaceae slender-spiked mannagrass OBL * Holcus lanatus Poaceae common velvet-grass FAC * Holcus mollis Poaceae creeping velvet-grass Hordeum brachyantherum Poaceae meadow barley FACW Hordeum caespitosum [H. jubatum] Poaceae foxtail barley FAC * Hordeum murinum Poaceae wall barley * Hordeum vulgare Poaceae common barley Leersia oryzoides Poaceae rice cutgrass OBL

Appendix E.1: Plant List E-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status Grasses (continued) * Lolium multiflorum Poaceae Italian ryegrass * Lolium perenne Poaceae English ryegrass FACU Melica subulata var. s. Poaceae Alaska oniongrass Panicum capillare Poaceae common witchgrass FAC * Panicum miliaceum Poaceae broom corn millet * Phalaris arundinacea Poaceae reed canary grass FACW * Phleum pratense var. p. Poaceae common Timothy FAC- * Phragmites australis Poaceae Common reed FACW+ * Poa annua Poaceae annual bluegrass FAC- Poa compressa Poaceae Canada bluegrass FACU * Poa pratensis ssp. p. Poaceae Kentucky bluegrass FAC * Poa trivialis Poaceae rough bluegrass FACW Puccinellia nuttalliana. Poaceae Nuttall’s alkali grass FACW+ * Setaria glauca. [S. lutescens] Poaceae yellow bristlegrass Torreyochloa pallida Poaceae weak mannagrass OBL var. pauciflora [Puccinella pauciflora] Trisetum cernuum Poaceae nodding trisetum * Vulpia bromoides [Festuca b.] Poaceae barren fescue * Vulpia myuros var. m. [Festuca m.] Poaceae rat-tail vulpia

Sedges and Rushes Carex athrostachya Cyperaceae slenderbeaked sedge FACW Carex canescens Cyperaceae grey sedge FACW+ Carex deweyana. var. d. Cyperaceae Dewey's sedge FACU Carex hendersonii Cyperaceae Henderson’s sedge FAC Carex lyngbyei var. robusta Cyperaceae Lyngby's sedge OBL Carex obnupta Cyperaceae slough sedge OBL Carex stipata Cyperaceae sawbeak sedge OBL Eleocharis obtusa var. ovata [E. ovata] Cyperaceae ovate spike-rush OBL Eleocharis palustris Cyperaceae creeping spike-rush OBL Eleocharis parvula var. p. Cyperaceae small spike-rush OBL Juncus articulatus Juncaginaceae jointed rush OBL Juncus balticus var. b. Juncaginaceae baltic rush FACW+ Juncus bolanderi Juncaginaceae Bolander's rush OBL Juncus bufonius Juncaginaceae toad rush FACW Juncus effusus var. gracilis Juncaginaceae soft rush FACW Juncus gerardii Juncaginaceae mud rush FACW+ Juncus tenuis var. t. Juncaginaceae slender rush OBL Luzula multiflora var. m. [L. campestris] Juncaginaceae many-flowered wood-rush FACU Luzula parviflora var. fastigiata Juncaginaceae small-flowered wood-rush FAC- Scirpus americanus Cyperaceae three-square bulrush OBL Scirpus microcarpus Cyperaceae small-flowered bulrush OBL Scirpus tabernaemontanii [S. validus] Cyperaceae soft-stemmed bulrush OBL

Forbs Achillea millefolium var. Lanulosa Asteraceae common yarrow FACU Achlys californica [split from A. triphylla] Berberidaceae vanillaleaf Actaea rubra ssp. arguta. Ranunculaceae western red baneberry

Appendix E.1: Plant List E-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status Forbs (continued) * Adenocaulon bicolor Asteraceae trail-plant * Ajuga reptans Lamiaceae common bugle Alisma plantago-aquatica var. americanum Alismataceae American waterplantain OBL Allophyllum divaricatum Polemoniaceae pink false gilia Amaranthus powellii Amaranthaceae Powell's amaranth Ambrosia Asteraceae heath burweed Amsinckia menziesii. Boraginaceae small-flowered fiddleneck Anaphalis margaritacea Asteraceae pearly everlasting Angelica genuflexa Apiaceae kneeling angelicaFACW Angelica lucida Apiaceae seacoast angelica FAC * Anthemis cotula Asteraceae mayweed FACU * Anthriscus caucalis var. c. [A. scandicina] Apiaceae burr chervil * Arabidopsis thaliana Brassicaeae thale cress * Arctium minus Asteraceae common burdock Artemisia suksdorfii Asteraceae coastal mugwort Asarum caudatum Aristolochiaceae wild ginger FACU Aster subspicatus Asteraceae Douglas aster FAC+ Atriplex patula Chenopodiaceae spearscale FACW Barbarea orthoceras Brassicaeae American wintercress FACW+ Bidens cernua Asteraceae nodding beggar-ticks FACW+ Bidens frondosa Asteraceae leafy beggar-ticks FACW+ * Brassica rapa [B. campestris ] Brassicaeae field mustard rape Callitriche heterophylla Callitrichaceae diverse-leaved water-starwort OBL Camassia quamash ssp. breviflora Liliaceae common camas FACW Campanula scouleri Campanulaceae Scouler's harebell * Capsella bursa- pastoris var. b.- p. Brassicaeae shepherd's purse FAC- Cardamine angulata Brassicaeae angled bitter-cress FACW Cardamine breweri var. orbicularis Brassicaeae Brewer's bitter-cress FACW+ Cardamine nuttallii var. n Brassicaeae Nuttall's bitter-cress [C. pulcherrima var. tenella] Cardamine oligosperma var. o. Brassicaeae little western bitter-cress FACW * Centaurium erythraea Raf. [C. umbellatum] Gentianaceae European centaury FAC- * Cerastium fontanum var. triviale Caryophyllaceae sticky chickweed [C. viscosum] * Cerastium glomeratum [C. vulgatum] Caryophyllaceae mouse-ear chickweed Chamomilla suaveolens Asteraceae pineapple weed FACU [Matricaria matricarioides] * Chenopodium album var. a. Chenopodiaceae lamb’s quarters FAC Chenopodium hybridum Chenopodiaceae sowbane Circaea alpina ssp. pacifica Onagraceae enchanter's nightshade FACW * Cirsium arvense var. horridum Asteraceae Canada thistle FACU+ * Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Tenore Asteraceae common thistle FACU Claytonia perfoliata ssp. p.[Montia p.] Portulacaceae miner's-lettuce FAC Claytonia sibirica var. s. [Montia s.] Portulacaceae Siberian miner’s-lettuce FACW Collomia grandilora Polemoniaceae large-flowered collomia Collomia heterophylla Polemoniaceae varied-leaf collomia * Conium maculatum Apiaceae poison-hemlock FACW- * Conyza canadensis [Erigeron c.] Asteraceae horseweed FACU

Appendix E.1: Plant List E-5 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status Forbs (continued) Corallorhiza maculata ssp. m. Orchidaceae spotted coral-root FAC- Corydalis scouleri Papaveraceae Scouler's corydalis FAC+ * Cotula coronopifolia Asteraceae brass-buttons FACW+ * Crepis capillaris Asteraceae smooth hawksbeard Cuscuta.salina var. major Cuscutaceae salt-marsh dodder FACW * Daucus carota Apiaceae Queen-Anne's-lace Dicentra formosa ssp. f. Papaveraceae pacific bleeding heart * Digitalis purpurea var. p. Scrophulariaceae foxglove * Dipsacus fullonum [D. sylvestris] Dipsacaceae teasel NI Disporum hookeri var. oreganum Liliaceae Hooker fairy-bell Elodea canadensis Hydrocharitaceae waterweed OBL Epilobium angustifolium ssp. a. Onagraceae fireweed FACU+ Epilobium brachycarpum [E. paniculatum] Onagraceae autumn willow-herb Epilobium ciliatum ssp. watsonii Onagraceae hairy willow-herb FACW- [E. watsonii] * Erodium cicutarium Geraniaceae stork's-bill geranium Erophila verna [Draba v.] Brassicaeae vernal whitlow-grass Erythronium oregonum ssp. o. Liliaceae Oregon fawn lily * Eschscholtzia californica ssp. c. Papaveraceae California poppy Fragaria vesca ssp. bracteata Rosaceae woods strawberry * Fragaria virginiana ssp. platypetula Rosaceae blueleaf strawberry * Galanthus nivalis Liliaceae snowdrop Galium aparine Rubiaceae cleavers FACU Galium trifidum var. pacificum Rubiaceae small bedstraw FACW+ Galium triflorum Rubiaceae sweetscented bedstraw FACU * Geranium dissectum Geraniaceae cut-leaved geranium * Geranium molle Geraniaceae dovefoot geranium * Geranium robertianum Geraniaceae Robert geranium Geum macrophyllum var. m. Rosaceae Oregon avens FACW+ Glaux maritima ssp.obtusifolia Primulaceae saltwort FACW+ * Glecoma hederacea var. micrantha Lamiaceae ground ivy FACU+ Gnaphalium canescens Asteraceae slender cudweed ssp. microcephalum[G. m.] * Gnaphalium uliginosum Asteraceae marsh cudweed FAC+ Goodyera oblongifolia Orchidaceae rattlesnake-plantain FACU- Grindelia integrifolia var. macrophylla Asteraceae Puget Sound gumweed FACW Hackelia deflexa Boraginaceae nodding stickseed Heracleum lanatum Apiaceae cow-parsnip FAC Hieracium albiflorum Asteraceae white-flowered hieracium Hippuris vulgaris Hippurodaceae common mare's-tail OBL Hydrocotyle ranunculoides Apiaceae marsh-pennywort OBL Hydrophyllum tenuipes Hydrophyllaceae pacific waterleaf FAC * Hypericum perforatum Clusiaceae common St. John's-wort * Hypochaeris radicata Asteraceae hairy [spotted] cat's-ear Impatiens noli-tangere Balsaminaceae touch-me-not FACW Jaumea carnosa Asteraceae fleshy Jaumea OBL * Lactuca serriola Asteraceae prickly lettuce FAC- * Lamium hybridum Lamiaceae hybrid dead-nettle

Appendix E.1: Plant List E-6 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status Forbs (continued) * Lamium purpureum Lamiaceae red dead-nettle * Lapsana communis Asteraceae nipplewort * Lathyrus latifolius Fabaceae everlasting pea Lathyrus polyphyllus Fabaceae leafy peavine Lemna minor Lemnaceae small duckweed OBL Lepidium virginicum var. pubescens Brassicaeae Virginia pepperweed FACU * Leucanthemum vulgare [Chrysanthemum l.] Asteraceae oxeye-daisy Lilium columbianum Liliaceae columbia lily FAC Lilaeopsis occidentalis Apiaceae western lilaeopsis OBL Listera cordata Orchidaceae evergreen orchid FACU Lotus micranthus Benth. Fabaceae small-flowered deervetch * Lotus uliginosus Fabaceae big trefoil * Ludwigia palustris var. americana Onagraceae water purslane OBL Lupinus bicolor Lindl. Fabaceae two-color lupine Lupinus rivularis Fabaceae stream lupine FAC * Lychnis coronaria Caryophyllaceae rose campion Lycopus uniflorus Michx. Lamiaceae northern bugleweed OBL Lysichiton americanum Araceae yellow skunk-cabbage OBL Madia madioides Asteraceae woodland tarweed Madia sativa var. s. Asteraceae coast tarweed Maianthemum dilatatum Liliaceae false lily-of-the-valley FACU- Maianthemum racemosa ssp. amplexicaule Liliaceae western Solomon-plume FAC- Maianthemum stellataum Liliaceae starry Solomon-plume FAC * Malva neglecta Malvaceae dwarf mallow * Medicago lupulina Fabaceae black medic * Melilotus alba Fabaceae white sweet-clover FACU * Melilotus officinalis Fabaceae common yellow sweet-clover FACU Mentha arvensis var. villosa Lamiaceae field mint FAC * Mentha piperita Lamiaceae peppermint FACW+ Mertensia paniculata var. Borealis Boraginaceae tall mertensia FAC Mimulus guttatus Scrophulariaceae yellow monkey-flower OBL Mimulus moschatus var. sessifolius Scrophulariaceae musk-flower FACW+ Mitella caulescens Saxifragaceae leafy mitrewort Moehringia macrophylla [Arenaria m.] Caryophyllaceae big-leaved sandwort Monotropa uniflora Ericaceae Indian pipe FACU Montia dichotoma Portulacaceae dwarf montia FAC * Muscari botryoides Liliaceae grape hyacinth * Mycelis muralis [Lactuca m.] Asteraceae wall lettuce * Myosotis discolor Boraginaceae yellow & blue forget-me-not FACW Myosotis laxa Boraginaceae small-flowered forget-me-not OBL * Myosotis scorpioides Boraginaceae common forget-me-not FACW Myosotis verna Boraginaceae spring forget-me-not FAC- Myriophyllum hippuroides Haloragaceae western water-milfoil OBL * Narcissus pseudonarcissus Amaryllidaceae daffodil Navarretia squarrosa Polemoniaceae skunkweed Nemophila parviflora var. p. Hydrophyllaceae small-flowered nemophila Oenanthe sarmentosa Apiaceae pacific water-parsley OBL Osmorhiza chilensis Apiaceae mountain sweet-cicely

Appendix E.1: Plant List E-7 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status Forbs (continued) * Parentucellia viscosa Scrophulariaceae yellow parentucellia FAC- Petasites frigidus var. palmatus[P. p.] Asteraceae sweet coltsfoot FACU Phacelia nemoralis ssp. oregonensis Hydrophyllaceae woodland phacelia Piperia unalascensis [Habenaria u.] Orchidaceae Unalaska rein-orchid FAC * Plantago lanceolata Plantaginaceae English plantain FACU+ * Plantago major var. m. Plantaginaceae common plantain FAC+ Plantago maritima var. juncoides Plantaginaceae maritime plantain FACW+ * Polygonum aviculare var. a. Polygonaceae common knotweed FACW- * Polygonum convolvulus var. c. Polygonaceae climbing knotweed FACU- * Polygonum cuspidatum Polygonaceae Japanese knotweed Polygonum hydropiperoides var. h. Polygonaceae water-pepper OBL * Polygonum lapathifolium var. l. Polygonaceae dockleaf smartweed FACW+ * Polygonum persicaria Polygonaceae spotted ladysthumb FACW * Potamogeton crispus Potamogetonaceae curled pondweed OBL Potamogeton epihydrus Potamogetonaceae ribbon-leaved pondweed OBL Potamogeton foliosus Potamogetonaceae close-leaved pondweed OBL Potamogeton pectinatus Potamogetonaceae sago pondweed OBL Potentilla anserina ssp. pacifica [P. p.] Rosaceae pacific silverweed OBL Potentilla gracilis var. g. Rosaceae graceful cinquefoil FAC Prunella vulgaris var. elongata Lamiaceae self-heal FACU+ Pyrola asarifolia Ericaceae common pink wintergreen FACU * Ranunculus acris Ranunculaceae tall buttercup FACW- Ranunculus occidentalis var. o. Ranunculaceae western buttercup FACW * Ranunculus repens var. r. Ranunculaceae creeping buttercupFACW Ranunculus sceleratus Ranunculaceae celery-leaved buttercup OBL Ranunculus uncinatus var. u. Ranunculaceae small-flowered buttercup FAC- * Raphanus sativas Brassicaeae wild radish Rorippa curvisiliqua var. a. Brassicaeae western yellow cress FACW+ Rorippa palustris [R. islandica] Brassicaeae marsh yellow cress OBL * Rumex acetosella Polygonaceae sheep sorrel FACU+ * Rumex crispus Polygonaceae curly dock FACW Rumex maritimus var. feuginus Polygonaceae seaside dock FACW+ * Rumex obtusifolius ssp. agrestis Polygonaceae bitter dock FAC Rumex occidentalis Polygonaceae western dock FACW+ Rupertia physodes [Psoralea p.] Fabaceae Rupert’s scurf-pea Ruppia maritima Potamogetonaceae ditch-grass OBL Sagittaria latifolia Alismataceae broadleaf arrowheadOBL Salicornia virginica Chenopodiaceae American glasswort OBL Sanicula crassicaulis var. c. Apiaceae pacific sanicle Satureja douglasii Lamiaceae yerba buena * Scleranthus annuus Caryophyllaceae annual knawel Scutellaria lateriflora Lamiaceae blue skullcap FACW+ * Senecio jacobaea Asteraceae tansy ragwort * Senecio sylvaticus Asteraceae wood groundsel * Senecio vulgaris Asteraceae common groundsel FACU * Silene latifolia ssp. alba [Lychnis a. ] Caryophyllaceae white campion * Sisymbrium altissimum Brassicaceae tall tumble-mustard * Sisymbrium officinale Brassicaeae hedge mustard

Appendix E.1: Plant List E-8 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status * Solanum sarrachoides Solanaceae hairy nightshade Solidago canadensis var. salebrosa Asteraceae Canada goldenrod FACU * Sonchus arvensis Asteraceae perennial sow-thistle * Sonchus asper Asteraceae prickly sow-thistle FAC- Sparganium emersum [S. angustifolium] Typhaceae narrow-leaved bur-reed OBL * Spergularia arvensis Caryophyllaceae spurry Spergularia canadensis Caryophyllaceae Canada sand-spurry FACW Spergularia macrotheca Caryophyllaceae beach sand-spurry FAC * Spergularia rubra Caryophyllaceae red sand-spurry FAC- Spiranthes romanzoffiana var. r. Orchidaceae hooded ladies'-tresses OBL Spirodela polyrrhiza Lemnaceae great duckweedOBL Stachys cooleyae Lamiaceae Cooley's hedge-nettle FACW * Stellaria graminea Caryophyllaceae lesser starwort FAC- Stellaria humifusa Caryophyllaceae spreading starwort OBL Stellaria longipes Caryophyllaceae longstalk starwort FACW- * Stellaria media Caryophyllaceae common chickweed Streptopus amplexifolius Liliaceae clasping-leaved twisted-stalk FAC- Suaeda maritima [S. calceoliformis] Chenopodiaceae herbaceous seablite FACW+ Synthyris reniformis var. r. Scrophulariaceae spring queen * Tanacetum vulgare Asteraceae common tansy * Taraxacum officinale Asteraceae common dandelion FACU * Teesdalia nudicaulis Brassicaeae shepherd's cress Tellima grandiflora. Saxifragaceae fringecup Tiarella trifoliata var. t. Saxifragaceae trefoil foamflower FAC Tolmiea menziesii Saxifragaceae youth-on-age FAC * Tragopogon dubius Asteraceae yellow salsify Trientalis borealis ssp. latifolia [T l.] Primulaceae western starflower FAC * Trifolium arvense Fabaceae hare's-foot * Trifolium dubium. Fabaceae least hop clover * Trifolium hybridum Fabaceae alsike clover FACU+ * Trifolium pratense Fabaceae red clover FACU * Trifolium repens Fabaceae white clover FACU+ * Trifolium subterraneum Fabaceae subterranean clover Trifolium wormskjoldii. Fabaceae springbank cloverFACW+ Triglochin maritimum Juncaginaceae seaside arrow-grass OBL Trillium ovatum ssp. o. Liliaceae western trillium NI Triphysaria pusilla [Orthocarpus pusillus] Scrophulariaceae dwarf owl-clover Typha latifolia Typhaceae common cat-tail OBL Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis var. lyallii Urticaceae stinging nettle FAC+ * Verbascum blattaria Scrophulariaceae moth mullein * Verbascum thapsus Scrophulariaceae common mullein Veronica beccabunga ssp. americana [V. a.] Scrophulariaceae American brooklime OBL * Veronica arvensis Scrophulariaceae wall speedwell NI * Veronica serpyllifolia var. s. Scrophulariaceae thyme-leaved speedwell FAC Vicia americana ssp. a.. Fabaceae American vetch FAC+ * Vicia cracca Fabaceae bird vetch * Vicia hirsuta Fabaceae tiny vetch Vicia nigricans ssp. gigantea [V. g.] Fabaceae giant vetch * Vicia sativa Fabaceae common vetch

Appendix E.1: Plant List E-9 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status Forbs (continued) * Vicia villosa Fabaceae hairy vetch * Vinca major cv. Apocynaceae periwinkle Viola sempervirens Violaceae evergreen violet Wolffia borealis [W. punctata] Lemnaceae dotted water-mealOBL Zostera marina Zosteraceae eel-grass OBL

Ferns & Allies Adiantum aleuticum [A. pedatum ] Pteridaceae maidenhair fern FAC Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum Dryopteridaceae northern lady fern FAC Azolla mexicana Azollaceae Mexican mosquito fern OBL Blechnum spicant Blechnaceae deer fern FAC+ Dryopteris expansa [D. austriaca] Dryopteridaceae spreading wood fern Equisetum arvense Equisetaceae field horsetail FAC Equisetum hyemale var. affine Equisetaceae scouring-rush FACW Equisetum telmateia var. braunii Equisetaceae giant horsetail FACW Polypodium glycyrrhiza Polypodiaceae licorice fern Polystichum munitum Dryopteridaceae sword fern Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens Dennstaedtiaceae western bracken FACU

Lichens Botrydina vulgaris [B. botryoides]. Lichenized with Omphalina ericetorum (lichen agaric), a Basidomycete fungus. Cladonia coniocraea Cladoniaceae cup lichen Evernia prunastri Parmeliaceae antlered-perfume Hypogymnia physodes Parmeliaceae hooded-bone Letharia vulpina Parmeliaceae wolf lichen Melanelia elegantula Parmeliaceae elegant parmelia Melanelia exasperatula Parmeliaceae roughened parmelia Parmelia sulcata Parmeliaceae waxpaper-lichen Peltigera canina Peltigeraceae dog-lichen Peltigera polydactylon Peltigeraceae frog-pelt Physcia sp. Physciaceae lichen Platismatia glauca Parmeliaceae ragged lichen Usnea subfloridana [U. comosa] Parmeliaceae beard lichen Xanthoria candelaria Teloschistaceae orange wall lichen

Mosses & Liverworts Atrichum sp. Polytrichaceae atrichum moss Aulacomnium androgynum Aulacommiaceae lover's-moss Bryum capillare Bryaceae capillary moss Climacium dendroides Climaciaceae tree moss Conocephalum conicum Conocephalaceae snake-liverwort Dichodontium pellucidum Dicranaceae wet-rock moss Dicranoweisia cirrata Dicranaceae curly-thatch moss\ Dicranum tauricum Dicranaceae tauricum moss Dicranum sp. Dicranaceae bryoid fissidens moss Drepanocladus uncinatus var. symmetricus Amblystegiaceae hook-leaved moss Fissidens adianthoides Fissidentaceae adiantum moss

Appendix E.1: Plant List E-10 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Genus and Species Family Common Name Wetland Status Mosses & Liverworts (continued) Fissidens bryoides Fissidentaceae bryoides fissidens moss Fontinalis antipyretica var. a. Fontinalaceae common water moss Funaria hygrometrica Funariaceae cord-moss Grimmia pulvinata Grimmiaceae cushion moss Homalothecium fulgescens Brachytheciaceae yellow moss Hylocomium splendens Hylocomiaceae step-moss Hypnum circinale Hypnaceae coiled-leafmoss Hypnum subimponens Hypnaceae curly hypnum Isothecium stoloniferum [I. spiculiferum] Brachytheciaceae cat-tail moss Kindbergia oregana Brachytheciaceae Oregon beaked moss [Eurhynchium oreganum] Leucolepis acanthoneuron [L. menziesii] Mniaceae Menzies' tree moss Marchantia polymorpha Marchantiaceae lung-liverwort Neckera douglasii Neckeraceae Douglas' neckera Orthotrichum consimile Orthotrichaceae bristle moss Orthotrichum lyellii Orthotrichaceae Lyell's bristle moss Orthotrichum sp. Orthotrichaceae little bristle moss Plagiomnium insigne [Mnium i.] Mniaceae badge moss Plagiomnium venustum Mniaceae magnificent moss Plagiothecium undulatum Plagiotheciaceae wavy-leaved cotton moss Polytrichum juniperinum Polytrichaceae juniper moss Racomitrium canescens Grimmiaceae roadside rock moss Rhizomnium glabrescens [Mnium g.] Mniaceae fan-moss Rhytidiadelphus loreus Hylocomiaceae lanky-moss Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus Hylocomiaceae goose-necked moss Riccia fluitans Ricciaceae floating liverwort Scleropodium cespitans var c. Brachytheciaceae flat-moss Tortula princeps Pottiaceae princely moss

E.2 WILDLIFE

This list includes wildlife species that have been observed at least once on Nisqually NWR. The birds' common and scientific names and taxonomic order are categorized into family and subfamily groups in accordance with the 7th edition (1998) of the A. O. U. Checklist of North American Birds. * Indicates bird species known to nest on Nisqually delta.

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Birds Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata Short-tailed Shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris Pacific Loon Gavia immer Leach's Storm-petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa Common Loon Gavia immer American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis Pied-billed Grebe* Podilymbus podiceps Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicillatus Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis American Bittern* Botaurus lentiginosus Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis Great Blue Heron* Ardea herodias Laysan Albatross Phoebastria immutabilis Great Egret Ardea alba Green Heron* Butorides virescens

Appendix E.2: Wildlife List E-11 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Birds (continued) Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola Snow Goose Chen caerulescens American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica Canada Goose* Branta canadensis Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus Brant Branta bernicla Killdeer* Charadrius vociferus Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus American Avocet Recurvirostra americana Wood Duck* Aix sponsa Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Gadwall* Anas strepera Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus American Wigeon Anas americana Spotted Sandpiper* Actitis macularia Mallard* Anas platyrhynchos Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Blue-winged Teal* Anas discors Red Knot Calidris canutus Cinnamon Teal* Anas cyanoptera Sanderling Calidris alba Northern Shoveler* Anas clypeata Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri Northern Pintail* Anas acute Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Green-winged Teal* Anas crecca Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii Canvasback Aythya valisineria Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Ring-necked Duck* Aythya collaris Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata Greater Scaup Aythya marila Dunlin Calidris alpina Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Black Scoter Melanitta nigra Common Snipe* Gallinago gallinago Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis Wilson's Phalarope* Phalaropus tricolor Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus Hooded Merganser* Lophodytes cucullatus Franklin's Gull Larus pipixcan Common Merganser Mergus merganser Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis Heermann's Gull Larus heermanni Osprey Pandion haliaetus Mew Gull Larus canus White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis Bald Eagle* Haliaeetus leucocephalus California Gull Larus californicus Northern Harrier* Circus cyaneus Herring Gull Larus argentatus Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Thayer's Gull Larus thayeri Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Slaty-backedGul lLarus schistisagus Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Western Gull Larus occidentalis Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens Red-tailed Hawk* Buteo jamaicensis Glaucous-winged/Western Larus sp. Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Hybrid American Kestrel* Falco sparverius Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus Merlin Falco columbarius Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus Common Tern Sterna hirundo Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Common Murre Uria aalge Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba Ring-necked Pheasant* Phasianus colchicus Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocerata Mountain Quail Oreortyx pictus Rock Dove Columba livia California Quail* Callipepla californica Band-tailed Pigeon* Columba fasciata Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Virginia Rail* Rallus limicola Barn Owl* Tyto alba Sora* Porzana carolina Great Horned Owl* Bubo virginianus American Coot* Fulica americana Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca

Appendix E.2: Wildlife List E-12 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Birds (continued) Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Northern Pygmy-Owl Glaucidium gnoma European Starling* Sturnus vulgaris Long-eared Owl Asio otus American Pipit Anthus rubescens Short-eared Owl* Asio flammeus Cedar Waxwing* Bombycilla cedrorum Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Orange-crowned Warbler* Vermivora celata Black Swift Cypseloides niger Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi Yellow Warbler* Dendroica petechia Rufous Hummingbird* Selasphoras rufus Yellow-rumped Warbler* Dendroica coronata Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Black-throated Gray Warbler* Dendroica nigrescens Lewis' Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi Red-breasted Sapsucker* Sphyrapicus ruber MacGillivray's Warbler* Oporornis tolmiei Downy Woodpecker* Picoides pubescens Common Yellowthroat* Geothlypis trichas Hairy Woodpecker* Picoides villosus Wilson's Warbler* Wilsonia pusilla Northern Flicker* Colaptes auratus Western Tanager* Piranga ludoviciana Pileated Woodpecker* Dryocopus pileatus Spotted Towhee* Pipilo maculatus Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea Western Wood-pewee* Contopus sordidulus Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Willow Flycatcher* Empidonax traillii Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Pacific-slope Flycatcher* Empidonax difficilis Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Savannah Sparrow* Passerculus sandwichensis Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Cassin’s Vireo* Vireo cassinii Song Sparrow* Melospiza melodia Hutton's Vireo* Vireo huttoni Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Warbling Vireo* Vireo gilvus White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Red-eyed Vireo* Vireo olivaceus Harris' Sparrow Zonotrichia querula Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri White-crowned Sparrow* Zonotrichia leucophrys Western Scrub-Jay Aphelocoma californica Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia Dark-eyed Junco* Junco hyemalis American Crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Black-headed Grosbeak* Pheucticus melanocephalus Tree Swallow* Tachycineta bicolor Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena Violet-green Swallow* Tachycineta thalassina Red-winged Blackbird* Agelaius phoeniceus Northern Rough-winged Stelgidopteryx serripennis Western Meadowlark* Sturnella neglecta Swallow* Yellow-headed Blackbird* Xanthocephalus Bank Swallow Riparia riparia xanthocephalus Cliff Swallow* Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Brewer's Blackbird* Euphagus cyanocephalus Barn Swallow* Hirundo rustica Brown-headed Cowbird* Molothrus ater Black-capped Chickadee* Parus atricapillus Bullock’s Oriole* Icterus bullockii Chestnut-backed Chickadee* Parus rufescens Purple Finch* Carpodacus purpureus Bushtit* Psaltriparus minimus House Finch* Carpodacus mexicanus Red-breasted Nuthatch* Sitta canadensis Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra Brown Creeper* Certhia americana Pine Siskin* Carduelis pinus Bewick's Wren* Thryomanes bewickii American Goldfinch* Carduelis tristis House Wren Troglodytes aedon Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Winter Wren* Troglodytes troglodytes Marsh Wren* Cistothorus palustris Mammals Golden-crowned Kinglet* Regulus satrapa Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Pacific Water Shrew Sorex bendirii Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana Trowbridge’s Shrew Sorex trowbridgii Townsend's Solitaire Myadestes townsendi Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans Swainson's Thrush* Catharus ustulatus Shrew-mole Neurotrichus gibbsii Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Coast Mole Scapanus orarius American Robin* Turdus migratorius Townsend’s Mole Scapanus townsendii Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius Masked Shrew Sorex cinerus

Appendix E.2: Wildlife List E-13 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Mammals (continued) Reptiles Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis Northern Alligator Lizard Elegaria (Gerrhonotus) Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus coeruleus Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis Rubber Boa Charina bottae Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Western Terrestrial Garter Thamnophis elegans Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Snake Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Plecotus townsendii Northwestern Garter Snake Thamnophis ordinoides Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus Mountain Beaver Aplondontia rufa Amphibians Townsend’s Chipmunk Tamias townsendii Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Douglas’ Squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus Western Red-backed Plethodon vehiculum American Beaver Castor canadensis Salamander Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Pacific Treefrog Hyla regilla Columbian Mouse Peromyscus oreas Red-legged Frog Rana aurora Bushy-tailed Woodrat Neotoma cinerea Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Western Red-backed Vole Clethrionomys californicus Long-tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus Fish Creeping Vole Microtus oregoni River Lamprey Lampetra ayresi Townsend’s Vole Microtus townsendii Western Brook Lamprey Lampetra richardsoni Common Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Pacific Lamprey Lampetra tridentata Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus Spotted Ratfish Hydrolagus colliei Black Rat Rattus rattus Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias House Mouse Mus musculus American Shad Alosa sapidissima Pacific Jumping Mouse Zapus trinotatus Pacific Herring Clupea harengus Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Longnose Dace Rhinichythys cataractae False Killer Whale Pseudorca crassidens Largescale Sucker Catostomus macrocheilus Killer Whale Orcinus orca Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Dall’s Porpoise Phocoena dallii Surf Smelt Hypomesus pretiosus Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki Minke Whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata Pink Salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Coyote Canis latrans Chum Salmon Oncorhynchus keta Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Northern Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus Steelhead (Rainbow Trout) Oncorhynchus mykiss California Sea Lion Zalophus californianus Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Raccoon Procyon lotor Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni Short-tailed Weasel Mustela erminea Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma Mink Mustela vison Pacific Cod Gadus macrocephalus Western Spotted Skunk Spilogale gracilis Pacific Hake Merluccius productus Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Pacific Tomcod Microgadus proximus Northern River Otter Lutra canadensis Walleye Pollock Theregra chalcogrammus Mountain Lion Felis concolor Plainfin Midshipman Porichthys notatus Bobcat Lynx rufus Northern Clingfish Gobiesox meandricus Mule Deer r Odocoileus hemionus Tube-Snout Aulorhynchus flavidus aka “Black-tailed Dee Three Spine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus Bay Pipefish Syngnathus leptorhynchus

Appendix E.2: Wildlife List E-14 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Fish (continued) Arrow Goby Clevelandia ios Brown Rockfish Sebastes auriculatus Bay Goby Lepidogobius lepidus Copper Rockfish Sebastes caurinus Pacific Sanddab Citharichthys sordidus Quillback Rockfish Sebastes maliger Speckled Sanddab Citharichthys stigmaeus Sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria Rex Sole Errex zachirus Kelp Greenling Hexagrammos decagrammus Flathead Sole Hippoglossoides elassodon Rock Greenling Hexagrammos lagocephalus Dover Sole Microstomus pacificus White-spotted Greenling Hexagrammos stelleri Starry Flounder Platichythys stellatus Painted Greenling Oxylebius pictus Rock Sole Pleuronectes bilineata Padded Sculpin Artedius fenestralis Butter Sole Pleuronectes isolepsis Smoothhead Sculpin Artedius lateralis English Sole Pleuronectes vetulus Silverspotted Sculpin Blepsias cirrhosus C-O Sole Pleuronichthys coenosus Roughback Sculpin Chitonotus pugetensis Sand Sole Psettichthys melanostictus Sharpnose Sculpin Clinocottus acuticeps White Sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus Calico Sculpin Clinocottus embryum Coastrange Sculpin Cottus aleuticus Insects Prickly Sculpin Cottus asper Common Name Family Name Shorthead Sculpin Cottus confusus Shield Bugs Acanthosomatidae Reticulate/Riffle Sculpin Cottus perplexus/gulosus Treehoppers Aetalionidae Torrent Sculpin Cottus rhotheus Mining Bees Andrenidae Buffalo Sculpin Enophrys bison Deathwatch Beetles Anobiidae Red Irish Lord Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus Anthomyiid Flies Anthomyiidae Pacific Staghorn Sculpin Leptocottus armatus Aphids Aphididae Great Sculpin Myoxocephalus Bees Apidae polyacanthocephalus Weevils Apionidae Sailfin Sculpin Nautichthys oculofasciatus Stilt Bugs Berytidae Tidepool Sculpin Oligocottus maculosus March Flies Bibionidae Tadpole Sculpin Psychrolutes paradoxus Braconid Wasps Braconidae Soft Sculpin Psychrolutes sigalutes Moss Beetles Byrrhidae Grunt Sculpin Rhamphocottus richardsoni Soldier Beetles Cantharidae Cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Ground Beetles Carabidae Manacled Sculpin Synchirus gilli Spittlebugs Cercopidae Northern Spearnose Poacher Agonopsis vulsa Leaf Beetles Chrysomelidae Pygmy Poacher Odontopyxis trispinosa Green Lacewings Chrysopidae Tubenose Poacher Pallasina barbata Leafhoppers Cicadellidae Sturgeon Poacher Agonus acipenserinus Tiger Beetles Cicindellidae Blacktip Poacher Xeneretmus latifrons Ladybug Beetles Coccinellidae Ringtail Snailfish Liparis rutteri Narrow-winged Damselflies Coenagrionidae Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Snout Beetles and Weevils Curculionidae Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Click Beetles Elateridae Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Balloon Flies Empididae Yellow Perch Perca flavescens Entomobryid Springtails Entomobryidae Shiner Perch Cymatogaster aggregata Ants Formicidae Striped Seaperch Embiotoca lateralis Earwigs Forficulidae Pile Perch Rhacochilus vacca Metallic Bees Halictidae Slender Cockscomb Anoplarchus insignis Heleomyzid Flies Heleomyzidae High Cockscomb Anoplarchus purpurescens Hypogastrurid Springtails Hypogastruridae Pacific Snake Prickleback Lumpenus sagitta Ichneumons (Parasitic Wasps)Ichneumonidae Penpoint Gunnel Apodichthys flavidus Isotomid Springtails Isotomidae Rockweed Gunnel Apodichthys fucorum Scavenger Beetles Lathridiidae Crescent Gunnel Pholis laeta Seed Bugs Lygaeidae Saddleback Gunnel Pholis ornata Plant Bugs Miridae Pacific Sand Lance Ammodytes hexapterus House Flies Muscidae

Appendix E.2: Wildlife List E-15 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Common Name Family Name Common Name Family Name Insects (continued) Bark and Ambrosia Beetles Scolytidae Fungus Gnats Mycetophilidae Carrion Beetles Silphidae Pine Flower Snout Beetles Nemonychidae Globular Springtails Sminthuridae Onychiurid Springtails. Onychiuridae Rove Beetles Staphylinidae Stink Bugs Pentatomidae Hover Flies Syrphidae Humpbacked Flies Phoridae Tachinid Flies Tachinidae Large Caddis Flies Phryganeidae Darkling Beetles Tenebrionidae Parasitic Wasps Proctotrupidae Sawflies Tenthredinidae Barklice Psocoptera* Pygmy Grasshoppers Tetrigidae Psyllids Psyllidae Lace Bugs Tingidae Scentless Plant Bugs Rhopalidae Crane Flies Tipulidae Dung Flies Scatophagidae Xylophagid Flies Xylophagidae Dark-winged Fungus Gnats Sciaridae

*Order Name

Appendix E.2: Wildlife List E-16 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Appendix F: Plan Implementation

INTRODUCTION

Following public review and comment on the Draft EIS, public notification regarding the Service’s decision, and CCP approval, Refuge staff will begin to implement the CCP. This chapter describes the various components required to implement the plan over the next 15 years.

The long-term health and protection of Nisqually NWR depends on an informed public and knowledgeable stakeholders. Consistent outreach, good communication, and continued coordination with these Refuge constituents are imperative to successful implementation of the CCP. To maintain and strengthen this important constituency, the CCP provides goals, objectives, and strategies which are not only aimed at protecting, restoring, and conserving wildlife habitat, but also address expanded educational and appropriate, compatible wildlife- dependent recreational opportunities. This appendix identifies the partnership opportunities, projects (Refuge Operating Needs System List), monitoring, staffing, and funding that are necessary to successfully implement the CCP.

STEP-DOWN PLANS

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan is one of several plans necessary for Refuge management. The CCP provides guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for several Refuge program areas but may lack some of the specifics needed for implementation. Step-down management plans will be developed for individual program areas within approximately five years after CCP completion. All step-down plans require appropriate NEPA compliance; implementation may require additional permits. Step-down plans for the Refuge follow:

Step Down Management Plan Status

Estuarine Restoration Plan 2005 • site-specific restoration plan • compliance process including necessary permits (Sec. 404 wetlands permit, Sec. 7 endangered species consultation, etc.)

Fish and Wildlife Monitoring Plan 2005

Waterfowl Hunt Plan 2005

Environmental Education Plan Update by 2005

Fishing Plan 2006

Integrated Pest Management Plan 2004

Occupational Safety and Health Plan 2004

Fire Management Plan Available

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Project-specific plans, with appropriate NEPA compliance, may be prepared outside of these step-down plans.

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

Because of the Refuge’s location within a well-known watershed with numerous partners and in a large metropolitan area, the Refuge is uniquely situated to develop and strengthen unique and creative partnerships in the Puget Sound region. Partnerships will continue to play a crucial role in the protection of the Nisqually delta and the lower watershed and in achieving Refuge goals and objectives. Partnerships will increase our effectiveness, knowledge, and community support, as well as reduce costs. There are numerous opportunities to create or strengthen partnerships with community groups, tribes, organizations, agencies, and others. The Nisqually delta, and therefore the Refuge, provide an important focal point and demonstration area within south Puget Sound to increase environmental awareness and community involvement.

Coordinated efforts will focus on habitat restoration, land protection, environmental education, fish and wildlife monitoring, outreach, and quality wildlife-dependent recreation. The Refuge will continue to strengthen partnerships with the Nisqually River Council, Nisqually Indian Tribe, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), land trusts, and other non-profit organizations in the areas of habitat restoration and land protection. The Refuge will strive to exchange information and provide technical assistance to neighboring landowners to further the protection of the lower watershed. A cooperative agreement with the Nisqually Indian Tribe will greatly strengthen coordinated efforts within Refuge boundaries east of the Nisqually River, benefitting habitat restoration and management and public use programs. This effort will strengthen the growing partnership with the Nisqually Indian Tribe. Cooperative agreements with Ducks Unlimited and the Washington Conservation Corps will continue to contribute greatly to habitat restoration and management programs. Partnerships with WSDOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) can provide habitat improvements and wildlife corridors, as well as improve public access to the Refuge.

Access to Nisqually NWR is primarily by road via private motor vehicle. Secondary access to refuge waters is through the State boat launch at Luhr Beach. The Refuge Roads Inventory shows it has ½ mile of public use roads, one parking lot with capacity for 100 cars, and no bridges. Funding for parking improvements has been requested in Refuge Roads Program for $500,000. Nisqually NWR does anticipate the need for additional transportation facilities during the 15-year life of this CCP. The Thurston Regional Planning Council is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) in the county. Nisqually is not a Metropolitan Area within the RTPO in the county. Future transportation changes will be coordinated with FHWA, WSDOT, and Thurston and Pierce counties.

The Service had a Federal Lands Highway Program created in TEA-21, the Refuge Roads Program (RRP). Funds for Refuge public use roads, parking lots, bridges, restrooms, and trails may be sought from the RRP. These funds can also be used for interpretive enhancements associated with these projects, as long as the cost for the interpretive facilities do not exceed 5% of the project budget.

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS RRP funds can be used as the non-Federal match for FHWA funds available through state departments of transportation. Refuges can also use appropriated Fish and Wildlife Service funds as the non-Federal match for these funds as well. This matching ability can be used to further compatible city, county, and state transportation and transit funds that could be spent on roads and transit projects adjacent to, connecting to, or running through the Refuge.

An essential partner will continue to be the volunteer services program of the Refuge. This large program is instrumental in achieving much more in all program facets than would be possible with staffing alone. This effort also encourages community involvement and support, as numerous people can directly contribute to Refuge programs. The Nisqually Refuge Cooperating Association will continue to grow, and this friends’ group and key partner to the Refuge will help to further Refuge education, interpretation, and habitat programs.

Collaboration with colleges, universities, local educators, conservation organizations, and environmental education consortiums will enable the Refuge to carry out its plans to improve and enlarge the environmental education, research, and monitoring programs. Cooperative efforts with the Nisqually Reach Nature Center will continue to be strengthened, to improve coordination and increase the amount and quality of environmental education in the delta area.

Conservation organizations and other non-profit groups will contribute significantly to Refuge and delta protection and enhancement. For example, Tahoma Audubon is an Audubon Refuge Keeper providing support to Nisqually NWR. Black Hills Audubon also provides community support on conservation issues and environmental education.

PROJECTS

The table below contains prioritized projects developed as part of the Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS). Brief project descriptions and their associated costs are provided. This list of projects reflects Refuge needs and provides the basis for funding requests from the U.S. Congress, which must be approved by the Service, DOI, and the President’s Office of Management and Budget, before being forwarded to Congress.

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS PROJECTS: REFUGE OPERATING NEEDS (RONS) LIST

Operating Costs (in thousands) FTEs One-Time Recurring Total Base 1st High Priority Projects Year

Expand operation of new public use facilities: Maintenance Worker 1 65 54 119 Maintenance Worker will provide 7-day a week access to the Refuge and full operation of public use and environmental education programs for the 4 million people within 100 miles of the new Visitor Center/Office complex. Expand operation of new public use facilities: operating costs 100 100 Cover recurring base operating costs of providing 7-day a week access to the Refuge and full operation of public use and environmental education programs for the 4 million people within 100 miles of the new Visitor Center/Office complex. Restore tidelands of Nisqually River East parcel: Biologist 1 65 63 128 The Refuge and the Nisqually Indian Tribe will cooperatively restore 270 acres to benefit migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered and sensitive species. Restore tidelands of Nisqually River East parcel: dike removal and construction 125 125 Remove and construct dikes to restore this area to tidal action for management under a cooperative agreement between the Service and the Tribe, including accomplishing all compliance requirements. Ducks Unlimited will also be a partner. Improve visitor services and administrative efficiency: Office Assistant 1 65 49 114 A Refuge office assistant will serve as receptionist, answer phone inquiries, and provide improved administrative efficiency for growing Refuge programs including enhanced visitor services, new habitat restoration projects, and new Refuge acquisitions. Improve habitat management, restoration, and protection: Assistant Refuge Manager 1 65 74 139 Assistant Refuge Manager will implement, manage, and monitor restoration of the Black River Unit, accomplishing all compliance requirements, as well as provide law enforcement, resource protection, outreach, and visitor safety services. Develop environmental education program: Environmental Education Specialist 1 65 74 139 An Environmental Education Specialist will develop printed curriculum, design and conduct teacher workshops, and implement an education program to reach up to 15,000 students annually.

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Operating Costs (in thousands) FTEs One-Time Recurring Total Base 1st High Priority Projects (continued) Year Monitor habitat restoration and associated wildlife and fish use 1 76 63 139 Biologist will conduct migratory bird, amphibian, and fish surveys and habitat monitoring on 1,000 acres of freshwater and tidal wetland restoration areas to assess and improve habitat restoration and management techniques. Improve volunteer services program 1 76 63 139 Improve and expand volunteer services program with a volunteer coordinator as well as basic supplies, equipment, and uniforms. Volunteers are used to staff the new Visitor Center, support the growing environmental education program, and help accomplish a diversity of projects, including wildlife surveys, exotic vegetation control, and special events. Brown Farm Marsh wetland enhancement 298 50 348 In cooperation with Ducks Unlimited, enhance migratory waterfowl and other waterbird habitat in the Brown Farm Marsh by restoring 2 miles of interior ditches and sloughs to enhance water flow, constructing internal dikes to create manageable wetland units, installing water control structures and pump to allow effective flooding and de-watering, and meeting all compliance requirements. Restore tidelands within Brown Farm Dike 1 2400 74 2474 In cooperation with Ducks Unlimited, restore and manage 699 acres of estuarine habitat by removing portions of the Brown Farm Dike to restore tidal action. This project will support the recovery of Nisqually chinook salmon and other declining salmonids, as well as benefit many other estuarine- associated species and meet compliance requirements. Restore 40 acres of surge plain riparian habitat 175 10 185 In cooperation with Ducks Unlimited, restore and manage approximately 40 acres of surge plain riparian habitat along the Nisqually River to benefit migratory bird species, primarily neotropical songbirds. Project includes dike removal and berm construction to allow the Nisqually River to flood the site during high flows and allow tidal influence during extreme high tides. Install tideland boardwalk trail 800 10 810 Install boardwalk with interpretive panels and spotting scopes into estuary along old Brown Farm Dike Trail to provide access and viewing of existing tidelands of McAllister Creek and newly restored tidelands within former diked area. Install visitor contact station at Luhr Beach public boat launch 39 5 44 In cooperation with WDFW, install visitor contact station to provide information and interpretation at Luhr Beach public boat launch, which is the main entrance to public waterways on the Refuge.

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-5 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Operating Costs (in thousands) FTEs One-Time Recurring Total Base 1st Medium Priority Projects Year Improve water management to restore freshwater wetlands 235 10 245 Restore and enhance 200 acres of freshwater wetlands by improving the water management and delivery system.

Restore forested uplands for sensitive species 132 20 152 In cooperation with many community partners, reforest 100 acres of clear-cut along McAllister Creek with Douglas-fir and other native trees to improve wildlife habitat and watershed protection. Install visitor contact station and parking lot on Nisqually River east side 120 15 135 In cooperation with the Nisqually Indian Tribe, install visitor contact station to provide Refuge information and interpretation at Nisqually Indian Tribe east side property in association with a new public trail and bank fishing site along the Nisqually River. Install accessible bank fishing site 120 10 130 Construct an accessible bank fishing platform on Nisqually River to provide new opportunities for a broader group of anglers and meet accessibility requirements. Conduct study to enhance salmonid habitat 141 141 Conduct study to determine importance and contributions of the Nisqually Estuary to salmonids and the effects of estuarine restoration. The information will be used to help contribute to the recovery of the recently listed chinook salmon and monitor the restoration of the Nisqually delta ecosystem. Improve Environmental Education Program 153 10 163 Previously used office building would be remodeled to accommodate the environmental education program on an interim basis. Utilities as well as safe, accessible ingress and egress will also need to be set up. Install wildlife observation deck 88 7 95 Install wildlife observation deck with benches and interpretive panels along main trail to provide an additional viewing location. Spotting scopes will also be installed at this site and at other trail locations to enhance wildlife observation opportunities for visitors.

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-6 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Operating Costs (in thousands) FTEs One-Time Recurring Total Base 1st Low Priority Projects Year Pest plant control using Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) members 15 47 62 Utilizing YCC crews for mechanical and hand pulling of pest plants reduces the need for chemical control and the amount of staff time required to accomplish pest plant control goals. YCC crews also assist in maintenance, construction, and trail improvements. House interns, volunteers, temporary staff, and researchers 120 10 30 A Refuge housing unit for use by interns, volunteers, temporary employees, and visiting researchers will greatly increase the ability to accomplish important management studies, surveys, and provide improved education and visitor services. Increase outreach and education with traveling exhibits 28 5 33 Design and fabricate two traveling exhibits on refuges in the complex for special events, fairs, public meetings, and loaning to schools and cooperators in the area. Develop video to increase outreach and education 54 54 Complete, on contract, Refuge video focusing on wildlife and habitat resources of Nisqually NWR, to enhance outreach efforts and strengthen education program.

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-7 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS MONITORING

Monitoring is the process of collecting information to evaluate if objectives and anticipated or assumed results of a management program are being realized, or if implementation is proceeding as planned (USDA, USDI 1994).

Adaptive Management is a flexible approach to long-term management that is directed by the results of ongoing monitoring activities. Management techniques, objectives, and strategies (Appendix I) are regularly evaluated over time and the new data are used to adapt both management objectives and techniques to better achieve the Refuge's goals.

Monitoring has been an ongoing activity on Nisqually NWR. Past monitoring efforts on the Refuge have generally focused on key species and habitats, typically those considered sensitive (e.g., threatened or sensitive species), or those identified in the Refuge purpose (e.g., migratory waterfowl). While these are adequate to identify trends in relative abundance or habitat use for higher priority species, they usually fail to examine the entire Refuge landscape. Ideally, a Refuge monitoring program would occur across several levels of biological organization including genetic, population/species, community/ecosystem, and regional landscapes. However, limited funding usually results in monitoring programs focused on selected components that are representative of many other species/habitats (considered indicator species). In recent years, most of the monitoring efforts on the Refuge have been concentrated on documenting the location and extent of waterfowl use of the estuarine and freshwater habitats.

Monitoring has been identified as a strategy for six of the CCP objectives and will be an ongoing and important program on Nisqually NWR for the life of the CCP. The CCP monitoring program will focus on measuring the success of CCP implementation, particularly the effectiveness of the various habitat restoration projects. The program is designed to provide some flexibility in CCP implementation by allowing the Refuge to change or adapt management practices or monitoring methods as the result of monitoring data.

The various monitoring programs that will be implemented on the Refuge under the CCP are briefly described in the table titled CCP Monitoring Programs and Projects. This conceptual framework will serve as a starting point for preparation of a step-down monitoring plan, which will provides detailed methods, timing, and costs. Staffing needs have been identified in the strategies for each of the objective that includes monitoring.

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-8 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS CCP Monitoring Programs and Projects Links to Indicator Regional Program/Project Purpose Associated Objective Monitoring Efforts

Program: Habitat Monitoring Associated Goal: Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance native habitats and associated plant and wildlife species representative of the Puget Sound lowlands, with a special emphasis on migratory birds and salmon.

Project 1: Estuarine Habitat Determine the 1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the Nisqually Development of None Mapping amount and River delta estuary and near shore environments.... restored estuarine development of including tidal influences, sediment delivery, native plant habitat ranging restored estuarine communities, and distributary channel networks. from mudflats to habitat over time high salt marsh

Project 2: Vegetation Document 1.3 - Protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of Vegetation cover None Sampling vegetation response freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River and plant species in restored habitats delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to serve as composition foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians. 1.4 - Protect, restore, maintain, and enhance the ecological functions of approximately 1,000 acres of riparian habitat in the Nisqually River delta and corridor to provide foraging and breeding habitat for migratory and resident land birds and fish. 1.5 - Protect 400-600 acres of native forested bluff habitat along McAllister Creek and the eastern boundary of the Refuge by protecting and restoring existing Refuge lands, and acquiring significant bluff parcels immediately east of the current Refuge boundary and south in the Nisqually Valley.

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-9 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Links to Indicator Regional Program/Project Purpose Associated Objective Monitoring Efforts

Project 3: Water Quality Monitor water 1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the Nisqually Dissolved None quality in estuarine River delta estuary and near shore environments.... oxygen, salinity, restoration area including tidal influences, sediment delivery, native plant water communities, and distributary channel networks. temperature, sediment deposition

Project 4: Invasive Species Track the locations 1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the Nisqually Invasive species None Monitoring and abundance of River delta estuary and near shore environments.... (weeds and exotic invasive species on including tidal influences, sediment delivery, native plant wildlife) presence the Refuge, communities, and distributary channel networks. and distribution monitor new 1.3 - Protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of introductions, and freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River incorporate data delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to serve as into an Integrated foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and Pest Management resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians. Plan 1.4 - Protect, restore, maintain, and enhance the ecological functions of approximately 1,000 acres of riparian habitat in the Nisqually River delta and corridor to provide foraging and breeding habitat for migratory and resident land birds and fish. 1.5 - Protect 400-600 acres of native forested bluff habitat along McAllister Creek and the eastern boundary of the Refuge by protecting and restoring existing Refuge lands, and acquiring significant bluff parcels immediately east of the current Refuge boundary and south in the Nisqually Valley.

Program: Wildlife Monitoring Associated Goal: Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance native habitats and associated plant and wildlife species representative of the Puget Sound lowlands, with a special emphasis on migratory birds and salmon.

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-10 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Links to Indicator Regional Program/Project Purpose Associated Objective Monitoring Efforts

Project 1: Waterfowl Document 1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the Nisqually Waterfowl The Service’s Surveys waterfowl use of River delta estuary and near shore environments.... seasonal National Pacific restored estuarine including tidal influences, sediment delivery, native plant abundance, Flyway databases and freshwater communities, and distributary channel networks. distribution, and for the Midwinter habitats 1.3 - Protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of species Waterfowl Survey freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River composition delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to serve as foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians.

Project 2: Shorebird Document 1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the Nisqually Shorebird PRISM-Program Surveys shorebird use in River delta estuary and near shore environments.... seasonal for Regional and estuarine including tidal influences, sediment delivery, native plant abundance, International restoration area communities, and distributary channel networks. distribution, and Shorebird species Monitoring-a composition pilot monitoring program endorsed by the Service and the U.S. Shorebird Council

Project 3: Amphibian Document native 1.3 - Protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of Red-legged frog None Sampling amphibian species freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River abundance and use of restored delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to serve as distribution freshwater foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and wetlands resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians.

Project 4: Raptor Surveys Document raptor 1.3 - Protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of Raptor abundance None use of restored freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River and distribution freshwater delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to serve as wetlands and foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and grasslands resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians.

Project 5: Landbird Document 1.4 - Protect, restore, maintain, and enhance the ecological Landbird relative Monitoring Avian Monitoring migratory and functions of approximately 1,500 acres of riparian habitat abundance and Populations resident landbird in the Nisqually River delta and corridor to provide distribution Database and use of restored foraging and breeding habitat for migratory and resident Washington GAP riparian habitat land birds and fish. Analysis Program

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-11 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Links to Indicator Regional Program/Project Purpose Associated Objective Monitoring Efforts

Program: Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species Monitoring Associated Goal: Support recovery and protection efforts for Federal and State threatened and endangered species, species of concern, and their habitats of the Nisqually River delta and watershed.

Project 1: - Fish Monitoring Document fish 1.1 - Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the Nisqually Salmonid None response in restored River delta estuary and near shore environments.... abundance and estuarine habitat including tidal influences, sediment delivery, native plant distribution and support communities, and distributary channel networks. threatened and 2.1 - Protect and restore approximately 4,400 acres of endangered species estuarine, freshwater, stream, and riparian habitats to recovery efforts protect declining runs of the chinook salmon and bull trout, which are Federally listed as threatened.

Project 2: Bald Eagle Monitor bald eagle 1.5 - Protect 400-600 acres of native forested bluff habitat Nesting activity, WDFW bald Monitoring nesting activity and along McAllister Creek and the eastern boundary of the productivity, eagle nest population trends Refuge by protecting and restoring existing Refuge lands, abundance, and tracking program; on the Refuge and acquiring significant bluff parcels immediately east of distribution Federal recovery the current Refuge boundary and south in the Nisqually data Valley. 2.3 - Identify, monitor, and protect all special-status plant and animal species on the Refuge, focusing on species that are State or Federally listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing.

Project 3: Great Blue Heron Monitor great blue 1.5 - Protect 400-600 acres of native forested bluff habitat Nesting activity, WDFW studies Monitoring heron nesting along McAllister Creek and the eastern boundary of the productivity, on great blue activity and Refuge by protecting and restoring existing Refuge lands, abundance, and herons population trends and acquiring significant bluff parcels immediately east of distribution on the Refuge the current Refuge boundary and south in the Nisqually Valley. 2.3 - Identify, monitor, and protect all special-status plant and animal species on the Refuge, focusing on species that are State or Federally listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing.

Program: Environmental Education Associated Goal: Provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on the fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Nisqually River delta and watershed.

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-12 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Links to Indicator Regional Program/Project Purpose Associated Objective Monitoring Efforts

Project 1: Environmental Monitor 3.1 - Provide a quality environmental education program at Teacher and None Education Program effectiveness of Nisqually with specific learning objectives and diverse student Monitoring environmental opportunities that 1) meet State standards for learning; 2) evaluations education program are based on Refuge and Nisqually watershed conservation and management programs; 3) support the mission of the Service; and 4) provide stewardship opportunities.

Programs: Wildlife-dependent Recreation Associated Goal: Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and outreach opportunities to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources of the Nisqually River delta and watershed.

Project 1: Hunt Program Monitor quality of 4.1 - Open 191 acres to waterfowl hunting 7 days per week Visitor None Monitoring hunt program within 1-2 years after CCP approval. Refuge lands would evaluations; combine with WDFW lands to create more manageable hunter bag check; and enforceable hunt boundaries that would reduce compliance with conflicts with other users, reduce confusion for hunters, regulations provide sufficient sanctuary, create uncrowded conditions, and ensure a reasonable harvest. The Refuge would also explore new opportunities for “walk-in” waterfowl hunting as property is acquired south of I-5.

Project 2: Fishing Program Monitor quality of 4.2 - Provide a variety of quality boat and bank fishing Visitor None Monitoring fishing program experiences in selected areas which are safe, consistent evaluations; with State regulations, and compatible with Refuge compliance with resources and purposes. regulations

Project 3: Wildlife Monitor quality of 4.5 - Provide a variety of quality wildlife photography Visitor None Photography Program wildlife opportunities to increase visitor understanding and evaluations Monitoring photography appreciation for and enjoyment of Nisqually River delta program resources.

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-13 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS STAFFING AND FUNDING

Current Staffing

Base budget FY2000 = $565,840

Fee Funds for FY 2000 = $39,782

AmeriCorps members = 6 FTEs and 72 Refuge Volunteers contributed 3.8 FTE s for FY2000.

Current Staffing Staff Type Employment Status Salary Rating Management Project Leader PFT GS 13 Deputy Project Leader PFT GS 12 Administrative Administrative Assistant PFT GS 7 Receptionist/Clerk/Typist TFT GS 4 Biology Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 11 Fish and Wildlife Biologist TFT GS 7 Public Use Outdoor Recreation Planner PFT GS 11 Park Ranger PFT GS 7 Maintenance Maintenance worker PFT WG 8 Maintenance worker PFT WG 8

Future (Proposed) Staffing

Future (Proposed) Staffing Staff Type Employment Status Salary Rating Management *Project Leader PFT GS 13 *Deputy Project Leader PFT GS 12 Refuge Manager PFT GS 11

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-14 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Staff Type Employment Status Salary Rating Refuge Manager PFT GS 11 Refuge Manager PFT GS 11 Refuge Operations Specialist PFT GS 9/11 Administrative *Administrative Assistant PFT GS 7 *Receptionist/Clerk/Typist PFT GS 4/5 Receptionist/Clerk/Typist PFT GS 4/5 Purchasing Agent PFT GS 6 Biology *Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 11 Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 9/11 Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 7/9/11 Fish and Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 7/9 Fish and Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 7/9 *Fish and Wildlife Biologist PFT GS 7 Restoration Ecologist PFT GS 11 Biology Technician PFT GS 5/6/7 Biology Technician PFT GS 5/6/7 GIS/Data Management Specialist PFT GS 9 Public Use *Outdoor Recreation Planner PFT GS 11 Outdoor Recreation Planner PFT GS 9 *Environmental. Education Specialist PFT GS 9/11 (Coordinator) Environmental. Education Specialist PFT GS 9/11 (Coordinator) Interpretation & Education Specialist PFT GS 9 Visual Information Specialist PFT GS 7/9 Volunteer Services Coordinator PFT GS 7/9 *Park Ranger PFT GS 7 Refuge Officer PFT GS 7

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-15 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Staff Type Employment Status Salary Rating Refuge Officer PFT GS 7 Maintenance *Maintenance worker PFT WG 8 *Maintenance worker PFT WG 8 Maintenance worker PFT WG 8 Maintenance worker PFT WG 5/6 Maintenance worker PFT WG 5/6 Maintenance worker PFT WG 5/6 Maintenance worker PFT WG 5/6 Engineering Equip. Operator PFT 40429 * Indicates Minimum Critical Staffing, includes Black River Unit needs.

Appendix F: Plan Implementation Page F-16 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Appendix G Compatibility Determinations for Proposed Action

G.1 Recreational Boating G.2 Recreational Fishing G.3 Waterfowl Hunting G.4 Environmental Education G.5 Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation G.6 Research G.7 Agriculture – Haying

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION (August 2004)

Use: Recreational Boating

Refuge Name: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, located in Thurston and Pierce counties, Washington.

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established on January 22, 1974 with approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Approximately 2,925 acres of the approved 3,936 acres have been acquired. Legal authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f - 715r); and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a - 742j).

Refuge Purposes: Nisqually NWR purposes include:

...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds (16 U.S.C.-715d).

...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources ...(16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4).

... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]).

Description of Use: Recreational boating use addressed in this compatibility determination includes motorboats and non-motorized boats, including kayaks and canoes, in all waters of the Refuge outside the Brown Farm Dike, including the Research Natural Area (RNA). It does not include personal watercraft (PWC) use. Motor boats include a variety of crafts powered by 2- cycle or 4-cycle engines. Although the Refuge does not closely monitor all boat use that occurs on Refuge waters, approximately 6,700 boats per year are estimated to use the Refuge based on various public use data (USFWS, unpubl. data). Current Thurston County regulations require a 5 mph speed limit for all watercraft within 200 feet of any shoreline. However, this speed limit of 5 mph is currently not enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and is minimally enforced by the State or County. Pierce County does not have a similar regulation.

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) Proposed Action would continue to provide recreational boating opportunities with an emphasis on use supporting priority public uses, including wildlife observation/photography, interpretation, environmental education, waterfowl hunting, and fishing. New restrictions would be aimed at minimizing impacts to wildlife and habitat as well as conflicts with other users. These restrictions include a seasonal closure

Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS (October 1-March 31) in the RNA and a 5 mph speed limit throughout Refuge waters, including portions of the Refuge in Pierce County. This would expand the current 5 mph speed limit within 200 feet of any shoreline (Thurston County regulations) to include all Refuge waters. The area within the Brown Farm Dike and any estuarine restoration area (formerly diked areas) will remain closed to boating. Commercial vendors that lead organized groups will be required to apply for a Refuge Special Use Permit for each trip. A new visitor contact station would be constructed at Luhr Beach if acquisition or development of a cooperative agreement is accomplished with the State.

Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: Chapters 2 and 3 of the Final CCP/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Nisqually NWR identify areas in which the Service would seek to acquire land from willing sellers outside of the current Refuge boundary (USFWS 2002). Motorized and non-motorized boating currently occurs in McAllister Creek and the Nisqually River, upstream from the current Refuge boundary, although use is limited, particularly in McAllister Creek, which becomes extremely narrow and shallow in this area. The proposed Refuge boating restrictions described above would be applied to any newly acquired lands or waters.

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer and manage boating activities as described above: One-time Recurring Costs Costs Maintenance of Parking Area and Ramp 25K (Luhr Beach Boat Ramp) Visitor Contact Station 15K 1K Law Enforcement 20K Survey and posting 15K Signs 4K 2K Outreach, Education, and Monitoring 5K Administration 5K 5K

TOTAL $39K $58K

Additional funds would be required to construct, operate, and maintain visitor facilities and interpretive materials (see summary table above). Law enforcement staffing would also be needed. Funding would be sought through the Service budget process. Other sources will be sought through strengthened partnerships, grants, coordination with other law enforcement agencies, and additional Refuge operations funding to support a safe, quality public use program as described above.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Nisqually NWR provides crucial foraging and resting habitat for wintering migratory birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, seabirds, and other waterbirds. Recreational boating affects their use in Refuge waters (also see Chapter 4 in the Final CCP/EIS for Nisqually NWR). Boating activity, both motorized and non-motorized, can alter distribution, reduce use of particular habitats or entire areas by waterfowl and other birds, alter feeding behavior and nutritional status, and cause premature departure from areas (Knight and Cole 1995). More sensitive species may find it difficult to secure adequate food or loafing sites as their preferred habitat becomes fragmented and recreation-related disturbances increase (Skagen et al. 1991; Pfister et al. 1992). Motorized boats generally have more impact on wildlife than

Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS non-motorized boats because motorboats produce a combination of movement and noise (Tuite et al. 1983, Knight and Cole 1995). For example, a significant decrease in the proportion of bald eagles feeding at a site was observed when motorized boating activity occurred within 200 meters of that area in the preceding 30 minutes (Skagen 1980). Motorized boats can also cover a larger area in a relatively short time, in comparison to non-motorized boats. Boating pressure on wintering waterfowl in Germany had reached such a high level that it was necessary to establish larger sanctuaries and implement a seasonal closure on water sports and angling (Bauer et al. 1992).

Even canoes and kayaks can cause significant disturbance effects based on their ability to penetrate into shallower areas of the marsh (Speight 1973, Knight and Cole 1995). In the Ozark National Scenic Riverway, green-backed heron activity declined on survey routes when canoes and boat use increased on the main river channel (Kaiser and Fritzell 1984). Canoes or slow- moving boats have also been observed to disturb nesting great blue herons (Vos et al. 1985). Huffman (1999) found that non-motorized boats within 30 meters of the shoreline in south San Diego Bay caused all wintering waterfowl to flush between the craft and shore. However, compared to motorboats, canoes and kayaks appear to have less disturbance effects on most wildlife species (Jahn and Hunt 1964, Huffman 1999, DeLong 2002).

In Denmark, fast-moving boats were observed to have the greatest impact on red-breasted merganser broods (Kahlert 1994). The presence of fast-moving boats also caused the most significant modifications to the amount of time animals spent feeding and resting. In England, an increased rate of disturbance from boats partly caused a decline in roosting numbers of shorebird species (Burton et al. 1996). In addition, boaters have been observed to cause massive flights of diving ducks on the Mississippi River (Thornburg 1973). Motorized boats within 100 meters of shore caused all wintering waterfowl and shorebirds to flush between the craft and shore in south San Diego Bay, regardless of speed (Huffman 1999). However, disturbance to birds in general was reduced when boats traveled at or below the 5 mph speed limit.

Impacts of boating can occur even at low densities, given their noise, speed, and ability to cover extensive areas in a short amount of time. The total number of boats and people can be an inappropriate measure of recreational intensity because the presence of a single boat might be just as disturbing as that of many (Tuite et al. 1983, Knight and Knight 1984). This is especially the case in the RNA and McAllister Creek, both areas with high waterfowl use. USFWS survey data show that the RNA provides important resting and feeding habitat for large numbers of wintering waterfowl, including many wigeon, the predominant waterfowl species on the Refuge. Typically, the largest waterfowl concentrations are found in the RNA during the winter months.

The habitat along McAllister Creek is a relatively narrow tidal system that receives high use by a variety of waterfowl, wading birds, other waterbirds, and raptors. Because boats in confined areas are generally closer to shorelines, waterbirds in tidal creeks and rivers may be exposed to more human activity than birds in other shoreline habitats (Bratton 1990). Even low levels of boating activity affect the duration and pattern of use by wildlife in this narrow system. In addition, disturbance to nesting birds is caused by boat activity. An active bald eagle nest is located along McAllister Creek. The nesting period identified in the Bald Eagle Recovery Plan identifies January 1 as the beginning of the nesting season when special protective measures should begin (USFWS 1986). A great blue heron nesting colony, located along McAllister Creek since the 1970s, has been declining for several years. Nesting great blue herons are sensitive to a variety of human disturbances. Great blue herons were one of the more sensitive

Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS of 23 waterbird species, when measuring flush distances from motorized watercraft (Rodgers and Schwikert 2002). Washington State requires a minimum 300-m buffer zone to protect colonies from human disturbances (WDFW 2001). However, boating activity in McAllister Creek falls within this buffer zone. Boating activities may be one of the contributing factors affecting these nesting birds.

Motorized boats introduce noise and pollution, in the form of gas and oil in water, and particulates in the air in estuarine and riverine habitats at the Refuge. An EPA report indicates that two-stroke engines, found on many motorized boats, discharge as much as 25% of unspent oil and gas directly into the water. Increased speeds of two-stroke engines can result in greater discharge of unspent oil and gas. Hydrocarbons in gas and oil released from two-stroke engines float on the surface and settle within shallow estuarine habitats. Hydrocarbon pollution has been found to bioaccumulate within the complex food web, posing a serious threat to the marine environment (Tjarnlund et al. 1993). Hydrocarbons can also be transferred to eggs from the plumage of incubating birds. Extremely small amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons can be toxic to eggs and birds that may ingest these contaminants (Hoffman 1989).

Anticipated Impacts of Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: The following conditions must be met before allowing existing uses to occur on an interim basis on newly acquired lands: (1) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to human health or safety; (2) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to natural or cultural resources; (3) The use is consistent with management of existing Nisqually NWR lands and would contribute to achieving Refuge goals. In particular, existing Refuge regulations would not be compromised; (4) The newly acquired lands represent a meaningful unit within which to manage the activity; and (5) There are no anticipated conflicts with priority public uses.

The only major waterways within the expansion area are McAllister Creek and the Nisqually River. If property is acquired that includes McAllister Creek or the Nisqually River, boating regulations described above would also apply to these areas. No waterways other than McAllister Creek and Nisqually River will be open to boating. Anticipated impacts would be similar to that described above.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with the Draft CCP/EIS for Nisqually NWR, released in December 2002. Few comments were received on the Compatibility Determinations. Also see the Summary of Changes document and Appendix M (Comments and Responses). No changes were necessary based on comments received.

Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Determination:

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: The following stipulations are required to ensure that motorized and non-motorized boating is compatible:

1. A 5 mph speed limit for all boats will be implemented throughout Refuge waters.

2. The RNA will be closed to boats from October 1 through March 31 to reduce disturbance to wintering waterfowl populations.

3. The estuarine restoration area currently within the Brown Farm Dike (699 acres) will be closed to boats year round to serve as a sanctuary area. No motorized or non-motorized boats will be allowed into this area, and all public access will occur on trails only.

4. Signs will be installed and maintained to mark closed areas, seasonal closures, and to indicate 5 mph speed limit regulations on the Refuge. The RNA boundary will be posted and signs will include seasonal closure dates.

5. Periodic law enforcement will help ensure compliance with speed limit regulations and area closures. Regulations will be described in brochures and posted at a new Visitor Contact Station at Luhr Beach. Coordination with other law enforcement agencies, including the State and County, will be strengthened. Motorboat operators are required to be in compliance with all applicable Refuge, U.S. Coast Guard, and State of Washington laws. Outreach and education efforts will address groups associated with boating in the south Sound.

6. The Service remains concerned about impacts to wildlife using McAllister Creek. Waterfowl and waterbird use, great blue heron, bald eagle, salt marsh habitat, and boat activity will be monitored in McAllister Creek to document impacts. This Compatibility Determination will be re-evaluated in 3 - 5 years or sooner to assess whether other protective measures should be implemented in McAllister Creek.

7. If property is acquired that includes McAllister Creek or the Nisqually River, boating regulations described above would also apply to these areas. No waterways other than McAllister Creek and Nisqually River in the expansion area would be open to boating.

8. Monitoring of boating activities and associated effects on waterfowl, waterbirds, and other migratory birds will be conducted. Monitoring data will be used by the Refuge Manager in the periodic re-evaluation of this Compatibility Determination.

Justification: Boating itself is not considered wildlife-dependent recreation, but many wildlife- dependent recreational activities (fishing, waterfowl hunting, environmental education,

Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-5 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS interpretation, and wildlife observation/photography) are associated with boating. Providing opportunities for wildlife-dependent priority public uses would contribute toward fulfilling provisions under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act as amended in 1997. Although boating has a potential to impact wetland wildlife, implementing the prescribed measures listed in the Stipulations section should reduce many of these impacts. It is anticipated that an adequate amount of estuary habitat would be available to the majority of waterfowl and other wetland birds because some high wildlife use areas will be closed to boating, and boating regulations would be maintained and enforced. Thus, it is anticipated that birds will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened, the physiological condition and production of waterfowl and other waterbirds will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall status will not be impaired. The Refuge will also implement a monitoring program to help assess disturbance effects on wildlife and habitat. Improved outreach and educational information for Refuge visitors involved in activities associated with boating would also help to reduce the impacts associated with boating activities.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only):

______Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation (for priority public uses)

X Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation, Date to be provided in Final EIS/CCP (for all uses other than priority public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

___ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

___ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

___ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: ______(Signature) (Date)

Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-6 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Refuge Manager/ Project Leader Approval: ______(Signature) (Date) Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: ______(Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System: ______(Signature) (Date)

Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-7 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS References

Bauer, H. G., H. Stark, and P. Frenzel. 1992. Disturbance factors and their effects on water birds wintering in the western parts of Lake Constance. Der Ornithologische Beobachter 89:81-91.

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

Burton, N.H.K., P.R. Evans, and M.A. Robinson. 1996. Effects on shorebird numbers of disturbance, the loss of a roost site and its replacement by an artificial island at Harlepool, Cleveland. Biol. Conserv. 77:193-201.

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

Hoffman, D.J. 1989. Embryotoxicity and teratogenicity of environmental contaminants to bird eggs. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 115:41-50.

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

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Conserv. Dep. Tech. Bull. No. 33. 212pp.

Kahlert, J. 1994. Effects of human disturbance on broods of red-breasted mergansers Mergus serrator. Wildfowl 15:222-231.

Kaiser, M.S. and E.K. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. J. Wildl. Manage. 48: 561-567.

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. in Wildlife and Recreationists R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.). Island Press, Covelo, California.

Knight, R.L. and S.K. Knight. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:999-1004.

Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at a migration staging area. Biological Conserv. 60:115-126.

Rodgers, Jr., J.A. and S.T. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. Conservation Biology. Vol. 16, No. 1:216-224.

Skagen, S.K. 1980. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity on the Skagit River, Washington. Seattle, Washington. 231-241pp.

Skagen, S.K., R.L. Knight, and G.H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbances of an avian scavenging guild. Ecological Applications. 1:215-225.

Speight, M.C.D. 1973. Outdoor recreation and its ecological effects: a bibliography and review. University college London, England, Discussion Papers in Conservation 4. 35pp.

Tjarnlund U., G. Ericson, E. Landesjoo, I. Petterson, and L. Balk. 1993. Investigation of the biological effects of 2- cycle outboard engines’ exhaust on fish. Inst. of Applied Research, U. of Stockholm.

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

Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-8 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Tuite, C.H., M. Owen, and D. Paynther. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63.

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

USFWS. 2002. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human disturbance in northcentral Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2001. Priority species and habitats list. Available at: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phsvert.htm#birds.

Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-9 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix G.1: Boating CD Page G.1-10 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION (August 2004)

Use: Recreational Fishing (bank, boat and shellfishing)

Refuge Name: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, located in Thurston and Pierce counties, Washington.

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established on January 22, 1974 with approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Approximately 2,925 acres of the approved 3,936 acres have been acquired. Legal authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f - 715r); and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a - 742j).

Refuge Purposes: Nisqually NWR purposes include:

...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds (16 U.S.C.-715d).

...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources ...(16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4).

... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]).

Description of Use: Currently, recreational fishing occurs in McAllister Creek, in the Nisqually River, and on the tideflats at the mouth of McAllister Creek and north of the Brown Farm Dike. Boat launch sites providing access to McAllister Creek and Nisqually River are primarily from the Luhr Beach Boat Ramp, but also include other launching facilities in southern Puget Sound. The Refuge offers a walk-in bank fishing area along McAllister Creek. Anglers must pay the Refuge entrance fee and hike approximately ¾ mile on the Refuge trail to the designated fishing area. Illegal access occurs frequently at the southern boundary of the Refuge, where McAllister Creek flows under I-5. Some fishing activity also occurs at a pier located at the Luhr Beach boat ramp. Fish caught by Refuge visitors primarily include chinook and chum salmon, but also some cutthroat and steelhead. Although the Refuge does not closely monitor all fishing on the Refuge, use is estimated to be approximately 3,800 anglers per year based on various public use data. During low spring and summer tides, shellfishers access the Refuge and State tideflats from Luhr Beach. Although the intertidal area at the mouth of McAllister Creek has been closed to shellfishing due to elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria since 2000, this closure is not enforced and some shellfishing does still occur.

Appendix G.2: Fishing CD Page G.2-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS The CCP Proposed Action would continue to provide fishing opportunities from boats in the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek. The Research Natural Area (RNA) would be posted closed to fishing and the closure enforced to comply with Refuge RNA policy. However, since estuarine restoration along McAllister Creek would remove the dike on which the current bank fishing occurs, this fishing area will no longer be available. The Service would investigate the feasibility of establishing a new bank fishing area along the east bank of the Nisqually River, north of I-5, on Nisqually Indian Tribal and Refuge property. The development of this site would need to be coordinated with the development of a trail system and visitor contact station/parking area located in the uplands above this property. The Refuge would also investigate fishing opportunities for disabled users at Luhr Beach and along the Nisqually River.

Shellfishing will remained closed in the tideflats as directed by the Washington State Department of Health. The Refuge would re-evaluate this compatibility determination if recreational shellfishing is opened in the future because of improved water quality.

Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: Chapters 2 and 3 of the Final CCP/EIS for the Nisqually NWR identify areas in which the Service would seek to acquire land from willing sellers outside of the current Refuge boundary (USFWS 2002).

There are several public recreational fishing sites in the proposed expansion area. The majority of fishing use occurs on the Nisqually River accessed from Fort Lewis property (Trotter’s Woods) on the east side of the river or from a State owned (WDFW) bank fishing site on the west side of the river. This WDFW site was designed to be completely accessible; however, changes in the river have made this site less usable. The numbers of anglers using these sites are not known, but observations indicate very heavy use when salmon runs are occurring. The remote nature of these sites and the low level of enforcement have resulted in high amounts of fishing litter and debris at some of these sites. Use in the Trotter’s Woods area is largely unregulated, and evidence of habitat deterioration from vehicle use and extensive litter exists in this riparian forest. If Trotter’s Woods is managed by the Service through acquisition or a cooperative management agreement, the area will be managed to reduce habitat damage and improve the fishing program. This includes development of a parking area, improved vehicle traffic management within the forested areas, and riparian restoration. In addition, bank fishing opportunities south of I-5 on McAllister Creek would be established, if appropriate parcels are acquired, to replace the site (north of I-5) that will be lost due to dike removal for estuarine restoration.

The CCP Proposed Action in the expansion area is to provide quality fishing opportunities by maintaining selected traditional bank fishing and water access sites, improve facilities, and close other sites to protect habitat values, for example, limiting vehicle access in sensitive riparian habitats. Location criteria for new sites considered will be accessibility, feasibility, minimal conflicts with other users, maintenance, compatibility, wildlife and habitat disturbance potential, and potential to promote a quality fishing experience.

Appendix G.2: Fishing CD Page G.2-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer and manage fishing activities as described above: One-time Recurring Cost Cost Bank fishing area 18K (development, eastside) Law Enforcement 35K Posting/signing 16K 2K Outreach, Education, and Monitoring 3K 5K Development of Accessible Sites (Luhr Beach, Nisqually River) 60K 3K

Development and maintenance of Trotter’s Woods Site 50K 15K Maintenance of Parking Area 10K Administration 18K 5K

TOTAL $165K $75K

Additional funds would be required to construct, operate, and maintain visitor facilities and interpretive materials. Law enforcement staffing would also be needed. Funding would be sought through the Service budget process. Other sources will be sought through strengthened partnerships, grants, coordination with other law enforcement agencies, and additional Refuge operations funding to support a safe, quality public use program as described above.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Fishing as a solitary and stationary activity tends to be less disturbing to wildlife than hunting or motorized boating (Tuite et al. 1983). It is well recognized that fishing can give many people a deeper appreciation of fish and wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of conserving habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the Refuge System mission. Furthermore, despite the potential impacts of fishing, a major goal of Nisqually NWR is to provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. Fishing is one of the six priority public uses on the National Wildlife Refuge System. Of key concern then, is to manage the activity to keep adverse impacts to within acceptable limits.

Angler activities while on Refuge are and will remain consistent with State guidelines. Harvest- related impacts for fish stocks associated with sportfishing in the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek are estimated annually and taken into consideration by the State in their development of annual pre-season fishing agreements and associated regulations. Therefore, impacts to fish populations should be minimized.

Additional disturbance would be caused to birds and other wildlife using the open waters and rivers/creeks where fishing would occur. Fishing activities may influence the composition of bird communities, as well as distribution, abundance, and productivity of waterbirds (Tydeman 1977, Bouffard 1982, Bell and Austin 1985, Bordignon 1985, Edwards and Bell 1985, and Cooke 1987). Anglers often fish in shallow, sheltered bays and creeks that birds prefer, negatively impacting distribution and abundance of waterfowl, grebes, and coots (Cooke 1987). Increases in anglers and associated shoreline activity discouraged waterfowl from using otherwise suitable habitat (Jahn and Hunt 1964). In Britain, anglers displaced waterfowl from their preferred feeding and roosting areas and caused wigeon, green-winged teal, pochard, and

Appendix G.2: Fishing CD Page G.2-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS mallard to depart from a reservoir prematurely (Jahn and Hunt 1964). Anglers influenced the numbers, behavior, and diurnal distribution of avian scavengers present at sites in Washington, when compared to non-fishing days (Knight et al. 1991). Shoreline activities, such as human noise, would cause some birds to flush and go elsewhere. In addition, trampling of vegetation and deposition of sewage or other chemicals are expected to commonly occur (Liddle and Scorgie 1980). Disturbance and destruction of riparian vegetation, bank stability, and water quality may result from high levels of bank fishing activities.

Boating associated with fishing can alter bird distribution, reduce use of particular habitats or entire areas by waterfowl and other waterbirds, alter feeding behavior and nutritional status, and cause premature departure from areas (Knight and Cole 1995). Impacts of motorized boating can occur even at low densities, given their noise, speed, and ability to cover extensive areas in a short amount of time. This is especially the case in the RNA and McAllister Creek, both areas with high waterfowl use. The habitat along McAllister Creek is a relatively narrow tidal system that receives high use by a variety of waterfowl, waterbirds, wading birds, and raptors. In addition, an active bald eagle nest is located along McAllister Creek. The nesting period identified in the Bald Eagle Recovery Plan identifies January 1 as the beginning of the nesting season when special protective measures should begin (USFWS 1996). A great blue heron nesting rookery has been located along McAllister Creek for several years, with nesting activity beginning as early as February. Washington State requires a minimum 300-meter buffer zone to protect colonies from human disturbances (WDFW 2001). Boating activity in this area would affect the duration and pattern of use by wildlife in this narrow system (see Compatibility Determination for “Recreational Boating”).

If recreational shellfish harvest activity is re-opened at the mouth of McAllister Creek, it will be managed consistent with State guidelines. Harvest-related impacts to shellfish stocks are estimated annually and taken into consideration by the State in their development of annual seasonal harvest dates and allowances. Therefore, impacts to shellfish populations should be reduced. However, activity associated with shellfishing may result in disturbance to the habitat caused by foot traffic and digging activity on mudflats, aquatic plants, and nearby salt marshes. Additional disturbances would occur as described above associated with fishing activity.

Anticipated Impacts from Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: The following conditions must be met before allowing existing uses to occur on an interim basis on newly acquired lands: (1) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to human health or safety; (2) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to natural or cultural resources; (3) The use is consistent with management of existing Nisqually NWR lands and would contribute to achieving Refuge goals. In particular, existing Refuge regulations would not be compromised; (4) The newly acquired lands represent a meaningful unit within which to manage the activity; and (5) There are no anticipated conflicts with priority public uses.

Anticipated impacts from fishing in the expansion area would be the same as described above.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with the Draft CCP/EIS for Nisqually NWR, released in December 2002. Few comments were received on the Compatibility Determinations. Also see the Summary of Changes document and

Appendix G.2: Fishing CD Page G.2-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Appendix M (Comments and Responses). No changes were necessary based on comments received.

Determination:

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Sanctuary areas will be designated to provide high quality habitat for feeding, resting, breeding, and thermal protection for waterfowl and other wildlife species. The RNA, a mixture of nearshore, intertidal, and salt marsh habitat, will be closed to fishing year round and to boating from October 1 to March 31. In addition, the restored estuarine area will be closed to fishing and other public use activities, except for wildlife observation from trails at the edges, to allow undisturbed research and monitoring of wildlife and habitat response to restoration activities. Some of the freshwater units will serve as sanctuary for waterfowl that prefer to move between the estuary and freshwater wetlands.

Boating associated with fishing has high potential for adversely impacting wildlife in the estuary. Three factors that exert the most disturbance to wildlife due to boating are noise, speed, and significantly increased access to more parts of the estuary. Thus, boating regulations to ensure compatibility during the fishing season will include the following: (1) 5 mph speed limit for boats in all Refuge waters; (2) the RNA will be closed to boats from October 1 through March 31 to reduce disturbance to wintering waterfowl populations; and (3) the estuarine restoration area currently within the Brown Farm Dike will be closed to boats year round. No motorized or non-motorized boats will be allowed into this area and all public access will occur on trails only. Signs will be installed to mark closed areas. The Refuge remains concerned about impacts to wildlife using McAllister Creek. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that these stipulations are sufficient to minimize disturbance to wildlife.

The Refuge will provide information on fishing and shellfishing regulations at the Luhr Beach boat ramp, Visitor Contact Stations, and through printed brochures. Information will also include current migratory bird and Refuge regulations, and maps of closed areas. Refuge officers will enforce closed areas and boat speed limits. The Refuge will monitor and evaluate the fishing program and users to determine if objectives are being met.

Justification: Recreational fishing is one of the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Providing a quality fishing program contributes to achieving one of the Refuge’s goals. This program as described was determined to be compatible despite the potential impacts that fishing and supporting activities (boating) can have on the Service’s ability to achieve Refuge purposes. Sufficient restrictions will be placed on fishing, boating, and other public uses to ensure that an adequate amount of high quality feeding, breeding, and resting habitat would be available for migratory birds in relatively undisturbed areas (sanctuaries). Although boating has the greatest potential to impact wetland wildlife, implementing the prescribed measures listed in the Stipulations section should reduce many of these impacts. In addition, the majority of waterfowl use on the Refuge occurs in the winter and spring months, with some birds arriving as early as September and October. Since the majority of the fishing activity occurs in the summer and fall (through mid-October), disturbance to waterfowl species is reduced.

Appendix G.2: Fishing CD Page G.2-5 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS It is anticipated that an adequate amount of estuary, open water, and riverine habitat would be available to the majority of waterfowl, waterbirds, and other wildlife because: (1) some high wildlife use areas will be set aside as sanctuary; (2) new boating regulations would be implemented and enforced; and (3) bank fishing activity will be confined to designated areas and enforced. Thus, it is anticipated that wildlife, primarily waterbirds, will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened, fishing pressure will not cause fish stocks to decline, the physiological condition and production of waterfowl and other waterbirds will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be impaired. A program will be implemented to monitor some of these factors.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only):

X Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation Date to be provided in Final EIS/CCP (for priority public uses)

______Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

_____ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: ______(Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/ Project Leader Approval: ______(Signature) (Date) Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: ______(Signature) (Date)

Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System: ______(Signature) (Date)

Appendix G.2: Fishing CD Page G.2-6 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS References

Bell, D.V. and L.W. Austin. 1985. The game-fishing season and its effects on overwintering wildfowl. Biol. Conserv. 33:65-80.

Bordignon, L. 1985. Effetti del disturbo antropico su una popolazione di germano reale Anas platyrhynchos. (Effects of human disturbance on a population of mallard Anas platyrhynchos). Avocetta 9:87-88.

Bouffard, S.H. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. N. Am. Wildl. Conf. 47:553-556.

Cooke, A.S. 1987. Disturbance by anglers of birds at Grafham Water. ITE Symposium 19:15-22.

Edwards, R.W. and D.V. Bell. 1985. Fishing in troubled waters. New Science 1446, 7 March:19-21.

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Conserv. Dep. Tech. Bull. No. 33. 212pp.

Knight, R.L., D.P. Anderson, and N. V. Marr. 1991. Responses of an Avian Scavenging Guild to Anglers. Biol. Conserv. 56:195-205.

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. in Wildlife and Recreationists (R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds.) Island Press, Covelo, California.

Liddle, M.J. and H.R.A. Scorgie. 1980. The effects of recreation on freshwater plants and animals: a review. Biol. Conserv. 17:183-206.

Tjarnlund, U., G. Ericson, E. Lindesjoo, I. Petterson, and L. Balk. 1993. Investigation of the biological effects of 2- cycle outboard engines' exhaust on fish. Institute of Applied Research, University of Stockholm.

Tuite, C.H., M. Owen, and D. Paynther. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63.

Tydeman, C.F. 1977. The importance of the close fishing season to breeding bird communities. J. of Environmental Management 5 :289-296.

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

USFWS. 2002. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2001. Priority species and habitats list. Available at: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phsvert.htm#birds.

Appendix G.2: Fishing CD Page G.2-7 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix G.2: Fishing CD Page G.2-8 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION (August 2004)

Use: Waterfowl Hunting

Refuge Name: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, located in Thurston and Pierce counties, Washington.

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established on January 22, 1974 with approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Approximately 2,925 acres of the approved 3,936 acres have been acquired. Legal authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f - 715r); and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a - 742j).

Refuge Purposes: Nisqually NWR purposes include:

...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds (16 U.S.C.-715d).

...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources ...(16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4).

... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]).

Description of Use: Nisqually NWR lands are not open to waterfowl hunting. Waterfowl hunting is allowed on 617 acres of WDFW lands within the approved Refuge boundary. Due to the irregular shape and scattered locations of these inholdings, and difficulty in posting and maintaining boundary signs, unauthorized hunting occurs on up to 1,189 acres of adjacent Refuge lands. This hunting activity has been considered administratively uncontrollable, so where signing is absent, hunting closures have not been enforced. Since the unauthorized hunting occurs on 63% of the estuarine habitat within the Refuge, including the Research Natural Area (RNA), current hunting activity provides insufficient sanctuary for estuarine- dependent wildlife and allows an unauthorized use to continue on large parts of the Refuge.

The CCP Proposed Action includes formally opening a total of approximately 191 acres of waters and tideflats of Nisqually NWR lands to waterfowl hunting (USFWS 2002). These lands are contiguous with the WDFW parcel north of the Brown Farm Dike. The RNA boundary will be moved to the east to provide high quality hunting area at the mouth of the River, reducing the RNA by 73 acres. However, a 44-acre area will be added to the RNA at the south end. By opening 191 acres of the Refuge to waterfowl hunting, the hunting area north of the Brown Farm

Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Dike will be configured in a single rectangular block, greatly reducing confusing boundary issues. Areas designated as “No Hunting Areas” will be posted and enforced, eliminating the unauthorized hunting that has occurred on the Refuge in the past. Waterfowl hunting will continue on all WDFW lands. A 25-shell limit will be instituted on Refuge and WDFW lands. WDFW will continue to have jurisdiction and management responsibility over WDFW lands, and the Service will manage the hunting program on Refuge lands. Hunting will be allowed consistent with annual State hunting regulations and seasons, and will be permitted by boat access only in the posted Refuge hunt area. The area within the Brown Farm Dike, including the estuarine restoration area, will remain closed to hunting. The waterfowl hunting season generally falls within the period from October through January. There will be no limit on the number of hunters, hunt days, and no designated blind sites. The State will manage their own hunt program on WDFW lands.

Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: Chapters 2 and 3 of the Final CCP/EIS for Nisqually NWR identify areas in which the Service would seek to acquire land from willing sellers outside of the current Refuge boundary (USFWS 2002). Some private hunting occurs on property within the expansion area. The Medicine Creek Hunt Club consists of a small number of hunters using private property south of I-5. Waterfowl hunting also takes place in Trotter’s Woods by approximately 3-4 hunters. Should these areas be acquired by the Service, the Refuge would consider allowing walk-in waterfowl hunting with set blinds if sufficient lands have been acquired to allow for adequate wildlife sanctuary and minimal conflicts with other priority public uses. This Compatibility Determination will be updated in the future to include walk-in hunting in the expansion area.

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer and manage waterfowl hunting activities as described above: One-time Recurring Cost Cost Survey and Post 75K 10K Maintenance of Parking Area 10K Law Enforcement 20K Administration 25K 15K Outreach, Education, and Monitoring 15K 10K

TOTAL $115K $65K

Additional funds would be required to construct, operate, and maintain a hunt program, visitor facilities, and interpretive materials. Law enforcement staffing would be needed. Funding would be sought through the Service budget process. Other sources will be sought through strengthened partnerships, grants, and additional Refuge operations funding to support a safe, quality public use program as described above.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: By its very nature, waterfowl hunting has very few if any positive effects on waterfowl and other birds while the activity is occurring, but it is well recognized that this activity has given many people a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of conserving their habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the Refuge System mission. Furthermore, despite the potential impacts of hunting, a goal of Nisqually NWR is to provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent recreation. By law, hunting is

Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS one of the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Of key concern is to offer a safe and quality program and to maintain adverse impacts within acceptable limits.

Although hunting directly impacts individuals, the amount of waterfowl harvest is not expected to have a measurable effect on Refuge populations, especially since waterfowl hunting activity is not extremely high in the delta. For example, the average hunter visit per day was 8.4 during the 1998/99 season (USFWS unpublished data). Hunting may be either compensatory or additive to natural mortality (Anderson 1995). Compensatory mortality occurs when hunting substitutes for other forms of mortality (disease, competition, predation, severe weather, etc.). Additive mortality occurs when hunting compounds the total mortality. In some cases, hunting can be used as a management tool to control populations. In concert with Canada, Mexico, and multi- state Flyway councils, the Service and WDFW regulate hunting so that harvest does not reduce populations to unsustainable levels.

Direct effects of hunting on waterfowl are mortality, wounding, and disturbance (DeLong 2002). Hunting can alter behavior (e.g., foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife (Owens 1977, Raveling 1979, White-Robinson 1982, Thomas 1983, Bartelt 1987, Madsen 1985, and Cole and Knight 1990). In Denmark, hunting was documented to affect the diversity and number of birds using a site (Madsen 1995). Avian diversity changed from predominantly mute swan and mallard to a more even distribution of a greater number of species when a sanctuary was established. Hence, species diversity increased with the elimination of hunting. There also appears to be an inverse relationship between the numbers of birds using an area and hunting intensity (DeLong 2002). In Connecticut, lesser scaup were observed to forage less in areas that were heavily hunted (Cronan 1957). In California, the numbers of northern pintails on Sacramento NWR non-hunt areas increased after the first week of hunting and remained high until the season was over in early January (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). Following the close of hunting season, ducks generally increased their use of the hunt area; however, use was lower than before the hunting season began.

Human disturbance to wintering birds and other wildlife using the open waters and marshes on the Nisqually delta would occur as a result of hunting activity. Migratory and wintering waterfowl generally attempt to minimize time spent in flight and maximize foraging time because flight requires considerably more energy than any other activity, other than egg laying. Human disturbance associated with hunting includes loud noises and rapid movements, such as those produced by shotguns and boats powered by outboard motors. This disturbance, especially when repeated over a period of time, compels waterfowl to change food habits, feed only at night, lose weight, or desert feeding areas (Belanger and Bedard 1995, Madsen 1995, Wolder 1993). Disturbance levels from hunting activity outside Chincoteague NWR were found to be high enough to force wintering black ducks into a pattern of nocturnal feeding within surrounding salt marsh and diurnal resting within Refuge impoundments (Morton et al. 1989a, 1989b). Unhunted populations have been documented to behave differently from hunted ones (Wood 1993).

These impacts can be reduced by the presence of adjacent sanctuary areas where hunting does not occur, and birds can feed and rest relatively undisturbed. Sanctuaries or non-hunt areas have been identified as the most common solution to disturbance problems caused from hunting (Havera et. al 1992). Prolonged and extensive disturbances may cause large numbers of waterfowl to leave disturbed areas and migrate elsewhere (Madsen 1995, Paulus 1984). In Denmark, hunting disturbance effects were experimentally tested by establishing two sanctuaries

Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS (Madsen 1995). Over a 5-year period, these sanctuaries became two of the most important staging areas for coastal waterfowl. Numbers of dabbling ducks and geese increased 4 to 20 fold within the sanctuary (Madsen 1995). Thus sanctuary areas are very important to minimize disturbance to waterfowl populations to ensure their continued use of the Nisqually delta.

Intermittent hunting can be a means of minimizing disturbance, especially if rest periods in between hunting events are weeks rather than days (Fox and Madsen 1997). It is common for Refuges to manage hunt programs with non-hunt days. At Sacramento NWR, 3-16% of pintails were located on hunted units during non-hunt days, but were almost entirely absent in those same units on hunt days (Wolder 1993). In addition, northern pintails, American wigeon, and northern shovelers decreased time spent feeding on days when hunting occurred on public shooting areas, as compared to non-hunt days (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). However, intermittent hunting may not always greatly reduce hunting impacts. The intermittent hunting program of three hunt days per week at Sacramento NWR results in lower pintail densities on hunt areas during non-hunt days than non-hunt areas (Wolder 1993). In Germany, several studies reported a range from a few days to approximately three weeks for waterbird numbers to recover to pre-disturbance levels (Fox and Madsen 1997). The proposed hunt program at Nisqually NWR will not be intermittent in order to provide consistent management with the existing program on adjacent WDFW lands and waters, preventing confusion among hunters on the delta.

Boating activity associated with hunting during the fall and winter can alter distribution, reduce use of particular habitats or entire areas by waterfowl and other birds, alter feeding behavior and nutritional status, and cause premature departure from areas (Knight and Cole 1995). In the upper Midwest, motor boating and hunting have been found to be the two main activities that disturb waterfowl (Korschgen et al. 1985). In Connecticut, selection of feeding sites by lesser scaup was influenced by disturbances from hunters, anglers, and pleasure boaters (Cronan 1957). In Germany, boating pressure on wintering waterfowl had reached such a high level that it was necessary to establish larger sanctuaries, implement a seasonal closure on water sports and angling, and impose a permanent ban on hunting (Bauer et al. 1992). Impacts of boating can occur even at low densities, given their noise, speed, and ability to cover extensive areas in a short amount of time. This is especially important in the RNA and McAllister Creek. These are both areas with high waterfowl use. The habitat along McAllister Creek is a relatively narrow tidal system that receives high use by a variety of waterfowl, waterbirds, wading birds, and raptors. In addition, an active bald eagle nest is located along McAllister Creek. The nesting period identified in the Bald Eagle Recovery Plan identifies January 1 as the beginning of the nesting season when special protective measures should begin (USFWS 1986). A great blue heron nesting colony, located along McAllister Creek since the 1970s, has been declining for several years. Nesting great blue herons are sensitive to a variety of human disturbances. Washington State requires a minimum 300-meter buffer zone to protect colonies from human disturbances (WDFW 2001). It is possible that hunting and associated boating activities may be one of the contributing factors affecting these nesting birds, as well as other wildlife using this narrow system.

Additional impacts from hunting activity include conflicts with individuals participating in wildlife-dependent priority public uses, such as canoers, kayakers, and other wildlife observers. The Refuge has received numerous comments from canoers and kayakers indicating concern for their safety while boating during the waterfowl hunting season.

Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Anticipated Impacts of Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: The following conditions must be met before allowing existing uses to occur on an interim basis on newly acquired lands: (1) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to human health or safety; (2) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to natural or cultural resources; (3) The use is consistent with management of existing Nisqually NWR lands and would contribute to achieving Refuge goals. In particular, existing Refuge regulations would not be compromised; (4) The newly acquired lands represent a meaningful unit within which to manage the activity; and (5) There are no anticipated conflicts with priority public uses.

Anticipated impacts associated with a new walk-in hunting program would be addressed in the updated Compatibility Determination to be developed in the future.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with the Draft CCP/EIS for Nisqually NWR, released in December 2002. Few comments were received on the Compatibility Determinations. Also see the Summary of Changes document and Appendix M (Comments and Responses). Minor changes were made to reflect RNA acreages accurately.

Determination:

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Refuge hunt programs will be designed to provide high quality experiences. A quality hunt experience means that: (1) hunters are safe; (2) hunters exhibit high standards of ethical behavior; (3) hunters are provided with uncrowded conditions; (4) hunters have reasonable harvest opportunities; (5) hunters are clear on which areas are open and closed to hunting; and (6) minimal conflicts occur between hunters and other visitors, especially those engaging in wildlife-dependent priority public uses. The 7-day per week hunt program proposed on the Refuge would include the following restrictions to reduce impacts: (1) a limited hunting area (area will be posted and enforced); (2) a 25-shell limit; (3) redefining and reducing the RNA by 73 acres to allow for hunting at the mouth of the Nisqually River, but adding 44 acres to the south end of the RNA; (4) a 200-yard buffer from trails; (5) sufficient feeding and resting habitat for waterfowl in areas closed to hunting (sanctuary); and (6) periodic biological and social monitoring and evaluation of hunting program, including feedback from users to determine if objectives are being met.

Sanctuary areas must provide high quality habitat for feeding, resting, and thermal protection. Since the waterfowl hunt in the delta is focused in estuarine habitat, it is important that sufficient estuarine habitat on the Refuge be set aside as sanctuary. The RNA (764 acres), a mixture of nearshore, intertidal, and salt marsh habitat, will be closed to all consumptive uses year-round and boating during the waterfowl hunting season (October 1 - March 31) to provide this sanctuary. Estuarine habitat within McAllister Creek will also be closed to hunting. The newly restored estuarine area (699 acres) will be closed to public access to ensure successful restoration and to allow undisturbed research and monitoring to evaluate wildlife and habitat response to restoration activities. This area thus will also serve as a sanctuary site. The majority of the

Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-5 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS remaining diked area (263 acres) will serve as sanctuary for waterfowl that prefer to move between the estuary and freshwater wetlands. Some of the freshwater units would include public access on trails and therefore would not function as complete sanctuary. Monitoring must demonstrate that sanctuary units are functional, including receiving significant daytime use by waterfowl throughout the hunting season.

Boating associated with hunting has high potential for adversely impacting wildlife in the estuary. Three factors that exert the most disturbance to wildlife due to boating are noise, speed, and significantly increased access to more parts of the estuary. Thus, boating regulations to ensure compatibility during the hunting season will include the following: (1) 5 mph speed limit for boats in all Refuge waters; (2) the RNA will be closed to boats from October 1 through March 31 to reduce disturbance to wintering waterfowl populations; and (3) the estuarine restoration area currently within the Brown Farm Dike will be closed to boats year round. No motorized or non-motorized boats will be allowed into this area and all public access will occur on trails only. Monitoring would be conducted to evaluate whether these stipulations are sufficient to minimize disturbance to wildlife.

Hunter compliance with current migratory bird and Refuge regulations would be achieved through a combination of printed information, signing, outreach efforts, and enforcement of regulations by Refuge officers.

Justification: Hunting is one of the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Providing a quality hunting program contributes to achieving one of the Refuge goals. This program as described was determined to be compatible, in view of the potential impacts that hunting and supporting activities (boating) can have on the Service’s ability to achieve Refuge purposes and goals. The Refuge would be opened to waterfowl hunting, with sufficient restrictions in place on hunting, boating, and other public uses to ensure that an adequate amount of high-quality feeding and resting habitat would be available in relatively undisturbed areas (sanctuaries) for the majority of waterfowl and other wetland birds using Nisqually NWR. Although boating has the greatest potential to impact wetland wildlife, implementing the prescribed measures listed in the Stipulations section and in the Recreational Boating Compatibility Determination should reduce major impacts to acceptable levels.

Refuge hunt programs are designed to provide high quality experiences. In general, hunting on Refuges should be superior to that available on other private or public lands, which may require special restrictions (Refuge Manual 8RM5). Measures are often used to ensure quality, including limited hunt days and shell limits and using buffers for public use trails eliminating the need for seasonal trail closures. The limited hunt program is proposed on the Refuge to accomplish the following: (1) accommodate the existing hunt program on WDFW lands; (2) establish consistent regulations across all lands and waters within the Nisqually delta; (3) provide a quality hunting experience that meets Refuge guidelines and policies; and (4) provide sufficient waterfowl sanctuary and resolve the current unauthorized hunting situation.

It is anticipated that an adequate amount of quality, non-hunted estuarine habitat would be available to the majority of waterfowl and other wetland birds because: (1) some high wildlife use areas will be set aside as sanctuary (764 acres in the RNA and 699 acres of restored estuarine area); (2) boating regulations would be maintained and enforced; and (3) hunting activity will be confined to

Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-6 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS designated areas because “no hunting zones” will be posted and enforced. Consolidation of the hunting area into a single block of land provides a distinct, manageable unit that can be more easily delineated, posted, and enforced, resulting in larger sections of estuary in the delta that are available for waterfowl use. Thus, it is anticipated that birds will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened, hunting pressure will not cause premature departure from the area, the physiological condition and production of waterfowl and other waterbirds will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall status will not be impaired. A program will be implemented to monitor waterfowl population numbers and habitat use.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only):

X Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation Date will be provided in the Final EIS/CCP (for priority public uses)

______Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

_____ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: ______(Signature) (Date) Refuge Manager/ Project Leader Approval: ______(Signature) (Date) Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: ______(Signature) (Date) Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System: ______(Signature) (Date)

Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-7 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS References

Anderson, S. H. 1995. Recreational disturbance and wildlife populations. Pages 157-168 in R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D. C. 372pp.

Bartelt, G. A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family groups in east central Wisconsin. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:517-522.

Bauer, H. G., H. Stark, and P. Frenzel. 1992. Disturbance factors and their effects on water birds wintering in the western parts of Lake Constance. Der Ornithologische Beobachter 89:81-91.

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

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

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

Fox, A. D. and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge design. J. Appl. Ecol. 34:1-13.

Havera, S. P., L. R. Boens, M. M. Georgi, and R. T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20:290-298.

Heitmeyer, M. E. and D. G. Raveling. 1988. Winter resource use by three species of dabbling ducks in California. Dept. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, Univ. of Calif., Davis. Final Report to Delta Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Center, Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, Canada. 200pp.

Jahn, L. R. and R. A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Conserv. Dep. Tech. Bull. No. 33. 212pp.

Knight, R. L. and D. N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. in Wildlife and Recreationists (R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds.) Island Press, Covelo, California.

Korschgen, C. E., L. S. George, and W. L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a migrational staging area. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:290-296.

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, Denmark. Biol. Conserv. 33 :53-63.

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

Morton, J. M., A. C. Fowler, and R. L. Kirkpatrick. 1989a. Time and energy budgets of American black ducks in winter. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(2):401-410 .

Morton, J. M., R. L. Kirkpatrick, M. R. Vaughan, and D. F. Stauffer. 1989b. Habitat use and movements of American black ducks in winter. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:390-400.

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

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

Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-8 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Raveling, D. G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference to control of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252.

Thomas, V. G. 1983. Spring migration: the prelude to goose reproduction and a review of its implication. In Fourth Western Hemispheric Waterfowl and Waterbird Symposium, ed., H. Boyd. 73-81. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service.

Tjarnlund, U., G. Ericson, E. Lindesjoo, I. Petterson, and L. Balk. 1993. Investigation of the biological effects of 2- cycle outboard engines' exhaust on fish. Institute of Applied Research, University of Stockholm.

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

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, California. M. S. Thesis, Humboldt State Univ., Arcata. 62pp.

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

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

USFWS. 2002. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2001. Priority species and habitats list. Available at: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phsvert.htm#birds.

Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-9 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix G.3: Hunting CD Page G.3-10 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION (August 2004)

Use: Environmental Education

Refuge Name: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, located in Thurston and Pierce counties, Washington.

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established on January 22, 1974 with approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Approximately 2,925 acres of the approved 3,936 acres have been acquired. Legal authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f - 715r); and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a - 742j).

Refuge Purposes: Nisqually NWR purposes include:

...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds (16 U.S.C.-715d).

...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources ...(16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4).

... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]).

Description of Use: Currently, the environmental education program at Nisqually NWR serves 5,000 students a year. The environmental education program is designed to provide effective resources, tools, and training which facilitates the teaching of accurate scientific and environmental information about the Nisqually River watershed, Delta, and surrounding areas. The environmental education program works with students and educators to foster an understanding of and appreciation for resource management, the human impacts on wildlife habitats, and to encourage active participation in resource protection.

With a full-time environmental education staff, up to 15,000 students a year will participate in the Refuge environmental education program. Educators will attend a teacher orientation and will design, schedule, and run their own field trips on the Refuge. Refuge staff will provide teacher training, site-specific curricula, materials, and activities, and field trip assistance to enhance learning in an outdoor setting. The temporary Education Center, or new education facility, will be the focus area of the education program. Environmental education study sites in the area of the Twin Barns Loop Trail will provide areas for more in-depth study. Students and

Appendix G.4: Environmental Education CD Page G.4-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS teachers will participate in restoration and monitoring activities through one-time activities or more long-term monitoring studies.

Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: Chapters 2 and 3 of the Final CCP/EIS for Nisqually NWR identify areas in which the Service would seek to acquire land from willing sellers outside of the current Refuge boundary (USFWS 2002). The Refuge would acquire from or develop a cooperative management agreement with WDFW to cooperatively manage the Luhr Beach area and Nisqually Reach Nature Center. Because of similar objectives, the education program at the Nisqually Reach Nature Center would be incorporated into the Refuge environmental education program through a cooperative agreement, providing an even stronger program for educating the public on the marine resources of the Nisqually Delta.

As property is acquired south of I-5 and on the East Bluff, each parcel will be reviewed to determine whether it may be incorporated into the existing Refuge environmental education program. The Refuge environmental education program will continue to focus within the Environmental Education Center and Twin Barns Loop Trail areas. However, future environmental education opportunities on newly acquired lands will include student and teacher participation in habitat restoration and monitoring activities that would be incorporated into the overall program. This compatibility determination will be re-evaluated if new activities in the expansion area are anticipated to significantly change the level of use.

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer and manage environmental education activities as described above:

One-Time Recurring Cost Cost Construct and Outfit Education Center 1,300K Establish Study Sites 45K Maintenance and operation of Education Center, Maintenance of study sites 35K Staffing (teacher training, student support, curriculum development, administration) 150K Equipment, materials, and supplies 100K 15K

TOTAL $1,445K $200K

Funds are anticipated to be available through the Service budget process for construction of a new education center, establishment of study sites, and potentially some operational costs. Additional funding for staffing and operational costs would be needed. Other sources will be sought through strengthened partnerships, grants, and additional Refuge operations funding to support a safe, quality environmental education program as described above.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: The environmental education program would use existing public facilities including parking areas, the Visitor Center, trails, observation platforms and overlooks, and the temporary Education Center. Direct impact to wildlife would occur, as with any group along the trail, if birds (mostly songbirds and waterfowl) near the trail are disturbed. This disturbance is considered to be of minimal impact because: (1) the total number of students permitted through the reservation system is limited to 100 per day; (2) students and teachers will

Appendix G.4: Environmental Education CD Page G.4-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS be instructed in trail etiquette and the best ways to view wildlife with minimal disturbance; (3) education groups will be required to have a sufficient number of adults to supervise the group; (4) trail design will provide adequate cover for wildlife; and (5) observation areas and scopes are provided to view wildlife at a distance which reduces disturbance.

Establishment of environmental education study sites would create some off-trail disturbance of habitat. Again, this disturbance is considered minimal as study sites will be placed in areas already impacted by trail users and Refuge staff, and all off-trail activity will be focused in these small areas. Educators will be instructed on use of the study areas during teacher orientation workshops. Collection of samples for study (i.e., mud, water, plants) will be restricted to study areas, and samples must be used on site. Collection will be of materials needed to enhance hands-on learning and investigation and will be designed as part of structured activities and lessons, guided by teachers, and monitored by Refuge staff. These activities are an integral part of the education program design and philosophy and their impacts are considered minimal.

Education staff will coordinate with Biology staff regarding activities associated with restoration or monitoring projects to ensure that impacts to both wildlife and habitat are minimal. As with any restoration and monitoring activities conducted by Refuge personnel, these activities conducted by students would be at a time and place where the least amount of disturbance would occur.

Anticipated Impacts of Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: Similar to the management of uses on existing lands, the following conditions must be met before allowing existing uses to occur on an interim basis on newly acquired lands: (1) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to human health or safety; (2) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to natural or cultural resources; (3) The use is consistent with management of existing Nisqually NWR lands and would contribute to achieving Refuge goals. In particular, existing Refuge regulations would not be compromised; (4) The newly acquired lands represent a meaningful unit within which to manage the activity; and (5) There are no anticipated conflicts with priority public uses.

Future environmental education opportunities in the expansion area associated with habitat restoration and monitoring will have similar impacts as described above.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with the Draft CCP/EIS for Nisqually NWR, released in December 2002. Few comments were received on the Compatibility Determinations. Also see the Summary of Changes document and Appendix M (Comments and Responses). No changes were necessary based on comments received.

Determination:

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Participants in the Refuge’s environmental education program will be restricted to established trails, study sites, and other facilities including buildings, boardwalks, photo blinds, observation decks, and platforms. Existing and

Appendix G.4: Environmental Education CD Page G.4-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS new trails and facilities would be designed, constructed, and operated to provide adequate sanctuary for wildlife populations.

All groups using the Refuge for environmental education will be required to make reservations in advance through the Refuge office. A daily limit of 100 students participating in the education program will be maintained through this reservation system. Efforts will be made to spread out use by large groups while reservations are made, reducing disturbance to wildlife and over-crowding of Refuge facilities during times of peak demand.

Environmental education study sites will be located where minimal impact to Refuge resources will occur. Boardwalks, railings, or platforms will be used as appropriate to minimize disturbance by eliminating repeated foot traffic directly in the habitat. Periodic monitoring and evaluation of sites and programs will be conducted to assess if objectives are being met and the resource is not being degraded.

Trail etiquette and ways to reduce wildlife disturbance will be discussed with teachers during orientation workshops and with students upon arrival during their welcome session. Observation platforms and scopes will be provided to view wildlife at a distance, which will reduce disturbance.

Students participating in restoration and monitoring activities will work as described in the program and as permitted in their reservation form. Students will be trained by Refuge staff before they start restoration and monitoring projects to ensure their safety while out in the field and to minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance. Periodic monitoring and evaluation of activities will be conducted to assess if objectives are being met.

Justification: Environmental education is a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Providing a quality environmental education program is a Refuge goal. To achieve this goal, the Refuge environmental education program would provide a diversity of environmental education opportunities to students and teachers. These include: (1) facilities, materials, and training; (2) access to a variety of Refuge habitats; and (3) the ability to observe wildlife and conduct hands-on exploration. The program is intended to foster a better understanding of Refuge ecosystems and wildlife resources, and in turn build a public that is more knowledgeable about and involved in natural resource stewardship. Although there is some impact to Refuge lands and wildlife in having an environmental education program, efforts will be made to ensure that they are minimal. The benefits of an environmental education program to resource management well into the future far outweigh the short-term impacts described above.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only):

X Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation Date, will be provided in Final EIS/CCP (for priority public uses)

Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

Appendix G.4: Environmental Education CD Page G.4-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

_____ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: ______(Signature) (Date) Refuge Manager/ Project Leader Approval: ______(Signature) (Date) Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: ______(Signature) (Date) Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System: ______(Signature) (Date)

Appendix G.4: Environmental Education CD Page G.4-5 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS References

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.

Appendix G.4: Environmental Education CD Page G.4-6 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION (August 2004)

Use: Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation

Refuge Name: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, located in Thurston and Pierce counties, Washington.

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established on January 22, 1974 with approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Approximately 2,925 acres of the approved 3,936 acres have been acquired. Legal authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f - 715r); and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a - 742j).

Refuge Purposes: Nisqually NWR purposes include:

...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds (16 U.S.C.-715d).

...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources ...(16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4).

... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]).

Description of Use: Wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation are considered together in this Compatibility Determination because all are considered to be wildlife-dependent, non-consumptive uses and many elements of these programs are similar. Currently, over 95,500 visitors per year participate in these Refuge programs. The Refuge will continue to provide public facilities, including a Visitor Center with interpretive displays, focusing on Refuge habitats and wildlife. Interpretive panels will also be located along Refuge trails. Interpretation would focus on Refuge habitats, estuarine restoration, improved management, and fish and wildlife. All three of these public uses are dependent upon the Refuge trail system. Below is a description of Refuge trails: 1. An existing accessible 1-mile loop boardwalk trail will be maintained. This self-guided trail surrounds permanent and seasonal wetlands and riparian habitat and has 5 wildlife observation overlooks, a viewing platform, interpretive panels, and permanently mounted scopes and binoculars. 2. There would be a 1½-mile trail on a new exterior dike and boardwalk extension that would be linked with the existing Twin Barns Loop Trail, providing a 3½-mile round-trip walk. This trail would take visitors out past freshwater wetland and riparian restoration

Appendix G.5: Interpretation CD Page G.5-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS areas into the native estuarine and restoration area with a view of Puget Sound. 3. An unimproved, primitive ½-mile trail would be established in the Nisqually River surge plain forest, providing access farther into one of Washington’s diminishing habitats than the current trail. 4. A new loop trail (2.5-mile) would be developed on tribal and Refuge lands east of the Nisqually River (Eastside). This trail will lead visitors through pastures, freshwater wetland or riparian restoration areas, and existing and restored estuarine areas. Seasonal closures during the waterfowl hunting season would be required because of activities from a private hunt club. A new visitor contact station and parking area would be constructed to support this trail. 5. Another new trail would include a trail on the East Bluff in an upland coniferous dominated forest. This trail would be elevated and could provide some viewpoints to overlook the delta. Development of this trail would occur after acquisition of the East Bluff parcel has been completed.

Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: Chapters 2 and 3 of the Final CCP/EIS for Nisqually NWR identify areas in which the Service would seek to acquire land from willing sellers outside of the current Refuge boundary (USFWS 2002). Current levels of wildlife- dependent public use are minimal. The Nisqually Reach Nature Center provides the only public access for wildlife observation, interpretation, and photography. However, this facility does not include a trail system. The Refuge would acquire from or develop a cooperative management agreement with WDFW to cooperatively manage the Luhr Beach Boat Ramp and Nisqually Reach Nature Center to improve the interpretation of Refuge resources from this access point. As property is acquired south of I-5 and on the East Bluff, each parcel will be reviewed to determine whether public access trails or viewing areas could be established. Criteria that will be used for determining the development of new trails include the availability of wildlife sanctuary in the immediate area.

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer and manage wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation activities as described above:

One-Time Recurring Cost Cost Maintenance and operation of Visitor Center, including staff, support materials (brochures), and special events 350K Construct east side visitor facilities 120K 15K Construct east side trail with interpretive panels 125K Maintenance of new Visitor Contact Station(s), parking area (s), and trails 75K Law enforcement 45K Signs/Interpretive panels 15K Administration ______30K

TOTAL $245K $530K

Appendix G.5: Interpretation CD Page G.5-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Additional funds would be required to construct, operate, and maintain visitor facilities and interpretive materials. Law enforcement staffing would also be needed. Funding would be sought through the Service budget process. Other sources will be sought through strengthened partnerships, grants, and additional Refuge operations funding to support a safe, quality public use program as described above.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Wildlife Observation and Interpretation: The construction and maintenance of trails and boardwalks will impact soils, vegetation, and in some instances hydrology around the trails. This could include an increased potential for erosion, soil compaction (Liddle 1975), reduced seed emergence (Cole and Landres 1995), alteration of vegetative structure and composition, and sediment loading (Cole and Marion 1988).

Human activities on trails can result in direct effects on wildlife through harassment, a form of disturbance that can cause physiological effects, behavioral modifications, or death (Smith and Hunt 1995). Birds can be impacted from human activities on trails when they are disturbed and flushed from feeding, resting, or nesting areas. Flushing, especially repetitive flushing, can strongly impact habitat use patterns of many birds species. Flushing from an area can cause birds to expend more energy, be deterred from using desirable habitat, affect resting or feeding patterns, increase exposure to predation or cause birds to abandon sites with repeated disturbance (Smith and Hunt 1995). For example, flocks of geese and ducks are repeatedly flushed by pedestrians on dike trails leading to McAllister Creek during fall and winter months. Migratory birds are observed to be more sensitive than resident species to disturbance (Klein 1989). Herons and shorebirds were observed to be the most easily disturbed (when compared to gulls, terns and ducks) by human activity and flush to distant areas away from people (Burger 1981). A reduced number of shorebirds were found near people who were walking or jogging, and about 50% of flushed birds flew elsewhere (Burger 1981). In addition, the foraging time of sanderlings decreased and avoidance (e.g., running, flushing) increased as the number of humans within 100 meters increased at a coastal bay refuge on the Atlantic (Burger and Gochfeld 1991). Nest predation for songbirds (Miller et al. 1998), raptors (Glinski 1976), colonial nesting species (Buckley and Buckley 1978), and waterfowl (Boyle and Samson 1985) tends to increase in areas more frequently visited by people. In addition, for many passerine species, primary song occurrence and consistency can be impacted by a single visitor (Gutzwiller et al. 1994). This could potentially limit the number of breeding pairs of certain passerine species, thus limiting production within refuge riparian habitats (Reijnen and Foppen 1994).

Wildlife Photography: Of the wildlife observation techniques, wildlife photographers tend to have the largest disturbance impacts (Klein 1993, Morton 1995, Dobb 1998). While wildlife observers frequently stop to view species, wildlife photographers are more likely to approach wildlife (Klein 1993). Even slow approach by wildlife photographers tends to have behavioral consequences to wildlife species (Klein 1993). Other impacts include the potential for photographers to remain close to wildlife for extended periods of time, in an attempt to habituate the wildlife subject to their presence (Dobb 1998) and the tendency of casual photographers, with low-power lenses, to get much closer to their subjects than other activities would require (Morton 1995), including wandering off trails. This usually results in increased disturbance to wildlife and habitat, including trampling of plants.

Appendix G.5: Interpretation CD Page G.5-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Anticipated Impacts of Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: The following conditions must be met before allowing existing uses to occur on an interim basis on newly acquired lands: (1) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to human health or safety; (2) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to natural or cultural resources; (3) The use is consistent with management of existing Nisqually NWR lands and would contribute to achieving Refuge goals. In particular, existing Refuge regulations would not be compromised; (4) The newly acquired lands represent a meaningful unit within which to manage the activity; and (5) There are no anticipated conflicts with priority public uses.

Future wildlife observation, interpretation, and photography opportunities in the expansion area will have similar impacts would as described above.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with the Draft CCP/EIS for Nisqually NWR, released in December 2002. Few comments were received on the Compatibility Determinations. Also see the Summary of Changes document and Appendix M (Comments and Responses). No changes were necessary based on comments received.

Determination:

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Adequate areas would be designated as wildlife sanctuary with no public use activities to provide high quality habitat for feeding, resting, and thermal protection. Trails will be designed to provide adequate sanctuary areas with minimal fragmentation of habitats. For example, the RNA (764 acres) provides sanctuary because no trails would be developed in this area and seasonal closures and a prohibition on consumptive uses will be enforced. In addition, the restored estuarine area (699 acres) will be closed to all public uses, except for monitoring and research studies. There would be no loop trail in the restored estuarine area because activity in the middle of the restored estuary would be disturbing to wildlife species that use that habitat. In addition, only a short section of boardwalk would remain near McAllister Creek, eliminating much of the current trail activity within this narrow and sensitive area. There would also be no cross trails that would lead visitors into the interior of freshwater habitats to minimize disturbance and maximize bird use in these smaller areas. Where feasible, native trees and shrubs will be planted to create screening along trails to reduce disturbance. These measures will also enhance viewing opportunities and provide quality wildlife observation experiences.

All of the above described uses will be restricted to designated trails and public facilities. Elevated boardwalks with the pin foundation system (no pilings in the ground) will be used in sensitive habitats to reduce effects on soils, vegetation, and hydrology. Observation areas and scopes will be provided to allow visitors to view wildlife at a distance with less or with minimal disturbance. The design of new trails will follow the criteria described above. Any proposed trail developments will only occur after adequate wildlife sanctuary areas have been identified. Visitors will not be allowed into off-trail sanctuary areas unless given permission through the

Appendix G.5: Interpretation CD Page G.5-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Refuge’s Special Use Permitting system for special circumstances. Refuge staff will enforce Refuge regulations prohibiting unauthorized off-trail activities.

Public use on the Refuge will be restricted to daylight hours only. The capacity of the Refuge will be limited to the 100-car capacity parking lot. When the lot is full, the Refuge trails and facilities will be considered to be full. Regulations and wildlife friendly behavior will be described in brochures and posted at the Visitor Center and Visitor Contact Station(s).

Monitoring protocol would be developed to examine impacts associated with differing levels and types of public use. Monitoring data will be critically analyzed and used by the Refuge Manager to develop future modifications if necessary to ensure compatibility of the wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation programs.

Justification: These wildlife-dependent uses are priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Providing opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, and environmental interpretation would contribute toward fulfilling provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended in 1997, and one of the goals of Nisqually NWR. Wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation would provide an excellent forum for allowing public access and increasing understanding of Refuge resources. The educational possibilities provided by these opportunities would outweigh anticipated impacts associated with implementation of the program. The stipulations outlined above should minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only):

X Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EIS/CCP (for priority public uses)

______Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

_____ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Appendix G.5: Interpretation CD Page G.5-5 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Refuge Determination

Prepared by: ______(Signature) (Date) Refuge Manager/ Project Leader Approval: ______(Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: ______(Signature) (Date) Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System: ______(Signature) (Date)

Appendix G.5: Interpretation CD Page G.5-6 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS References

Boyle, S. A. and F. B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:110-116.

Buckley, P. A. and F. G. Buckley. 1976. Guidelines for protection and management of colonially nesting waterbirds. North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston, MA. 52pp.

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

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human distance and birds: tolerance and response distances of resident and migrant species in India. Environ. Conserv. 18:158-165.

Cole, D. N. and P. B. Landres. 1995. Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. Pages 183-201 in R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence through management and research Island Press, Washington, D. C. 372pp.

Cole, D. N. and J. L. Marion. 1988. Recreation impacts in some riparian forests of the eastern United States. Env. Manage. 12:99-107.

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: the debate behind the lens. Audubon: Jan.-Feb.

Glinski, R. L. 1976. Birdwatching etiquette: the need for a developing philosophy. Am. Bird 30(3):655-657.

Gutzwiller, K. J., R. T. Wiedenmann, K. L. Clements, and S. H. Anderson. 1994. Effects on human intrusion on song occurrence and singing consistency in subalpine birds. Auk 111:28-37.

Klein, M. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J. N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Sanibel Florida. Masters thesis. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida.

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

Liddle, M. J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects on human trampling on natural ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 7:17-36.

Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecol. Appl. 8:162-169.

Morton, J. M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59-F86 in W. R. Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whittemore, P. Kehoe, and L. Roberts (eds.). Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement and management in the Atlantic Flyway. Third Ed. Environmental Manage. Comm., Atlantic Flyway Council Techn. Sect., and Delaware Div. Fish and Wildl., Dover, DE. 1114pp.

Reijnen, R. and R. Foppen. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. I. Evidence of reduced habitat quality for willow warbler (Pylloscopus trochilus) breeding close to a highway. J. Appl. Ecol 31: 85-94.

Smith, L. and J. D. Hunt. 1995. Nature tourism: impacts and management. Pp. 203-219 in Knight, R. L.; Gutzwiller, K. J. (Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research, eds.). Island Press, Washington, D. C.

USFWS. 2002. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.

Appendix G.5: Interpretation CD Page G.5-7 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix G.5: Interpretation CD Page G.5-8 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION (August 2004)

Use: Research

Refuge Name: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, located in Thurston and Pierce counties, Washington.

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established on January 22, 1974 with approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Approximately 2,925 acres of the approved 3,936 acres have been acquired. Legal authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f - 715r); and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a - 742j).

Refuge Purposes: Nisqually NWR purposes include:

...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds (16 U.S.C.-715d).

...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources ...(16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4).

... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]).

Description of Use: Nisqually NWR receives 1-4 requests per year to conduct scientific research on the Refuge. Priority would be given to studies that contribute to the enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of native Refuge plant and wildlife populations and their habitats. Research applicants must submit a proposal that would outline: (1) objectives of the study; (2) justification for the study; (3) detailed methodology and schedule; (4) potential impacts on Refuge wildlife or habitat, including disturbance (short and long term), injury, or mortality. This includes a description of measures the researcher will take to reduce disturbance or impacts; (5) personnel required; (6) costs to Refuge, if any; and (7) progress reports and end products (i.e., reports, publications). Research proposals would be reviewed by Refuge staff and others, as appropriate, and Special Use Permits will be issued if approved.

Evaluation criteria will include, but not be limited to, the following: 1) Research that will contribute to specific Refuge management issues will be given higher priority over other requests.

Appendix G.6: Research CD Page G.6-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS 2) Research that will conflict with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management programs will not be granted.

3) Research projects that can be done off-Refuge are less likely to be approved.

4) Research which causes undue disturbance or is intrusive will likely not be granted. Level and type of disturbance will be carefully weighed when evaluating a request.

5) Research evaluation will determine if any effort has been made to minimize disturbance through study design, including considering adjusting location, timing, scope, number of permittees, study methods, number of study sites, etc.

6) If staffing or logistics make it impossible for the Refuge to monitor researcher activity in a sensitive area, this may be reason to deny the request, depending on the specific circumstances.

7) The length of the project will be considered and agreed upon before approval. Projects will be reviewed annually.

Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: Chapters 2 and 3 of the Final CCP/EIS for the Nisqually NWR identify areas in which the Service would seek to acquire land from willing sellers outside of the current Refuge boundary (USFWS 2002). If property is acquired that includes areas of research interest, the same Special Use Permit process and evaluation criteria as described above will be followed.

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer and manage research activities as described above: Recurring Costs Administration 12K (Evaluation of applications, management of permits, and oversight of research projects) ______

TOTAL $12K

Refuge operational funds are currently available through the Service budget process to administer this program.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Some level of disturbance is expected with all research activities since most researchers will be entering areas that are normally closed to the public, including going off designated trails, and may be collecting samples or handling wildlife. However, minimal impact to Refuge wildlife and habitats will be expected with research studies because Special Use Permit conditions will include conditions to ensure that impact to wildlife and habitats are kept to a minimum (see discussion above).

Appendix G.6: Research CD Page G.6-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Anticipated Impacts of Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: The following conditions must be met before allowing existing uses to occur on an interim basis on newly acquired lands: (1) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to human health or safety; (2) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to natural or cultural resources; (3) The use is consistent with management of existing Nisqually NWR lands and would contribute to achieving Refuge goals. In particular, existing Refuge regulations would not be compromised; (4) The newly acquired lands represent a meaningful unit within which to manage the activity; and (5) There are no anticipated conflicts with priority public uses.

If researchers are granted Special Use Permits to conduct research in the expansion area, anticipated impacts would be similar to that described above.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with the Draft CCP/EIS for Nisqually NWR, released in December 2002. Few comments were received on the Compatibility Determinations. Also see the Summary of Changes document and Appendix M (Comments and Responses). No changes were necessary based on comments received.

Determination:

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: Extremely sensitive wildlife habitat areas will be provided sufficient protection from disturbance by limiting proposed research activities in these areas. All Refuge rules and regulations must be followed unless otherwise excepted by Refuge management.

The criteria for evaluating a research proposal, outlined in the Description of Use section above, will be used when determining whether a proposed study will be approved on the Refuge. If proposed research methods are evaluated and determined to have potential impact on Refuge resources (habitat or wildlife), it must be demonstrated that the research is necessary for Refuge resource conservation management. Measures to minimize potential impacts would need to be developed and included as part of the study design. In addition, these measures will be listed as conditions on the Special Use Permit.

Refuge staff will monitor researcher activities for compliance with conditions on the Special Use Permit. At any time, Refuge staff may accompany the researchers to determine potential impacts. Staff may determine that previously approved research and special use permits be terminated due to observed impacts. The Refuge Manager will also have the ability to cancel a Special Use Permit if the researcher is out of compliance or to ensure wildlife or habitat protection.

Justification: This program as described is determined to be compatible. Potential impacts of research activities on Refuge resources will be minimized because sufficient restrictions would be included as part of the study design and researcher activities will be monitored by Refuge staff. Research projects will contribute to the enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of native Refuge wildlife populations and their habitats.

Appendix G.6: Research CD Page G.6-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only):

______Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation (for priority public uses)

X Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EIS/CCP (for all uses other than priority public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

_____ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: ______(Signature) (Date) Refuge Manager/ Project Leader Approval: ______(Signature) (Date) Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: ______(Signature) (Date) Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System: ______(Signature) (Date)

Appendix G.6: Research CD Page G.6-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS References

USFWS. 2002. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.

Appendix G.6: Research CD Page G.6-5 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix G.6: Research CD Page G.6-6 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION (August 2004)

Use: Agriculture - Haying

Refuge Name: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, located in Thurston and Pierce counties, Washington.

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established on January 22, 1974 with approval by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Approximately 2,925 acres of the approved 3,936 acres have been acquired. Legal authorities used for establishment of the Refuge include: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f - 715r); and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a - 742j).

Refuge Purposes: Nisqually NWR purposes include:

...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds (16 U.S.C.-715d).

...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources ...(16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4).

... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.]).

Description of Use: The existing haying program is conducted to provide browse for wintering waterfowl, particularly American wigeon and Canada geese. Approximately 250 acres of Refuge grasslands are hayed annually by a local farmer under a Special Use Permit. Haying operations are not allowed to begin until after July 1 so that most ground nesting birds can finish nesting. No pesticides or herbicides are associated with this use. Fertilizers may be added annually to some hay fields to provide nutrients for better grass production. A Cooperative Land Management Agreement will be developed and the cooperator will be required to provide service or materials to the Refuge that will enhance the habitat in exchange for the hay removed.

As a result of estuarine restoration and freshwater enhancement activities, the haying program will be greatly reduced as the proportion of freshwater wetlands within the diked area increases. By the completion of major restoration activities (2005), less than 100 acres of grasslands will be managed by the Service. These grasslands will be interspersed among permanent and seasonal freshwater wetlands. Once restoration is completed, haying on this reduced acreage may not be cost-effective for a cooperator. If there is a willing cooperator, the haying program will continue through a Cooperative Land Management Agreement, as described above. However, if no

Appendix G.7: Haying CD Page G.7-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS cooperators are interested, the management of the remaining grasslands will become part of routine Refuge habitat management activities.

Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: Chapters 2 and 3 of the Final CCP/EIS for the Nisqually NWR identify areas in which the Service would seek to acquire land from willing sellers outside of the current Refuge boundary (USFWS 2002). If property is acquired that include agricultural and grassland areas, each parcel will be reviewed to determine whether a haying program will be established. If established, the program will operate in the same manner as described above.

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs would be required to administer and manage haying activities, as described above: Recurring Costs Administration 5K

TOTAL $5K

Refuge operational funds are currently available through the Service budget process to administer this program.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Anticipated impacts include: (1) short-term disturbance to wildlife caused by presence and activities of equipment and vehicles in fields; (2) detrimental effects of mowing on late ground-nesting birds (after July 1); (3) disturbance to soils or plants associated with mowing and fertilizing; (4) adverse impacts to species associated with dense native grasses, sedges, and rushes; (5) decline in natural biological diversity; and (6) potential introduction of invasive plant species from cooperator equipment. While some conflicts with natural biological diversity principles are evident, management of grasslands benefit wintering waterfowl and would occur in limited areas only. The resulting browse, when flooded in the fall and winter months, created by haying and mowing activities provides important food for wintering waterfowl that is not readily available in other areas during this time. The small acreage of grasslands will be managed as part of a mosaic of permanent and seasonal wetlands, grasslands, and shrub/scrub habitats to provide a diversity of habitats for a variety of migratory birds.

Anticipated Impacts of Uses within the Proposed Expansion Area: The following conditions must be met before allowing existing uses to occur on an interim basis on newly acquired lands: (1) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to human health or safety; (2) There is no indirect, direct, or cumulative threat anticipated to natural or cultural resources; (3) The use is consistent with management of existing Nisqually NWR lands and would contribute to achieving Refuge goals. In particular, existing Refuge regulations would not be compromised; (4) The newly acquired lands represent a meaningful unit within which to manage the activity; and (5) There are no anticipated conflicts with priority public uses.

If a haying program is implemented in the expansion area, anticipated impacts would be similar to that described above.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments were solicited in conjunction with the Draft CCP/EIS for Nisqually NWR, released in December 2002. Few comments were

Appendix G.7: Haying CD Page G.7-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS received on the Compatibility Determinations. Also see the Summary of Changes document and Appendix M (Comments and Responses). No changes were necessary based on comments received.

Determination:

Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility: A Special Use Permit (SUP) will be issued to all cooperators associated with haying activities. All haying activities will be restricted to designated areas, limiting activity to these annually disturbed sites. Haying activities will start after July 1 each year, so that the majority of the ground-nesting birds have the opportunity to complete nesting, and be completed by November 1 to provide undisturbed winter and spring habitat for migratory waterfowl. Habitat needs in these areas will be reviewed annually to determine whether haying continues to be the appropriate management strategy for each site. Refuge staff will monitor activities of permittee or cooperator to ensure that special conditions required under the SUP or Cooperative Land Management Agreement are met.

Justification: Haying will provide feeding areas for migratory birds, primarily wintering waterfowl, a primary purpose for the establishment of this Refuge. Managing limited grassland areas as designated haying sites with a permittee or cooperator allows the Refuge to achieve specific habitat management objectives for these sites with minimal Service resources. These grasslands would be managed as part of a complex of freshwater wetlands and riparian areas, providing a more diverse mix of habitats for various migratory bird species. In addition, a haying program will complement Refuge reed canary grass control efforts at minimal cost to the Refuge.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only):

______Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation (for priority public uses)

X Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EIS/CCP (for all uses other than priority public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

_____ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Appendix G.7: Haying CD Page G.7-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Refuge Determination

Prepared by: ______(Signature) (Date) Refuge Manager/ Project Leader Approval: ______(Signature) (Date) Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: ______(Signature) (Date) Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System: ______(Signature) (Date)

Appendix G.7: Haying CD Page G.7-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS References

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.

Appendix G.7: Haying CD Page G.7-5 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix G.7: Haying CD Page G.7-6 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Appendix H: List of Preparers

United States Fish and Wildlife Service: Years of Name Position Degree(s) Exp. Mike Marxen Region 1 - Planning Team BLA, Landscape Architecture 22 Leader Jean Takekawa Refuge Manager BS, Biology 24 Doug Roster Deputy Refuge Manager BS, Wildlife Biology 16 Nanette Seto Refuge Wildlife Biologist MS, Wildlife Biology 10 BS, Zoology Sheila McCartan Outdoor Recreation Planner BS, Environmental Education 15 Danielle D’Auria Refuge Operations Specialist MS, Wildlife Science 5 BS, Biology Marian Bailey Refuge Wildlife Biologist MS, Biology 12 BS, Wildlife Biology Curtis Tanner Estuarine Habitat Restoration MMA, Marine Affairs 11 BS, Aquatic Science Carrie Cook-Taber Fish Biologist MS, Fisheries 12 BS, Fisheries David Bassler Land Protection Planner BS, Forest Management 22 Cathy Osugi Land Protection Planner BA, Wildlife Conservation 31 Virginia Parks Region 1 - Archeologist MAT, Museum Education 12 Cultural Resources BA, Archaeology David Drescher Region 1 - GIS and Mapping BS, Geography 15 Bill Hesselbart Retired Refuge Manager MS, Wildlife Management 34 BS, Biology Jane Bardolf Assistant Planner MS, Natural Resources 16 BS, Environmental Conserv. Wendy Castineira Realty Specialist BA, Geography 10

Appendix H: List of Preparers Page H-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Consultants Years Consultants Position/Contributions Degree(s) of Exp. Consultants: Ducks Unlimited Ruth Spell Remote Sensing Analyst Graduate work, Geography 11 MAT, Education BA, History Anne Van Sweringen Planning Biologist BS, Wildlife Biology 20 Steve Liske Professional Engineer BS, Civil Engineering 15 Consultants: EDAW, Inc. David Blau Principal-in-Charge/ MLA, City Planning 27 Advisor BS, Landscape Architecture Kevin Butterbaugh Project Manager/Principal MLA, Landscape Architecture 13 Planner & Document BS, Agricultural and Resource Coordination; Economics Colleen McShane Terrestrial Biologist/ MBA, Project Management 21 Monitoring Program & MS, Plant Ecology Wildlife Section Review BS, Biology Jennifer Seavey Effects to Wildlife Resources MS, Wildlife Sciences 11 BS, Biology Mike Usen Land Use, Socioeconomics, MUP, Urban and Regional Environmental Justice Planning BA, Environmental Studies

Peter Carr Editor BS, Journalism 11 Liza MacKinnon Word Processor/Graphics BA, Geography 12 Mary Heim GIS and Mapping BS, Landscape Architecture 12 Rob Harris GIS and Mapping MLA, University of 3 Washington BA with honors, Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations Christopher Stoll GIS and Mapping MA, Urban and Regional 5 Planning BA, English (Certificate of Environmental Studies)

Appendix H: List of Preparers Page H-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Years Consultants Position/Contributions Degree(s) of Exp.

Consultants: ENSR Tarang Khangaonkar Program Manager/ PhD, Marine Physics & Eng. 15 Hydrodynamic and Sediment MS, Ocean Engineering Transport Model Development BS, Naval Architecture Steve Breithaupt Sr. Water Resources Engineer/ PhD, Water Resources Eng. 17 Hydrodynamic and Sediment MS, Environmental Science Transport Model Development BS, Aquatic Biology Andy Engilis Senior Regional Biologist BS, Avian Science 15

Appendix H: List of Preparers Page H-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS This page intentionally left blank

Appendix H: List of Preparers Page H-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Overview

The following goals for Nisqually NWR provide guiding statements for Refuge development and management efforts. Refuge goals apply to all alternatives in the Final CCP/EIS.

The proposed Nisqually NWR goals are broad statements of desired future condition. They represent a step down from the Refuge vision statement, from National Wildlife Refuge System goals, and from broader regional and national programs.

Nisqually NWR Goals:

I. Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance native habitats and associated plant and wildlife species representative of the Puget Sound lowlands, with a special emphasis on migratory birds and salmonids.

II. Support recovery and protection efforts for Federal and State threatened and endangered species, species of concern, and their habitats of the Nisqually River delta and watershed.

III. Provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on the fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Nisqually River delta and watershed.

IV. Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and outreach opportunities to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources of the Nisqually River delta and watershed.

In contrast, Refuge objectives are concise statements of what will be achieved to meet a particular goal. When possible, Refuge objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, results-oriented, and should be time-fixed within the 15-year life span of the CCP.

Refuge strategies describe specific actions, tools, and techniques that can be used to meet objectives. In some cases, strategies describe specific projects in enough detail to assess funding and staffing needs. In other cases, further site-specific detail is required to implement a strategy; this usually takes the form of a step-down management plan, restoration plan, or site plan.

The fully written objective statement and associated strategies are based on the Preferred Alternative D. A table comparing each alternative for each of the main objectives is provided in this document. Specific acreage figures may change depending on the final alternative selected. The proposed objectives and strategies are listed below as they apply to each of the four Refuge goals. Note: Full citations for literature cited in Appendix I are presented in Appendix C (References).

Detailed Description of the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

The proposed objectives and strategies are listed below as they apply to each of the four Refuge goals.

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS GOAL I: Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance native habitats and associated plant and wildlife species representative of the Puget Sound lowlands, with a special emphasis on migratory birds and salmonids.

Objective 1.1: Restore Estuarine Habitat Within 3 years of the CCP’s approval, implement restoration of 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the Nisqually River delta estuary and nearshore environments. The desired future conditions include: (1) a mosaic of estuarine habitats, including native salt marsh communities; (2) major reduction of invasive reed canary grass; (3) enhanced use by juvenile salmon; (4) most ponds being connected at low tides to minimize fish entrapment; and (5) increased waterfowl, shorebird, and waterbird use.

Objective Comparison by Alternative Objective 1.1: ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C ALT. D Restore none 318 ac. muted 515 ac. full 699 ac. full Estuarine 140 ac. full restoration restoration Habitat

Rationale: During the last century, over 80% of estuarine wetlands in Puget Sound, and up to 33% of its eelgrass beds, have been lost to dredging, filling, diking, and industrial development (Dean et al. 2000; White 1997; Lane and Taylor 1986). Estuarine marsh habitats (salt marsh) are now rare in the Puget Sound region, comprising only 0.3% of the wetland and deepwater resources found here (Tanner 1999). Estuarine areas provide important feeding and rearing habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife, including the threatened chinook salmon. In the Nisqually delta itself, a loss of 54% of intertidal emergent marsh (salt marsh) habitat occurred through agricultural conversion in the early 1900s. Restoration of intertidal wetlands within the Nisqually River delta could substantially increase the amount of salt marsh in south Puget Sound. Restoring 70% of the currently diked area in the Nisqually NWR to tidal influence would increase estuarine habitat in the south Puget Sound area by 46% (Tanner 1999). Protection and restoration of native estuarine and nearshore habitats is a major ecoregional and recovery goal as identified in the North Pacific Coast Ecoregion Plan (1995), Nisqually Basin Fall Chinook Recovery Plan (2001), and the Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan (2000). This objective would benefit estuarine-dependent fish and wildlife species including waterfowl, waterbirds, seabirds, shorebirds, salmon, and invertebrates. Estuarine restoration will also improve the health and function of existing estuarine habitats in the delta. Restoration efforts will focus on habitat-forming processes and functions including tidal influences, sediment delivery, native plant communities, and distributary channel networks.

Strategies: C Hire a 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) Restoration Ecologist, GS-11, to work with partners, including Ducks Unlimited, to develop and implement an estuarine restoration and monitoring plan. C Develop an estuarine restoration plan by 2005. The plan will include the design for the physical modifications needed to restore 699 acres of estuarine habitats, including removing dikes to grade, filling borrow ditches and excavating breach

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS sites and historic slough channel depths. Modifications should promote the development of a gradient and mix of estuarine habitat types. C In coordination with other CCP restoration programs, obtain permits and implement the estuarine restoration plan within 3 years after CCP approval. C Hire a 0.5 FTE Biological Technician, GS-5/6/7, to monitor and manage invasive/exotic species to increase the native species establishment and support an adaptive management approach. This includes identifying all invasive/exotic species that pose a threat to estuarine habitat and associated control methods. C Monitor restoration project results to determine the extent of estuarine habitat development. Monitoring should focus on amount, distribution, and processes. Hire a 0.5 FTE GIS/Data Management Specialist, GS-9, to develop and update GIS data associated with monitoring program. C Develop and implement a monitoring program to document fish and wildlife response in the estuarine restoration area by 2005. Implementation of this program prior to restoration will allow for the collection of baseline data, resulting in a better assessment of restoration efforts and management decisions. Hire a 0.5 FTE Wildlife Biologist, GS-9/11, to focus on this monitoring program.

Objective 1.2: Reduce Human Disturbance Reduce human disturbance in estuarine habitat of the Nisqually River delta to protect and enhance fish and wildlife dependent on this resource. Provide a minimum of 764 acres in the RNA and other areas within the approved Refuge boundary where wildlife can rest, feed, and nest with minimal human disturbance.

Objective Comparison by Alternative Objective 1.2: ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C ALT. D Reduce 793 ac RNA 793 ac RNA 627 ac RNA 764 ac RNA Human with reduced with reduced with reduced with reduced Disturbance disturbance disturbance disturbance disturbance

Rationale: Refuge estuarine habitat provides crucial feeding and resting areas for a variety of sensitive or declining migratory birds and species of management concern. There are very few areas in Puget Sound that provide long-term, low disturbance areas for fish and wildlife in estuarine habitat. Many areas receive some measure of protection from development, but most allow public access such as boating, PWC use, hunting, or fishing activities. Current public use management is contributing to wildlife disturbance throughout almost all estuarine habitat on the Refuge, providing no sanctuary areas in the estuary. Unauthorized waterfowl hunting is allowed in large portions of Refuge estuary habitat, and required RNA closures to consumptive uses are not enforced. The only remaining substantial eelgrass beds in the Nisqually delta are located in this RNA. Boating occurs year-round with few restrictions throughout Refuge estuarine habitat. There is a need to reduce human disturbance in the estuary, including the RNA and in newly restored estuarine habitat, so natural processes and wildlife response can occur without disturbance from human activities. Implementing use restrictions in the RNA is

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS also consistent with RNA management policy (Refuge Manual 8 RM 10.8). The Service will conserve these areas for scientific research, wildlife and habitat monitoring, and environmental education.

Low disturbance areas are extremely important for wildlife on Refuges that allow hunting and other public uses because they provide high quality habitat for feeding, breeding, resting, and thermal protection. Without these areas, wildlife species exposed to repeated human disturbances may change food habits and distribution patterns, feed only at night, lose weight, have decreased reproductive success, or abandon the feeding, nesting, and resting areas.

Strategies: C Manage the existing RNA (764 acres instead of 793 acres) to reduce disturbance to estuarine-dependent wildlife by enforcing prohibitions on consumptive uses and establishing seasonal closures, including posting and signing RNA boundaries. The RNA will be closed to boats from October 1 through March 31. C Designate the restored estuarine habitats within the Brown Farm Dike (699 acres) and Nisqually Indian Tribal land (300 acres), east of the Nisqually River, as a sanctuary for estuarine-dependent wildlife by prohibiting public boating and consumptive uses and restricting public access to trails along the edge of the site. C Work with surrounding landowners to assist as volunteer observers to monitor effects of human activities in the Nisqually delta to identify the need for additional wildlife protection measures. C Implement and enforce 5 mph boat speed limit on all Refuge waters to improve wildlife and habitat protection and reduce disturbance. C Monitor watercraft activity and reevaluate annually to ensure that restrictions are effective in minimizing wildlife and habitat disturbance and use is compatible. C Hire a 0.5 FTE Refuge Officer, GS-7, to conduct all enforcement patrols associated with boating, hunting, fishing, and trail use activities on Refuge lands and waters. C Monitor wildlife use distribution and abundance to evaluate effectiveness of public use restrictions to allow for adaptive management. C Post closure signs at Luhr Beach notifying public of closed Refuge property south of Luhr Beach Nature Center. C Develop cooperative agreement with WDFW to manage Luhr Beach and establish a visitor contact station that includes information on Refuge regulations and ethical viewing advice to reduce wildlife disturbance.

Objective 1.3: Freshwater Wetlands and Grasslands By 2015, the Service would protect, restore, and enhance a mosaic of 600 acres of freshwater wetlands and grasslands in the Nisqually River delta and lower Nisqually River watershed to serve as foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of migratory and resident bird species, mammals, and native amphibians. A mix of habitats would generally include 5% permanent freshwater, 10-20% grassland, 15-30% riparian, and at least 60% seasonal freshwater habitat.

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Objective Comparison by Alternative Objective 1.3: ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C ALT. D Freshwater 1,000 ac in diked 542 ac in diked 447 ac in diked 263 ac in diked Wetlands and area area area area 350-400 ac in 350-400 ac in 350-400 ac in Grasslands expansion expansion expansion

Rationale: Although the actual amount of acres lost is unknown, estimates of freshwater wetlands lost in Washington range from 20% to as much as 50% during the past two centuries (Lane and Taylor 1996). Roughly 500 to 1,000 acres of freshwater wetlands are filled each year in western Washington (White 1997). Current loss and degradation of freshwater wetlands in western Washington are due to urban expansion, forestry and agricultural practices, industrial development, and invasive or exotic plants and animals (Lane and Taylor 1996). Currently, freshwater wetlands comprise only 18% of wetlands in the Puget Sound area (Tanner 1999) yet they provide habitat for many fish and wildlife species observed in South Puget Sound. Improved management of Refuge lands within the diked area will greatly improve the habitat quality for fish and wildlife.

Much of the lands within the study area located south of I-5 were historically freshwater wetland lowlands. There is excellent potential for wetland restoration on these farmed and drained wetlands. A mixture of permanent and seasonal wetlands and scrub- shrub/grassland habitats would provide a mosaic of freshwater wetlands that can be used by a variety of fish and wildlife (waterfowl, raptors, passerines, and small mammals) throughout the year. Freshwater habitat would also provide diverse wildlife viewing opportunities and interpretive programs for visitors.

Wetland Management Strategies: C In cooperation with partners, develop and implement a restoration plan with adaptive management strategies to restore and enhance 263 acres within the diked area as approximately 5% permanent freshwater, 10% grassland, 25% riparian, and 60% seasonal freshwater habitat within 5 years after CCP approval. This would include providing seasonally flooded wetlands and grasslands to serve as forage areas for waterfowl during the fall and winter months. C In cooperation with partners, identify and secure funding for restoration 3-4 years after CCP approval. C Hire a 0.5 FTE Restoration Ecologist, GS-11, within 1 year after CCP approval to supervise implementation of the restoration and monitoring plan. C The freshwater area would be subdivided into five units by new internal/external dikes to allow intensive management, thereby improving habitat quality and allowing effective reed canary grass control. Internal dikes would have 5 to 1 slopes while the external dikes, constructed to 12 feet in elevation, would have 3 to 1 slopes. C Seasonal wetlands would be created and enlarged by excavating and sculpting areas with higher elevations. Seeding and planting would be implemented to stabilize soils and speed recovery of wetland plants. Where appropriate, small permanent ponds would be created.

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-5 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS C New water control structures or pumps would be installed between units to allow water movement through the units, and to provide the ability to drain and flood individual impoundments. Units and ponds would be designed to allow flooding in selected areas to at least 3 feet deep for up to 9 months to improve reed canary grass control. C Management techniques would include a rotating cycle of draining, mowing, discing, scraping, herbicide application, seeding, and flooding to control reed canary grass, prevent brush invasion, and halt succession in these habitats. C The water delivery system would be periodically maintained, including the excavation or cleaning of sloughs, ditches, and water control structures, or replacement of water control structures as needed. C Where appropriate, planting and seeding along the dikes would occur to provide habitat, screening, and erosion control. C Riparian habitat along the slough would be enhanced with appropriate native plants. C Work with willing sellers in the study area on future possibilities of land acquisition, including focusing on areas with the highest potential for restoration to quality freshwater wetland habitat. If fee title acquisition is not possible, conservation easements or cooperative agreements would be alternatives to ensure long-term protection of these areas.

Grassland Management Strategies: C Grassland species diversity and palatability would be increased for waterfowl by cutting once in July and again in September. Periodic discing, reseeding, and fertilizing would be conducted to reduce weed species and improve forage quality for waterfowl. Grasslands would be managed to support a variety of non-native grasses (pasture mix) used by waterfowl. Native grass species would be encouraged where possible. Soil tests would be conducted to determine appropriate amounts of fertilizer. C Surveys for ground-nesting bird species would be conducted prior to haying or mowing before July 1.

Other Management Strategies: C Develop and implement an Integrated Pest Management Plan for all habitat types on the Refuge to identify invasive species control priorities and preferred control methods for specific species and locations. Include adaptive management strategies and the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of our actions and adjust accordingly. C Develop and maintain a database and mapping system to track the locations and sizes of non-native invasive species infestations over time. C Recruit and train volunteers to help with non-native invasive species surveys, monitoring, and control measures, including data collection, entry, and analysis. C Using the priorities established in the Land Protection Plan, work with willing sellers in the study area on land acquisition, focusing efforts on priority areas including protection of properties that would allow long-term wetland restoration of at least 350 -400 acres in the Nisqually Valley lowlands. If acquisition is not possible, conservation easements or cooperative agreements are an alternative to ensure long-term protection and enhancement of these areas.

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-6 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS C As applicable, restoration and management on properties acquired south of I-5 would follow these same strategies. C Manage future major flood events inside the diked area by designing and implementing water control methods, which could include spillways, pumps, or water control structures. C Hire a 0.5 FTE Wildlife Biologist, GS-7/9/11, to provide assistance and technical expertise to interested landowners in the study area with programs to enhance habitats and wildlife populations on private land. C Develop and implement a long-term monitoring and evaluation protocol, including fish and wildlife response, to measure effectiveness of and provide recommendations for current and future management of freshwater wetlands and grasslands. Implementation of this program prior to restoration will allow for the collection of baseline data, resulting in a better assessment of restoration efforts and management decisions. This will require hiring a 0.5 FTE Wildlife Biologist, GS-7/9/11, and 0.5 FTE GIS/Data Management Specialist, GS-9, to focus on this monitoring program.

Objective 1.4: Riparian Habitat Provide for the protection, restoration, maintenance, and enhancement of the ecological functions of approximately 1,000 acres of riparian mature mixed forest habitat in the Nisqually River delta and corridor to provide foraging and breeding habitat for migratory and resident landbirds and fish. Desired conditions include habitat connectivity; vegetation diversity in terms of age, native plant species composition, and vegetation layers; vegetation vigor; abundance of snags and woody debris; unimpeded occurrences of natural disturbances; minimization of human disturbances; and an irregular shape and a width adequate to retain riparian habitat functions (Knutsen and Naef 1997)

Objective Comparison by Alternative Objective 1.4: ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C ALT. D Riparian 250 acres 600 acres 600 acres 1,000 acres Habitat

Rationale: Natural riparian forests are diverse, dynamic, and complex habitats supporting a variety of fish and wildlife. Although riparian areas constitute a small portion of the surface landscape, they are highly productive. Approximately 85% of Washington’s wildlife species use riparian habitat associated with rivers and streams (Knutsen and Naef 1997). Habitat for many upland species is also directly enhanced by the presence of adjacent riparian habitat. Riparian areas provide habitat for a variety of bird species, including passerines, woodpeckers, waterfowl, and raptors. As much as 90% of riparian habitat has been lost or modified since the early 1800s (Knutson and Naef 1997). Conditions of several riparian habitats in the study area are degraded (Nisqually EDT Workgroup 1999). Improved protection and enhancement of the Nisqually River corridor would contribute to the conservation of riparian-dependent species and also to salmon recovery. This objective would contribute to ecoregional plan goals, as well as goals of the Conservation Plan for Landbirds in Lowlands and Valleys

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-7 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS of Western Oregon and Washington and the Nisqually Basin Fall Chinook Recovery Plan. As a key conservation agency in the Nisqually delta, the Service would play a larger role in protecting and improving riparian habitat on the Fort Lewis Military Reservation and on private lands in the study area upriver from the Refuge.

Strategies: C Develop a riparian restoration project to include planting a variety of native riparian trees and shrub species and restoring natural hydrology on 38 acres of currently diked habitat on the Refuge. This may include constructing a bench that would mimic natural sediment deposition bars along the Nisqually River to reduce frequency of tidal inundation and promote sediment deposition. C Develop and implement a monitoring program to document habitat development and bird response in the restored area. Implementation of this program prior to restoration would allow for the collection of baseline data, resulting in a better assessment of restoration efforts and management decisions. This would require hiring a 1.0 FTE Fish and Wildlife Biologist, GS-7/9, to conduct monitoring projects. C Work with Fort Lewis to acquire or manage under a cooperative agreement riparian habitat east of the Nisqually River to protect and restore the native riparian forest. This would require development of a site plan for fishing and vehicle access and hiring a 0.5 FTE Refuge Officer, GS -7 to implement the plan. C Using the priorities established in the Land Protection Plan, work with willing sellers in the study area on future possibilities of land acquisition, including focusing on a 200-foot protection zone of riparian habitat along both sides of the Nisqually River corridor between I-5 and the Nisqually Indian Reservation boundary. In addition, restore riparian habitat along both sides of McAllister Creek, where feasible. If acquisition is not possible, conservation easements or cooperative agreements would be alternatives to ensure long-term protection of these areas. C Based on the restoration plan, add large woody debris where appropriate and restore function of large woody debris recruitment in the Nisqually River. C Develop and implement an invasive species monitoring and integrated pest management control program using both manual and chemical treatment methods. This would require hiring a 0.5 FTE Fish and Wildlife Biologist, GS-7/9, to conduct the monitoring program and guide treatment efforts. C Some riparian plantings would occur north of the headquarters building and along slough systems in the southern portion of the remaining diked area to widen the corridor of riparian habitat, mimicking native riparian habitat historically found in the delta. Since these areas are not directly connected to a system with natural hydrology, they would not function as native riparian systems.

Objective 1.5: Upland Forest In 15 years, the Refuge would protect and restore 400-600 acres of native upland forest habitat along McAllister Creek and in the eastern and western bluffs of the Refuge. Protection would occur through restoration of 100 acres of upland forest on existing Refuge lands on the West Bluff and acquisition of priority bluff parcels or through easements or cooperative agreements. Protection and restoration actions would provide habitat for coniferous and deciduous forest dependent species especially tree-nesting

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-8 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS species, such as great blue herons and bald eagles, as well as protect water quality, continuous wildlife habitat corridors, and scenic values of the Nisqually delta.

Objective Comparison by Alternative Objective 1.5: ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C ALT. D Upland Forest 100 acres 400-600 acres 400-600 acres 400-600 acres

Rationale: Forested bluff areas in southern Puget Sound are often lost to or compromised by residential development or logging. Urbanization surrounding the Refuge is rapidly occurring. Activities by residents and their pets can disturb nesting birds, and in some cases compromise the stability of the slope, which can lead to erosion and siltation into adjacent Refuge creeks and rivers. Protecting forested habitat would provide a continuous wildlife corridor connecting adjacent habitats with the Refuge. The great blue heron is a monitored and priority species in the State of Washington because of the increasing loss of foraging and breeding habitats and increasing environmental pollutants associated with human expansion and development. Protection of the West Bluff parcel will not only benefit the great blue heron population nesting along McAllister Creek, but also a pair of bald eagles, a Federally listed threatened species, that also nests in the west bluff area. Maintaining the integrity of the forested bluffs would also be critical in protecting the visual character of the landscape.

Strategies: C Using the priorities established in the Land Protection Plan, work with willing sellers in the expansion area on land protection, focusing on bluff properties and at least 200 feet along the top of bluff along the eastern boundary of the Refuge and McAllister Creek to protect slope stability, water quality, and foraging and nesting habitats of birds. If acquisition is not possible, conservation easements or cooperative agreements would be alternatives to ensure long-term protection of these areas. C Work with the Department of Ecology to monitor water quality in McAllister Creek. C Hire a 0.5 FTE Biological Technician, GS-5/6/7, to assist in monitoring the establishment of invasive species and implementing control measures as necessary. C Continue to maintain closure to public use on steep bluffs to protect slope integrity and nesting birds (West Bluff parcel). C Monitor and prevent illegal tree cutting and trespassing on the West Bluff above McAllister Creek. C Implement an educational program focusing on the importance of forested bluff areas and involve the local community and school groups with restoration efforts. C Work with landowners and County and City government to manage and control stormwater runoff to maintain slope stability.

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-9 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS C Restore and enhance approximately 100 acres of Douglas-fir dominated mature forest on the West Bluff parcel of the Refuge to reduce fragmentation of forested habitat and provide a habitat and wildlife corridor between Refuge habitats and adjacent lands.

Goal II: Support recovery and protection efforts for Federal and State threatened and endangered species, species of concern, and their habitats of the Nisqually River delta and watershed.

Objective 2.1: Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout The Service would protect and restore approximately 4,400 acres of estuarine, freshwater, stream, and riparian habitats to protect declining runs of the chinook salmon and bull trout, which are Federally listed as threatened.

Objective Comparison by Alternative Objective 2.1: ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C ALT. D Chinook 2,675 acres 3,600 acres 3,700 acres 4,400 acres Salmon and Bull Trout

Rationale: The chinook salmon was listed as threatened in 1999 and resides in the Nisqually River and estuary. The Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan has identified restoration of estuarine habitat within the Nisqually River delta as a top priority component to the recovery of this species. The bull trout has historically resided in the Nisqually River system. Any protection to spawning, migration, and rearing habitats would support recovery goals of these two species in the Nisqually River watershed.

Strategies: C Restore 699 acres of estuarine habitat in the delta. C Hire a 0.5 FTE Fish and Wildlife Biologist, GS-7/9, to monitor response of fish populations to restoration efforts. C Implement sections of the Cooperative Agreement with the Nisqually Indian Tribe that supports estuarine restoration of the eastside parcels (east of Nisqually River). C Protect and restore approximately 1,000 acres along the Nisqually River, McAllister Creek, and their tributaries through acquisition or other land protection measures to protect riverine and riparian habitats essential to the recovery of chinook salmon and bull trout. Where needed, restoration measures would include planting native tree and shrub species, erosion control measures, control of invasive plant species, and reducing physical damage or disturbance to soils and riparian habitats.

Objective 2.2: Species Recovery The Refuge and Service would work with WDFW to support recovery efforts of the western pond turtle and Oregon spotted frog by protecting and restoring suitable habitats and considering future reintroduction in areas of the Refuge.

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-10 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Suitable habitat for western pond turtle includes a complex of small ponds near sea level; abundant emergent basking sites; isolation from large bodies of water and streams; emergent vegetation and a mud bottom; abundant invertebrate and larval amphibian as prey; few or no non-native predators like largemouth bass and bullfrogs; and diversity of upland habitats, including open grassy areas for nesting and dense clumps of deciduous trees and shrubs for overwintering.

Suitable habitat for Oregon spotted frog includes emergent wetlands associated with lakes, ponds, and slow-moving streams; shallow emergent wetlands, 5-30 cm deep for breeding; few or no non-native predators like largemouth bass, perch, and bullfrogs; and abundant invertebrates and larval amphibians as prey.

Rationale: Both the Oregon spotted frog and the western pond turtle have highly restricted distributions in western Washington. Spotted frog habitat is scarce, as they now occur in only 10-22% of their historic range in Washington. Only three populations remain within the State (McAllister 1997). The western pond turtle has been extirpated from most of its range in Washington, with only two populations remaining in the Columbia River Gorge (Hays et al. 1999). Re-establishing self-sustaining populations is vital to the recovery of these species. The Oregon spotted frog and western pond turtle need a permanent source of freshwater such as wetlands, ponds, or slow-moving streams.

Strategies: C Consult with others to identify potential reintroduction sites; if sites are not suitable on Refuge lands, initiate efforts for acquisition within approved acquisition boundaries or pursue other means of protection. C Identify suitable habitat within the expansion area essential for the protection and conservation of these two species. Assist in developing and implementing improved management practices to enhance habitat and reduce impacts by non- native predators such as the bullfrog. C Work with WDFW to conduct surveys and promote research and monitoring to better document basic life history information for the two species. Use information for management and recovery of the species.

Objective 2.3: Other Special Status Species Identify, monitor, and protect all special-status plant and animal species on the Refuge, focusing on species that are State or Federally listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing.

Rationale: The Service manages endangered and threatened species as trust species and, wherever possible, strives to assist in the recovery of endangered and threatened species that occur within the Refuge System. A high priority management principle is to benefit species proactively before they become listed to prevent further decline. Federal species lists and recovery plans are found at http://www.r1.fws.gov/es/endsp.htm. WDFW maintains a list of special status species through Washington Administrative Codes 232- 12-014 and 232-12-011 that can be found through their web site at http://www.wa.gov/wdfw.

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-11 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Strategies: C Develop and implement a monitoring program with detailed protocols for monitoring the status of special-status species, including methods to assess habitat needs and management actions. C Protect the active bald eagle nest from human disturbance, using Recovery Plan guidelines (dates and distances). C Encourage research on special-status species on the Refuge to investigate ecology relevant to improved conservation measures. Research could be conducted by local universities or other organizations with assistance from the Refuge in the form of funding, supplies, volunteers, or technical assistance. C Identify special-status species locations outside of Refuge lands and prioritize these areas for acquisition, or work with partners to ensure long-term protection.

Goal III: Provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on the fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Nisqually River delta and watershed.

Objective 3.1: Environmental Education - Program Management Provide a quality environmental education program at Nisqually with specific learning objectives and diverse opportunities that: (1) meet State standards for learning; (2) are based on Refuge and Nisqually watershed conservation and management programs; (3) support the mission of the Service; and (4) provide stewardship opportunities.

Rationale: With its variety of natural resources, facilities, and proximity to major population centers, Nisqually NWR is in a unique position to offer local education agencies, teachers, and students an opportunity to study natural resource management and conservation issues in an outdoor setting. Since the establishment of the Refuge, educators and youth professionals have been using Nisqually NWR as an outdoor classroom to enhance course curricula. The existing program serves approximately 5,000 students per year. The demand for EE is high and expected to grow.

Environmental education in Washington State is strongly supported by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI). In 1990, the Washington State School Board directed public schools to incorporate environmental education into all appropriate subject areas. Nisqually NWR is in a position to assist local educators meet the Essential Academic Learning Requirements.

To meet student needs, Refuge staff are committed to looking for ways to teach about wildlife and habitat conservation. The field trip program enhances classroom learning with hands-on outdoor experiences. Summer camps provide students with more in-depth study. As habitat restoration projects are undertaken, students and teachers will be included in hands-on restoration and monitoring activities. These types of activities require management support and commitment of personnel and funds.

Strategies: C Hire a permanent-full time environmental education specialist (GS-09) on the Refuge staff to manage the environmental education program, within 2 years after CCP approval.

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-12 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS C Provide for additional program assistance through trained volunteers, interns from local colleges, AmeriCorps, or the Student Conservation Association. C Hire a second full-time environmental education staff person (GS-09) within 4 years after CCP approval, to serve 15,000 students per year. This staffing would be comparable to other environmental education programs of that size. C Provide opportunities during the summer for students to participate in an extended, more in-depth study of the natural environment. C As changes are made to habitats on the Refuge, opportunities would be created to include teachers and students in these long-term restoration activities. These could be one-time activities such as planting, or long-term involvement including planning, design, and actual on the ground implementation for a restoration site. C As changes are made to the habitats on the Refuge, specifically tidal restoration, monitoring activities for students would be developed. Plots could be identified and teachers recruited who would work over the course of the school year to carry out monitoring activities with their students on vegetation, wildlife, and water quality. C Support the water quality testing projects conducted by the Nisqually River education project and project GREEN. C Develop a butterfly/native garden in the area of the Education Center. C Conduct regular evaluations with feedback from teachers and students to improve and modify program as needed.

Objective 3.2: Environmental Education - Students Served Provide adequate information, site-specific materials, curricula, and facilities to accommodate a year-round field trip program that serves up to 100 students per day, 5 days a week, 15,000 students per year.

Objective Comparison by Alternative Objective 3.2: ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C ALT. D Environmental 5,000 per yr 20,000 per yr 15,000 per yr 15,000 per yr Education - Students Served

Rationale: Nisqually NWR serves 5,000 students and teachers annually and in 1998, reached approximately 8,000 students and teachers on and off-site. It is estimated that the Refuge could accommodate up to 15,000 on site each year if: (1) an education staff of up to 3 people ran the program full-time; and (2) educators were trained and could be recruited to utilize the Refuge during all months of the school year, not just in May and June. With more opportunities and a more structured program where teachers are trained to use the site and are provided with site-specific materials and tools, educators should be eager to use the Refuge year-round. A triple-wide trailer currently serves as the temporary indoor facility for the education program. A new 4,000 square foot EE facility, which would be located near the Visitor Center, is envisioned as the central focus of the EE program with 7 outdoor study sites located on the Refuge.

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-13 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Strategies: C The Refuge will have readily available information about the environmental education program, will respond to all inquiries in a timely manner, and will provide information to local schools. C Groups using the Refuge for environmental education purposes would be limited to 100 students per day and would be required to make reservations in advance through the Refuge Office. Reservations would be taken on a first come-first served basis. C Group leaders must attend a workshop or orientation session before bringing their classes to the Refuge. C Groups using the Refuge for environmental education purposes would be limited to the trails and designated environmental education study sites, except by special use permit. Seven environmental education study sites would be designated in the area of the Twin Barns Loop Trail where students can participate in more in-depth study by 2005. C Develop and provide site-specific materials and tools for educators’ use, both on and off site. These materials would include an educator’s guide “Where the River Becomes a Delta,” which would serve as a site-specific field trip guide and a companion guide to the others that have been developed for the Nisqually River Watershed—“The Living River,” “Where the River Begins,” and “Where the River Meets the Sound.” C Provide Discovery Packs for use by small groups and non-formal education groups. C A triple-wide trailer will be used as the temporary indoor classroom facility until a new facility is built and would be available for environmental education groups on a reservation basis. Once constructed, the new 4,000 square foot facility will have small group learning areas, a large group presentation room, bathrooms, a small kitchen, office space, parking, lunch area, and a lab to conduct activities such as water quality testing.

Objective 3.3: Environmental Education - Field Trip Program Provide a Refuge field trip program where trained educators, volunteer adult leaders, and youth professionals lead their own students in active, hands-on field investigations focusing on the conservation of our natural resources.

Rationale: Using the “multiplier effect,” educators and youth professionals will conduct their own field trips to the Refuge. This allows for the maximum number of students participating in the program with less commitment of staff time. The multiplier effect occurs when the Refuge education staff trains educators who can then use their knowledge and skills year after year with students. Other adults involved in the program also gain new knowledge and awareness and tell their friends and community leaders who influence public policy. Staff are then available to train more educators and work on program growth and development.

Strategies: C Refuge education staff and volunteers will provide guidance to educators interested in teaching about natural resource issues by assisting in lesson and field trip planning on the phone or in person.

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-14 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS C The Refuge will provide educator workshops and courses sponsored by the Refuge or by Refuge partners on topics related to natural resources and the environment such as Project WET. C Refuge education staff and volunteers will provide regularly scheduled field trip orientation workshops for educators and youth professionals.

Objective 3.4: Environmental Education Partners and Networking Refuge staff will work with other agencies and organizations to provide assistance to other programs by designing, conducting, or hosting at least one regionally based environmental education field trip, workshop, seminar, or study course each year.

Rationale: Many opportunities exist for the Service to work together with partners to both enhance the program at the Refuge but also to provide coordination and assistance to other local programs. Refuge staff would be available and would seek out ways to collaborate in environmental education efforts throughout south Puget Sound, both on and off the Refuge.

The education staff at Nisqually NWR are also in a position to network and provide assistance to other agencies and individuals working in environmental education throughout the region. As a Federal agency with a high profile program, Refuge staff have an opportunity and responsibility to participate on a regional level in coordinating and furthering environmental education efforts.

Strategies: C Work with partners to strengthen education programs in the Nisqually River watershed including the Nisqually River Council Education Committee, the Nisqually Reach Nature Center, and the Nisqually Indian Tribe. C Work with partners outside the Nisqually River Watershed including Project GREEN and Sound Stewards. C Refuge education staff would participate in regional environmental education efforts to coordinate environmental education activities, programs, and curricula with educators throughout the region. C Nisqually NWR would serve, upon request of the Regional Office, as the Washington State Coordinating office for the Federal Junior Duck Stamp Design Contest. C Refuge staff, materials, and facilities would be made available to other groups wishing to gather ideas for their programs and would serve as a model for other local, State, and Federal environmental education programs.

Goal IV. Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and outreach opportunities to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources of the Nisqually River delta and watershed.

Objective 4.1: Waterfowl Hunting The Refuge would open 191 acres to waterfowl hunting 7 days per week within 1-2 years after CCP approval. Refuge lands would combine with WDFW lands to create more manageable and enforceable hunt boundaries that would reduce conflicts with other

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-15 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS users, reduce confusion for hunters, provide sufficient sanctuary, create uncrowded conditions, and ensure a reasonable harvest. The Refuge would also explore new opportunities for “walk-in” waterfowl hunting as property is acquired south of I-5.

Objective Comparison by Alternative Objective 4.1: ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C ALT. D Waterfowl Closed, but Closed 713 acres 191 acres Hunting unauthorized (1,170 total (808 total acres hunting occurs acres with with State State lands) lands)

Rationale: Hunting is a traditional activity in the Nisqually delta and one of the priority public uses of the Refuge System. Waterfowl hunting is open to the public on WDFW lands (617 acres) with around 1,100 visits estimated per year. A private hunt club operates on tribal lands east of the Nisqually River (approximately 325 acres) as part of life tenant uses by the previous landowner. Regulations such as hunting days, maximum number of hunters, etc. are different on these lands. Currently, much of the Refuge tidelands and salt marsh is administratively uncontrollable because of the irregular boundaries of the three WDFW parcels located within Refuge boundaries and the inability to keep these boundaries posted. As a result, unauthorized hunting occurs on large portions of Refuge lands, including the RNA. This unauthorized hunting occurs in spite of the fact that the Refuge has never been officially opened to hunting. This existing condition provides insufficient wildlife sanctuary and allows an unauthorized use to continue on large parts of the Refuge.

By opening a limited portion of Refuge lands (191 acres) to waterfowl hunting, a more manageable block of lands could be posted and enforced, and waterfowl hunting in the Nisqually delta would continue to be provided along with increased sanctuary. The RNA would be reduced by 73 acres to provide additional high quality hunting lands at the mouth of the Nisqually River. However, a 44 acre area would be added to the RNA at the south end. State lands would continue to be open to waterfowl hunting with no changes. Each agency would be responsible for managing its respective hunt program.

Refuge hunt programs are designed to provide high quality experiences. A quality hunting experience means that: (1) hunters are safe; (2) hunters exhibit high standards of ethical behavior; (3) hunters are provided with uncrowded conditions; (4) hunters have reasonable harvest opportunities; (5) hunters are clear on which areas are open and closed to hunting; and (6) minimal conflicts occur between hunters and other visitors, such as kayakers, anglers, and trail users. In general, hunting on Refuges should be superior to that available on other private or public lands, which may require special restrictions (Refuge Manual 8.RM5.14). Measures are often used to ensure quality, including limited hunt days and shell limits and using buffers for public use trails eliminating the need for seasonal trail closures. A limited waterfowl hunt program is proposed on the Refuge to accomplish the following: < accommodate the existing hunt program on WDFW lands; < establish consistent regulations across all lands < provide a quality hunting experience that meets Refuge guidelines and policies

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-16 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS < provide sufficient sanctuary and resolve the current unauthorized hunting situation

Strategies: C Write a hunting plan to be consistent with the CCP (hunting location, 7- day/week hunt, 25-shell limit, and 200-yard buffer from trails) and complete process to open Refuge to hunting within 1-2 years after CCP approval. C Reach agreement with the State to implement a 25-shell limit on WDFW lands. C Provide sufficient feeding and resting habitat for waterfowl in areas closed to hunting as a sanctuary. C Post and sign a manageable hunting area including redefining and reducing the RNA by 73 acres at river mouth and add 44 acres to south end. C Develop a hunting brochure which includes information on hunter ethics, safety precautions, and restrictions. C Hire a 0.5 FTE Refuge Officer (GS-07) to enforce hunting program regulations; to ensure quality and safety; and to protect natural resources. C Hire a 0.5 FTE Biological Technician (5/6/7) to conduct hunter bag checks to monitor harvest and compliance with State waterfowl hunting program regulations. C Manage Luhr Beach boat landing area through cooperative agreement with WDFW and upgrade facilities to use as a hunter contact station. C Lands acquired through Refuge expansion, south of I-5, would be evaluated for hunting opportunities as they come under Refuge jurisdiction. C Regularly monitor and evaluate hunting program with feedback from hunters and other users to determine if objectives are being met, and to allow for adaptive management.

Objective 4.2: Fishing and Shellfishing The Refuge would provide a variety of quality boat and bank fishing experiences in selected areas which are safe, consistent with State regulations, and compatible with Refuge resources and purposes. The Refuge fishing and shellfishing program will promote responsible and ethical behavior and a deeper appreciation and understanding of fishery resources of the Nisqually delta.

Objective Comparison by Alternative Objective 4.2: ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C ALT. D Fishing and 1 Existing Site 1 Existing Site 1 Existing Site No Existing Site Shellfishing 2 Expansion Sites 1 New Site 1 New Site 2 Expansion Sites 2 Expansion Sites (1 accessible) (2 accessible)

Rationale: The Nisqually delta supports a diverse fishery resource including shellfish, bottomfish, anadromous fish, and other freshwater species. Declines in populations of many species and area restrictions require an informed and responsible angler. Fishing is a priority activity of the Refuge System and a traditional form of recreation in the delta. Compatible opportunities can be provided with reasonable restrictions, good compliance with regulations, and if administrative oversight required is minimal. One bank fishing

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-17 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS site would be maintained and developed on the existing Refuge, with potential for a second site designated as a disabled visitor access only. Additional bankfishing and water access sites would be considered on lands south of I-5 as they are added to the Refuge. Location criteria for new sites considered will be accessibility, feasibility, minimal conflicts with other users, maintenance, compatibility, and potential to promote a quality fishing experience. The Trotter’s Woods fishing site would be designated and managed for fishing if acquired from Fort Lewis or managed under cooperative agreement.

In 2000, recreational shellfish beds were closed in the Nisqually tideflats due to high coliform levels and health concerns. The Service can educate visitors about these closures. If water quality improves, these beds could be opened in the future.

A quality fishing or shellfishing experience means that: (1) anglers/shellfishers are safe; (2) anglers/shellfishers exhibit high standards of ethical behavior; (3) anglers/shellfishers are provided with uncrowded conditions; (4) anglers/shellfishers are clear on which areas are open and closed to fishing; and (5) minimal conflicts occur between anglers/shellfishers and other visitors, such as hikers, hunters, and kayakers.

Strategies: • Within 3 years after CCP approval, update the fishing management plan to be consistent with the CCP and State regulations. • As additional lands are acquired, work with partners to select and locate fishing access sites and appropriate parking to provide a range of fishing opportunities in riverine and tidal locations including Trotter’s Woods in Fort Lewis on the Nisqually River south of I-5. • As part of the update of the fishing management plan determine if an accessible bank fishing site could be located at the boardwalk river overlook on the Twin Barnes Loop Trail. • Work with Nisqually Indian Tribe to provide parking, trail, and a bank fishing site on the east side of the Nisqually River. • Provide accessible fishing site at Luhr Beach and parking improvements, if feasible, following development of a cooperative management agreement with WDFW. • Provide safe fishing conditions by maintaining trails, signs, and information to alert anglers regulations and to hazards. • Periodically monitor and evaluate fishing program and users to determine if objectives are being met. • Provide specific information for shellfishing at the Luhr Beach access, including closure information in cooperation with other agencies. • Restrict boaters from landing and bank fishing in closed areas through policy and regulation. C Enforce boat speed limits in Refuge waters. C Hire a 0.5 FTE Refuge Officer (GS-7) to conduct all enforcement patrols associated with boating, hunting, fishing, and trail use activities on Refuge lands and waters.

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-18 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS C Take steps to close the RNA to fishing and shellfishing, including posting, providing information on regulations at Luhr Beach and other appropriate locations, outreach, and conduct monitoring of results.

Objective 4.3: Wildlife Observation Provide safe, attractive, and accessible wildlife viewing opportunities in all primary habitat types represented on the Refuge including estuarine, freshwater wetland, grassland, riparian forest, riverine, and upland forest.

Objective 4.3: Wildlife Objective Comparison by Alternative Observation ALT. A 1-mi boardwalk loop trail; 5.5-mi loop trail; 0.5-mi primitive trail ALT. B 1-mi boardwalk loop trail; 5.5-mi loop trail; 0.5-mi primitive trail ALT. C 1-mi boardwalk loop trail; 3.75-mi loop and boardwalk trail; 0.5-mi primitive trail; 2.5-mi east side loop trail; East Bluff trail ALT. D 1-mi boardwalk loop trail; 3.5-mi round trip trail including boardwalk (no loop); 0.5-mi primitive trail; 2.5-mi east side loop trail; East Bluff trail

Rationale: As a priority public use, wildlife observation programs receive priority consideration in Refuge planning and management, secondary to the needs of fish and wildlife. Wildlife viewing and nature observation are the primary visitor activities at Nisqually NWR. The Refuge is considered by many to be one of the best birding areas in Puget Sound. High quality wildlife viewing will continue to be provided on the Refuge through the development and maintenance of trails, boardwalks, and observation sites (i.e., elevated viewing platforms). Wildlife viewing opportunities will be provided for nearly 100,000 visitors who come to Nisqually NWR each year. Estuarine restoration would result in the loss of large portions of the existing 5.5-mile dike loop trail and would require new trails and modifications to existing trails to provide quality wildlife viewing opportunities, access to a variety of habitat types, and to accommodate high visitor demand, while minimizing wildlife disturbance and providing sufficient wildlife sanctuary.

Quality wildlife observation is defined by several elements including: (1) opportunities exist to view wildlife in their habitat and in a natural setting; (2) observation opportunities promote public understanding of Nisqually NWR resources and its role in managing and protecting those resources; (3) observations occur in places with the least amount of disturbance to wildlife; (4) facilities are safe, fully accessible, and available to a broad spectrum of the public; (5) viewing opportunities are tied to interpretive and educational opportunities; and (6) observers have minimal conflict with other visitors or Refuge operations.

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-19 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Strategies: • Within 3 years following approval of the CCP, develop a visitor services plan that covers all Refuge public use programs. • As part of the estuarine restoration project, provide an accessible 1-mile loop trail and additional trail length with boardwalk extensions. Pursue funding for a 0.75-mile one-way boardwalk spur along McAllister Creek which would provide a 3.5-mile round-trip trail, portions of which would be closed during waterfowl hunting season. • If interests in Luhr Beach site are developed through cooperative management agreement, maintain and enhance current parking and viewing facilities. Evaluate fee collection at this site. Provide adequate parking, restrooms, signs, and gate. An information kiosk (Visitor Contact Station) will provide public use regulations to visitors to increase safety and reduce the frequency of visitors entering closed areas on the Refuge. C Establish a 0.5-mile unimproved trail in the surge plain forest. This trail would not be fully accessible. C In cooperation with the Nisqually Indian Tribe, design, construct, and manage a seasonal loop trail including parking and necessary road improvements, on tribal and Refuge lands east of the Nisqually River. Seasonal closures of this trail would be required during waterfowl hunting season until private hunt club ceases. C If East Bluff property is acquired or protected, pursue the development of a new East Bluff upland forest trail connecting to the City of DuPont/Northwest Landing trail system, including an overlook and interpretive sites. C If appropriate areas are acquired south of I-5, develop up to 4 parking areas for a total of 75 cars for public access to overlooks and interpretive sites. C Maintain habitats to ensure abundance of wildlife for optimum viewing. C Promote wildlife viewing and interpretation by incorporating Refuge information into Amtrak passenger train service. • Hire an outdoor recreation planner, GS-9, (0.5 FTE).

Objective 4.4: Wildlife Interpretation Refuge staff will continue to provide a variety of quality interpretation programs, facilities, and services to Refuge visitors. In addition, each year Refuge staff will identify and serve one new or non-traditional audience to communicate important messages about fish and wildlife conservation and provide opportunities for people to connect with nature at Nisqually Refuge.

Rationale: The Refuge is situated in an ever-growing urban area with decreasing open space and places for people to connect with the natural world. Nisqually NWR, with its visitor facilities and access to wildlife habitat, is a uniquely situated natural area in this region because of its proximity to a major freeway and large urban population.

More than 100,000 people visited the Refuge in 2000. The Refuge provides a variety of programming and services to these visitors, from a state-of-the-art Visitor Center with interpretive exhibits to special events communicating important messages about fish and wildlife conservation and connecting people with nature. But the potential is much greater. Continued growth of the area will mean an increasing need to provide people with information about the Refuge, fish and wildlife conservation, and stewardship of our

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-20 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS natural resources. Access to wildlife habitats would continue to be a primary focus for interpretation programs and facilities. Interpretive programs will include interpretation on habitat restoration designed to help visitors understand the importance of this program and its benefits to wildlife. New and non-traditional audiences must be reached. Refuge staff will look for ways, through partnerships, special events, and off-site programs, to reach new audiences with wildlife conservation messages.

Strategies: • Within 3 years following approval of the CCP, develop a visitor services plan that covers all Refuge public use programs. • Hire an outdoor recreation planner, GS-9 (0.5 FTE). • Provide interpretation on Refuge trails through the use of interpretive panels and self-guided trail brochures. • Maintain visitor center exhibits that interpret broad issues such as the watershed, flyway, and estuary. Replace exhibits as needed to keep them current and well maintained. • Maintain a rotating wildlife art exhibit in the Visitor Center auditorium. • Support efforts of the Nisqually Refuge Cooperating Association in providing quality educational and interpretive programs, materials, and sales items. • Work together with partners to produce quality special events at the Refuge such as Summer Lecture Series, Nisqually Watershed Festival, International Migratory Bird Day, and National Wildlife Refuge Week, which communicate fish, wildlife, and habitat conservation messages. Special events will identify one new or non-traditional audience to include in publicity efforts. • Provide weekend volunteer naturalist led interpretive programs led by on topics such as history of Brown Farm, spring wildflowers, and bird migration.

Objective 4.5: Wildlife Photography Provide a variety of quality wildlife photography opportunities to increase visitor understanding and appreciation for and enjoyment of Nisqually River delta resources.

Rationale: Wildlife photography is one of six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Photographic opportunities promote public understanding and increase public appreciation for America’s natural resources and incorporate a message of stewardship and conservation. The Refuge will provide a high quality photography program where compatible with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, other objectives, and other compatible uses.

Strategies: C Following habitat restoration activities and as part of a visitor services plan, determine the need for and locations of permanent photo blinds. New photo blinds would be constructed and placed in areas that would have the least amount of disturbance to wildlife. C Evaluate current use and needs of photographers on the Refuge. C In trail development, include spur trails or widened trail or boardwalk push outs to allow photographers space for equipment. C Provide a wildlife photography interpretive program.

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-21 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS C Have wildlife photo exhibits as part of rotating wildlife art exhibit in Visitor Center. C Include information on photography and ethical behaviors in Refuge brochure. C Conduct regular evaluations, including feedback from photographers, to determine whether objective is being met.

Objective 4.6: Outreach and Partnerships The Refuge will take a leadership role in developing and strengthening partnerships, including a volunteer services program, and will conduct a variety of outreach efforts to more effectively achieve Refuge goals and contribution to the protection and enhancement of the Nisqually River watershed.

Objective Comparison by Alternative Objective 4.6 ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C ALT. D Outreach and 70 volunteers 100 volunteers 100 volunteers 100 volunteers Partnerships

Rationale: Strong partnerships will be essential for the Service to achieve its vision and goals for the Refuge. Cooperative efforts with key partners will greatly further habitat protection and restoration, watershed efforts, and education and interpretation. The Refuge’s location in the Nisqually delta provides a focal point that encourages participation by a variety partners to come together to strengthen watershed protection. The volunteer services program is a critical part of the Refuge workforce, benefitting all programs and goals, and strengthening community relations. Volunteers contribute the equivalent of 3.7 FTEs annually, donated by more than 70 volunteers. Outreach efforts will enable the Refuge to reach new audiences.

Strategies: • Within 2 years of CCP approval, hire a GS-7/9 volunteer coordinator to strengthen and enlarge the volunteer services program to provide effective training and program management of the program for a corps of 100 volunteers. Continue to involve volunteers in a variety of Refuge programs to strengthen ties with the community. • Conduct special events to reach out to new audiences and involve partners, for example the Nisqually Watershed Festival, International Migratory Bird Day, and Summer Lecture Series. • Work to provide funding and other support to partners to strengthen the outreach and education program through challenge grants and other grant programs. • Participate in off-site community events to further Refuge goals. • Continue active participation in critical partnership efforts such as the Nisqually River Council and the Audubon Refuge Keepers. • Strengthen coordination with the Nisqually Refuge Cooperating Association through regular meetings, assisting in providing training, and coordination with the volunteer program.

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-22 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Objective 4.7: Cultural Resource Program Implement a proactive cultural resource management program that focuses on meeting the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act, including consultation, identification, inventory, evaluation, and protection of cultural resources.

Rationale: The management and protection of cultural resources is an integral element in fulfilling Refuge goals. The Refuge supports a variety of cultural resources and has opportunities to provide interpretation and education to diverse audiences on these unique aspects of the Nisqually delta area. Refuge expansion and changes to Refuge habitats and facilities warrant a comprehensive cultural resource management program.

Strategies: C Develop an interpretive program that presents accurate information about Native American history of the Nisqually delta and lower watershed. C Protect and record the values of the Refuge’s historical landscape and archaeological resources while managing habitat and wildlife. C Identify archaeological sites that coincide with existing and planned roads, facilities, public use areas, and habitat projects. Evaluate threatened and impacted sites for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. Prepare and implement activities to mitigate impacts to sites as necessary. C Develop a GIS layer for cultural resources that can be used with other GIS layers for the Refuge, yet contains appropriate locks to protect sensitive information. C Develop partnership with the Nisqually Indian Tribe for cultural resources inventory, evaluation, and project monitoring, consistent with the regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Objective 4.8: Cultural Resources Education and Interpretation Develop, in partnership with the Nisqually Indian Tribe and other preservation partners, a program for the education and interpretation of cultural resources of the Nisqually NWR.

Rationale: Cultural resources are not renewable. Thus, interpretation of cultural resources can instill a conservation ethic among the public and others who encounter or manage them. The goals of the cultural resource education and interpretive program are fourfold: (1) translate the results of cultural research into media that can be understood and appreciated by a variety of publics, (2) engender an appreciation for the Native American culture and perspective on cultural resources, (3) relate the connection between cultural resources and natural resources and the role of humans in the environment, and (4) instill an ethic for the conservation of our cultural heritage.

Strategies: C Prepare interpretive media (e.g., pamphlets, signs, exhibits) that relate the cultural resources and Native American perspective and Euro-American settlement history of the Refuge for visitors. C Prepare environmental/cultural education materials for use in education center schools concerning cultural resources, the perspective of Native Americans, the history of the area, and conservation of natural and cultural resources.

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-23 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS C Develop partnerships with educational institutions for the interpretation and protection of cultural resources at the Refuge. C Consult with the Nisqually Indian Tribe to identify the type of cultural resources information appropriate for public interpretation. C Develop an outreach program and materials so that the cultural resource messages become part of cultural events in the area, including: Washington Archaeology Month, National Wildlife Refuge Week, and appropriate local festivals.

Appendix I: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Page I-24 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Appendix J: Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Modeling Summary

Introduction

A hydrodynamic and sediment transport model and technical report were developed to evaluate tidal restoration alternatives at Nisqually NWR (ENSR 1999). This computer model was used to simulate water, sediment, and salinity characteristics under various restoration scenarios using a mean tide and mean annual river flow condition, and under 1996 river flood conditions. This modeling effort was useful in evaluating critical physical components involved in restoration, including water flow, timing, velocity, bed shear, salinity, sedimentation, and extent of tidal inundation. The model was also used to assess extreme flood conditions and alternative dike configurations.

Methods

The study area included the Nisqually River, McAllister Creek, I-5, and Puget Sound/Nisqually Reach as limits on each side. Existing data were used as much as possible on river and delta geometry, bathymetry, currents, salinity, and sediment characteristics. In addition, new data were gathered in the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek to fill information gaps, including river bathymetry, velocity time-series, salinity profiles, water surface elevations, suspended sediment concentration, and creek and pond bathymetry inside the diked area. The models used were RMA-10 for hydrodynamics and RMA-11 for sediment and salinity transport. These models can account for the effects of temperature, salinity, and suspended sediment on flow in rivers, estuaries, lakes, and reservoirs. The models were calibrated and verified using data collected during spring 1998 from the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek.

Eight alternatives were examined (with a variation in breach width on one alternative), ranging from Alternative 1, no changes in existing dike configuration (status quo), to Alternative 8, with maximum tidal restoration (approximately 80% of the diked area). Each alternative assumed the dikes were reduced down to grade in estuarine restoration areas, and the adjacent borrow ditch was filled, except for two alternatives that included breaching and bridging dikes in specific locations and retaining the dike system, with the borrow ditch left unfilled. Breaches in Alternative 3 had widths of 45 to 55 feet, creating restricted tidal flow. Breach widths were also modified in Alternatives 3 and 4 with breach widths sized to be slightly wider than the size of the existing tidal sloughs, so as to try ensure that high tidal volumes could enter and exit the restoration site. This made breaches very wide, from approximately 240 to 325 feet. These modifications were referred to as Alternatives 3W and 4b. Alternative 6, the 70% tidal restoration alternative, included a low berm to create a riparian restoration zone along the Nisqually River. All alternatives were designed to protect Nisqually NWR headquarters facilities within dikes.

Modeling Results and Discussion

The model provides important information that is useful in assessing some of the key components of estuarine restoration projects. Successful estuarine restoration typically depends on recreating a fully functional tidal system, where the tidal prism or volume is sufficient for full tidal inundation in the restored area with each tidal cycle. Natural patterns in tidal flushing and circulation are critical to flush soils, carry nutrients and sediments to all parts of a restored site,

Appendix J: Hydrodynamic Modeling Summary Page J-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS and create the intricate system of tidal channels that feed a salt marsh. Conversely, tidal waters must be able to evacuate the site, to avoid ponding and fish entrapment. Excessive ponding will create lagoon-like or subtidal conditions, rather than a salt marsh. Isolated ponding can create artificially high salinities in water or soils due to evaporation and lack of flushing. Successful estuarine restoration also depends on the ability of sediments to reach the restored site, to accumulate soils and build the elevations necessary to grow salt marsh vegetation. Areas requiring tidal restoration are often subsided, and sedimentation is a critical component of successful restoration. Another important factor in successful estuarine restoration includes minimizing areas of high water velocity or bed shear to avoid creating highly erosive features. High bed shear could result in erosion of salt marsh, dikes, or breaches that would present potential failure sites or constant maintenance needs.

Dike Configuration and Water Movement: In alternatives where the dikes were removed to grade and the borrow ditch filled, full tidal penetration occurred with each of the alternatives. In Alternative 3, when dikes were breached with narrow openings along McAllister Creek, the peak water surface elevation in the restored area decreased by approximately 1.7 feet, and the peak was delayed by 40 minutes from what would be expected with unrestricted tidal conditions. Even wide breaches (Alternatives 3W and 4b) produced a slight delay due to the distance from the mouth of McAllister Creek. For Alternative 4b, the 50% restoration alternative in which the dikes were retained and very wide breaches added, the peak water surface elevation and timing of the tide phase were not significantly decreased. However, the wide breaches apparently reduced outflow during the receding tide, so stored water could not completely drain, leaving ponding within the restored area and in the unfilled borrow ditches. Leaving the borrow ditches unfilled (Alternatives 3, 3W, and 4b) also showed that tidal waters were partially diverted into the borrow ditches on incoming tides, affecting tidal circulation in sloughs.

Flooding: During extreme flood conditions, the Nisqually River overtops its banks upstream of the Refuge, on the south side of the I-5 bridge. The water inundates the floodplain and flows into the diked area, with approximately 70% of flood waters entering the southeast corner of the Refuge through a channel and opening under I-5 and about 30% entering through an overflow channel adjacent to McAllister Creek. All alternatives showed flooding in the diked area under 1996 flood conditions. The alternatives that restored 70% and 80% of the diked area and eliminated cross dikes along the McAllister Creek side of the Refuge reduced flood impacts to the Refuge. These alternatives allowed flood waters from the McAllister Creek overflow channel to empty unimpeded into the McAllister Creek tidal system, instead of emptying inside of diked habitat. However, diked areas in all alternatives were still flooded by flows from the overflow channel at the southeast corner of the Refuge.

Water Velocities and Bed Shear: Water velocities in tidal channels outside the dike under current conditions (status quo) were lower than restored alternatives where dikes were removed. This illustrates one of the effects of diking, where tidal channels outside the dike have a reduced tidal prism or volume because of the loss of tidal area. Alternatives that created new crossdikes that blocked tidal channels created this same backwater effect, producing a reduced volume or flow in tidal channels than would occur in a system without dikes. Alternatives with no crossdikes along McAllister Creek (70% and 80% alternatives) alleviated this effect, producing fuller tidal flow in the sloughs and channels along McAllister Creek.

Water velocities and bed shear, another measure of potential erosion, were much higher in fixed breaches, as compared to unrestricted tidal channels where dikes were removed. This illustrates

Appendix J: Hydrodynamic Modeling Summary Page J-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS the difficulty in protecting fixed breaches from eroding or widening, especially during flood conditions. In addition, velocities in the Nisqually River were confirmed to be much higher at large bends in the river, particularly during flood conditions, illustrating the highly erosive conditions that lead to dike failures, when these high velocities are forced to stay within constricted channels.

Salinity: Salinity patterns were only modeled for two tidal cycles. Longer simulations may show greater salinity penetration. Alternatives where dikes were breached and retained showed less salinity penetration in the restored area. Less salinity penetration was also observed in McAllister Creek in a 50% alternative, due to the dike constriction along McAllister Creek, which reduced tidal flow up McAllister.

Sedimentation: Sediment loads are small in the Nisqually River, McAllister Creek, and the Nisqually Reach during near annual flow conditions. Maximizing sediment deposition in restored areas is important to enhance success in a sediment-poor system like the Nisqually delta. The major source of sediments comes down the Nisqually River during flood events, when large amounts of sediment are carried in flood waters. An extended simulation period may be needed to evaluate more long-term deposition patterns; however, deposition during the 1996 flood event provides an example of potential sedimentation patterns. Dike configuration affected sediment deposition patterns. In general, alternatives where more dike was removed along the Nisqually River showed more sediment deposition along the river and in restored areas. Alternative 3, which had narrow dike breaches, showed little sediment deposition.

Conclusions

The model was very useful in evaluating various estuarine restoration scenarios, using a variety of dike configurations. Full tidal penetration occurred when dikes were removed to grade and the borrow ditch filled. Narrow breaches restricted tidal flow, reducing water surface elevations on incoming tides and delaying tidal flows. Breaches greater than the width of channel openings also allowed full tidal penetration, but stored water did not completely drain in receding tides, resulting in ponding in marshes and borrow ditches. Borrow ditches partially diverted incoming tidal flows when left unfilled, affecting circulation in restored tidal channels. Restoration scenarios retaining dikes with breaches also reduced sedimentation and altered salinity patterns. Water velocities and bed shear in channels moving through dike breaches indicated that fixed breaches may be difficult to protect from erosion.

Flooding upstream of I-5 is not expected to be adversely impacted by habitat restoration. Alternatives resulting in 70% and 80% estuarine restoration reduced flooding in the diked area, by allowing the McAllister overflow channel to empty directly into McAllister Creek. Salinity tended toward marine conditions, but some brackish areas may occur near the margins of marine water penetration. The Nisqually River is a sediment-poor system, due to dams upstream on the Nisqually River which trap much of the sediments. However, during flood events, the Nisqually River provides a major source of sediment. Dike configurations with more dike removed along the River allowed a greater amount of sediment to deposit in the restored area.

Appendix J: Hydrodynamic Modeling Summary Page J-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix J: Hydrodynamic Modeling Summary Page J-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

LAND PROTECTION PLAN

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Thurston and Pierce Counties, Washington

Prepared By:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 100 Brown Farm Road Olympia, Washington 98516

May 2002

APPENDIX K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents...... K-i

1.1 Introduction ...... K-1

1.2 Project Description ...... K-1

1.3 Threat to or Status of the Resource ...... K-3

1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Expansion ...... K-3

1.5 Land Protection Alternatives ...... K-5 1.5.1 Willing Seller Policy ...... K-5 1.5.2 Habitat Protection Methods ...... K-6

1.6 Land Protection Priorities ...... K-6

1.7 Coordination ...... K-7

1.8 Social and Cultural Impacts ...... K-7

TABLES

Table 1 - Land Protection Priorities for the Expansion Area ...... K-9

Table 2 - Land Protection Priorities for Lands Within the Approved Refuge Boundary . . . K-13

MAPS

Figure 1- Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Tract Map Index...... K-14

Figure 2 - Area 1 Tract Map ...... K-15

Figure 3 - Area 2 Tract Map ...... K-16

Figure 4 - Area 3 Tract Map ...... K-17

Figure 5 - Area 4 Tract Map ...... K-18

Figure 6 - Area 5 Tract Map ...... K-19

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-i Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Land Protection Plan

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Thurston and Pierce Counties, Washington May 2002

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Land Protection Plan identifying the habitat protection methods that could take place for lands within Alternative D (Preferred Alternative) described in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and for lands within the approved boundary of the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). This plan also includes a priority listing of lands to be considered for acquisition within the proposed boundary and within the approved boundary.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Nisqually Refuge is located in Thurston and Pierce counties along southern Puget Sound (EIS, Figure 1.1-1). The Refuge was established in 1974 to protect the existing estuary from development. The approved Refuge boundary is approximately 3,936 acres. The acquisition program is ongoing and the Service has acquired approximately 2,925 acres in fee title, conservation easements, and leases to date within the approved refuge boundary. Non-refuge lands within the approved boundary total approximately 1,011 acres.

The proposed expansion would add approximately 3,479 acres for a total authorized boundary of 7,415 acres. The expansion would include 512 acres of upland habitat and 2,963 acres of floodplain, riparian, and wetland habitat. The boundary would increase habitat protection on the East Bluff north of I-5 to include a forested corridor. It would also extend the boundary south of I-5 to include floodplain, bluff, wetland, and upland forested habitats along the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek.

McAllister Creek Area: McAllister Creek originates from springs and seeps located approximately 3 miles south of Interstate 5 (I-5). It flows northerly along the base of forested bluffs, passing through the Refuge and emptying into Puget Sound. Medicine Creek originates near the Nisqually River and meanders west through developments and agricultural lands until it meets McAllister Creek.

Early in the century, the area surrounding the southern portions of McAllister Creek was likely covered with riparian forest habitat and freshwater wetlands until the majority of it was harvested, diked, and drained for use as cropland and pasture. Today, much of the McAllister Creek watershed south of I-5 continues to be maintained as pasture and cropland with dikes.

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS The area contains freshwater wetlands in the form of potholes and upland depressions. Wetland vegetation includes sedge stands, cattails, bulrushes, willows, salmonberry, and skunk cabbage. The headwater springs of McAllister Creek are surrounded by upland forest habitat consisting primarily of second growth Douglas-fir. The agricultural lands would provide grassland habitat and restoration opportunities for riparian forest habitat and freshwater wetlands.

The agricultural lands south of I-5 are currently used by migratory waterfowl for foraging and resting during localized flooding events in the fall and winter period. Common waterfowl species include American wigeon, mallards, pintails, green-winged teal, and Canada geese.

As the high tides cover the estuary, shorebirds are pushed inland and can be found using the agricultural lands along McAllister Creek. Typical shorebird species found include dunlin, dowitchers, western and least sandpipers, common snipe, and yellowlegs.

The creek historically contained seven species of salmon and trout, specifically chinook, coho, chum, and pink salmon, cutthroat and bull trout, and steelhead. Remnant runs of chinook, coho, and chum salmon, bull trout, and steelhead continue to return.

East Bluffs: The bluffs located along the eastern edge of the study area are covered with upland forest dominated by conifers. Douglas-fir is predominant, mixed with bigleaf maple, western hemlock, and red alder. The area drains directly into that portion of the Nisqually River located within the Refuge. The forest habitat located in the east bluff area provides habitat for passerines, woodpeckers, and raptors. A bald eagle nest has been reported on the bluff. The area also serves as a migration corridor for mammal species moving from one habitat to another.

Nisqually Valley and River Corridor: The Nisqually Valley and River corridor consists of agricultural lands, freshwater wetlands, and the riparian corridor contained within upland bluffs on the east rising from the river valley. The riparian corridor contains relatively undisturbed floodplain forest, backwater areas, and freshwater wetlands. Black cottonwood, red alder, bigleaf maple, Douglas-fir, and western red cedar are the dominant tree species found in the riparian corridor. The statewide significance of this area is documented in a proposal completed by The Nature Conservancy in December of 1993 which proposed the establishment of a Research Natural Area along a portion of the Nisqually River. The forested bluffs in the Nisqually River portion of the area include species such as red alder and bigleaf maple, with scattered coniferous species including Douglas-fir and western red cedar and is located on the east side of the Nisqually River.

The large and relatively undisturbed floodplain forest, backwater areas, and freshwater wetlands along the corridor provide an exceptionally productive ecosystem. Examples of species that use these types of habitats are the Pacific giant salamander, red-legged frog, tailed frog, great blue heron, harlequin duck, wood duck, belted kingfisher, American dipper, water vole, beaver, and

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS river otter. The threatened marbled murrelet has been seen along the corridor and other inhabitants include passerines, woodpeckers, and raptors.

Ten species of salmonids occur in the Nisqually River system. Chum, coho, and chinook salmon and steelhead all have distinct and healthy stocks in the river, although these runs are decreasing. The Nisqually River chinook is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Historical populations of bull trout, currently listed as threatened in Puget Sound, may exist in the Nisqually River.

1.3 THREAT TO OR STATUS OF THE RESOURCE

The South Puget Sound area is experiencing rapid growth in residential, resort, and recreational development. Many of these developments threaten the integrity of coastal ecosystems that support existing fish and wildlife populations.

The agricultural land in the McAllister Creek drainage falls within Thurston County, Washington. Thurston County recently purchased development rights on an estimated 840 acres from several of the landowners in an attempt to preserve the agricultural emphasis of the area and to prevent development of high density residential housing. The restricted development rights do allow for the conversion of agricultural lands into plant nurseries which are becoming popular in Washington. Currently, the agricultural lands contain some habitat values for migratory birds and small mammals. Conversion of these lands into nurseries occupied with greenhouses would essentially eliminate habitat values.

Some of the area along the Nisqually River falls within the Fort Lewis Military Reservation and is an excellent example of native bottomland riparian forest habitat. Unregulated use by the public has resulted in the creation of dirt roads along some of the river corridor. This unregulated use is causing habitat degradation and threatens the integrity of the native habitat. A limited amount of military training occurs in a portion of the proposed Research Natural Area.

Thurston County, located west of the Nisqually River, requires a 200-foot setback from the bluffs because of a concern for unstable soil conditions along the bluffs. Pierce County, located east of the Nisqually River, allows for construction along the top of the bluff with no required setback. Weyerhaeuser Company currently has plans to develop approximately 400 acres along the top of the bluffs, adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Refuge. There is a concern that developments adjacent to the top of the bluffs would cause increased siltation with corresponding degradation of water quality in the Nisqually Delta, fragment habitat, and compromise the visual landscape of the bluffs from the Refuge and other parts of the delta.

1.4 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION

When Nisqually Refuge was established in 1974, the original boundary was designed to protect the Delta from specific threats of development. During the ensuing 25 years, increased development has resulted in habitat loss and degradation throughout the Puget Sound area,

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS including the lower Nisqually watershed, contributing to declines of many fish and wildlife species. Refuge expansion would help alleviate the effects of increased habitat degradation, loss, and development pressures in adjacent parts of the lower watershed. Expanding the approved Refuge boundary would allow the Service to negotiate with willing participants within the new approved boundary to acquire lands or interests in land and water. Lands, or interests in lands acquired by the Service, would be managed as a part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System). The System is the largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife habitat. The needs of wildlife and their habitats come first on refuges, in contrast to other public lands managed for multiple uses.

The administration, management, and growth of the System are guided by the following goals: 1) preserve, restore, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered, 2) perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations, 3) preserve a natural diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants, 4) preserve and restore representative ecosystems of the United States, including the natural processes characteristic of those ecosystems, and 5) foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation, by providing the public with safe, high- quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent public uses. Such uses includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

The Nisqually Refuge falls within the North Pacific Coast Ecoregion. The Service’s goal for the North Pacific Coast Ecoregion is to protect, restore, and enhance the function, structure, and species composition of ecosystems for fish and wildlife conservation and the continuing benefit of people by implementing an ecosystem approach to management. This goal will be attained to the degree that the Service, working through partnerships, can 1) minimize species extinction, 2) reverse population declines, 3) maintain and enhance healthy populations of native fish and wildlife, 4) provide people with healthy ecosystems, and 5) work with our partners and the public at all levels.

The objectives of the Ecoregion are to 1) maintain high biological productivity, reverse population declines, and recover federally listed species, 2) combine and coordinate Federal, State, local, tribal, and private watershed restoration efforts on a holistic ecosystem approach across ownership boundaries, 3) increase awareness and knowledge of fish and wildlife issues and ecosystem management, and 4) provide state-of-the-art biological data to resource managers and partners to restore functioning watersheds.

The expansion of the Nisqually Refuge would help achieve Ecoregion goals and objectives by 1) protecting and restoring habitat for declining populations of anadromous fish, including the federally listed chinook salmon and the federally listed bull trout, 2) enhancing and contributing to existing habitat protection efforts by the Nisqually Tribe, Fort Lewis Military Reservation, Thurston and Pierce counties, Nisqually River Council, Nisqually River Basin Land Trust, and local conservation organizations, 3) providing a diversity of native habitats that will maintain and enhance healthy populations of fish, wildlife, and plant species native to the Nisqually River delta, and 4) providing additional quality wildlife-dependent public use opportunities.

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-4 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Refuge expansion would contribute to achieving Refuge goals including 1) to conserve, manage, restore, and enhance native habitats and associated plant and wildlife species representative of the Puget Sound lowlands with a special emphasis on migratory birds and salmon, 2) support recovery and protection efforts for Federal and State threatened and endangered species of concern, and their habitats, 3) provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Nisqually River delta and watershed, and 4) provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and outreach opportunities to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources of the Nisqually River delta and watershed.

The authorities for the proposed expansion include the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742(a)-754) and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715-715d). The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 authorizes the Service to use funds made available under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-4601-11) to acquire lands, waters, or interests therein for fish and wildlife conservation purposes. Federal monies used to acquire private lands through the Land and Water Conservation Fund are derived primarily from oil and gas leases on the outer continental shelf, excess motorboat fuel tax revenues, and the sale of surplus Federal property.

1.5 LAND PROTECTION METHODS

1.5.1 Willing Seller Policy

It is the policy of the Service to acquire lands from willing landowners. Landowners within the approved Refuge boundary who do not wish to sell their property or any other interest in their property are under no obligation to negotiate with or sell to the Service. In all acquisitions, the Service is required by law to offer 100 percent of fair market value, as determined by an appraisal completed by a professional, certified appraiser, in accordance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions.

The Service, like other Federal agencies, has the power of eminent domain. Eminent domain allows the use of condemnation to acquire lands and other interest in lands, such as easements, for the public good. The Service rarely uses this power. The Service typically is not compelled to buy specific land within a certain time frame.

Under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, landowners who sell their property to the Service may be eligible for certain payments. Determinations are made on a case by case basis.

1.5.2 Habitat Protection Methods

A variety of habitat protection methods can be used to preserve fish and wildlife habitat. The actual method selected for any individual parcel will depend upon both the needs and desires of the landowner and the Refuge. If a mutual agreement cannot be reached, the landowner retains

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-5 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS full use, control, and responsibility for the property. Cooperative efforts with Fort Lewis could involve key partners, including the Nisqually Indian Tribe. Techniques to provide improved protection of USA Trust lands would be restricted to cooperative agreements.

Cooperative Agreements. The Service can enter into cooperative agreements with landowners to improve wildlife habitat management. Cooperative agreements may specify shared responsibilities, or a transfer of funds from the Service to another entity or vice-versa for management purposes. Cooperative agreements can be applied to land under any type of ownership.

Conservation Easements. Conservation easements transfer some, but not all property rights to the Service as specified by mutual agreement. Under a conservation easement, a landowner could agree not to engage in activities damaging to wildlife habitat resources, and/or the Service could manage the land for wildlife. The Service can acquire easements through purchase, donation, or exchange. The property owner retains all responsibility for paying property taxes. The Service could negotiate conservation easements on land under any type of ownership.

Fee Title Acquisition. A fee title interest is normally acquired when 1) the fish and wildlife resources on a piece of property require permanent protection that is not otherwise available, 2) the property is needed for development associated with public use, 3) a pending land use could otherwise harm wildlife habitats, or 4) purchase is the most practical and economical way to assemble small tracts into a manageable unit. Fee title acquisition transfers all property rights held by the landowner to the Federal government. A fee title interest may be acquired by purchase, donation, or exchange.

1.6 LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES

Tables 1 and 2 list the lands within the preferred expansion boundary and within the approved Refuge boundary, respectively, by tract number, inset map, total acres, priority and possible method(s) for resource protection (ownership information is from the Pierce and Thurston County Assessor Offices and subject to change). Priorities (1, 2, 3, or 4) are assigned to each tract, 1 means high, 2 means moderate, 3 means low, and 4 means no longer of interest at this time. Tracts are being considered for acquisition because of their biological significance, existing or potential threats to wildlife habitat, significance of the area to refuge management and administration, and/or existing commitments to purchase or protect the land. Landowners within the proposed Refuge boundary and approved Refuge boundary may or may not wish to participate in the Service’s habitat protection objectives, or may not wish to divest themselves from their land management responsibilities. Based on this, the final configuration of the acquired lands is impossible to predict. But because the parcels have been identified and the potential effects of converting those lands to refuge status have been assessed in the EIS, the delineated proposed expansion boundary will provide the Service with future habitat protection options if willing sellers and participants and available funds present themselves in the future.

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-6 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS 1.7 COORDINATION

The Service worked with a variety of interested parties to identify issues and concerns associated with the proposed Refuge expansion. These interested parties included members of the public, interested private groups, landowners, elected officials, and State, Federal, Tribal, and local government agencies. The Service’s public involvement activities included hosting public scoping meetings, developing and mailing planning updates, requesting information, undertaking consultations, and responding to inquiries. The Service provided information about the proposal to the media and other interested or affected parties throughout the public scoping period (EIS, Chapter 6).

1.8 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL IMPACTS

The current quality of life for communities and individuals around the proposed additions to the Refuge is expected to be the same or better as a result of the Refuge addition. Intensified management would increase habitat quality and improve wildlife use which would result in positive effects for wildlife observation, interpretation, and photography opportunities at the Refuge. Improvements will also enhance environmental education opportunities, particularly the opportunity to observe active habitat restoration/management activities. In addition, enhanced waterfowl and fish habitats may encourage more waterfowl and fish to use the delta, improving waterfowl hunting and fishing opportunities (EIS, Chapter 4, section 4.6.4.1).

The Refuge environmental education program would be expanded to accommodate up to 15,000 students per year. The trail length would be shortened from the current 5½- mile loop trail to a 3½- mile round trip (non-loop) trail but of improved quality with diversified viewing opportunities. A new eastside trail would also be constructed. A trail would be established on the East Bluff if appropriate lands were acquired. Approximately 191 acres of the Refuge would be open to a quality waterfowl hunting program. Walk-in hunting opportunities would be considered south of I-5 if sufficient lands were acquired to allow for adequate wildlife sanctuary and minimal conflicts with other priority public uses. Bank fishing opportunities would be investigated along McAllister Creek south of I-5, if appropriate sites were acquired. This would provide new bank fishing access to help compensate for the loss of McAllister Creek bank fishing north of I-5 as a result of estuarine restoration, although the scheduled closure of the McAllister Creek Hatchery (July 2002) would reduce fishing opportunity, thereby lessening the effects of this loss. New fishing access at Luhr Beach and Nisqually River would be provided. Overall, the fishing opportunity at Nisqually Refuge is not expected to decrease (EIS, Chapter 4, section 4.6.4.3).

The Nisqually Indian Tribe would continue to hunt, fish, and gather. There are no anticipated adverse health or environmental effects to the Nisqually Indian Tribe from refuge expansion (EIS, Chapter 4. section 4.8.1).

Recreation economic expansion is expected to be proportionate to increased recreation and public access resulting from Refuge expansion. Increased revenue for the Refuge and region would depend on what lands were acquired. The effects of new facilities, new trails, improved

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-7 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS habitat, and more student visits would be expected to contribute to an increasing trend in visitation, producing increased economic benefits (EIS, Chapter 4, section 4.8.4.4).

Approximately 1,100 acres of agricultural land in Thurston County and 190 acres in Pierce County could be acquired for conservation uses. Within Thurston County, approximately 840 acres are within the existing Purchase of Development Rights program. Expansion of the Refuge could result in the reduction of grazing opportunities and the conversion of some agricultural lands to wetlands and riparian habitats, but the impact to the overall agricultural economies of these counties would be minor.

The salary and operating costs for the Refuge with a fully implemented Comprehensive Conservation Plan would be approximately $1.8 million dollars, $1.2 million above current expenditure, which would be directed towards the Refuge payroll and operational costs and contribute directly to the regional economy. There would be an indirect support of approximately 55 jobs in the regional economy (EIS, Chapter 4, section 4.8.3.4). In the context of the robust economies of Thurston and Pierce counties, these increases would be minor.

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-8 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Table 1. Land Protection Priorities for Expansion Area TRACT # OWNER NAME Figure # PRIORITY ACRES PROTECTION METHODS 1,a,b USA-ARMY 3,4,5 3 1083.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 2f,g WASH STATE-DEPT OF GAME 2,6 3 3.72 Coop Agree, Fee 2h WASH-FISHERIES DEPT 4 3 8.09 Coop Agree 2i WASH STATE-FISH HATCHERY 5 3 8.09 Coop Agree 3 THURSTON, COUNTY OF 3 3 0.24 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 3a THURSTON, COUNTY OF 4 3 6.06 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 4 LACEY, CITY OF 4 3 0.18 Coop Agree 5 OLYMPIA, CITY OF 5 3 176.33 Coop Agree 6 FIRE DISTRICT #3 3 3 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 12c,d WEYERHAEUSER 2 1 175.24 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 19c,d,g,h NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE 2,5 3 419.72 Easement 51 HOLLISON, ROBERT AND KATHLEEN 2 1 18.74 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 52 BENNAR, RAY AND GLENDA 2 2 1.76 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 53 LEIGH, JOANN 2 2 1.15 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 54 MEGEE, KATHLEEN 2 2 2.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 55 MCBRIDE, ALBERT E. JR 2 2 12.27 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 56 NISQUALLY RIVER LAND TRUST 2 1 12.99 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 57 Unknown 2 1 unk Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 58,a BRIDGES, TERESA M 3 2 99.63 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 59 WALKER, LESTER B 3 3 0.69 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 60 SCOTT, CINDY 3 3 0.88 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 61 ALVESTAD, CAREY D ETAL 3 3 0.81 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 62 GOTTFRIEDSON, HENRY F/ALISON K 3 3 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 63 MATHEWS, MAUREEN H 3 3 1.02 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 64 DERICKSON, DOUGLAS 3 3 0.24 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 65 TAYLOR, GARY/JANET 3 3 0.47 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 66 FRANK, WILLIE 3 3 6.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 67 BLACK, JEFFREY S/CONNIE M 3 3 0.52 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 68 CLEMENT, KENDALL S & MARIBETH 3 3 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 69 BRUDER, TERESA/RUSS 3 3 1.18 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 70 ROESSNER, DEBRA D 3 3 0.92 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 71 LOVIK, DENA L 3 3 0.61 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 72 BOHREN, PATTI 3 3 1.36 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 73 COLE, CLARA M 3 2 3.61 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 74 MILLER, RHETT 3 2 0.83 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 75 CAMPBELL, LOIS M 3 2 3.40 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 76 MC GILLIS, JOHN W 3 3 0.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 77 LOSEY, DAVID L/SHARON 3 3 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 78 GRASSI, NELLO L 3 2 4.12 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 79 TATE, JOHN & JUANITA D 3 2 13.79 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 80 LYON, MICHAEL/JUDY 3 3 0.49 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 81 BREDESEN, CHRISTOPHER L. 3 2 11.80 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 82 DOERING, AARON M/AMY L 3 2 0.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 83 PIETRZAK, PAUL R 3 2 1.03 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 84,a SAYONC, BETTY L 3 2 11.91 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 85 LEAMAN, H DENNIS 3 2 2.11 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 86 COOTS, DEAN E 3 2 2.72 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 87 SNELL, LLOYD E & ROSE M 3 1 5.56 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 88 NYE, TIMOTHY S JR 3 1 1.01 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 89 SCHMAUDER, ALLEN 3 1 0.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 90 COLLINS, JAMES R/JODI K 3 1 0.86 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-9 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Table 1. Land Protection Priorities for Expansion Area TRACT# OWNER NAME Figure# PRIORITY ACRES PROTECTION METHODS 91 ATTWOOD, SALLY J 3 1 1.17 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 92 ATTWOOD, LARRY E 3 1 1.40 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 93 KRISHNAMOORTI, SIGNA R 3 1 7.61 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 94 WARREN, DOROTHY G 3 2 7.47 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 95 SCOTT, CHAE AN 3 2 7.18 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 96 HONG, CHANLIP MAN 3 2 10.03 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 97 SAYONC, HELEN F 3 2 3.58 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 98 HILL, DOROTHY R 3 2 2.76 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 99 CHOJNOWSKI, DANIEL/PATRICIA 3 2 1.71 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 100 BROWN, JAMES C 3 2 7.69 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 101 HUNGERFORD, WILLIAM E 3 2 12.86 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 102 MC QUEEN, BRUCE & PATRICIA 3 3 0.78 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 103,a DAVIS, SCOTT A 3,4 3 3.55 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 104 DAVIS, KARIN K 3 3 2.29 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 105 GLASTETTER, HOWARD/COLLEEN 3 3 1.52 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 106 ALLEN, DONNA L 3 3 0.21 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 107 FLYNN, MARGARET E 3 3 0.22 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 108 BELT ENT INC 3 3 0.23 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 109 BREWER, LARRY 3 3 0.18 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 110 CHURILLA, ROBERT J/GLENDA F 3 3 0.31 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 111 BALCOM, MABEL I 3 3 1.02 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 112 GEORGE, HAROLD F 3 3 1.62 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 113 WICK, ROLF F 3 3 0.54 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 114 SHERMAN, JACK E/CARRIE L 3 3 0.91 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 115 CLINTON, JON P 3 3 0.23 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 116 SHEAK, MARGARET 3 3 0.53 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 117 HUNGERFORD, WILLIAM E ETUX 3 3 0.02 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 118 RODRIGUES, DENNIS/IRENE 3 3 0.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 119 CHRISTOFFER, JEROLD F ETUX 4 2 2.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 120 GOHEEN, BRYAN C/SYLVIA 4 3 0.66 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 121 BODEN, DAVID W 4 3 0.51 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 122 YOUNG, RICKEY M/GISELA 4 3 0.45 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 123 CHAMBERLAIN, JESSIE M ET AL 4 3 0.54 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 124 DEAN, MARY LOUISE 4 3 0.30 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 125 LIPSCOMB, C JEAN 4 3 0.39 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 126 COOPER, RUBY M 4 3 0.58 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 127 WATSON, ELIZABETH 4 3 1.20 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 128 SMITH, JOANN M 4 3 0.63 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 129 LEGWOLD, ROCKY L 4 1 0.52 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 130 ANDERSON, KENNETH A 4 3 0.37 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 131 ANDERSON, LEE D ETAL 4 3 0.24 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 132 SCHRUM, JOSEPH A/DEVON L 4 3 0.12 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 133 WATTS, KELLY L/SUSAN A 4 3 0.32 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 134 MELBY, WARD R ETAL 4 1 0.81 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 135 PHILLIPS, DOUGLAS S 4 1 0.34 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 136 STENKLYFT, JAMES A 4 1 0.27 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 137 NISQUALLY SPORTSMEN CLUB 3,5 1 68.94 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 138 ANDERSON, LAURIE 5 1 15.16 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 139 EBERLING, MARSHALL E 5 2 0.97 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 140 LONERGAN, GEORGE A 5 1 5.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-10 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Table 1. Land Protection Priorities for Expansion Area TRACT# OWNER NAME Figure# PRIORITY ACRES PROTECTION METHODS 141 WESTBERG, RAY 5 2 1.06 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 142 CORP OF LATTER DAY SAINTS 5 1 38.34 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 143 BLENCOE, LUCILLE M 5 1 37.94 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 144,a REESE, GARY FULLER 3,5 1 89.04 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 145 BABARE, GEORGE M 5 1 107.48 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 146 WASH DIV INV CORP 3,4 1 0.74 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 149,a STOKER, GERRIT 3 1 74.25 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 150 NISQUALLY PLAZA RV PARK 3 3 1.80 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 151,a,b ELWESS, GENE/ANNIE 3 3 5.96 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 152 SINGH, BAJINDER ETAL 3 3 0.51 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 153,a JACOBS, JAMES A 3 3 1.09 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 154 THREATT, LORENA E 3 3 0.51 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 155 ALL MARINE INC 3 3 0.64 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 156 BRESSI, PAUL M 3 3 0.46 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 157 SCHILTER, JEFF AND STEPHANIE 3 2 5.16 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 158,a,b SCHILTER, GOTTFRIED J 3 1 73.53 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 159 INDUSTRIAL FORESTRY 3 1 9.36 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 160 HAIDUCEK, TIMOTHY J/JOY E 3 2 2.75 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 161 Unknown 3 2 0.72 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 162 Unknown 3 2 0.46 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 163 GABLE, ADRIAN L 3 2 0.25 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 164 WESTLIN, BERTHA L ESTATE 3 2 1.66 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 165,a-d THOMSEN JESS INC 3,5 1 740.06 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 166 TORDEN, THOMSEN, INC 3,5 1 68.36 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 167 ROLLER, JON/GAIL 5 1 6.54 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 168 HILL, JAMES J 3,5 1 0.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 169 HILL, PAUL 3,5 1 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 170,a,b SCHOLS, HERMAN 3,5 1 124.02 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 171 BROUGH, ROGER D 5 2 1.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 172 KOHLENBERG, DAVID/ELIZABETH 5 1 1.78 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 173 LONCAR, PAUL 5 1 5.50 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 174 VO, TRI M/TRINH, DUNG K 5 1 43.94 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 175,a NIELSEN PACIFIC LTD 5 2 290.43 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 176 WARD, HUGO F 5 1 40.00 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 177 MYERS, JAMES H 5 1 40.17 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 178 PIGMAN, DEAN A 5 1 9.80 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 179 WILLETTE, JON F/GUILA K 5 1 7.86 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 180 LOFTIN, FRED E 5 3 4.18 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 181 LOFTIN, CLAIRE 5 2 3.55 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 182,a SMIT, JULIE L 5 3 3.80 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 183,a BARATZ, JULIUS/LOIS TSTEES 5 3 6.29 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 184 BERG, JERI L 5 2 97.59 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 185 GATZKA, JOSEPH A. 5 2 0.73 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 186,a,b MCALLISTER CREEK ASSN 5 2 1.06 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 187 SUTTON, ROBERT JR./CRISTAN 5 2 0.90 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 188 SELDOMRIDGE, CHARLES B. 5 2 1.17 ++ Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 189 OSTREICH, TROY D. 5 2 0.34 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 190 DONALLY, ELFRIEDE H. 5 2 0.77 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 191 MATTESON, JON MICHAEL 5 2 0.22 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 192 EVANS, WILLIAM/KATHLEEN 5 2 0.59 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 193,a BRAGET TRUSTEE, AGNES 5 2 1.54 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-11 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Table 1. Land Protection Priorities for Expansion Area TRACT# OWNER NAME Figure# PRIORITY ACRES PROTECTION METHODS 194 BOEHM, FREDERICK/MICHELLE 5 2 0.39 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 195 ZEUTENHORST, PHILLIP 5 2 0.44 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 196 CIRRITO, CAROLYN B. 5 2 0.64 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 197 PITTMON, JOANN/DOUGLAS 5 2 0.43 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 198 MACY, MARSHALL/DEBORAH 5 2 0.82 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 199 KOHLENBERG, DAVID/ELIZABETH 5 2 1.03 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 200 SCHOLS, MARIANN J. 5 2 0.60 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

Table 2. Land Protection Priorities for Inholdings TRACT # OWNER NAME Figure # PRIORITY ACRES PROTECTION METHODS 19,a,b NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE 6 1 330 Coop Agree 2, a-c WASH-GAME DEPT 6 1 625 Coop Agree 13 CROUSE, CARL N/GLORIA 6 1 1 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 16b,c BABARE, ROBERT 6 1 34 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 17 MOE, GREGORY 6 1 1 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 22 EAGLE CLIFFS SUBDIVISION 6 4 30 25 BORLEY, CLARENCE 6 1 3 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement 27 MARTIN, JAMES A/MARY D 6 1 4 Fee, Coop Agree, Easement

Appendix K: Land Protection Plan K-12 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Appendix L: Wilderness Review

A wilderness review is the process used by the Service to determine whether or not to recommend lands or waters in the National Wildlife Refuge System to Congress for designation as wilderness. The Service is required to conduct a wilderness review for each refuge as part of the CCP process. Land or waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness are identified in a CCP and further evaluated to determine whether they merit recommendation for inclusion in the Wilderness System.

According to Section 13 of the Service’s Director’s Order No. 125 (12 July 2000), in order for a refuge to be considered for wilderness designation, all or part of the refuge must:

! Be affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the human imprint substantially unnoticeable; ! Have outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation; ! Have at least 5,000 contiguous acres (2000 ha) or be sufficient in size to make practical its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, or be capable of restoration to wilderness character through appropriate management, at the time of review; and ! Be a roadless island.

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is not recommended for inclusion in the Wilderness System because it does not meet the above criteria. The Refuge comprises only 3,936 acres; has considerable evidence of past human use; does not have outstanding opportunities for solitude; and is not roadless.

Appendix L: Wilderness Review Page L-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix L: Wilderness Review Page L-2 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... M-1

2.0 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED...... M-3 2.1 Summary of Comments Received on the Draft CCP/EIS and the Response Process...... M-3 2.2 Quantitative Summary of Comments Received – Alternatives and Issues ...... M-5

3.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND SERVICE RESPONSES...... M-11 3.1 Public Comment on Alternatives and Preference for Alternatives ...... M-14 3.2 Refuge Expansion ...... M-20 3.3 Restoration ...... M-31 3.3.1 Estuarine Restoration ...... M-31 3.3.2 Freshwater Wetland and Riparian Restoration ...... M-39 3.4 Environmental Education Opportunities ...... M-41 3.5 Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, Trails, and Public Access...... M-43 3.6 Waterfowl Hunting ...... M-50 3.7 Fishing and Shellfishing...... M-60 3.8 PWC Use and Boating...... M-62 3.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... M-65 3.10 Threatened and Endangered Species (TES)...... M-70 3.11 Cultural Resources ...... M-71 3.12 Process...... M-73 3.13 Miscellaneous Comments...... M-78

4.0 LIST OF PEOPLE AND ENTITIES THAT PROVIDED COMMENT ...... M-81

TABLES

Table M-1. Affiliation Type of Comments Provided...... M-4 Table M-2. Medium of Comment...... M-4 Table M-3. Origin of Respondents ...... M-4 Table M-4. Support for the Defined CCP/EIS Alternatives...... M-6 Table M-5. Commentor Preference for NOT Implementing an Alternative (i.e., Opposing)...... M-6 Table M-6. Where to Find Specific Comments and the Service’s Response...... M-12

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-i Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Page M-ii Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains a detailed summary of all comments that were received in response to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft CCP/EIS) for Nisqually NWR during the official public comment period. 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 organized so that an objective analysis and presentation of the comments could be made (see Section 2). Each piece of correspondence was assigned an identification number. Note that for simplicity sake, the word “letter” is generally used throughout this appendix to refer to any comment received, whether by letter, fax, postcard, e- mail, comment sheet, or telephone call. A database was created to help analyze the nature and extent of the range of comments received. Comments recorded on flip chart at the public meetings held in January 2003 were also transcribed and considered. Service responses are included in Section 3. The names and affiliations of all of the people who commented are listed at the end of this Appendix (Section 4). In cases where a letter pointed out a minor typographical or editorial error in the Draft CCP/EIS/ the change was made in the Final CCP/EIS, but no response is included in this summary.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-1 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Page M-2 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

2.0 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED

2.1 Summary of Comments Received on the Draft CCP/EIS and the Response Process

The Service received a total of 1,717 comments (by letter, fax, postcard, e-mail, comment sheet, or telephone call) on the Nisqually NWR CCP/EIS during the 60-day comment period. This number of comments suggests a very significant level of interest in Nisqually NWR. Other CCPs have generally not generated nearly this level of response during the public comment process; indeed, planning projects proposed by federal agencies typically do not receive a great deal of public response.

Public Meetings

To facilitate public review and comment on the Draft CCP/EIS, the Service hosted two public meetings, the first at Nisqually NWR (January 15, 2003, at the Visitor Center), and the second in Tacoma, Washington (January 16, 2003 at the downtown public library). Although no formal presentation was made at the meetings, Service staff and visual aids, including detailed GIS maps and tables, were available at each topical station to facilitate dialog. Copies of the Draft CCP/EIS and the separately bound Executive Summary were available for the public to review and take with them.

At the meetings, the public was invited to provide comments on the contents of the Draft CCP/EIS. Comment sheets were provided. In addition, each station had a flipchart; comments were summarized by Service staff on the flip charts and later transcribed. Although comments recorded on flip charts at the public meetings were not included in the quantitative analysis of written comments, they were all reviewed and considered in revising the document, and unique comments were also included in the comment summary in Section 3. People who provided comments in this fashion were also encouraged to submit more formal written comments during the comment period.

The public meetings were attended by a wide range of people, including federal, state, and local agency staff; representatives of organizations; tribal representatives; neighbors of the Refuge; and other members of the general public. Both meetings were held in the late afternoon and evening (3 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.). The Nisqually NWR meeting was attended by approximately 220 individuals, and about 30 people attended the Tacoma Public Library meeting. An additional meeting was held on January 11, 2003 with approximately 30 Refuge volunteers. Comments gathered there were also included in the comment summary in Section 3 and considered in development of the final document.

Affiliations

Table M-1 presents a breakdown of the affiliation of comments received. Names and entities are listed at the end of this Appendix (Section 4).

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-3 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Table M-1. Affiliation Type of Comments Provided. Affiliation Type Number of Letters Received Federal Agencies* 5 State Agencies* 3 Local Agencies* (County, City) 4 Tribes* 2 Organizations* 23 Businesses* 4 General Public 1,676 * Each agency, organization, tribe, and business represents numerous individuals.

Comment Media

Comments were received in a variety of formats during this process, including letters (and postcards), e-mails, faxes, phone conversations, and comment sheets distributed by the Service (primarily at public meetings) to facilitate the comment process. The distribution of media type is summarized below in Table M-2. Note: no petitions were received as part of the comment process, although a few of the form letters contained up to 8 signatures.

It should be recognized that the increased use of e-mail and other internet-based communication tools contributed to the large number of comments received on the Draft CCP/EIS. The Service considered all comments received as part of the decision-making process.

Table M-2. Medium of Comment Type of Media Number of Comments Received Letter 148 E-mail 1,464 Fax 1 Phone Record 6 Comment Sheet 98

Place of Origin of Commentors

Nisqually NWR is a recognized resource of regional significance, well known in Puget Sound, the Pacific Northwest, and along the entire West Coast. Its proximity to the major urbanized area of Puget Sound, as well as its direct access off of Interstate 5, contribute to a very high annual and broad-based visitation. The origins of comments received reflect this visitation pattern. The greatest number of respondents (20%) was from Washington, followed by California (10%) and New York (8%).

Table M-3. Origin of Respondents # Of STATE respondents STATE # Of respondents Outside of the U.S. 18 Mississippi 4 Alabama 6 Montana 2 Arkansas 4 North Carolina 34 Arizona 35 North Dakota 2 California 176 Nebraska 3

Page M-4 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Table M-3. Origin of Respondents Colorado 30 New Hampshire 4 Connecticut 23 New Jersey 46 District of Columbia 1 New Mexico 6 Delaware 2 Nevada 8 Florida 86 New York 129 Georgia 22 Ohio 32 Hawaii 1 Oklahoma 8 Iowa 3 Oregon 24 Idaho 3 Pennsylvania 61 Illinois 66 Rhode Island 5 Indiana 24 South Carolina 5 Kansas 16 Tennessee 15 Kentucky 13 Texas 68 Louisiana 15 Utah 7 Massachusetts 46 Virginia 30 Maryland 49 Washington 346 Maine 9 Wisconsin 13 Michigan 34 West Virginia 6 Minnesota 24 Wyoming 1 Missouri 20 None available for record 132

2.2 Quantitative Summary of Comments Received – Alternatives and Issues

Section 3 of this Appendix presents a summary of specific comments received, followed by the Service’s responses. However, it is first useful to present a general summary of the nature of comments received, based on issue type. The information presented in this section includes a relatively quantitative analysis of the information received and analyzed. A more precise analysis was difficult due to the overlap of key issues and the open ended nature of the comment process. Data were input only for issues specifically identified by commentors. For example, if a letter specifically addressed only one key issue, it was tallied in that issue only, even though a position was implied on other key issues. Thus, evaluation and assessment of comments is strongly tied to the nature and content of the specific comments received. Service staff have read and reviewed every letter received during the comment process, and the information contained in those comments was used to help develop the Final CCP/EIS, and refine the Preferred Alternative.

Alternative Support

The Draft CCP/EIS presented an analysis of 4 alternatives: Alternatives A, B, C, and D. Commentors often expressed their explicit support for (or opposition to) a particular alternative by name. In many instances, commentors qualified their support for a given alternative, that is, they noted that they preferred a particular alternative overall, but also recommended certain additions or deletions of specific action components. For this analysis, the Service refers to this conditional support as support “with qualifications.” There was strong support expressed for Alternative D, the Preferred Alternative (73%, with and without qualifications). In addition,

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-5 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

almost all agencies, governments, and tribes expressed support for the Preferred Alternative, and the great majority of organizations, sometimes representing large memberships, also expressed support for the Preferred Alternative. Several letters expressed concern over the costs associated with implementing the Preferred Alternative. Table M-4 summarizes the commentors’ stated support for the given alternatives.

Table M-4. Support for the Defined CCP/EIS Alternatives. Alternative Number (percent) Alternative A 27 (15%) Alternative A with Qualifications 1 (0.5%) Alternative B 15 (8%) Alternative B with Qualifications 0 (0%) Alternative C 5 (2.5%) Alternative C with Qualifications 2 (1%) Alternative D 83 (45%) Alternative D with Qualifications 53 (28%) Total Comments on Alternative Preference 186

In a few cases (although rare), commentors specifically mentioned their lack of support or opposition for a given alternative (i.e., they would NOT prefer), as summarized in Table M-5.

Table M-5. Commentor Preference for NOT Implementing an Alternative (i.e., Opposing) Alternative Number Alternative A 2 Alternative B 3 Alternative C 3 Alternative D 10

Issue 1 – Refuge Expansion

Numerous commentors (1,263 people) addressed the issue of Refuge expansion. The response on this key issue was strikingly unified, with support for Refuge expansion almost unanimous (99.4%). The majority of people raising the issue simply stated a preference of support for expanding the boundaries of the Refuge, without offering additional details on the topic. Many people offered specific support or feedback on proposed areas of expansion (such as McAllister Creek). In addition, many noted that a larger amount of forested habitat in the vicinity of Hoffman Hill should be included in Refuge expansion. A few identified other areas that should be considered for expansion.

Of the comments received on this issue, only 8 people stated opposition to expansion. Some of the reasons noted for such opposition included: a sense that expansion was a waste of taxpayer money, or opposition to specific areas or parcels being included in the proposed expansion area.

Issue 2 – Habitat Restoration and Management of the Diked Area

Approximately 193 people specifically commented on the issue of estuarine restoration and/or breaching the dikes. Because a wide range of perspectives was expressed on this issue, it was difficult to quantify in the database, but generalizations can be made. Slightly more people expressed support for breaching the dikes in favor of estuarine restoration, while slightly fewer

Page M-6 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

people specified their opposition to dike breaching. In many cases, the commentors noted that they would oppose the full breaching of the dike system but might support a partial breach. Several letters expressed concern over the loss of freshwater habitats as a result of estuarine restoration efforts, and suggested acquisition and restoration of freshwater wetland and riparian habitats prior to or at the same time as dike removal or breaching. The range of comments received also addressed the commentors’ reasons for either supporting or opposing dike breaching, as summarized in Section 3. Analysis of this issue in particular needs to be considered within the context of Alternative preference, as well as related issues, especially trail configuration.

Issue 3 – Environmental Education Opportunities

Approximately 90 people commented on the issue of environmental education (EE) opportunities at the Refuge. Most people raising this issue noted the overall importance for continuing the EE program at the Refuge. Several commentors noted a preference for implementing a larger EE program as part of the Preferred Alternative.

Issue 4 – Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, Trails, and Public Access

Approximately 138 people raised the issue of hiking and trail use on the Refuge. The majority of these commentors expressed their preference for either maintaining the dike trail system, or for its reduction in favor of dike breaching and estuarine restoration. Of those who specifically commented on trails, slightly more people voiced their preference for maintaining the existing 5½-mile dike trail than those who favored trail changes to accommodate restoration efforts. Those in support of maintaining the existing trail system often noted the trail’s importance in providing opportunities for an urbanized public to experience nature; several commentors thought that the trail was the most important aspect of the Refuge. Some people commented that the Service should consider maintaining the trail by partially breaching the dikes and constructing bridges over the breached portions. Of the commentors supporting dike trail changes, most mentioned that while they recognized the importance of the trail and that they would miss the ability to use it in its current state, the opportunity for habitat restoration was more important. Other comments on the trail system included other suggested areas for trail improvements, or the need for more viewing platforms and photography blinds.

In the database, public access was addressed separately from trail use, but due to the linkage of these issues, they are addressed together in Section 3.4 of this Appendix. Approximately 167 people mentioned the issue of public access.

A total of 1,262 people raised the issue of wildlife observation. Most people commenting noted the value of the Refuge as a place where people could observe wildlife in their natural habitat. Numerous people expressed support for the interpretation program and its enhancement. Many people expressed their opinion that habitat preservation was more important than people’s ability to observe wildlife.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-7 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Issue 5 – Waterfowl Hunting on Nisqually NWR

The most comments received on the Draft CCP/EIS dealt with the singular issue of hunting on Refuge lands. A total of 1,484 people commented on their preference for or opposition to waterfowl hunting on the Refuge. Of this total 1,434 (96.6%) voiced opposition to hunting on the Refuge. This contrasts with 41 letters received that voiced support for allowing hunting to occur. In addition, 9 people expressed a preference for hunting, although with qualifications. Many commentors expressed their opposition to reducing the size of the RNA to allow for hunting.

Issue 6 – Fishing and Shellfishing

Relatively few people (15 letters) raised the issue of fishing or shellfishing. Most of these letters were in support of maintaining user access to areas for fishing or shellfishing. Other letters noted potential water quality effects (such as fecal coliform) to shellfishing resources.

Issue 7 – Boating and Personal Watercraft (PWC) Use

A total of 54 people opposed allowing PWC use in the Refuge; nobody wrote in support of PWC use. Approximately 33 other letters addressed general issues related to boating. Of these, many expressed a desire to eliminate all motorized boating in Refuge waters. Many other letters wrote in support of the 5 mph speed limit for boats.

Issue 8 – Wildlife and Habitat Issues

Approximately 112 letters raised the issue of wildlife or their habitat. Many of these identified wildlife and habitat as management priorities at the Refuge. Some letters discussed species- specific data presented in the CCP/EIS related to wildlife, and some letters identified measures to benefit particular species or species groups (such as raptors).

Issue 9 - TES Wildlife

Fifty-eight people raised the issue of Threatened and Endangered Species (TES). Most of these comments addressed Chinook salmon use of Refuge habitats.

Issue 10 – Cultural Resources

Relatively few people commented on the issue of cultural resources; 11 letters were received addressing this topic. Specific issues raised included the historic resources associated with the Twin Barns, as well as the potential presence and management of archaeological sites in the proposed expansion areas.

Issue 11 – Process

Approximately 36 people raised the issue of the overall Draft CCP/EIS. Many of these commentors complimented the Service for doing an overall good or excellent job in preparing

Page M-8 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

the plan; others complimented the Service for conducting a valuable public outreach effort as part of Draft CCP/EIS preparation. Some of the commentors specifically addressed the issue of NEPA compliance, providing mostly positive comments on meeting the public scoping requirements.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-9 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Page M-10 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

3.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND SERVICE RESPONSES

This section provides a summary of the individual comments received on the Draft CCP/EIS, followed by the Service’s responses to those comments. The comments were organized into 14 main topic areas:

• Alternatives • Refuge Expansion • Estuarine Restoration • Freshwater Wetland and Riparian Restoration • Environmental Education Opportunities • Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, Trails, and Public Access • Waterfowl Hunting • Fishing and Shellfishing • PWC Use and Boating • Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat • Threatened and Endangered Species • Cultural Resources • Process • Miscellaneous Comments

Within the major topic heading, similar or related comments were grouped by subtopic and presented as bulleted items. In many cases, the text in the bulleted comment is a quote from a particular letter; in some cases, very similar comments were merged into a single bullet or comments were paraphrased to make them more concise. Every effort was made to present all substantive comments in this summary; the specific comments presented here are a representative sample of all the comments received. A comment that addressed several issues was sometimes placed in a single bullet, in the section to which it was most closely related. Therefore, there is some overlap between topics. Please see Table M-6 to help determine where specific comment topics were addressed in the Comment Summary. The Service response follows each group of comments. A copy of all of the original comments received on the Draft CCP/EIS is maintained on file at Nisqually NWR.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-11 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Table M-6. Where to find specific comments and the Service’s response. Topic Response in Appendix M Public Comment on Alternatives and Preference for Alternatives Support for Alternative D Page M-14 Support for Alternative D with Qualifications Page M-15 Concerns Over Costs of Preferred Alternative Page M-15 Opposition to Alternative D Page M-16 Support for Alternative A Page M-16 Opposition to Alternative A Page M-17 Support for Alternative B Page M-17 Opposition to Alternative B Page M-17 Support for Alternative C Page M-17 Other Comments on Alternatives Page M-18 Refuge Expansion Support for Refuge Expansion Page M-20 Opposition to Expansion Page M-20 Additional Areas Suggested for Expansion Page M-21 Landowner Concerns Page M-22 Comments Regarding Local Mineral Extraction and Asphalt Plant Page M-23 Socioeconomic Effects of Refuge Expansion Page M-24 Transportation Planning Page M-27 Coordinate and Work with Neighbors Page M-27 Management Suggestions Related to Refuge Expansion Page M-28 Suggested Edits or Changes to Final Document Page M-29 Other Comments Related to Refuge Expansion Page M-30 Restoration Support for Estuarine Restoration Efforts/Dike Breaching Page M-31 Opposition to Dike Breaching/Restoration Page M-32 Restoration Management Suggestions Page M-35 Tidal Dynamics Page M-36 Concerns and Questions Page M-37 Other Comments Related to Estuarine Restoration Page M-38 Freshwater Wetland and Riparian Restoration Freshwater Habitat Restoration Page M-39 Balance of Freshwater Wetlands and Estuarine Restoration Page M-39 Suggested Areas for Freshwater Wetland & Riparian Restoration Page M-40 McAllister Springs Page M-40 Environmental Education Opportunities Support for Expanded EE Programs Page M-41 Local Programs and Partnerships Page M-41 Expand Alternative D EE Program Page M-42 Opposition to Expanded EE Program Page M-42 EE Program Improvements/Suggestions Page M-42 Opposition to Butterfly Garden Page M-43 Funding Relationship w/ Restoration Page M-43 Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, Trails, and Public Access Value of Existing Trail System Page M-43 Support for Trail Changes Page M-44 Opposition to Trail Changes Page M-44 Trail Improvements/Suggestions Page M-45 Trail User vs. Hunter Conflicts Page M-47

Page M-12 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Table M-6. Where to find specific comments and the Service’s response. Topic Response in Appendix M East Bluff Trail Page M-48 East Side Trail Page M-48 Boardwalk Trail Page M-48 Connecting Individual Trails and Facilities Page M-49 Crowding and Visitor Use Limits Page M-49 Types of Use and Impacts Page M-50 Waterfowl Hunting Opposition to Waterfowl Hunting on the Refuge Page M-50 Support for Waterfowl Hunting on the Refuge Page M-51 Additional Areas Requested to be Opened or Remain Opened to Page M-52 Waterfowl Hunting Areas Requested to Close or Remain Closed to Waterfowl Page M-53 Hunting Hunt Days Page M-54 Shell Limit Page M-55 Boundary Changes & Regulation Enforcement Page M-55 Research Natural Area Reduction Page M-56 Hunters and Other Users Page M-58 Other Management Suggestions Page M-58 Other Comments Related to Waterfowl Hunting Page M-59 Fishing and Shellfishing Improved Access Page M-60 Reduce Fishing Page M-61 Implement a Fishing/Shellfishing Fee Page M-61 Impacts to Shellfish Page M-61 Lack of Focus on Fishing Page M-62 PWC Use and Boating Ban PWC Use Page M-62 Boating Page M-63 5 mph Speed Limit Page M-64 Other Management Suggestions Page M-64 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Value of Wildlife and Habitat Page M-65 Plants Page M-65 Raptors and Small Mammals Page M-66 Waterfowl Page M-67 Bird Habitat Page M-67 Minimize Impacts of Infrastructure on Wildlife & Habitat Page M-69 Other Comments Related to Wildlife and Habitat Page M-69 Threatened and Endangered Species Benefits to TES Page M-70 Salmon Protection Page M-70 Nesting Bald Eagles Page M-71 Protect and Reintroduce TES Page M-71 Cultural Resources Benefits to Our Cultural Heritage Page M-71 Archaeological Sites Page M-71 Historical Resources Page M-72 Process Timeframe Concerns Page M-73 Comment Period and Public Meetings Page M-73

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-13 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Table M-6. Where to find specific comments and the Service’s response. Topic Response in Appendix M Overall Praise (“good job”) Page M-74 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act Page M-74 Suggested Revisions and Additional Analyses Page M-74 NEPA Compliance and Involvement of Other Groups Page M-76 Miscellaneous Comments Consolidate WDFW Inholdings Page M-78 Disturbance from I-5, Fort Lewis Page M-78 Fruit Gathering Page M-78 Importance of the Refuge to the Community Page M-78 Effects of Global Warming Page M-79 Suggested Addition to Section 5.4 (Resource Specific Plans) Page M-79

3.1 Public Comment on Alternatives and Preference for Alternatives

Many of the comments included within the Alternatives section are also found under specific key issues that follow. To minimize redundancy, detailed responses to comments on specific issues can be found under those headings.

Support for Alternative D • Full dike removal in Alternative D provides the most scientifically justifiable approach to the Refuge. Partial removal does not guarantee estuarine restoration. • We support Alternative D because of its focus on estuarine restoration, Refuge expansion, and interpretation/education opportunities. • Alternative D is most consistent with the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, particularly the goal to restore and enhance the ecological processes that create and maintain marine and freshwater habitats. • Alternative D best achieves the Refuge purpose, visions, and goals. • We support Alternative D primarily because: (1) dike removal will restore historical estuarine conditions; (2) Nisqually is an ideal location for a model environmental education program; and (3) the alternative ensures opportunities for fish and wildlife oriented recreation. • Alternative D should be identified as the preferred alternative because: cost-effectiveness and economies of scale; optimum habitat potential increase for a suite of organisms; additional protection for varied endangered species’ life history phases; expanded educational opportunities; and an expanded Refuge boundary. • Habitat restoration under Alternative D would be of greatest benefit to fish, shellfish, waterfowl, migrant birds, and other wildlife. • Wildlife come first, and the preferred alternative is the result of the best efforts on the part of the professionals who developed and will implement any such plan.

Service Response: We appreciate the thoroughness with which commentors reviewed the Draft CCP/EIS and the detailed comments provided in support of Alternative D.

Page M-14 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Support for Alternative D with Qualifications • Alternative D is a good start but boundary expansion needs to be increased by adding 200 acres of forest lands on Hoffman Hill, and PWC need to be banned. • Emphasize restoration, expansion lands, and trail improvements. • Saltmarsh restoration should occur at least at the 80% level; it provides better habitat for fish and wildlife. • As part of Alternative D, the FWS should acquire as much upstream land and habitat as possible. • The Preferred Alternative should incorporate the hunting program proposed in Alternative C – it is important to continue to have the support of hunters and to provide some multiple use benefits if not in conflict with fish and wildlife preservation. • Change the hunt program to 3 days/week in the Preferred Alternative. • Alternative D should be modified to include the maximum EE program. • Clearly define hunting areas and boundaries. • The restoration of seasonal wetlands and riparian forests should be an explicit high priority goal of the plan on the newly acquired lands south of I-5. • Reduce the area designated as huntable under Alternative D. • Numerous people listed all of the following additional elements to include in Alternative D: secure funds for additional Refuge expansion; improve management on the Refuge; restore critical saltmarsh habitat; expand the EE program; ban PWC use; and do not reduce the size of the RNA.

Service Response: The amount of expansion included in Alternative D in the Hoffmann Hill area was based on habitat needs and watershed protection. The City of DuPont’s comprehensive land use plans and planning efforts by the primary landowner, Weyerhauser, were also considered in the analysis. The waterfowl hunting program in Alternative D was supported by WDFW; the program in Alternative C was not and would have directly affected State lands. Acquisition of areas south of I-5 that could be restored as freshwater wetlands were identified as a high priority in Appendix K, Land Protection Plan and a strategy was added to Objective 1.3 emphasizing freshwater wetland restoration sites as a priority for acquisition.

Also see responses under Refuge Expansion, Estuarine Restoration, Environmental Education, Wildlife Observation, Waterfowl Hunting, and PWC/Boating.

Concerns Over Costs of Preferred Alternative • Implementing the Preferred Alternative would be extremely expensive – with a total first year cost of $5.479 million (without land acquisition costs). • How likely is it that Alternative D would be adopted given the current DOI budget? • Concerned that funding won’t be available for all Alternative D actions. Management actions should be prioritized by ensuring the following: control of noxious weeds; hire adequate enforcement staff; coordinate hunting with WDFW; build new trail system before removing old; and develop a boating enforcement plan.

Service Response: The project list and associated costs are included to identify project needs (Appendix F), but it is true that not all of the funding would become available in the near future. However, substantial funding is currently available to initiate habitat restoration, and there is

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-15 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

good potential for obtaining additional funds from other sources (i.e., grants and partners) for restoration measures. All of the alternatives involve substantial costs, even Alternative A, in part because of the extensive repair work that would be required if dikes were retained. Alternative D requires less dike construction and maintenance than the other action alternatives. Suggestions on funding priorities are noted in the CCP/EIS with the emphasis on meeting the greatest natural resource needs and providing quality wildlife dependent recreation. Implementation of a waterfowl hunting program would necessarily require enforcement staff.

Opposition to Alternative D • Alternative D will destroy a system that’s over 100 years old and safe. This will ruin an existing wonderland for a politically correct agenda for fish and wildlife. • Now is not the time to spend money on unnecessary projects such as dike removal or Refuge expansion. • Under Alternative D, songbirds, people, and other mammals lose. • Alternative D ignores the needs of an increasingly urbanized population in need of access to nature and trails; the users need the existing trail. • The Alternative D loop trail is a token; it offers just a taste and with only 2 spots to see the river wildlife and ecosystem.

Service Response: Alternative D was designed to address the highest priority needs of fish, wildlife, and habitat, while continuing to provide quality wildlife dependent recreation. To restore estuarine habitat effectively, substantial changes would be required in the dike configuration, and consequently the trail system. However, trail improvements and new trails have been included to continue to provide quality wildlife viewing opportunities. Alternative D was identified as the best alternative to achieve Service and Refuge mission, purposes, and goals. Also see Wildlife Observation and Estuarine Restoration responses.

Support for Alternative A • I would support managing the Refuge as it is managed today, with additional alternative components such as Refuge expansion, an expanded education program, changed hunting rules, and continuing to restore existing wetlands. • Alternative A is preferable because it would retain the dike. • Alternative A (or B) would be preferable as they tend to disturb the existing land less; over time, nature has adapted to human intervention and is currently in a state of balance. Major changes to restore historic conditions would upset the adapted balance. • The proposed changes would detract from the value of this great setting and significantly reduce the opportunity for people to enjoy the Refuge.

Service Response: Alternative A was evaluated in detail but was determined not to meet Service or Refuge goals for restoration of native habitats and associated fish and wildlife, recovery of threatened and endangered species, and providing quality environmental education and wildlife dependent recreation opportunities. The CCP provides a unique opportunity for the Refuge to more effectively contribute to protection and restoration of the Nisqually delta and lower watershed and to respond to changing conditions since the Refuge was established in 1974. Also see Chapter 4 and responses to Estuarine Restoration.

Page M-16 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Opposition to Alternative A • Alternative A is unacceptable – it does nothing to address the needs of wildlife, visitors, neighbors; it perpetuates infrastructure problems.

Service Response: Comment is noted.

Support for Alternative B • Alternative B represents the least impact while improving the Refuge. • Alternative B is the best alternative as it adds some expansion territory, vastly increases the EE program, prohibits hunting, and focuses on preserving what the Refuge already has. • Alternative B is preferred as it prohibits hunting in the Refuge. • Alternative B is preferred as it retains the trail system. • Alternative B is preferred because it allows gradual change over time. • Alternative B provides important improvements in expanding tideflats while maintaining public access to the Refuge, and a greater public education effort is afforded.

Service Response: Alternative B was not selected as the Preferred Alternative because it was not as effective in addressing the highest priority fish and wildlife goals. The effects of retaining dikes to support trails, while still trying to achieve successful estuarine restoration would result in reduced tidal function, compromising the effectiveness of estuarine restoration (see Estuarine Restoration responses, Chapter 4, and Appendix J). This alternative would not have provided the same level of new habitat protection through Refuge expansion, nor would it have provided quality waterfowl hunting opportunities that are included in the Preferred Alternative.

Opposition to Alternative B • Alternative B does little to ameliorate long-standing problems and does little for education, interpretation, or trails. • Alternative B lacks integrity – we should not have to choose between having a natural environment and educating about it.

Service Response: Comments are noted.

Support for Alternative C • The expanded EE program under Alternative C might be more beneficial than the 184 additional acres of estuarine habitat restoration proposed under Alternative D. • Alternative C presents greater flexibility ecologically, educationally, economically, and programmatically relative to Alternative D. • The hunt area boundary of Alternative C is preferable to that proposed in Alternative D. • I support Alternative C for two reasons: (1) the 3 days/week hunting schedule and (2) Alternative D does not provide enough trail walking opportunities. • If the following changes to Alternative D can’t be made, then I prefer Alternative C: follow the hunt program outlined in Alternative C, except that hunting could occur more than 3 days/week. Key benefits would include hunt land consolidation; elimination of hunting in the McAllister Creek area (which provides prime habitat for a diversity of species); the needs of the non-hunting users are better met; etc.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-17 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Service Response: Fish, wildlife, and habitat needs take priority over other uses on National Wildlife Refuges. Alternative C did not restore as much estuarine habitat, and was not as effective as the Preferred Alternative in restoring the McAllister Creek system to tidal influence. Waterfowl hunting described in Alternative C was not supported by WDFW, and this alternative directly affected management of their lands. Also see Chapter 4 and responses to Estuarine Restoration and Waterfowl Hunting.

Other Comments on Alternatives • It’s unclear how the costs of each alternative compare or how funding decisions would be made to support a given alternative. • The plan should include long-term budgeting for year round staff of enforcement personnel, educators, maintenance workers, and management. • The range of alternatives presented in the DEIS is not broad enough; to comply with NEPA, additional alternatives showing greater Refuge expansion and different hunting configurations should be analyzed. • The FWS should consider a new alternative with the following major components: remove some of the existing perimeter dike along McAllister Creek but breach and bridge the remaining dike; maintain most of the existing loop trail. Construct pedestrian bridges over all dike breaches to maintain the trail. Open a larger portion of the refuge to hunting including the east side of the Nisqually River and part of the restored area; and do not put a new trail on the east side. Hunting access and restrictions would allow for a quality hunt experience while not conflicting with other users. Partial estuarine restoration would allow us to test the effects and results of saltmarsh restoration. • Several commentors wrote in to express their support for the comment above: o This proposes to make modest changes now, monitor the results, and make further changes based on actual effects. o This would retain dike walking, enhance hunting opportunities, while protecting waterfowl. o Benefits include providing quality public access. • Treaty rights – especially fishing harvest, access, and healthy habitat- are protected by treaty and affirmed by US vs. Washington. The tribes and the state of Washington share co- management of fisheries resources within waters identified as usual and accustomed. This Refuge and its management have been sensitive and supportive of this cultural connection; it is a fine example of the USFWS as a federal agency, acting appropriately in its trust responsibility.

Service Response: The CCP provides long-term guidance for management decisions, sets goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes, and identifies the Service’s best estimate of future needs. This plan details 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 plan does not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land expansion. However, the CCP identifies Refuge priorities which would be used in evaluating budget needs through the annual budget process. Also see Appendix F, Plan Implementation, which includes a project list with costs, and projected staffing needs.

Page M-18 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

We believe the range of alternatives is appropriate within the context of the practical management considerations for Nisqually NWR (Section 2.1.1). The Service has worked extensively with the public and key partners for more than 5 years crafting the range of alternatives. The EIS contains a detailed description explaining the broad range of alternatives considered (Section 2.3), those found to be impractical, and the rationale for the range of alternatives included.

The CCP alternatives are based on the need to meet Refuge purposes, a topic fully explained in the EIS. Estuarine restoration alternatives drive many of the other key components (especially many of the public use alternatives), and include a range of 0 to 70% estuarine restoration within the 1000-acre diked area. Higher percentages (85 to 100%) were considered but were not selected for detailed analysis due to the limited amount of freshwater wetlands and the reduction in public use access that would result (Section 2.4).

A variety of other alternatives were considered that included the components mentioned above (see Section 2.4). In addition, Alternative B similarly would retain substantial portions of the dike, with bridges over breached sections. See Chapter 4, Appendix J, and responses to Estuarine Restoration for more detailed responses regarding the difficulties posed by retaining dikes with limited breaches when trying to successfully restore estuarine habitat. Restoring a large area with a limited number of stabilized breaches restricts flows, alters tidal patterns, reduces the ability of sediments to reach the restoration site and build substrates for salt marsh recovery, reduces the ability of fish and invertebrates to freely move into the restored site, creates ponding which could entrap fish, and focuses high velocities and erosion problems at breach sites, among other difficulties.

Wildlife observation (primarily trail issues) is heavily driven by the range of estuarine restoration options. There are three additional trail ideas included in the considered but not selected alternatives (Section 2.4). Environmental education ranges from no change (5,000 students) to 20,000 students. Waterfowl hunting ranges from no hunting to opening 713 acres of Refuge lands to hunting. Waterfowl hunting described in Alternative D was designed based on extensive coordination efforts with WDFW and the Nisqually Indian Tribe, regarding their respective lands. The Preferred Alternative was identified as the best option to provide quality hunting opportunities, sufficient wildlife sanctuary areas, reduce conflicts among users, reduce confusion for hunters, and provide new opportunities for quality wildlife viewing through the creation of a trail on the east side of the Nisqually River. Four other alternatives are described in the considered but not selected alternatives for waterfowl hunting (Section 2.4). Waterfowl hunting in much of the east side of the Refuge as proposed above, would reduce wildlife sanctuary and affect use of the new east side trail. Reducing the number of days/week for hunting on State lands was not supported by WDFW.

Boating restrictions (boat speed, seasonal restrictions in the RNA) and RNA restrictions (prohibiting consumptive uses) are common to all action alternatives because it was determined necessary to provide improved wildlife sanctuary, make these uses compatible, and to comply with Refuge policies in RNAs (Section 2.2.2, Appendix G.1, G.2, and G.3).

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-19 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

The CCP/EIS benefited from a good working relationship between the Service and local tribes in addressing common goals and areas of mutual interest. Treaty rights are also recognized in Chapter 2 as being common to all alternatives. It is our policy to provide Native Americans reasonable access to Service lands or waters for traditional activities when they are consistent with treaties, mandates, or laws, and are compatible with refuge purposes.

3.2 Refuge Expansion

Support for Refuge Expansion • We strongly support expansion of Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge. • The FWS should take advantage of every opportunity to acquire expansion lands south of I- 5. • Expansion provides multiple benefits – habitat for migratory birds, habitat for threatened and endangered species, better water quality, and protection from development. • Acquire as much natural wildlife habitat as possible and reclaim as much abused land as possible for restoration. • As the area becomes more urbanized and developed, land will only become more difficult to obtain; the time for Refuge expansion is now. It’s already too late to acquire some of the needed lands, such as the gravel pit (an industry not supported by the community). • Expansion is important for minimizing user conflicts – hunters, hikers, birders, and anglers. Every user group needs access, and overlapping uses can be dangerous. • Expansion and restoration efforts are the No. 1 priority – education and trails funding can come later. • The Refuge should be expanded to the largest size possible to provide as much wildlife habitat as possible. • Expanding the Refuge will do the most to help restore and protect the endangered Chinook salmon runs.

Service Response: Comments noted.

Opposition to Expansion • Don’t spend money on expanding the Refuge boundary; instead, spend on dike repair and a new educational barn. In addition, newly acquired lands would require additional staff to manage. • I see no need to acquire so much land south of I-5; it appears goals could be met by acquiring only the riparian habitat along the Nisqually River. • As a landowner and single parent, I don’t want to lose my property and move the children again. Expansion is a bad idea.

Service Response: Costs relating to land purchases within a Refuge boundary are appropriated through the Land and Water Conservation Fund or approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Both funding sources are specifically tied to land acquisition. Expenses associated with staff salaries and refuge operations and maintenance are appropriated in the President's budget. The Service is not permitted to utilize funds for purposes other than their original intent.

Page M-20 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Acquiring only the riparian habitat along the Nisqually River addresses just one habitat in need of protection. The current Refuge and the adjacent habitats of the Nisqually Valley on the south side of I-5 and along the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek are ecologically inseparable. In the Preferred Alternative, the expansion area would provide the greatest protection of bluffs, floodplain wetlands, and the river corridor south of I-5. See Section 1.8, Issue 1: Refuge Boundary Expansion and Section 2.3.4 Alternative D.

The Service has a longstanding policy to acquire lands only from willing sellers. Individual landowners are under no obligation to sell their lands to the Service. (Refer to Appendix K-5, Section 1.5.1 Willing Seller policy.)

Additional Areas Suggested for Expansion • The most frequently mentioned areas proposed for Refuge expansion were a larger portion of the Hoffman Hills area (for forested habitat), lands south of I-5 along McAllister and Medicine Creeks (as freshwater wetlands), and along the Nisqually River (as riparian forest). • We encourage the FWS to consider further expansion southward, along the riparian corridor; upstream areas include important forested areas. • High priority should be given to acquiring forest lands on the eastern slopes nearest Puget Sound. • The plan should consider transferring certain additional lands from Fort Lewis to the Refuge; 500 acres just south of I-5 and above the Nisqually River could be considered; and another 1,000 acres of floodplain and high banks east of the river could be added to the Refuge. None of these parcels is considered in Alternative D. • I suggest that the boundary along the outer limits of the McAllister Creek channel be extended westward to provide better administrative control for protection of the tideflats along the creek channel. • Private lands on the Thurston County side of the river should be acquired. • Expansion should be explored on the farmlands south of I-5; it might take 50 to 100 years to fully acquire, but it should be done. • We support the maximum proposed Refuge expansion. In the long term, it would be ideal to see a “glacier to Sound” park along the entire river. • Incorporation of the East Bluff area would limit adverse impacts from potential residential/commercial development in the area. • South of I-5, expansion area should be to perimeter road. • Refuge should consider the option of water-ward expansion (towards Puget Sound) • Discuss in the Final Version why not modify the Acquisition Boundary to run northeast along shore (McAllister Creek outflow) toward Johnson’s Point, and to include the ‘hole in donut’ south of I-5. • The Refuge requires a larger buffer to reduce threats to its precious ecosystem. A larger Refuge boundary would protect habitat from the encroachment of increasing development in the watershed.

Service Response: Lands encompassed by the expansion area boundary include those with: (1) intact habitats important to wildlife; (2) habitat corridors; (3) native habitats threatened by development; and (4) areas with restoration potential. The expansion boundaries were based on the locations of intact habitats and habitat corridors, potential development threats to native

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-21 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

habitats, and restoration potential. A larger area for expansion was considered (equal to the study area of 5,390 acres) but was not analyzed because of conflicts with other land uses, high costs, and because some areas were judged to be lower priority for Refuge protection. For example, some areas containing very high levels of residential development were not included. Land along the Nisqually River south of I-5 was eliminated from detailed study because it overlapped with the Nisqually Indian Tribe’s established reservation boundary. See Section 2.4, Alternative Components Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study. U.S. Army lands within the Nisqually Indian Tribe’s established reservation boundary are not included in the expansion boundary.

The forested lands on the East Bluff have been given a high priority for acquisition in the Land Protection Plan (Appendix K) to provide a habitat corridor, prevent sedimentation, and protect water quality from the effects of the planned residential development. The landowner has shown interest in selling a portion of the bluff area and negotiations with the Service are underway. The amount of expansion included in Alternative D in the Hoffmann Hill area was based on identifying a corridor of habitat that would support wildlife, wildlife movement, and that would help to protect the slope, watershed, and river below. It also considered comprehensive land use plans by the City of DuPont and planning efforts by the primary landowner, Weyerhauser.

The northern boundary of the Refuge coincides with the natural habitat transition of mudflats to deep open water. The deep water areas of Puget Sound and mudflat areas west of the mouth of McAllister Creek are relatively protected from being developed and were not considered for inclusion in the study area.

Landowner Concerns • As additional lands are acquired, City of Olympia is very concerned about public access to McAllister Springs (Olympia’s main water source); the City should be notified about any proposed activity in this area and would like to see notification/coordination as part of Alternative D. • It’s important that landowners south of I-5 can continue working their agricultural lands, despite any Refuge acquisition in that area. • Were all of the landowners in the expansion area notified? It doesn’t seem like all of the owners are aware of the Refuge’s expansion plans. • Will the elevated water table at the expanded area affect the houses on the developed island within the expansion boundary? • Will Alternative D incorporate 6th Avenue SE? • WSDOT is on record that they plan to proceed with the Amtrak Cascades project, with the railway line traveling along the Nisqually River and the Refuge’s western border; if the Refuge boundary expands south of I-5 (as under Alternative B, C, D), the rail project will affect those lands; Section 4(f) consultation would be required. Expansion plans must therefore take into account the planned future rail project. • Our (Thurston County) property taxes include conservation futures money, which should preserve/conserve open space. The CCP/EIS makes no mention of this.

Service Response: County records were used to generate a list of landowners within the existing and proposed boundary. All landowners were added to the CCP mailing list, which is

Page M-22 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS provided in Appendix B. The CCP team conducted an extensive consultation and coordination process to ensure full public involvement, which included a Planning Update focused completely on Refuge expansion that was sent to the mailing list of more than 1,000 addresses. The public process is outlined in Chapter 6. We recognize the City of Olympia’s concern about public access to McAllister Springs, its main water source. We are committed to coordinating with all affected and interested landowners, individuals, government entities, and organizations about Refuge activities and we assure the City of Olympia that we will coordinate with them regarding any public access plans.

The Service does not impose restrictions on private lands that are located within a Refuge boundary (Section 4.8.2.2). Management practices are limited to those lands under FWS ownership or by cooperative agreement. Adjacent owners may continue permitted uses allowed under current zoning regulations.

Wetland restoration of agricultural lands around the “developed island within the expansion boundary” could include periodic mowing, discing, sculpting, seeding, planting of native trees or shrubs, and flooding in the fall and winter months. Before any Refuge lands were restored, hydrological studies and restoration design of the site would be completed so that restoration activities were designed to ensure no adverse impacts to adjacent landowners.

The expansion boundary in Alternative D runs along the north side of 6th Avenue SE and includes lands bounded by Old Pacific Highway and the Nisqually River. See Appendix K, Land Protection Plan, Figure 4, Area 3, Tract Map.

It is recognized that the Thurston County Conservation Futures Fund is one of many local programs that has the potential to complement our habitat protection proposals outlined in the CCP by contributing to wildlife conservation efforts in the Nisqually Valley. This program (Purchase of Development Rights) was briefly described in Section 3.8.3.1.

We recognize Washington State Department of Transportation’s plans for the Amtrak Cascades project. Text has been added in Section 3.8.1.3, Transportation Patterns. Section 4(f) consultation will only be required for projects that pass through lands actually administered by the Service. We will work with the WSDOT Rail office in Olympia to coordinate rail line improvements with proposed Refuge expansion.

Comments Regarding Local Mineral Extraction and Asphalt Plant • Thurston County is in the planning stages of designating 518 acres of land along the west side of Reservation Road as mineral resource lands of long-term commercial significance; this would allow full mining of sand and gravel in this area. Such action would have profound adverse environmental impacts on the Refuge goals and objectives for land protection; habitat restoration; fish and wildlife; special status species; environmental education; and wildlife dependent recreation. Similarly, Section 3.8.3.1 should include a discussion of the proposed gravel mining operation and its impacts on habitat. Additional coordination with the County is suggested due to the dynamic nature of these plans. • For commercial reasons, any expansion south of Old Pacific Highway in the area of the Holroyd mine would be totally inappropriate. This mine is an operating gravel pit and

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-23 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

cement operation and should not be considered as potential Refuge expansion area. Refuge expansion in this area would limit commercial activities at the site, which would be unlawful without compensation. We have no interest in selling the property, or granting a Refuge easement. • If Alternative C is adopted, how will the FWS address the pollution and land loss issues created by the gravel extraction and hot mix asphalt plant? Both of these are in the expansion zone and would negatively affect the Refuge. • Neighbors are opposed to the proposed asphalt plant (within the expansion area).

Service Response: The 518 acres of forested upland considered for designation for mineral extraction by Thurston County were not included in the proposed expansion. Nonetheless, the Service recognizes the impacts that certain proposed land use changes may have on air, water and habitat quality, and the animal and plant community in the Nisqually Valley and the Refuge. We will continue to provide comments on such proposed land use changes where possible and appropriate, as we did on the proposed asphalt plant.

A discussion of the proposed gravel mining operation and its impact on habitat is outside the scope of analysis necessary for assessing the environmental effects associated with the various management options presented in this Final CCP/EIS. We will provide comments on such proposals and will continue coordination with Thurston County and other entities regarding activities in the Nisqually River Valley and Delta.

The approved gravel pit and cement operation would continue to operate in accordance with its permits and approvals. The designation of an approved Refuge boundary would not affect this operation. The Service recognizes the prior existence of this approved project as an ongoing and permitted mining operation. See Section 4.8.2.2. Under current mining regulations, permitted mines must have a reclamation plan in place for the future, when the site is no longer profitable for mining. At that time, the property would make a valuable addition to the Refuge.

Alternative D includes the existing gravel mine and a potential asphalt plant within the proposed expansion zone. These commercial activities are subject to applicable State, County, and local regulations. We recognize there will be negative impacts associated with these permitted activities; however, the Service has no authority to regulate activities on privately owned lands. Properties threatened by development are a common problem in many areas, and the Service regularly works with conservation partners to acquire these important resources from willing sellers.

Socioeconomic Effects of Refuge Expansion • The analysis does not address potential impacts to the local planning efforts, embodied in the City of DuPont’s CLUP (prepared according to GMA). The impact to loss of considerable residential development referenced in the Plan is not addressed. The City of DuPont and its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code are not recognized in Chapter 5. • The CCP needs a more robust and straightforward analysis of impacts to private property, especially in regards to the Hoffman Hill/East Bluff area. For example, Table 1 in Appendix K is misleading in its assessment of 3 “protection methods” available; only acquisition of fee

Page M-24 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

simple makes sense. The financial aspects of such a broad property acquisition are not even mentioned. • Address effects if Nisqually Valley area is no longer in farmland – what crops and economic changes would occur? • City of DuPont is concerned about some of the proposed expansion areas, as they might threaten the balance that has been achieved in several key areas in the City. Impacts could be expected to the City’s form and economy, especially in the bluff south of Sequalitchew Creek, along the former DuPont Company dock site (where a plan for a waterfront park is proposed), and in the Hoffman Hill area (where private home development is proposed). Based on these concerns, the City requests a meeting with the FWS to discuss potential alternatives to expansion. • Options B and C would remove the more stable human element from the valley and upset the current political strength these people give. The valley is currently balanced between the neighborhood element, conservation element, and the industrial element. Option D will remove even more of the valley residents. There is value in keeping people in the mix. • Refuge expansion would greatly change the existing diverse community to a single wildlife refuge and change the cultural fabric of our community. • The draft EIS fails to address the financial costs of refuge expansion.

Service Response: Under the Preferred Alternative’s proposed Refuge expansion, the extent of affected agricultural lands and residents depends on the number of willing sellers and acquisition funds being appropriated by Congress. These factors suggest that changes in land ownership and land use would likely occur slowly over time. Within the proposed expansion area, it is unlikely that all agricultural lands will be taken out of production or that all residents will be relocated. Thus, the Service believes that the open space and the rural character of the Nisqually Valley would still be retained consistent with County plans.

Even if Refuge expansion were not to occur, the character of the community is likely to change over time with the increasing pressures of population growth and urbanization in the area. Refuge expansion may, in fact, increase the chances that this part of the Nisqually Valley retains an open space character. Please see Section 4.8.2.2, which has been revised.

Effects on agricultural lands in Alternatives B, C, and D are described in Sections 4.8.2.2 and 4.8.2.4. Pierce and Thurston counties contained 50,868 acres and 56,300 acres, respectively, of land in farms in 1997 (USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service). The main crops in the proposed expansion area are hay, corn, Christmas trees, and lesser amounts of vegetables and fruits such as strawberries and raspberries. In Pierce and Thurston counties, approximately 190 acres and 1,100 acres, respectively, of agricultural land could be acquired for conservation purposes. In the context of the farm economies in Pierce and Thurston counties, the potential losses of production from this area compared to the overall agricultural economy would be minor.

The Service has met several times with both the City of DuPont and representatives of Quadrant Corporation to discuss the proposed Refuge expansion. The Service has developed alternatives to minimize the effects of Refuge expansion on both parties while still meeting the goals of Refuge expansion. The Service is aware that Quadrant Corporation is proceeding with

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-25 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

development plans for the bluff area and may not be interested in selling a conservation easement or entering into a management agreement with the Service. In this case, fee acquisition is the only land protection method that makes sense for this landowner at this time. Table 1 of the Land Protection Plan is only designed to show the entire array of land protection methods that are available to landowners, should they wish to pursue any of these options. If Quadrant Corporation were interested in selling a portion of their lands to the Service, the City of DuPont’s Comprehensive Plan may be affected; however, it is noted that individual site plans have not yet been submitted for final approval, making it difficult to accurately assess the impacts of acquisition by the Service.

The City of DuPont stated that the proposed Refuge expansion along the top of the bluff south of Sequalitchew Creek includes one sixth or approximately 54 acres of the business and technology park envisioned by the City's Comprehensive Plan. If the business and technology park remain as proposed and if this area is acquired by the Service, the City’s configuration and economy could be impacted. The proposed Refuge expansion in the Hoffman Hill area also includes approximately 200 planned residential lots. If the Service acquired this area, the City may lose some of its ability to attract services, which is based on the number of homes constructed. These impacts to the local economy will be minimized by revenue sharing payments which the Service pays to the County to help offset losses realized by lands brought into the National Wildlife Refuge System.

A 3-acre community park on the north side of the business and technology park is proposed at a site overlooking Puget Sound above the mouth of Sequalitchew Creek. The developer is required to construct a road to the park that may ultimately provide a view of the Puget Sound. If the Service acquired this area, the City stated that the proposed road would have to be moved inward and the public would lose their view of Puget Sound from the roadway. Until the exact location of the road has been determined, it is difficult to accurately assess these impacts. The City is also concerned that the cost to access the proposed community park would increase if it were located within the Refuge boundary; however, any changes in distances to access the park would be relatively small, and the Service would continue to coordinate with the City of DuPont regarding access issues in this area.

The proposed Refuge expansion boundary extends up to the former DuPont Company dock site at the mouth of Sequalitchew Creek. The City of DuPont stated that the proposed expansion of the Refuge boundary could seriously jeopardize the City’s adopted plans for a waterfront park. Acquisition by the Service of lands in this area could affect the City of DuPont’s adopted plans for a waterfront park. However, in reviewing the City’s waterfront park plans, we find both the City’s plans and the Service’s proposal very similar. Both the City and the Service propose to provide trail access in nearly the same locations, and the trails would provide access to the former dock site, affording the public recreation opportunities in that area.

Ultimately, the City's plan for balance is dependent on final plat submittal and approval. While Service acquisition may have some impacts to the local community and their planning efforts as described above, we expect that these impacts will minimal. Text has been added to Section 4.8.2.2 to describe the effects of the proposed Refuge expansion on the City of DuPont. In

Page M-26 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

addition, text has been added to the end to Section 5.6.4 to describe the City of DuPont’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Land Use Code.

The future acquisition cost of each alternative is impossible to determine because the actual cost to purchase lands would be determined by an appraisal of each parcel of land and the type of interest acquired (fee title, conservation easement, or cooperative agreement) based on future unknown real estate market conditions. Purchase price could vary greatly on a particular parcel, depending on what the highest and best use of the land is at the time of purchase. Furthermore, all land within the proposed expansion area may not be acquired, with the amount depending upon willingness of the landowners to sell and the amount of acquisition funding appropriated by Congress. However, examining County-assessed values of properties within the proposed expansion area can provide a rough approximation of the values involved if all lands were acquired in fee title. Based on values from the Pierce County and Thurston County Assessor Offices for the assessment year 2002, the assessed values of Alternative B/C and Alternative D are approximately $20.2 million and $31.6 million, respectively. However, these values are relative, i.e., Alternative D is approximately 57% more than Alternatives B and C. We are unable to include the value of East Bluff property because the developer has not received final approval of development plans.

Transportation Planning • The CCP/EIS lacks adequate discussion of transportation planning; analyses are lacking for access, parking, and circulation; these elements should be included in any new CCP. Suggested additions include: (1) projections for visitation, traffic, and parking over the timeframe covered by the plan; (2) Refuge traffic counts and parking use; (3) additional transportation-related analyses in Sections 3.6.1, 3.8.1.3, and 4.6; and (4) more analyses on listed Refuge Road Project Lists. • We support a cooperative and coordinated effort between FWS and federal/state transportation planners, especially in regards to any major reconstruction along I-5.

Service Response: As requested we added more information and analysis to the Final CCP/EIS related to access, refuge parking, and transportation patterns. These additions can be found in Section 3.6.1 (Public Access), Section 3.8.1.3 (Transportation Patterns), Section 4.8.2 (Effects to Land Use and Transportation Patterns), and Appendix F: Plan Implementation.

Coordinate and Work with Neighbors • Work with property owners to place conservation easements on their properties and prevent development. • I encourage you to continue working with your neighbors (private landowners, WDFW, US Military, City of Olympia, and the Nisqually Tribe) to consistently manage Refuge lands. • Consider creative easements rather than purchasing land in expansion areas.

Service Response: Conservation easements are an effective way to protect important habitat by limiting development and other activities that impact natural resources. The Service is very interested in acquiring easement interests from property owners and will continue to look for these creative opportunities. We would continue to work to strengthen cooperative efforts with

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-27 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

neighbors and partners in the community to benefit natural resources on the Refuge and in the Nisqually watershed.

Management Suggestions Related to Refuge Expansion • Expansion needs to be balanced with education, public access, and usability (conditional support for expansion plans). • Management of the acquired area upstream from the Pacific Highway Bridge should focus on maintenance and/or restoration of natural riverine processes of flooding and channel migration, with limited access for recreation. • As part of the expansion efforts (south of I-5), foster ecological connection between the north and south portions, while still providing a transportation corridor. Put I-5 on a pier-type bridge and remove riprap. • If Department of Defense lands are acquired, the RNA designation should remain upstream of Pacific Highway; the boundary of the RNA should be examined to accommodate recreation downstream – consider expanding the boundary on the west bank of the river south of the highway. • We hope that the acquired acres south of I-5 will replace every acre of grassland lost when the dike is breached; freshwater wetlands are just as threatened as saltmarsh habitat, and they have a place at Nisqually.

Service Response: Acquisition expenditures for land within a Refuge boundary are appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Both funding sources are specifically tied to land acquisition. Expenses associated with environmental education, restoration, and public access are prioritized and separately funded through appropriations in the President's budget.

Depending on areas acquired and protected, active management and restoration of the riparian area could reduce habitat damage caused by unregulated public access and the existing network of dirt roads and trails in the riparian corridor. Restoration of freshwater wetlands south of I-5 could provide improved habitat for a variety of wildlife. Some grasslands would also be managed and enhanced. We recognize the importance of freshwater wetlands, and we would also continue to make improvements in areas that would remain diked in the Preferred Alternative. These combined efforts could increase the size and complexity of the wetland habitat mosaic in the lower watershed over time.

The current Refuge and the adjacent habitats of the Nisqually Valley on the south side of I-5 and along the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek are ecologically inseparable. Many migratory birds move between these areas on a daily basis to feed and roost. Salmon migrate through the Refuge into the rivers and creeks of the Nisqually Valley. There are areas where terrestrial mammals can travel beneath I-5 to access habitats on either side of the interstate. Redesigning I- 5 to facilitate wildlife movements is beyond the scope of this Final CCP/EIS.

The boundaries of the candidate RNA on Fort Lewis are the Nisqually River to the west, the top of the Seventh Infantry Bluff to the east, I-5 to the north, and the confluence of Muck Creek and the Nisqually River to the south. The boundaries of this Nisqually Floodplain Candidate RNA

Page M-28 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

will not be changed because it is the largest remaining example of a low elevation stream and riparian system in the Puget Trough. See Section 3.8.3.2, Special Status Lands.

Suggested Edits or Changes to Final Document • Although I support expansion, I think more justification needs to be provided as to why particular areas are desired. Native ecosystems are needed, but not wildlife food plots. Plus, freshwater wetland restoration can be very expensive (especially in areas currently used for agriculture). • On page 1-15, discussing Refuge expansion, add the following: “Greater protection for wildlife could occur by providing a continuous corridor of habitats of forested uplands.” • CCP/EIS should give more details/plans on how habitat restoration would occur on expansion lands. • We suggest that Dept. of Defense boundaries be clearly referenced on maps to provide better context for expansion proposals. • A portion of the proposed Refuge expansion area overlaps with a hazardous waste site subject to remediation under MTCA. The EIS should consider the potential impacts resulting from the overlap. The remediation process entails institutional controls (such as deed restrictions) for this site, which is currently and likely to remain in private ownership. Development and use restrictions should be addressed in the EIS. • The description of the “willing seller policy” in the Land Protection Plan is simplistic and superficial. To simply say an appraisal determines the fair market value understates the complications involved in negotiations. Overall, the EIS makes it sound as if preexisting property rights of private owners are not significant.

Service Response: A strong ecological connection exists between Refuge habitats and the East Bluff and Nisqually Valley and River corridor, where expansion is proposed. Many fish and wildlife that use the existing Refuge also depend on habitats in the proposed expansion areas; some move between these areas on a daily basis. These lands could greatly benefit from improved protection and restoration. Some areas are threatened with imminent development. More effective protection of the lower watershed would benefit water quality; reduce sedimentation; improve riparian and freshwater wetland habitats; provide continuous corridors to support wildlife movement; and further salmon recovery. The proposed expansion of the approved Refuge boundary provides a unique opportunity to make the Refuge more ecologically whole, and protect the habitats necessary to ensure that the tremendous resource values of the Nisqually Delta and lower watershed can be sustained and restored.

Expansion of the Refuge south of I-5 would allow new options to protect and enhance freshwater wetlands to help provide new areas for migratory birds or other wildlife that are dependent on this habitat. See Section 1.8, Planning Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities. The specific details of a habitat restoration plan for the expansion lands are not available because the plan depends upon the areas acquired. In general, wetland restoration of agricultural lands could include periodic mowing, discing, sculpting, seeding, planting of native plants, and flooding in the fall and winter months. See Section 4.3.4.2 Refuge Expansion, Effects to Estuarine, Freshwater Wetland, Riverine and Riparian, and Upland Habitats. Text was also added to Section 2.2.2, Features Common to All Action Alternatives, describing habitat restoration efforts in new areas that would be acquired. Current land ownerships are delineated on Figure 1.1-2.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-29 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

The Proposed Refuge boundary on the East Bluff does minimally overlap into areas that are within Parcel 1 and 2 of the former DuPont Works hazardous waste clean-up site. Parcel 2 has been cleaned up and was removed from the State hazardous sites list in 1997. A major clean-up of Parcel 1 is currently underway and is scheduled to be complete in 2007.

Additional analysis has been added to the Final CCP/EIS on the existing clean-up program and the effects of Refuge expansion related to the ongoing hazardous waste remediation at the former DuPont Works Site on the East Bluff (see Environmental Contaminants Section 3.1.5 and Section 4.1 Effects to the Physical Environment). It is assumed that clean-up efforts will be completed prior to Refuge acquisition efforts. It is also assumed that Refuge management of these lands is consistent with the deed restrictions associated with the DuPont Works Site. A copy of the deed restrictions has been obtained for the planning record. Additional information on the DuPont Works hazardous waste site has been added to Section 3.1.5. We also added a bullet entitled “Hazardous waste sites and spill response” to Section 2.2.1 which briefly addresses Service policy regarding hazardous waste sites. Deed restrictions are a common reality on National Wildlife Refuges and it is not practical to discuss all of the possible implications of various restrictions in this document. While we would not purchase lands that could not contribute to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, many types of deed restrictions would not limit, for example, use of the property for wildlife habitat.

If a landowner expresses an interest in selling land within an approved Refuge boundary to the Service, a professional, certified real estate appraiser will conduct an appraisal to determine the fair market value of the property as required by Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. The Service is required by this law to offer 100% of fair market value. The Service carefully considers the desires of the landowner and acknowledges that negotiations with a landowner can be complex. The Service respects the rights of landowners and treats them fairly and equitably throughout the acquisition process.

Other Comments Related to Refuge Expansion • Great mushroom/fungi in expanded (D) Refuge boundary – northeast corner, near I-5 and the Nisqually River. Does not want to lose access in the spring. • Very risky losing current property with the taking down of the dike and without definite plans for future acquisition of property. • We urge the FWS to complete maximum expansion within the existing Refuge boundary. • Thurston County requests that FWS reimburse the County for the cost of Development Rights as property is incorporated into the Refuge. • The FWS should have acquired the farm on the east side of the Nisqually River, as well as the hillside on the south. Don’t pass up future expansion opportunities.

Service Response: There are 1,011 acres of land located within the existing Refuge boundary that are owned by others. The Service continues to look for acquisition opportunities to acquire real property interests in these lands, as well as in the expansion area.

Specific uses would be addressed as areas are acquired. In general, mushroom gathering has not been allowed on Nisqually NWR due to the high priority to minimize wildlife and habitat

Page M-30 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

disturbance outside of trail systems and the availability of other multipurpose areas that are available and more appropriate for this activity.

FWS recognizes that the County has utilized the PDR program to purchase development rights on properties located within the boundary of the expanded Refuge. If these properties were acquired, the Land and Water Conservation Fund legislation directs states, counties, and municipalities to donate real property interests located within established Refuge boundaries. In the event that donations are prohibited by statute, documentation must be submitted for review by the FWS and a determination will be made as to whether Congressional concurrence will be required. Migratory Bird Commission approval is required if the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund is used.

The Service is in the process of finalizing a Cooperative Agreement with the Nisqually Tribe to manage the farm (now Tribal lands) on the east side of the Nisqually Refuge as part of the Refuge (Section 2.2.1).

3.3 Restoration

3.3.1 Estuarine Restoration

Support for Estuarine Restoration Efforts/Dike Breaching • Dike removal and full estuarine habitat restoration will be essential to the survival of Puget Sound Chinook, a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. • We strongly support proposed restoration of estuarine habitat; the rarity of such habitat underscores the need for such efforts. • Restoration would provide benefits for anadromous and saltwater fish species. • It’s about time that restoration efforts were initiated – the rewards of dike removal will far outweigh any negative impacts. • Benefits of estuarine restoration outweigh the loss of public trail access. • The marsh needs to be put back in its original state to provide habitat lost by regional development. • Restoration would be of great ecological and educational value to allow the river and the sound, and all the wildlife to move and live as they see fit. • An aggressive restoration program is needed to enhance and restore native habitats, which will provide great benefits to fish and wildlife and promote recovery efforts for the Nisqually Rivers’ threatened Chinook salmon. • Salmon recovery will never be possible unless more estuarine habitat is restored. • Another benefit of estuarine restoration is the elimination of reed canarygrass. • The restoration of estuarine habitat is a welcome reversal of the loss of immensely important wildlife habitat, especially for salmonid species. • Brackish nursery grounds for young fish are essential for salmon recovery efforts; Nisqually, as the last pristine river mouth in the NW, offers a unique effort for restoration. • Habitat that supports fish and wildlife should come first at Nisqually; people are only visitors. • The viability of salmon populations of Puget Sound will benefit substantially from significant restoration of historic estuarine wetland habitat.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-31 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

• Restoration will provide sanctuary for wintering ducks and shorebirds; wildlife values will increase. • Maximizing the diversity of native species known to have historically inhabited the estuary will best promote system functionality and long-term viability • In informal observation records of wildlife use within and outside the dike system, there were scores of shorebirds, ducks, and raptors counted in the natural estuary for every songbird and duck observed within the diked system. Based on such observation, we maintain that restoration of the natural estuarine environment provides an extraordinary chance to preserve an ecosystem unique to our continent. • The dikes north of the Twin Barns should be removed to restore critical salt marsh habitat. • The Nisqually Fall Chinook Recovery Plan identifies the loss of estuarine habitat as the single greatest impact on Nisqually Chinook production; restoration is the single-most effective restoration action available for Chinook. Based on this, the Tribe ideally recommends a 100% maximum restoration effort – more than the 70% proposed under Alternative D. Recognizing the FWS need to balance multiple habitat needs and public use, the Tribe does support Alternative D; we would like to see the CCP identify Alternative D as a compromise as it still represents a substantial loss of habitat relative to natural conditions.

Service Response: Support for estuarine restoration is noted. Alternatives that restored a larger area than described in Alternative D were considered but not analyzed in detail because of the limited amount of freshwater wetland habitats and wildlife dependent public uses that would have been provided (see Section 2.4).

Opposition to Dike Breaching/Restoration • Breaching the dikes would have serious negative impacts to a host of wildlife species that currently use the Refuge, including mice, voles, and rabbits, as well as ground-nesting birds like ducks, geese, and harriers. Estuarine restoration would displace hundreds of species that occur on the Refuge to accommodate the needs of a few species. • Dike breaching is an irrevocable act; it cannot be undone if theorized results don’t occur. It’s better to retain/repair what we have now, which benefits both wildlife and people. • Area to be restored to saltmarsh is currently providing excellent feeding habitat for dabblers; it makes more sense to retain this area of highest use. • I have serious doubts the enhancement expected will materialize in quantities worth the deprivation of recreational opportunities. • The Refuge was founded for migratory waterfowl; how do we know that breaching the dikes won’t diminish migratory bird holding capacity? • I oppose using tax dollars for salmon restoration. The alternative is to improve existing conditions, which would be money more wisely spent. • I am not convinced that a greater good would be served by the proposed restoration. Restoration to original conditions isn’t possible – “you can’t walk twice in the same river.” • Dike removal would destroy wildlife and their habitat, as well as people’s opportunity to observe and enjoy them. • I don’t support breaching the dikes, unless public access can be maintained in that area of the Refuge. Losing such access represents a loss of both educational and recreational importance.

Page M-32 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

• Estuarine restoration changes the entire focus of the Refuge; the place is a gem; please don’t allow it to be lost. • Flooding may or may not improve the survival rate of salmon, and it’s not worth the risk. • This Refuge was created for migratory birds, not salmon; estuarine restoration is benefiting salmon at the expense of bird habitat. • The DEIS does not provide adequate data supporting the assertion that estuarine restoration would benefit more species than the existing freshwater systems; it seems that salmon would mainly benefit from restoration. • A better solution is to improve existing habitats, as has been started in the past few years. • Do not flood the interior of the Refuge without the complete and full level of knowledge necessary to know what will be lost by doing so. • The CCP is biased toward estuarine habitat restoration; it wasn’t the original purpose of the Refuge. • Comparing Alternative C and D, the 184 additional acres of restored estuarine habitat under Alternative D might not be justified given the potential impacts of loss of important freshwater habitats; in particular, consider impacts to insects, herptiles, passerines, herons, snipe, bittern, killdeer, rails, and raptors, all of which depend on freshwater and grassland habitat. • A flooded interior wouldn’t give outward migrating fish (from McAllister Creek and the Nisqually River) any more refuge habitat to hide from predators. • The restoration efforts on the east side of the Nisqually River are an example of how they’ve ruined high quality duck and goose hunting just for salmon. The FWS should keep an earthen dike on the east side of the river for a peripheral trail. • It would be wiser to use money slated for restoration on habitat acquisition on the other side of I-5, rather than moving forward with the costly dike removal proposal.

Service Response: Nisqually NWR provides a unique opportunity to restore historic estuarine habitat, helping to reduce the severe depletion of this important habitat type within the Nisqually estuary and throughout Puget Sound. Few regional opportunities exist on this scale, because the ability to restore estuaries is limited to the narrow margins where rivers meet salt water, and where development or other changes do not already prevent restoration. Alternatives that considered retaining dikes and/or not restoring estuarine habitat were considered, but these were deemed not to meet FWS or Refuge goals. Estuarine restoration would benefit many forms of wildlife and fish, help to recover threatened and endangered species, restore native habitats of the area, and provide quality wildlife viewing opportunities, which would all contribute toward meeting Refuge goals. Estuarine restoration would improve ecosystem function within the Nisqually delta, which would provide wildlife and natural landscapes for quality viewing experiences in a relatively undisturbed environment. While restoration described in the Preferred Alternative would result in trail reductions and changes, access to a diversity of habitat types would be provided for quality education and recreational opportunities through new trails, trail reconfiguration, and interpretive displays. Also see responses to Wildlife Observation.

Public hunting in the Nisqually delta occurs entirely within estuarine habitats now and not within the diked area proposed for estuarine restoration. Hunting is identified as a wildlife-dependent recreational use in the Improvement Act (see Section 1.4.2.1), and Alternative D would provide for waterfowl hunting on Refuge lands adjoining WDFW lands already opened to hunting. The

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-33 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

protection and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and their habitats are our first priority. For more information on changes to public access, education, and recreational opportunities, please see Sections 2.3.4 and 4.6.4.

A detailed analysis was done on the effects of Alternatives A-D to fish, wildlife, and their habitats. Please see Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, and Appendix J, the Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Modeling Summary, for more details. One of the main factors found to limit salmon populations in the Nisqually watershed is the inadequate estuary. The restored estuary would provide a more complex system of tidal channels that would provide salmon greater protection from predators. Fish migrating out of the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek stay in the estuary to forage and to gain size and strength. Those fish that eventually move into the open ocean (anadromous) use a healthy estuary to transform from freshwater to marine adapted animals. According to salmon fisheries biologists, the most critical period in salmon life is the time spent as a smolt (young fish living in an estuarine habitat). The physiological transition a small salmon undergoes between freshwater and a saline environment takes considerable amounts of energy and time. Estuarine habitats need to be large and productive enough to provide abundant food and cover for smolts during this stressful period. Estuarine restoration would benefit not only salmon. The Preferred Alternative would provide an extremely depleted habitat type that would support a whole host of species, ranging from macroinvertebrates to large marine mammals. Rather than focusing on species management, this would be a habitat and ecosystem function based plan.

The purposes of Nisqually NWR include “use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” and for “the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources.” The Preferred Alternative was identified as the best at achieving FWS and Refuge mission, purposes, and goals. The Refuge would continue to provide and enhance habitat for migratory birds, including many key species or groups (Chapter 4). For example, many species of migratory shorebirds and waterfowl use estuarine habitat, including the most abundant duck on the Refuge, the American wigeon. About 90% of wigeon are found outside the diked area in estuarine habitats in aerial surveys. Much of the Nisqually River’s surge plain and riparian corridor would continue to provide habitat for migratory passerines. Additional surge plain habitat would also be restored in Alternative D.

Estuarine restoration described in Alternative D would result in shifts and displacement of some species. In particular, species that depend primarily on grassland habitats and some that are highly dependent on freshwater wetlands would be most affected. As noted in the Final CCP/EIS, a smaller amount of freshwater wetlands would remain diked and be enhanced to provide habitat for freshwater-dependent species. Acquisition of lands south of I-5 that could be restored to freshwater wetlands and some grasslands would be sought, but this is a long-term effort that would occur over many years, and not necessarily simultaneously. Acquisition of suitable areas was identified as a high priority in Appendix K, Land Protection Plan. Through these efforts, the Refuge would continue to provide a mosaic of habitats for a diversity of fish and wildlife. For more information on species supported by estuarine habitat and the anticipated effects to fish, wildlife, and their habitats, please see Sections 3.2.1.1, 4.2.4, 4.3.4, 4.4.4, 4.4.1.4, 4.4.2.4, 4.4.3.4, 4.4.4.4, 4.4.5.4, and 4.4.6.4.

Page M-34 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

The FWS gets funding for operations and projects in the President’s budget; these funds cannot be used for acquisition. Acquisition funds are appropriated by Congress from other sources, or originate from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund when approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Also see Refuge Expansion responses.

Restoration Management Suggestions • Consider leaving some portions of the dike as islands, which would increase habitat diversity. • Don’t leave dike islands with big trees as it will prevent woody debris build up needed for restoration. • According to our review of several other estuarine restoration projects, one of the greatest risks to the success of such a project is failing to remove all of the dikes; total dike removal would be much more effective as it promotes unhindered tidal exchange. • I suggest breaching the brown dike only in 2 or 3 places, where the water comes up to the dike during high tide; there are a couple of ideal places to breach the dike without tearing it down completely. • If restoration proceeds, it makes more sense to take small actions performed slowly to allow observation and evaluation of effects. • We recommend that the CCP include ongoing estuarine restoration monitoring as a project action. • Baseline fish monitoring should occur prior to any restoration efforts. Gather as much pre- breaching data as possible. In particular, collection of otoliths is crucial. Information could be shared with recent restoration efforts on the Skagit. • Restoration timing for freshwater wetland areas should be coordinated with dike removal to buffer impacts on waterfowl. • Estuarine restoration won’t influence processes upstream, such as delivery of bed load sediment. Alternative measures should be identified. • The dike trail should be breached with a small portion taken out on McAllister Creek side. Vehicles should not be on the dike to maintain its structure longer. The ATV system would be a better suggestion. • Also, include fallback plans if things don’t go as planned. • Want to see river sinuosity return, but slowly. • After dike breaching, I would like to see progress reports at regular intervals; we need to use adaptive management as guidance during the process, modifying plans along the way. • Estuarine restoration should be balanced with the needs of songbirds and freshwater birds.

Service Response: We received a number of comments with suggestions on how to breach the dike during the planned restoration. One comment addresses this issue well: “research has shown a greater chance at successful estuarine function when all dikes are removed during restoration versus a partial dike breaching or muted breaching.” We are committed to using the method that would return the most natural function to the system. There are a number of reasons why partial or muted breaching is undesirable. Please see Sections 4.2.2.1, 4.2.3.1, 4.2.4.1, 4.3.4.1, 4.3.5.2, and Appendix J to gain more understanding on the effects that different forms of breaching would have on natural river and estuary function. In addition to the biological reasons

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-35 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

found in the suggested readings, a muted system with ‘bridges’ spanning breaches would require costly maintenance to try to keep breaches from eroding.

We agree that pre-restoration monitoring is an important component of this large-scale restoration effort. Refuge biologists have been conducting biological monitoring that has provided some baseline data; however, there is still a need for more information in the following areas: some key species or groups, hydrology, sedimentation, benthic utilization, prey availability, native vegetation recruitment, and invasive vegetation control. Monitoring studies would be conducted by Refuge staff, cooperators, other agencies, and interested researchers, based on level of funding and interest. We would continue to coordinate and share information with other estuarine restoration projects, as well as with other agencies and organizations that can provide expertise and experience. We would monitor the restoration and periodically reevaluate our progress to ensure that we are meeting our goals. Monitoring would support an adaptive management approach, allowing improvements or modifications to be made over time.

Freshwater wetland enhancement would continue in the areas that would remain diked prior to and continuing after estuarine restoration. This should benefit freshwater wetland dependent species in these areas. While all restoration efforts south of I-5 depend on available funds, willing sellers, and site specific plans, we would make every effort to complete habitat restoration on newly acquired lands as soon as possible.

Tidal Dynamics • According to the hydrologist at the open house, they have not studied what impacts the dike breaching will have on lands south of I-5; these studies should be done before any management option is selected/implemented. • Additional analyses should be presented for tidal surge dynamics (e.g., quantified and compared to baseline conditions); in addition, restoration trajectories should be established to allow appropriate adaptive management (including native vegetation recruitment, invasive vegetation displacement, accretion and erosion rates, benthic utilization, etc.). • Any severe flooding of McAllister Creek (such as in 1996) represents a severe threat to the drinking water supply of Olympia. The City discourages any plans that could contribute to additional flooding. Based on the hydrological modeling, it appears that Alternative D would minimize the risk of flooding.

Service Response: The issues of tidal surge dynamics and restoration trajectories will be examined in further detail during the development of specific monitoring studies and site plans, and as part of the permit process. Monitoring both native and invasive vegetation recruitment, sedimentation deposition, and benthic populations and use would be part of the biological work plan for the restoration. See EIS Appendix F; Plan Implementation regarding monitoring plans.

Based on the Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model report (available for reading at the Refuge), specific conclusions regarding flooding south of I-5 were as follows: (a) removal of dikes including the cross dike to McAllister Creek (as in Alternative D) would efficiently move flood waters off the Refuge, thereby reducing the flood impacts to Nisqually NWR as long as there is no cross-dike extending to McAllister Creek; and (b) flooding upstream of I-5 is not expected to be adversely impacted by habitat restoration. In fact, the selected alternative is

Page M-36 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

expected to be beneficial, since flood waters at the McAllister overflow would not be stored behind dikes, allowing flood waters in the overflow channel to move quickly into estuarine habitats. Estuarine restoration should provide a larger area for flood water drainage and would lessen the possibility of flood waters impacting McAllister Springs, a source of Olympia’s drinking water. The issue of flooding will be examined in more detail as part of the specific site plan.

Concerns and Questions • Regarding the restoration analysis, information on the vegetation component is incomplete. If dikes are removed, is saltmarsh vegetation expected to spread? How long will it take for habitat for young salmonids to develop? Would removal of existing vegetation speed the process? • The conversion to estuarine/saltwater habitat will affect certain trophic species; will these losses be compensated in any way? • I have concerns that previous years of agricultural use would adversely affect Puget Sound water quality once the dikes are breached, as the former farm fields become saltwater estuary. • Concerned about residual pesticide inside Brown Farm dike.

Service Response: Vegetation would change when the dikes were breached and removed. Observations recorded during the restoration process of Red Salmon Slough by the Nisqually Tribe (located east of the Nisqually River) showed that the existing grasses, forbs, and other vegetation die off in months. Seeds and rooting plant pieces from nearby salt marsh plants float into the newly opened lands and enhance vegetation conversion. The Nisqually Tribe reported 20% revegetation (primarily pickleweed) of the Red Salmon Slough restoration area within 11 months. Once tidal influence is restored to an area, fish and other marine animals can begin to colonize it. Fish were observed moving into the Red Salmon Slough restoration site on the first tide cycle. Juvenile chinook and chum salmon were found using the restoration site the first spring (2003) following restoration, and invertebrate prey items were detected in the restoration site within one year or less of the reintroduction of tidal influence. Based on results in these nearby restoration projects, salt marsh vegetation composition would be expected to shift (species changes and areas of occurrence) as sediments accumulate. The sloughs, channels, and salt marsh communities would take many years to develop and stabilize.

The suggestion to remove existing vegetation to enhance estuarine habitat development was considered by the Nisqually Indian Tribe in their restoration projects. Their study plots included an area scraped free of plant matter and areas left intact at inundation. Neither plot showed a significant difference in the speed of vegetation conversion or in anaerobic conditions during the transition. Additionally, vegetation removal causes ground disturbance and soil exposure, providing optimal conditions for non-native and invasive plants to infest the area before and after dike breaching.

Restoring historic estuarine wetlands would not significantly affect the number of trophic levels, but the trophic structure would change to represent a marine-influenced system. Replacement of trophic levels is not a requirement when wetlands are restored to historic conditions; other estuarine restoration projects along the Pacific Coast have been handled similarly. Freshwater

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-37 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

wetlands that remain would be enhanced, improving the value and function of these areas, as would areas acquired and restored south of I-5.

Four contaminant investigations were conducted on Nisqually NWR by the Service, Ecological Services, between 1985 and 1988, and in 1999. Twenty sites and 122 samples were tested for 14 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds, 22 organochlorine compounds, and 10 metals. Many samples and sites showed no trace, or traces below NOAA minimum threshold values. Areas in the orchard, near the Twin Barns, and behind the office showed slightly elevated metal levels, but those areas are not within the area that would be restored to estuary in Alternative D. Some samples in 2-4 sites within areas that would be restored in Alternative D showed levels of some metals slightly above minimum exposure levels; however, all contaminant levels detected were below Apparent Effects Threshold levels (NOAA standards). Contaminants were also detected outside the diked area in the Nisqually River, Nisqually Reach, and McAllister Creek. The groundwater on the Refuge shows no signs of contamination, as evidenced by the well used for drinking water. Overall, contaminant levels were not considered to present a problem in these studies, and contamination of the estuary would not be expected to increase as a result of estuarine restoration. However, the Refuge would continue to strive to have periodic contaminant monitoring conducted as part of the FWS Biological and Environmental Status and Trends program. All planned restoration activities would also undergo an extensive permitting process that would further consider environmental effects, including the release of potential contaminants.

Other Comments Related to Estuarine Restoration • Based on extensive observations at the Refuge, I would say that even if dikes were breached/removed, it still would not flood that much of the inner wall, unless it were an exceptionally high tide. • Dike removal would eliminate the costs associated with repairing the dike system. • Very little money has actually been spent on dike repair in the last 6 years; visitor usage fees should cover such costs, as well as trail maintenance. Also, I have observed very little earthquake damage to the dike system that requires actual repair. • We compliment you on your efforts to work with the Tribe in restoring 300 acres of diked wetlands on Tribal lands.

Service Response: The Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Model was used to evaluate hydrology under various restoration scenarios (Appendix J). Results indicated that the Preferred Alternative would produce tidal conditions that would fully penetrate the restoration area. Inundation of specific sites within the restoration area would vary depending on tide heights, flow conditions in the Nisqually River, topography, and sedimentation in the restored area over time.

Dike repair and maintenance has been costly in recent years. More than $500,000 has been spent on specific dike repairs since 1996, and this does not include costs of day-to-day maintenance or minor repairs, which includes vegetation control, graveling, and resurfacing. These repairs have been temporary approaches until long-term management decisions could be made in the CCP. In order to retain the entire dike, extensive repairs would be needed to provide needed structural integrity to the dike system. Engineering inspections over the years, including following the

Page M-38 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Nisqually Earthquake, clearly indicate that the dikes do not meet current safety or structural requirements and that the earthquake caused further damage. Entrance fee collections are used primarily to benefit education and public use programs and are not used for dike repair or maintenance; annual fee collections only equal a small fraction of the costs needed to repair or maintain dikes or trails.

There are many partners working together with the local community to restore and protect habitat in the Nisqually watershed. The Nisqually Tribe is a key partner and leader in this area. We are gaining important knowledge from the restoration effort led by the Tribe on their lands east of the river.

3.3.2 Freshwater Wetland and Riparian Restoration

Freshwater Habitat Restoration • Freshwater wetland restoration should occur prior to dike breaching so that wildlife displaced as part of the estuarine restoration effort have new habitat to go to. • Restored wetlands should be self-maintaining; naturally functioning systems are preferable for ecological and economic reasons.

Service Response: We have begun smaller scale freshwater wetland restoration projects in the vicinity of Refuge headquarters in recent years. These efforts would be expanded in areas to remain diked, helping to provide higher quality freshwater wetlands in greater proportion prior to estuarine restoration. Estuarine restoration and the associated permit process would take some time to plan and implement, so every effort would be made to restore freshwater wetland areas within existing Refuge lands and to acquire appropriate lands elsewhere prior to dike removal. Lands where freshwater wetland restoration could be accomplished were given a high priority for acquisition. A strategy was also added to Objective 1.3 emphasizing acquisition of areas suitable for freshwater wetland restoration as a high priority. However, acquisition of areas that can be managed or restored as freshwater wetlands would depend on willing sellers and the availability of funding. This is a long-term effort that may take years, so estuarine restoration may precede many acquisitions.

Restored estuarine areas would be allowed to function naturally and should require a minimum of active management once established. Freshwater wetland and grassland habitats would require regular maintenance, including water level management, and a periodic combination of mowing, discing, sculpting, invasive vegetation control, fertilizing (for grasslands), planting, and reseeding. Active management would be used in wetland and grassland areas that remain diked and appropriate lands acquired south of I-5.

Balance of Freshwater Wetlands and Estuarine Restoration • I support an equal balance of fresh and saltwater restoration areas. • I object to any net loss of freshwater habitat in favor of estuarine restoration. • In Puget Sound, freshwater marshes undoubtedly provide homes to many more creatures than estuarine environments. • The Final CCP/EIS should discuss how proposed actions will comply with Executive Order 11990, the Presidential goal of No Net loss of wetlands, and replace lost wetland functions.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-39 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Service Response: We are striving to provide a healthy balance of habitats in the Nisqually Delta including estuarine, freshwater wetland, surge plain, riparian, and grassland. Estuarine restoration would necessarily reduce the amount of freshwater and grassland habitat within current Refuge boundaries. Refuge expansion would provide great potential to acquire and restore freshwater wetlands within the lower watershed. Also see Estuarine Restoration responses.

Suggested Areas for Freshwater Wetland & Riparian Restoration • Re-establishing wetlands in upper McAllister Creek should be an objective; this would restore historic habitats and could help offset the loss of freshwater wetlands resulting from dike removal. • Objectives for riparian and wetland restoration along McAllister Creek need to be more clearly stated; the actions are only identified as opportunities. • The creek adjoining Hartman Road used to be exceptional breeding habitat for cinnamon teal, blue-winged teal, American bittern, green herons, and wood ducks. In the last 5 years, the creek has been choked with vegetation, reducing habitat quality and wildlife use. This is an opportunity for creek restoration for FWS staff. • The plan should specifically state that the restoration of seasonal wetlands and riparian forests on newly acquired lands south of I-5 will be a high priority. • As ponded freshwater habitats were likely not present in the Brown Farm diked area, efforts to recreate them in proximity to tidal influence are likely to be difficult. Focusing such efforts along the floodplains of the Nisqually River and along McAllister Creek upstream of I-5 would be more effective.

Service Response: Additional language was added to Section 2.2.2, Features Common to All Action Alternatives, on habitat restoration on lands that are acquired south of I-5 and in strategies under Objectives 1.3 and 1.4, to identify freshwater wetland and riparian restoration in the expansion area as a high priority, including in the McAllister Creek area. If appropriate sites were acquired along McAllister Creek, restoration efforts would focus on reestablishment of a riparian corridor.

McAllister Springs • The City of Olympia’s planned management of McAllister Springs might have some impacts on the FWS plans for restoration activities for freshwater and estuarine wetlands. Reduced withdrawals of source water are likely at the Springs, which might cause flow fluctuations in McAllister Creek.

Service Response: The planned reduction in water withdrawal from McAllister Springs should benefit fish and wildlife communities along McAllister Creek. We would coordinate with the City of Olympia so that information on water withdrawals could be considered in any habitat restoration plans. Increased flow or fluctuation should not negatively impact any portion of the plan.

Page M-40 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

3.4 Environmental Education Opportunities

Support for Expanded EE Programs • I support an expanded EE program at the Refuge. • Educational opportunities should be maximized in the future – Nisqually is one of the largest marine estuaries on the West Coast and provides an excellent opportunity for educating people on the importance of this habitat type. • Children need to experience and learn about the natural world. • Without EE programs, each successive generation will learn about the costs of environmental degradation through dreadful loss and bitter experience. • An important mission of the Refuge is to educate the public about the importance of the species and habitat protected at the Refuge. • Education, not recreation, should be the focus of the plan; as the restoration process proceeds, a recreation plan can be prepared based on public opinion. • We strongly support EE efforts at Luhr Beach, which will better inform visitors about restrictions, closures, and hunting rules.

Service Response: We acknowledge comments received in support of having an expanded environmental education program at the Refuge. The importance of environmental education at the Refuge is demonstrated by having one of the four goals of the Refuge specifically focus on environmental education. Compatible wildlife recreation programs as well as environmental education, will be put in place as the restoration process proceeds. By installing an information kiosk at Luhr Beach, the Refuge staff will work to better inform visitors entering the Refuge from this location about restrictions, closures, and hunting rules.

Local Programs and Partnerships • There is a potential for duplication of effort at McAllister Creek & Nisqually Reach nature center programs. • The Black Hills Audubon Society offers to partner with FWS to increase EE opportunities on the Refuge. • The Nisqually Delta Association would like to participate as a partner in new educational initiatives. • The Nature Center Board should be contacted regarding any changes that would affect wildlife viewing opportunities, safety, parking, or access. • McAllister Springs offers an excellent educational opportunity, and the City would like to work with FWS in developing such an opportunity.

Service Response: The Refuge will continue to work with local partners in the watershed including Luhr Beach Nature Center, to ensure the various environmental education programs are compatible and to minimize duplication of efforts. The Refuge will work to strengthen partnerships with Black Hills Audubon Society, the Nisqually Delta Association, and the City of Olympia at McAllister Springs to provide an expanded environmental education program at the Refuge. The Refuge will stay in close contact with Luhr Beach Nature Center about changes that would affect their program.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-41 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Expand Alternative D EE Program • Alternative D should be modified to serve 20,000 students. • To better mitigate the loss of public trail access, Alternative D could be modified to include the greater EE program proposed under Alternative B. An additional benefit of such education would be to cultivate in today’s students (i.e., tomorrow’s taxpayers) an understanding of the benefits of restoration. • Alternative D would be better if it included a larger EE program for children; could hunters be charged something extra to help fund the hiring of extra staff?

Service Response: Alternative D has a target of expanding the environmental education program to 15,000 students. With the Refuge opening to waterfowl hunting under this alternative, it is expected that limited staff will not be able to serve as many students because of time needed to manage the hunting program. The Outdoor Recreation Planner oversees both of these programs, and public use and other staff will need to divide time to ensure quality programming in both areas. Charging hunters to help fund an extra staff person to run the hunting program would take a substantial administrative cost to operate and would require a sizable additional fee per hunter or hunter visit. Hunters are already paying a variety of fees, including purchase of the required Federal duck stamp each year. These funds have been used to purchase 5 million acres of waterfowl habitat in the U.S., including many National Wildlife Refuge lands. Alternative D would still triple the number of students served at the Refuge and provide a higher quality environmental education program. The Refuge staff understands and supports the importance of environmental education, which is one of the four Refuge goals.

Opposition to Expanded EE Program • The proposed environmental education program threatens the Refuge with huge numbers of people that could ruin the Refuge; wild animals do not like huge numbers of people.

Service Response: Alternative D has a target of expanding the environmental education program to 15,000 students. A number of stipulations are described in Appendix G.4, Compatibility Determination on Environmental Education, to minimize disturbance and ensure compatibility. The program maintains the current policy of no more then 100 students per day on the Refuge; requires reservations; limits activities to facilities, trails, and study sites; and encourages trail etiquette and the use of spotting scopes to view wildlife at a distance. It does mean that students would be coming more days throughout the year, instead of the current concentration in the spring. The Refuge will monitor impact of the program on wildlife as trails and habitats change, and will make adjustments as needed.

EE Program Improvements/Suggestions • User education is needed to reduce conflicts, as well as to inform people why Refuges were established and funded. Without such understanding, we’ll lose the support from hunters, Ducks Unlimited, WDFW, etc. • The FWS needs to educate the public that hunters paid for most of the Refuge, and that trail users get to use it most of the rest of the year. • The plan should better educate visitors on the significant history that has occurred there, such as the Medicine Creek Treaty, the Boldt Decision, as well as laws related to wildlife and Nisqually River fish.

Page M-42 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

• Is there a vision for an education site at McAllister Springs?

Service Response: User education will be expanded and provided in brochures, interpretive panels, signage, and at various other public contact points at the visitor center, on the trails, and at special events. This would include information about hunting and the role hunters have played in support of conservation. Staff will look at all the different interpretive messages including significant historical topics, such as the Medicine Creek Treaty, to include in future brochures, interpretive panels, and programs. The vision for an education program at McAllister Springs has not currently been planned.

Opposition to Butterfly Garden • The proposed establishment of a butterfly garden for educational purposes contradicts the Refuge goal of enhancing native habitat; few butterfly species are native to our lowland wooded area and wetlands, and habitat needs of rare butterflies cannot be replicated in a butterfly garden.

Service Response: Any garden that is developed on the Refuge will contain only site-specific native plants; thus, it provides the possibility of attracting native butterflies of which there are a number of species in the lowland, wooded areas. The purpose of such a garden would be to provide hands-on activities for students to learn about native plants and how some of these species can attract native wildlife and insects, such as butterflies.

Funding Relationship w/ Restoration • The relationship between funding for educational programs and dike breaching is unclear; why would there be no increase in educational funding if there is no change in the Refuge?

Service Response: Alternative A is the no action or status quo alternative, and describes no changes in programs on the Refuge, as required by NEPA. Therefore, Alternative A does not include any increases in the environmental education program. The remaining alternatives describe a range of levels or scenarios for each key issue or program. We did not intend to indicate that there was a direct relationship between funding for environmental education and estuarine restoration.

3.5 Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, Trails, and Public Access

Value of Existing Trail System • The existing trail system is enjoyed by thousands of visitors and is an important tool for environmental education. • There are very few nature walks as nice as those at Nisqually; it’s an interesting walk as the seasons change, and it’s close to parking. • The dike loop trail is an incredible public benefit, enjoyed by tens of thousands of people each year. • The trail system is the icon that identifies the Nisqually Refuge. It is one of the Refuge’s strongest draws and is related directly to education and wildlife observation. It is an outstanding public resource with numerous other values, such as exercise, fresh air, and aesthetics.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-43 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

• This Refuge is a local treasure – there are so few areas to access wildlife areas so near a large urban area; we need these trails.

Service Response: We likewise recognize the value of the existing trail system.

Support for Trail Changes • Numerous people specifically commented that although they greatly valued, used, and would miss the existing dike trail system, the benefits and importance of restoring historical estuarine habitat was more important as part of the future management of the Refuge. • I’d happily give up the 5 ½ mile trail to increase and improve the estuarine habitat, providing fish and wildlife a much needed sanctuary. • The heavy use of the trail is one of the greatest negative impacts on wildlife, in particular birds; the trail is used not so much by wildlife enthusiasts but by the local community as a general recreational outlet.

Service Response: We appreciate your willingness to support trail changes in order to restore more of the Nisqually delta and estuary. Trail alterations and use management would be designed to promote quality wildlife observation and interpretation rather than fitness or general recreational uses.

Opposition to Trail Changes • Breaking down the dike trail would be a tremendous loss to the community; it’s a source of enjoyment for tens of thousands of people. • Don’t breach dikes and eliminate the trails; it is a multi-use facility for handicapped people, and the trails and walkways should be left as is. • I oppose any changes that would exclude public access to the full length of the existing trail. • The trail plan under Alternative D is silly, making two short trails that users have to drive to in order to access. • Priority uses should be the perimeter trail, despite the importance of habitat restoration. • I oppose closing the dike trail; thousands of people use this trail, and it is a major resource enabling people to observe wildlife and their habitat. It is a vital source of exercise, fresh air, and wildlife observation. • I support the minimum reduction of trails in the existing Refuge area. • Keep the dike trail – the existing trail system educates people; this leads to support for preservation and expansion. • The perimeter trail is a world class wildlife viewing trail; it must be retained. If the dike is removed, a replacement trail should be built on pilings. • The reasons given for eliminating the dike trail (cost of maintenance, and incompatibility with estuarine restoration) do not hold water; breaching the dikes at existing remnant channels and prohibiting heavy motor traffic would solve both problems and allow us to retain the trail system.

Page M-44 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Service Response: We acknowledge that the changes in the dike trail in Alternative D are considered to be a major loss by many individuals. Retention of the dike trail with minimal changes was considered in detail in Alternative B, while still allowing some estuarine restoration. However, detailed analysis of this alternative showed that retention of the dike compromised the ability to successfully restore estuarine habitat (see Chapter 4 and Appendix J). The first priority of Nisqually NWR is to promote biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health through conservation, management, and restoration of fish and wildlife populations and habitats. Wildlife and habitat needs take precedence over wildlife viewing and recreational opportunities. The ecological benefits of a more fully restored estuarine environment in the South Puget Sound area was deemed to be of greater importance. However, the trail system in the Preferred Alternative was designed to provide quality wildlife observation opportunities and access to a diversity of habitats, including new opportunities through new trails and trail configurations. Public comments throughout the scoping process emphasized the importance of quality wildlife viewing opportunities and access to various habitats as most important, if the trail system were to change. This is also consistent with FWS and Refuge goals for quality wildlife-dependent recreation.

The new trails would provide a similarly rewarding experience for visitors of Nisqually NWR, with a continued emphasis on wildlife-related public uses. The new trail system would similarly provide interpretive information designed to help visitors learn about the wildlife and habitats of the Nisqually Delta. We recognize the important relationship between education and future support for conservation measures.

We would continue to be a multi-use facility for disabled people. The new boardwalk in the estuarine restoration area and the new loop trail on the east side of the Nisqually River would be handicapped accessible. The accessible Twin Barns loop trail would remain as is.

Although the trail plan under Alternative D would require visitors to drive from one trail to another, it is meant to provide visitors with a diverse array of experiences by providing access into a variety of habitats.

Bridged breaches at existing remnant channels would not allow full estuarine restoration, and dikes would require vehicle and heavy equipment access for maintenance. Vehicle traffic is kept to the minimum necessary to manage the Refuge and ensure visitor safety. However, vehicle use is not the cause of dike problems. Engineering inspections have indicated that dikes do not meet safety or structural standards due to their age, materials, and construction. The dikes have many structural deficiencies, leaks, earthquake damage, and erosion; encroaching vegetation must constantly be maintained. A replacement boardwalk trail for the entire dike would be extremely costly and difficult to maintain.

Trail Improvements/Suggestions • To compensate for the loss of the dike trail, the replacement trail system should be completed as soon as possible. Ideally, the new trail system should be in place prior to destruction of the dike trail. • To buffer the loss, and to gather more public support for estuarine restoration, I’d suggest a more extensive trail system, especially in areas of boundary expansion.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-45 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

• Alternative D/estuarine restoration should be balanced with public access to trails within the Delta. • Other possible trail locations include the outer dikes and some of the inner dikes SW of the Visitor Center, as well as lands near McAllister Creek south of I-5. • Rather than eliminating the loop trail, the dikes could be partially breached; the trail could continue with walkways and bridges over the breached areas (this option was mentioned frequently). • Consider an additional trail (or loop trail). • Hikers appreciate loop trails. • Additional improvements could include re-routing trails, building boardwalk trails, photo blinds, viewing platforms, and overlooks. • For trails south of Martin Way, consider a “fee access” system to allow public to view private property, with strict controls implemented. • I ask that you give strong consideration to maintaining and improving public access to the stream for quality canoeing, fishing, and waterfowl hunting opportunities in a manner consistent with estuarine habitat restoration. • Wants to see more trips and facilities for those in wheelchairs. • Assure new main trail has view of Olympic Mountains and saltwater. Place or move observation tower here. • Establish an overlook place for cars to stop; this would provide an interpretive opportunity with information about the history and wildlife of the area, with potential views of Mt. Rainier, the Valley, and the Olympics. Thousands of people would use it and benefit. • Since Refuge has handicap accessible trails, advertise to facilities that cater to these publics; provide more guided tours for these. • Permanent informational signs should stress the extreme shortage of natural saltwater estuary so that the need for reduction of current dike-walking opportunities will be understood and appreciated. • The FWS should improve recreation and education by reconfiguring the trail system, but this needs to be done in a manner that protects the native fish and wildlife and their habitat.

Service Response: We are dedicated to providing high quality wildlife observation, interpretation, and educational opportunities, while ensuring the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife and their habitats. The trail system in the Preferred Alternative was designed to provide new quality wildlife observation opportunities, through new trails and trail redesign, while allowing the restoration of historic estuarine habitat. In creating new trails, we would make every effort to provide high quality wildlife viewing experiences and access to a diversity of habitats, while minimizing disturbance to wildlife resources. The new trail system would provide the same amount of trail length as the current trail system. If an East Bluff trail is constructed, the resulting mileage would be even greater. We would build two new boardwalk trails, along which we would plan to include photo blinds, viewing platforms, and interpretive information about wildlife and habitats encountered and their relationships. Accessible trails and facilities would continue to be provided and increased outreach efforts conducted.

We would be providing a new loop trail on the east side of the Nisqually River. A boardwalk loop trail in the restored estuarine area, a West Bluff trail, and an eastside shore trail were all considered but not included as alternatives for various reasons. Please see Section 2.4 for more

Page M-46 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

details. We did not consider a scenic overlook along I-5 primarily due to safety concerns associated with such a high speed and highly traveled roadway. Specific trail options would be developed in the expansion area south of I-5 and Martin Way when appropriate areas were acquired.

The remaining freshwater wetland area in Alternative D is relatively small in size (263 acres). Trails would be located on the north and east sides of this diked area, and the Refuge entrance road would line the south end. Placing trails on the inner or outer dikes would greatly bisect or fragment this area and increase the amount of disturbance to the wildlife that use it. In addition to limiting the amount of wildlife sanctuary, trails on these dikes would decrease the quality of viewing opportunities due to frequent flushing of wildlife. Bridged breaches along the outer existing dike were not adopted as part of the Preferred Alternative because they would result in the establishment of a muted estuarine environment, rather than a fully functional estuary. Please see Appendix J, Chapter 4, and responses to Estuarine Restoration for more details.

Funding for restoration and trails may not occur simultaneously. However, we would strive to time restoration activities and trail construction to provide continuous quality viewing opportunities to the greatest extent possible. Wherever possible, we would construct new trails and boardwalks prior to or shortly after dike removal. Public access for canoeing, fishing, and waterfowl hunting opportunities will continue to be provided at the WDFW Luhr Beach boat launch at the mouth of McAllister Creek.

Trail User vs. Hunter Conflicts • Alternative D would entail seasonal closure of trail near McAllister Creek to avoid hiker/hunter conflicts; we recommend modifying hunter restrictions, not trail user restrictions. • A plan should be worked out to allow full use of the Refuge all year by walking and canoeing birders; birding use and access shouldn’t be restricted by hunters. • We oppose closing large portions of the trail system during the entire hunting season. • Further coordination with WDFW is required to resolve the hunter/trail user conflict at Luhr Beach; the trail shouldn’t be closed ¼ of the year. Hunting restrictions should be negotiated and implemented (e.g., hunt periods could be limited). • Hikers should have more access and not be restricted because of the hunting season; consider a non-7 days/week option. • Hunters should be separated from trail users, with hunting occurring far enough away to avoid trail closures. • We would like to see the seasonal closure changed; the whole trail should be open at least 2 days/week during hunting season, not completely closed because of conflicts with hunters. • The presence of hunting on the Refuge keeps hikers, photographers, etc. away from the Refuge; who wants to compete with a gun? • The proposed 200-yard separation between walkers and hunters along McAllister Creek may not be adequate for safety. • As a non-hunter, the December-January trail closure has not greatly affected me in the past, and I see no impact on my visits in the future.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-47 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Service Response: Great effort was made throughout the planning process to try to reduce or eliminate conflicts between users. Extensive coordination and cooperation with a key partner, WDFW, was a fundamental element of the CCP process. A seasonal trail closure was requested by WDFW to minimize conflicts with hunters on WDFW lands along McAllister Creek. This seasonal closure would be monitored and evaluated on a regular basis.

East Bluff Trail • We question the potential to implement a trail on the East Bluff; have studies been undertaken regarding the feasibility of such a trail? • It doesn’t make sense to put a trail here (on the East Bluff) – it is too remote, too steep, too wooded, full of seeps and springs, and highly unstable. • Trail on East Bluff should not be part of public use. It is the most undisturbed near the RNA and should remain that way. Instead, consider an alternative trail on the West Bluff.

Service Response: The East Bluff Trail has been conceptually identified by the City of DuPont in their comprehensive planning efforts for the area. Actual design and specific location has not been finalized. Trails on Refuge lands would need to meet acceptable safety and feasibility standards, as well as be designed in a way to minimize resource impacts. Trail changes described in the Preferred Alternative were examined for potential impacts to wildlife and the RNA. The East Bluff trail would not be expected to negatively impact the RNA because of the separation created by distance, steep terrain, and forest cover.

East Side Trail • An east side trail would be OK as long as conditions would be controlled (e.g., managed and used for guided, special events). • The proposed trails on the east side of the Nisqually River would be like building a nature walk trail along the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle; it’s too close to the freeway and too far from the river’s mouth.

Service Response: The east side trail would be managed to provide quality wildlife viewing opportunities, similar to other trails on the Refuge. It would need to be seasonally closed during the waterfowl hunt season while the private club continues to operate. Although we strive to provide serene wildlife viewing opportunities, portions of the trail would necessarily be close to the freeway; however, larger portions of the trail would be more distant, helping to reduce the noise and visual effects. We believe a high quality trail experience can be created on the east side of the river.

Boardwalk Trail • The boardwalk proposed under Alternative D would be potentially unstable and unsafe, subject to tidal action, wind/wave action, storms, tree falls, and earthquakes. Wet, freezing weather and the growth of algae would make the boardwalk slippery and unsafe. • I have no wish to see expensive and short-lived boardwalks built, but will be happy to enjoy the area in whatever way is least intrusive for wildlife.

Service Response: All trails, including new boardwalks, would be constructed to provide a safe experience. Boardwalk construction methods would be similar to those used that have proven

Page M-48 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

extremely sturdy at Nisqually NWR, and also in estuarine habitat at Grays Harbor NWR. This boardwalk system is pinned in place, reducing the impacts to wetlands caused by driving pilings. After the dike is removed to grade, the northern portion of the boardwalk would be built on the remaining dike substrate. This should add to the boardwalk=s stability since the materials immediately beneath the dike have undergone more extensive settling than the adjacent wetlands.

Connecting Individual Trails and Facilities • Cable ferry – transport people around Refuge! • Trails should be connected over the river. • Consider a canopy bridge connecting the various trails in the system. • The trail plan in Alternative D does not allow for adequate parking or access to Refuge lands; too much driving would be needed to get to the Visitor Center.

Service Response: Trails are the best way for visitors to peacefully experience the Refuge’s offerings. While the connectivity between trails on the east and west sides of the Nisqually River is lacking, visitors would be able to drive between the trails on I-5 or secondary roads. Because of the extreme water level fluctuations in the Nisqually River, regular storm and flood events, bank erosion, use of the river by boats, and the regular passage of huge debris and driftwood down the river, a safe way to bridge the river to connect trails does not appear feasible. A new parking area would be developed associated with the new trail on the east side of the Nisqually River. Information kiosks would be provided at all new Refuge access points.

Crowding and Visitor Use Limits • Will visitor numbers ever be limited/controlled? As trail length is decreased, that will increase the density of people using accessible Refuge lands. Will we be exceeding the carrying capacity, and could this cause adverse impacts to existing resources? • The plan is misleading because it shows trails that might be developed, but not necessarily so. Under Alternatives C and D, public use access is concentrated in a smaller area and would lead to a less enjoyable experience. • Proposed estuarine restoration will change the nature of the visitor experience, crowding an increasing number of visitors into a smaller trail configuration and limiting access to much of the Refuge; visitors will have to grow accustomed to this change in recreation opportunities.

Service Response: We do not propose to limit visitor use in the CCP/EIS. We would continue to monitor visitor numbers and use patterns, and evaluate the effects of increased visitor use on the quality of experience and on wildlife and habitat resources. Management changes would be considered if needed in the future to maintain quality and minimize wildlife disturbance. Currently, visitor use tends to be self limited by available parking. A new trail and parking on the east side would actually create more options for visitors and would be expected to spread use over a larger area. We have every intention to develop the trails outlined in the Preferred Alternative; we expect the new trail system would handle a similar number of visitors to what is currently received at the Refuge. The new trail system would likely provide a different type of experience, with an increased focus on wildlife observation.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-49 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Types of Use and Impacts • This is a Refuge – priority uses should not include hunting, biking, powered watercraft, dogs, jogging, etc. Trail loops should be minimized so they don’t attract joggers. Human access should only be for quiet observation and maintenance. • General exercise and nature walks should not be promoted; Nisqually is a Refuge, not a park, and its value lies in wildlife and habitat protection and appreciation. • Wildlife might be better off with no birdwatchers using the trail network. • To minimize disturbance to wildlife, walking on designated trails should be permitted only during appropriate times; Refuge staff should determine appropriate times and publish a schedule of appropriate times, areas, and trails. • Trails without dogs are regionally scarce.

Service Response: The Refuge Improvement Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Biking, jogging, and dogs have never been allowed on the Refuge, and no changes are proposed in the Preferred Alternative. These restrictions reduce wildlife disturbance, enhance the quality of wildlife viewing, and reduce conflicts for visitors participating in priority public uses. All recreational uses must not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the NWRS mission or the purposes of the Refuge. Trail locations are chosen to best minimize disturbance to wildlife during times trails are in use, which includes daylight hours only.

3.6 Waterfowl Hunting

Opposition to Waterfowl Hunting on the Refuge • I oppose hunting on a Refuge – by its very nature it is incompatible with the concept of a wildlife refuge. • Allowing hunting to occur on a Refuge is hypocritical; the word “refuge” should not be used for an area where hunting is allowed. (Dictionary definition of “refuge” given). • A wildlife refuge should not be used for government-sponsored, taxpayer-supported killing and torturing of wildlife. • The great majority of Americans believe wildlife refuges should be a refuge, a safe haven for wildlife, not a place where they can be hunted or trapped. • Please don’t add Nisqually NWR to the list of Refuges with the dubious distinction of allowing recreational killing of the wildlife you are charged to protect. • Hunting contradicts the FWS mission “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management… and future generations of Americans.” • FWS literature states “Wildlife come first”; an extensive hunt program does not support this stated objective. • Hunting should only be allowed on the Refuge to protect animals from starvation, overpopulation, etc. None of these conditions occur at Nisqually. • I am in favor of yearlong sanctuary for our wildlife. • The Refuge should not be opened to hunting until the Service finalizes its wildlife-dependent recreational uses policy.

Page M-50 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

• In addition to opposition to hunting on Refuge lands, many commentors expressed their opposition to trapping, ranching, and logging on the Refuge and other federally managed lands.

Service Response: We appreciate the effort so many commentors took in providing input on the subject of opening Nisqually NWR to waterfowl hunting. Congress identified hunting as one of six priority public uses of the Refuge System in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. All uses must also be determined to be compatible with Refuge purposes before they can be allowed (see Appendix G.3). Because of the confusing boundaries with State hunted lands located within Refuge boundaries, unauthorized waterfowl hunting has been occurring on parts of Nisqually NWR for many years. The Preferred Alternative was designed to provide quality waterfowl hunting opportunities, improve wildlife sanctuary, ensure compatibility, reduce confusion for hunters, and reduce conflicts with other users as much as possible.

Although waterfowl hunting directly impacts individual birds, the amount of waterfowl harvest is not expected to have a measurable effect on Refuge population levels, especially since waterfowl hunting activity is not extremely high in the delta. In addition, hunting is highly regulated and designed to ensure that harvest does not reduce populations to unsustainable levels.

Human disturbance to wintering birds and other wildlife using the open waters and marshes on the Nisqually delta would occur as a result of hunting activity. These impacts would be reduced by the presence of adjacent sanctuary areas where hunting does not occur, and birds can feed and rest relatively undisturbed. The CCP/EIS includes several strategies or stipulations to protect wildlife including: the RNA (764 acres) will be closed to hunting and fishing and will also be closed to boats from October 1 through March 31; the restored estuarine habitats (699 acres) will be designated as sanctuary for estuarine-dependent wildlife by prohibiting public boating and consumptive uses; a new 5 mph boat speed limit will be implemented on all Refuge waters to improve wildlife and habitat protection and reduce disturbance; a limited hunting area will be clearly posted and enforced; a 25-shell limit will be imposed; and periodic biological and social monitoring and evaluation of the hunting program will be conducted to determine if objectives are being met.

Support for Waterfowl Hunting on the Refuge • As the management agency, the WDFW is committed to preserving the quality hunting opportunity traditionally available at Nisqually, especially given the loss of huntable lands throughout Puget Sound over the last decades. WDFW is committed to maintaining its ownership and management authority for recreational opportunities on its land holding in the delta; therefore, Alternative C is unworkable in its current form, and we support Alternative D. • I would like to see the culture of hunting maintained within the limits of the resource. • It is very important to maintain the opportunity for waterfowl hunting as the Refuge expands; historically, sports hunters of waterfowl have been the strongest supporters of both the Refuge and of waterfowl themselves. • I support duck hunting in the Refuge, and I’m not even a hunter.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-51 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

• I am writing to voice support for increased hunting opportunities on the Refuge; as a community, waterfowl hunters have shown that they are a responsible and ethical partner in the conservation of or our nation’s natural resources. • Hunting is a time-honored and scientific method of managing wildlife populations. • Please give hunters access to the Refuge; hunting lands are becoming more and more difficult to find, especially in areas with large populations. • Hunting is a legitimate part of the Federal Refuge system mandate, and funds from hunters have been a long-term base for buying the Refuge system. • We acknowledge the value of hunting in the Refuge; hunters make contributions to the Refuge system via duck stamps and excise tax programs, and helped create the NWR System. • The Refuge was acquired with Duck Stamp dollars, as well as from the sale of firearms and ammunition. It’s unfair that hunting is being limited as hunters paid for the preservation of the Refuge. • Duck stamp monies were used to purchase lands and require that 40% of those lands be open to hunting. • It’s illegal to close lands to hunting that were obtained by Duck Stamps.

Service Response: We acknowledge the important contributions by waterfowl hunters in wildlife conservation and the purchase of some National Wildlife Refuge System lands. The Preferred Alternative is designed to provide quality waterfowl hunting opportunities on Nisqually NWR and to reduce confusion for hunters on Refuge and WDFW lands. Purchase of lands with duck stamp funds do not require that they be opened to waterfowl hunting; however, it is correct that hunting cannot be allowed on more than 40% of those lands in order to provide undisturbed areas where waterfowl can rest and feed.

Additional Areas Requested to be Opened or Remain Opened to Waterfowl Hunting • Make all the area proposed in Alternative C open to boat hunting only, 7 days/week; on lands purchased with duck stamps, make hunting opportunities a priority. • Please expand the hunt area to the east, making the County line the boundary. • I would like to see all of WDFW land left open to waterfowl hunting; there is so little hunting land left in S Puget Sound. Include WDFW land along McAllister Creek in the designated hunt area. • It’s important to keep the McAllister Creek area open for hunting; closing it would cram all of the hunters into a smaller area and severely reduce the quality of the experience for everyone. • Keep WDFW lands on McAllister Creek open to hunting except the current dogleg at the south end. In addition, open all Refuge lands on McAllister Creek that lie to the east of this WDFW parcel. A portion of the restored tidal areas within the perimeter dike (but restored with bridged breaches) should be open to designated blind hunting on Saturdays and Wednesdays, and effects monitored. If the proposed trail were eliminated on the east side of the Nisqually River, this would be one of the best places to allow public hunting. • Acquisition area south of I-5 could be converted from agriculture to a combination of Refuge and managed, fixed blinds in upper McAllister Creek and other areas, with portions set aside for hunting. • The east side of the slough (Nisqually River) should be open for hunting.

Page M-52 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

• I am frustrated by the lack of proposed access to hunting areas where ducks and geese concentrate in freshwater wetlands; I support the concept of walk-in hunting areas on lands acquired on the west side of the river (south of I-5) but more such opportunities are needed.

Service Response: All of WDFW lands will remain open to waterfowl hunting under the Preferred Alternative, including the McAllister Creek area. WDFW was not supportive of Alternative C, which would have closed the McAllister Creek area to hunting. A variety of other alternatives were considered (see Section 2.4 Alternative Components Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study), including waterfowl hunting on the east side of the Nisqually River. However, a new trail on the east side of the Nisqually River was considered a priority to best serve Refuge visitors, and every effort was made to design the Preferred Alternative with minimal conflict between users. The restoration area would remain closed to all access (not just hunting) to allow estuarine recovery and monitoring, as well as maximize wildlife observation opportunities for those restricted to trails. Waterfowl hunting would be considered south of I-5 if sufficient lands are acquired that would provide adequate wildlife sanctuary and minimal conflict with other priority public uses.

Areas Requested to Close or Remain Closed to Waterfowl Hunting • Protect and close the area east of the river, near the bluffs; birds use and need this area. • Hunting use must be configured so that it does not impair key waterfowl refugia or unduly hinder other users of the Refuge. • We cannot support the hunting area proposed under Alternative C because the EIS fails to disclose the bird disturbance impacts. These impacts should be addressed further if the hunt boundaries are expanded beyond Alternative D. • The McAllister Creek hunt area should be closed so that the trail system can be open for educational purposes year round. • Hunting in the McAllister Creek WDFW lands needs to be restricted to waterfowl due to the proximity of private homes. • Regarding acquiring the McAllister Creek property, in the DEIS there is no analysis or consideration of potential options or mitigation that could convince WDFW to sell, exchange, encumber, or co-manage resources in the delta such that the property could be acquired or otherwise administered to lessen or mitigate the effects of hunting. • The McAllister Creek area also has bald eagle roosts and a heron rookery. Will continued hunting there (in combination with development nearby) disturb these critical elements of the Refuge? • The compatibility analysis is inadequate because allowing hunting or firearms possession within 200 yards of residences is a serious and substantial safety risk and conflicts with other priority uses. The FWS should continue to prohibit hunting and firearms possession within 200 yards of any residence within the Refuge boundary, as well as the Visitor’s Center. Hunting access by boat has less impact than land-based hunting and associated blinds. We are seriously concerned about allowing land-based hunting and the establishment of permanent blinds, the disturbance to riparian habitat this would cause, and the need for sanitation facilities. • We cannot support the proposed walk-in hunting opportunities (south of I-5) until additional information is provided on location and number of set blinds, frequency, duration, and number of hunting trips, and impacts on wildlife and other resources.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-53 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Service Response: Waterfowl hunting areas were designed to provide quality waterfowl hunting opportunities, sufficient wildlife sanctuary, reduce confusion for hunters, and minimize conflict with other users. Closing McAllister Creek to waterfowl hunting was considered (Alternative C); however, WDFW did not support this alternative, which directly affected their lands. Extensive coordination meetings were held to discuss this and other issues with WDFW, including the exploration of a variety of options regarding the McAllister Creek area. WDFW has indicated their support for Alternative D. Wildlife disturbance in the McAllister Creek area, including effects on bald eagles and great blue herons, remains a concern for the Refuge (also see the Compatibility Determination, Appendix G.3), so Refuge lands within this area were not proposed to be opened to waterfowl hunting as part of Alternative D.

Walk-in hunting is not currently proposed, although if appropriate lands were acquired south of I-5 that provided sufficient wildlife sanctuary and minimal conflict with other users, hunting would be considered. A waterfowl hunt plan and Environmental Assessment would be completed to address opening new areas to hunting in the future, for example south of I-5, which would include opportunities for public participation. Sanitation facilities are available at Luhr Beach, the closest boat launch site, and are not practical to establish on open water.

The Refuge CCP/EIS does not propose to establish hunting areas on Refuge lands within 200 yards of residences or the Visitor Center. WDFW holds an easement across a portion of what is now Refuge lands on the West Bluff, which provides land access to their lands along McAllister Creek. FWS acquired this property subject to these easement rights and has no authority to change the terms of this agreement. Compatibility does not apply in cases where jurisdiction is lacking. WDFW retains responsibility for management of hunting and other activities on their lands.

Hunt Days • Hunting should be open 7 days/week, primarily because of tidal action. • Please keep the area open for hunting during the entire hunt season; due to weather and tides it isn’t practical to limit hunting to certain days or times. • As hunters, we support a 3 days/week hunt. • Hunting should be limited to 3 days/week, not 7. • Hunters oppose a 3-days/week limit primarily because of tidal activity and weather, which already naturally limit access. • A 3 days/week hunting restriction would work for walk-in areas, but not boat-in areas due to tides. • Retain existing dike trail and open hunting area 5 days/week so trail can be open 2 days /week during hunt season; open east side lowlands (east of Nisqually River) to hunting 2 days/week when the west side is closed, and do not put a new trail on east side.

Service Response: The Preferred Alternative includes hunting 7 days/week throughout the waterfowl hunt season. This would make hunt days consistent on Refuge and WDFW lands, which is important to make the hunt program manageable. A 3 day/week hunt schedule was described as part of Alternative C; however, WDFW was not supportive of restrictions on

Page M-54 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

days/week on their lands. The seasonal trail closure along McAllister Creek was requested by WDFW to minimize conflict with waterfowl hunters on State lands.

Shell Limit • I support a 25 shell/day limit. • The 25-shell limit is OK (e.g., under Alternative C), but it’s harder w/ steel shot relative to lead; it leads to more crippling. • For the area north of I-5, it should be a 50-shell/day limit due to local conditions (i.e., weather, open water during higher tides).

Service Response: The 25 shell limit was designed to improve waterfowl hunting quality. This standard is common on many National Wildlife Refuges, and WDFW has concurred with this limit on State lands as well.

Boundary Changes & Regulation Enforcement • Numerous people commented on the need to clarify/simplify the boundary of legally hunted lands in the vicinity of the Refuge. People noted that the current patchwork configuration of land ownership makes it difficult to determine which lands are actually closed to hunting. Many additional people requested that the boundaries of the huntable area be clearly marked with boundary markers of some sort. • Illegal hunting/trespass should be eliminated/controlled. More effective enforcement is needed. • We do not understand why gross violations of trespass and illegal hunting have been tolerated. Unauthorized hunting does not seem to be a problem of miscommunication or misunderstanding of the boundaries, but a disregard for State and Refuge rules concerning hunting. • While hunting is controversial and the issue is complex, the current situation of allowing hunting in areas not officially designated for it cannot continue. • The RNA is sanctuary area; poaching should be enforced. Use the County River Buoy as a boundary marker. • The Refuge hunt area needs to be clearly posted so that hunters know where legal hunting can occur. • Refuge management must have a recognizable boundary for proper enforcement. Boundaries of the hunting area should be clearly marked for proper enforcement. Boundaries of the hunting area should be clearly marked and strictly enforced. • There should be a no hunting boundary at the north side of the Refuge (coinciding with the approved Refuge boundary); it (Alternative D boundary) would be difficult to post without putting more “hazards to navigation” in an area already choked by logs and stumps. • The northern boundary of WDFW ownership and the Alternative D hunt area follows an east west line that does not correspond to any natural feature, presenting a never-ending challenge for enforcement. A consolidated hunting area as in Alternative C, but using the Nisqually River as the eastern boundary would provide an easily identifiable demarcation of the hunting boundary. • Suggestion – a land exchange between WDFW & USFWS (especially in the RNA) would better clarify the hunting/WDFW boundary and facilitate enforcement.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-55 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

• The currently shared hunt area (managed by both the WDFW/FWS) is too difficult to manage/enforce; we recommend using the Nisqually River as the natural hunt boundary. • An agreement should be reached between WDFW and Nisqually NWR to coordinate and regulate hunting prior to allowing any hunting in Nisqually NWR lands. • I am not confident in FWS’s ability to educate hunters and enforce hunt area boundaries; I would suggest using natural boundaries that are more easily identifiable. • Hunting boundary should be “squared” to clarify lands open to hunting. • Establishing a clear hunt/no hunt boundary should be feasible. • We support hiring a part-time wildlife agent specifically to enforce hunting restrictions. • Adequate personnel should be hired and trained to monitor hunting prior to allowing any hunting in Nisqually NWR lands. • Anything is fair game on the Refuge, especially on weekends – illegal hunting, mushrooming, fishing. The newly proposed rules won’t help because there is inadequate enforcement.

Service Response: The CCP/EIS addresses several important key issues, including resolving the long standing unauthorized waterfowl hunting on Nisqually NWR. The hunt area will have to be posted and enforced upon opening Refuge lands to waterfowl hunting. Strategies under Objective 4.1, Waterfowl Hunting, include provisions to post and sign the area, develop a hunting brochure, hire a 0.5 FTE Refuge Officer to enforce hunting regulations, and a 0.5 FTE Biological Technician to monitor harvest and compliance. Where possible, natural boundaries or simple boundary configurations were used in designing the hunt area to facilitate posting and enforcement. If a cooperative agreement can be developed with WDFW for the Luhr Beach area, a visitor contact station would be established that would provide an ideal location for providing information to hunters using the Refuge. The possibility of land exchanges were discussed with WDFW; however, no options were found that were acceptable. WDFW has expressed support for the Preferred Alternative. Continued coordination and cooperation with WDFW will be a part of the waterfowl hunting program.

Research Natural Area Reduction • Many commentors stated that there should be no reduction in the size of the RNA. • Improving the delineation of the hunting area is NOT sufficient justification for reducing the RNA. • If RNA is reduced to accommodate hunting, an equal amount of RNA land should be acquired elsewhere. • Removal of land from an existing RNA should only be done under extraordinary circumstances. • Reduction in RNA lands could only be justified if: (1) WDFW closes the McAllister Creek Unit to hunting; (2) FWS evaluates intertidal areas acquired in the future as additions to RNA; (3) FWS evaluates newly restored estuarine area as addition to RNA; and (4) CCP/EIS identifies community types that occur in the area proposed from deletion from RNA. • The CCP’s stated purpose for creating a consolidated hunting area is to make it easier for hunters to recognize the boundaries in the field. Yet Alternative D proposes to create an arbitrary, imaginary line as the eastern boundary. We see no reason why the existing RNA boundary cannot be used.

Page M-56 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

• Hunt area in Alt D. Take the NE corner of hunt zone back…make Eastern Hunt Line the Nisqually River Bed. • Hunting should be excluded from the RNA; primary uses of an RNA should be research, conservation, and education – not recreation. • Hunting should be accommodated by agency coordination and seasonal trail closures, not through RNA reduction. • Very few hunters use the RNA area; it’s good to have protected areas.

Service Response: In response to these comments, we did a more detailed analysis of the effects if the RNA were reduced by 73 acres to accommodate hunting, as described in the Preferred Alternative. Vegetation information was determined using the vegetation mapping that was developed for the Draft CCP/EIS.

The RNA was depicted as an 837 acre area in the Draft CCP/EIS (see Figure 2.3-1), which includes 595 acres of mudflat, 152 acres of vegetated intertidal habitat (saltmarsh), and 90 acres of open water. The 73-acre portion to be removed from RNA designation includes 37 acres of mudflat and 36 acres of saltmarsh, which would reduce these community types within the RNA by 6% and 23%, respectively. However, while preparing our response to public comments, we discovered during a search of our files that the RNA boundary depicted in the Draft CCP/EIS was incorrect and included a 44-acre piece at the southern end that was not part of the designated RNA. This rectangular area juts southward at the southern boundary of the RNA (see Figure 2.3-1). We believe the Refuge’s property ownership boundary was inadvertently used when the map layer was created, rather than the true RNA boundary.

The correct size of the RNA is 793 acres without this southern piece. This 44-acre area is made up of 43 acres of saltmarsh, 0.8 acres of mudflat, and 0.5 acres of open water. Recalculating the impact of reducing the RNA by 73 acres to accommodate hunting using the correct RNA acreage, shows that the 36 acres of saltmarsh removed would reduce this type of habitat by 33% in the RNA. We acknowledge that this is a sizable reduction of this rare and declining habitat within the RNA.

In an effort to reduce the effects of the RNA reduction to accommodate hunting, we propose to expand the RNA to formally include the 44-acre area to the south that was depicted in the Draft CCP/EIS. This includes 43 acres of saltmarsh, which would partially offset the effect of the RNA reduction of 73 acres. However, the 43 acres of saltmarsh that would be added are not directly equivalent to the 36 acres of saltmarsh to be removed, because the salt marsh found at the mouth of the Nisqually River is undoubtedly a more complex saltmarsh, with more sloughs and channels than is found in the 43 acres to the south, where less tidal flushing occurs.

We also added a strategy to Objective 1.2, Reduce Human Disturbance, that would allow consideration of future additions to the RNA upon completion of restoration or if intertidal habitat were acquired in the future. These areas would not be appropriate for RNA designation until after restoration is accomplished, due to the definition of RNAs as natural, functioning systems. Estuarine restoration will eventually result in the formation of new salt marsh and shifts in marsh distribution. Through monitoring of this dynamic process, we would continue to

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-57 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

evaluate habitat composition in the RNA and use this information to assess potential RNA additions.

Hunters and Other Users • According to a USFWS survey, people who come to refuges for wildlife observation or to experience nature outnumber hunters/trappers by 15:1. • Do not let 1,000 hunter visits direct the other 99,000 other visitors. • A recent (1999) poll found that 88% believe that wildlife and habitat preservation should be the highest priority of the Refuge system. • In general, public education and non-consumptive uses (photography, sightseeing, hiking) are preferable uses to hunting on Refuge lands. • If waterfowl hunters are allowed to bring dogs onto the Refuge, then the Service must stop prohibiting non-waterfowl hunters from bringing dogs.

Service Response: The first priority of every Refuge is to conserve, manage, and, if needed, restore fish and wildlife populations and habitats. The CCP was designed to meet that primary mission. Hunting is one of the six priority public uses identified in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, which also includes fishing, interpretation, wildlife observation, environmental education, and wildlife photography. Extensive efforts were made in the Preferred Alternative to provide quality waterfowl hunting opportunities that were compatible with Refuge purposes, and to minimize conflicts with other priority uses.

Waterfowl hunters would be allowed to bring dogs onto the Refuge while hunting for the express purpose of retrieving downed waterfowl from the hunt area. This standard practice reduces waste (the loss of harvested birds) and improves the quality of waterfowl hunting. It is a common allowance on National Wildlife Refuges.

Other Management Suggestions • Adaptive management principles should be used to regulate hunting activities so they are compatible with habitat protection and recreation. • The FWS should use an adaptive management strategy to plan hunting on the Refuge; use should be assessed annually for at least several years once restoration has begun. • Under any hunt program, effects to wildlife should be monitored to ensure that wildlife values are not diminished in closed areas. • Examine impacts of hunting – in RNA, to trail users, to bald eagle roost, to heron rookery. • Require a Refuge-sponsored training class (for hunters). • Establish a volunteer education program to explain to the non-hunting public the history of hunting’s role in conservation. • Hunting access should be improved/enlarged, such as more parking at the Luhr Beach launch site. • Provide safe hunting areas for falconers (small ponds and ditches are ideal). • Would like to see dog training allowed outside of the bird nesting season. • Dog training areas already available locally (Fort Lewis) – not necessary for NWR. • An ADA-accessible hunting area (one that you could drive to) would be a very positive addition to the Refuge and hunting experience.

Page M-58 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

• A walk-in ADA-accessible hunt area south of I-5 would be a valuable addition if appropriate areas were acquired. • Try to prevent hunting-related conflicts with maintenance crews in the Refuge (e.g., maintenance vehicles on the dikes during designated hunting times). • Hunters could be charged an extra fee to help fund a more robust EE program; do not cut 5,000 students to accommodate 1,000 hunters.

Service Response: In response to some of these comments, a strategy was revised to strengthen monitoring of the hunt program, including harvest, use, and feedback from hunters and other affected users to allow for adaptive management. Regular wildlife monitoring, including bald eagle and great blue heron nesting surveys, will be continued. Outreach and education will be conducted through hunting brochures, presentations, and other efforts where possible. WDFW is currently responsible for the Luhr Beach area, including the parking area.

Waterfowl hunting using falcons is not proposed as part of the Final CCP/EIS. The waterfowl hunt area is located within estuarine habitats, rather than the small ponds and ditches preferred by falconers. This use was considered inappropriate because of the limited areas available, the focus on the six priority public uses, the need to minimize conflicts with those users, and the importance of providing sufficient wildlife sanctuary. Dog training is not being proposed as part of the Final CCP/EIS. Dog training is not considered an appropriate use at Nisqually NWR and would create conflicts with other users and affect wildlife use in sensitive habitats within this small Refuge.

If appropriate areas were acquired south of I-5 to provide sufficient sanctuary and walk in hunting areas, waterfowl hunting would be considered. Disabled access hunt areas would also be considered at that time. Also see responses to Environmental Education comments.

Other Comments Related to Waterfowl Hunting • Before Nisqually was a Refuge, the Brown Farm was a private gun club with hunting occurring from the freeway to the tideflats. Despite widespread hunting, there were as many waterfowl then as now. During the day, the ducks sought refuge in the open waters of the Nisqually Reach. • Most people I know avoid areas where hunting is allowed for personal safety reasons, especially for children. • Very concerned that once habitat is changed near State land, that hunting will be expanded. • Nisqually is one of the few remaining places for the average citizen of average means to hunt and fish. • It would be useful to detail what percentage of dollars came from Duck Stamps when the Refuge land was acquired. • If waterfowl are being shot, the lakes and rivers are contaminated with lead. • Waterfowl don’t occur uniformly across saltmarsh habitat; with major changes to estuarine habitat proposed, it doesn’t make sense to designate hunt areas until waterfowl use is established – we don’t know where the waterfowl will be after the proposed changes are implemented.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-59 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

• The DEIS failed to consider reasonable alternatives including enforcing the prohibition of hunting on the Refuge, hunting permits, auctions of hunting rights, short or long-term hunting leases, etc. • “Insufficient wildlife sanctuary” is used to justify hunting closures. However, waterfowl have 100% use of all areas of the Delta at night, and the hunting season (winter) is a season of more dark than daylight. Hunting plans in the CCP create such large sanctuary areas that waterfowl will have no need or desire to venture into the limited hunting areas. Wildlife sanctuary areas do not need to be large (as they are proposed in Alternative D) and could effectively terminate waterfowl hunting opportunity.

Service Response: Every effort was made to design a quality waterfowl hunt program that was safe and minimized conflicts for all users. Nontoxic shot is required to be used in National Wildlife Refuge waterfowl hunt areas, including Nisqually NWR, thereby reducing the exposure of waterfowl to lead.

Through fiscal year 2002, 48% of the funds spent on land acquisition and 66% of the acres acquired at Nisqually NWR (including the Black River Unit) originated from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. A strategy that included monitoring of the hunt program was strengthened under Objective 4.1, Waterfowl Hunting, to better support adaptive management. Hunting activity will be monitored to determine if objectives are being met. Alternative B included posting and enforcing the closure of Nisqually NWR to hunting, but it was not selected as the Preferred Alternative (also see Chapter 4, EIS). National Wildlife Refuges where hunting is allowed are managed to provide public hunting opportunities, rather than exclusive opportunities. Where numbers of hunters or hunting opportunities need to be limited, permits or drawings are sometimes used. However, limiting the number of hunters through the use of permits, set blinds, or other measures was not considered necessary at Nisqually NWR to provide sufficient wildlife protection and quality waterfowl hunting. The design of Alternative D was consistent with management of WDFW lands, making it possible to manage and enforce a consistent hunt program within the Nisqually Delta. Providing habitat for waterfowl only at night does not meet Refuge objectives. Areas closed to hunting were designed to ensure that primary Refuge objectives to protect and enhance wildlife and habitat would be met, to provide quality waterfowl hunting, and to minimize conflicts with other users. The program would be monitored and assessed regularly to ensure that objectives were being met.

3.7 Fishing and Shellfishing

Improved Access • We support the proposal to improve fishing access (e.g., at Trotters Woods). We suggest additional language that establishes a solid commitment to provide recreation for anglers, including improving facilities and dependable access.

Service Response: Fishing is one of six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses identified by the Refuge Improvement Act and is a traditional form of recreation in the delta. We are dedicated to providing new quality fishing opportunities, along both the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek. The proposed fishing opportunities in the Preferred Alternative are contingent upon the creation of a new loop trail on the east side of the Nisqually River north of I-5, land

Page M-60 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS acquisition south of I-5 (Trotter’s Woods area), and the development of a cooperative management agreement with WDFW (Luhr Beach area).

Reduce Fishing • Fishing (and logging) are the causes of salmon and steelhead depletion; the dikes are not the problem. Don’t remove the dikes – reduce fishing pressure.

Service Response: Within the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek watersheds, there are a variety of land use practices that have negatively impacted salmonid resources. There is an entire suite of factors limiting salmonid populations, most of which are related to habitat quality. Salmon habitat includes the physical, chemical, and biological components of both freshwater and estuarine environments that support salmon. Estuaries are critically important to salmon production because they provide important habitat for foraging, predator avoidance, and for the physiological transition from fresh to saltwater (Section 3.3.1). The Nisqually River estuary has lost 30% of its historical intertidal and subtidal habitat, 54% of its intertidal emergent marsh habitats, and much of its ecological functionality (Kerwin 1999). Besides impeding the natural migration across the floodplains, dikes located along McAllister Creek and Nisqually River limit lateral channel migration and off-channel rearing opportunities for salmon. Removal of the Brown Farm Dike as proposed in the Preferred Alternative would restore 70% of the diked area to full estuarine habitat, and would allow the river and creek channels to flow unimpeded.

Washington’s salmon and steelhead fisheries are managed cooperatively by WDFW and Indian tribes. Tribal and state biologists cooperate in analyzing the size of fish runs as salmon and steelhead migrate back to their native rivers and hatcheries. This ensures sport, tribal, and non- Indian commercial fisheries are appropriate for the actual salmon returns and allow optimum numbers of fish to spawn. Public fishing seasons are set by WDFW.

Implement a Fishing/Shellfishing Fee • Fish and shellfish are wildlife; it is difficult to justify their harvest if wildlife comes first. If harvest is permitted, the cost of any additional staff or equipment this requires should be borne by fees charged to the people who do the fishing and shellfishing.

Service Response: All fishing and shellfishing activities must comply with State regulations. Anglers already pay a variety of fees in the form of appropriate licenses, stamps, and access fees. Additional fees specific to fishing are not typically charged on Refuges in addition to State fees. It would be extremely difficult to administer a Refuge fee system for anglers because there are multiple access points to Refuge waters from Puget Sound and multiple land/water ownerships where fishing may occur in the vicinity.

Impacts to Shellfish • The EIS should address impacts of estuarine restoration to shellfish beds (between McAllister Creek and the mouth of the Nisqually River). As the pasturelands are converted to estuary there may be additional inputs of fecal coliform bacteria due to past presence of livestock. • Removing all dikes along McAllister Creek best contributes to solving the fecal coliform problem pertaining to shellfish in Nisqually Reach.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-61 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Service Response: Water quality of McAllister Creek and Nisqually Reach is an important concern for the Refuge. It has been over 30 years since livestock were maintained on diked Refuge lands. Fecal coliform bacteria require optimum temperature, pH, and moisture conditions for survival, and average survival times range from 20-23 months (Jamieson et al. 2002). Without any livestock inputs over the past 30 years, the concentrations of viable fecal coliform bacteria from livestock sources are expected to be minimal to none, causing little or no impact to the fecal coliform contamination of Nisqually Reach shellfish growing areas. In addition, prior to habitat restoration activities, the appropriate permits would be obtained, insuring that federal and state requirements are met. The Preferred Alternative proposes to remove dikes along McAllister Creek, which is expected to improve tidal flushing in this area.

Lack of Focus on Fishing • The document is slanted; fishing is not handled fairly – fishing will be taken away with Alternative B, C, or D.

Service Response: Fishing was considered an important use throughout the planning process, as one of six priority public uses on National Wildlife Refuges. The only changes proposed for boat fishing opportunities include enforcement of closures in the RNA, which receives relatively low fishing use. Alternatives B, C, and D each provide more bank fishing opportunities than does Alternative A. Under Alternative A, the only bank fishing opportunity would be the existing site along McAllister Creek. Under the Preferred Alternative, this bank fishing site would be eliminated to accommodate restoration; however, a new bank fishing site would be created on the Nisqually River, and two accessible sites would be established or enhanced within the Refuge expansion area. All fishing opportunities must be safe, consistent with State regulations, and compatible with Refuge resources and purposes.

Note: Several comments related to access for fishing are addressed under the Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, Trails and Public Access topics.

3.8 PWC Use and Boating

Ban PWC Use • Ban PWC use in Refuge – their presence is incompatible with Refuge objectives. • Ban PWC, snowmobiles, 4WD, etc; it’s a Refuge, not a motor-cross park. • PWC use spoils the experience for hikers and birdwatchers. • PWC use could increase in the future; the FWS should act now to keep the Refuge free from the noise, pollution, and wildlife harassment that could occur. • PWC are fundamentally different than boats and will impact wildlife within the Refuge if allowed there. Because their method of operation is significantly different than boats, there should be no doubt that PWC would not hold the speed limit. The Refuge lacks the resources to enforce speed limits anyway. We request that they be explicitly banned now. • It will be difficult to enforce a 5 mph speed limit; an outright ban is the only way to prevent wildlife disturbance and impacts. • Numerous users from all types of user groups have complained about their impacts – birders, hikers, hunter, and anglers.

Page M-62 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

• Operation of PWC within the Refuge boundary is not a wildlife-dependent priority public use. While the 5 mph speed limit may limit or discourage PWC use on the Refuge, we recommend that they be specifically excluded. • We would favor elimination of PWC from Refuge waters as they are designed for speed, and enforcement of the speed limit will be difficult to impossible. PWC have no legitimate place on Refuge waters.

Service Response: PWC are considered a non-wildlife dependent recreational activity, and it is not one of the priority public uses on Refuges. PWC use is currently low on Nisqually NWR. The 5 mph speed limit is expected to largely preclude PWC use within Refuge boundaries. However, we added a new strategy specific to watercraft use under Objective 1.2 in response to these comments. The Refuge will monitor watercraft use (including PWC) in Refuge waters and continue to evaluate the effects on fish, wildlife, and habitat on an annual basis. If use increases or the 5 mph speed limit proves ineffective in minimizing effects, additional restrictions on watercraft, including PWC will be considered.

Boating • All boats (motorized/non-motorized) should be excluded from the RNA from October 1 to April 1 to protect wintering shorebirds and waterfowl. • Powerboats and PWC should be banned in the Refuge; the only boating permitted should be connected to genuine wildlife related recreation. • Boats, especially those with motors, do not belong in a fragile area which provides for juvenile fish, migrating birds, and the many species of animals and plants which allow that ecosystem to function. • Motorized boats should be banned in the Refuge (except by permit and for FWS use). Non- motorized boats should be allowed on the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek at appropriate times. • RE: boating impacts along McAllister Creek, we recommend a coordinated plan be developed between WDFW/FWS to address monitoring and enforcement. • Anecdotal evidence shows that kayaks can approach quite close to many birds without disturbing them; little effort went into developing data on which to make the important decision, singling out kayaking as disturbances in the area. • Consider allowing canoes and kayaks 2 years or so after initial restoration. • We would like a walk-in boat launch along the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek for non-motorized boats. • Request launch site near Visitor Center parking lot.

Service Response: The effects of motorized and non-motorized boats are described in Chapter 4, for example Section 4.4.1.1 and in Appendix G.1, Compatibility Determination for Recreational Boating. Every effort was made to use the best data and information possible, including the use of existing scientific literature on boat disturbance, including non-motorized boats. Restrictions in the Preferred Alternative were designed to reduce fish, wildlife, and habitat disturbance, while allowing boating that supports priority public uses, including fishing, waterfowl hunting, and wildlife observation. We added a new strategy specific to monitoring and evaluating watercraft use under Objective 1.2 in response to these comments.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-63 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

We will continue to work to strengthen coordination with WDFW to improve management and wildlife protection within Refuge boundaries and the lower watershed, including McAllister Creek.

Estuarine restoration takes many years for processes to develop and stabilize. Minimizing human disturbance in the restored area, including excluding boat use, will allow monitoring of wildlife and habitat responses, and will maximize wildlife observation opportunities for wildlife observers restricted to trails.

The Luhr Beach boat ramp provides a safe, easily accessible launch site for boats, particularly into McAllister Creek. The Refuge headquarters is distant from McAllister Creek and the Nisqually River, and does not provide access to safe, easily accessed and maintained launch sites.

5 mph Speed Limit • We support the 5 mph speed limit for boating over Refuge lands, as well as a seasonal closure of the RNA to all motorized boating activity. • Boating associated with legitimate wildlife-related activities, such as hunting, fishing, or wildlife viewing should be permitted, provided a 5 mph speed limit is required. • The 5 mph speed limit needs to be strictly enforced and the impacts from PWC and motorized boats monitored. • While I understand the intent and benefits of this rule, it isn’t always practical; it would take too long to travel from Luhr Beach to the mouth of the Nisqually, and the restriction might present a safety issue. Similarly, it is occasionally necessary to cross the RNA for safety reasons (e.g., due to strong winds).

Service Response: A specific strategy addressing monitoring of watercraft use was added to Objective 1.2. The 5 mph speed limit will be consistent with Thurston County regulations that already require a 5 mph speed limit within 200 feet of any shoreline. Like any regulation, boat speed restrictions and seasonal closures are not intended to endanger safety and extreme or extenuating circumstances would be taken into consideration.

Other Management Suggestions • The poles on the outside boundary in the Sound only have reflectors on one side; they need to be completely wrapped in reflective material so they can be seen from all angles of approach. It is currently a water hazard. • No off-road motorized recreation of any kind should be permitted on the Refuge – such activities are incompatible with Refuge objectives. This applies to ATVs, motorboats, PWC, etc.

Service Response: This is a good suggestion. Reflective marking will be added that circles the boundary posts.

ATVs are not allowed on the Refuge. The 5 mph speed limit for boats will highly restrict PWC use and use will be monitored over time. Boat speed limits and seasonal closures in the RNA should help to reduce impacts. Also see the Compatibility Determination on Recreational

Page M-64 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Boating, Appendix G.1 for further explanation. A strategy was also added to Objective 1.2 to strengthen monitoring and evaluating of watercraft use.

3.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Value of Wildlife and Habitat • Most letters, either directly or indirectly, acknowledged the intrinsic value of Nisqually NWR, noting its importance as excellent habitat for a diversity of wildlife, especially waterfowl, shorebirds, and fish species. • Numerous people expressed an attitude of “wildlife first,” noting that the Refuge should be managed primarily to promote the protection and preservation of wildlife and habitat; other uses and users are secondary in importance. • The prime focus of the new management plan must be the protection and restoration of wildlife and wildlife habitats; recreational use may be expanded, but not at the expense of wildlife. • Protection, acquisition, and restoration of wildlife habitat should be the number one goal.

Service Response: These comments are noted. We appreciate the strong public support regarding the intrinsic value of Nisqually NWR and wildlife and the primary importance of providing necessary habitats.

Plants • Only plants native to the lower Nisqually Valley should be planted on the Refuge. • A specific list of plants that the Refuge uses for restoration and where they are used on the Refuge should be included in the final plan; use the appropriate genotype for this area. • We suggest you change language in the document (e.g., Appendix F), using “eradicate” instead of “monitor” when referring to invasive species; eradication should be the ultimate goal. • Alternatives should specifically address control of non-native, invasive species; especially English ivy, blackberries, and Japanese knotweed. • A program should be established to monitor and address the introduction of non-native invasive plants, such as Spartina sp., into the restored estuarine area prior to removal. • Apart from estuarine restoration, consider additional means of controlling/eradicating reed canarygrass, including mowing, burning, and chemical means. • Manage reed-canary grass, talk to USDA. Dike system will not solve reed canary grass problem. • It is not cost-effective to use dike removal (under the Preferred Alternative) to control reed canarygrass; other Refuges have controlled this invasive species effectively by other means. • Concern for grassland loss.

Service Response: The plant species, genotype, and numbers used in habitat restoration on Nisqually NWR are chosen to mimic site-specific native habitats, taking into consideration soil and sunlight conditions, and habitat goals. We work closely with several nurseries to ensure that native species and appropriate genotypes are used for restoration.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-65 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

In response to these comments, we added specific strategies under Objective 1.3, Freshwater Wetlands and Grasslands, addressing development and implementation of an Integrated Pest Management Plan, invasive species data collection and mapping, and implementation of a volunteer program to assist in control efforts. Text was also added to Section 2.2.2, Features Common To All Action Alternatives, describing invasive species control efforts. The IPM Plan will provide a framework for managing non-native and invasive species on the Refuge. Although eradication of non-native and invasive plants is the ultimate goal, complete eradication is not always feasible. Refuge goals focus on restoring and enhancing native habitats and we prioritize invasive control measures based on the level of threat in achieving those goals. We choose control methods that are effective, feasible, and specific to the plant species, location, and time of year. We monitor the results and use this information to modify and improve control efforts. Management actions also include prevention of the introduction of new non-native species to the Refuge.

Reed canarygrass control requires an aggressive combination of management strategies over many years. Estuarine restoration would eliminate large portions of reed canarygrass due to saline water influence, although some may persist along the edges or in higher elevations. The Refuge is using a variety of control methods in diked areas, and these practices would be accelerated in the areas that remain diked or are managed as freshwater wetlands as described in the Preferred Alternative. We regularly exchange information with other Refuges, agencies, and academic sources to improve the effectiveness of our control efforts.

Restored or existing estuarine habitat could support aggressive Spartina species (Spartina alternaflora, S. densiflora, S. patens). Spartina has not yet been found growing in the South Sound; however, increased monitoring would be conducted. If it is discovered growing on the Refuge, aggressive control methods such as digging it out and removing all plant pieces from the site would be used to prevent large infestations.

Grasslands would be substantially reduced in the Preferred Alternative, although management would be intensified in remaining grasslands to improve the quality of the habitat. As more lands are acquired south of I-5, some would be managed as freshwater and riparian habitats, and smaller areas would be managed as grasslands.

Raptors and Small Mammals • The FWS should provide ongoing raptor management/enhancement measures at the Refuge (such as perches, nest boxes) • After the 1996 flood, most of the raptors left; will this be the case after estuarine restoration? What about the previous Refuge biologist’s study on voles and their effect on raptors? • Need to do more small mammal work.

Service Response: The Refuge supports raptor management by creating a mosaic landscape where natural perches, an adequate prey base, natural nesting sites and loafing sites are available. Comment noted regarding more small mammal work.

The Preferred Alternative would continue to provide a diverse mosaic of habitats. The 1996 flood event differs from estuarine restoration, in that water levels rose dramatically to 2 to 4 feet

Page M-66 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

throughout almost all of the diked interior and depending on the location, it took days to weeks to recede because it was trapped inside the dikes with limited ability to evacuate. According to studies conducted within the Pacific Northwest and in the Nisqually Delta, shrews, voles and mice all use salt marsh habitat for foraging, cover, and nesting. Small mammals would still be available prey items for raptors post restoration, but likely in less abundance. Raptors that feed primarily in grasslands or depend largely on small mammals, like red-tailed hawks, would be negatively affected. However, many raptors regularly forage in estuarine habitats, and thus habitat would be improved for these species, including eagles, falcons, osprey, and northern harriers. Other important prey items for raptors that may increase in abundance after restoration include waterfowl such as American wigeon, bufflehead, goldeneye, and brant, a variety of shorebirds which are prey for falcons, and spent chum which is a common prey item for bald eagles. Also see Section 4.4.1.3 and 4.4.1.3, Effects to Landbirds (Raptors).

Waterfowl • Aerial survey data cited in the CCP/EIS are flawed; surveys should have been conducted under similar tidal conditions and days of year, not based on flying weather and schedule time. • Observations of Berg et al. (1974) regarding the relationship between tidal exchange and feeding habits of dabblers are suspect; 1974 was not a representative year. • Specifically, what about pintail and mallard habitat?

Service Response: Every effort is made to fly aerial waterfowl surveys in a consistent and repeatable manner in high tide conditions; however, there are numerous uncontrollable variables that affect survey schedules, including winter weather, visibility, tides, safe flying conditions, and personnel, pilot, and plane availability. Aerial surveys are widely used in collecting information on migratory birds throughout the continent, because of the ability to cover large, inaccessible areas in a short time in a repeatable manner. These surveys have provided a dataset at Nisqually NWR that spans more than 20 years, and provided very useful information in assessing waterfowl numbers and distribution (see Section 3.4.1).

There is no indication in the 1974 study by Berge et al. that 1974 may not have been a representative year for numbers of waterfowl, or that the observed pattern of feeding behavior in relation to the tides and time of day was unusual. Aerial survey data and other literature and observations through the years have been consistent with those findings. As part of the planning process, we have done an exhaustive literature search on all pertinent issues (see Appendix C) and have critically examined all data and literature available to us.

We would continue to provide habitat for pintails and mallards in the area that would remain diked as freshwater wetlands and in appropriate areas acquired south of I-5 in the future. Pintail and mallard do sometimes use estuarine habitats, particularly along shorelines. Please see Estuarine Restoration responses.

Bird Habitat • Preserving habitat for birds should be a main priority. • The most important consideration is to enhance and protect habitat for migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway. Other uses (public, salmon, other wildlife) should be secondary.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-67 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

• The statement on page 3-36 is inaccurate; green herons, American bitterns, and Virginia rails breed in the marsh lands of the Refuge; they do not depart during the breeding season, these birds can also be found in the winter months although in smaller numbers. These species will be lost if Alternative D is implemented. • Section 3.4.4.3 lists only a handful of nesting passerines; but the appendix lists 50 species of passerines that nest in the Refuge, including the willow flycatcher (a sensitive species). Alternative D would destroy a great deal of flycatcher habitat. • Birds adapt quickly to change. • Address relationship of Refuge to other preserves (state/federal, etc.) along Pacific Flyway.

Service Response: Our management decisions are guided by Refuge, NWRS, and FWS goals, and regional ecosystem, watershed and landscape management plans, many of which give considerable thought to conserving habitat for avian species (Chapter 5). We strive to contribute to high priority goals identified in Migratory Bird Management Plans such as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan, Shorebird Conservation Plan, North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and North American Bird Conservation Initiative. The Preferred Alternative is consistent with those migratory bird planning efforts (also see Estuarine Restoration and TES responses).

Marsh birds such as American bitterns, green herons, and Virginia rails do nest in Refuge freshwater wetlands and some do winter at the Refuge. Minor text revisions were made; also see Section 3.4.2, Waterbirds and Seabirds in entirety. Freshwater wetlands that would be retained and enhanced in Alternative D would continue to provide smaller amounts of habitat for these birds. Additional wetlands would be restored and enhanced when appropriate lands south of I-5 were acquired.

Fifty of the 81 passerines that occur on the Refuge also nest here, including the willow flycatcher, a Federal Species of Concern. Text was corrected in Section 3.4.4.3. Willow flycatchers depend on riparian woodland habitat for nesting and feeding. The riparian woodland and surge plain habitat along the Nisqually River would remain intact and be further widened with native tree and shrub plantings. Riparian habitat along the sloughs in the southern portion of the Refuge would also be enhanced. It is true that a substantial amount of scrub shrub habitat used for feeding would be lost. We would continue to improve and enhance the existing riparian corridors on the Refuge for species that depend on these habitats and seek similar opportunities in expansion areas.

We agree that the Refuge’s role as a migration site in relation to other habitats along the Pacific Flyway is an important concept. Efforts were made to consider this relationship throughout the CCP/EIS. For example, Figure 1.1-1 depicted Refuges in the North Coast region, various regional planning efforts were summarized in Chapter 5, land use and ownerships were considered in detail within the lower watershed, and goals, objectives, and strategies were developed based on the Refuge’s role within a larger region.

Page M-68 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Minimize Impacts of Infrastructure on Wildlife & Habitat • To reduce wildlife mortality and public safety threats resulting from improved wildlife habitat, the City of Lacey should reduce the speed limit from 50 to 35 mph, assuming the FWS engages in reforestation activities on the Western Bluff. • We suggest moving the existing maintenance facility south of I-5 to reduce habitat impacts. • Move the Visitor Center to an upland location in the expansion area south of I-5 and convert the current center and parking lot area to wetland habitat, reflecting historic conditions. Build the new Environmental Education Center in this same area. • Cover I-5 to allow wildlife movement from North to South, reduce noise and disturbance to wildlife. • A major impediment to ecological connectivity is the I-5 corridor. The Final CCP/EIS should disclose how proposed activities will advance and promote ecological connectivity issues across the I-5 corridor and between the proposed Refuge parcels south of I-5.

Service Response: Speed limits on Meridian Road are under the jurisdiction of the City of Lacey. Reforestation of adjacent Refuge lands are not expected to create a safety hazard. If a documented problem occurs, the Refuge would be willing to work with the City of Lacey to address the issue.

Refuge headquarters facilities were constructed within the existing footprint of the old headquarters buildings to minimize impacts to wetlands and habitat. These facilities support public access for thousands of Refuge visitors. Public input was solicited during the planning stages of the new facilities early in the CCP/EIS process. We will continue to work to contain facilities within this area and minimize habitat impacts, in support of Refuge management, public use, and public safety programs.

Building a cover over I-5 is beyond the scope of the CCP/EIS. However, the Refuge has initiated a cooperative restoration project with Washington Department of Transportation, to plant native trees and shrubs between I-5 and the Refuge entrance road as a visual and sound barrier.

Other Comments Related to Wildlife and Habitat • Not enough wildlife surveys – too many questions on what’s out there… • Over time, nature at the Refuge has adapted to human intervention and is currently in a state of balance. Major changes to restore historic conditions would upset the adapted balance. The plants, animals, and land will support and adapt to whatever humans choose to do, although they would prefer to work in harmony with humans. Their intent is to be of service to humans. Even the cowbirds and reed canarygrass have their function. • The FWS should adopt an ecosystem approach to pre- and post-project monitoring. Monitoring should address changes in salmonids, vegetation, invertebrates, ducks, shorebirds, and other species. Also, American bittern should be specifically monitored due to their apparently declining status. • The plan must include provisions for the continued monitoring of the property.

Service Response: We agree that monitoring is a critical part of the CCP. See Appendix F, Plan Implementation, for a description of monitoring plans, including pre- and post-project

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-69 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

monitoring. We would continue to work with a wide variety of technical experts for their assistance in designing and conducting monitoring efforts (also see Section 1.7.1; Chapter, 6; and Appendix H, List of Preparers). Also see Estuarine Restoration and Freshwater Wetland and Riparian responses.

Note: Several comments related to wildlife and habitat are addressed under the Estuarine Restoration and Freshwater Wetland and Riparian Restoration topics.

3.10 Threatened and Endangered Species (TES)

Benefits to TES • Estuarine Restoration would support recovery and protection efforts for Federal and State TES, species of concern, and their habitats – especially Chinook salmon populations. • Expanding the Refuge would benefit TES species, including the peregrine falcon and gray whale.

Service Response: Comments are noted.

Salmon Protection • While protecting salmon is crucial for traditional, symbolic, and economic reasons, the need to protect the salmon fishery should not in and of itself influence the selection of Alternative C or D. • The Nisqually Delta no longer provides the high quality habitat it once did. A substantial restoration program is needed to promote recovery efforts for the Nisqually River’s threatened Chinook salmon. • It seems salmon enhancement is driving the proposed changes, despite the Refuge’s stated purpose of providing the best and highest use for migrating waterfowl and other wildlife. • Salmon runs have waxed and waned over the last 100 years; it makes more sense to monitor the success of the restoration efforts undertaken by the Nisqually Tribe; we should wait 10 years before breaching the dikes at the Refuge. • If you look at the huge number of birds in the delta area outside the dike that would move inside to feed on small fish, you must understand why no salmon will survive there. • The dikes have allowed the salmon in the region to be further threatened. The dike systems were made in a time when the health of the natural environment was not taken into account; please do as much as possible to get rid of them.

Service Response: Refuge goals focus on the restoration of native habitats and recovery of threatened and endangered species. Federal laws, acts, and policies including the Endangered Species Act, have provided direction throughout the planning process. Salmon are an important biological component of the ecosystem. Cederholm et al. (2000) shows the important interconnection between salmon and over 136 forms of wildlife and habitat. As a seasonal resource, salmon directly affect the ecology of many aquatic and terrestrial consumers, provide food to many species, and indirectly affect the entire food web. Birds that prey on fish should benefit, but at the same time, the intricate system of sloughs, channels, and salt marsh would provide cover for some salmon to escape predation. Estuarine restoration and Refuge expansion

Page M-70 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

would be expected to benefit salmon populations and many other wildlife, by improving habitat quality and productivity in the estuary and in the lower watershed.

The Nisqually Tribe has been monitoring restoration on the Red Salmon Slough (8 acres) since 1996 and on the 40-acre area recently restored (2002) along the Nisqually River. Juvenile salmon have been found using both restoration sites and salt marsh vegetation is already becoming established in the new restoration site. The fifth year report on Red Salmon Slough states the former diked and grazed pasture is developing into a viable saltmarsh and mudflat community.

Nesting Bald Eagles • We are unaware of the presence of a bald eagle nest on the East Bluff (see Appendix K); as it would be near our property, we would likely have heard of it. When and by whom was it reported, and has its presence been confirmed?

Service Response: A bald eagle nest has been observed on the East Bluff according to the WDFW District Biologist, but it does not appear to be active. However, an adult pair has been seen in the vicinity of the East Bluff, so the possibility of active nesting remains.

Protect and Reintroduce TES • The FWS should protect TES fish and wildlife as much as possible at the Refuge. Also, the plan should reintroduce species that have become locally extinct in their natural environment.

Service Response: An important goal of the Refuge and FWS is to assist in the recovery of endangered and threatened species. The Preferred Alternative is expected to benefit listed species found on the Refuge (Section 3.3.4; 3.4.10; and Chapter 4). Currently, endangered species reintroductions are not considered necessary to achieve these goals.

Note: Several comments related to TES are addressed under Refuge Expansion and Estuarine Restoration.

3.11 Cultural Resources

Benefits to Our Cultural Heritage • Dike removal and restoration represent a unique opportunity that will benefit our children and their children; it also benefits our cultural heritage and keeps our history alive.

Service Response: While there are trade-offs to any course of action, we agree that the benefits to future generations of humans and wildlife are greatest with dike removal and restoration. In addition, information about the dike and its history will be included in the Refuge’s interpretive and educational programs, because it also plays a role in the Refuge’s cultural heritage.

Archaeological Sites • The Nisqually Indian Tribe is one of the property owners on a MTCA remediation site that is shown as part of the Refuge expansion area. This site likely contains archaeological

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-71 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

resources, which are not addressed in the EIS. If indeed such sites are present, the Tribe may prefer the lands not to be put into public/federal ownership as a publicly used recreation area.

Service Response: Any lands acquired within the Refuge expansion area would be on a willing seller basis only. The Service has cultural resource professionals on staff, as well as specific guidelines and procedures, for protecting archaeological sites on lands owned and/or managed by the Service. Inventory for cultural resources within the expanded boundary prior to any undertaking that has the potential to impact cultural resources would be conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

Historical Resources • More historical/archaeological work should be conducted to determine National Register eligibility. Historic resources should be incorporated into the EE program. The historic Twin Barns should be restored and put to interpretive use. Nisqually offers an opportunity to increase our understanding of the region’s history. • The Twin Barns have significant historical value and should be given more consideration in the analysis. • Please ensure that the historic significance of the Treaty Tree is protected and celebrated at the Center. • A designated Medicine Creek Tree area should be established, and replacement tree plantings should occur for when the crown of the existing tree breaks. The area should include a swing bridge over McAllister Creek.

Service Response: Historical/archaeological work is conducted prior to all proposed ground disturbing projects in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Additional work is conducted on a priority basis in compliance with Section 110 of the NHPA. Cultural resources are currently part of the Refuge’s interpretation and education programs. Expansion of the programs in the Preferred Alternative will provide more opportunities to educate visitors about the cultural heritage of the Nisqually delta. The Twin Barns suffered severe structural damage in the 2001 earthquake. Engineering inspections identified repairs to make the Twin Barns earthquake safe that would have changed the historic structure and appearance of the barns, and been cost prohibitive. However, we plan to continue to provide interpretive information about the barns from a safe viewing distance.

We will protect the historical significance of the location where the Medicine Creek Treaty was signed. Trees on the site will be maintained as long as they are not a threat to public safety or cultural resources. Replacement tree plantings would have to be considered in conjunction with natural tree regeneration at the site and after reviewing the potential impact on the integrity of the significant cultural resource itself. We do not own the property on the opposite side of McAllister Creek and user conflicts could become a concern if a bridge were constructed. Wildlife disturbance issues would also have to be addressed, since a pair of nesting bald eagles and a great blue heron rookery are located on the west bank of McAllister Creek.

Page M-72 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

3.12 Process

Timeframe Concerns • What timeframe is the DOI decision? • How much time will affected homeowners be given? • Timing not adequate for comments. • It would be wise to reconsider the timing framework for CCP implementation, given the realities of economic conditions and the federal deficit. The Proposed Action will be a huge and expensive undertaking.

Service Response: The DOI decision is finalized with a Record of Decision, which is signed by the Regional Director a minimum of 30 days after the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is released. We anticipate the Record of Decision signed in the winter 2003-2004. Refuge expansion also requires the additional approval of the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service in Washington, D.C. Following the Director approval of Refuge expansion, easements or acquisition of lands is phased in over time as willing sellers make their land available and funding becomes available.

We anticipate implementation of the CCP to occur over the 15-year life of the plan. Protecting land in the proposed expansion area could take even longer than the 15-year timeframe. Because of the long-term nature of implementation we have identified those activities, projects, and land parcels that are high priority. For further details see Appendix F (Plan Implementation); Appendix I (Goals, Objectives and Strategies); and Appendix K: (Land Protection Plan). Guidance provided in these sections will help to ensure efficient implementation of the CCP given the realities of the Federal budget system.

Comment Period and Public Meetings • A longer comment period would be ideal, as well as a meeting farther south. • If the comment period is extended for any individual or entity, please notify us in advance, so we can provide additional review and comment, or challenge such extension. • It sounds like the Preferred Alternative is a done deal. How will public comment be considered when as part of the decision making process? • Nuances of document are confusing; more outreach would have improved/focused public comment. • Public comment “open house” was well organized; setup, written materials, visual displays, and experts at separate tables were well done and very helpful. • I found the open house very helpful in understanding the proposals. • The quality of the work presented at the public meeting was second to none.

Service Response: The comment period opened on December 20, 2002 and closed on February 21, 2003. Comments dated within one week after the official close of the comment period were accepted and analyzed. Two open house style public meetings were held on January 15 and January 16, 2003 to take comments and help reviewers in their understanding of the document. Open houses were held in Olympia and Tacoma to encourage participation and provide convenient locations to the largest number of interested people. No extensions to the comment period were given. Service policy identifies 45 days as the minimum length of a comment

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-73 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

period on a Draft EIS. For the Nisqually CCP process, the Service provided the public with a 60-day review period.

Public comment has been a key ingredient throughout the Nisqually planning process, and all comments gathered on the Draft CCP/EIS have been read, analyzed, and considered. The Final CCP/EIS must include and respond to all substantive comments received on the Draft EIS (40 C.F.R. 1503.4(b)). This Appendix M contains our response to the substantive comments received. The Preferred Alternative was not a “done deal”; however, it was carefully thought out, developed over a long period of time, and considered input throughout from members of the public, other agencies, and tribes who were involved in scoping efforts prior to the release of the Draft CCP/EIS (see Chapter 6 of Draft CCP/EIS). Based on comments received on the Draft CCP/EIS only minor changes were necessary to make in the Final CCP/EIS. These changes are identified in the Summary of Changes document, as well as discussed throughout this Appendix M.

Overall Praise (“good job”) • Good job on developing a progressive approach to restoration and expansion, etc. • It is evident that FWS staff worked long and hard to produce a plan that balances interests of a broad cross-section of stakeholders. • The FWS did an excellent job coordinating with the Nisqually Indian Tribe throughout the course of CCP development (a “first-rate outreach campaign”), and the product is excellent. • You did an excellent job with the CCP and explored thoughtful alternatives – congratulations. • Thanks for keeping wildlife conservation your top priority and keeping the Refuge open to all the different recreational groups. • You have done an excellent job developing and discussing a wide range of issues in a concise yet reader-friendly fashion.

Service Response: Comments noted.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act • Abstract states that No Action Alternative would mean that no CCP would be prepared; this contradicts the System Improvement Act of 1997, requiring the preparation of a CCP.

Service Response: You are correct. If the No Action Alternative was selected, a CCP would be still need to be prepared based on current management direction. We have changed the abstract to reflect this.

Suggested Revisions and Additional Analyses • Color maps were very helpful; however, change the cross-hatching pattern on the EIS maps to avoid confusion (especially regarding hunting boundaries between the various Alternatives). • Provide an updated aerial photo showing recent development in the watershed; the existing photo is outdated and doesn’t represent current conditions. • The Summary should be revised to include more information; this will help the public better understand the pros and cons of the various alternatives. Information on reed canarygrass,

Page M-74 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

hydrological modeling, and flooding should be included. Similarly, the appendix material should include the Tanner report, as well as the Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers document (by D. Montgomery). • The Executive Summary needs a glossary to define terms like “passerine.” • Figure S-1 (Regional Context) contains some inaccurate boundaries for coastal NWRs; the figure should be modified to be correct. • A full EA should be prepared to examine potential impacts to species. If a given proposal does not provide benefits to more than 80% of the affected species, the proposal should be dropped. And each and every species affected should be specifically considered. • EPA recommends that the Final CCP/EIS include additional analyses, including: more detail on the Purpose and Need; discussion of potential cooperative shareholders; ecological connectivity; no net loss of wetlands (Executive Order 11990); potential hazardous waste sites; and agricultural decommissioning. Based on the existing analyses, EPA has rated the document as DEIS-EC-2 (environmental concerns – insufficient information).

Service Response: We have made a few graphic changes to the preferred alternative map including changing the cross-hatching patterns related to hunting. The photo underlay used in the Draft CCP/EIS was the most up-to-date imagery available at the time the document was prepared. In response to this comment, a thorough search was conducted of numerous photo sources, but high quality, up-to-date imagery meeting all our requirements could not be found. We acknowledge that additional development has occurred in portions of the East and West Bluff area and in limited areas south of I-5 that are not captured in the photo underlay in the Final CCP/EIS; however, text and analysis were based on up-to-date County information and other data rather than the photos.

The summary was intended to be a very brief overview of the proposal. If more details were needed we directed the reader to the full document. The documents mentioned by the commentor have been referenced in the preparation of the EIS and we determined that it was not necessary to append them to the EIS. The hydrological modeling report was summarized in Appendix J. All reference materials are available for viewing at the Refuge office. The regional map was corrected in the Final CCP/EIS.

This document is an EIS which is a more detailed environmental document than an EA, (environmental assessment). Wildlife management decision-making is very complex and cannot be adequately addressed only by looking at percentages or numbers of species. We have focused our environmental analysis on the habitats affected by our proposal and groups of species dependent on these habitats such as birds, mammals, fish, as well as other species associated with both salt and freshwater environments. Key species or groups received more emphasis, including threatened and endangered species and migratory birds. However, the focus on habitat rather than solely on species management is a widely accepted ecological approach. This analysis method was chosen to provide a thorough analysis of all major species groups and habitats within a reasonable length of document.

The Purpose and Need section has been edited to improve clarity by separating out information that is background or supplemental in nature. The editorial changes have not changed the primary intent of the EIS Purpose and Need in the Final document. All other recommendations

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-75 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

in the EPA comment letter have been addressed and additional analysis or information was inserted into the appropriate locations in the Final CCP/EIS. These include: Other Cooperative shareholders are mentioned in the Partnership Opportunities section. We added partnership opportunities with the Federal Highway Administration and the Washington Department of Transportation to Appendix F: Plan Implementation.

We provided additional information on hazardous waste sites and spill response in Sections 2.2.1 and 3.1.5. Effects on agricultural lands including their conversion to native habitats in Alternatives B, C, and D are described in Section 4.8.2.2. While road decommissioning and pond removal may be a part of converting agricultural lands to native habitats, it is difficult to discuss these strategies in detail until the land is acquired.

We agree that I-5 is a barrier to some terrestrial wildlife. We have initiated a cooperative effort with WSDOT to plant native trees and shrubs between the Refuge entrance road and I-5, to create additional habitat and eventually provide a sound and visual barrier to I-5. We will continue to work with FHWA and WSDOT to work on solutions; however, identifying and evaluating additional wildlife corridor options is outside the scope of this planning effort. Additional information on the topic of connectivity has been added to the Final CCP/EIS in Section 3.8.1.3 and Appendix F.

The Preferred Alternative would not result in a loss of wetlands and would be in compliance with Executive Order 11990. Historic estuarine wetlands would be restored, and additional wetlands would be gained as a result of dike removal, including within the footprint of the existing dike. Wetland functions and values would be greatly enhanced in the restored area. A greater proportion of freshwater wetlands would be created in areas that remain diked, through wetland restoration efforts and sculpting of grassland areas (see Chapter 2, under Alternatives B, C, and D). In addition, more intensive water management in remaining freshwater wetlands would improve habitat functions and values. Acquisition of areas that could be restored to freshwater wetlands and riparian habitat have been identified as a high priority in Appendix K, Land Protection Plan.

Note: Several comments related to suggested revisions and additional analyses are addressed under the Refuge Expansion and Miscellaneous Comments topics.

NEPA Compliance and Involvement of Other Groups • Regarding NEPA compliance – this CCP/EIS is complete, the alternatives are well thought out and well presented, and the EIS analysis is thorough and well done; the document fully complies with the purpose and intent of NEPA. • I commend the USFWS for their efforts and the quality of the DEIS. • The existing Preferred Alternative is inappropriate, and the DEIS fails to comply with NEPA; reasons include: the Refuge is surrendered to hunting; no expansion should occur as the FWS have insufficient resources to enforce current restrictions; the DEIS was prepared in large part by a private hunting advocacy group (Ducks Unlimited); maps and analyses in the DEIS are outdated; the DEIS fails to consider a reasonable range of alternatives (especially regarding the McAllister Creek property); ESA habitat enhancement has been inadequate; the cumulative impacts assessment is inadequate; the DEIS fails to adequately address effects on

Page M-76 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

residential inholdings and nearby residences (especially regarding hunting); etc. Overall, the DEIS appears to have prejudged the outcome. • It’s unfortunate that the financial (or political) involvement of Duck’s Unlimited in the delta may influence the decision regarding the planning and management of this piece of our region.

Service Response: We believe we have fully complied with NEPA and considered a reasonable range of alternatives. We have done a thorough impacts analysis including cumulative impacts. Expansion of the Refuge is one of the most important things we can do to ensure there will be habitat for wildlife in this increasingly populated area. Adequate funding will be available for the necessary enforcement over the 15 year life of the plan. For additional responses to related comments also see the expansion and hunting responses.

The Refuge has not “surrendered” to hunting. Hunting is one of six priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System as specified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Hunting alternatives were developed by Service and WDFW staff who considered our priority public uses, wildlife and habitat needs, and public comments. Ducks Unlimited did not participate in discussions or alternative formulation regarding waterfowl hunting. The role of Ducks Unlimited staff was to provide technical assistance in habitat restoration and habitat management alternative development and analysis. A cooperative agreement was developed early in the planning process between the Service and Ducks Unlimited to facilitate this partnership, focusing on habitat restoration and management. Ducks Unlimited participated in information gathering, GIS mapping, wetland restoration design, surveying, wetland restoration workshops, and contracted topographic surveys and hydrological modeling.

Some confusion over DU’s role may have come from the List of Preparers as it appeared in Appendix H in the draft EIS. Four DU staff are listed, followed by eleven names from various consulting firms. Because of confusion in headings in this table, it may have appeared that all were with DU. Headings in the List of Preparers were corrected in the Final CCP/EIS.

As the lead agency, the Service independently reviewed, analyzed, and judged all information provided by DU and our consultants EDAW and ENSR. As the lead agency, we had full responsibility for the decision-making process.

The original photo underlay was the most up-to-date imagery available early in the planning process. Because our planning process took place over several years and the area around the Refuge is rapidly being developed, the original aerial photos became dated. However, our analyses associated with the DEIS is current and valid because new data were collected from Thurston and Pierce counties in 2001 and 2002. A thorough search was conducted for newer aerial imagery; however, imagery that met standards of quality and covered the appropriate geographic area were not available.

The Nisqually NWR CCP process started in 1997 with a Federal Register Notice of Intent to Prepare a Comprehensive Management Plan and Associated Environmental Document. We are only aware of one newsletter, Planning Update #5, December 1998, that mentioned a FONSI. When it became clear of the need for a full EIS, we published a second Notice of Intent in the

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-77 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Federal Register on February 9, 2000. This notice clearly identified the need and intent for the Service to produce an EIS. In addition, when we released the document to the public, we published a Notice of Availability of an EIS, dated. December 20, 2002. Since February 2000, the Service has identified the NEPA document as an EIS. The decision document associated with an EIS is always a Record of Decision (ROD).

3.13 Miscellaneous Comments

Consolidate WDFW Inholdings • Consolidate WDFW inholdings, and separate active/passive recreation activities.

Service Response: Numerous coordination meetings were held with WDFW as part of the development of draft alternatives. Consolidation of hunting on WDFW lands was considered as part of Alternative C; however, WDFW did not support this alternative. Every effort was made to separate uses and minimize conflicts among visitors in designing alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative.

Disturbance from I-5, Fort Lewis • I hope that I-5 can be quieted and that Fort Lewis could limit their flythroughs.

Service Response: In 2003, the Refuge initiated a cooperative restoration effort with WSDOT to plant native trees and shrubs between the Refuge entrance road and I-5, to provide improved wildlife habitat and screen the noise and visual effects of I-5. These restoration efforts will be expanded this coming year. The Refuge will continue to work to strengthen coordination and cooperation with Fort Lewis to benefit the Nisqually Delta and the lower Nisqually watershed wherever possible.

Fruit Gathering • I see no harm in harvesting windfall pears and berries on Refuge lands.

Service Response: The unlimited gathering of fruit and berries on the Refuge causes wildlife and habitat disturbance, because it draws visitors off designated trails. It is not a priority public use, as defined in the Refuge Improvement Act (1997). As described under Section 2.2.1, Features Common to All Alternatives, fruit gathering would be allowed on a limited basis, restricted to trails only and for consumption only while on the Refuge.

Importance of the Refuge to the Community • Numerous people began or closed their comment letters referencing the regional (or national) importance of Nisqually Wildlife Refuge, stressing its unique benefits. The words “gem,” “world class,” and “treasure” were frequently used (as in “The Refuge is a gem”), and many people shared their personal connection over the years with the property (e.g., one commentor noted that their daughter said her marriage vows on the dike). Overall, these commentors stressed the Refuge as one of the region’s most valuable resources.

Page M-78 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Service Response: We appreciate the strong connection that many people have with Nisqually NWR and the importance of the Refuge as a regional resource. The great interest and support within the community played a critical role in the development of the Draft and Final CCP/EIS.

Effects of Global Warming • The CCP/EIS should examine the effects and associated risks of sea level rise (high, medium, low) due to global warming.

Service Response: We recognize that global warming will influence habitat and planning efforts; however, the effects are very long-term and are extremely difficult to quantify or analyze, extending well beyond the 15-year planning timeframe of the CCP. However, sea level rise would be expected to make dike maintenance more difficult and this comment was added to Section 4.1.1.1, Effects to Hydrology under Alternative A.

Suggested Addition to Section 5.4 (Resource Specific Plans) • The Thurston County Land Use Ordinance or the Critical Area Ordinance are not discussed here, and should be.

Service Response: An overview of land use practices and regulations within the study area is described in Section 3.8.3.1. Also, a new Section 5.5.6 titled “Land Use Ordinances” has been added.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-79 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Page M-80 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

4.0 LIST OF PEOPLE AND ENTITIES THAT PROVIDED COMMENT

Federal Agencies

Agency Signature US Environmental Protection Agency Leckrone Lee, J. FHWA, Western Federal Lands Rodman, V. OR Coast Natl. Wildlife Refuge Complex Lowe, R. National Marine Fisheries Service Longenbaugh, M.

State Agencies

Agency Signature WA Dept. of Transportation Jeffers, K. WA Dept. of Natural Resources Chappell, C. WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Koenings, J.

Local Agencies

Agency Signature City of Olympia, Water Resources Decillo, V. and Iwai, R. City of DuPont Clarke, D. Thurston Co. Commissioners Wolfe, C.

Indian Tribes

Tribe Signature

Skokomish Indian Nation, NRD Dublanica, K. Nisqually Indian Tribe, NRD Troutt, D.

Organizations

Organization Signature Action for Animals Cole, A. (+ 5 more names) Black Hills Audubon Society Packard, H. Columbia University Action Coalition Divney, W. Friends of the Carbon Canyon Chowen, M. Humane Education Network Bancroft, S. National Audubon Society Cullinan, T. National Wildlife Refuge Assoc. Fields, R. Nature Conservancy of WA Barson, L. NCW Audubon Society Soest, J. Nisqually Delta Association Skjervold, T. Nisqually Reach Nature Center Myers, D. People for Puget Sound Dawson, J. Puget Sound Action Team Redman, S.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-81 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Organization Signature Refuge Keeper (PEER) Hocutt, G. Seattle Audubon Society Joyce, J. Senior Citizens for Humane Legislation Goodwin, M. Sierra Club Cascade Chapter Johnston, M. Tahoma Audubon Society Flint, B. The Mountaineers Oswald, F. Voices for Animals Merjian, N. WA Farmers Assoc. Wood, B. Washington Native Plant Society Fries, M. Wetland Ecosystem Team Simenstad, C.

Businesses

Organization Signature Summit Law Group McNeill, P. Perkins Cole Mackie, A. Northwest Landing Moore, G. Sid Shapiro Kelson, L.

General Public

Abazorius, A. Anthony, J. Barnes, M. Adair, I. Aptakin, K. Barnes, W. Adams, C. Archuleta, P. Barnett, J. Adams, D. Arnold, J. and N. Barrow, L. Adams, S. Artley, D. Barry, B. Adamsla, K. Arundel, M. Barry, M. Akehurst, S. Askew, V. Bartsch, R. Albano, S. Atkinson, G. Bash, D. and J. Oliver Albrecht, S. Aubin, H. Bassett, J. Alexander, J. Autin, M. Bates, N. Allen, L. Avarese, K. Batker, K. Allen, M. Babiak, K. Bauer, A. Allison, D. and G. Babs, A. Baugher Albertson, K. Allred, R. Babst, C. Baumann, L. Aloi, C. Bacon, B. Baut, J. Althoff, E. Baetz, R. Baxter, J. Alvarez, C. Bahr, L. Baybusky, J. Ammon, C. Bail, J. Beal, C. Ananda, C. Baird, H. Beal, D. Anderlik, C. and R. Baird, R. Beall, F. Anderson, A. Baird, S. Bean, M. Anderson, C. Baker, M. Beck, J. Anderson, J. Bakey, A. Beckham, K. Anderson, M. Baldwin, S. Beers-Finley, S. Anderson, P. Balkin, C. Belinsky, M. Anderson, R. Bankston, D. Bell, C. Anderson-Rosas, C. Barbier, A. Bellemare, R. Andrews, R. Barel, J. Bemel, D. Animobono, S. Barenhotlz, L. Benedetti, J. Ankrum, I. Barnes, D. Benefield, J.

Page M-82 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Bennet, J. Braget, K. Campbeu, K. Bennet, L. Brandt, J. Cano, A. Bennett, J. Braverman, S. Cap, B. Bennett, T. Braverman, V. Cardella, S. Benninghoff, L. Brazel, C. Carichner, C. Benson, S. Brennan, A. Carlson, G. Bentrup, A. Brennan, S. Carney, T. Benyk, G. Brenner, N. and N. Carol, N. Beresford, A. Breslauer, J. Carson, B. Berman, M. Brewer, J. Carson, D. and D. Bernard, B. Brewington, S. Carson, W. Berndt, K. Brigard, R. Carter -Smith, A. Berry, T. Briggie, D. Carter, J. Berry, W. Brigham, J. Carter, M. Bescript, L. Brittan, M. Case, D. Bestrom, E. Brocco, L. Castellane, G. and J. Kohak Betker, D. and L. Brodsky, K. Catto, E. Beyda, W. Brose, J. Cechettini, L. Bianco, I. Brown, J. Cesare, A. Biase, D. Brown, L. Chadwci, J. Bill, T. Brown, M. Chaim, J. Birk, G. Brozen, A. Chamberlin, C. Bishop, A. Brucher, J. Chamberlin, J. Bittick, C. Bruno, P. Chambers, C. Blackwelder, A. Bryan, B. Charbliss, O. Blais, E. Bryan, M. Charbonneau, G. Blankenship, J. Brzycki, P. Chartier, M. Blankenship, N. Buckhart, D. Chase, C. Blasius, T. Buechler, D. Chase, H. Blistein, J. Buenau, L. Chase, P. and J. Pawlik Blome, C. Bumrungsap, N. Cheek, T. Bobb, S. Burack, D. Chewning, L. Bobb, S. and E. Burbank, D. Chianese, T. Bohr, M. Burby, M. Chisena, M. Bokelman, C. Burby, N. Choi, V. Bolbol, M (+6) Burgraff, D. Choplick, J. Bonasera, K. Burkett, J. Chourret, M. Bond, J. Burkhardt, K. Christian, K. Bonk, L. Burkhart, D. Christian, M. and E. Bonk, M. Burnett, R. and B. Christie, L. Bonometti, B. Burris, J. Christy, A. Booher, A. Burroughs, S. Christy, G. Boone, J. Burrows, A. Christy, R. Boos, L. Bus, L. Chronic, A. Borcherding, J. Bushnell, K. Chun, C. Borgen, L. Bushnell, M. Cimino, A. Borodin, J. Butler, S. Cinquemani, D. and F. Bossert, R. Butrick, Y. Citraro, S. Bostaph, D. Byrne, M. and N. Clapp, L. Bowers, S. Cahill, K. Clark, D. Boyd, B. Cairns, L. Clark, G. Brach, G. Calouro, M. Clark, R. Bradbury, J. Cammarata, A. Claypool, R. Bradford, A. Cammarata, J. Clay-Poole, T. Bradford, D. Campbell, L. Cline, S. Bradshaw, F. Campbell, M. Clinkenbeard, K.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-83 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Coates, L. D'Argento, R. Douglas, D. Cobb, D. David, J. Douglas, S. Coblentz, E. Davidson, D. Doutrich, K. Cofresi, S. Davidson, N. & I. Wallace Draper, N. Cohan, A. Davis, J. Dratler, J. Cohhn, E. Davis, K. DuBois, S. Cole, D. Davis, M. DuCoeur, E. Coleman, C. Davis, R. Ducommon, D. Coll, L. Davis, V. Dudrick, R. Collins, D. Dawes, W. and J. Duffey, A. Collins, S. de Graan, J. Dugan, L. Collura, M. De La Rosa, F. Dullmeyer, S. Conley, A. De Rosier, T. DuMond, J. Contois, S. De Sarno, D. Dunkelman, M. Cook, A. de Vries, J. Dunn, E. Cook, B. Deely, C. DuPont, C. Cook, K. DeFontes, S. Durante, E. Cook, R. Degreenia, R. Durney, B. Cook, R. and Cook, K. DeGroff, S. Duval, R. and A. Cook, T. Del Greco, A. Dwyer, R. Cool, S. Dellinger, G. Dwyer, S. Cooper, J. Denison, J. Dyer, P. and J. Cooper, K. Denison, L. Earles, K. Corcoran, J. Dennis, D. Earles, R. Corcoran, M. Dennis, R. Early, J. Corn, R. Derby, W. Eaulertund, J. Costello, C. Devine, L. Eavey, R. Couture, O. DeVries, M. Eck, P. Covey, A. Dezihan, R. Edelstein, S. Cox, B. DiCarrdo, S. Edlund, T. Cox, J. DiCarrdo, T. and S. Edmonson, S. Crane, R. Dickens, K. Edwards, C. Cranshaw, G. Dijkstra, J. Edwards, D. Crawford- Eckel, C. Dillman, A. Edwards, M. Crawford, C. Dills, W. and L. Egan, S. Cresko, J. Dixon, S. Eichert, K. Crooks, D. Dobbelaere, G. Eklund, G. Crosby, S. Dobbelaere, S. Eley, M. Crosby, W. Dock, J. Ellingsen, B. Crossen, J. Dodson, J.(ames) Elliott, S. Curciani, G. Dodson, J.(udy) Ellison, D. Curnow, C. Dolan, A. Embry, J. Currit-Dhaseleer, F. Dolan, M. Emery, M. Curtis, H. Dollard, N. England, S. Curtis, J. Dollyhigh, A. Englar, C. Curtis, M. Doman, G. Engle, H. Curtis, R. Domer, F. and D. Estes, E. Cushing, T. Domingo, B. Esteve, G. Da Silva, E. Donato, J. Evans, D. Dahl, K. Donley, T. Evans, T. Daley, J. Donner, J. and B. Ewens, B. Danan, S. Dorner, B. Ewing, T. D'Angelo, J. Dorner, C. Eyrich, J. Dankwort, R. Doucet, L. Fabbie, K. Danver, S. Douglas, B. Fackrell, C. Danziger, J. Douglas, C. and C. Faga, J.

Page M-84 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Fairchild, D. Funderburg, R. Greetham, J. and C. Fairly, J. Gacey, R. Gresky, L. Falca, P. Gach, A. Gresky, R. Fanning, L. Gadbury, C. Grieser, K. Faught, S. Gadde, P. Griffin, R. Fay, K. Gale, B. Griffith, S. Feather, L. Gallina, J. Groschel, P. Fedon, G. Gambino, J. Grossman, J. Feldman, D. Gamel, G. Grosz, C. Feldman, M. Gancos, N. Grosz, D. Feliciano, N. Garbato, K. Grovenburg Fella, M. Garcia, D. Grover, R. Fenton, M. Garcia, S. Gudinas, D. and D. Fenton, W. Garvin, J. Guerra, L. Ferguson, M. Garzelloni, D. Gundlach, B. Field, T. Gathing, N. Gustafson-Greenwood, K. Finch, L. Gauthier-Campbell, C. Gwyn, T. Finely, K. Gellman, R. Gyimoti, S. Finley, M. Gensch, J. H., M. Finn, L. Genser, M. Haber, J. Fischer, D. Genton, P. Haccus, H. Flowers, B. George, C. Hackenson-Allers Fobes, M. Gershen, J. Hackenson-Allers, L. Fockler, S. Ghougasian, L. Haddad, E. Fogel, J. Giardini, S. Hagens, N. Foote, T. Gilbert, D. Halbreich, A. Forbes, J. Gilbert, F. Hall, J. Ford, R. Gilbert, L. Hamilton, K. Foster, J. Gilligan, J. Hanneken, D. Foster, K. Gillono, M. Hansen, M. Fotos, J. Ginal, T. Hansen, P. Fournier, E. Ginsburg, J. Hanson, L. Foutch, M. Girton, M. Happy, E. Fox, G. Glaser, R. and P. Hardin, K. Fox, J. Glasser, R. Hardy, E. Francavilla, E. Glastetter, H. Hardy, W. and L. Francavilla, S. Godin, D. Harman, L. Francis, E. Godwin, B. Harper, R. Francis, L. Goldstein, G. Harper, S. Franco, A. Gomes, S. Harpole, D. Frank, K. Gonzalez, R. Harried, M. Frank, L. Goodwin, E. Harriman, A. Frank, M. Gordon, C. Harris, G. Freedman, M. Gordon, E. Harris, J. Freedman, R. Gorjance, W. Harris, S. Freelund, E. Gorrell, K. Harrison, L. Freeman, C. Gors, M. and D. Hartmann, J. Freidburg, M. Gosack, A. Hartness, J. French, J. Goste, B. Hartung, J. Friberg, D. Gracey, K. Hartung, Z. Friedberg, C. Graeber, W. Hart-von Keller, G. Friedman, E. Graham, C. Harwood, G. Friedman, T. Graham, G. Harzewski, C. Fritts, T. Graham, K. Hass, M. Fronczak, E. Graves, V. Hatch-Carlsen, G. Frontz, J. Greene, P. Hatfield, M.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-85 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Hathaway, L. Howard, S. Kasper, A. Hatleberg, E. Hudyma, R. Kassel, R. Hawthorn, L. Hueftle, K. Kateiva, A. Hayes, J. and R. Huneycutt, C. Katz, M. Haynes, J. Hunt, H. Kauffman, C. Head, K. Hunter, J. Kauffman, J. Heaps, J. Hurtado-Webb Kaufmann, K. Heaps, W. Hurtel, C. Kavanaugh, R. Hearner, B. Hutchinson, J. Kawanishi, A. Hearty, S. Hutchinson, T. Kawazoe, K. Heath, V. Huyler, J. Kearns, K. Hebert, P. Hyers, A. Kee, J. Hecklinger, L. Ingerman, K. Keefe, J. Heller, E. Interrante, K. Keigel, J. Helms, N. Irwin, T. Keilstrup, D. Helms, W. Isbell, S. Kelley, M. Hendricksen, J. Jacir, D. Kelly, D. Hendrickson, D. Jackson, K. Kemp, J. Henricksen, D. Jacobs, B. Kennedy, A. Henrickson, L. Jacobs, R. Kenney, M. Henry, R. Jacobson, L. Kentala, J. Henson, N. Jacot, L. Kenton, M. Herath-Veiby, G. Jacques, D. Kester-Oliver, K. Herman, M. Jagg, N. Khadduri, L. Hernandez, A. Jakob, H. Khadduri, N. Herner, B. Jakopak, L. Kidman, B. Herz, M. James, D. Kimball, L. Herzberg, W. Jameson, J. Kimball, M. Hess, G. Janicki, J. King, F. Hess, M. Jasper, P. King, H. Heywood, D. Jauquet, J. Kirby, M. Higgins, C. Jensen, B. Kirsten, J. Hill, R. Jensen, D. Kitchen, E. Hinkle, J. Jensen, E. Kitzman, I. Hinze, W. Jessler, D. Klawuhn, K. Ho, N. Johnson, B. & D. Kligman, A. Hoagland, P. Johnson, C. Klinger, K. and Hansen, P. Hoban, C. Johnson, K. Knollmeyer, C. Hobbs, T. Johnson, M. Koch, G. Hodge, D. Johnson, S. Koehler, J. Hodges, C. Jones, C. Kolakowski, D. Hoffman, K. Jones, G. Kopec, E. Hoffman, R. Jones, R. Korbett, J. Holden, G. Jones, T. Kordack, J. Holland, D. Jonientz, C. Koster, K. Holland, E. Jordal, A. Koushik, R. Hollings, L. Jordan, Y. Kovich, J. Holmes, T. Joscelyne, C. Kovich, J. Holtschulte, J. Joy, C. Kramer, D. Holtz, B. Joyce, K. Kramer, N. Hopkinson, C. Juelson, T. Krause, B. Horner, D. Kalan, S. Krechnyak, K. Horner, S. Kaminski, C. Krocheski, E. Horseman, D. Kampen, G. Ksiazak, M. Houston, J. Kandinsky, M. Kuciej, W. Howard, E. Karlsvik, S. Kucsera, C.

Page M-86 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Kunsch, L. Leypoldt, I. Marcus, K. Kuperburg, J. Leyva, J. Mariano, S. Kurp, P. Liebers, M. Marino, D. Kurp, P. Lima, N. Marra, A. Kuypers, J. Lindstrom, G. and H. Marra, C. Kuzdeba, E. Lissauer, J. Marshall, A. L., A. Little, C. Marshall, L. La Chusa, D. Liu-Elizabeth, E. Marshall, W. La Chusa, D. Livingston, D. Martens, J. La Voy, L. Lochner, W. Martin, M. Lagerberg, R. Locke, K. Martinez, A. Lamb, J. Loewenson, D. Martinez, J. Lampman, T. Logan, C. Martinez, J. and S. Lang-Bartlett, C. Lokshin, N. Martinez-Hixon, M. Larish, J. London, M. and S. Martinsen, F. Larsen, K. and G. Tolbert Long, D. Mason, J. Larson, G. Long, R. Masters, J. LaShelle, K. Longenbaugh, M. Mateyak, K. Laskowsky, K. Loson, J. Mathes, J. Lastar, J. Loudig, I. Mathews, J. Laurer, E. Love, L. Mathews, P. Laurie, A. Loveman, L. Mathieu, K. and K. Lauterbach, B. Loving, P. Mathis, K. Lawrence, S. Lovrien, M. Mattson, J. Lawrence, S. and S. Lowe, R. Max, M. and P. Lawton, K. Lowell, D. Maxwell, J. Layton, J. Lucha, V. Maze, K. Le Baron, P. Ludvigson, M. & Kevanda, C. McCann, Y. Lea, D. Luebbehusen, N. McCarthy, A. Lea, K. Lueck, M. McCarty, J. Lebel, D. Lundy, J. McClintock, C. Ledoux, C. Lynch, J(ay). and S. McCormick, A. Leduc, M. Lynch, J. McCoy, K. Lee, M. Lynch, J.(ohn) McCoy, M. Lees, G. and S. Lynn, D. McCreary, J. Legg, A. Machiorlatti, K. McCreary, J. Leggett, A. MacMillan, E. McCullough, B. Leiva, S. Macuk, S. McDaniel, M. Lemmons, T. Maddox, P. McDonald, H. Lemon, D. Maffie, B. McDow, D. Lenier, D. Maher, H. McEntire, A. Lenkowski, D. Mahutga, B. and B. McGovern, M. Lenkowski, M. Makela, L. McGrath, S. Lenkowski, R. Makinjussi, V. McGrew, R. Lentz, T. Malicki, S. and P. McGruder, K. Lenz, D. Malinowski, L. McGunnigle, R. Lenz, E. Malmquist, K. McIntosh, J. Leon, M. Manka, S. McKeel, D. Leonard, A. Mann, D. McKeown, J. Leonard, B. Mannakee, E. McKinney, K. Leonard, R. Mansour, D. McLaughlin, B. LeVasque, J. Marcelin, A. McMahom, D. Levensky, M. and M. Conner Marchand, C. McMaster, L. Levin, M. Marcialis, D. McNair, F. Levine, J. Marcus, C. McQuaid, A. Lewis, G. Marcus, D. McRoberts-Wilson, K.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-87 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Meagher, C. Morley, D. Olmstead, D. Mech, J. Morresi, G. Olmstead, J. Medill, J. and Wygum, D. Morse, D. and E. Olson, I. Meek, T. Morton, D. Olson, J. Mei, A. Moss, B. Olson, N. Meister, L. Moss, P. Olson, R. Melwani, G. Mouw, V. O'Malley, K. Merosands, L. Mrozek, M. and D. Ortega, N. Merwar, C. and P. Mugford, S. Ortiz-Swick, M. Messenger, A. Mulanix, T. Osier, J. Metsinger, P. Mullin, C. Osterman, S. Meyer. L. Munson, S. Ouellette, T. Micala, C. Muraco, D. Paddock, M. Michaud, J. Murakhver, N. Padelford, M. Michelsons, J. Muroiwa, R. Page, D. Milacek, K. Murphy, M. Palisi-Schuelke, M. Miles, T. Musial, M. Palka, B. Millard, W. Muthu, G. Palka, D. Miller, ?. Narasimhan, P. Palmatier, K. Miller, D. Neary, S. Panitz, T. Miller, H. Neely, H. Pankratz, D. Miller, J. Negri, P. Pappas, S. Miller, K. Neiderberger, K. Parish, K. Miller, M. Neilson, V. Parker, T. Mills, K. Nelson, D. Parker, W. Mills, S. Nelson, J. Parker-Rollins, L. Mims, M. Nervik, P. Parks, D. Minnie, T. Nester, M. Parr, K. Mitchell, A. Neuzil, D. Paterson, J. Mitchell, J. and W. Newling, C. Patterson, A. Mitchell, R. Newman, K. Paul, B. Mizerany, C. Nguyen, K. Paul, J. Moffat, J. Nichols, B. Paulsen, E. Mogul, M. Nichols, N. Pavey, A. Mohr, T. Nicol, T. Pearce, E. Molde, D. Niven, J. Pedersen, C. Molino, E. Nolle, K. Pedigo, J. Molloy, T. Nordlund, J. Pell, J. Momberger, K. Null, C. Pendergast, L. Mondo, C. Nunn, H. Pengelly, S. Montague, S. O'Brien, D. Penner, M. Moore, A. O'Brien, K. Pennington, N. Moore, B. Ochoa, F. Perchemlides, S. Moore, E. Ochocinski, K. Perkins, C. Moore, E. Ockunzzi, L. Perle, D. Moore, S. O'Connell, E. Perlman, F. Morales, A.(gustin) O'Connell, T. Perlman, F. Morales, A.(ngeles) O'Donnell, C. Perz, M. Morales, C.(arlos) Oehlman, G. Peters, S. Morales, C.(armen) Ogle, M. Petersen, B. Morales, E. Oglevie, M. Petersen, W. Moran, J. O'Hagan, P. Peterson, A. Moran, K. O'Harra, S. Peterson, L. Morand, N. Ohm, N. Petrie, M. Morello, P. O'Keefe, R. Pfundt, B. Moretti, V. Oldford, E. Philen, R.

Page M-88 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Phillips - Gutchell, E. Redding, S. Ryan, G. Phillips Farte, L. Reeves, S. Rydant, M. Pickens, C. Reichert, R. S., N. Picker, N. Reichert, R. Sacks, I. Pickett, C. Reid, A. Sakoda, F. Pieterman, F. Reid, M. Salgado, L. Pinckert, M. Reisenbichler, R. Salinas, M. Pineda, K. Reising, L. Sandoval, A. Pino, D. Renate, B. Sapatilha, Z. Piraino, J. Reniff, S. Sarmiento, U. Pisicoli, F. Repeta, C. Sarver, V. Pisicoli, F. Reuter, W. and J. Sashaw, B. Plunkett, T. Reyes, A. Saunders, O. Pluta, C. Rhine, R. Savina, D. Podolsky, E. Rhodes, S. Schaffer, M. Poggendorf, J. & D. Colwell Rhymer, K. Schauer, E. Polk, A. Richards, R. Schaufler, P. Pomiecko, G. Richards, R. Schechter, A. Pomies, J. Ricker, M. Scheri, M. Ponce, M. Riddell, C. Schiavone, S. Porter, J. Riddell, J. Schieferstein, J. Potter, I. Ridolfi, J. Schiltz, L. Power, S. Rieck, C. Schlossberg, L. Prather, H. Riley, E. Schmauder, A. Prather, S. Riley, S. Schmid, G. Price, C. Rimbos, P. and N. Schmidt, A. Pringle, B. Rinehart, A. Schmitt, N. Pritt, S. Robertson, K. Schoen, A. Procino, M. Robinson, B. Schofield, D. Pruske, J. Robinson, N. Schooler, S. Psiaki, K. Robinson, T. Schooley, T. Puca, R. Rogers, D. Schoon, K. and C. Puchot, J. Rogers, J. Schramm, P. Puddicombe, R. Roldan, M. Schulte, P. Puduski, D. Roll, K. Schultz, J. Pugh, A. Roose, M. Schwartz, I. Puglisi, D. Rosa, J. Schwartz, R. Purucker, W. Rose, S. Schwartz, S. Purvine, B. Rosenfeld, D. Scoggins, Y. Quackenboss, C. Rosenfield, E. Scott, B. Quade, H. Rosmar, B. Scott, D. Rabaglia, M. Rosmarino, B. Segall, S. Rabbit, H. Ross, S. Seider, J. Radau, C. Roux, S. Seigal, J. Rahmim, A. Rowe, B. Seigenthaler, L. Rain, G. Rowe, J. Seiler, S. Raines, C. and C. Berres Rowe, L. Selquist, D. Ramachandran, A. Rubery, Y. Seltzer, R. Ramanan, S. Ruble, N. Sendrowitz, M. Ramey, B. Ruckdeschel, K. Sennett, A. Ratliff, J. Rupert, J. Sennett, L. Ratzon, M. Rushing, N. Sennett, M. Rayshick, H. Rutkowski, R. Senyen, E. Rayshick, S. Rutkowski, R. Serwin, L. Reck, A. Rutz, R. Sessions, S. Redding, B. Ryan, E. Settle, C.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-89 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Seyler, D. Spoden, J. Tanguis, H. Shake, A. Springston, T. Tanzer, C. Shanewise, S. Spychalski, K. Tassin, K. Sharp, D. Srikanth, K. Tate, B. Sharpe, E. St. Claire, K. Tavani, C. Shaw, C. Staelens, B. Taylor, B. Shaw, D. Stagman, R. Taylor, D. Shepard, M. Stahl, S. Taylor, I. Shipley, B. Stanley, B. Taylor, M. Shohan, D. Stanley, C. Telemaque, J. Shohan, D. Stanton, J. Tepley, C. and F. Short, R. Stanzione, D. Terrien, J. Shoss, B. Staples, S. Terry, J. Shown, S. Steeples, D. Thandi, K. Shuller, S. Stein, M. Thiem, D. Sibley, P. Stellini, J. Thomas, R. Siegel, L. Stephens, K. Thomas, S. Siegrist, L. Sterling, A. Thomas, S. Siegrist, T. Sternberg, H. Thomas, T. Sillars, K. Stevens, J. Thomasy, R. Silverstein, M. Stewart, J. Thompson, B. Simecek, J. Stickel, A. Thompson, L. Simone, P. and V. Stillwell, E. Thompson, N. Simpson, C. Stirling, K. Thrasher Hybl, T. Simpson, J. Stoddard, E. Thunell, C. and S. Simpson-Brown, D. Stoffers, F. Tidal, A. Sinamon, M. Stone, G. Tobiason, F. Sisson, K. Stone, M. Todes, R. Skelcher, B. Stonington, L. Tolpin, J. Skeuse, M. Storelli, G. Tomacari, A. Slaby, S. Storlie, B. Tompkins, J. Sloan, E. Story, K. Toperoff, O. Smith, A. Stotler, D. Tormes, L. Smith, C. Streiffert, N. Toro, A. Smith, J. Stukel, K. Toth, J. Smith, K. Sugarman, S. Totonchi, M. Smith, L. Sullivan, B. Townsend, M. Smith, M. Sullivan, J. Treibel, H. Snitzer, E. Sullivan, M. Troy, T. Snook, R. Sullivan, T. Trudel, T. Snyder, D. Sultan, B. Truong, L. Snyder, R. Sus, R. Tseng, J. Soler, A. Sutherland, C. Tubman, L. Soler, A. Sutherland, J. Tumlin, K. Sonne, D. Suttles, J. Turcott, B. Sonneville, D. and D. Sutton, K. Turek, G. Sontag, K. Swartz, A. Turner, R. Sorenson, E. Swaynos, V. Tuttle, W. Sorvetti, K. and T. Abney Sweitzer, C. Ugolik, L. Spadaccini, A. Swenson, L. Underhill, J. Spanhel, S. Swift, A. Urie, K. Speed, B. Syverson, D. Valdes, C. Speizio, P. Szypulski, S. Vallone, C. Spencer, L. Tabor, L. Van Camp, R. Spencer-Scher, C. Takanashi, J. Van Lom, K. Spitz, M. Taksel, R.

Page M-90 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Vandenheuvel, B. & S. Watson, C. Wollberg, D. Schooler Watterson, C. Wolter, C. Vankirk, D. Wayne, M. Womack, S. Vanleunen, A. Weber, M. Wood, B. Vargas, C. & M. Cobo Weingarten, E. Wood, P. Vasek, S. Weinhaus, M. Woodall, P. Vasquez, S. Weinstein, D. Woodard, P. Vaz, C. Weintraub, E. Woodard, S. and J. Vazary, B. Weiss, E. Woodry, L. Vegvari, T. Welsh, C. Woods, R. Verret, T. Welter, D. Woodward, D. Verry, J. Wemple, M. Woodward, L. Vest, L. Wendt, R. Wooldridge, C. Vido, J. Werry, T. Wright, S. Viinikainen, S. West, C. Wright, T.(imothy) Vinet, P. West, R. and B. Wright, T.(rish) Voght, V. Westwood, J. Wrinn, C. Voight, D. and P. Wheeler, J. Wulfekuhle, K. Von Luft, J. Whitaker, D. Wullenwaber, D. Votolato, C. White, M. Wyckaert, W. Vuolo, T. White, P. Yates, D. W., C. Wiedemann, J. Yelland, E. Wagner, K. Wiederkehr, J. Yoon, T. Wahl, D. Wilburn, G. Young, B. Wakeman, M. Wilcox, G. Young, G. Walbaum, D. Wilder, J. Young, K. Walker, K. Wiley, J. Young, S. Walker, M. Wilkins, S. Young, W. Walker, T. Williams, C.(indy) Young,L. Wallace, J. Williams, C.(ole) Zachos-Oakley, H. Wallace, S. Williams, D. Zaklin, F. Wallis, G. Williams, M. Zane, D. and B. Walraven, H. Willits, W. Zawoiski, C. Walsh, T. Wilson, ? Zawoiski, C. Walter, G. Wilson, D. Zeiss, M. Waltersdorf, J. Wilson, T. Zelnio, D. Walz, M. Wilson-Cazier, P. Zernis, A. Wannell, K. Wineke, S. Zernis, A. Wanzer, J. Wininger, K. Zernis, A. Ward, E. Winkle, L. Zimmerman, K. Warner, B. Winston, C. Zimmerman, M. Wasden, J. Wittenbrook, K. Ziomek, K. Watkins, D. Wizes, L. Zlevor, J. Watkins, J. Woerpel, R. Zulauf, J. Watkins, R. Wolf, K. Zuppardo, D. Watrous, W. Wolf, R. Zwonitzer, S.

Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses Page M-91 Nisqually NWR Final CCP/EIS

Page M-92 Appendix M – Summary of Public Comment and the Service’s Responses