Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Sacramento River
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
July 2004
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management
decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge
purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are substantially above current budget allocations and, as
such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes.
The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and
maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Cover photo by Greg Golet
Sacramento River
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment
Vision Statement
“The Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge will create a
linked network of up to 18,000 acres of floodplain forests,
wetlands, grasslands, and aquatic habitats stretching over 100
miles from Red Bluff to Colusa. These refuge lands will fulfill the
needs of fish, wildlife, and plants that are native to the
Sacramento River ecosystem. Through innovative revegetation,
the Refuge will serve as an anchor for biodiversity and a model
for riparian habitat restoration throughout the Central Valley.
We will forge habitat, conservation, and management links with
other public and private conservation land managers.
The Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge is committed to
the preservation, conservation, and enhancement of a quality
river environment for the American people along the
Sacramento River. In this pursuit, we will work with partners to
provide a wide range of environmental education programs and
promote high quality wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities to build a refuge support base and attract new
visitors. Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, environmental education and interpretation will
be provided on the Refuge.
Just as the floodplain along the Sacramento River has been
important to agriculture, it is also an important natural
corridor for migratory birds, anadromous fish, and threatened
and endangered species. Encouraging an understanding and
appreciation for the Sacramento River will be a focus of the
Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge for generations to
come.”
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
California/Nevada Refuge Planning Office
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-1916
Sacramento, CA 95825
July, 2004
Illustration by Jennifer Isola
I
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background .................................... 1
Introduction....................................................................................... 1
Need for This CCP........................................................................... 3
Legal and Policy Guidance.............................................................. 3
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service................................................ 6
The National Wildlife Refuge System........................................... 6
The Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex .................. 7
The Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge........................ 8
Refuge Units ............................................................................... 12
Land Acquisition......................................................................... 12
Oil and Gas Extraction .............................................................. 12
Refuge Purposes............................................................................. 13
The Refuge Vision .......................................................................... 14
Existing and New Partnerships ................................................... 15
Ecosystem Context ........................................................................ 18
Threats and Opportunities ............................................................ 22
Conservation Priorities and Initiatives ....................................... 25
Wilderness Review......................................................................... 26
Refuge River Jurisdiction ............................................................. 27
Chapter 2. The Planning Process.................................................. 31
Introduction..................................................................................... 31
The Planning Process .................................................................... 32
Planning Hierarchy........................................................................ 33
The Planning Team ........................................................................ 33
Core Team................................................................................... 33
Expanded Team.......................................................................... 34
Pre-Planning ................................................................................... 35
Public Involvement in Planning ................................................... 35
Public Outreach .............................................................................. 37
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities........................................... 37
Development of the Refuge Vision .............................................. 38
Determining the Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies..... 38
Goals ............................................................................................. 38
Objectives, Rationale, and Strategies ..................................... 39
Development of the Refuge Management Alternatives ........... 40
Alternative A: No Action........................................................... 40
Alternative B: Optimize Habitat Restoration and Public Use
(Proposed Action) ....................................................................... 40
Alternative C: Accelerated Habitat Restoration and
Maximize Public Use.................................................................. 41
Selection of the Refuge Proposed Action.................................... 41
Plan Implementation ..................................................................... 41
Chapter 3. The Refuge Environment ........................................... 43
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting .................................................... 43
The Sacramento River Ecosystem .......................................... 43
II
Physical Environment ....................................................................46
Climate and Air Quality .............................................................46
Geology, Hydrology, and Soils ..................................................48
Contaminants and Water Quality .............................................49
Biological Resources.......................................................................49
Vegetation ....................................................................................49
Agricultural..................................................................................50
Riparian Habitats........................................................................51
Fish and Wildlife .........................................................................54
Social and Economic Environment...............................................67
Transportation.............................................................................67
Employment.................................................................................67
Local Economy............................................................................68
Land Use and Zoning .................................................................69
Demographics..............................................................................69
Cultural Resources .........................................................................70
Public Use.........................................................................................72
Trends...........................................................................................72
Environmental Education..........................................................75
Interpretation ..............................................................................75
Refuge Unit Descriptions ..............................................................75
La Barranca .................................................................................75
Blackberry Island .......................................................................76
Todd Island ..................................................................................76
Mooney .........................................................................................77
Ohm...............................................................................................77
Flynn.............................................................................................78
Heron Island ................................................................................81
Rio Vista .......................................................................................81
Foster Island ...............................................................................84
McIntosh Landing North...........................................................84
McIntosh Landing South ...........................................................84
Capay ............................................................................................87
Phelan Island ...............................................................................90
Jacinto...........................................................................................90
Dead Man’s Reach ......................................................................90
North Ord.....................................................................................91
Ord Bend ......................................................................................91
South Ord .....................................................................................91
Llano Seco Riparian Sanctuary and Islands 1 and 2 .............93
Hartley Island .............................................................................93
Sul Norte ......................................................................................96
Codora...........................................................................................96
Packer ...........................................................................................98
Head Lama...................................................................................98
Drumheller Slough......................................................................99
Chapter 4. Current Refuge Management and Programs.......101
Habitat Management....................................................................101
III
Water Management ................................................................. 101
Riverbank Management.......................................................... 102
Control of Invasive Exotic Species ........................................ 102
Mosquitoes................................................................................. 104
Vegetation Management ......................................................... 104
Habitat Restoration ................................................................. 107
Fish and Wildlife Management .................................................. 108
Migratory Bird Management ................................................. 109
Threatened and Endangered Species Management ........... 109
Fisheries Management............................................................ 112
Game Management .................................................................. 113
Monitoring, Research, and Investigations............................ 114
Wildlife Disease Monitoring and Treatment........................ 115
Other Wildlife Management Activities...................................... 115
Cooperation with Adjacent Landowners .................................. 115
Fire Prevention and Hazard Reduction.................................... 116
Law Enforcement and Resource Protection ............................ 117
Cultural Resource Management ................................................ 118
Facilities Maintenance................................................................. 118
Safety.............................................................................................. 119
Visitor Programs and Facilities ................................................. 119
Environmental Education....................................................... 120
Fishing ....................................................................................... 120
Outreach .................................................................................... 121
Refuge Fee Program ............................................................... 121
Hunting...................................................................................... 121
Chapter 5. Planned Refuge Management and Programs ..... 123
Overview of Refuge Management Goals, Objectives, and
Strategies....................................................................................... 123
Organization .................................................................................. 124
Refuge Management Goals, Objectives, and Strategies......... 124
Goal 1: Wildlife and Habitat.................................................... 124
Goal 2: Visitor Services............................................................ 147
Goal 3: Partnerships................................................................. 163
Goal 4: Resource Protection.................................................... 166
Chapter 6 Management Plan Implementation........................ 175
Implementation............................................................................. 175
Funding & Staffing ...................................................................... 175
Step-Down Management Plan Summaries............................... 180
Hunting Plan (Appendix C) .................................................... 180
Fishing Plan (Appendix D) ..................................................... 181
Fire Management Plan (Appendix E)................................... 181
Draft Integrated Pest Management Plan (Appendices P& Q)182
Habitat Management Plan...................................................... 182
Cultural Resource Management Plan ................................... 183
Restoration and Enhancement Plan...................................... 183
Compatibility Determinations (Appendix B) ........................... 183
Compliance Requirements .......................................................... 184
IV
Monitoring and Evaluation..........................................................184
Adaptive Management .................................................................185
CCP Plan Amendment and Revision..........................................185
Figures
Figure 1. Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge ...............2
Figure 2. Watershed/Ecosystem Setting ....................................19
Figure 3. Life History Characteristics of Four Races of
Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley of California..........21
Figure 4. Riparian Bird Focal Species.........................................22
Figure 5. Potential Effects of Altered Hydrology on Breeding
Bird Populations......................................................................24
Figure 6. Contributing Factors for the Decline in Anadromous
Salmonids of the Pacific. ........................................................25
Figure 7. The CCP Process ...........................................................32
Figure 8. Relationships between Service, System and other
planning efforts. ......................................................................34
Figure 9. Typical Plant Communities and Successional Stages
on the Sacramento River........................................................45
Figure 10. Typical Life Cycle of Anadromous Salmonids.........59
Figure 11. Map of La Barranca, Blackberry Island, Todd Island
and Mooney units of Sacramento River Refuge.................79
Figure 12. Map of Ohm and Flynn units of Sacramento River
Refuge.......................................................................................80
Figure 13. Map of Heron Island Unit of Sacramento River
Refuge.......................................................................................82
Figure 14. Map of Rio Vista Unit of Sacramento River Refuge.
....................................................................................................83
Figure 15. Map of Foster Island Unit of Sacramento River
Refuge.......................................................................................85
Figure 16. Map of McIntosh Landing North and South units of
Sacramento River Refuge......................................................86
Figure 17. Map of Pine Creek Unit of Sacramento River
Refuge.......................................................................................88
Figure 18. Map of Capay and Phelan Island units of
Sacramento River Refuge......................................................89
Figure 19. Map of Jacinto, Dead Man’s Reach, North Ord, Ord
Bend, and South Ord units of Sacramento River Refuge. 92
Figure 20. Map of Llano Seco Island 1 and 2 and Llano Seco
Riparian Sanctuary of Sacramento River Refuge..............94
Figure 21. Map of Hartley Island Unit of Sacramento River
Refuge.......................................................................................95
Figure 22. Map of Sul Norte, Codora, Packer and Head Lama
units of Sacramento River Refuge........................................97
Figure 23. Map of Drumheller Slough Unit of Sacramento
River Refuge..........................................................................100
V
Figure 24. Potential Public Use / Biological Activity Time
Frames....................................................................................150
Figure 25. Sacramento River Refuge Public Use Sign............152
Figure 26. Public Use Sign Placement.......................................152
Figure 27. Map of Visitor Services Alternative B ....................171
Tables
Table 1. Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge: Location
and Size, May 20041.................................................................10
Table 2. Partnerships in habitat acquisition, restoration, and
management.............................................................................17
Table 3. Public Scoping Meetings .................................................36
Table 4. Refuge Issues Identified Through Public Comment ..36
Table 5. Special status wildlife species occurring or potentially
occurring at Sacramento River Refuge................................61
Table 6. Ranks of three wildlife dependent activities (EDAW
Table 4.2-5). ..............................................................................73
Table 7. Habitat restoration and management for selected
special status wildlife species occurring or potentially
occurring at Sacramento River Refuge..............................110
Table 8. Anticipated Restoration and Public Use Matrix........129
Table 9.California Hunting Seasons 2003-2004.........................149
Table 10. Maintenance Management System Backlog for
Sacramento River Refuge. ...................................................176
Table 11. RONS Project Summary for Sacramento River
National Wildlife Refuge 2003.............................................177
Table 12. Staffing Plan..................................................................179
VI
Appendices
Appendix A Environmental Assessment
Appendix B Compatibility Determinations
Appendix C Hunting Plan
Appendix D Fishing Plan
Appendix E Fire Management Plan
Appendix F Biological Assessment
Appendix G Species Lists
Appendix H Glossary
Appendix I Bibliography / References / Citations
Appendix J Consultation and Coordination with Others
Appendix K List of Planning Team Members and
Preparers
Appendix L Rationale for Public Use Determinations
Appendix M Local Land Use Policies that Relate to
Refuge Management
Appendix N Referenced Tables from the Public Use
Tables
Appendix O Monitoring & Research Investigations at
Sacramento River Refuge
Appendix P Draft Integrated Pest Management Plan for
Mosquito Control
Appendix Q Draft Integrated Pest Management Plan for
Walnut Production
Acronyms
ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AHPA Archaeological and Historic
Preservation Act
ARPA Archaeological Resources
Protection Act
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CCP Comprehensive Conservation
Plan
CDFG California Department of Fish
and Game (also, DFG)
CDPR California Department of Parks
and Recreation
CSU Chico California State University at
Chico
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWA California Waterfowl Association
DFG California Department of Fish
and Game (also, CDFG)
VII
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
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(also, Service)
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Global Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997
IPM Integrated Pest Management
LWD Large Woody Debris
MMS Maintenance Management System
MDN Marine Derived Nitrogen
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NEPA National Environmental Policy
Act
NOAA National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
NWR National Wildlife Refuge
NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System
PRBO PRBO Conservation Science
PUP Pesticide Use Permit
RMIS Refuge Management Information
System
RP River Partners
RONS Refuge Operating Needs System
Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(also, FWS)
SoC Species of Concern
SRA Shaded Riverine Aquatic habitat
SRCAF Sacramento River Conservation
Area Forum
SUP Special Use Permit
T&E Threatened and Endangered
Species
TNC The Nature Conservancy
UC Davis University of California at Davis
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Service
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
Chapter 1. Introduction and
Background
Introduction
The Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is located
in the Sacramento Valley of north-central California and was
proposed to acquire 18,000 acres from Red Bluff to Colusa. The
Refuge currently meanders along 77 miles of California’s largest
waterway, the Sacramento River, between Red Bluff and Princeton
(Figure 1). Its many units are located along both sides of the river
and serve to protect and provide a wide variety of riparian habitats
for birds, fish, and other wildlife. The Refuge is one of many partners
protecting and restoring riparian habitat along the Sacramento River
and its watershed.
This document is a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
designed to guide management of the Refuge for the next 15 years.
Guidance within the CCP will be in the form of goals, objectives,
strategies, and compatibility determinations. The purposes of this
CCP are to:
􀂄􈑐 Provide a clear statement of direction for the future management
of the Refuge;
􀂄􈑐 Provide long-term continuity in Refuge management;
􀂄􈑃 Communicate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service)
management priorities for the Refuge to their partners, neighbors,
visitors, and the general public;
􀂄􈑐 Provide an opportunity for the public to help shape the future
management of the Refuge;
􀂄􈑅 Ensure that management programs on the Refuge are consistent
with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge
System) and the purposes for which the Refuge was established;
􀂄􈑅 Ensure that the management of the Refuge is consistent with
Federal, State, and local plans; and
􀂄􈑐 Provide a basis for budget requests to support the Refuge’s needs
for staffing, operations, maintenance, and capital improvements.
This CCP provides a description of the desired future conditions on
the Refuge and long-range guidance to accomplish the purposes for
which the Refuge was established. The CCP and accompanying
Environmental Assessment (EA) address Service legal mandates,
policies, goals, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
compliance.
Chapter 1
2 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The EA (Appendix A) presents a range of administrative, habitat
management, and visitor services alternatives that consider issues
and opportunities on the Refuge. The Service’s initial proposal for
future management of the Refuge is presented in the EA.
The CCP is accompanied by four new plans: a Hunting Plan, Fishing
Plan, Fire Management Plan, and Integrated Pest Management
Plan. Other existing plans that will remain in place include a Habitat
Management Plan, Cultural Resource Management Plan, and
Restoration and Enhancement Plan.
The final CCP will be developed through modifications made during
the internal and public review processes.
Need for This CCP
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
(Public Law 105-57) (Improvement Act) requires that all Federal
refuges be managed in accordance with an approved CCP by 2012.
The Sacramento River Refuge also presently lacks an integrated
plan to guide management of all of its resources and uses. In order to
meet the dual needs of complying with the Improvement Act and
providing long-term integrated management guidance for the
Refuge, the Service proposes this CCP.
Legal and Policy Guidance
National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the
Refuge System, purposes of the Refuge, 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, and selected
portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife
Service Manual. The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended,
authorized the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges,
hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use when
such uses did not interfere with the area’s primary purpose.
The Improvement Act:
􀂄􈑉 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;
Chapter 1
4 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
􀂄􈑍 Mandated public involvement in decisions on the acquisition and
management of refuges; and
􀂄􈑒 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.
The Improvement Act also establishes a formal process for
determining whether uses are “compatible” with the refuge’s
purposes. Federal law requires that before any uses, including
priority public uses, are allowed on the refuge, a compatibility
determination must be made. A compatible use is defined as a use
that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will
not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of 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.
Draft compatibility determinations are included in this document
(Appendix B). These will be finalized at the same time as the CCP.
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...” The policy is an additional directive for
refuge managers to follow while achieving Refuge purpose(s) and
System mission. It provides for the consideration and protection of
the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on
Refuges and 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 where appropriate and
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
in concert with refuge purposes and System mission, restore lost or
severely degraded components. 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.
While the Refuge System mission and the purposes for which the
Refuge was established provide the foundation for management,
National Wildlife Refuges are also governed by other Federal laws,
Executive Orders, treaties, interstate compacts, regulations and
conservation initiatives pertaining to the conservation and protection
of natural and cultural resources. Some of these include: Floodplain
Management (EEO 11988), Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs (EO 12372), Protection of Historical Archaeological, and
Scientific Properties (EO 11593), Protection of Wetlands (EO 11990),
Management of General Public Use of National Wildlife Refuge
System (EO 12996), Environmental Justice in Minority Populations
and Low-Income Populations (EO 12898), Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended, Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986,
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory
Birds (EO 13186), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, the Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, as amended, Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 2000, North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan,
Riparian Bird Conservation Plan (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture /
California Partners in Flight), North American Bird Conservation
Initiative, and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan.
Gadwall
Photo by Steve Emmons
Chapter 1
6 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
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.”
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, 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.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
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 Refuge System consists of over 540
national wildlife refuges that provide 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 are to:
􀂄􈑐 Preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when
practicable) all species of animals and plants that are endangered
or threatened with becoming endangered;
􀂄􈑐 Perpetuate the migratory bird resource;
􀂄􈑐 Preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on
refuge lands; and
􀂄􈑐 Provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife
ecology and the human role in the environment and to provide
refuge visitors with high-quality, safe, wholesome, and enjoyable
recreational experiences oriented toward wildlife to the extent that
these activities are compatible with the purposes for which the
refuge was established.
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
In addition, the guiding principles of the National Wildlife 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 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; and
􀂄􈑗 We respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of our neighbors.
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 six national wildlife refuges of the Sacramento
Refuge Complex represent an island of habitat in a sea of
Sacramento Valley agriculture. This valley represents one of the
most important wintering areas for waterfowl along the Pacific
Flyway.
The Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex (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. With the development of agriculture during the late 1800's and
early 1900's, natural habitat was replaced with rice and other crops.
Waterfowl substituted these farm crops for their original wetland
foods, causing serious crop losses for farmers.
Chapter 1
8 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Today, 95 percent of California's wetlands are gone, along with the
pronghorn and grizzly bear. Constructed levees now confine the river
for irrigation and flood control, preventing the natural flooding and
formation of new wetlands. Despite these changes, the birds continue
to fly their ancient migration routes along the Pacific Flyway and
crowd into the remaining wintering habitat. The Refuges provide a
significant amount of the wintering habitat that supports waterfowl
and other migratory birds in the Sacramento Valley.
The six refuges of the Complex are almost entirely human made. In
1937, when Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge was established,
managers and biologists worked to transform many of the Refuge's
dry, alkaline lands into productive managed marshes. Additional
Refuges were created in the 1950’s through the 1980’s, forming the
Sacramento Refuge Complex.
Five Refuges were created to provide wintering habitat for
waterfowl and reduce crop damage. These Refuges--Sacramento,
Delevan, Colusa, Sutter, and Butte Sink National Wildlife
Management Area--consist of wetland, grassland, and riparian
habitats. The Refuge staff maintains more than 32,000 acres of
wetlands and uplands on the Complex. Water regimes are managed
to mimic the Sacramento River's historic flood cycle. The Refuges'
seasonal marshes are drained during late spring and 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, discing, and mowing are some of the
techniques used to create and maintain wetland habitats.
The sixth 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.
The Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Sacramento River Refuge is located in the Sacramento Valley of
north-central California and is part of the Sacramento Refuge
Complex (Figure 1). The Refuge was established in 1989 by the
authority provided under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, and the Fish and
Wildlife Act of 1956. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed
acquisition of up to 18,000 acres of land to establish the Sacramento
River Refuge (USFWS 1989). The area considered for acquisition is
primarily located in the Sacramento River’s 100-year meander zone
between Red Bluff and Colusa, in Tehama, Butte, Glenn, and Colusa
counties (Figure 1). The Refuge is currently composed of 26
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
properties (units) along a 77-mile stretch of the Sacramento River
between the cities of Red Bluff and Princeton (Table 1). Though
adjacent to the Sacramento River Refuge, the Llano Seco Unit and
Llano Seco Unit Sanctuary (Figure 1) were acquired through a
separate authority, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
of 1989, and are considered part of the North Central Valley Wildlife
Management Area. Therefore, the Llano Seco Unit and Llano Seco
Unit Sanctuary and the conservation easements east of Angel Slough
on Llano Seco are not evaluated in this plan. These units and
easements will be included in the CCP separately developed for the
North Central Valley Wildlife Management Area.
Sacramento River
Photo by Greg Golet
As of May 2004, the Refuge consisted of 10,141 acres of riparian and
agricultural habitats owned by the Service and 1,281 acres of riparian
habitats in conservation easement owned by Llano Seco Ranch.
Riparian and agricultural habitats at the Refuge include sand and
gravel bars, willow scrub, cottonwood forest, herblands, mixed
riparian forest, valley oak woodlands and savannas, grasslands,
freshwater wetlands, pastures, cover crops (i.e., winter wheat,
safflower, corn, bell beans), almond and walnut orchards.
Chapter 1
10 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Table 1. Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge: Location and Size, May
20041.
1 Acres represent original acquired acres and do not indicate eroded and accreted
land. 2 Currently owned by BLM and included in total refuge acreage. 3 Privately
owned and in acquisition process (included in total acreage).
Refuge Unit Name River Mile County Acres Date Acquired
La Barranca 239R Tehama 1,073 1989, 1991
Blackberry Island 239L Tehama 63 2002
Todd Island2 238R Tehama 165 BLM owned
Mooney 236R Tehama 344 1994
Ohm 234R Tehama 750 1989, 1991
Flynn 232R Tehama 552 1990, 1998
Heron Island 228L Tehama 116 1990
Rio Vista 217L Tehama 1,202 1991
Foster Island2 211R Glenn 150 BLM owned
McIntosh Landing North 202R Glenn 60 1994
McIntosh Landing South 201R Glenn 71 1994
Pine Creek 199L Butte 603 1995, 2003
Capay 194R Glenn 667 1999
Phelan Island 191R Glenn 308 1991
Jacinto 187R Glenn 82 1996
Dead Man’s Reach 186L Butte/Glenn 634 1999
North Ord 185R Glenn 43 2002
Ord Bend 184R Glenn 118 1995
South Ord 182R Glenn 122 1999
Llano Seco Riparian
Sanctuary and Islands
177L/R Butte 907 1991
Hartley Island3 173L Butte 397 2004 (79 acres),
318 acres
privately owned
Sul Norte 168R Glenn 590 1990, 1991
Cordora 167R Glenn 394 1994
Packer 168R Glenn 375 1997
Head Lama3 166L Glenn 129 Privately owned
Drumheller Slough 165L Glenn 226 1998, 1999
Refuge Total Fee Acres 10,141
Llano Seco Riparian
Easement
138L Butte 1,281
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
The Great Central Valley, which encompasses the Sacramento
Valley, is an extensive agricultural area that was once characterized
by diverse types of natural vegetation that provided habitat for a
great number of plant and animal species. Most of the streams and
tributaries supported Chinook salmon runs, the forests were
important songbird breeding areas, and the wetlands were major
waterfowl wintering areas. Currently, lands that surround the
Refuge mostly consist of orchards and irrigated rice lands with some
livestock, safflower, barley, wheat, and alfalfa crops. Topography is
flat with a gentle slope to the south. The predominant soil type
occurs in mixed alluvium and includes fluvial gravel and sands and
various Columbia loams.
Numerous plans and initiatives have identified riparian habitat along
the Sacramento River as critically important for various endangered
and threatened species, fisheries, migratory birds, plants, and to the
functional processes of the river ecosystem. There has been an 85
percent reduction of riparian vegetation throughout the Sacramento
Valley and foothills region, and probably in excess of a 95 percent
reduction along this area’s major river systems (Thompson 1961). The
relatively small amount of remaining riparian forest provides a
strikingly disproportionate amount of habitat value for wildlife when
compared with what is needed for healthy fish and wildlife
populations. The Refuge was established to preserve, restore, and
enhance riparian habitat for threatened and endangered species,
breeding and wintering migratory birds, anadromous fish, resident
species, and native plants. The Refuge is managed to maintain,
enhance and restore habitats for these species. To the extent
possible, habitat is managed for natural diversity of indigenous flora
and fauna. Riparian forests are being restored by converting flood-prone
agricultural lands along the Sacramento River in cooperation
with The Nature Conservancy (TNC), River Partners (RP), and local
farmers.
Public access is currently limited to the Todd and Foster Island units
(BLM properties currently in the acquisition process) and the Packer
Unit. Currently, all types of river access recreational uses are
allowed on Todd and Foster Islands under the multiple use polices of
BLM. The Packer Unit provides an unimproved access point for
bank fishing and small boat access to Packer Lake.
Chapter 1
12 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Units
The Refuge is comprised of 26 different units, each having its own
specific projects and management needs. Though some units are
adjacent to one another, most are geographically separate. Some
units solely consist of pre-existing native riparian habitats; some are
being restored to riparian habitats, while others may remain in
agricultural production until restoration plans can be finalized. A
brief summary of size, location, and composition of each unit can be
found in the Refuge Unit Descriptions section of Chapter 3.
Land Acquisition
The area approved for acquisition to meet the 18,000-acre goal of the
Refuge is located along the Sacramento River, generally within the
100-year meander zone, between Red Bluff and Colusa, as outlined in
the Middle Sacramento River Refuge Feasibility Study (USFWS 1987)
and the Environmental Assessment–Proposed Sacramento River
National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 1989). Acquisition is conducted on a
willing-seller basis only. The refuge staff evaluates the properties to
determine if the land will help to meet the conservation goals and
objectives of the Refuge. Appraisals are done in accordance with
standard appraisal procedures in order to determine fair market
value of the proposed area. The appraisers are contracted by the
Service. The approved appraisal is the basis upon which negotiations
with the landowner and a Realty Specialist are initiated. If the
landowner agrees and is willing, the Service will offer to purchase the
property depending on funding availability. Funding typically comes
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), CALFED
program, or private donations. The history of land acquisition on the
Refuge is illustrated in Table 1.
Oil and Gas Extraction
There is one natural gas well located within the boundaries of the
Sacramento River Refuge. The well is located on the Sul Norte Unit,
where it has operated until recently. As part of the transfer
agreement, private interests retained the mineral rights. Access to
and operation of the gas well is regulated by the refuge manager by
special conditions set forth in a Special Use Permit required under
the title agreement.
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Refuge Purposes
The Service acquires Refuge
System lands under a variety of
legislative acts and
administrative orders. Usually
the transfer and acquisition
authorities used to obtain the
lands have one or more purposes
for which land can be
transferred or acquired. These
purposes, along with the Refuge
System mission, form the
standard for determining if
proposed refuge uses are
compatible.
Sacramento River
USFWS Photo
The Refuge purposes are:
“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered
species or threatened species .... or (B) plants ...” 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1534
(Endangered Species Act of 1973)
".. the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain
the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international
obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and
conventions ..."16 U.S.C. 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of
1986)
“... 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. Sec. 742f (b) (1) (Fish and Wildlife
Act of 1956)
Chapter 1
14 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
The Refuge Vision
A vision statement is developed or revised for each individual refuge
unit 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), 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 River
Refuge.
“The Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge will
create a linked network of up to 18,000 acres of
floodplain forests, wetlands, grasslands, and aquatic
habitats stretching over 100 miles from Red Bluff to
Colusa. These refuge lands will fulfill the needs of fish,
wildlife, and plants that are native to the Sacramento
River ecosystem. Through innovative revegetation, the
Refuge will serve as an anchor for biodiversity and a
model for riparian habitat restoration throughout the
Central Valley. We will forge habitat, conservation, and
management links with other public and private
conservation land managers.
The Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge is
committed to the preservation, conservation, and
enhancement of a quality river environment for the
American people along the Sacramento River. In this
pursuit, we will work with partners to provide a wide
range of environmental education programs and promote
high quality wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities to build a refuge support base and attract
new visitors. Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, environmental education and
interpretation will be provided on the Refuge.
Just as the floodplain along the Sacramento River has
been important to agriculture, it is also an important
natural corridor for migratory birds, anadromous fish,
and threatened and endangered species. Encouraging an
understanding and appreciation for the Sacramento
River will be a focus of the Sacramento River National
Wildlife Refuge for generations to come.”
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Existing and New Partnerships
In “Fulfilling the Promise” 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 National Wildlife Refuge System. The Service
recognizes that strong citizen support benefits the Refuge System.
Involving citizen groups in Refuge resource and management issues
and decisions helps managers gain an understanding of public
concerns. Partners yield support for Refuge activities and programs,
raise funds for projects, are activists on behalf of wildlife and the
Refuge System, and provide support on important wildlife and
natural resource issues.
A variety of people including, but not limited to, scientists, birders,
anglers, hunters, farmers, outdoor enthusiasts and students are
keenly interested in the management of Sacramento River Refuge,
its fish and wildlife species, and its plants and habitats; this is
illustrated by the number of visitors the Refuge receives and the
partnerships that have already developed. New partnerships will be
formed with interested organizations, local civic groups, community
schools, Federal and State governments, and other civic
organizations as funding and staff become available.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a signatory to a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) between local, State and Federal agencies
involved with riparian habitat restoration. The MOA is the result of
years of effort and is focused on implementing the Sacramento River
Conservation Area Handbook. The Handbook addresses both the
biological basis and the institutional framework for restoration work
along the river and builds on the concepts originally set forth in the
1989 Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat
Management Plan, prepared under California State Senate Bill 1086.
The Sacramento River Refuge is included within the geographic area
and the refuge staff coordinates activities with the non-profit
Sacramento River Conservation Area Forum.
The Sacramento River Refuge has a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
and the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) for
cooperative land management along the Sacramento River. The
purpose of the MOU is to formally document an agreement to
mutually manage, monitor, restore, and enhance lands managed for
fish, wildlife, and plants along the Sacramento River in Tehama,
Butte, Glenn, and Colusa counties. An additional purpose is to
regularly communicate between agencies to prevent duplicating or
prescribing conflicting land management and acquisition efforts. The
Chapter 1
16 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
affected area includes all lands owned and managed as the
Sacramento River Refuge, Sacramento River Wildlife Area, and
State Parks located along the Sacramento River in the designated
counties. These lands have been identified in several documents as
providing essential habitat for numerous species of fish and wildlife
including many threatened and endangered species. The Service,
Department, and State Parks mutually agree to manage these lands
for the conservation of biological, cultural, and scenic values, and for
promoting compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities.
The Sacramento River Refuge has entered into Cooperative Land
Management Agreements (CLMA) with TNC, River Partners, Ohm,
and Llano Seco Rancho for selected units within and adjacent to the
Refuge. The CLMA agreements are authorized by the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows: “Cooperative agreements with
persons for crop cultivation, haying, grazing, or the harvest of
vegetative products, including plant life, growing with or without
cultivation on wildlife refuge areas, may be executed on a share-in-kind
basis when such agreements are in aid of or benefit to the
wildlife management of the area” (50 CFR 29.2).
The Service and the Refuge also have agreements with the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and several volunteer
fire departments to assist with fire suppression on refuge lands.
The Refuge is part of a mosaic of public and private land along the
Sacramento River corridor. To maximize conservation efforts along
the river, the Refuge has coordinated its CCP process with other
ongoing planning efforts. This includes participating on the steering
committee for CDFG’s Sacramento River Wildlife Area
Comprehensive Management Plan. In addition the Refuge
coordinated with the CDPR’s plan for Bidwell-Sacramento River
State Park. Coordination with these agencies, Refuge partners
(Table 2), and
the local
community was
vital during the
preparation of
the CCP and will
continue to be
important in the
ongoing
management of
the Refuge.
Sacramento River Floodplain
Photo by Joe Silveira
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Table 2. Partnerships in habitat acquisition, restoration, and management
1 Federal government.
2 Private non-profit conservation organizations.
3 State of California.
4 Private
Partner Organization Name Areas of Expertise / Information and Services
Provided
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1 National Wildlife Refuge management and science,
endangered species conservation, land acquisition,
habitat restoration funding, and migratory bird
management
The Nature Conservancy 2 Land acquisition, agricultural lands management,
riparian restoration, land stewardship and science,
cooperative land management at Llano Seco
River Partners 2 Agricultural lands management, riparian
restoration, land stewardship and science
California State University, Chico 3 Natural and cultural resources science through
professional experts, professors, and graduate
students
Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Chico Soil Survey 1
Soil science, soil maps and interpretation, landscape
interpretation
PRBO (PRBO Conservation
Science) 2
Avian ecology, conservation and management, status
of Sacramento River avifauna
California Department of Water
Resources 3
Fluvial geology, geologic maps, landscape
interpretation
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1 Land acquisition and riparian vegetation,
savanna/grassland, and freshwater wetland
restoration funding
Parrott Investment Company 4 Llano Seco Ranch history and management,
cooperative land management at Llano Seco
California Department of Fish and
Game 3
Rare, threatened and endangered species
conservation, anadromous fish and fisheries science
and conservation, law enforcement, land acquisition,
and cooperative land management at Llano Seco
National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration,
Fisheries 1
Anadromous fish and fisheries science and
conservation
Sacramento River Preservation
Trust 2
Sacramento River conservation issues
Ducks Unlimited 2 Freshwater wetland and grassland habitat
restoration funding
California Waterfowl Association 2 Freshwater wetland habitat restoration funding
California Department of Parks and
Recreation
Public use, law enforcement, ecology, land
acquisition, facilities and access
Sacramento River Conservation
Area Forum
Forum for public information
Chapter 1
18 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Ecosystem Context
The Great 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
Sacramento River and the San Joaquin River watersheds drain into
San Francisco Bay via the Delta (Figure 2). The Sacramento River is
the largest river in California. Above Red Bluff, the Sacramento
River forms a V-shaped canyon by down-cutting through the
Cascade Mountain Range. Below Colusa, the river is completely
confined within narrow channels by bank stabilization. The middle
Sacramento River, which occurs between Red Bluff and Colusa,
represents an alluvial river ecosystem that is characterized by the
physical processes of flooding, erosion, deposition, and channel
movement (i.e., sinuous meandering). Oxbow lakes and abandoned
channels form when the sinuous loops of a meandering river are cut
off from the main channel. Operation of Shasta Dam for water
delivery and flood control has altered the frequency, duration, and
magnitude of flooding on the Sacramento River floodplain. However,
relatively moderate bank stabilization occurs between Red Bluff and
Princeton and here alluvial river processes still influence portions of
the landscape.
The Sacramento River floodplain is often described in three relative
positions: the low, mid, and high floodplain. The low floodplain occurs
next to the river, below the mean high water mark. This zone is
characterized by frequent erosion and deposition of gravels and
sands (point bars are common). The mid floodplain occupies the 100-
year meander belt, above the ordinary high water mark. This zone is
frequently flooded and is also characterized by erosion and
deposition (steep vertical banks are common). Natural levees of great
proportions developed in this zone. The high floodplain occurs in the
500-year meander belt. This zone is occasionally flooded and often
located off of the main river channel.
Four geologic formations are identified for the middle Sacramento
River (Harwood and Helley 1982). The Tehama Formation is the oldest
and is relatively resistant to the erosive forces of the river (Buer et al.
1989). The Tehama Formation provides geologic control because river
meandering is impeded. The Red Bluff and River Bank formations
are younger and less resistant to erosion (Brice 1977; California
Department of Water Resources 1994). The most extensive geology on the
Sacramento River is associated with the Modesto Formation. The
Modesto Formation generally occupies the mid floodplain and is
characterized by unstratified Columbia loam soils with various
amounts of sand and silt (California Department of Water Resources,
Northern District 1980, 1984). Channel deposits, known as xerofluvial
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Figure 2. Watershed/Ecosystem Setting
Chapter 1
20 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
gravels and sands, and mixed alluvium characterize low floodplain
geology (California Department of Water Resources 1994, Helley and Harwood
1985, Saucedo and Wagner 1992).
Riparian areas are transitional between terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems and are distinguished by gradients in biophysical
conditions, ecological process and biota. Habitat includes water, food,
and areas or territories necessary for reproduction and survival.
Therefore, riparian habitat includes the various forms of vegetation,
wetlands, banks, and sand and gravel bars along the river. Middle
Sacramento River vegetation includes herbaceous scrublands
(mugwort, tarweed-buckwheat), willow scrub, cottonwood forest,
mixed riparian forest, valley oak woodland and savanna, elderberry
savanna, grassland, and freshwater wetlands. These wetlands include
the main channel, tributaries, sloughs, abandoned channels, oxbow
lakes, and ponds. The Geographic Information Center at California
State University, Chico has developed vegetation categories, which
the California Department of Water Resources is using. Since these
are partners of Sacramento River Refuge, the Refuge is adopting
their system. These categories are described in detail in Chapter 3.
A diversity of fish and wildlife are associated with the Sacramento
River alluvial ecosystem. The Sacramento River is the only river in
the Pacific with four runs of Chinook salmon: winter-run, spring-run,
fall-run and late fall run (Figure 3). Anadromous fish use the
tributaries, main channel, floodplain, sloughs, oxbow lakes, delta,
estuary, bay, and open ocean at various points in there life history
(Croot and Marcolis 1991). A wide range of migratory and resident
songbirds and waterfowl use the Sacramento River riparian habitats
because of the great diversity of soil substrate, vegetation structure,
and types of wetlands. Neotropical migratory landbirds breed in
various habitats along the river (Figure 4) and winter in Central
America, while northern breeding waterfowl use flooded river
habitats in the winter (Gaines 1977; Small et al. 2000).
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Oxbow Lake Habitat
Photo by Joe Silveira
Figure 3. Life History Characteristics of Four Races of Chinook
Salmon in the Central Valley of California.
Chapter 1
22 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Riparian Bird Focal Species.
Riparian Habitat Joint Venture (2003) illustration depicting the diversity,
complexity, and structure of riparian habitat. Note that the steep cut banks
critical for establishing bank swallow colonies are not pictured. Illustration by
Zac Denning.
Threats and Opportunities
The Sacramento Refuge Complex serves as part of the last safety net
to support biological diversity of the Great Central Valley. Only two
percent of the original Great Central Valley riparian habitats remain.
Forest clearing began in the mid 1800s along the Sacramento River
(Katibah 1989; Scott and Marquiss 1989; Thompson 1961), first for dry land
farming and later, for irrigated agriculture. Wood was used to power
steamboats that carried agricultural products to San Francisco
markets. Shasta and Keswick dams stored water for agriculture and
urban uses, and provided flood control and hydrologic power.
Construction of private and public levees and bank revetment (e.g.,
rip-rap) resulted in various degrees of channel constriction that
separated the river channel from the floodplain (California Department
of Water Resources, Northern District 1980, 1984).
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
While little remains of the original Sacramento River riparian
habitats, bank stabilization, water diversion projects, and other
activities that cause fragmentation of riparian habitats and loss of
connectivity between the channel and floodplain continue. Runoff of
sediments, pesticides, and herbicides also result in reduced ecologic
functions and habitat loss of aquatic resources. These have the
potential to cause significant further degradations in habitat quality.
The cumulative effects of land and water resource development
activities have caused simplification of the remaining wildlife habitats
within the ecosystem, resulting in both direct and indirect negative
impacts to habitat and fish and wildlife populations.
The species most adversely affected are those dependent upon the
Sacramento River and riparian habitats during all or a portion of
their life history. Riparian forest and habitat succession have been
attenuated by dams and the resulting altered hydrograph, bank
protection, and deforestation. This has led to severely reduced
diversity, quantity, and quality of habitat for breeding migratory and
resident birds (Small et al. 1999, 2000). Poor habitat complexity and
structure have eliminated or reduced nesting habitat while
increasing nest parasite and predator populations (Figure 5). Rip-rap
and levees have reduced the number and size of bank swallow
colonies along the middle portion of the Sacramento River. The least
Bell’s vireo no longer breeds in northern California, and the warbling
vireo has been extirpated (completely eliminated) as a breeding bird
from the middle Sacramento River (Grinnell 1915, 1918). The western
yellow-billed cuckoo is threatened by loss of mature cottonwood
forests adjacent to mature mid-story habitats (Gaines 1974). Species
dependent on mature valley oak forests, such as the acorn
woodpecker, are absent from the majority of their historic range due
to the near complete loss of this habitat type (refer to Holland and Roye
1989; Holmes et al. 1915; and, Bureau of Soils 1913 for historic distribution of
valley oak forest and savanna/Columbia soil in the Sacramento Valley).
Chapter 1
24 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. Potential Effects of Altered Hydrology on Breeding
Bird Populations.
Chinook salmon and steelhead (salmonids) use the channel for
migration and spawning. Dams, bank revetment, and deforestation
have resulted in declining anadromous salmonid populations (Figure
6). Dams block fish passage and prevent spawning gravel from
moving downstream. During periods of excessive runoff, silt
accumulates in gravel, which starves eggs of oxygen. Rip-rap and
forest clearing near the channel reduces the amount of large woody
debris (LWD) that enters the channel. LWD is an important
substrate for a fishery food-web. LWD also widens the channel and
reduces down-cutting, creates aquatic habitat diversity, provides
escape cover, and traps spawning gravel and fish carcasses. Salmonid
fish carcasses are important sources of marine derived nitrogen
which is critical to the productivity of the Sacramento River
ecosystem. Forest clearing also reduces the number of overhanging
trees that create Shaded Riverine Aquatic Habitat, which reduces
water temperatures.
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Figure 6. Contributing Factors for the Decline in Anadromous
Salmonids of the Pacific.
Good opportunities for riparian land acquisition and restoration exist
primarily within flood-prone agricultural lands located in the lower
portions of the floodplain. The relatively high costs of maintaining
these orchards have made it beneficial for farmers to sell these lands
and concentrate their agricultural operations above the lower
floodplain. Some farmers have noticed reduced flood impacts to
orchards located behind restoration sites, where snags, logs, brush,
gravel, and sand are filtered by the restoration site.
Conservation Priorities and Initiatives
The conservation priorities for Federally listed endangered and
threatened species and migratory birds that occur at Sacramento
River Refuge are frequently reinforced by the designation of critical
habitat, recovery plans, and conservation plans. The Refuge lies
within the designated critical habitat for Sacramento River winter-run
Chinook salmon (Federally listed endangered species), Central
Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (Federally listed threatened
species), and Central Valley, California steelhead (Federally listed
threatened species). A recovery plan has been completed for the
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Federally listed threatened
species). Population and habitat conservation initiatives and plans
exist for migratory waterfowl (North American Waterfowl Management
Plan 1986, North American Waterfowl and Wetlands Conservation Act of 1986;
Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture 1990) and migratory and resident
landbirds (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture 2003).
Chapter 1
26 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
The implementation of conservation plans requires the cooperation of
a variety of Federal, State, local, and private interests. Most
conservation implementation projects involve the local community,
including farmers, farm suppliers, and schools. Local support is
essential, not only to facilitate the conversion of agricultural land to
wildlife habitat, but also for the long-term interest of Refuge
conservation programs. Therefore, the Refuge and its partners
engage the local community whenever possible. Some of our partners
are listed in Table 2.
Wilderness Review
As part of the CCP process, lands within the boundaries of
Sacramento River Refuge were reviewed for wilderness suitability.
No lands were found suitable for designation as Wilderness as
defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Sacramento River Refuge does not contain 5,000 contiguous roadless
acres, nor does the Refuge have any units of sufficient size to make
their preservation practicable as Wilderness. The lands of the
Refuge have been substantially
affected by humans,
particularly through
agriculture and regulation of
the flows of the Sacramento
River. As a result of the
extensive modification of
natural habitats and ongoing
manipulation of natural
processes, adopting a
wilderness management
approach at the Refuge would
not facilitate the restoration of
a pristine or pre-settlement
condition, which is a goal of
wilderness designation.
Acorn Woodpecker
Photo by Steve Emmons
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Refuge River Jurisdiction
Navigability and jurisdiction on and under water bodies, including
lakes, rivers, and streams, is a complex and confusing issue. In
California, the precedents have been established through a
combination of legislation and court decisions.
The following text in italics is excerpted in part from a Formal
Opinion of State Attorney General Dan Lungren dated November 12,
1997 (No. 97-307):
The state (in Harbor and Navigation Code Section 240)
recognizes the paramount authority of the United States over
navigable waters and applies its regulations to navigation on
such waters only insofar as the regulations do not conflict
with the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction and laws of the
United States. The public’s right to use navigable waterways
includes their use for boating and recreation; indeed, waters
capable of use for recreational boating are deemed navigable.
(People ex rel. Baker v. Mack (1971) 19 Cal. A; 3d 1040.). The
public’s right to use navigable waters for boating and
recreation is not only guaranteed by the state Constitution, it
is also guaranteed by the Legislature (Gov. Code Section
39933), and the right is inherent in the public trust under
which the navigable waters are held. (See Marks v. Whitney
(1971) 6 Cal.3d 251; People b. California Fish Co., supra, 166
Cal. At 598-599; 79 Ops. Cal Atty. Gen.133, 135-146 (1996).)
“The State of California owns and administers several different types
of interests in rivers and streams with the state’s borders by virtue of
being the sovereign representative of the people. These rights are
the property of the state, and the state’s powers with respect to these
property rights are similar in certain ways to the rights of private
property owners, but are governed by the law of public trust. The
Public Trust Doctrine, as it affects these rights, is designed to
protect the rights of the public to use watercourses for commerce,
navigation, fisheries, recreation, open space, preservation of
ecological units in their natural state, and similar uses for which
those lands are uniquely suited” (California’s Rivers, A Public Trust Report,
California State Lands Commission 1993).
The state lays claim to the beds of all nontidal, navigable rivers and
streams up to the ordinary low water mark. In addition, the state
claims a right often termed a “public trust easement” in the area
between the ordinary low water mark and ordinary high water mark.
Chapter 1
28 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
The Service has statutory authority under the Improvement Act to
regulate activities that occur on water bodies “within” refuge units.
The Service, in terms of its refuge administration regulations, has
effectively defined this authority to apply to areas the United States
holds in fee or to the extent of the interest held by the United States.
Federal Courts have clarified these issues in regards to Federal
agencies (i.e., National Parks, National Forests, and National
Wildlife Refuges) that own and manage lands that encompass
portions of water bodies (lakes or rivers). The Federal Courts have
consistently maintained that Federal agencies have jurisdiction over
recreational uses on these water bodies when the water body is
integral to the primary purposes for which the park, forest, or
wildlife refuge was established.
For example, in the U.S. v. Hells Canyon Guide Service case, the
District Court maintained that the Property Clause of the
Constitution gave the government power “to regulate conduct on
non-federal land (the Snake River that runs through the National
Forest) when reasonably necessary to protect adjacent Federal
property or navigable waters.” In addition, this case stated
“Congress’ power over Federal lands includes the authority to
regulate activities on non-federal waters in order to protect the
archaeological, ecological, historical and recreational values on the
lands” (United States v. Hells Canyon Guide Service; U.S. District Court of
Oregon, Civil No. 79-743; 5-6; 1979).
In the court decision in U.S. v. Brown, the Circuit Court wrote,
“…we view the congressional power over Federal lands to include
the authority to regulate activities on non-federal public waters in
order to protect wildlife and visitors on the lands” (United States v.
Brown 552 F.2d 822; 8th Cir. 1977).
Finally in the U.S. v. Armstrong case the Circuit Court upheld a
conviction against Armstrong and Brown who were conducting a
commercial business without a permit within a National Park. In this
case, the Circuit Court relied on a U.S. Supreme Court precedent
stating, “In Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 546(1976), the
Supreme Court held that the Congress may make those rules
regarding non-federal lands as are necessary to accomplish its goals
with respect to Federal lands” (United States v. Armstrong; No. 99-1190; 8th
Cir. 1999).
The meandering nature of the Sacramento River has played a critical
role in establishing the Refuge and is a necessary component for the
Refuge to meet its purposes. Moreover, regardless of jurisdiction,
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
the Refuge’s first priority is to work with the State of California and
local counties to ensure that public trust rights are protected while
meeting the Refuge goals and objectives.
In closing, it is the policy of the Sacramento River Refuge to
recognize the rights of the public to use, consistent with State and
Federal laws, the waters below the ordinary low water mark and the
“public trust easement” in the area between the ordinary low water
mark and ordinary high water mark. Accordingly, the public uses in
these areas will be outlined and evaluated in this CCP, the
Environmental Assessment, and associated Compatibility
Determinations.
California hibiscus
Photo by Joe Silveira
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Chapter 2. The Planning
Process
Introduction
This CCP for the Sacramento River Refuge is intended to
comply with the requirements of the Improvement Act and the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Refuge
planning policy also 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 (May 2000).
Service policy, the Improvement Act, and NEPA provide
specific guidance for the planning process, such as seeking
public involvement in the preparation of the Environmental
Assessment (EA) document. 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 Refuge. Management
alternatives were developed as part of this planning process
and can be found in Appendix A: Environment Assessment.
The planning process for this CCP began in March 2001 with
pre-planning meetings and coordination. CCP teams were
formed. For the first few months, the core team met weekly in
order to expedite the start of the public scoping process and
benefit from the existing assistant refuge manager’s
institutional knowledge prior to his transfer to New Mexico in
June 2001.
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 with the past management and
history of the Refuge. Early in the process, visitor services,
especially hunting and fishing, 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 Refuge. Throughout this process, close coordination
with the CDFG was emphasized to coordinate the CCP and
their parallel wildlife management planning efforts for the
Sacramento River.
Chapter 2
32 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
The following describes the comprehensive conservation
planning process for the Refuge:
The Planning Process
Part of comprehensive conservation planning includes
preparation of a NEPA document. Key steps in the CCP
planning process and the parallel NEPA process include:
1. Preplanning and Team formation
2. Public Scoping
3. Identifying issues, opportunities, and concerns
4. Defining and revising vision statement and Refuge goals
5. Developing and assessing alternatives
6. Identifying the preferred alternative plan
7. Draft CCP and EA
8. Revising draft documents and releasing final CCP
9. Implementing the CCP
10. Monitoring / Feedback (Adaptive Management)
Figure 7 shows the overall CCP planning steps and process in a
linear cycle. The following sections provide additional detail on
individual steps in the planning process.
Figure 7. The CCP Process
Review and
Revise the
Plan
Public Scoping
& Identify
Issues
Prepare
Draft Plan
Final Plan
Implement
Plan &
Monitor
Vision Statement
& Goals
Develop
Objectives,
Strategies, &
Alternatives
Initiate Study
Pre-Planning
The
CCP
Process
Public
Input
Public
Input
Public
Input
Public
Input
Review and
Revise the
Plan
Public Scoping
& Identify
Issues
Prepare
Draft Plan
Final Plan
Implement
Plan &
Monitor
Vision Statement
& Goals
Develop
Objectives,
Strategies, &
Alternatives
Initiate Study
Pre - Planning
Public
Input
Public
Input
Public
Input
Public
Input
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
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. 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 8).
􀂄􈑔 The Refuge purposes provide direction for the Refuge.
􀂄􈑁 A Refuge vision broadly reflects the refuge purpose(s), the
Refuge System mission and goals, other statutory
requirements, and larger-scale plans as appropriate.
􀂄􈑇 Goals then define general targets in support of the vision.
􀂄􈑏 Objectives direct effort into incremental and measurable
steps toward achieving those goals.
􀂄􈑓 Strategies identify specific tools to accomplish objectives.
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.
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. Two teams were formed:
Core Team
The core team is the working/production entity of the CCP. The
members are responsible for researching and generating the
contents of the CCP document and participate in the entire
planning process. The team consists of Refuge staff, planners,
and Geographic Information System personnel. The
Sacramento River Refuge core team, facilitated by the refuge
planner, 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. (Appendix K).
Chapter 2
34 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 8. Relationships between Service, System and other
planning efforts.
Expanded Team
The expanded team is the advisory and coordination forum of
the CCP. It is significant for this Refuge because of the
Refuge’s basis and history of working in close partnership with
other local, State, Federal, and private agencies and
organizations concerned with the Sacramento River and its
watershed. The Sacramento River Refuge expanded team is
composed of the Core team, other Service and Federal
personnel, and State of California personnel to provide
overview, discussion, and coordination during the planning
process. (Appendix K).
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Pre-Planning
Pre-Planning involved formation of the planning teams,
development of the CCP schedule, and gathering data. The
teams determined procedures, work allocations, and outreach
strategies. They also created a preliminary mailing list.
Public Involvement in Planning
Public involvement is an important and necessary component of
the CCP and NEPA process. Public scoping meetings allow the
Service to provide updated information about the Refuge
System and the Refuge itself. 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 Refuge hosted four public scoping meetings in different
towns in May and June 2001 (Table 3). Each meeting began
with a presentation introducing the Refuge and the Service
staff, provided an open forum for public comment, and ended
with a breakout session consisting of various tables with people
and information available to address Refuge management,
wildlife and habitat, and public use. A separate table was set up
to handle questions about a separate EA document for planned
Refuge restoration efforts. In addition to comments made and
noted on flip charts at the meetings, comments were also
received by postcard mailers, email, and letters. These
comments were analyzed and used to further identify Refuge
issues and revise CCP strategies (Table 4).
Public Scoping Meetings. June, 2001
USFWS Photo
Chapter 2
36 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Table 3. Public Scoping Meetings
Meeting Date Location Attendance
30 May 2001 Willows, CA 23
04 June 2001 Chico, CA 55
05 June 2001 Red Bluff, CA 13
06 June 2001 Colusa, CA 8
Table 4. Refuge Issues Identified Through Public Comment
Refuge Issue Category Number of Comments
Received (2831)
Public Use Issues 63
Big 6 Uses 36
Camping 7
Biking 5
Public Use Issues 30
Public Access Issues 69
Hunting/Fishing Access 17
River Access/Boat Ramps 9
Disabled Access 4
Refuge Access Issues 43
Management Issues 83
LE/Fire 14
Agricultural/Adjacent Land
Owner Concerns
18
Refuge Management Issues 51
Outreach/Informational Issues 16
Flood & Erosion
Management Issues
11
Opinions / Questions 41
1 Total number of comments received. Numbers within Refuge issue
categories do not equal the total comments received since many comments
covered multiple categories.
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Public Outreach
During the planning process, the Refuge staff continued to
actively participate with the various working groups and agency
teams concerning the Sacramento River. The staff also met
with various interest and local groups to explain the Refuge and
the planning process, and to listen to their concerns.
An information letter called “Planning Updates” 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 Refuge, Region webpage, and at various
outreach meetings.
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Through the scoping process and team discussions, the
planning team identified issues, concerns, and opportunities.
Over 170 people attended the four public scoping sessions held
in May and June 2001. The public provided over 280 comments
as of October 2001 (Table 4) for consideration in identifying
issues and opportunities for the CCP. The team categorized the
comments into five main areas of interest: public use, public
access, management, flood and erosion control, and general
opinions and questions.
Public use issue categories included wildlife-dependant
activities which include hunting, fishing, camping on gravel
bars, biking and other types of recreation. Out of 32 comments
received about hunting, 3 opposed and 29 supported opening
the Refuge to hunting. Three comments specifically stated the
need for areas on the Refuge for bank fishing. Three comments
suggested limiting or controlling motor and off-road vehicles,
while 1 comment suggested allowing motor and off-road
vehicles on the Refuge. Having a place to conduct dog trials or
dog training was also requested by 3 comments.
The public access issue categories included access for hunting
and fishing, access to the river, access for disabled people, and
other Refuge access issues. Out of 69 comments received only 2
comments opposed allowing access to the Refuge while the rest
overwhelmingly supported opening the Refuge.
Management issue categories included law enforcement/fire
management issues, agriculture/adjacent land owner issues,
and Refuge management concerns. Some of the Refuge
management concern comments included how to manage the
Chapter 2
38 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge, what techniques to use to manage and what the
management priorities should be. Many of the comments
received in the outreach and informational issue category were
requests for information including several types of brochures,
posting signs on the Refuge, and providing access to wildlife
survey data. This category also included requests for special
events and more education programs.
The flood control and erosion management issue categories
included flood control, levee maintenance, and bank
stabilization. The opinions/questions/other issues category had
comments that ranged from questions about the CCP process
to stating personal opinions on a wide variety of topics.
The team also noted resource issues and opportunities that
were identified during the scoping process. All comments and
issues were reviewed and compiled; the CCP teams consulted
them during the process of creating and refining the Refuge’s
CCP vision, goals, objectives, and strategies.
Development of the Refuge Vision
A vision statement is developed or reviewed for each individual
refuge unit as part of the CCP process. Vision statements are
grounded in the unifying mission of the National Wildlife
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 Refuge vision statement.
Determining the Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
The purpose for creating the Refuge is established by law
(Chapter 1). 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.
Goals
Goals describe the desired future conditions of a refuge in
succinct statements. Each one translates 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
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
set of goals is a framework within which to make decisions. The
existing interim Refuge goals are as follows.
Interim Refuge Goals:
􀂄􈑐 Provide natural habitats and management to restore and
perpetuate endangered or threatened species, or species of
special concern.
􀂄􈑐 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,
education, and research.
􀂄􈑐 Provide a diversity of riparian and wetland habitats for an
abundance of migratory birds, particularly waterfowl and
other water birds.
Through the CCP process these interim goals were evaluated
and revised and are stated in Chapter 5.
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: Objectives are incremental steps 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, but should be those necessary to
satisfy the goal. 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: A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of
actions, tools, and techniques used to meet an objective.
Multiple strategies can be used to support an objective.
Chapter 2
40 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Development of the Refuge Management Alternatives
The development of alternatives, assessment of their
environmental effects, and the 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 were studied and are briefly described as follows.
Alternative A: No Action
Under the Alternative A: No Action, the Refuge would continue
to be managed as it has in the recent past. The focus of the
Refuge would remain the same: to provide fish and wildlife
habitat and maintain current active management practices; and
to restore the 9 units identified in the 2002 Environmental
Assessment for Proposed Restoration Activities on Sacramento
River National Wildlife Refuge for migratory birds and
threatened and endangered species. The Refuge would remain
closed to visitor services other than the limited existing
opportunities of fishing at Packer Lake. Current staffing and
funding levels would remain the same. Recent management has
followed existing step down management plans:
􀂄􈑅 Environmental Assessment for Proposed Restoration
Activities on Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
􀂄􈑆 Fire Management Plan for Sacramento River National
Wildlife Refuge
􀂄􈑁 Annual Habitat Management Plan for Sacramento River
National Wildlife Refuge
􀂄􈑃 Cultural Resource Overview and Management Plan
Alternative B: Optimize Habitat Restoration and Public Use
(Proposed Action)
Under this Alternative, the Refuge would use active and
passive management practices to achieve and maintain full
restoration/enhancement of all units where appropriate, as
funding becomes available. The agricultural program would be
phased out as restoration funding becomes available. The
Refuge would employ both cultivation and natural recruitment
restoration techniques as determined by site conditions. Public
use opportunities would be optimized to allow for a balance of
wildlife-dependent public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, interpretation and environmental
education) throughout the entire Refuge in coordination with
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
other agencies and programs. Staffing and funding levels would
need to increase to implement this alternative.
Alternative C: Accelerated Habitat Restoration and Maximize
Public Use
Under this Alternative, the Refuge focus would use active and
passive management practices to achieve and maintain full
restoration of all units. The agricultural program would cease
immediately and remaining orchards would be removed.
Restoration of these sites would be implemented as funding
becomes available. Public use opportunities would be
maximized to allow for all wildlife-dependent public uses
throughout the majority of Refuge. The staff would manage
cooperatively with other agencies and organizations, and focus
resources and facilities to accommodate uses and demands. In
addition, staffing and funding levels would need to substantially
increase to implement the alternative.
Selection of the Refuge Proposed Action
The alternatives were analyzed in the EA (Appendix A and EA
Appendix 1) to determine their effects on the Refuge
environment. Based on this analysis, we have selected
Alternative B as the proposed action because it best achieves
the Refuge goals, purposes, and Refuge System and Service
missions.
Alternative B is founded upon the existing cooperative
management programs, with enhancements in habitat and
monitoring programs and an integration of a cooperative visitor
services program that includes hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, interpretation, and
environmental education. Cooperative management refers to
the current practice of working closely with State and other
river partners to provide protected and enhanced habitat along
with visitor service opportunities and adjacent land uses on
publicly owned properties. Please refer to Chapters 5 and 6
which describes this proposed management plan.
Plan Implementation
This draft CCP and EA will be provided for Service and public
review and comment. Comments will be addressed and the
document finalized for public review and approval. Once the
CCP has been approved, the Refuge can begin to implement
the plan and associated step-down plans (Chapters 5 and 6).
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
Chapter 3. The Refuge
Environment
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
The Sacramento River runs through the center of California’s
Sacramento Valley, beginning in the volcanic tablelands of
Shasta County and ending in the broad alluvial basins of
Colusa, Sutter and Yolo Counties (Helly and Harwood 1985; Warner
and Hendrix 1985). Just downstream of Shasta Dam, the
Sacramento River is mostly confined by stable geologic
formations, resulting in a narrow riparian corridor of trees and
other vegetation adjacent to the river itself. As it travels south
from Red Bluff towards Chico, the river begins to meander over
a broad alluvial floodplain, which is constrained by more
erosion-resistant geologic formations. Here, the river still
receives water from many tributaries. As it travels south from
Chico toward Colusa, the river receives water only from the
Stony Creek tributary. During high flows, the river in this
reach will drain into sloughs that empty into the large basins
that flank its sides. Setback levees and weirs control the release
of flood waters into these basins, but in areas where there is no
bank revetment the river meanders and creates areas of
riparian vegetation. South of Colusa, the river is confined to its
main channel by tight levees, and high flows are diverted
through weirs and into bypass channels designed to prevent
flooding of agricultural lands and urban areas. The resulting
riparian vegetation is confined to narrow strips along these
levees.
The Sacramento River Ecosystem
The major physical factors effecting the development and
persistence of riparian habitats along the Sacramento River are
geology, hydrology, and the resulting meander of the channel.
Flood events erode the river bank and deposit sand and silt on
the floodplain. Over time the river channel migrates through
unconsolidated alluvium and is slowed or restricted by the less
erodible geologic material, constantly modifying the alluvial
floodplain. Various ages and types of riparian habitats develop
and exist on the floodplain.
Early successional vegetation species are established when
germination conditions are triggered by a moist open site, such
as a newly created sandbar. Species, such as willows and
Chapter 3
44 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
cottonwoods, tend to have rapid growth rates that result in
quick root establishment to the water table. Eventually, the
presence of these early colonizers slows flood flows and
encourages the accumulation of silt over time. These finer soils
can retain moisture longer than the underlying sand and gravel,
and create a favorable environment for the germination of other
trees, such as box elder and Oregon ash. As deposits
accumulate and increase the level of the river bed, species that
are less tolerant of frequent flooding begin to colonize, such as
sycamore, black walnut, and finally, valley oak (Figure 9).
Natural processes such as flood events, erosion, channel
migration and fire play an important role in creating various
ages and kinds of riparian habitats. The presence of fire in the
landscape has been one of the major evolutionary factors
determining the composition of flora throughout California.
Lightning is the most common natural ignition source.
Generated by summer thunderstorms, lightning is responsible
for much of the wildland fires that occur throughout western
United States each year. Fire, flood, and drought all played an
important role in plant succession prior to settlement of the
area.
Phelan Island
Photo by Skip Jones
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
Figure 9. Typical Plant Communities and Successional Stages on the
Sacramento River.
These different, yet intertwined plant communities provide
important habitat for breeding, migrating, wintering, and local
wildlife (Conrad et al. 1977; Gaines 1974, 1977; Roberts et al. 1977). For
example, gravel bars are important to nesting killdeer, spotted
sandpipers, and lesser nighthawks. Areas of young, dense
willow scrub host large numbers of invertebrates, which are an
abundant food source for landbirds, such as the nesting blue
grosbeak. The cottonwood riparian forest that evolves from
riparian scrub provides dense canopy cover and commonly
hosts a wide array of local and migrant birds, including the
western yellow-billed cuckoo, and nesting eagles, osprey, and
Swainson’s hawks. As the cottonwood forest matures and
diversifies, it becomes mixed riparian forest. Here, the dense
mixture of trees and shrubs are often covered with the vines of
wild grape and pipevine, supporting many other bird species.
The more mature valley oak riparian forest is drier and has a
closed canopy and often, dense understory, which also provides
Chapter 3
46 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
diversity of avian habitats. Valley oak woodland, found on the
higher floodplain terraces, has a much more open understory,
and provides excellent foraging and roosting habitat for many
avian species, and nesting habitat for owls, woodpeckers, and
bluebirds. Newly eroded cut banks are essential to providing
nest sites for bank swallows. Heavily shaded banks provide
cover and maintain suitable water temperatures for juvenile
salmon. Sloughs and side channels provide more static
conditions required by northwestern pond turtles. These are
just several examples of the diversity and abundance of species
that Sacramento River riparian habitats support and illustrate
the complexity and importance of the system.
Physical Environment
Climate and Air Quality
The climate of California’s northern Central Valley is classified
as Mediterranean, with cool, wet winters and hot, dry summers.
Rainfall is fairly well distributed throughout the winter,
occurring in steady, but gentle, two- or three-day storms. 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 61.70F with extremes of 1180F and 150F. 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 Refuge is in California’s Sacramento Valley Air Basin. The
Sacramento Valley Air Basin occupies 15,043 square miles and
includes 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 Tehama County Air Pollution Control District,
Butte County Air Quality Management District, Colusa County
Air Pollution Control District, and the Glenn County Air
Pollution Control District are the agencies responsible for
ensuring compliance with Federal and State air quality
standards in the basin where the Refuge is 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 pollutants are based on other values, such
as protecting crops and materials and avoiding nuisance
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47
conditions. Currently, Butte County is Federally classified as a
non-attainment area for ground-level ozone. Non-attainment
areas are defined as any area that does not meet ambient air
quality standards for a pollutant. In addition, Tehama, Butte,
and Glenn Counties are classified by the State of California as
non-attainment areas for ozone and particulate matter (PM10)
standards. In fact, only three counties in the entire state are not
classified as non-attainment areas for PM10. Being classified 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 refuge.
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.
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 (the young, old, and infirm) are more
susceptible to respiratory infections and other air quality-related
health problems than the general public. Residential
Chapter 3
48 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
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.
Geology, Hydrology, and Soils
The area of the Refuge between Red Bluff and Chico Landing
is underlain by sedimentary and volcanic deposits associated
with the Tehama, Tuscan, and Red Bluff formations (Harwood
and Helley 1982; Helley and Harwood 1985). On top of these
formations lie terrace deposits, such as Riverbank and Modesto
formations, as well as paleochannel deposits, alluvial fans,
meanderbelt deposits, and basin and marsh deposits (Department
of Water Resources 1994; Robertson 1987). The Modesto and
Riverbank deposits flank the river in steps away from the
channel, and tend to erode at lower rates than the other young
deposits. These areas tend to form higher, more consolidated
banks, and have a high proportion of Class I agricultural soils,
including the Columbia and Vina loams.
There are many tributaries that enter the Sacramento River
through the Refuge properties located north of Chico, including
Coyote Creek, Oat Creek, Elder Creek and Hoag Slough.
Although this area has a large number of tributaries, the
overall hydrology has been greatly changed due to the presence
of Shasta Dam. Bank erosion rates have declined, likely due to
reduced peak flow and increased bank protection. Also affected
are the formation of point bars and terraces, which in turn
affect the regeneration of cottonwood and willow forests.
Refuge properties that lie between Chico Landing and Colusa
are bounded on the west by terrace deposits (Modesto
Formation) and on the east by paleochannel deposits of a much
older river system. This stretch of the river has only one main
tributary, Stony Creek, which enters the river through the
Phelan Island Unit. South of Stony Creek, the river has
historically overflowed its banks on both sides of the river
during floods (Thompson 1961), resulting in clay-lined basins to
the west and east of the river. Today, weirs and channels
convey floodwaters into the Butte Sink and the Sutter/Yolo
bypasses. The natural, loamy levees that have gradually
developed along the river separate the main channel from these
basins on its sides. Sediment texture is finer, with more silty
and sandy banks compared to the more gravelly banks found in
the northern reach (US Army Corps of Engineers 1988). This reach of
the river meanders, though it has become less sinuous since
1896.
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49
Contaminants and Water Quality
The Refuge lies within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board, which established
beneficial uses and water quality objectives for surface water
and groundwater in the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin
Plan) for the region (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board 1998). Because the Sacramento River originates as
snowmelt, it is of excellent water quality; therefore, it supports
all existing beneficial uses of the Basin Plan, including
domestic, agricultural, and industrial water supply; recreation;
wildlife habitat; cold and warm freshwater fish habitat; and
migration and spawning for salmonid fisheries. The water is
considered soft, moderately alkaline, and low in dissolved
solids, with high turbidity during peak runoff periods. The
Sacramento River is listed as impaired on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Section 303 (d) list
of water bodies for the pesticide diazinon, and trace metals
(including mercury, cadmium, copper, and zinc). A
contaminants investigation occurring at other refuges of the
Sacramento Refuge Complex discovered the following
pesticides in Refuge wetlands: atrazine, dieldrin, DDT,
heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, n-butyl pthalate diazinon, n-butyl
pthalate trifluralin, trifluralin, trifluralinatrazine, and
trifluralindiazinon (USGS 1992). The Refuge does not use these
chemicals; however, these preliminary results are not
surprising because all refuges of Sacramento Refuge Complex
are adjacent to and surrounded by agriculture, where pesticides
and herbicides are regularly applied for crop production. These
elevated concentrations were only slightly greater than Service
guidelines for possible effects on wildlife (USGS 1992).
Biological Resources
Vegetation
The Refuge currently consists of 10,141 acres (Chapter 1, Table
1) of agricultural, wetland, grassland, and riparian habitats.
Agricultural areas include walnut and almond orchards, as well
as pasture, and row crops, currently accounting for 26% of
refuge lands. Riparian habitats include: open water, oxbow
wetlands, gravel and sand bars, herbland cover, blackberry
scrub, Great Valley riparian scrub, Great Valley cottonwood
riparian forest, Great Valley mixed riparian forest, Valley oak,
Valley freshwater marsh, giant reed, disturbed, and restored
riparian.
Chapter 3
50 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Eddy Lake on the Sacramento River Refuge
Photo by Joe Silveira
Distribution of these habitats can be seen in Figures 11-23 and
a list of plant species occurring on the Refuge is located in
Appendix G. Descriptions of agricultural and riparian habitats
and their associated plant/wildlife species are as follows.
Agricultural
Walnut orchards account for about 60 percent of the Refuge’s
agricultural acreage. Almond, row crop, and pasture make up
the remaining 40 percent of the agricultural acreage. Walnut
and almond orchards are farmed under cooperative agreements
with local farmers and land managers, and are maintained
using current farming techniques that include mowing,
irrigation, pesticide and herbicide use, and mechanical harvest.
Orchards support a limited amount of wildlife, including nesting
mourning doves, western bluebirds, scrub jays, northern
flickers, lazuli buntings, and non-native such as European
starlings and house finches. Black-tailed hares, California voles,
and pocket gophers are also present in orchards. Areas of row
crop and pasture can support abundant wildlife during brief
periods, such as black-tailed hares, house mice, California voles,
California ground squirrels, pocket gophers, brewer’s
blackbirds, house finches, and mourning doves.
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51
Riparian Habitats
In conformance with the descriptions used by the Geographic
Information Center at California State University, Chico (2002)
for mapping the riparian vegetation of the Sacramento River,
Refuge “riparian” habitats are referred to as: open water,
oxbow wetlands, gravel and sand bars, herbland cover,
blackberry scrub, Great Valley riparian scrub, Great Valley
cottonwood riparian forest, Great Valley mixed riparian forest,
Valley oak, Valley freshwater marsh, giant reed, disturbed, and
restored riparian.
Open water constitutes water, either standing or moving, and
does not necessarily include vegetation. These areas support
many fish species, including salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon, as
well as avian species such as American white pelican, double-crested
cormorant, osprey, kingfisher, and common merganser.
Gravel and sand bars appear as open, unvegetated areas in
aerial photos, but ground inspection reveals several annual and
short-lived perennial species of sun-loving herbs, grasses, and
aromatic subshrubs. The vegetation cover is less than 50
percent. Species such as killdeer, spotted sandpiper, and lesser
nighthawk commonly use these areas.
Herbland cover is composed of annual and perennial grasses
and forbs, and is enclosed by other riparian vegetation or the
stream channel. Species such as lazuli bunting, blue grosbeak,
and common yellowthroat frequently nest in these areas.
Blackberry scrub is vegetation where 80 percent or more of the
coverage is blackberry shrubs. Blackberry shrubs are
important escape cover for California quail, and are used for
perches by a variety of songbirds.
Great Valley riparian scrub forms from primary succession
processes where vegetation becomes established in areas where
erosion and sedimentation of deposits have occurred (Holland
1986; Holland and Roye 1989). Vegetation includes streamside
thickets dominated by sandbar or gravelbar willows, or by
other fast growing shrubs and vines. It is also commonly
populated by cottonwood, California rose, Mexican tea, and wild
grape. Typical inhabitants include the black-chinned
hummingbird, willow flycatcher, Pacific-slope flycatcher,
mourning dove, and black phoebe.
Chapter 3
52 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Great Valley cottonwood riparian forest consists of cottonwoods
that are at least one year old and account for 80 percent or
greater of the canopy coverage. Cottonwood forests are an
early successional stage riparian vegetation type and consist of
primarily mature Fremont cottonwood trees and sparse
understory (Holland 1986; Holland and Roye 1989). They can also
include one or more species of willows and have a dense
understory of Oregon ash, box elder, wild grape, and various
herbs and grasses. Within this habitat type, species such as the
bald eagle, western yellow-billed cuckoo, and Pacific-slope
flycatcher nest and forage.
Great Valley mixed riparian forest (MRF) is a forest vegetation
type consisting of later successional species, such as valley oak
(Holland 1986; Holland and Roye 1989). Valley oak accounts for less
than 60 percent of the canopy coverage with black walnut,
Oregon ash, and western sycamore also present. Willows and
cottonwood may also be present in relatively low abundance.
The dense understory often consists of Oregon ash, box elder,
poison oak, and wild grape. Due to the dense canopy and
understory, a large variety of migratory and resident bird
species use this habitat, such as the western yellow-billed
cuckoo, yellow-rumped warbler, black-headed grosbeak, and
spotted towhee. Since MRF frequently edges oxbows and
sloughs, it attracts a large array of species that are “wetland-related”,
including the northwestern pond turtle, great blue
heron, great egret, double-crested cormorant, wood duck,
yellow-breasted chat, common yellowthroat, and song sparrow.
The valley oak riparian forest (VORF) consists of vegetation
with at least 60 percent valley oak canopy. Restricted to the
highest parts of the floodplain, VORF occurs in areas that are
more distant from or higher than the active river channel. This
habitat type is a medium-to-tall deciduous, closed-canopy forest
dominated by valley oak and may include Oregon ash, black
walnut, and western sycamore. The understory includes
California pipevine, virgin’s bower, California blackberry,
California wildrose, poison oak, and blue wild-rye (Holland 1986).
Common species found here include the red-shouldered hawk,
great-horned owl, western screech-owl, acorn woodpecker,
Bewick’s wren, bushtit, and scrub-jay. Historically an extensive
habitat, it has been greatly reduced by agriculture and firewood
harvesting and is now only limited and scattered in occurrence.
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53
Valley Oak Woodland
Photo by Joe Silveira
Valley oak woodland (VOW) is found on deep, well-drained
alluvial soils, far back from or high above the active river
channel (Holland 1986). VOW is an open, winter-deciduous
savanna dominated by widely spaced oaks, blue elderberry, and
coyote-brush, with an understory of grasses and forbs. VOW
often intergrades with VORF. Due to its more open nature,
VOW attracts different avian species than VORF, such as the
Swainson’s hawk, American kestrel, western kingbird,
loggerhead shrike, yellow-billed magpie, and western
meadowlark. VOW once occupied thousands of acres in the
Great Central Valley. It occurred on the best agricultural soils
(Columbia and Vina type) that covered thousands of acres in
the Great Valley (Bureau of Soils 913; Holland 1986; Holmes et al. 1915;
Watson et al. 1929). Consequently, valley oak woodlands are among
the most reduced natural habitat type in California.
Valley freshwater marsh is dominated by perennial emergent
monocots, a type of marsh vegetation. Cattails or tules usually
are the dominants, often forming monotonous stands that are
sparingly populated with additional species, such as rushes and
sedges. Coverage may be very high, approaching 100 percent.
Typical riparian areas that support freshwater marsh include
the main channel, tributaries, sloughs, abandoned channel,
oxbow lakes, and ponds. These areas attract an array of
wetland-dependent species such as mallard, wood duck, black-crowned
night-heron, great egret, great blue heron, American
bittern, northwestern-pond turtle and giant garter snake.
Chapter 3
54 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Giant reed (Arundo donax, locally referred to as bamboo) is a
grass that is less than 8 meters in height. It is a highly invasive
plant that reduces and replaces native species. Giant reed
provides a very low quality habitat for wildlife species.
Disturbed habitats include areas that are undergoing major
disturbances and are now either completely devoid of riparian
vegetation or contain only small remnants of it.
Fish and Wildlife
Many kinds of birds, such as gulls, terns, wading birds, diving
birds, waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, gamebirds, and a variety
of landbirds, use the Refuge at various times throughout the
year. Also present are mammalian, amphibian, reptile, fish, and
invertebrate species. While many species are common year-round,
others are here only during migration, for the winter, or
during spring and summer months to breed. Appendix G
contains a complete list of fish and wildlife species that occur
and potentially occur at Sacramento River Refuge. An overview
of wildlife use of the Refuge follows.
Waterfowl
The primary waterfowl use of the Refuge is by wintering birds
during the months of August through March. Peak wintering
populations in the Sacramento Valley occur during November
through January, when several million ducks may be present. A
small percentage remains through the spring and summer
months to nest. On the Refuge, populations peak during flood
events when much of the floodplain is underwater. During these
periods, the quantity of habitat is increased, previously
unavailable resources become available, and the area can
support thousands of ducks. Common wintering duck species
include the northern pintail, mallard, American wigeon, green-winged
teal, gadwall, northern shoveler, wood duck, ring-necked
duck, common goldeneye, and common merganser.
Goose species consist mostly of small numbers of the western
Canada goose, with occasional white-fronted geese. The
primary summer nesting species include the mallard, wood
duck, and common merganser, and lesser numbers of cinnamon
teal and western Canada goose.
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55
Wood duck
USFWS Photo
Shorebirds
The greatest numbers of shorebirds use the Refuge during fall
and spring migrations, with populations peaking in April when
thousands of sandpipers pass through the Refuge on their way
to the northern breeding grounds. Common fall and spring
migrants include western and least sandpipers, dunlin, long-billed
dowitcher, and greater yellowlegs. Killdeer and spotted
sandpipers nest on gravel bars along the river’s edge.
Wading/diving birds
Many wading and diving birds use the Refuge year-round,
utilizing all wetland and some riparian habitat types for
foraging, roosting, and nesting. Great blue heron, great egret,
and double-crested cormorant rookeries have been found in
mixed riparian forests near the main channel and along oxbows
and sloughs. Year-round species include great blue herons,
great, snowy and cattle egrets, green herons, American
bitterns, black-crowned night-herons, Virginia rails, soras,
common moorhens, American coots, pied-billed and western
grebes, and double-crested cormorants. Other waterbirds use
Refuge wetlands at various times throughout the year, such as
Clark’s grebes, eared grebes, and American white pelicans.
Raptors
Many species of raptors (birds of prey) are found along the
Sacramento River at the edge of riparian habitat adjacent to
agricultural lands. Raptor abundance is greatest in the winter
because of the high numbers of red-tailed hawks that winter in
the Sacramento Valley. Other common wintering species
Chapter 3
56 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
include barn owl, western screech-owl, and great horned owl,
but the American bald eagle and turkey vulture are also
present in relatively large numbers. White-tailed kite and
peregrine falcon are also present during the winter. Local
breeding raptors include the American kestrel, turkey vulture,
osprey, northern harrier, red-shouldered hawk, Swainson’s
hawk, red-tailed hawk, barn owl, western screech-owl, and
great horned owl.
Gamebirds
Gamebirds occupy various habitats along the Sacramento
River. The mourning dove commonly nests in riparian forests
and orchards and forages on gravel bars. California quail are
common residents in the herbaceous layer of various riparian
habitats and
blackberry thickets.
Wild turkeys use
large trees for
escape and roost
and nest in dense
herbaceous
vegetation. Non-native
ring-necked
pheasants nest in
dense herbaceous
vegetation and feed
and roost in various
riparian habitats.
Wild Turkey
USFWS Photo
Gulls/terns
Ring-billed and herring gulls are common during fall and into
spring. The black tern occurs during the spring and summer
and nests in wetlands and nearby rice fields. Forster’s and
Caspian terns are often seen in small numbers in migration
during the spring and fall.
Landbirds
The Refuge provides a variety of habitats for a great diversity
of migratory and resident landbirds (Chapter 1, Figure 4).
Habitat diversity, structural complexity, and proximity to
wetlands are important habitat features. The Sacramento River
is an important migration corridor that provides stopover
resting and feeding habitat for landbirds that breed in the
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57
nearby foothills and mountains. The river is also an important
breeding area for migratory and resident songbirds and other
landbirds. Species include the western yellow-billed cuckoo,
lesser nighthawk, black-chinned and Anna’s hummingbirds,
belted kingfisher, acorn, Nuttall’s and downy woodpeckers,
northern flicker, olive-sided, willow, and Pacific-slope
flycatchers, western wood-pewee, black phoebe, western
kingbird, tree, violet-green, northern rough-winged, bank, and
cliff swallows, scrub jay, yellow-billed magpie, oak titmouse,
bushtit, white-breasted nuthatch, Bewick’s and marsh wrens,
ruby-crowned kinglet, western bluebird, Swainson’s and hermit
thrushes, northern mockingbird, loggerhead shrike, solitary
vireo, orange-crowned, Nashville, yellow, yellow-rumped and
Wilson’s warblers, common yellowthroat, yellow-breasted chat,
western tanager, black-headed and blue grosbeaks, lazuli
bunting, spotted and California towhee, lark, fox, song,
Lincoln’s, golden-crowned, and white-crowned sparrows, dark-eyed
junco, red-winged, tricolored, yellow-headed and Brewer’s
blackbirds, western meadowlark, brown-headed cowbird,
northern oriole, purple finch, and lesser and American
g