Subject: Nisqually NWR flooding; an alternative view
Date: Feb 13 10:44:45 1996
From: "Steven G. Herman" - hermans at elwha.evergreen.edu


It is interesting that the flooding at Nisqually NWR is so easily
interpreted as "damage". An alternative view would be that nature is
attempting to reclaim what was once hers. I started working at what
became the refuge in 1971, when the area was known as "The Brown Farm",
and there was a strong move to do there what was done in the larger delta
area that is now the Port of Tacoma. As we all know, effective
conservation efforts "saved" the area, and we now have a fine refuge that
hosts many kinds of wildlife, and swarms of allegedly higher primates.
What has been "saved" at Nisqually is largely old field farmland, a kind
of habitat not really uncommon in the area. Those of us who were invited
to "participate" in the planning of the refuge, in the early and mid-70"s
included some who argued that the highest use of the site would be to
breach the dike in one or two spots and recreate some intertidal marsh.
(It needs to be remembered that the intertidal area north and west of the
dike is owned and managed for the most part by the Washington Department of Fish
& Wildlife, who wisely and appropriately allow controlled waterfowl
hunting there), not the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, who purchased the
Brown Farm in part with Duck Stamp money, claiming that hunting would be
available on the refuge, too. It hasn't.) My memory is that there was
some consideration of the idea, but the managers were uncomfortable with
the idea of some intertidal inside the dike, so nothing happened in that
regard until the dike breached in December of 1975. A few of us got them
to agree to create a small section of intertidal on the west side of the
farm at that time (I was concerned that Dunlin have an area to roost that
would bring them into closer and easier view, and that waterfowl have
real refuge during times of freezing). And so they put a tide gate on
McCallister Creek, and for a while the thing functioned, and the farm
sacrificed a few acres to the salt marsh. But, sure enough, it wasn't
long before the gate was closed and the farm was "reclaimed" (a lovely
term).

Now, certainly there is something that can legitimately be called damage
at Nisqually now, and certainly some "repairs" are in order, but the
natural event that we have witnessed could now theoretically be turned to
the advantage of wildlife and its fans, by working with the Service to
allow some of the salt marsh to remain after the revisions are made. And
finally, we need all of us to remember that this and similar areas are
*wildlife* refuges, not primarily sites for us to view that wildlife. I
would be interested in hearing (privately) from any of you who might be
interested in pressing the case for a small piece of within-dike salt marsh.

Steve Herman-