Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter
National Wildlife Refuges
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Prepared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Region 8
Refuge Planning Office
2800 Cottage Way, W-1832
Sacramento, CA 95825
and
Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex
752 County Road 99W
Willows, CA 95988
July 2008
i
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................vii
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ............................................1
1. Introduction ..........................................................................................1
2. Purpose of and Need for Plan ............................................................3
3. Legal and Policy Guidance .................................................................3
3.1. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act ..............3
3.2. Appropriate Use Policy ...............................................................4
3.3. Compatibility Policy.....................................................................5
3.4. Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health
Policy .....................................................................................................6
4. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................6
5. The National Wildlife Refuge System ..............................................7
6. The Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex......................8
7. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge ............................................10
8. Delevan National Wildlife Refuge...................................................12
9. Colusa National Wildlife Refuge .....................................................13
10. Sutter National Wildlife Refuge ....................................................15
11. Refuge Purposes ..............................................................................16
11.1. Sacramento Refuge Purposes.................................................16
11.2. Delevan Refuge Purpose .........................................................17
11.3. Colusa Refuge Purposes..........................................................17
11.4. Sutter Refuge Purposes ..........................................................17
12. The Refuges’ Vision .........................................................................18
13. Existing and New Partnerships.....................................................18
14. Ecosystem Context..........................................................................19
15. Conservation Priorities and Initiatives.........................................22
16. Wilderness Review ..........................................................................23
Chapter 2. The Planning Process .........................................................25
1. Introduction ........................................................................................25
2. The Planning Process........................................................................25
3. Planning Hierarchy ...........................................................................26
4. The Planning Team............................................................................28
4.1. Core Team ...................................................................................28
4.2. Expanded Team..........................................................................29
5. Pre-Planning.......................................................................................29
6. Public Involvement in Planning.......................................................29
7. Public Outreach..................................................................................31
8. Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..............................................31
9. Development of the Refuge Vision ..................................................32
10. Determining the Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ......33
10.1. Goals ...........................................................................................33
10.2. Interim Refuge Goals...............................................................33
10.3. Objectives, Rationale, and Strategies....................................33
11. Development of the Refuge Management Alternatives .............35
11.1. Alternative A: No Action .........................................................35
11.2. Alternative B: Emphasize Biological Resources..................35
11.3. Alternative C: Proposed Action..............................................35
11.4. Alternative D: Emphasize Visitor Services ..........................36
12. Selection of the Proposed Action ...................................................36
13. Plan Implementation .......................................................................36
ii
Chapter 3. The Refuge Environment...................................................37
1. Refuge Descriptions..........................................................................37
1.1. Sacramento Refuge....................................................................37
1.2. Delevan Refuge ..........................................................................38
1.3. Colusa Refuge.............................................................................39
1.4. Sutter Refuge .............................................................................40
2. Geographic/Ecosystem Setting .......................................................41
2.1. The Sacramento Valley Ecosystem.........................................42
3. Physical Environment.......................................................................43
3.1. Climate and Air Quality ............................................................43
3.2. Water Supply ..............................................................................45
3.3. Contaminants and Water Quality ............................................48
3.4. Geology, Hydrology, and Soils .................................................49
4. Habitat ................................................................................................51
4.1. Vegetation ...................................................................................51
4.2. Wetlands......................................................................................56
4.3. Grasslands...................................................................................61
4.4. Riparian Habitats.......................................................................61
4.5. Agricultural Croplands..............................................................62
5. Habitat Management ........................................................................63
5.1. Water Management ...................................................................65
5.2. Vegetation Management...........................................................68
5.3. Control of Invasive, Exotic, or Pest Species ..........................76
5.4. Mosquito Management..............................................................79
6. Fish and Wildlife................................................................................79
6.1. Waterfowl ....................................................................................80
6.2. Breeding Waterfowl...................................................................86
6.3. Shorebirds...................................................................................86
6.4. Wading/diving birds...................................................................87
6.5. Gulls/terns ...................................................................................87
6.6. Birds of Prey...............................................................................88
6.7. Game birds ..................................................................................88
6.8. Other Landbirds.........................................................................89
6.9. Mammals .....................................................................................90
6.10. Amphibians and Reptiles ........................................................90
6.11. Fish.............................................................................................90
6.12. Invertebrates ............................................................................91
6.13. Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................92
7. Fish and Wildlife Management .....................................................103
7.1. Migratory Bird Management.................................................103
7.2. Threatened and Endangered Species Management...........105
7.3. Game Management..................................................................106
7.4. Monitoring, Research, and Investigations ...........................106
7.5. Wildlife Disease Monitoring and Treatment........................107
8. Visitor Services ................................................................................111
8.1. Visitor Services and Management Policy .............................111
8.2. Trends........................................................................................112
8.3. Visitor Data...............................................................................115
8.4. Recreation Fee Program ........................................................117
8.5. Hunting......................................................................................118
8.6. Fishing .......................................................................................130
8.7. Wildlife Observation ................................................................131
iii
8.8. Wildlife Photography...............................................................132
8.9. Environmental Education .......................................................133
8.10. Interpretation and Outreach.................................................135
8.11. Non-wildlife dependent Recreation .....................................136
8.12. Youth Program .......................................................................136
8.13. Volunteer Program ................................................................137
9. Cooperation with Adjacent Landowners......................................137
10. Fire Prevention and Hazard Reduction .....................................137
11. Law Enforcement and Resource Protection..............................138
12. Facilities Maintenance ..................................................................139
13. Safety...............................................................................................139
14. Cultural Resources ........................................................................140
15. Social and Economic Environment .............................................143
15.1. Transportation ........................................................................143
15.2. Employment............................................................................144
15.3. Local Economy .......................................................................145
15.4. Land Use and Zoning.............................................................146
15.5. Demographics .........................................................................146
Chapter 4 Planned Refuge Management and Programs ..............149
Overview of Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ................................149
Organization..........................................................................................150
Refuge Management Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ................150
1. Wildlife and Habitat Goal...........................................................150
2. Threatened and Endangered Species Goal .............................165
3. Visitor Services Goal ...................................................................167
4. Partnerships Goal........................................................................181
5. Resource Protection Goal...........................................................183
Chapter 5. Management Plan Implementation ..............................187
1. Implementation ................................................................................187
2. Funding & Staffing..........................................................................187
3. Step-Down Management Plan Summaries ..................................194
3.1. Hunt Plan...................................................................................194
3.2. Visitor Services Plan ................................................................194
3.3. Habitat Management Plan......................................................195
3.4. Integrated Pest Management Plan........................................195
3.5. Resource Inventory and Monitoring Plan ............................195
3.6. Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan ...................................196
3.7. Water Management Plan ........................................................196
3.8. Fire Management Plan............................................................196
4. Appropriate Use Requirements.....................................................197
5. Compatibility Determinations........................................................197
6. Compliance Requirements..............................................................198
7. Monitoring and Evaluation.............................................................198
8. Adaptive Management ....................................................................199
9. CCP Plan Amendment and Revision ............................................199
Glossary ....................................................................................................201
Bibliography ............................................................................................219
iv
Figures
Figure 1. Sacramento Refuge Complex Map. ........................................2
Figure 2. Ecosystem Map.......................................................................21
Figure 3. The CCP Process....................................................................26
Figure 4. Hierarchical relationship of refuge goals and objectives to
other aspects of the planning process. ..................................................27
Figure 5. Relationships between Service and other planning efforts.
...................................................................................................................28
Figure 6. Sacramento Refuge Habitat Management Map. ................52
Figure 7. Delevan Refuge Habitat Management Map........................53
Figure 8. Colusa Refuge Habitat Management Map. .........................54
Figure 9. Sutter Refuge Habitat Management Map...........................55
Figure 10. California Mid-winter Indices (USFWS 1965-2007). ........81
Figure 11. Sacramento Refuge Visitor Services Map. ......................168
Figure 12. Delevan Refuge Visitor Services Map..............................169
Figure 13. Colusa Refuge Visitor Services Map. ...............................170
Figure 14. Sutter Refuge Visitor Services Map.................................171
Figure 15. Sacramento Refuge Complex Staffing Plan. ...................192
Figure 16. Fire Staffing Plan. ..............................................................193
v
Tables
Table 1. Public Scoping Meetings. .........................................................30
Table 2. Refuge Issues Identified Through Public Comment. ...........30
Table 3. CVPIA Water Supplies for each of the Refuges. ..................45
Table 4. Acreage and habitats of Sacramento National Refuge
Complex. ...................................................................................................51
Table 5. Approximate number of acre-feet/acre/month required for
each wetland habitat type on the Complex. ..........................................66
Table 6. Invasive Plant Species at Sacramento Refuge Complex. .....77
Table 7. Regular waterfowl survey summary, early December, 2006.
...................................................................................................................83
Table 8. Average duck densities (per acre with sample size in
parentheses) by habitat type on managed wetlands at Sacramento
Refuge Complex.......................................................................................85
Table 9. Federal and State listed species occurring or potentially
occurring at Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter Refuges. ......93
Table 10. Migratory bird surveys and other monitoring efforts
currently conducted by Sacramento Refuge Complex staff1. ...........104
Table 11. Comparison of lead and steel shot ingested by hunter-shot
mallards at Sacramento Refuge...........................................................110
Table 12. Comparison of lead and steel shot ingested by hunter-shot
mallards at Sacramento, Tule Lake, and Ridgefield Refuges. .........110
Table 13. Ranks of three wildlife dependent activities (California
Department of Parks and Recreation 2003). ......................................113
Table 14. Refuge Visitation Trends FY 2002-2006.............................117
Table 15. Primary Duck Species Harvested on the Sacramento
Complex (2004-2006 Season). ...............................................................120
Table 16. Primary Goose Species Harvested on the Sacramento
Complex (2004-2006 Season). ...............................................................121
Table 17. Sacramento Refuge Hunting Conditions............................123
Table 18. Delevan Refuge Hunting Conditions. .................................126
Table 19. Colusa Refuge Hunting Conditions. ...................................128
Table 20. Sutter Refuge Hunting Conditions. ....................................129
Table 21. Estimated Initial Capital Outlay to Fully Implement the
CCP. ........................................................................................................188
Table 22. Estimated Annual Cost to Fully Implement the CCP1.....190
vi
Appendices
Appendix A Environmental Assessment
Appendix B Compatibility Determinations
Appendix C Hunt Plan
Appendix D Visitor Services Plan
Appendix E Habitat Management Plan
Appendix F Integrated Pest Management Plan
Appendix G Resource Inventory and Monitoring Plan
Appendix H Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan
Appendix I Water Management Plan
Appendix J Fire Management Plan
Appendix K Wildlife and Plant Species List
Appendix L Compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act
Appendix M Applicable Laws and Plans
Appendix N List of Planning Team Members
Appendix O Wilderness Review
Appendix P Tree Reduction Operations Plan
vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
2047 Colusa Basin Drain
ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AHMP Annual Habitat Management Plan
AHPA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act
ATV All terrain vehicle
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMP Best Management Practice
BOR Bureau of Reclamation
CALFED California Bay-Delta Program
Cal Fire California Fire (also California Department of
Forestry, CDF)
CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CD Compatibility Determination
CDF California Department of Forestry (also, Cal
Fire)
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDPR California Department of Parks and
Recreation
Cfs Cubic feet per second
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CVJV Central Valley Joint Venture
Complex Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex
CSU Chico California State University at Chico
CWA California Waterfowl Association
CVP Central Valley Project
CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act
DMBM Division of Migratory Bird Management
DOI Department of the Interior
DU Ducks Unlimited
DWR Department of Water Resources
EA Environmental Assessment
EE Environmental Education
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit
FR Federal Register
FTE Full-time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Global Information System
GCID Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
GGS Giant Garter Snake
GPS Global Positioning System
Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997
IPM Integrated Pest Management
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MRF Mixed riparian forest
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
viii
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
NOI Notice of Intent
NOA Notice of Availability
NWR National Wildlife Refuge (also, Refuge)
NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System (also, Refuge
System)
PRBO Point Reyes Bird Observatory, PRBO
Conservation Science
PUP Pesticide Use Permit
Refuge National Wildlife Refuge (also, NWR)
Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System (also,
NWRS)
Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, USFWS)
SoC Species of Concern
SUP Special Use Permit
SFW Seasonally flooded wetland
SW Summer water
T&E Threatened and Endangered Species
TNC The Nature Conservancy
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, Service)
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VORF Valley oak riparian forest
WG Watergrass
WMA Wildlife Management Area
WS Willow scrub
WUI Wildland Urban Interface
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
Chapter 1. Introduction and
Background
1. Introduction
This document is a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
designed to guide management of Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and
Sutter National Wildlife Refuges (Refuges) for the next fifteen years.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) manages the Refuges as
part of the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex)
located in the Sacramento Valley of California (Figure 1)
approximately ninety miles north of the city of Sacramento.
The Draft CCP and accompanying Environmental Assessment (EA)
address the Service’s legal mandates, policies, goals, and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. The EA (Appendix A)
presents a range of administrative, habitat management, and visitor
services alternatives that consider issues and opportunities on the
Refuges. The Service’s initial proposal for future management of the
Refuges is presented in the EA. Chapter 4 of the CCP describes the
goals, objectives, and strategies for the Service’s preferred
alternative (Alternative C). The final CCP will be developed through
modifications made during the internal and public review processes.
The CCP is accompanied by new and/or updated plans: a Hunting
Plan (Appendix C), Visitor Services Plan (Appendix D), Integrated
Pest Management Plan (Appendix F), Inventory and Monitoring Plan
(Appendix G), Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan (Appendix H),
and Tree Reduction Operations Plan (Appendix P). Other existing
plans that will remain in place include annual Habitat Management
Plans (Appendix E), annual Water Management Plans (Appendix I),
Fire Management Plan (Appendix J), Continuity of Operations Plan,
and Safety Plan.
The CCP is divided
into five chapters:
Chapter 1,
Introduction; Chapter
2, Planning Process;
Chapter 3, Refuge
Environment;
Chapter 4, Planned
Refuge Management
and Programs; and
Chapter 5, Plan
Implementation.
Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge
Photo by Steve Emmons
Chapter 1
2 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 1. Sacramento Refuge Complex Map.
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
2. Purpose of and Need for Plan
Currently, individual Refuge Management Plans (USFWS 1988)
guide the Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter Refuges. The
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16
United States Code [USC] 668dd-668ee) (Improvement Act) requires
that all refuges be managed in accordance with an approved CCP by
2012. Under the Improvement Act, the National Wildlife Refuge
System (Refuge System) is to be consistently directed and managed
to fulfill the specific purpose(s) for which each refuge was established
as well as the Refuge System Mission. The planning process helps the
Service achieve the refuge purposes and the Refuge System mission
by identifying specific goals, objectives, and strategies to implement
on each Refuge.
The purposes of this CCP are to:
􀂄􈑐 Provide a clear statement of direction for the future management
of the Refuges.
􀂄􈑐 Provide long-term continuity in Refuge management.
􀂄􈑃 Communicate the Service’s management priorities for the
Refuges to their partners, neighbors, visitors, and the general
public.
􀂄􈑐 Provide an opportunity for the public to help shape the future
management of the Refuges.
􀂄􈑅 Ensure that management programs on the Refuges are
consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System and the
purposes for which the Refuges were established.
􀂄􈑅 Ensure that the management of the Refuges is consistent with
Federal, State, and local plans.
􀂄􈑐 Provide a basis for budget requests to support the Refuges’ needs
for staffing, operations, maintenance, and capital improvements.
3. Legal and Policy Guidance
National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the purposes of the
individual refuge, mission and goals of the Refuge System, and
Service policy, laws, and international treaties. Relevant guidance
includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966, as amended by the Improvement Act, Refuge Recreation Act of
1962, selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the
Service Manual.
Refuges are also governed by a variety of other laws, treaties and
executive orders pertaining to the conservation and protection of
natural and cultural resources (refer to Appendix M for additional
information about these laws and executive orders).
3.1. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
The Improvement Act, which amends the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966, provides comprehensive
legislation on how the Refuge System should be managed and used
by the public. The Improvement Act:
Chapter 1
4 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
􀂄􈑉 Identified a new mission statement for the Refuge System.
􀂄􈑅 Established six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, environmental education and
interpretation).
􀂄􈑅 Emphasized conservation and enhancement of the quality and
diversity of fish and wildlife habitat.
􀂄􈑓 Stressed the importance of partnerships with Federal and State
agencies, Tribes, non-governmental organizations, industry, and
the general public.
􀂄􈑍 Mandated public involvement in decisions on the acquisition and
management of refuges.
􀂄􈑒 Required, prior to acquisition of new refuge lands, identification
of existing compatible wildlife-dependent uses that would be
permitted to continue on an interim basis pending completion of
comprehensive conservation planning.
The Improvement Act establishes the responsibilities of the
Secretary of the Interior for managing and protecting the Refuge
System; requires a CCP for each refuge by the year 2012; and
provides guidelines and directives for the administration and
management of all areas in the Refuge System, including wildlife
refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife
threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife
management areas, or waterfowl production areas.
3.2. Appropriate Use Policy
This policy describes the initial decision process the refuge manager
follows when first considering whether or not to allow a proposed use
on a refuge. The refuge manager must find a use appropriate before
undertaking a compatibility review of the use. An appropriate use, as
defined by the Appropriate Use Policy (603 FW 1 of the Service
Manual), is a proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least
one of the following four conditions:
􀂄􈑔 The use is a wildlife-dependant recreational use as identified in
the Improvement Act.
􀂄􈑔 The use contributes to the fulfilling of the refuge purpose(s), the
Refuge System mission, or goals or objectives described in a
refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date
the Improvement Act was signed into law.
􀂄􈑔 The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State
regulations.
􀂄􈑔 The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section
1.11 (603 FW 1 of the Service Manual).
If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will
eliminate or modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new
use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will deny the use without
determining compatibility. If a use is determined to be an appropriate
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
refuge use, the refuge manager will then determine if the use is
compatible (see Compatibility section below). Although a use may be
both appropriate and compatible, the refuge manager retains the
authority to not allow the use or modify the use. Uses that have been
administratively determined to be appropriate are the six wildlife-dependent
recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, environmental education, and interpretation) and
take of fish and wildlife under State regulations.
3.3. Compatibility Policy
Lands within the Refuge System are different from other multiple
use public lands in that they are closed to all public uses unless
specifically and legally opened. The Improvement Act states “... the
Secretary shall not initiate or permit a new use of a Refuge or
expand, renew, or extend an existing use of a Refuge, unless the
Secretary has determined that the use is a compatible use and that
the use is not inconsistent with public safety.”
In accordance with the Improvement Act, the Service has adopted a
Compatibility Policy (603 FW 2 of the Service Manual) that includes
guidelines for determining if a use proposed on a National Wildlife
Refuge is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was
established. A compatible use is defined in the policy as a proposed or
existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a
National Wildlife Refuge that, based on sound professional judgment,
will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the
Refuge System mission or the purposes of the Refuge. Sound
professional judgment is defined as a finding, determination, or
decision that is consistent with the principles of sound fish and
wildlife management and administration, available science and
resources (funding, personnel, facilities, and other infrastructure),
and applicable laws. The Service strives to provide priority public
uses when they are compatible. If financial resources are not
available to design, operate, and maintain a priority use, the refuge
manager will take reasonable steps to obtain outside assistance from
the State and other conservation interests.
When a determination is made as to whether a proposed use is
compatible or not, this determination is provided in writing and is
referred to as a compatibility determination. An opportunity for
public review and comment is required for all compatibility
determinations. For compatibility determinations prepared
concurrently with a CCP or step-down management plan, the
opportunity for public review and comment is provided during the
public review period for the draft plan and associated NEPA
document.
Chapter 1
6 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
3.4. Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health
Policy
In addition, the Improvement Act directs the Service to “ensure that
the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the
Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans...” To implement this directive, the Service
has issued the Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental
Health Policy (601 FW 3 of the Service Manual), which provides
policy for maintaining and restoring, where appropriate, the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge
System. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to
follow while achieving Refuge purpose(s) and Refuge System mission.
It provides for the consideration and protection of the broad
spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on Refuges and
associated ecosystems. Further, it
provides refuge managers with an
evaluation process to analyze their
refuge and recommend the best
management direction to prevent
further degradation of
environmental conditions and
restore lost or severely degraded
components where appropriate and
in concert with refuge purposes
and the Refuge System mission.
When evaluating the appropriate
management direction for refuges,
refuge managers will use sound
professional judgment to
determine their refuges’
contribution to biological integrity,
diversity, and environmental health
at multiple landscape scales.
Greater white-fronted goose
Photo by Mike Peters
4. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for
conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Although
the Service shares this responsibility with other Federal, State,
Tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific
responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered
species, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and certain marine
mammals. These are referred to as Federal Trust Species. The
Service also manages the Refuge System and National Fish
Hatcheries; enforces Federal wildlife laws and international treaties
on importing and exporting wildlife; assists State fish and wildlife
programs; and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation
programs.
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
The mission of the Service is:
“Working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife
and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people.”
5. The National Wildlife Refuge System
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt named Florida’s Pelican
Island the nation’s first bird sanctuary, which along with other
sanctuaries and preserves evolved into the National Wildlife Refuge
System. Since that time, the Refuge System has grown to more than
97 million acres. It includes 548 refuges, at least one in every state
and many U.S. territories, and over 3,000 Waterfowl Production
Areas. The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands
and waters set aside specifically for the conservation of wildlife and
ecosystem protection. The needs of wildlife and their habitats come
first on refuges, in contrast to other public lands managed for
multiple uses. The Refuge System provides important habitat for
native plants and many species of mammals, birds, fish, and
threatened and endangered species.
The mission of the Refuge System, as stated in the Improvement Act,
is:
“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of
the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans” (16 USC 668dd et seq.).
The goals of the Refuge System, as defined in the Refuge System
Mission and Goals and Refuge Purposes Policy (601 FW 1 of the
Service Manual) are to:
􀂄􈑃 Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their
habitats, including species that are endangered or threatened
with becoming endangered.
􀂄􈑄 Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds,
anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal
populations that is strategically distributed and carefully
managed to meet important life history needs of these species
across their ranges.
􀂄􈑃 Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of
national or international significance, and landscapes and
seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented in
existing protection efforts.
􀂄􈑐 Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible
wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation).
Chapter 1
8 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
􀂄􈑆 Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and
interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
Collectively, these goals articulate the foundation for our stewardship
of the Refuge System and define the unique and important niche it
occupies among the various Federal land systems. These goals will
help guide development of specific management priorities during
development of CCPs.
In addition, the guiding principles of the Refuge System are:
􀂄􈑗 We are land stewards, guided by Aldo Leopold's teachings that
land is a community of life and that love and respect for the land
is an extension of ethics. We seek to reflect that land ethic in our
stewardship and to instill it in others.
􀂄􈑗 Wild lands and the perpetuation of diverse and abundant wildlife
are essential to the quality of the American life.
􀂄􈑗 We are public servants. We owe our employers, the American
people, hard work, integrity, fairness, and a voice in the
protection of their trust resources.
􀂄􈑍 Management, ranging from preservation to active manipulation of
habitats and populations, is necessary to achieve Refuge System
and Service missions.
􀂄􈑗 Wildlife-dependent uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, interpretation, and education, when
compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses of the Refuge
System.
􀂄􈑐 Partnerships with those who want to help us meet our mission are
welcome and indeed essential.
􀂄􈑅 Employees are our most valuable resource. They are respected
and deserve an empowering, mentoring, and caring work
environment.
􀂄􈑗 We respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of our neighbors.
6. The Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex
For thousands of years the Sacramento Valley has provided a winter
haven for ducks, geese, and swans. Waterfowl migrate here by the
millions from as far away as the Arctic regions of Alaska, Canada,
and Siberia. The five national wildlife refuges and three wildlife
management areas of the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge
Complex (Complex) represent an island of habitat in a sea of
Sacramento Valley agriculture (Figure 1).
The Valley is an extensive agricultural area that has historically been
a major wintering area for millions of ducks and geese. Lands that
surround the Refuges are mostly irrigated rice lands. Some dairy
production as well as various crops including safflower, barley, wheat,
and alfalfa is also present. The Valley is bordered by the Sierra
Nevada Range to the east and Coast Range to the west. Topography
is flat with a gentle slope to the southeast towards the Sacramento
River. Predominant soil types are poorly drained alkaline clays.
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
The Complex represents a small portion of the vast seasonal wetlands
and grasslands that once existed in the Sacramento Valley. Millions
of waterfowl migrated south in the Pacific Flyway to winter in the
Valley among resident waterbirds, deer, elk, pronghorn, and grizzly
bear. Natural habitat was replaced with rice and other crops with the
development of agriculture during the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Waterfowl substituted some of these farm crops for their original
wetland foods, causing serious crop losses for farmers.
Today, 90 to 95 percent of California's wetlands are gone, along with
the grizzly bear (Holland 1978, Gilmer et al. 1982, Frayer et al. 1989,
Kempka and Kollasch 1990). Constructed levees now confine the
rivers for irrigation and flood control, preventing the natural flooding
of wetlands. Despite these changes, birds continue to fly their ancient
migration routes along the Pacific Flyway and crowd into the
remaining wintering habitat. The Complex provides a significant
amount of the wintering habitat that supports waterfowl and many
other migratory birds in the Sacramento Valley. The Complex
currently supports nearly 300 species of birds.
In 1937, when Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge was established,
Refuge staff worked to transform many of the Refuge's dry, alkaline
lands into productive managed wetlands. Some of these areas were
used for growing grain crops to attract waterfowl away from crops on
private lands. Three additional Refuges were created in the 1940s
through the 1980s, forming the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge
Complex. These Refuges, including Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter,
were established to provide wintering habitat for waterfowl and in
some cases to reduce crop damage. The Refuges consist of
approximately 23,000 acres of wetlands, vernal pools, alkali meadows,
grassland, and riparian habitats. During spring, the Refuges drain
seasonal wetlands, the most common habitat type, and allow them to
dry out over the summer to encourage plant growth on the moist,
exposed soil. Re-flooding in the fall makes seeds and plants available
for wildlife. Water management, prescribed burns, disking, and
mowing are some of the techniques used to manage wetland habitats.
The fifth refuge, Sacramento River Refuge, was established in 1989
to help protect and restore riparian habitat along the Sacramento
River as it meanders through the Sacramento Valley from Red Bluff
to Colusa. This Refuge is not included in this CCP and is covered
under the Sacramento River Refuge Final CCP released in July 2005.
The Complex’s three wildlife management areas North Central
Valley, Willow Creek – Lurline, and Butte Sink, are also not included
in this CCP. These areas will be addressed in a separate CCP at a
later date.
Chapter 1
10 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
7. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge
In January 1937, the Federal government purchased the 10,775-acre
Spalding Ranch, located south of “The Willows” and christened it the
Sacramento Migratory Waterfowl Refuge. It was established by
Executive Order 7562 and was acquired with funds from the
Emergency Conservation Fund Act of 1933 to provide refuge and
breeding habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. In 1971, eight
additional acres were purchased with Land and Water Conservation
Funds increasing the Refuge to 10,783 acres. In 2003, the State of
California Conservation Board donated the 36-acre Goldworthy
property to the Refuge to protect the site from proposed commercial
development.
Entrance sign (1938)
USFWS Photo
The Refuge was created on an open plain of short grasses, shrubs,
and forbs known as the Colusa Plains. This area has a gradual slope
to the southeast toward the Sacramento River. The Colusa Plains was
noteworthy; with the exception of “The Willows,” a small tree-abundant
watering hole, the area was a vacant, windswept plain
(Wagon Wheels 1956). Refuge lands consisted primarily of a dry
alkaline plain, with fewer than 1,000 wetland and 4,800 deteriorated
crop acres present. Beginning with the Civilian Conservation Corp’s
“Camp Sacramento” during the late 1930s, levees, water control
structures, and delivery ditches were constructed to create and
sustain wetlands across the majority of the Refuge.
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Constructing delivery ditches at Sacramento Refuge (1938)
USFWS Photo
Today, the Refuge is known as the Sacramento National Wildlife
Refuge, and it functions as the headquarters for the entire Complex.
The Refuge is currently 10,819 acres (Figure 1) and is comprised of
approximately 7,086 acres of managed wetlands (summer wetlands
and seasonally flooded wetlands) and 3,360 acres of unmanaged
wetlands, grasslands, alkali meadows, vernal pools, and riparian
habitats. While most of these habitats no longer reflect the original
landscape, management programs do attempt to mimic the natural
conditions that once occurred throughout the Sacramento Valley on a
much grander scale.
Wintering waterfowl have become increasingly dependent on these
artificially created and maintained habitats because 90 to 95 percent
of California���s wetland habitat is gone, its water supply is highly
regulated, and its human population is increasing with many
associated impacts. As a result, the Service must now intensively
manage the Refuge in order to provide a consistent quantity and
quality of habitats to compensate for habitat losses due to
agricultural and urban development. Many types of species benefit
from these efforts, including those which are rare and abundant,
resident and migratory, and game and non-game.
The Refuge currently supports approximately 250 species of birds;
most notable are the huge wintering concentrations (November -
January) of 500,000 to 750,000 ducks and 200,000 geese. This is quite
a change, as historically the area supported many more geese than
ducks, but the advent of rice culture in the early 1900s helped shift
the balance. Raptor numbers swell as the waterfowl numbers
increase, including bald eagles and peregrine falcons. In addition,
shorebird numbers peak in the spring, while some waterfowl and
numerous migratory songbird species nest here during the summer.
The Refuge is also home to numerous rare, threatened or endangered
species, of which eight are federally listed; many of these are
associated with a special type of wetland called vernal pools. The
Chapter 1
12 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
alkali meadow and vernal pool habitats on the Refuge represent some
of the largest remaining areas of this habitat type in California.
The visitor center is located in the Refuge headquarters office.
Refuge staff is available to help plan a visit, answer questions and
assist visitors. Visitors can experience a wildlife diorama and
discovery room, and browse at our bookstore. Recreation activities on
the Refuge include hunting, wildlife observation, photography,
environmental education, and interpretation. There is a six-mile auto
tour with an interpretive radio broadcast and a two-mile walking
trail, which are open year-round. A multi-level viewing platform on
the auto tour gives a panoramic view of the Sacramento Valley and
provides visitors with opportunities to observe wildlife from among
the treetops. Two photography blinds are available by advance
reservation. Hunting of waterfowl, coot, common moorhen, snipe, and
pheasant is permitted on the southern portion of the Refuge on
Saturdays, Sundays, and Wednesdays during the legal seasons. The
hunt program is cooperatively managed with the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and offers spaced blind,
assigned pond, and free roam hunting opportunities via a permit
system.
8. Delevan National Wildlife Refuge
The Delevan Refuge was authorized in 1962 by the Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission, and purchased with funds made available
by the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act. The
Refuge was established to provide sanctuary for migratory birds. The
Refuge was formed by the purchase of two parcels, the 5,314-acre
Charles W. Welch Ranch in 1962 and 320 acres belonging to Jesse
Iverson in 1963. In 1991, the 80-acre Rennick property was
transferred from the Farmers Home Administration and is now
managed as part of Delevan Refuge. The last 163-acre parcel was
purchased from Florence Watt Trust in 1994 under the authority of
the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.
Similar to Sacramento Refuge, Delevan Refuge was created on an
open plain of short grasses, shrubs, and forbs known as the Colusa
Plains. This area has a gradual slope toward the Sacramento River to
the southeast. Much of the land was flooded during the winter, and at
one time there were even two lakes (Twin Lakes Gun Club) on the
Refuge area. These historic flood patterns continue today as a major
drain for the western Sacramento Valley, the Colusa Basin Drain
(2047). The Colusa Basin Drain runs along much of Delevan’s eastern
boundary, often resulting in significant annual flooding of the Refuge
from December through February.
Today, the Refuge consists of 5,877 acres (including the 80-acre
Rennick property) (Figure 1). It is comprised of a combination of
approximately 4,600 acres of managed wetlands (summer wetlands
and seasonally flooded wetlands) and approximately 984 acres of
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
unmanaged wetlands, grasslands, alkali meadows, vernal pools, and
riparian habitats. An endemic plant species, palmate-bracted bird’s-beak
is of particular interest in the alkali meadows. Listed as
endangered on both Federal and State lists, Delevan Refuge is home
to the largest remaining population, with an average annual
population of 150,000 to 200,000 plants.
Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak
Photo by Joe Silveria
Waterfowl numbers peak at nearly 415,000 ducks and over 150,000
geese. The tule white-fronted goose is especially important as their
Pacific Flyway population is small and a significant portion of the
population utilizes this Refuge during the fall and winter months. The
Refuge also supports significant breeding colonies of tricolored
blackbirds.
Public recreation activities include wildlife observation and
photography from perimeter roads. Hunting of waterfowl, coot,
common moorhen, snipe, and pheasant is permitted on the southern
portion of the Refuge on Saturdays, Sundays, and Wednesdays
during the legal seasons. The cooperatively managed hunt program
with the CDFG offers spaced hunt site, assigned pond, and free roam
hunting opportunities via a permit system.
9. Colusa National Wildlife Refuge
On December 5, 1944, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission
approved the purchase of the W.H. O’Hair tract containing 2,384
acres to create the Colusa Refuge. The purchase was made in 1945
with funds made available by the Migratory Bird Hunting and
Conservation Stamp Act.
On May 18, 1948, an Act of Congress (16 U.S.C. 695-695c, otherwise
known as the Lea Act) made provisions to fund, acquire, and maintain
wildlife management and control areas in the State of California. The
Lea Act targeted the problem of agricultural depredation and funds
were available for “the construction of dams, dikes, ditches, buildings,
and other necessary improvements and for the purchase, planting,
Chapter 1
14 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
growing, and harvesting of grains and other crops for the feeding of
waterfowl and other wildlife frequenting the localities where such
lands may be purchased or rented.” It also included provisions to
permit hunting.
By the authority, purpose, and funding under the Lea Act, additional
land was acquired for Colusa Refuge. On February 21, 1949, three
tracts of land (760 acres) belonging to Libbie Jacobson were
approved for purchase and acquired by the Refuge. Also under the
provisions of the Lea Act, the 337-acre Wallace R. Lynn tract, the
480-acre Charles L. Stone tract, and the 80-acre Joseph T. Garibaldi
tract were approved for purchase on April 27, 1949, February 19,
1952, and March 27, 1952 respectively.
The Refuge was established to provide sanctuary for migratory birds
and to alleviate crop depredation. Today, depredation problems have
decreased in magnitude due in part to reduced numbers of waterfowl,
changes in agricultural practices, and increases in wetland quality
and quantity.
From 1996 to 2002, an additional 646 acres were acquired under
North Central Valley Wildlife Management Area, and are managed
as part of the Refuge. Included in the 646 acres is a 448-acre parcel
located south of Abel Road and west of Ohm road that was acquired
in 1995, a 19-acre tract acquired in 1996, a 119-acre acquired in 2002,
and a 60-acre parcel acquired in 2006.
Today the Refuge consists of over 4,686 acres, which includes the 646
acres acquired via North Central Valley Wildlife Management Area
(Figure 1). It is comprised of approximately 3,347 acres of managed
wetlands (summer wetlands and seasonally flooded wetlands) and
approximately 1,191 acres of unmanaged wetlands, grasslands, alkali
meadows, vernal pools, and riparian habitats. The Refuge lies in the
Colusa Basin and is bisected by the Colusa Basin Drain, which drains
the Basin southeast to the Sacramento River. The low topography
and presence of the Colusa Basin Drain makes Refuge lands subject
to regular winter flooding.
Currently, peak numbers of waterfowl can
exceed 200,000 ducks and over 75,000
geese. In addition, significant numbers of
giant garter snakes (Federal-listed
threatened species) and palmate-bracted
bird’s-beak occur on the Refuge, as does
the second largest acreage of vernal pools
on the Complex.
Snow geese on Colusa Refuge
Photo by Mike Peters
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Public recreation activities include wildlife observation and
photography on a three-mile self-guided auto tour and a one-mile
walking trail along a riparian slough and wetland. The auto tour and
walking trail are open sunrise to sunset, year-round, with interpretive
panels and pamphlets available at a kiosk. A photography blind is
available by advanced reservation. Hunting of waterfowl, coot,
common moorhen, snipe, and pheasant is permitted on the southern
portion of the Refuge on Saturdays, Sundays, and Wednesdays
during the legal seasons. The cooperatively managed hunt program
with the CDFG offers both assigned pond and free roam hunting
opportunities via a permit system.
10. Sutter National Wildlife Refuge
On December 5, 1944, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission
approved the purchase of the 306-acre S.G. Harris tract. This land
was acquired on May 9, 1945, establishing the Refuge with funds
made available by the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation
Stamp Act. On December 5, 1944, approval was also given to
purchase 141 acres from the State of California, 205 acres from the
Sophie Davis Estates, and the 425-acre Grover C. Shannon tract.
Funds provided for by the Lea Act were used to acquire 522 acres
from Elizabeth P. Kilgarif in 1952 and 672 acres from the Sutter
Home Investment Company in 1953. The last 231 acres was
purchased from the State of California in 1956 with Lea Act funds.
The Refuge was established to provide sanctuary for migratory birds
and alleviate crop depredation. Today, depredation problems have
decreased due in part to reduced numbers of waterfowl, changes in
agricultural practices, and increases in wetland quality and quantity.
Sutter Refuge is the only refuge in the Complex with privately-owned
lands included within the approved acquisition boundary that have
not been acquired (Figure 1). While there are no current plans to
purchase these lands, the Service would consider it if the opportunity
arises.
Sutter Refuge is located in the Sutter Basin between the Sacramento
and Feather rivers (Figure 1). Historically, these rivers and Butte
Creek flooded the Sutter Basin during the winter and spring. In the
1920s, the Sutter Bypass levees were constructed to channel these
floodwaters. Over 80 percent of the Refuge lies within the northern
portion of the Bypass and gradually slopes to the south. When
floodwaters flow in the Bypass, the Refuge can be under at least 10
feet of water.
Sutter Refuge has 2,591 total acres, of which over 2,000
(approximately 80 percent) are located inside the Bypass. Habitat
types, both inside and outside the Bypass, consist of approximately
1,881 acres of seasonal and summer wetlands and approximately 674
acres of unmanaged wetlands, grasslands, and riparian habitats.
Chapter 1
16 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
Waterfowl numbers peak later than most other Refuges in the
Complex (January – February) and include nearly 73,000 ducks and
100,000 geese. In addition, its border
canals and associated riparian habitat
ensure Sutter Refuge has one of the
highest frequencies of yellow-billed
cuckoos (Federal candidate species) in
the Complex.
Public recreation activities on the
Refuge are limited to hunting of
waterfowl, coot, common moorhen,
snipe, and pheasant on the southern
portion of the Refuge on Saturdays,
Sundays, and Wednesdays during the
legal seasons. The cooperatively
managed hunt program with the CDFG
consists of free roam hunting
opportunities via a permit system.
White-faced ibis
Photo by Mike Peters
11. Refuge Purposes
The Service acquires Refuge System lands under a variety of
legislative acts and administrative orders. The official purpose or
purposes for a refuge are specified in or derived from the law,
proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation
document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing,
or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. The Service
defines the purpose of a refuge when it is established or when new
land is added to an existing refuge. These purposes, along with the
Refuge System mission, are the driving forces in developing refuge
vision statements, goals, objectives and strategies in the CCP. The
purposes also form the standard for determining if proposed refuge
uses are compatible.
The Refuge purposes are:
11.1. Sacramento Refuge Purposes
“... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and
other wildlife...” Executive Order 7562, February. 27, 1937.
“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other
management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d
(Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929).
“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as
endangered species or threatened species .... or (B) plants ...”
16 U.S.C. ¤ 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973).
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
“... suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented
recreational development, (2) the protection of natural
resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or
threatened species ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-1 “... the Secretary ...
may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may
be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive
covenants imposed by donors ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-2 (Refuge
Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended).
“... for the development, advancement, management,
conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources ...”
16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) “... for the benefit of the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and
services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any
restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude
...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).
11.2. Delevan Refuge Purpose
“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other
management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d
(Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929).
11.3. Colusa Refuge Purposes
“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other
management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d
(Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929).
“... for the management and control of migratory waterfowl
and other wildlife ...” 16 U.S.C. 695 (Lea Act of 1948).
“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as
endangered species or threatened species .... or (B) plants ...”
16 U.S.C. 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973).
11.4. Sutter Refuge Purposes
“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other
management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d
(Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929).
“... for the management and control of migratory waterfowl
and other wildlife ...” 16 U.S.C. 695 (Lea Act of 1948).
“... suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented
recreational development, (2) the protection of natural
resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or
threatened species ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-1 “... the Secretary ...
may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may
be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive
covenants imposed by donors ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-2 (Refuge
Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended).
Chapter 1
18 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
“... for the development, advancement, management,
conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources ...”
16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) “... for the benefit of the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and
services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any
restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude
...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).
12. The Refuges’ Vision
A vision statement is developed for each refuge or complex as part of
the CCP process. Vision statements are grounded in the unifying
mission of the Refuge System. They describe the desired future
conditions of the refuge unit in the long term (more than 15 years)
and are based on the refuge’s specific purposes, the resources
present on the refuge, and any other relevant mandates. This CCP
incorporates the following vision statement for the Sacramento,
Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter Refuges.
“Located in the Sacramento Valley of California, Sacramento,
Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges are
some of the most important wintering areas for waterfowl along
the Pacific Flyway and in North America. The Refuges’
wetland, vernal pool, alkali meadow, grassland, and riparian
communities will provide high-quality habitat for a diverse
array of wildlife species including migratory waterfowl,
shorebirds, birds of prey, and songbirds. These habitats will
also provide food, water, and cover for threatened and
endangered species including vernal pool plants and
invertebrates, and giant garter snakes.
Working with partners, the Refuges will provide a wide
range of environmental education programs and promote
high quality wildlife-dependent recreation in order to
maintain a refuge support base and attract new visitors.
Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities
for hunting, wildlife observation, photography,
environmental education, and interpretation will be
provided on the Refuges.”
13. Existing and New Partnerships
In Fulfilling the Promise (USFWS 1999c), the Service identified the
need to forge new and non-traditional alliances and strengthen
existing partnerships with States, Tribes, non-profit organizations,
and academia to broaden citizen and community understanding of
and support for the Refuge System. The Service recognizes that
strong citizen support benefits the Refuge System. Involving citizen
groups in resource and management issues and decisions helps
refuge managers gain an understanding of public concerns. Partners
yield support for refuge activities and programs, raise funds for
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
projects, are activists on behalf of wildlife and the Refuge System,
and provide support for important wildlife and natural resource
issues.
A variety of people including, but not limited to, scientists, birders,
hunters, farmers, outdoor enthusiasts and students are keenly
interested in the management of Complex, its fish and wildlife
species, and its plants and habitats. This interest is demonstrated by
the number of visitors the Refuges receive and the partnerships that
have already developed. We will continue to form new partnerships
with interested organizations, local civic groups, community schools,
Federal, State, and County governments, Tribes, and other civic
organizations. Refuge partners include: California Department of
Fish and Game, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey,
California Department of Water Resources, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation
District, Ducks Unlimited, California Waterfowl Association, Altacal
Audubon, California State University - Chico, Point Reyes Bird
Observatory, California Rice Commission, Kiwanis Club, Rotary
Club, and Butte Sink Waterfowlers Association.
14. Ecosystem Context
The Central Valley consists of four physiographic regions: the
Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, the Tulare Basin, and the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Warner and Hendrix 1985). The
Refuges are within the Service's Central Valley/San Francisco Bay
Ecoregion (Figure 2).
The Complex can be put into an ecosystem context on many levels,
including local, regional, national, international, or even global levels,
on the variety and abundance of certain species and their habitats,
extent of their range, or the geographic areas from or to which they
migrate. Migratory birds come from breeding areas as far away as
Siberia, Russia, Alaska, and the Canadian Arctic. Most spend the
winter here, while others continue as far south as Central America to
winter, only to pass through on their return trip in the spring.
Seasonal wetlands and other habitats at the Complex provide
essential food resources and resting areas for winter residents, birds
continuing south, and returning spring migrants building up body
reserves for their trip back to northern breeding areas.
The Central Valley of California supports the greatest number of
wintering waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway and is, one of the most
important wintering areas in North America (CVJV 2006). This level
of importance can also be applied to shorebirds and other waterbirds,
with several wetland areas in the Central Valley designated as those
of international importance. The Sacramento Valley, specifically, is
designated as a part of the Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve
Network (WHSRN). Seasonal wetlands at the Complex play a
significant role in supporting all migratory waterbird species in the
Valley. In some cases, the Complex alone may support the majority of
Chapter 1
20 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
the Pacific Flyway’s wintering waterfowl. For example, in mid-
October, 85 to 90 percent of the entire Pacific Flyway’s greater white-fronted
geese may be on the Complex (350,000-400,000 in some recent
years). The Complex has had peak duck numbers of over 2,000,000 in
years when California totals from mid-winter waterfowl surveys have
been three to four million, as indexed by the Mid-winter Indices.
While the Central Valley is also an important breeding area for
mallards and several other species of waterfowl and shorebirds, these
birds make up a relatively small percentage of the overall use of the
Complex on an annual basis.
On a more local level, the Complex supports a variety of resident,
migratory, and breeding wildlife species, native plants, and their
habitats. Some are quite common, both in the Central Valley, the
Flyway, and in North America. These would include a number of
egret and heron species, white-faced ibis, black-tailed deer, and a
variety of grassland and riparian birds. Other species are quite
restricted in range. For example, the tricolored blackbird, yellow-billed
magpie, and giant garter snake are species that occur almost
exclusively in the Central Valley of California. In 2004, a single
breeding colony of tricolored blackbirds on Delevan Refuge
represented a significant proportion of the entire valley population
and had the largest reproductive output of any colony of this species.
Yellow-billed magpie
Photo by Steve Emmons
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Figure 2. Ecosystem Map.
Chapter 1
22 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
Most of the alkali meadow, vernal pool, and short grassland habitats
that once extensively occurred on the Sacramento Valley floor have
been converted to agriculture or urban development. The Complex
protects some of the largest remaining blocks of these habitats. As a
result, the Complex supports a significant diversity and abundance of
endemic plant and animal resources. In many cases species are rare,
and in some cases, are listed as Federal and/or State endangered or
threatened. There are seven threatened or endangered species that
occur in vernal pool or alkali meadow habitats on the Complex,
including three vernal pool invertebrates and four plants. The vast
majority of the world’s population of palmate-bracted bird’s-beak, a
rare Central Valley endemic and federally endangered plant, occurs
on Delevan and Colusa Refuges. As habitat continues to dwindle with
the expanse of urban development, areas such as the Complex
become increasingly important to the conservation of these species.
Appendix K provides a complete list of species, describes their
migratory and breeding status at the Complex, and notes whether
they are listed as endangered or threatened.
In summary, the Complex plays a significant, and in some cases,
critical role at the ecosystem level. Its support of abundance,
diversity, or single species conservation makes it critically important
to conservation in general. Whether permanent or seasonal wetlands,
vernal pools or alkali meadows, just protecting these habitats is not
enough to maintain their function in the ecosystem. Without proper
management, most of these habitats would be consumed by an ever-growing
list of invasive species rendering them poor in both diversity
and productivity (see Chapter 3, for current management).
15. Conservation Priorities and Initiatives
The Service is actively involved in the development and
implementation of a number of conservation plans for migratory bird
species, including the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
(USFWS et al. 1986, 1998), Central Valley Joint Venture
Implementation Plan (CVJV 2006), Partners in Flight North
American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004), Riparian
Bird Conservation Plan (RHJV 2004), Draft Grassland Bird
Conservation Plan (CPIF 2000), United States Shorebird
Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001), Southern Pacific Coast
Regional Shorebird Plan (Hickey et al. 2003), North American
Waterbird Conservation Management Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002), Tri-colored
Blackbird Status Update and Management Guidelines (Beedy
and Hamilton 1997), Pacific Flyway Management Plan: Western
Management Unit Mourning Dove (Pacific Flyway Council 2003),
Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, and the California Wildlife
Action Plan (CDFG 2005c). Regional step-down plans specific to the
area are discussed in Appendix M.
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
16. Wilderness Review
As part of the CCP process, lands within the boundaries of the
Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter Refuges were reviewed for
wilderness suitability (Appendix O). No lands were found suitable for
designation as Wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter Refuges do not contain
5,000 contiguous roadless acres, nor do the Refuges have any units of
sufficient size to make their preservation practicable as Wilderness.
The Refuges’ lands have been substantially affected by humans,
particularly through agriculture and urban development. As a result
of the extensive modification of natural habitats and ongoing
manipulation of natural processes, adopting a wilderness
management approach for the Refuges would not facilitate the
restoration of a pristine or pre-settlement condition, which is a goal of
wilderness designation.
Pintails, snow and white-fronted geese at Sacramento Refuge (1941)
USFWS Photo
Chapter 1
24 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Chapter 2. The Planning
Process
1. Introduction
This CCP for the Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter Refuges
is intended to comply with the requirements of the Improvement Act
and the NEPA. Refuge planning policy guided the process and
development of the CCP, as outlined in Part 602, Chapters 1, 3, and 4
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
Service policy, the Improvement Act, and NEPA provide specific
guidance for the planning process, such as seeking public involvement
in the preparation of the EA. The development and analysis of
“reasonable” management alternatives within the EA include a “no
action” alternative that reflects current conditions and management
strategies on the Refuges. Management alternatives were developed
as part of this planning process and can be found in Appendix A:
Environmental Assessment.
The planning process for this CCP began in February 2005 with pre-planning
meetings and coordination. CCP teams were formed.
Initially, members of the Refuge staff and planning team identified a
preliminary list of issues, concerns, and opportunities that were
derived from wildlife and habitat monitoring and field experience
from the past management and history of the Refuges. Early in the
process, visitor services, especially hunting, were identified as
primary issues. This preliminary list was expanded during public
scoping and then refined and finalized through the planning process
to generate the vision, goals, objectives, and strategies for the
Refuges.
2. The Planning Process
Part of comprehensive conservation planning includes preparation of
a NEPA document. Key steps in the CCP planning process (Figure
3) and the parallel NEPA process include:
􀂄􈑐 Preplanning and Team formation
􀂄􈑐 Public Scoping
􀂄􈑉 Identifying issues, opportunities, and concerns
􀂄􈑄 Defining and revising vision statement and Refuge goals
􀂄􈑄 Developing and assessing alternatives
􀂄􈑉 Identifying the preferred alternative plan
􀂄􈑄 Draft CCP and EA
􀂄􈑒 Revising draft documents and releasing final CCP
􀂄􈑉 Implementing the CCP
􀂄􈑍 Monitoring / Feedback (Adaptive Management)
Chapter 2
26 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 3. The CCP Process.
3. Planning Hierarchy
The Service planning hierarchy that determines the direction of the
goals, objectives and strategies is a natural progression from the
general to the specific (Figure 4). Described as a linear process, the
planning hierarchy is, in reality, a multi-dimensional flow that is
linked by the Refuge purposes, missions, laws, mandates, and other
statutory requirements (Figure 5).
In practice, the process of developing vision, goals, and objectives is
repetitive and dynamic. During the planning process, or as new
information becomes available, the plan continues to develop.
Sora
Photo by Steve Emmons
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Figure 4. Hierarchical relationship of refuge goals and
objectives to other aspects of the planning process.
CCP scoping meeting in Yuba City, CA
Photo by Kipp Morrill
Fish and Wildlife Service Mission
􀂪􊨠
Refuge System Mission
􀂪􊨠
Refuge Purpose(s)*
􀂪􊨠
National and Regional Goals and Priorities
􀂪􊨠
Ecosystem Goals and Objectives
􀂪􊨠
Refuge Vision
􀂪􊨠
Goals
􀂪􊨠
Objectives
􀂪􊨠
Strategies
􀂪􊨠
Monitoring and Feedback
(Adaptive Management)
(*When in conflict, we give priority to Refuge
purpose(s) over the Refuge System mission.)
Chapter 2
28 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 5. Relationships between Service and other planning
efforts.
4. The Planning Team
The CCP process requires close teamwork with the staff, planners,
and other partners to accomplish the necessary planning steps, tasks,
and work to generate the CCP document and associated EA. The
planning team is responsible for the CCP’s content and will ensure
that, when implemented it will achieve the purposes of the Refuges
and help fulfill the Refuge System mission. Two teams were formed:
4.1. Core Team
The core team is responsible for the initiation and completion of all
planning steps, including public involvement and NEPA. The
members are responsible for researching and generating the
contents of the CCP document and participate in the entire planning
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
process. The team consists of a refuge planner, refuge managers,
biologists, and visitor services staff for the Complex (Appendix N).
The core team meets regularly to discuss and work on the various
steps and sections of the CCP. The team members also work
independently in producing their respective CCP sections, based on
their area of expertise. Multi-tasking by team members is a standard
requirement since work on the CCP occurs in addition to their
regular workload.
4.2. Expanded Team
The expanded team is the advisory and coordination forum of the
CCP. It is significant for these Refuges because of the history of
working in close partnership with other local, State, Federal, and
private agencies and organizations concerned with the Refuges in the
Complex. The expanded team is composed of the Core team, other
Service and Federal personnel, and California Department of Fish
and Game personnel who provide comments, discussion, and
coordination during the planning process (Appendix N).
5. Pre-Planning
Pre-Planning involved forming the planning teams, developing the
CCP schedule, and gathering data. The team determined procedures,
work allocations, and outreach strategies. The team also created a
preliminary mailing list.
6. Public Involvement in Planning
Public involvement is an important and necessary component of the
planning process. Public scoping meetings allow the Service to
provide updated information about the Refuge System and the
Refuges. Most important, these meetings allow the refuge staff to
hear public comments, concerns, and opportunities. These public
meetings provide valuable discussions and identify important issues
regarding the Refuge and the surrounding region.
The Service hosted public meetings in Willows, Colusa, and Yuba
City, California in July 2005 (Table 1). Each meeting began with a
presentation introducing the Refuges, provided an open forum for
public comment, and ended with a breakout session consisting of
various tables with refuge staff and information available to address
questions regarding Refuge management, wildlife and habitat, and
visitor services. In addition to comments made by participants and
noted on flip charts at the meetings, comments were also received by
written comment cards, email, faxes, and letters. These comments
were analyzed and used to further identify Refuge issues and revise
CCP goals, objectives, and strategies (Table 2).
Chapter 2
30 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
Table 1. Public Scoping Meetings.
Meeting Date Location Attendance
July 6, 2005 Willows, CA 9
July 12, 2005 Colusa, CA 13
July 14, 2005 Yuba City, CA 13
Table 2. Refuge Issues Identified Through Public Comment.
Refuge Issue Category Number of
Comments
Received (1)
Percentage of
Total Comments
Visitor Services 64 49%
Hunting 55 40%
Fishing 3 2%
Environmental
Education/Outreach
2 2%
Other Visitor Services 4 3%
Wildlife & Habitat 21 16%
Refuge Management 22 17%
Continue Current
Management
3 2%
Water Supply 3 2%
Refuge Management 12 10%
LE/Fire 4 3%
Flooding Issues 11 8%
Other Comments 13 10%
Total Comments (Total
Number of
People/Organizations
Commenting)
131 (46)
1 Total number of comments received is greater than the total
number of people commenting since each of the letters, emails, faxes,
comments cards, and flipchart comments received may contain more
than one comment.
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
7. Public Outreach
During the planning process, Refuge staff continued to actively
participate with the various working groups and agency teams
concerning the Complex. The staff also met with several special
interest and local groups to explain the planning process and to listen
to their concerns.
An information letter called a “Planning Update” was also mailed to
the public. These periodic publications were created to provide the
public with up-to-date Refuge information and progress on the CCP
process. The Planning Updates were also made available on the
Complex’s webpage, in the visitor center, and at various outreach
meetings. The EA (Appendix A) contains a list of individuals and
organizations that were notified or were sent a copy of the Draft
CCP, were sent planning updates, or attended scoping meetings.
8. Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Through the scoping process and team discussions, the planning team
identified issues, concerns, and opportunities. Thirty-five people
attended the three public scoping sessions held in July 2005. Forty-six
people/organizations provided 131 comments as of September
2005 (Table 2) for consideration in identifying issues and
opportunities for the CCP. The team categorized the comments into
five main areas of interest: visitor services, wildlife and habitat,
refuge management, flooding issues, and other comments. Visitor
services received the most comments (49 percent) followed by refuge
management (17 percent), wildlife and habitat (16 percent), other
comments (10 percent), and flooding issues (8 percent).
Of the sixty-four comments regarding visitor services, fifty-five were
about hunting. Many of the hunting comments urged the Service to
maximize the quantity and quality of hunting opportunities on the
Refuges. Some of these comments were very specific regarding how
the Refuges should change the hunting program, while others were
more general. Two comments stated hunting should not be allowed on
the Refuges and three stated fishing should be allowed on the
Refuges. There were two comments about environmental education
and outreach, and four about other visitor services.
The Refuge management category received twenty-two comments.
Three comments suggested that the Refuges continue with their
current management. Three comments expressed concern about
water supply for the Refuges and two comments expressed the need
for more law enforcement. One comment requested more prescribed
burning on the Refuges; however, one comment stated that the
prescribed burning program should be eliminated. Twelve other
comments were made ranging from assessing the impacts of
recreation on native flora and fauna to expanding the Refuges.
Chapter 2
32 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
CCP scoping meeting in Yuba City, CA
Photo by Kipp Morrill
Twenty-one comments regarding wildlife and habitat issues were
received. Several of the comments suggested increasing the
waterfowl production on the Refuges by providing more breeding
habitat in the closed areas. Several other comments expressed
concern with the declining pheasant numbers both on and off of the
Refuges. Several comments suggested leaving remnant stands of
cover in treated management units.
Sutter Refuge was the focus of the eleven flood-related comments.
Approximately 80 percent of the Refuge is located within the Sutter
Bypass. Sutter Bypass was built in the 1920s and is a dedicated flood
control channel. The concern expressed in the comments dealt with
the management of the vegetation on the Refuge. There was
apprehension that this vegetation may obstruct floodwater flows and
provide a safety concern to properties in Sutter, Colusa, and Yolo
counties.
The thirteen comments in the other comments category ranged from
suggesting that the Sacramento River Conservation Area Forum
landowner assurances policy be incorporated in the CCP to specific
topics to be covered in the CCP. Several comments suggested
referring to different plans and surveys for more information.
9. Development of the Refuge Vision
A vision statement is developed for each refuge or complex as part of
the CCP process. Vision statements are grounded in the unifying
mission of the Refuge System and describe the desired future
conditions of the refuge unit in the long term (more than 15 years).
They are based on the refuge’s specific purposes, the resources
present on the refuge, and any other relevant mandates. Please refer
to Chapter 1 for the Refuges’ vision statement.
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
10. Determining the Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
The purpose for creating the Refuges is established by law (Chapter
1, Section 11.1-11.4). The Improvement Act directs that the planning
effort develop and revise the management focus of the Refuge within
the Service’s planning framework, which includes: the Service
mission, the Refuge System mission, ecosystem guidelines, and
refuge purposes. This is accomplished during the CCP process
through the development of goals, objectives, and strategies.
10.1. Goals
The Service defines a goal as a “descriptive, open-ended, and often
broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a purpose,
but does not define measurable units” (602 FW 1 of the Service
Manual). Refuge goals are a means to achieving refuge purposes.
Goals translate to one or more objectives that define these conditions
in measurable terms. A well-written goal directs work toward
achieving a refuge’s vision and ultimately the purpose(s) of a refuge.
Collectively, a set of goals is a framework within which to make
decisions.
10.2. Interim Refuge Goals
The interim goals for Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter
Refuges (from 1996 Interim Goals) are:
􀂄􈑐 Provide habitat for migratory birds, particularly waterfowl
and other water birds.
􀂄􈑐 Provide habitat for and management of endangered,
threatened, or species of special concern.
􀂄􈑐 Protect and provide habitat for Neotropical migratory birds.
􀂄􈑐 Preserve a natural diversity and abundance of flora and
fauna.
􀂄􈑐 Provide opportunities for the understanding and appreciation
of wildlife ecology and the human role in the environment and
provide high-quality wildlife-dependent recreation and
education.
􀂄􈑃 Conduct and direct compatible, management-oriented
research.
􀂄􈑁 Alleviate crop depredation.
Through the CCP process these interim goals were evaluated and
revised and are detailed in Chapter 4.
10.3. Objectives, Rationale, and Strategies
Once the Refuge goals are reviewed and revised then various
objectives, a rationale, and strategies are determined to accomplish
each of the goals.
Objectives: The Service defines objectives as “a concise statement of
what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, when and
where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work”
(602 FW 1 of the Service Manual). Objectives are incremental steps
Chapter 2
34 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
we take to achieve a goal. They are derived from goals and provide a
foundation for determining strategies, monitoring refuge
accomplishments, and evaluating success. The number of objectives
per goal will vary. Where there are many, an implementation
schedule may be developed. All objectives must possess the following
five properties: specific, measurable, achievable, results-oriented, and
time-fixed.
Rationale: Each objective should document the rationale for forming
the objective. The degree of documentation will vary, but at a
minimum, it should include logic, assumptions, and sources of
information. This promotes informed debate on the objective’s
merits, provides continuity in management through staff turnover,
and allows reevaluation of the objective as new information becomes
available.
Strategy: The Service defines a strategy as “a specific action, tool,
technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to
meet unit objectives” (602 FW 1 of the Service Manual). Multiple
strategies can be used to support an objective.
Yellow warbler
Photo by Steve Emmons
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
11. Development of the Refuge Management Alternatives
Alternatives are “different sets of objectives and strategies or means
of achieving refuge purposes and goals, helping to fulfill the Refuge
System mission, and resolving issues” (602 FW 1 of the Service
Manual). The development of alternatives, assessment of their
environmental effects, and identification of the preferred
management alternative are fully described in the EA (Appendix A).
Alternatives were developed to represent reasonable options that
address the specific Refuge issues and challenges. A “no action” or
continuation of current management alternative is required by
NEPA. A range of other alternatives was studied and are described
in the EA (Appendix A). The alternatives are summarized below.
11.1. Alternative A: No Action
Under the Alternative A: No Action, the Refuges would continue to
be managed as it has in the recent past. Recent management has
followed existing step-down management plans:
􀂄􈑁 Annual Habitat Management Plans for Sacramento, Delevan,
Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
􀂄􈑆 Fire Management Plan for Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge
Complex
􀂄􈑉 Integrated Pest Management for Mosquito Control on
Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex
􀂄􈑓 Safety Plan
􀂄􈑃 Continuity of Operations Plan
􀂄􈑈 Hazardous Tree Removal Plan
The focus of the Refuges would remain the same: to provide habitat
and maintain current active management practices and continue to
manage and provide habitat for threatened and endangered species,
migratory and resident birds, and other wildlife. The Refuges would
continue to offer wildlife-dependant recreation opportunities
including hunting, wildlife observation, photography, environmental
education, and interpretation. Current staffing and funding levels
would remain the same.
11.2. Alternative B: Emphasize Biological Resources
Under this alternative, the Refuges would emphasize management
for biological resources. Biological opportunities would be maximized
to allow optimum wildlife and habitat management throughout the
majority of the Refuges. In addition, staffing and funding levels
would need to be redirected and increased substantially to implement
this alternative.
11.3. Alternative C: Proposed Action
Alternative C would achieve an optimal balance of biological resource
objectives and visitor services opportunities. Habitat management
and associated biological resource monitoring would be improved.
Visitor service opportunities would focus on quality wildlife-
Chapter 2
36 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
dependant recreation distributed throughout the Refuges. Staffing
and funding levels would need to be increased to fully implement this
alternative.
11.4. Alternative D: Emphasize Visitor Services
Under Alternative D, the Refuges would emphasize management for
visitor services. Wildlife-dependant recreational opportunities would
be expanded on the Refuges. However, staffing and funding levels
would need to be redirected and increased substantially to implement
this alternative.
12. Selection of the Proposed Action
The alternatives were analyzed in the EA (Appendix A) to determine
their effects on the Refuges environment. Based on this analysis, the
Service has selected Alternative C as the proposed action because it
best achieves the Refuges goals and purposes, as well as Refuge
System and Service missions.
Alternative C is founded upon the existing cooperative management
programs, with enhancements in habitat and monitoring programs
and an integration of a visitor services program that includes hunting,
wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and
interpretation. Cooperative management refers to the current
practice of working closely with State and other partners to provide
protected and enhanced habitat along with visitor service
opportunities on publicly owned properties. Please refer to Chapter
4, which describes this proposed management plan.
13. Plan Implementation
This Draft CCP and EA will be provided for public review and
comment. Comments received by the Service will be incorporated
where appropriate and perhaps result in modifications to the
preferred alternative or selection of one of the other alternatives.
The alternative that is ultimately selected will become the basis of
the ensuing Final CCP. This document then becomes the basis
for guiding management over the coming 15-year period. It will
guide the development of more detailed step-down management
plans for specific resource areas and will also underpin the annual
budgeting process for refuge operations and maintenance
(Chapter 5). Most importantly, it lays out the general approach to
managing habitat, wildlife, and people at the Sacramento,
Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter Refuges that will direct day-to-day
decision-making and actions.
A review of the CCP will take place approximately every five
years and the CCP will be updated every fifteen years.
Ash-throated flycatcher
Photo by Steve Emmons
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Chapter 3. The Refuge
Environment
1. Refuge Descriptions
1.1. Sacramento Refuge
Sacramento Refuge is the headquarters of the Complex and is located
in the Sacramento Valley of north-central California. The Refuge is
situated about 90 miles north of the metropolitan area of Sacramento
and six miles south of the town of Willows, population 6,000. The
Refuge consists of 10,819 acres in Glenn and Colusa counties.
The Refuge was established as a refuge for migratory birds and other
wildlife. Major objectives are to: provide feeding and resting habitat
for wintering waterfowl; provide habitat and manage for endangered,
threatened, or sensitive species of concern; preserve a natural
diversity and abundance of flora and fauna; provide an area for
compatible, management-oriented research; alleviate crop
depredation; and provide visitor service activities such as hunting,
wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and
interpretation.
The Refuge is divided into approximately 117 management units, and
managed wetlands comprise about 65 percent of the total acreage.
They consist of summer wetlands (permanent and semi-permanent
wetlands) and seasonally flooded wetlands (irrigated and non-irrigated
seasonally flooded wetlands). The remaining acreage is
comprised of unmanaged wetlands, alkali meadows, vernal pools,
grasslands, riparian forests, and other habitats.
The wetlands of the Central Valley are critical to waterfowl of the
Pacific Flyway (USFWS and Canadian Wildlife Service 1986).
Currently, about 44 percent of the Pacific Flyway’s waterfowl winters
in the Sacramento Valley. The Refuge typically supports wintering
waterfowl in excess of 680,000 ducks and 178,000 geese. As wetlands
of the Central Valley have been lost, the waterfowl resource has
become increasingly dependent upon the refuges of the Sacramento
Valley. To help support the abundance of waterfowl and other
wetland-dependent wildlife, the Complex’s habitat management
program is one of the most intensive in the Refuge System.
In addition to wintering waterfowl and associated resident, migratory
and breeding wildlife species, habitats of the Sacramento Refuge
support eight federally-listed threatened, endangered, or candidate
species. Sacramento Refuge is identified as a core area, with the
highest level of habitat protection–Priority 1–necessary for recovery
of vernal pool plant and animal species (USFWS 2005a). This is not
Chapter 3
38 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
surprising since some of the units at the Refuge form the largest,
relatively intact remnants of vernal pool and vernal pool-alkali
meadow complexes in the Colusa Basin. Priority 1 identifies localities
or species, which represent the rarest species/genetics, most unique
environmental/habitat conditions, and greatest threat of destruction
(USFWS 2005a). Priority levels ensure that Federal, State and local
agencies, which manage land, use their authorities to protect habitat
and provide for the recovery and conservation of species identified in
the recovery plan (USFWS 2005a). The recovery plan lists various
conservation planning tools and programs, which minimize and avoid
habitat loss, while others provide habitat and species occurrence
conservation incentives (USFWS 2005a).
The visitor services program offers a six-mile auto tour; a two-mile
walking trail; environmental education activities, presentations,
guided tours, videos/DVDs, bookstore, and wildlife exhibits at the
visitor center; interpretive kiosks with brochures; two photography
blinds; teacher assistance; volunteer program; and
waterfowl/pheasant hunting. The visitor center, six-mile auto tour
route, two-mile walking trail, and two photo blinds accommodate
more than 86,000 annual visits. Waterfowl, coot, common moorhen,
snipe, and pheasant hunting are permitted on Saturdays, Sundays,
and Wednesdays and account for about 7,600 visits annually.
1.2. Delevan Refuge
Delevan Refuge is situated about 80 miles north of the metropolitan
area of Sacramento and four miles east of the town of Maxwell,
population 1,500. The Refuge consists of 5,877 acres in Colusa
County.
Delevan Refuge was established in 1962 as a refuge and breeding
ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. Major objectives are to
provide feeding and resting habitat for wintering waterfowl; provide
habitat and manage for endangered, threatened, or sensitive species
of concern; preserve a natural diversity and abundance of flora and
fauna; alleviate crop depredation; and provide visitor service
activities such as hunting and wildlife observation.
Delevan Refuge is divided into approximately 67 management units,
and managed wetlands comprise about 78 percent of the total
acreage. They consist of summer wetlands and seasonally flooded
wetlands. The remaining acreage is comprised of unmanaged
wetlands, alkali meadows, vernal pools, grasslands, riparian forest,
and other habitats. The Refuge typically supports wintering
waterfowl in excess of 415,000 ducks and 150,000 geese.
The Refuge supports one of the largest known populations of
palmate-bracted birds-beak (Federal-listed endangered species) and
significant breeding colonies of tricolored blackbirds. Some of the
units on the Refuge form one of the largest relatively intact remnants
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
of the vernal pool and vernal pool-alkali meadow habitats that remain
in the Colusa Basin.
A limited visitor services program offers wildlife observation and
photography from adjacent county roads, including an undeveloped
Watchable Wildlife site on Maxwell Road adjacent to the Refuge’s
south boundary. Waterfowl, coot, common moorhen, snipe, and
pheasant hunting are permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, and
Wednesdays and account for about 6,900 visits annually.
White geese flying
Photo by Mike Peters
1.3. Colusa Refuge
Colusa Refuge is situated about 70 miles north of the metropolitan
area of Sacramento and one mile southwest of the town of Colusa,
population 5,500. The Refuge consists of 4,686 acres in Colusa
County.
Colusa Refuge was established in 1945 as a refuge and breeding
ground for migratory birds and other wildlife and to reduce damage
of agricultural crops caused by waterfowl. Major objectives are to
provide feeding and resting habitat for wintering waterfowl; provide
habitat and manage for endangered, threatened, or species of
concern; preserve a natural diversity and abundance of flora and
fauna; alleviate crop depredation; and provide visitor service
activities such as hunting, wildlife observation, photography,
environmental education, and interpretation.
Colusa Refuge is divided into approximately 59 management units,
and managed wetlands comprise about 71 percent of the total
acreage. They consist of summer wetlands and seasonally flooded
wetlands. The remaining acreage is comprised of unmanaged
wetlands, alkali meadows, vernal pools, grasslands, riparian, and
other upland habitats. The Refuge typically supports wintering
waterfowl in excess of 218,000 ducks and 113,500 geese.
Chapter 3
40 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
The Refuge supports one of the largest known populations of giant
garter snakes (Federal-listed threatened species) and palmate-bracted
birds-beak (Federal-listed endangered species). Some of the
units on the Refuge form one of the largest, relatively intact
remnants of the vernal pool and vernal pool-alkali meadow habitats
that remain in the Colusa Basin.
The visitor services program offers wildlife observation and
photography from a three-mile auto tour route, one-mile walking
trail, and one photography blind that supports 16,300 annual visits.
Waterfowl, coot, common moorhen, snipe, and pheasant hunting are
permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, and Wednesdays and account for
about 3,700 visits per year.
1.4. Sutter Refuge
Sutter Refuge is situated about 50 miles north of the metropolitan
area of Sacramento, 10 miles southwest of Yuba City, population
approximately 60,000, and five miles south of Sutter, population
approximately 2,900. The Refuge consists of 2,591 acres in Sutter
County.
The majority of the Refuge is located within the Sutter Bypass of the
Sacramento River Flood Control Project; an area dedicated to flood
water conveyance. The eastern levee of the Sutter Bypass is managed
by the Department of Water Resources. The western levee is
managed by Reclamation District 1660. Both levees are part of the
Sutter Bypass Wildlife Area managed by the California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG). The State of California Reclamation
Board holds easements within the Bypass portion of the Refuge. The
easements allow for the flow of floodwaters over the land and the
removal of vegetation that may be impeding floodwaters. Copies of
the specific easements are available for review at the Refuge
Headquarters.
Sutter Refuge was established in 1945 as a refuge and breeding
ground for migratory birds and other wildlife and to reduce damage
of agricultural crops caused by waterfowl. Major objectives are to:
provide feeding and resting habitat for wintering waterfowl; provide
habitat and manage for endangered, threatened, or species of
concern; preserve a natural diversity and abundance of flora and
fauna; alleviate crop depredation; and provide visitor service
activities, such as hunting and wildlife observation.
Sutter Refuge is divided into approximately 27 management units,
and managed wetlands comprise about 73 percent of the total
acreage. They consist of summer wetlands and seasonally flooded
wetlands. The giant garter snake (Federal-listed threatened species)
occurs on the Refuge primarily in the portion outside the Bypass. In
recent years, the Refuge has supported significant white-faced ibis
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
nesting colonies (5,000-15,000 birds). The Refuge typically supports
wintering waterfowl in excess of 73,000 ducks and 100,000 geese.
The remaining acres are in unmanaged wetlands, grasslands, riparian
forest, and other habitats. The riparian habitat provides habitat for a
variety of migratory songbirds, including the western yellow-billed
cuckoo (Federal candidate species, State-listed threatened species),
nesting Swainson’s hawks (State-listed species), and nesting
rookeries for great blue herons and great egrets.
A limited visitor service program offers hunting for waterfowl, coot,
common moorhen, snipe, and pheasant on Saturdays, Sundays, and
Wednesdays and account for approximately 2,100 visits annually.
2. Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
In the 1850s and 1860s, the area southeast of Willows, west of
Princeton, and north of Colusa (known as the Colusa Plains) was
characterized by alkali soil and sparse vegetation (Hinds 1952). These
areas were dry most of the year or sometimes for whole seasons, but
during major floods, were inundated and formed shallow lakes.
Before reclamation occurred along the river, about 60 percent of the
Sacramento Valley was subject to overflow, including basins, river
lands, and a considerable portion of
the low plains. The alkali plain was
dotted with vernal pools and lakes of
all sizes. These natural intermittent
wetlands provided feeding and
roosting habitat for many waterfowl.
Except for a few willow trees at a
watering hole near “the Willows,” the
area was characterized as an open,
wind-swept, alkali plain that
presented an almost unbearable
combination of summer heat and
drought and unpredictable winter
flooding.
Constructing delivery ditches at Sacramento Refuge (1938)
USFWS Photo
Winter wheat was introduced to the plains in the 1870s. Native
pasture and winter wheat provided prime winter and early spring
forage habitat for hundreds of thousands of small Canada geese.
These early farmers employed “goose herders” to haze geese off their
lands and keep them from devastating crops. The development of
irrigation systems brought rice agriculture to the Sacramento Valley
in the 1910s. Artesian wells were dug and surface water was diverted
from the Sacramento River. The conversion to rice attracted an
additional abundance of waterfowl to the plains and also resulted in
Chapter 3
42 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
increased numbers in late summer and fall months. Coastal wetland
loss during the same period likely contributed to this shift. Ducks
were especially problematic for rice farmers, as they fed in the fields
by the hundreds of thousands just prior to the harvest. Early
migrating ducks, especially pintails, would often flatten and eat up to
40 acres of rice in a single night (Neff et al. 1943).
The United States government purchased the Spalding Ranch in 1937
because it was “the most famous goose sanctuary on the West Coast.”
Sacramento Refuge was established to manage land and provide lure
crops for ducks that depredated neighboring rice fields. The Civilian
Conservation Corps established Camp Sacramento at the Refuge in
1937 and began wetland habitat construction that remains an
important feature of refuge management today (Hall 1975).
2.1. The Sacramento Valley Ecosystem
The Sacramento Valley forms the northern portion of the Great
Central Valley, also referred to as the Central Valley, a 400-mile
elongated depression that lies between the Coast Ranges and the
Sierra Nevada (Figure 2). The Central Valley is actually two large
valleys lying end to end, each drained by a major river. The
Sacramento Valley is drained southward by the Sacramento River
and the San Joaquin Valley, which forms the southern portion of the
Central Valley, is drained northward by the San Joaquin River. The
confluence of these two rivers occurs in the Delta area, east of San
Francisco Bay.
In its pristine state, the Central Valley was characterized by over 25
plant communities providing habitats for a great diversity of plants
and animals. These communities consisted of various riparian scrubs,
forests, woodlands and savannas; perennial grasslands; annual
wildflower fields; interior dune lands; vernal pools; alkali sinks,
meadows, and scrubs; and fresh and brackish water marshes. Central
Valley vegetation and habitats have been altered by human activity
more than any other geomorphic province. In 1987, a report for the
California Senate (Airola and Messick 1987) depicted that the valley
grassland community is more than 99 percent gone, the freshwater
marsh community is more than 94 percent gone, and the riparian
woodland is about 89 percent gone. Approximately 75 percent of all
vernal pools in the Central Valley were lost by 1997 (Holland 1998).
Early losses were primarily related to conversion to agriculture
croplands. More recent losses have been a result of conversion of
historic cattle grazing lands to other uses and widespread
urbanization (USFWS 2005a).
Non-native invasive species now dominate many natural vegetation
types and wildlife habitats throughout the Central Valley.
Agricultural developments, urban expansion, alteration of hydrologic
regimes and channelization, and introduced plants and animals have
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
all contributed to the destruction of native habitats (Gilmer et al.1982,
Katibah 1984).
In the Central Valley, about 250,000 acres of managed wetlands
remain, about a third of which are publicly owned. Two-thirds are
privately owned, mostly waterfowl hunting clubs. About 108,000 acres
of riparian habitat remain, much of it fragmented (CVJV 2006). A
major portion of the remaining vernal pool habitat is also privately
owned.
Despite the huge loss of wetlands, much of the agricultural
conversion around the Refuges and in the Sacramento Valley has
been to rice. While not as productive or diverse as natural or
managed wetlands, rice is generally wildlife-friendly relative to many
other crop types (i.e. cotton or other row crops). Waste grain and
other prey items in rice fields play a major role in the carrying
capacity of current waterfowl and other waterbirds in the Central
Valley (CVJV 2006). There is about 500,000 acres of rice in the
Central Valley; most of it is in the Sacramento Valley and currently,
about 70 percent is purposely flooded during winter months for
stubble management and waterfowl hunting (CVJV 2006). Migratory
birds and a number of other wildlife commonly spend time both on
Refuges and nearby privately owned rice fields, often on a daily basis.
3. Physical Environment
3.1. Climate and Air Quality
The climate of California’s northern Central Valley is classified as
Mediterranean, with cool, wet winters and hot, dry summers. The
annual average precipitation is 16-18 inches. Heavy fog is common
during the winter months, while thunderstorms, hail, and snow are
rare occurrences. The mean annual temperature is 61.7°F with
extremes of 118°F and 15°F. The south winds are associated with
storms in the winter and cooling trends in the summer. North winds
are usually dry following winter storms, and hot and dry in the
summer.
The Refuges are in California’s Sacramento Valley Air Basin. The
Sacramento Valley Air Basin encompasses 15,043 square miles
including Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sacramento, Shasta, Sutter, Tehama,
Yolo, and Yuba counties, the western urbanized portion of Placer
County, and the eastern portion of Solano County. The Glenn County
Air Pollution Control District, Colusa County Air Pollution Control
District, and the Sutter County Air Pollution Control District are the
agencies responsible for ensuring compliance with Federal and State
air quality standards in the basin where the Refuges are located.
The Federal and State governments have each established ambient
air quality standards for several pollutants. Most standards have
been set to protect public health. However, standards for some
Chapter 3
44 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
pollutants are based on other values, such as protecting crops and
materials, and avoiding nuisance conditions. Currently, Sutter
County is federally classified as a non-attainment area for ground-level
ozone. A non-attainment area is defined as any area that does
not meet ambient air quality standards for a pollutant. In addition,
Glenn, Colusa, and Sutter counties are classified by the State of
California as non-attainment areas for ozone and particulate matter
at the 10-micron level or smaller (PM10) standards. In fact, only
three counties in the entire State are not classified as non-attainment
areas for PM10. Classification as a non-attainment area means that
the State must develop an implementation plan to outline methods for
reaching identified air quality standards. Permitting, scheduling, and
restrictions on some activities may be required. Currently, individual
counties require smoke management plans and limit acreage burned
on prescribed burns conducted by the Complex.
Ozone, the main component of photochemical smog, is
formed through a complex series of chemical
reactions between reactive organic gasses (ROG) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx). On-road motor vehicles and
other mobile sources are the largest contributors to
NOx emissions in the Sacramento Valley. On-road
motor vehicles, area-wide sources, and stationary
sources are significant contributors to ROG
emissions. Once formed, ozone remains in the
atmosphere for 1 or 2 days. As a result, ozone is a
regional pollutant and often impacts a large area.
Ozone’s main effects include damage to vegetation,
chemical deterioration of various materials, and
irritation and damage to the human respiratory
system.
Red-tailed hawk
Photo by Steve Emmons
PM10 is produced by stationary point sources such as fuel
combustion and industrial processes; fugitive sources, such as
roadway dust from paved and unpaved roads; wind erosion from open
land; and transportation sources, such as automobiles. The primary
sources of PM10 in the Sacramento Valley are fugitive dust from
paved and unpaved roads and agricultural operations, and smoke
from residential wood combustion and seasonal agricultural burning.
Soil type and soil moisture content are important factors in PM10
emissions. Federal and State PM10 standards are designed to
prevent respiratory disease and protect visibility.
Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than
others. Locations, such as schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes,
are labeled sensitive receptors because their occupants are more
susceptible to respiratory infections and other air quality-related
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
health problems than the general public. Residential areas are also
considered to be sensitive receptors because residents tend to be
home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to
any pollutants present.
3.2. Water Supply
There are two main water sources used to manage the Sacramento,
Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter Refuges’ wetland habitat base. The
majority of the water used throughout the year is delivered from the
Sacramento River from the Bureau of Reclamation’s (BOR) Central
Valley Project (CVP). In addition, there are some riparian water
rights that allow a refuge to divert specific amounts of water from
creeks and tributaries during certain times of the year. There has
been very little use of ground water on the Refuges, other than
domestic wells. All water sources depend largely upon gravity flow
and are distributed and impounded via a series of delivery and
drainage ditches, levees, and water control structures.
The water supply is probably best described in relation to the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), which instituted major
changes to the Refuges’ water supply.
In October of 1992, the CVPIA (Public Law 102-575) was passed into
law. The purposes of the Act include addressing the impacts of the
CVP on fish, wildlife and associated habitats. The Act directed that
water, in amounts equal to the Level 2 and increasing to the Level 4
water supplies identified in the “Report on Refuge Water Supply
Investigations,” be made available year-round to refuges in
California’s Central Valley (BOR 1989). Level 2 is the firm water
supply historically required for existing habitat management, while
Level 4 is the increased amount of water needed for full habitat
development. These amounts are described in Table 3. The increased
volume between Level 2 and Level 4 supplies was to come from
annual increases, in 10 percent increments, until Level 4 supplies
were reached (CVPIA, Title 34 Public Law 102-575). While these
water amounts are allotted by refuge and totaled by month, the Act
allows for water redistribution both between months and among
refuges, in order to respond to specific annual habitat management
program needs.
Table 3. CVPIA Water Supplies for each of the Refuges.
Refuge Level 2 (acre feet) With Level 4
(acre feet)
Sacramento 46,400 50,000
Delevan 21,950 30,000
Colusa 25,000 25,000
Sutter 23,500 30,000
Chapter 3
46 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
3.2.1. Pre - CVPIA
Prior to October 1992, the Complex had no firm water supply. Water
was provided to Sacramento, Delevan, and Colusa Refuges by BOR,
via facilities of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID), on an “as
available” basis. While most years saw adequate amounts delivered,
the Refuges often suffered from lack of water availability from late
November through early April, as GCID shut down for canal
maintenance. Absent adequate rainfall, many Refuge wetlands would
begin to go dry in early December. In the mid-1980's, BOR began
construction of a cross-tie from Stony Creek to the Tehama-Colusa
Canal to divert 80 cubic feet per second (cfs) to meet water contract
demands from other irrigation districts. The Sacramento Refuge was
promised utilization of any or all of this 80 cfs pending other current
requests. The endangered listing of the winter-run Chinook salmon in
the Sacramento River shut down any water deliveries via the
Tehama-Colusa Canal, thereby eliminating any possibilities for
winter water for the Refuges.
Additional problems involving endangered Chinook salmon existed at
the point of water diversion. GCID diverts water from the
Sacramento River via lift pumps near Hamilton City at a time when
emigrating salmon fry could be impacted by an unscreened or poorly
screened diversion. As a result, in the late 1980s and early 1990s,
GCID completed extensive work to improve the efficiency of their
fish screens at the Hamilton City pumping plant.
On their return migration, adult salmon
also encounter problems resulting from
the redistributed nature of Valley water
supplies derived from the Sacramento
River. Salmon mistakenly enter the
Colusa Basin Drain (2047) at its point of
contact with the Sacramento River near
Knights Landing, and proceed up the
many tributaries in search of their
spawning areas. As a result, each fall
these “lost salmon” are observed in the
Refuge portions of creeks and ditches
that eventually lead to the Colusa Basin
Drain.
Northern shoveler
Photo by Mike Peters
Sacramento Refuge
Historically, the Sacramento Refuge had a contract with GCID for
gravity flow delivery of up to 50,000 acre-feet of BOR CVP water.
Allowing for a 20 percent conveyance loss, the actual amount of CVP
water that was available to the Refuge was 37,000 acre-feet annually.
In addition to this delivered water supply, the Sacramento Refuge
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47
also had four appropriative licenses to divert a total of 60 cfs for
irrigation and/or wildlife purposes on 4,575 acres. Two ground water
wells were located along the northwest boundary, of which one
continues to be available, if needed.
Delevan Refuge
Other than the gravity flow of delivered surface water, Delevan
Refuge has no additional sources of water.
Colusa Refuge
Colusa Refuge utilized three lift pumps to secure GCID water from
the Colusa Basin Drain, and one lift pump to utilize water delivered
by GCID. In addition, the Refuge employed riparian licenses to
supply up to 25-30 percent of the surface water used during an annual
habitat management cycle. One groundwater well, located along the
west boundary at the northwest corner of Tract 10, was used
sparingly to supplement the water supply in the main canal.
Sutter Refuge
The Refuge has two appropriative licenses to divert water for
irrigation and wetland purposes. They allowed diversion of 25 cfs and
5 cfs from the east Bypass channel and the water was utilized to
supply habitat needs on Refuge lands inside the Sutter Bypass.
Approximately 335 acres of wetland habitat is located outside of the
Sutter Bypass. An agreement with the Sutter Extension Water
District provided water for this area via gravity and a low-lift pump
adjacent to Tract 20.
3.2.2. Post - CVPIA
Many of the uncertainties related to the water supply for
Sacramento, Delevan, and Colusa Refuges were eliminated with the
authorization of the CVPIA. Not only was a firm water supply
created, the annual Level 2 allotments can not be decreased by more
than 25 percent, even during drought (“critically dry”) years. In
addition, the Act required BOR to pay for the water, deliver it to the
Refuge boundary, and the water was to be made available year-round.
In order to accomplish this, BOR entered into a long-term
contract with GCID for water delivery to Sacramento, Delevan, and
Colusa Refuges.
Each year the Complex provides BOR with the anticipated water
needs. Since CVPIA’s authorization, only Level 2 water has been
used on Sacramento and Colusa Refuges. On Delevan Refuge, some
Level 4 water has been required to meet habitat management
objectives. Based on experience, the Refuges continued to modify the
amount, timing, and delivery points of anticipated water needs. To
date, no CVPIA water has been delivered to Sutter Refuge, primarily
due to the lack of a means for conveyance.
Chapter 3
48 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges
Sutter Refuge uses 1933 Funds (CVPIA) to pay for all water and
pumping expenses annually (approximately $10,000 for 335 acres).
In order to implement CVPIA, many improvements have been made,
including modifications to GCID facilities that allowed year-round
Refuge water delivery to begin in 2000.
A series of meters were installed on all three Refuges to measure the
amounts of water delivered.
As required by the CVPIA, Water Management Plans were
completed for Sacramento, Delevan, and Colusa Refuges in 2005
(Appendix I). These five-year plans document water use, identify
water supply system needs, and outline steps required to improve
both the efficiency and quantity of water used.
3.3. Contaminants and Water Quality
As environmental awareness grew, impacts to water quality became a
major focus throughout the United States. In California, probably
nowhere was this more evident than in the San Joaquin Valley,
especially with selenium concerns at Kesterson
Refuge.
In the Sacramento Valley, due to the lack of a
secure water supply, Refuges often utilized drain
water from surrounding agricultural and urban
lands to flood and maintain wetland habitats. Even
delivered water from local irrigation districts had
often previously been used “upstream,” most
commonly for growing rice.
Pied-billed grebe and chick
Photo by Mike Peters
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) initiated a
selenium verification study in 1985 (White et al. 1987). They
concluded that selenium concentrations in water and fish occurred at
less than harmful levels in the Sacramento Valley. Fish kills in the
Colusa Basin Drain during the early 1980’s indicated high
concentrations of molinate and the herbicide thiobencarb (associated
with rice farming practices) in fish and water samples collected
throughout the agricultural drains and in the Sacramento River
downstream of drain inflow. California’s Department of Pesticide
Regulation implemented the Rice Pesticide Program in 1983, which
established performance goals for molinate and thiobencarb in 1990
and the insecticides methyl parathion and malathion beginning in
1991. County agricultural commissioners, with the use of restricted
materials permits, implemented program requirements for molinate,
thiobencarb, methyl parathion, and malathion in 2001.
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49
Water quality and potential contaminants were also a concern on the
Complex. To further address these concerns, a collaborative study
was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation entitled “Reconnaissance
Investigation of Water Quality, Bottom Sediment, and Biota
Associated with Irrigation Drainage in the Sacramento National
Wildlife Refuge Complex, California, 1988-89” (Dileanis et al. 1992).
The report concluded, “there is some degradation of water quality
related to agricultural drainage in the region, and elevated
concentrations of some chemical constituents were detected in water,
sediment, and biological samples. These elevated concentrations were
only slightly greater than Service guidelines for possible effects on
wildlife.” Of greatest interest were the DDT family of organochlorine
compounds detected in all bottom-sediment samples from canals
containing drain water; the DDE content of white-faced ibis and
black-crowned night herons (Colusa Refuge); and the thiocarbamate
herbicide molinate (rice field use) that was detected in all 21 samples
(one exceeding the State of California guideline for the protection of
aquatic habitat) timed to coincide with peak spring water releases.
In addition, a number of ground water wells, both those already in
existence in the 1980s (especially at Sutter Refuge) and BOR
exploratory test wells completed in the early 1990s (Sacramento
Refuge), documented water contamination with arsenic, cadmium,
mercury, and boron exceeding recommended limits.
Beginning in 2005 the Complex began membership/participation in
two groups (Colusa Basin Subwatershed Program and Butte-Yuba-
Sutter Water Quality Coalition) of the Sacramento Valley Water
Quality Coalition. These groups provide water quality monitoring
required by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board’s Irrigated Lands Conditional Waiver Program. The program
requires anyone owning lands that have irrigation return water
and/or storm water runoff leaving their lands to complete water
quality monitoring. To date, no water quality problems related to the
Refuges have been documented.
Most recently, in early 2006, methyl mercury associated with
seasonal wetlands has become an increased concern.
3.4. Geology, Hydrology, and Soils
The area between Willows and Knights Landing is underlain by
sedimentary and volcanic deposits associated with the Tehama,
Tuscan, Red Bluff, and Riverbank formations. On top of these
formations lie younger fan deposits of the Modesto formation, as well
as basin, marsh, and floodplain alluvial deposits associated with the
Sacramento River and North Coast Range streams (Harwood and
Helley 1982; Helley and Harwood 1985).
Chapter 3
50 Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wil