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

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Salinas River National
Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
I
Salinas River
National Wildlife Refuge Table of Contents
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
1. Introduction and Background _________________________________________ 1
Content and Purpose of This Document ___________________________________ 1
Comprehensive Conservation Plan _________________________________ 1
Environmental Assessment _______________________________________ 2
Need for this CCP _____________________________________________________ 2
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NWR System ____________________ 2
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Responsibilities _______________________ 2
The National Wildlife Refuge System _______________________________ 3
The Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge ________________________________ 4
Introduction to the Salinas River NWR _____________________________ 4
Establishment and History of the Salinas River NWR _________________ 5
Salinas River NWR Vision Statement _______________________________ 5
Management Goals for the Salinas River NWR _______________________ 7
Existing Partnerships for Management of the Salinas River NWR ______ 7
Adaptive Management ___________________________________________ 7
Document Organization _________________________________________________ 8
2. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process ___________________ 9
The Planning Process – How This CCP Was Developed ______________________ 9
The Planning Team ______________________________________________ 9
Public Involvement in Planning ___________________________________ 10
Public Comments on Refuge Planning ____________________________________ 11
Recreation and Public Use _______________________________________ 11
Habitat and Wildlife Management _________________________________ 11
Administration and Management __________________________________ 12
Planning Process _______________________________________________ 12
Development of Refuge Goals ___________________________________________ 12
Development of Alternatives ____________________________________________ 13
Plan Implementation __________________________________________________ 13
3. Current Refuge Management and Management Alternatives ____________ 15
Introduction _________________________________________________________ 15
Overview: NEPA and this Document ______________________________ 15
Alternatives Development Process ________________________________ 16
Current Management _________________________________________________ 16
Overview of Management Alternatives ___________________________________ 17
Alternative 1: No Action _________________________________________ 17
Alternative 2: Reduce Public Use and Improve and Expand
Resource Management _____________________________________ 18
Alternative 3: Improve Public Use and Resource Management
(Preferred Management Scenario/Proposed Action) _____________ 18
Alternative 4: Expand and Improve Public Use and Resource
Management ______________________________________________ 19
Features Common to All Alternatives ______________________________ 22
Features Common to All Action Alternatives ________________________ 22
Proposed Action ________________________________________________ 22
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis _______ 23
Refuge Management Direction: Objectives and Strategies ___________________ 24
NEPA Compliance _____________________________________________ 24
Organization ___________________________________________________ 25
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies __________________________________ 25
Goal 1.0 __________________________________________________ 25
Goal 2.0 __________________________________________________ 28
Goal 3.0 __________________________________________________ 34
II
4. Affected Environment ___________________________________________ 39
Physical Resources ___________________________________________________ 39
Climate _______________________________________________________ 39
Surface Hydrology ______________________________________________ 39
Geology _______________________________________________________ 42
Soils __________________________________________________________ 43
Air Quality ____________________________________________________ 45
Hazardous Materials and Contaminants ____________________________ 45
Biological Resources at the Refuge ______________________________________ 48
Historic and Regional Context ____________________________________ 48
Vegetation _____________________________________________________ 49
Wildlife _______________________________________________________ 52
Federally Listed Species at the Refuge ____________________________ 55
Cultural Resources ___________________________________________________ 61
Cultural Setting ________________________________________________ 61
Social and Economic Environment ______________________________________ 64
Land Use _____________________________________________________ 64
Traffic and Public Access ________________________________________ 64
Recreation ____________________________________________________ 65
Employment ___________________________________________________ 68
Environmental Justice __________________________________________ 69
5. Environmental Consequences ____________________________________ 71
Physical Resources ___________________________________________________ 71
Hydrology _____________________________________________________ 71
Water Quality/Contaminants _____________________________________ 71
Geology and Soils _______________________________________________ 73
Air Quality ____________________________________________________ 73
Hazardous Materials and Safety Issues ____________________________ 75
Biological Resources __________________________________________________ 75
Vegetation _____________________________________________________ 75
Wildlife _______________________________________________________ 77
Cultural Resources ___________________________________________________ 82
Mitigation _____________________________________________________ 82
Social and Economic Environment ______________________________________ 83
Plans and Polices _______________________________________________ 83
Agriculture ____________________________________________________ 83
Transportation _________________________________________________ 84
Recreation ____________________________________________________ 84
Employment ___________________________________________________ 85
Environmental Justice __________________________________________ 86
Local Economy ________________________________________________ 86
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts __________________________________________ 86
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources __________________ 86
Short-Term Uses vs. Long-Term Productivity _____________________________ 86
6. Plan Implementation ____________________________________________ 89
Funding and Personnel ________________________________________________ 89
Step-Down Management Plans _________________________________________ 92
Compliance Requirements _____________________________________________ 92
Partnership Opportunities _____________________________________________ 92
Adaptive Management ________________________________________________ 92
Plan Amendment and Revision __________________________________________ 93
III
Appendices
APPENDIX A. Citations
APPENDIX B. Glossary of Terms
APPENDIX C. Refuge Plant List and Special-Status Species on the Refuge
APPENDIX D. Relationship between Vegetation Types Used in this CCP and
National Vegetation Classification System
APPENDIX E. Planning Team Members and Persons Responsible
for Preparing this Document
APPENDIX F. Wilderness Review
APPENDIX G. Compatibility Determinations
APPENDIX H. Salinas River NWR Avian Predator Management Plan
APPENDIX I. Salinas River NWR Wildland Fire Management Plan
APPENDIX J. Salinas River NWR Hunting Plan
APPENDIX K. Mailing List
IV
Figures
Figure 1. Location map _________________________________________________________________________________ follows 4
Figure 2. Refuge map __________________________________________________________________________________ follows 4
Figure 3. Comprehensive conservation planning process ________________________________________________________ on 10
Figure 4. Hierarchy of refuge planning levels in the National Wildlife Refuge System _______________________________ on 13
Figure 5. Proposed public use alternatives ________________________________________________________________ follows 18
Figure 6. Coastal dunes and land ownership along southern Monterey Bay _____________________________________ follows 34
Figure 7. Vegetation map ______________________________________________________________________________ follows 50
Tables
Table 1. 15-year vision for the primary habitats and for recreation on the Refuge _______________________________________ 6
Table 2. Current partnerships on the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge ___________________________________________ 7
Table 3. Summary comparison of proposed alternatives ____________________________________________________________ 20
Table 4. Soils of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge _________________________________________________________ 44
Table 5. Estimates of annual recreation use at the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge _______________________________ 67
Table 6. Recreation use at public parks along the coast near the Refuge ______________________________________________ 67
Table 7. Employment characteristics of the Salinas MSA (2000) _____________________________________________________ 68
Table 8. Income and ethnicity data for Monterey County and zip code area 93908 ______________________________________ 70
Table 9. Estimated increase in recreational use at the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge by 2015 _____________________ 71
Table 10. Summary of environmental consequences, Alternatives 1–4 ________________________________________________ 87
Table 11. Budget proposal for Salinas River NWR for Service’s proposed action (Alternative 3) __________________________ 90
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 1
Sand verbena (Verbena sp.)
USFWS Photo
Chapter 1. Introduction and
Background
Content and Purpose of This Document
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
This document is a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) designed to
guide the management of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge in
Monterey County, California for the next 15 years. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s (Service) management planning process for National
Wildlife Refuges involves two phases: (1) the development of a broad
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) that articulates a vision and
specific goals for the refuge, and (2) the formulation of more detailed
“step-down” management plans that enable the implementation of the
CCP’s vision.
The purposes of this CCP are:
O To provide a clear statement of direction for the management of the
Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) over the next 15 years;
O To provide long-term continuity in Refuge management;
O To communicate the Service’s management priorities for the Salinas
River NWR to its neighbors and visitors and to the general public;
O To provide an opportunity for the public to help shape the future
management of the Salinas River NWR;
O To ensure that management programs on the Salinas River NWR are
consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System
(Refuge System);
O To ensure that the management of the Salinas River NWR is consistent
with Federal, State, and local plans; and
O To provide a basis for budget requests to support the Salinas River
NWR’s needs for staffing, operations, maintenance, and capital
improvements.
Chapter 1
142 USC 4321 et seq., as implemented by Executive Orders 11514 and
11991 and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulation of November
29, 1978 (43 FR 55978).
2 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
This document incorporates a CCP, an environmental assessment, and
three new step-down plans: an Avian Predator Management Plan,
Wildland Fire Management Plan, and Hunt Plan. Other existing step-down
plans that will remain in place include an Integrated Predator
Management Plan and Recreational Fishing Plan.
When it is implemented, this CCP will further the purposes and goals of
the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge, contribute to the overall
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (see page 3), and address
other relevant mandates, such as recovery of endangered species.
Chapter 2 describes the CCP planning process. Chapter 3 presents the
management program proposed in this CCP.
Environmental Assessment
This document also serves as an environmental assessment (EA) under
the National Environmental Policy Act1 (NEPA), the basic national
charter for the protection of the environment. This document was
prepared as a joint CCP/EA because regulations of the President’s
Council on Environmental Quality require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (hereafter, Service) to integrate the NEPA review and compliance
process with CCP development and implementation as early as possible,
in order to ensure a systematic and interdisciplinary approach. The
purpose of the EA is to evaluate the environmental effects of
implementing the management program proposed by the CCP, including
possible management alternatives. The EA also evaluates the effects of
the CCP on the quality of the human environment, as required by NEPA.
Preparing the EA included:
O Describing alternatives to the proposed CCP (Chapter 3);
O Identifying and analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed
management program and the management alternatives (Chapter 5);
O Involving affected State and Federal agencies, Native American Tribes,
and members of the public in the CCP process.
Need for This CCP
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public
Law 105-57) (Improvement Act of 1997) requires that all Federal refuges
be managed in accordance with an approved CCP by 2012. Moreover, the
Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge currently has no integrated plan
that guides the 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.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge
System
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Responsibilities
The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for conserving and
enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats.
Although the Service shares this responsibility with other Federal, State,
Tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific responsibilities
for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish,
Introduction and Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 3
and certain marine mammals. The Service has similar responsibilities for
the lands and waters it administers to support the conservation and
enhancement of fish and wildlife.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of
lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife conservation. Operated
and managed by the Service, it comprises more than 500 national wildlife
refuges with a combined area of more than 92 million acres. The majority
of refuge lands (approximately 77 million acres) are located in Alaska. The
remaining 15 million acres are spread across the other 49 states and
several island territories.
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals. The mission of the
National Wildlife 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 National Wildlife Refuge System are:
O 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;
O To perpetuate the migratory bird resource;
O To preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on
refuge lands; and
O To 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 these activities are
compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established.
The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to resource management
and has identified 52 ecosystem units within the United States. The
Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge is situated in the Service’s
Southern California Ecoregion. The Draft Conceptual Management
Approach for Southern California Ecoregion Goals can be obtained from
the Service by request. Specific ecoregion goals relevant to the Salinas
River National Wildlife Refuge are discussed in Chapter 3 of this CCP.
Legal and Policy Guidance for Management of National Wildlife Refuges.
Individual refuges (refuge units) are guided by the mission and goals of
the National Wildlife Refuge System (see preceding section) and by the
designated purpose of the refuge unit as described in establishing
legislation or executive orders, Service laws and policy, and international
treaties. Key concepts guiding the System are contained in the Refuge
Recreation Act of 1962, the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, and, most recently, the
Improvement Act.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the only network of Federal lands
administered first for the protection of wildlife. No use of a refuge may be
allowed unless it is determined to be compatible with the refuge’s
purpose. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional
judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or
Chapter 1
4 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System or the purposes of the individual refuge unit. Sound professional
judgment is further defined as a decision that is consistent with principles
of fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and
resources, and adherence with law. In this context, the Refuge Recreation
Act of 1962 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges,
hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use when such
uses do not interfere with the area’s primary purpose.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 provides
guidelines and directives for administration and management of all areas
in the System, including wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and
conservation of fish and wildlife threatened with extinction, wildlife
ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl
production areas. This Act was amended in 1997 by passage of the
Improvement Act, which includes a unifying mission statement for the
National Wildlife Refuge System (see page 3), establishes new guidelines
for determining compatible uses on refuges, and requires that each refuge
be managed under a CCP developed in an open public process. Under the
Improvement Act, all refuge units are required to have a CCP in place by
the year 2012. The Improvement Act further states that wildlife
conservation is the priority of National Wildlife Refuge System lands and
that the Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that the biological integrity
and diversity and the environmental health of refuge lands are
maintained. In addition, the Improvement Act encourages partnerships
with Federal and State agencies, Tribes, organizations, industry, and the
general public.
The Improvement Act identifies six wildlife-dependent recreational uses
as priorities: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
environmental education, and environmental interpretation. As expressed
priorities of the National Wildlife Refuge System, these public uses take
precedence over other potential uses in refuge planning and management.
However, the Improvement Act also requires identification of existing
compatible wildlife-dependent uses that will be permitted to continue on
an interim basis pending completion of the CCP development process.
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 National Wildlife 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.
The Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Introduction to the Salinas River NWR
The Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (hereafter, Refuge)
encompasses 366 acres located 11 miles north of Monterey, California,
where the Salinas River empties into Monterey Bay (Figures 1 and 2).
The Refuge is part of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Complex, which has its headquarters in Fremont, California.
Refuge lands include a range of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, including
coastal dunes and beach, grasslands, wetlands, and riparian scrub.
Because of its location within the Pacific Flyway, the Refuge is used by a
variety of migratory birds during breeding, wintering, and migration
periods. It also provides habitat for several threatened and endangered
Salinas River
National Wildlife Refuge
Salinas
San Jose
Hollister
Santa Cruz
San Francisco
Monterey
|ÿ1
tu101
|}ÿ68
tu101
§¨¦5
|}ÿ156
|}ÿ1
|}ÿ152
|}ÿ129
Monterey Bay
SSaa nn tt aa CCrr uu zz CCoo ..
SSaa nn Maa tt ee oo CCoo ..
AAll aamee dd aa CCoo ..
SSaa nn tt aa CCll aa rr aa CCoo ..
SSaa nn BBee nn ii tt oo CCoo ..
SStt aa nn ii ss ll aa uu ss CCoo ..
Mee rr cc ee dd CCoo ..
Moo nn tt ee rr ee yy CCoo ..
Figure 1. Location Map
CA/NV Refuge Planning Office - July 2001 I
CALIFORNIA
Area
Enlarged
10 5 0 10 20 30
Miles
!j
Sa l i n a s R iv e r
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Saline
Pond
Salinas
River
Lagoon
Access Road
Beach Trail
River Trail
Salinas River
National Wildlife
Refuge
Salinas
River
State
Beach
|ÿ1
500 0 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
CA/NV Refuge Planning Office - July 2001 I
Figure 2. Refuge Map
Approved Refuge Boundary FWS Lands State Lands Sand Dunes !j Parking Lot
Introduction and Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 5
species, including western snowy plover, California brown pelican, Smith’s
blue butterfly, Monterey gilia, and Monterey spineflower. Approximately
40 species that occur or are suspected to occur on the Refuge are
considered sensitive by Federal or State agencies (see Appendix C).
Current recreational uses on the Refuge include wildlife observation and
photography and access to surf fishing and waterfowl hunting. Chapter 4
presents a detailed description of natural resources on the Salinas River
National Wildlife Refuge.
Establishment and History of the Salinas River NWR
The Refuge was established in 1973 because of its “particular value in
carrying out the national migratory bird management program” (USC
Sec. 6676). The land was acquired by the Service through a transfer of
surplus military land from the U.S. Army and the U.S. Coast Guard.
From 1974 through 1991, what is now the Refuge was operated as a
Wildlife Management Area under a cooperative agreement with the
California Department of Fish and Game. By the mid-1980s, growing
awareness of the Refuge’s importance as habitat for sensitive species
prompted a shift toward more active management and protection of its
resources. In 1991, the Service began managing the area as a National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) under the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and the
Improvement Act of 1997.
Since 1991, Refuge management efforts have focused on sensitive species
protection, habitat enhancement (including riparian restoration along the
Salinas River), and public use management. Limited recreational
opportunities have also been available to the public, including waterfowl
hunting, access to surf fishing, and wildlife observation and photography.
Much of the management and monitoring on the Refuge has been
accomplished in cooperation with various partner organizations (see
Existing Partnerships below). The Service’s approach to managing the
Refuge has been regional in perspective, and has emphasized balancing
appropriate uses among the various public lands in the Monterey Bay
area. Additional detailed information on past and current Refuge
management is provided in Chapters 3 and 4.
Salinas River NWR Vision Statement
This CCP incorporates the following vision statement for the Salinas
River National Wildlife Refuge.
The Refuge will be managed for the conservation and enhancement
of populations of native species of plants, wildlife, fish, and their
habitats. Endangered or threatened species will receive management
priority, with special emphasis placed on the conservation and
recovery of the western snowy plover. Whenever possible, habitats
and populations will be managed in partnership with local
landowners, local and regional organizations, and local, State, and
other Federal agencies to achieve regional conservation goals.
The vision for the Refuge reflects the regional approach that the Service
has taken since it began active management of the Refuge in 1991. Under
this approach, the Refuge is viewed as part of a mosaic of different types
of open spaces (State beaches, private lands, the Refuge, etc.) in the
Monterey coastal region. Each type of open space may support different
recreational uses that reflect the particular mission of the agency or entity
with stewardship responsibility for those lands.
Refuge Purpose: The Refuge
was established in 1973 because
of its “particular value in
carrying out the national
migratory bird management
program” (USC Sec. 6676).
Chapter 1
6 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
In keeping with this approach and with the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System, the Refuge will continue to offer limited but
unique wildlife-oriented recreational opportunities; however, significant
increases in public use will not be encouraged. State and local beaches will
continue to provide the primary recreational opportunities for the
Monterey Bay area shoreline. State beaches in Monterey Bay typically
offer opportunities for recreational activities—such as hang-gliding,
camping, and horseback riding—that the Refuge does not allow. These
uses, and unlimited public use in general, are incompatible with the
Refuge’s purpose. The Refuge vision statement reflects the Service’s view
that, within the wider context of public lands along the Monterey Bay, the
Refuge should support relatively undisturbed habitat for threatened and
endangered species and other wildlife, where public uses are subordinate
to the primary purpose of wildlife conservation.
Table 1 presents the 15-year vision for the Refuge’s four primary habitats
and for recreation.
Table 1. 15-year vision for the primary habitats and for recreation on the Refuge.
Coastal Dunes and
Beach
The natural processes of dune formation will be restored.
Native vegetation in the dune complex of the Refuge will be
protected and enhanced. Populations of endangered and
threatened species such as Smith’s blue butterfly, Monterey
gilia, Monterey spineflower, brown pelican, and western
snowy plover will be protected and enhanced.
Grassland The native coastal prairie will be restored by mimicking
natural processes through active management. The
restored coastal prairie will provide excellent foraging
habitat for native grassland birds.
Wetlands The saline pond will be maintained for migratory bird use.
The salt marsh habitat will be enhanced for use by
migratory and resident birds. Historic wetlands on the
Refuge will be identified and restored.
Riparian/Riverine
Habitats
Riparian scrub will be restored along the Salinas River to
provide habitat for migratory and resident birds while
allowing for natural migration of the river channel. Riverine
habitat will be enhanced for use by native waterfowl and
fish.
Recreation Limited wildlife-dependent recreation will occur on the
Refuge, when compatible with the purpose of the Refuge
and the conservation and recovery of endangered species.
Management Goals for the Salinas River NWR
Three goals have been identified to realize the vision proposed for the
Refuge.
Goal 1. Protect, restore, and enhance populations of migratory
birds and other native species and their habitats.
Goal 2. Protect and enhance populations of endangered, threatened,
and rare species and promote their recovery by restoring
and enhancing their natural habitats.
Goal 3. Provide opportunities for safe, unique, wildlife-dependent
recreation when compatible with the Refuge purpose and
with other Refuge goals.
Introduction and Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 7
These goals represent broad statements of the priorities for ongoing
Refuge management.
Existing Partnerships for Management of the Salinas River NWR
Partnerships are integral to the success of many refuges, and the Service
encourages partnerships with local organizations who share the Service’s
mission to conserve and enhance natural resources. The Refuge currently
maintains partnerships with many organizations to help achieve its goals
and those of the partner organizations. Table 2 summarizes current
partnerships on the Refuge.
Table 2. Current partnerships on the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge.
Organization Nature of Partnership
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Wildlife Services
Assists with the Refuge’s predator management
program
California Department of Fish and
Game
Coordinates programs for managing special-status
species, such as western snowy plover, on nearby
State lands.
California Department of Parks and
Recreation
Assists the Service with public use monitoring,
habitat management, and snowy plover
management
Watershed Institute of California
State University, Monterey Bay
Conducts restoration of native grassland and
riparian habitats, erosion monitoring, and scientific
research
Point Reyes Bird Observatory Conducts monitoring of western snowy plover
populations
Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research
Group
Assists with the Refuge’s experimental avian
predator management program
Neighboring landowners Control nonnative plants on dune habitat
Source: Christopher Barr and Ivette Loredo, USFWS
Adaptive Management
The Service acknowledges that much remains to be learned about the
species, habitats, and physical processes that occur on the Refuge, and
about the ecological interactions between species. When faced with
uncertainty resulting from complex ecological interactions or gaps in
available data, the most effective approach to resource management over
the long term is an adaptive one. Adaptive management refers to a
management style in which the effectiveness of management actions is
monitored and evaluated, and future management is modified as needed,
based on the results of this evaluation or other relevant information that
becomes available. The Service has been practicing adaptive management
on the Refuge since 1991 and plans to continue this practice. Accordingly,
the management scenario proposed in this CCP provides for ongoing
adaptive management of the Refuge; its adaptive management component
is described more fully in Chapter 6, Plan Implementation.
Document Organization
This document is organized into six chapters and eleven appendices. The
following table summarizes their contents.
Document
Section Content
Chapter 1 Description of CCP development process. Overview of mission and responsibilities of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
goals of National Wildlife Refuge System. Summary of history and vision of Salinas River NWR.
Chapter 1
8 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 2 Summary of process for development of this CCP, including specific public concerns identified and addressed during CCP
development.
Chapter 3 Descriptions of alternative scenarios for management of the Salinas River NWR, including the proposed management
program.
Chapter 4 Description of existing resources on the Salinas River NWR.
Chapter 5 Analysis of environmental effects of management alternatives presented in Chapter 3.
Chapter 6 Overview of process for implementing this CCP.
Appendix A List of references cited.
Appendix B Glossary of technical terms.
Appendix C List of special-status plant and animal species with the potential to occur on the Salinas River NWR or in the surrounding
area.
Appendix D Matrix showing relationship between vegetation classification system used in this document and National Vegetation
Classification System.
Appendix E List of members of the Salinas River NWR CCP planning team and members of the team that prepared this document.
Appendix F Overview of wilderness review process (process that establishes whether lands should be recommended to Congress for
designation as wilderness and inclusion in the National Wilderness System) and results of wilderness review for Salinas River
NWR.
Appendix G Compatibility determinations (results of formal review of compatibility of proposed public uses with stated refuge purpose)
for Salinas River NWR.
Appendix H Salinas River NWR Avian Predator Management Plan (step-down plan).
Appendix I Salinas River NWR Fire Plan (step-down plan).
Appendix J Salinas River NWR Hunt Plan (step-down plan).
Appendix K Mailing list of individuals, agencies, and organizations who will receive review copies of this document.
1See discussion in Chapter 1.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 9
Chapter 2. The Comprehensive
Conservation Planning
Process
This CCP/EA for the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge is intended
to meet the dual requirements of compliance with the Improvement Act1
and NEPA. The development of this CCP/EA was also guided by the
refuge planning policy 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. For example, Service policy and
NEPA require the Service to actively seek public involvement in the
preparation of environmental documents such as EAs. NEPA also
requires the Service to give serious consideration to all reasonable
alternatives, including the “no action” alternative, which represents
continuation of current conditions and management practices. Alternative
management scenarios were developed as part of the planning process
described in this chapter; the alternatives themselves are described in
Chapter 3.
The Planning Process – How This CCP Was Developed
Key steps in the Service’s CCP planning process include:
1. Forming the planning team and conducting preplanning;
2. Initiating public involvement and scoping;
3. Identifying issues and developing or revising vision and goal
statements;
4. Developing alternatives and assessing their environmental
effects;
5. Identifying the proposed action (i.e., the preferred alternative);
6. Publishing the draft plan and NEPA document;
7. Revising the draft plan and publishing a final plan; and
8. Implementing the plan.
Figure 3 diagrams the CCP planning process; the following sections
provide additional detail on individual steps in the process.
The Planning Team
The planning team responsible for leading the CCP effort included
Service biologists, planners, and public use specialists from the San
Francisco Bay NWR Complex and the California/Nevada Refuge
Planning Office. Biologists and planners from Jones & Stokes, an
environmental consulting firm, also participated in the planning team
effort. This document was prepared by a technical team from Jones &
Stokes, under the direction and with the assistance of the Service.
Appendix E lists the members of the planning and technical teams.
Chapter 2
10 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Coordination and cooperation among participating stakeholders was a
fundamental element of the CCP/EA development process. The Planning
Team considered the interests and expertise of many agencies and
organizations, including:
O U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
O California Department of Fish and Game,
O California Department of Parks and Recreation,
O Point Reyes Bird Observatory,
O Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group,
O California State University, Monterey Bay Watershed Institute, and
O U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services.
Project planning meetings attended by representatives of these entities
were held regularly throughout the planning process, from November
1999 through July 2000. Issues, concerns, and opportunities were
identified through discussions with planning team members and key
contacts and through public involvement.
Public Involvement in Planning
Public involvement is an essential component of the CCP process. The
Service announced the initiation of the Refuge planning effort to the
public on May 19, 2000 through a planning update newsletter, followed by
a formal notice in the Federal Register published on May 23, 2000. A
press release was also issued prior to the public meeting.
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 11
Public scoping meeting, Monterey, CA
Jones & Stokes Photo
There were several avenues for public involvement in Refuge planning. A
public workshop was held on June 1, 2000, in Monterey, California, to
inform the public of the planning process, and written public comments
were solicited until the public comment period ended on June 22, 2000.
Public Comments on Refuge Planning
The following sections present issues, concerns, and opportunities
summarized from all public input received during the scoping process.
(The public workshop and written comment period are collectively
referred to as the scoping process.)
Recreation and Public Use
Public comments included concerns over recreation use, including both
access issues and issues related to impacts. Some respondents felt that
access to the portion of the Salinas River mouth below high tide should be
prohibited. Concern was also expressed regarding the effects of human
population density and recreational use on native plants and wildlife.
Commentors suggested that snowy plover signage should be posted in
English, Spanish, Chinese, and Tagalog. Some commentors suggested
that signage prohibiting dogs should be clarified and increased. Others
suggested that the Service issue a map showing areas in the Monterey
region where dogs are allowed. Commentors recommended enhanced
signage to identify areas of the Salinas River (both within and beyond the
Refuge boundaries) where fishing is permitted. A desire for bilingual
Spanish and English signage was expressed. Investigation into the
impacts of hunting and other recreational activities on wildlife, such as
disturbance of non-target species, was requested. The Service was also
asked to consider the incompatibility of recreational hunting on the
Refuge.
Habitat and Wildlife Management
Many people were concerned about the loss of wildlife habitat and felt that
protecting, restoring, and enhancing wildlife populations and habitats
should be a Refuge priority. Development of a database of pertinent
Chapter 2
12 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
scientific information regarding habitats and wildlife on the Refuge was
suggested. Some commentors recommended a rigorous biological
assessment and inventory of all plant, fish, and wildlife species present on
the Refuge, including birds and invertebrates. Respondents suggested
that the Service consider the use of prescribed burning to restore
grassland. Control of invasive species was also identified as a concern, and
respondents recommended that additional approaches to avian predator
management be considered, such as creating foraging habitat by mowing
grassland. People stressed the need for long-term, effective, humane, and
socially acceptable predator-management strategies. In addition,
commentors expressed concern for the maintenance of good water quality
on the Refuge.
Administration and Management
The Service received a variety of comments related to Refuge
administration and management. Some comments suggest that the
Refuge requires improved and additional publicity; many members of the
public had not heard of the Refuge or the CCP process. Commentors
recommended that the Service determine the CCP’s consistency with
other relevant programs and existing watershed and ecosystem efforts
and ensure partnership with the California Department of Fish and Game.
They also pointed out the need to comply with each requirement of the
Refuge Administration Act, and to prioritize activities proposed in the
CCP. Adoption of monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management
strategies was also suggested. Other commentors indicated a need for
additional refuse receptacles at the Refuge, recommended that the access
road be maintained as unpaved, suggested that the Refuge entrance and
parking lot be moved to a location directly adjacent to the highway, and
requested that areas in the Salinas River where fishing is allowed be
clearly defined. Improved communication with local airports was also
recommended, because low-flying airplanes and hang gliders have been
spotted over the Refuge; commentors expressed concern about
disturbance to wildlife. Participants expressed interest in identification of
additional research opportunities. One respondent suggested that
additional funding sources to support expanding the Refuge should be
identified.
Planning Process
Some meeting participants recommended that mechanisms for providing a
response to public comments be established.
Development of Refuge Goals
The purpose of the Refuge is established by law; however, before this
CCP effort, the Refuge had no vision statement. Under the Improvement
Act, the task of the planning team was to revise and further develop the
management focus of the Refuge within the Service’s planning framework
(Figures 3 and 4). Developing the new vision statement was given high
priority because its description of desired future conditions on the Refuge
helped guide the remainder of the planning process. The vision statement
was based, in part, on the public comments received during the scoping
period. Once the vision statement was articulated, the planning team used
it to examine and clarify the Refuge’s three interim goals. The revised
Refuge goals that resulted are presented in Chapter 1.
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 13
Figure 4. Hierarchy of Refuge Planning Levels in the National Wildlife Refuge
System
Development of Alternatives
Chapter 3 describes the remaining steps in the CCP process, including
development of alternatives, assessment of their environmental effects,
and identification of the preferred management alternative (proposed
action).
Plan Implementation
Chapter 6 describes the process for implementing the management plan
proposed in this CCP.
Chapter 2
14 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
1Under NEPA and implementing regulations, action refers to a policy,
plan, program, or project that is implemented, funded, permitted, or controlled by
a Federal agency or agencies.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 15
Wildlife monitoring
USFWS Photo
Chapter 3. Current Refuge
Management and
Management Alternatives
Introduction
Overview: NEPA and This Document
As the basic national charter for the protection of the environment, NEPA
requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of all
actions1 they undertake. Agencies must also consider the environmental
effects of all reasonable and feasible alternatives to a proposed action, and
must make public the environmental effects of the proposed action and
possible alternatives. If adverse environmental effects cannot be entirely
avoided, NEPA requires an agency to show evidence of its efforts to
reduce these adverse effects and to restore and enhance environmental
quality as much as possible. An environmental assessment (EA)
documents that an agency has addressed all of these issues.
As described in Chapter 1, this document will serve as an EA to address
the environmental effects of implementing a new program of Refuge
management. This chapter, Chapter 4, and Chapter 5 are the primary
components of the EA. This chapter describes current Refuge
management and presents four alternatives for future Refuge
management, including the proposed management scenario (proposed
action). Chapter 4 describes existing environmental resources on the
Refuge. Chapter 5 describes the projected environmental effects of the
four management alternatives on the Refuge’s existing resources.
Chapter 3
16 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Three of the four alternatives presented in this chapter are “action
alternatives” that would involve a change in the current management of
the Refuge. The remaining alternative is the “no action” alternative, under
which the current management of the Refuge would continue. Under all
four alternatives, a final CCP would be prepared.
Alternatives Development Process
The alternatives development process was an iterative process that began
after the planning team developed the Refuge vision statement and
revised the Refuge’s goals. The first step in this process was to identify all
of the important issues related to Refuge management. The list of issues
was generated collaboratively by the core planning team, Service staff,
and Refuge stakeholders. (Refuge stakeholders are those individuals or
groups currently working or conducting research on the Refuge.) The
general public also helped to identify important management issues
through the scoping process. All public comments submitted at the June 1,
2000 public scoping meeting in Monterey, California, and through written
correspondence were considered.
Once the list of important management issues was generated, the
planning team described the No Action Alternative. It was important to
describe this alternative accurately because the No Action Alternative
serves as the baseline to which all other alternatives are compared.
Next, the planning team listed a wide range of management actions that
would address the issues identified and that would achieve one or more of
the goals of the Refuge. These actions were refined during several
meetings and planning team workshops. The planning team then
clustered these actions into logical groupings to form the action
alternatives. Many actions are common to more than one alternative, but
the actions within each alternative reflect a common management
approach, as described in detail below.
Current Management
The Refuge currently has no integrated plan to guide the management of
all of its resources and uses. Current management efforts on the Refuge
focus on the protection of sensitive species, the enhancement of their
habitats, and the management of public access to and use of Refuge lands.
A major emphasis of current management is the protection of the western
snowy plovers by a variety of means, including: “Sensitive Wildlife
Habitat – Closed Area” signs; nest exclosures; symbolic fencing (low cable
fence used to keep humans from approaching nests); and law enforcement
patrols. Western snowy plovers are monitored each breeding season for
reproductive success and all chicks are banded for further monitoring. In
addition, mammalian predators (including nonnative red foxes, feral cats,
and skunks) are managed to selectively remove problem predators during
the snowy plover breeding season. Black legless lizards are surveyed
monthly using a standardized protocol. Coastal sand dune habitat on the
Refuge is maintained by intensive hand-weeding and chemical control of
invasive nonnative vegetation. Native grassland has been restored and is
maintained by regular mechanical mowing and weed-whacking, and
riparian restoration is an ongoing effort along the Salinas River.
Wildlife and habitat protection has been a clear management priority for
the Refuge because of the National Wildlife Refuge System’s conservation
responsibility. Unlimited or uncontrolled public use is not compatible with
this mission nor with the purpose for which the Refuge was created.
However, limited recreational opportunities have been available for the
Current Refuge Management and Management Alternatives
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 17
public on the Refuge, including waterfowl hunting, surf fishing access, and
wildlife observation and photography. Because the State Lands
Commission owns the land below mean high water, the Service cannot,
under any alternative, prohibit public access to these tidal lands adjacent
to the approved Refuge boundary.
Overview of Management Alternatives
The following section describes the four management alternatives:
O Alternative 1: No Action,
O Alternative 2: Reduce Public Use and Improve and Expand Resource
Management,
O Alternative 3: Improve Public Use and Resource Management, and
O Alternative 4: Expand and Improve Public Use and Resource
Management.
Alternative 1: No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, the Refuge would continue to be
managed as it has been in the recent past (approximately the last ten
years). The Refuge currently has no unit-wide management plan; recent
management practice has followed existing “step-down” plans:
O Salinas River NWR Hunting Plan (1991),
O Salinas River NWR Recreational Fishing Plan (1985),
O Salinas River NWR Fire Management Plan (1999), and
O Salinas River NWR Predator Management Plan (1993).
In addition to the step-down plans, several other existing documents have
provided management direction for the Refuge in recent years, including
the Salinas River Lagoon Management and Enhancement Plan (John
Gilchrist & Associates 1997), the California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983), and the Recovery Plan for Seven
Coastal Plants and Myrtle’s Silverspot Butterfly (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1998). Implementation of the No Action Alternative would include
preparation of a CCP describing and formalizing current management on
the Refuge.
Existing recreational uses (Figure 5) would continue under the No Action
Alternative. For example, the Refuge would continue to provide limited
hunting opportunities and surf fishing access. Similarly, wildlife
observation and photography would occur on the Refuge. However, there
would be no guided tours or docent program and no facilities would be
built or improved. Recreational use would likely increase due to
population growth in the area and a greater awareness of the existence of
the Refuge. The Refuge is currently fenced along its southern boundary
only. No new fencing would be added under the No Action Alternative.
Under the No Action Alternative, resource management would include:
invasive plant removal and control; mammalian predator management to
reduce predation on western snowy plovers; snowy plover monitoring and
management; limited species inventories; grassland mowing; planting of
native riparian trees and shrubs (mostly along the Salinas River); and
mosquito management. The Service would rely primarily on partnerships
with local and State agencies, organizations, universities, and adjacent
landowners to accomplish many of its resource protection and monitoring
goals. The level of staffing and funding currently devoted to the Refuge
would remain the same under this alternative.
Chapter 3
18 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
The No Action Alternative provides a baseline against which the three
action alternatives can be compared (see Table 3). The No Action
Alternative is described in detail in the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
section below as Alternative 1.
Alternative 2: Reduce Public Use and Improve and Expand
Resource Management
Under Alternative 2, the Refuge would focus exclusively on protecting,
enhancing, and restoring natural resources. The rationale for this
alternative is that there are few other public lands in the Monterey Bay
area whose primary mission is to protect endangered species and other
wildlife. The Refuge supports a regionally important population of the
western snowy plover, which is federally listed as threatened. More
intensive management of this population and control of public use may be
required to increase the size of the population and maintain its long-term
viability on the Refuge.
Under this alternative, the Refuge would be closed to all public use except
guided tours offered by Service staff for wildlife observation,
photography, and environmental interpretation and education. The
Refuge would be fenced along most of its borders to prevent unauthorized
access. The beach below mean high water would remain open for public
use, including surf fishing, because the Refuge does not control lands
below mean high water. However, beach access through the Refuge would
be discontinued; users would be permitted to access the beach only from
the public beaches adjacent to the Refuge. In addition, the Service would
pursue a long-term lease with the State Lands Commission so it can
manage the beach and tidelands below mean high water.
Alternative 2 would redirect most of the limited resources currently
devoted to public use management to support increasing the intensity of
natural resources management. All of the current resource management
activities would continue under this alternative.
New management tools and techniques would include: use of prescribed
fire to augment mowing and herbicide use in the grassland/shrubland
habitat; comprehensive inventories of all species on the Refuge;
translocation of problem avian predators of the western snowy plover; and
creation of a Geographic Information System (GIS) database to track
vegetation and population trends. Full implementation of this alternative
would require increased staffing and funding (see Table 3).
This alternative is described in more detail in Goals, Objectives, and
Strategies below. Table 3 compares Alternative 3 to the other alternatives.
Alternative 3: Improve Public Use and Resource Management
(Preferred Management Scenario/Proposed Action)
Alternative 3 represents the Service’s preferred management
scenario/proposed action (see discussion below). Under Alternative 3,
public use of the Refuge would be improved but not substantially
expanded. For example, informational signs and interpretive exhibits
would be installed on the Refuge. In addition, the existing parking lot
would be improved (e.g., grated, paved, or covered with gravel). The area
in which seasonal waterfowl hunting is permitted would be reduced by
approximately 15% to protect roosting California brown pelicans.
500 0 500 1,0001,500
Feet
CA/NV Refuge Planning Office - July 2001 I
Figure 5. Proposed Public Use Alternatives
!jÞ
Sa l i n a s Ri ver
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Saline
Pond
Salinas
River
Lagoon
Access Road
Gate
Beach Trail
River Trail
â â â â â â
â â â â â
!Ö !i !Ö
!Ö
!jÞ
S a l inas R ive r
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Saline
Pond
Salinas
River
Lagoon
Access Road
Gate
Beach Trail
River Trail
â â â â â â
â â â â â
!©
!©
!©
!©
!Ö !Ö
!Ö
!i !j
S a li n a s R i v e r
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Saline
Pond
Salinas
River
Lagoon
Access Road
Beach Trail
River Trail
Gate moved to
near Highway 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Alternative 1
Þ!j
Beach Trail
River Trail
Sa l in a s Rive r
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Saline
Pond
Salinas
River
Lagoon
Access Road
Gate
Public access only
through tours guided
by Service staff.
Approved Refuge Boundary
Hunt Area (seasonal)
New Hunting Blinds
Parking Lot
Orientation Kiosk
Interpretive Signs
â â â â Handicap Accessible Trail
Handicap Accessible Boardwalk
Existing Trails
!©
!j
!i
!Ö
Current Refuge Management and Management Alternatives
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 19
Beach access trail
Jones & Stokes Photo
All of the current management activities would continue under this
alternative. Some activities, such as special-status species inventories,
would be substantially expanded. New management tools and techniques
would include: use of prescribed fire to augment mowing and herbicide
use in the grassland/shrubland habitat; inventories of all habitats on the
Refuge; translocation of problem avian predators of the western snowy
plover; and creation of a GIS database to track vegetation and population
trends. In addition, the Service would pursue a long-term lease with the
State Lands Commission so it can manage the beach and tidelands below
mean high water. Full implementation of this alternative would require
increased staffing and funding (see Table 3).
This alternative is described in more detail in Goals, Objectives, and
Strategies below. Alternative 3 is compared to the other alternatives in
Table 3.
Alternative 4: Expand and Improve Public Use and
Resource Management
Under Alternative 4, public use of the Refuge would be improved and
expanded. For example, informational signs and interpretive exhibits
would be installed on the Refuge, a wheelchair-accessible trail to the
Salinas River and to the beach (on a boardwalk) would be constructed,
hunting blinds would be built along the Salinas River, and a restroom
would be installed near the parking lot. In addition, the existing parking
lot and privately owned access road would be improved (e.g., paved or
covered with gravel), greatly improving access to the Refuge, particularly
during the rainy season. The seasonal hunt area would be reduced, as in
Alternative 3.
Chapter 3
20 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Table 3. Summary comparison of proposed alternatives.
Topic
Alternative 1:
No Action
Alternative 2:
Reduce Public Use,
Improve and Expand
Resource Management
Alternative 3:
Improve Public Use and
Resource Management
(Proposed Action)
Alternative 4:
Expand and Improve Public
Use and
Resource Management
Overview
Refuge Focus Remains the same:
managing wildlife and
providing limited but
unique recreational
opportunities compatible
with wildlife
preservation
Changes: exclusive focus on
protecting and enhancing
natural resources
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
Summary of
Management
Changes
O Continue current
management and
public use without
change
O Close Refuge to public
use except for guided
tours by Service staff for
nonconsumptive uses
O Expand and improve
management programs
for endangered species
and native habitats
O Improve existing public
use through construction
of interpretive signs on
existing trails
O Improve current
management through
inventories, monitoring,
and increased protection
of threatened and
endangered species
O Increase amount and
quality of public use by
building facilities and
interpretive signs on
existing trails
O Expand and improve
management programs for
endangered species and
native habitats to
minimize and offset
potential effects of
increased public use
Migratory Bird and Native Species’ Habitat Management (Goal 1)
Inventories and
Management
Tools Used
O Continue habitat
management without
change
O Continue use of
current management
tool: grassland
mowing
O Conduct comprehensive
inventory of species on
Refuge
O Expand management
tools to include:
prescribed burning of
grassland
Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2
Endangered Species Management (Goal 2)
Protection of
Populations of
Endangered,
Threatened, and
Rare Species
O Continue habitat
management and use
restrictions without
change
O Do not implement
new programs
O Do not expand
existing programs
O Limit inventories to a
few special-status
species such as
western snowy plover
and Smith’s blue
butterfly
O Coordinate
management of plover
with other groups
O Continue mammalian
predator management
O Fence Refuge to prevent
any unguided access in
or near nesting habitat
O Move closed area signs
from current locations to
Refuge boundary
O Increase enforcement
patrols
O Continue monitoring of
breeding and wintering
plover populations in
partnership with Point
Reyes Bird Observatory
O Add translocation of
avian predators to
predator management
program
O Evaluate and prioritize
management of
special-status species on
Refuge
O Preserve and enhance
populations of priority
special-status species
O Substantially expand
special-status species
and habitat inventories
and monitoring
O Establish GIS database
O Restrict access to
nesting habitat and
protect individual nests
by using improved signs
and symbolic fencing
O Continue monitoring of
breeding and wintering
plover populations in
partnership with Point
Reyes Bird Observatory
O Improve interpretation
through docent program
and displays
O Increase enforcement of
closed areas during
nesting season
O Add translocation of
avian predators to
predator management
program
O Expand species and
habitat inventories and
monitoring
O Establish GIS database
O Restrict access to nesting
habitat through improved
signs
O Continue monitoring of
breeding and wintering
plover populations in
partnership with Point
Reyes Bird Observatory
O Improve interpretation
through large docent
program and displays
O Substantially increase
enforcement of closed
areas during nesting
season
O Add translocation of avian
predators to predator
management program
Current Refuge Management and Management Alternatives
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 21
Table 3. Summary comparison of proposed alternatives (continued).
Topic
Alternative 1:
No Action
Alternative 2:
Reduce Public Use, Improve
and Expand Resource
Management
Alternative 3:
Improve Public Use and
Resource Management
(Proposed Action)
Alternative 4:
Expand and Improve
Public Use and
Resource Management
Public Use (Goal 3)
Hunting Continue to provide
waterfowl hunting
opportunities in fall on
approximately 45 acres
(3,600 linear feet) along
the Salinas River
Prohibit hunting on the
Refuge
Provide waterfowl hunting
opportunities in fall on
approximately 38 acres (2,800
linear feet) along the Salinas
River (reduce by approximately
800 linear feet)
Same as Alternative 3, but
improve hunting experience
by building 4 hunting blinds
Surf Fishing Allow access to surf
fishing opportunities on
State tidelands through
Refuge
Prohibit access to surf fishing
through Refuge
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
Wildlife
Observation
and
Photography
Provide wildlife
observation and
photography
opportunities within
designated areas
Except on beach, allow wildlife
observation and photography
only through tours guided by
Service staff
Same as Alternative 1, but
improved by addition of
interpretive signs
Same as Alternative 3
Environ-mental
Education and
Interpretation
No formal opportunities Allow environmental education
and interpretation only
through tours guided by
Service staff, conduct cultural
resources inventory
Install interpretive signs along
trails, develop educational
materials, conduct cultural
resources inventory
Same as Alternative 3
Facilities/
Trails
No new facilities or trails Same as Alternative 1 Build/install:
O Orientation kiosk
O Improved surface in parking
lot
Build/install:
O 4 hunting blinds
O Orientation kiosk
O Wheelchair-accessible
boardwalk from parking
lot to beach
O Wheelchair-accessible
trail to Salinas River
O Restroom
O Emergency phone
O Improved surface in
parking lot and on access
road
Public Use
Enforcement
Continue with current
levels: infrequent visits by
Service staff
Increase current levels:
frequent visits by Service staff
Increase current levels:
visits by Service staff at
moderate frequency
Increase current levels:
Service staff always present
during daylight hours
Staffing and Cost
Staffing
Needs*
Continue current staffing:
O Part-time Refuge
Manager
O Part-time Refuge
Biologist
Increase staff to:
O Full-time Refuge Manager
O Full-time Refuge Biologist
O Full-time Biological Science
Technician
Increase staff to:
O Full-time Refuge Manager
O Full-time Refuge Biologist
O Full-time Biological Science
Technician
O Full-time Park Ranger
O Part-time Maintenance
Worker
Increase staff to:
O Full-time Refuge
Manager
O Full-time Environmental
Education Specialist
O Full-time Public Use
Specialist
O Full-time Park Ranger
O Part-time Maintenance
Worker
Staffing
Location
Continue current staffing
location out of Refuge
Complex Headquarters in
Fremont
Establish satellite Refuge
office in Santa Cruz or
Monterey County
Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2
Estimated
Cost through
2015
Current funding:
approximately
$125,000/year
Increased funding:
approximately
$290,000/year
Increased funding:
approximately
$325,000/year
Increased funding:
approximately
$390,000/year
* Future staff will have responsibility for managing both of the Monterey Bay National Wildlife Refuges (Salinas River NWR and Ellicott
Slough NWR).
Chapter 3
22 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
All of the current management activities would continue under this
alternative. New management tools and techniques would include: use of
prescribed fire to augment mowing and herbicide use in the
grassland/shrubland habitat; inventories of all habitats on the Refuge;
translocation of problem avian predators of the western snowy plover; and
creation of a GIS database to track vegetation and population trends. In
addition, the Service would pursue a long-term lease with the State Lands
Commission so it can manage the beach and tidelands below mean high
water. Full implementation of this alternative and management of the
expected increase in public use and the potential conflicts between this
use and protection of natural resources would require substantially
increased staffing and funding (see Table 3).
This alternative is described in more detail in Goals, Objectives, and
Strategies below. Alternative 4 is compared to the other alternatives in
Table 3.
Features Common to All Alternatives
All four alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, incorporate
several concepts and management techniques intended to achieve the
species, habitat, education, and recreational goals of the Refuge (see also
Table 3). These are:
O Establishing, maintaining, and improving partnerships with landowners
and local, State, and Federal agencies and organizations,
O Coordinating management actions with local and State land and
resource management agencies,
O Controlling problem mammalian predators of the western snowy
plover,
O Monitoring breeding and wintering western snowy plover populations
in partnership with Point Reyes Bird Observatory,
O Removing nonnative invasive plants,
O Encouraging scientific research on the Refuge,
O Restoring native habitats, and
O Exploring expansion of the Refuge boundaries.
Features Common to All Action Alternatives
Several concepts and management techniques that will help to achieve
Refuge goals are common to all of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2,
3, and 4) (see also Table 3). These are:
O Translocating avian predators on western snowy plovers,
O Conducting a comprehensive inventory of species and habitats,
O Evaluating and prioritizing management of all special-status species,
O Conducting a sitewide cultural resources inventory,
O Increasing staffing,
O Establishing a satellite Refuge office in Monterey or Santa Cruz
County to permit more efficient management of the two Monterey Bay
area National Wildlife Refuges (Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
and Ellicott Slough National Wildlife Refuge), and
O Pursuing a long-term lease with the State Lands Commission to
manage tidelands.
Proposed Action
Once several feasible management alternatives have been developed, the
planning policy that implements the Improvement Act of 1997 requires
the Service to select a preferred alternative that becomes its proposed
action under NEPA. The written description of this proposed action is
effectively the draft CCP. The Service has chosen Alternative 3 as its
Current Refuge Management and Management Alternatives
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 23
proposed action for the Refuge because it is the alternative that the
Service believes best meets the following criteria.
O Achieves the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
O Is consistent with the Service’s ecoregion goals.
O Achieves the purpose of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge.
O Will be able to achieve the 15-year vision and goals for the Refuge.
O Maintains and restores the ecological integrity of the habitats and
populations on the Refuge.
O Addresses the important issues identified during the scoping process.
O Addresses the legal mandates of the Service and the Refuge.
O Is consistent with the scientific principles of sound fish and wildlife
management and endangered species recovery.
The proposed action described in this CCP is preliminary. The action
ultimately selected and described in the final CCP will be determined, in
part, by the comments received on this version of the CCP/EA. The
proposed action presented in the final CCP may or may not be the
preferred alternative presented in this version; the final CCP may
propose a modification of one of the alternatives presented here.
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis
The alternatives development process under NEPA and the Improvement
Act is designed to allow the planning team to consider the widest possible
range of issues and feasible management solutions. These management
solutions are then incorporated into one or more alternatives evaluated in
the EA process and considered for inclusion in the CCP.
Actions and alternatives that are infeasible or that may cause substantial
harm to the environment are usually not considered in an EA. Similarly,
an action (and therefore, an alternative containing that action) should
generally not receive further consideration if:
O It is illegal (unless it is the No Action Alternative, which must be
considered to provide a baseline for evaluation of other alternatives,
even though it may not be capable of legal implementation);
O It does not fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
O It does not relate to or help achieve one of the goals of the refuge unit;
or
O Its environmental impacts have already been evaluated in a previously
approved NEPA document.
However, if such actions or alternatives address a controversial issue or
an issue on which many public comments were received, they may be
considered in detail in a NEPA document to clearly demonstrate why they
are infeasible or would cause substantial harm to the environment.
During the alternatives development process, the planning team
considered a wide variety of potential actions on the Refuge. The following
actions were ultimately rejected and excluded from the alternatives
proposed here because they did not achieve Refuge purposes or were
incompatible with one or more goals:
O Building new trail alignments,
O Substantially increasing hunting opportunities,
O Introducing new types of public use such as horseback riding or
off-leash dog-walking, and
O Substantially increasing nonconsumptive public uses without increasing
management of natural resources.
Chapter 3
24 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Coastal sand dunes
USFWS Photo
Other public use and management actions were considered but were
determined to be infeasible at this time given the limited funds available
and the low priority of the actions. These actions included building a
Refuge office on the site and building an interpretive center on the
Refuge. These actions may be considered in subsequent CCPs for the
Refuge.
Refuge Management Direction: Objectives and Strategies
Under the Improvement Act of 1997, specific management direction for
NWRs is expressed in terms of objectives and strategies. As discussed in
Chapter 1, refuge goals are broad, open-ended statements of refuge
emphasis and direction. Refuge goals may or may not be feasible within
the 15-year time frame of the CCP. In contrast, refuge objectives are
concise statements of what will be achieved to help meet a particular
refuge goal. When possible, refuge objectives should be measurable, clear,
and specific, and should be feasible within the 15-year lifespan of the CCP.
Refuge strategies describe specific actions or combinations of actions that
can be used to meet an objective. In some cases, strategies describe
specific projects in enough detail to assess funding and staffing needs. In
other cases, further site-specific detail is required to implement a
strategy; this usually takes the form of a step-down management plan (see
Figure 4).
The three Refuge goals stated in Chapter 1 are repeated below to provide
the context for the proposed management direction. The alternatives
presented in this EA represent different combinations of objectives and
strategies. The proposed objectives and strategies are listed below as they
apply to each of the three Refuge goals.
NEPA Compliance
Most proposed management activities listed below are described (and
analyzed in Chapter 5) in enough detail in this EA to satisfy NEPA. Some
activities, however, do not contain site plans or other site-specific
information that would be required to analyze their environmental
impacts in the detail required by NEPA. The Improvement Act
recognizes that some actions will not be defined specifically at the time a
Current Refuge Management and Management Alternatives
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 25
CCP is prepared; the Act allows actions to be developed further during
the lifespan of the CCP through the preparation of step-down
management plans (see Figures 3 and 4). These “planning actions” are
included in the list of strategies. Therefore, this EA functions in two
capacities: as a project EA for specific activities and as a programmatic
EA for planning activities that are not yet well defined. Once the details of
these plans are developed (i.e., the location, timing, type, frequency, and
intensity of actions) additional steps, including public review, may be
required in order for the Service to comply with NEPA.
Organization
Each objective and each strategy is given a unique numeric code for easy
reference. Objectives have a two-digit code (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2). The
first digit corresponds to the goal to which the objective applies. The
second digit is sequential and corresponds approximately to the priority
given to that objective relative to others under the same goal. Similarly,
each strategy has a three-digit code (e.g., 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.1.2). The first
and second digits refer to the appropriate goal and objective, respectively.
The third digit is sequential; it indicates priority only for actions with
deadlines. Strategies are sometimes also grouped by subtopic.
As described above, all three goals apply to all four alternatives. All of the
objectives apply to all of the alternatives, except for objectives 3.1 and 3.3;
these exceptions are noted in the text. The strategies, however, may apply
either to some or to all of the proposed alternatives. The table in the
left-hand column indicates the alternative (1, 2, 3, or 4) to which each
strategy applies. In some cases, a strategy that appears in more than one
alternative would be applied to a greater degree under one alternative
than under others; in these cases, two check marks (􀀷􃜀􀀷􃜩) are shown where
the strategy would be applied to a greater degree. The rationale for each
objective is also given.
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Goal 1.0. Protect, restore, and enhance populations of migratory
birds and other native species and their habitats
Objective 1.1:
By 2015, the Refuge will restore native riparian vegetation along
at least 1,500 feet of the south bank of the Salinas River to
increase the density and diversity of migratory and resident
songbirds on the Refuge.
Rationale: Protection and enhancement of riparian habitat,
coastal lagoons, and estuaries is a major ecoregional goal.
Riparian scrub along the Salinas River upstream of the Refuge
provides important habitat for migratory and resident birds;
increasing the extent of this habitat will increase their
populations. In addition, riparian scrub along the river shades
water at the edge, improving habitat for native fish by reducing
water temperature. Overhanging vegetation also falls into the
river and provides important habitat structure for aquatic
organisms. Mature riparian scrub along the Salinas River may
also help to slow erosion of the riverbank.
Chapter 3
26 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Objective 1.1 – Restore Native Riparian Vegetation
Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative
1 2 3 4 Code Strategy
Restore Native Riparian Vegetation
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜱 1.1.1 Continue to plant and maintain riparian trees and shrubs native to the lower Salinas River along
the riverbank using cuttings from upstream populations. Continue to provide financial, technical,
and logistical support to riparian restoration partners such as the Watershed Institute of CSU
Monterey Bay to implement this strategy.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜱 1.1.2 Work with restoration partners to develop by 2003 a long-term monitoring strategy to evaluate
the survival and density of riparian revegetation.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜱 1.1.3 Evaluate the erosion of the south bank of the Salinas River and the effectiveness of riparian
restoration in stabilizing this erosion by monitoring its location using Global Positioning System
equipment. These data will be entered into the Refuge GIS database.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜱 1.1.4 By 2010, establish a program to monitor population trends, survivorship, and responses to
management actions of migratory and resident birds using the riparian restoration site on the
Refuge. Develop partnerships with nonprofit groups such as the Ventana Wilderness Society to
help implement this strategy.
Objective 1.2:
Within the mosaic of grassland and northern coastal scrub
habitat, the Refuge will maintain between 50% and 75% cover of
native grassland composed of at least 90% (by plant cover)
grasses and herbs native to the local area.
Rationale: Native grassland is a rare plant community and
wildlife habitat in California and in the Monterey Bay area. The
presence of native grassland increases the habitat diversity found
on the Refuge and provides important foraging and breeding
habitat for grassland-dependent birds and mammals. Historically,
native grassland was maintained naturally by recurring fires that
prevented shrubs from converting the habitat to shrubland. Since
the end of agricultural operations on the Refuge in the 1960s,
shrubs have been slowly invading the grassland in the absence of
fire to suppress them. By maintaining a majority of the
shrubland/grassland mosaic in native grassland habitat, the
Refuge will likely retain this important habitat in sufficient
quantity to maintain the diversity of wildlife that now inhabits the
Refuge.
Objective 1.2 – Maintain Native Grassland and Coastal Scrub
Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative
1 2 3 4 Code Strategy
Enhance Native Grassland
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜱 1.2.1 Continue to mow the grassland annually and apply herbicide to control invasive plants
such as poison hemlock and wild radish.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜱 1.2.2 By 2001, revise the Refuge Wildland Fire Management Plan to include the use of
prescribed fire as an additional management tool (to augment mowing and herbicide
use) for the maintenance and enhancement of native grassland. See Appendix I for
proposed text of the revised Fire Management Plan.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜱 1.2.3 By 2005, inventory and quantify the composition of the grassland on the Refuge. This
inventory will include documenting historical land use of the grassland and the
methodology and results of past restoration efforts.
Current Refuge Management and Management Alternatives
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 27
Objective 1.3:
The Refuge will maintain and enhance its wetland and aquatic
habitat.
Rationale: Protection and enhancement of wetlands is a major
ecoregional goal. The saline pond is a unique resource on the
Refuge that is important habitat for waterfowl such as American
avocet, black-necked stilt, and other shorebirds. The aquatic
habitat of the Salinas River Lagoon is a unique regional resource
that provides cover and food for a diverse assemblage of fish,
insects, invertebrates, and waterfowl, as well as terns, osprey,
and muskrat. The lagoon supports several special-status species,
including steelhead (federally listed as threatened). The Salinas
River is also the only habitat in which hunting is now permitted on
the Refuge.
Objective 1.3 – Maintain and Enhance Wetland and Aquatic Habitats
Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative
1 2 3 4 Code Strategy
Enhance Wetland and Aquatic Habitats
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜱 1.3.1 By 2005, conduct a hydrologic study of the Refuge that includes quantifying the water
balance of the saline pond, conducting water quality testing of the pond, and
determining the possible sources of any contaminants in the pond.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜱 1.3.2 By 2005, determine the historic extent of wetlands on the Refuge and the potential to
restore degraded wetlands.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜱 1.3.3 By 2010, complete a two-year inventory of the species present in the Salinas River
Lagoon.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 ��􃜱 1.3.4 Manage seasonal water levels within the saline pond for migratory shorebirds,
waterfowl, other water birds, and other species that depend on this habitat.
Objective 1.4:
The Refuge will enhance the coastal dune habitat for a diversity
of native species.
Rationale: Enhancement of coastal dune habitats is a major
ecoregional goal. A majority of the Refuge’s listed and
special-status species occur in or near coastal dune scrub.
Enhancing this habitat will benefit these species, including
Smith's blue butterfly, black legless lizard, Monterey gilia, and
Monterey spineflower. Removing and controlling invasive plants
is critical to enhancement efforts because of their ability to spread
rapidly and quickly displace native plants and wildlife (Pickart
and Sawyer 1998).
Chapter 3
28 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
After a prescribed burn on a national wildlife refuge
J&K Hollingsworth Photo
Objective 1.4 – Enhance Coastal Dune Habitat
Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative
1 2 3 4 Code Strategy
Enhance Coastal Dune Scrub
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜱 1.4.1 Maintain and enhance partnerships with State Parks to share information and
coordinate monitoring to cooperatively and consistently manage coastal dune habitat.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜱 1.4.2 Implement techniques to control invasive plants, using a combination of chemical and
mechanical means. Chemical control may be conducted only outside of the snowy
plover breeding season (from October through March). Hand-pulling may be
conducted year-round in the backdunes, but only during October–March in the
foredunes, where plovers nest. The method to be used will be determined by weed
infestation size, potential for habitat disturbance, effects on non-target species, and
efficiency.
Note: Strategies 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.7, 2.1.8, 2.1.9, 2.3.1, and 2.3.2 also help to achieve this objective.
Goal 2.0. Protect and enhance populations of endangered,
threatened, and rare species, and promote their recovery by
restoring and enhancing their natural habitats
Objective 2.1:
The Salinas River NWR will implement management actions to
protect, conserve, and enhance populations of special-status
species on the Refuge. Priority will be given to species that are
state- or federally listed, are proposed for listing, or are
candidates for listing.
Rationale: The Service manages endangered and threatened
species as trust species. Thus, the Service is responsible for
assisting in the recovery of endangered and threatened species
that occur within the refuge system. In order to implement
effective active management for the protection and recovery of
endangered and threatened species, a major goal of the refuge
Current Refuge Management and Management Alternatives
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 29
system overall and within the southern California ecoregion is to
develop priorities for refuge management among species.
Prioritization is important because limitations in funding and staff
time prevent targeting all special-status species for management.
Limited resources are allocated, in part, through inventories of
special-status species and prioritization of management needs.
Objective 2.1 – Protect Populations of Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species
Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative
1 2 3 4 Code Strategy
Mapping, Species Inventories, and Monitoring
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.1.1 By 2004, develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) database for the Refuge and
overlay vegetation and wildlife habitat types. This database will be used to record
locations of special-status species and to track habitat management actions, restoration
projects, and maintenance actions.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.1.2 By 2005, complete a 2-year inventory of the species that occur on the Refuge. This
inventory will include mapping the distribution and estimating the size of all populations
of special-status species. Inventories will consist of field surveys and literature searches
for historical records of special-status species. Locations of special-status species will be
entered in the GIS database.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.1.3 After completion of the 2-year baseline inventory of species on the Refuge, develop and
implement a long-term monitoring program that tracks the effects of management
actions and public use on special-status species. Monitoring data will be stored in the
Refuge’s GIS database.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.1.4 By 2008, evaluate and prioritize the special-status species that occur on the Refuge to
determine which species require active management and the level and type of
management needed. Criteria for prioritization will include, but will not be limited to:
listing status, status in the Monterey Bay area, taxonomic distinctiveness, population
size on the Refuge, threats to survival, and sensitivity to disturbance.
Management and Research
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.1.5 Encourage research on each priority special-status species on the Refuge to determine
its ecology relevant to conservation. Research could be conducted by local universities or
other organizations with assistance from the Refuge in the form of funding, supplies,
volunteers, or technical assistance.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.1.6 By 2006 (assuming additional lands are acquired), establish a satellite Refuge office in
Monterey or Santa Cruz County to permit more efficient management of the two
Monterey Bay area National Wildlife Refuges. Currently, Refuge staff are
headquartered 80 miles away in Fremont, and a significant amount of time is spent
commuting to and from the Refuge. This strategy will assist the Refuge in achieving all
of the goals and objectives in this CCP.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.1.7 By 2010, develop habitat management strategies to preserve and enhance populations of
high-priority special-status species on the Refuge. These strategies will include detailed
prescriptions for habitat management, protocols to monitor the status of these species,
and methods to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions. The strategies will
cover federally listed species such as the California brown pelican, Smith’s blue
butterfly, Monterey gilia, and Monterey spineflower, and high-priority special-status
species such as the black legless lizard.
Note: Strategies 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.7, 2.2.8, and 2.2.9 also help to achieve this Objective.
Chapter 3
30 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Objective 2.2:
The Salinas River NWR will enhance the population of the
western snowy plover on the foredunes of the Refuge so that by
2015 the snowy plover produces at least 1.0 fledged chick per male
and there is at least 35 acres of high-quality breeding habitat for
the plover.
Rationale: The western snowy plover relies heavily on coastal
beaches from southern Washington to Baja California for food,
shelter, and raising its young. The Pacific coast populations of this
species have been declining dramatically over the past decade
because of substantial habitat loss related to industrial, urban,
and recreational development, human disturbance, and
encroachment of exotic vegetation. The coastal population of
western snowy plover was listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in 1993.
Historically, the Monterey Bay area has supported one of the
most productive populations of western snowy plovers on the
central California coast (Page pers. comm.). Populations of snowy
plovers in the Monterey Bay area have been dramatically reduced
as a result of habitat loss and disturbance by thousands of beach
visitors in summer. Since 1986, there has been a dramatic decline
in plover nest success at the Refuge and on adjacent lands (see
Chapter 4). Nonetheless, the plover breeding colony on and near
the Refuge is one of California’s most important, and protection of
this resource is considered essential to the continued success of
the species.
Achieving a fledge rate of at least 1.0 chick per male will provide a
modest regional growth rate for plovers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2001). During 1996–2000, the nest hatch rate on the
Refuge was 67% and the chick fledge rate was 22%, with an
average of 23.6 nests recorded per year. There is currently
approximately 20 acres of high-quality nesting habitat for the
plover on the Refuge. Maintaining at least 35 acres of suitable
habitat for the plover on the Refuge would also ensure modest
growth of the plover population on the Refuge. The population of
plovers on the Refuge could become a “source” population (a
population growing at a rate that is more than self-supporting) for
plovers in the Monterey Bay area (Monterey Bay Area Snowy
Plover Working Group 1999). Adult plovers on the Refuge have
the potential to produce juveniles that could colonize new sites in
the area or supplement existing populations elsewhere that are
not self-supporting. Achieving this objective would help meet
recovery goals for the western snowy plover (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in preparation). The strategies outlined to
achieve this objective are consistent with the goals of the Draft
Recovery Plan for the snowy plover currently being prepared by
the Service (Elam pers. comm.).
Current Refuge Management and Management Alternatives
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 31
Western snowy plover chick (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) on the Salinas River NWR
USFWS Photo
Objective 2.2 – Enhance Western Snowy Plover Population
Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative
1 2 3 4 Code Strategy
Facilitate Regional Management
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.2.1 Continue to facilitate regular meetings of the Monterey Bay Area Snowy Plover
Working Group to share information and develop successful management strategies to
increase the population and geographic extent of snowy plovers throughout the
Monterey Bay area.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.2.2 Continue partnership with Point Reyes Bird Observatory to monitor snowy plover
reproductive success on the Refuge. Each nest will be closely monitored and data will
be collected on adult breeding population size, hatch rates, and fledge rates. All snowy
plover chicks will be banded in order to collect information on survival and movement
patterns.
Control Invasive Plants
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.2.3 Remove all European beach grass, iceplant, and other invasive plants from the
foredunes of the Refuge by 2015. Control invasive plants in fall and winter (outside the
plover breeding season) using chemical and mechanical means such as herbicide
spraying, hand pulling, burning, or heavy equipment. Techniques will be chosen based
on their likelihood of success, their financial and labor costs, and their low potential for
adverse environmental effects.
Minimize Human Disturbance in Nesting Habitat
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.2.4 Install clearer ‘closed area’ signs at the boundary of sensitive dune habitat by 2002.
These signs should be similar to signs used at other plover nesting sites in the region.
Install entrance signs that clearly state that dogs and horses are not allowed on the
Refuge (except dogs when hunting).
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀􀀷􃜲 2.2.5 Develop and implement a docent program on the Refuge by 2006, in coordination with
other agencies, to educate Refuge users during the sensitive breeding season on the
ecology of western snowy plovers and the sensitivity of their habitat and nests to
disturbance.
Chapter 3
32 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Objective 2.2 – Enhance Western Snowy Plover Population (continued)
Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative
1 2 3 4 Code Strategy
Minimize Human Disturbance in Nesting Habitat (continued)
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.2.6 Design and install interpretive signs at the entrance to and along the coastal dune trail
by 2005 that explain to visitors the ecology of the western snowy plover and the
plover’s sensitivity to disturbance. Coordinate with other agencies to design
interpretive signs with a message that is consistent with interpretive signs for snowy
plovers at other sites in the Monterey Bay area.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.2.7 By 2005, install symbolic fencing along beach trail around plover nests likely to be
disturbed by the public; if trespass into closed areas continues, install symbolic fencing
along the edge of foredune habitat to delineate sensitive areas and restrict human
access.
􀀷􃜲 2.2.8 Install high chain-link fencing on the southern boundary of the Refuge and across the
beach on the northern and southern boundaries to prevent unauthorized entry into the
Refuge.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀􀀷􃜲 2.2.9 Increase enforcement of the closed dune habitat by increasing the presence of Service
staff and law enforcement officers on the Refuge to at least one day per week each
(two person-days per week) during the plover breeding season.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.2.10 Negotiate a long-term lease with the State Lands Commission to manage the beach,
foredunes, and tidelands immediately west of the current boundary.
Control Predators on Eggs and Chicks
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.2.11 Continue to implement the Monterey Integrated Predator Management Program* on
the Refuge to control predation on western snowy plovers by mammals. This program
uses humane and target species–specific methods to control problem mammalian
predators, primarily red foxes, feral cats, and skunks. Nonlethal methods (e.g.,
box-type traps, soft-catch padded leghold traps, hazing, bow nets, lures) will be used
whenever possible. Lethal methods, including shooting and euthanasia, will be used
when necessary. The Service will continue to coordinate this effort with other agencies
such as the California Departments of Parks and Recreation and Fish and Game, and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services Program.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.2.12 Revise the Goals in the Refuge’s Predator Management Plan to the following:
“Maintain a 5-year productivity of at least 1.0 fledged chick per male and 40 breeding
adults to reflect best available scientific information on requirements for achieving a
self-sustaining population.”
Facilitate Regional Management
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.2.13 Implement the Avian Predator Management Plan to provide for removal and
relocation of individual American kestrels, northern harriers, loggerhead shrikes and
other problem avian predators that threaten nesting western snowy plovers on the
Refuge and adjacent lands (see Appendix H for details of this proposed new project).
* The details of the current Integrated Predator Management Program have been described and the
environmental effects of this program evaluated in a previous plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). This
plan and the associated NEPA document are available from the Service upon request.
Objective 2.3:
The Refuge will protect and will encourage protection of as much
of the coastal sand dune ecosystem in the Monterey Bay area as
possible.
Rationale: Protection and enhancement of coastal dune habitats is
a major ecoregional goal and an important recovery action for the
federally listed species that inhabit them. The coastal dune
Current Refuge Management and Management Alternatives
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 33
The endangered Smith’s blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi)
ecosystem is a rare habitat in California and is under increasing
threats from development, off-highway vehicle use, and invasive
plants. The dune system in the Monterey Bay area is among those
in the State threatened by these factors (Big Sur Land Trust
1992). Coastal dunes north of the Refuge are largely protected by
State parks and an ecological reserve (Figure 6). However, dunes
south of the Refuge are largely unprotected; most dunes are
privately owned within the cities of Marina, Sand City, Seaside, or
Monterey. A 67% undivided interest in the Martin Dunes site,
immediately south of the Refuge, was purchased in 2000 by the
Big Sur Land Trust; several large private parcels between the
Martin Dunes property and Marina State Beach support sand
mining operations (California Department of Conservation 1992).
The majority of these parcels remain undeveloped and encompass
important coastal dune habitat that supports many listed species
(California Department of Conservation 1992; Big Sur Land Trust
1992).
Objective 2.3 – Protect Coastal Sand Dune Ecosystem
Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative
1 2 3 4 Code Strategy
Protect Coastal Sand Dune Ecosystem
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.3.1 Establish partnerships with other landowners of coastal dune habitat to manage this
habitat for conservation (e.g., controlling invasive plants on coastal dunes) through
cooperative agreements, conservation easements, or financial incentives such as
funding through the Partners for Wildlife program. The Service could also provide
technical assistance, volunteer labor, financial assistance, or supplies to landowner
partners.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜲 2.3.2 Explore expansion of the current Refuge boundary by initiating the Service’s planning
process for expanding refuges, which culminates with a Land Protection Plan,
Conceptual Management Plan, and NEPA document.
Goal 3.0. Provide opportunities for safe, unique, wildlife-dependent recreation when compatible with the
purpose and goals of the Refuge
Chapter 3
34 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
California brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis)
USFWS Photo
Objective 3.1:
The Refuge will provide limited opportunities for hunting and
access to fishing that are compatible with Refuge goals for
protection of special-status species.
Rationale: Hunting and fishing were identified in the
Improvement Act as priority uses for refuges when they are
compatible with other refuge goals. As a result, the Service
encourages hunting and fishing on many NWRs. Because
waterfowl hunting opportunities are limited in the Monterey Bay
area (see Chapter 4), the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
provides an important regional recreational opportunity for
waterfowl hunters, and is unique in the area in providing
opportunities for walk-in hunting (see Chapter 4). Hunting must
be limited on the Refuge because of its importance to special-status
species that are sensitive to disturbance. For example, the
California brown pelican roosts near the current hunt area (see
Chapter 4).
Objective 3.1 – Provide Fishing and Waterfowl Hunting Access or Opportunities
Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative
1 2 3 4 Code Strategy
Hunting Opportunities
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜳 3.1.1 Reduce the hunting area on the Refuge from approximately 45 acres to approximately
38 acres (Figures 2 and 5) to reduce disturbance to pelicans roosting on the Refuge’s
island in the Salinas River.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜳 3.1.2 Annually monitor hunting use of the Refuge beginning in 2002. The information
gathered will be used to review and possibly revise Refuge hunting regulations to
enhance the quality and safety of the Refuge’s hunting program.
􀀷􃜳 3.1.3 By 2005, install 4 hunting blinds along the south bank of the Salinas River, including
two blinds accessible by disabled hunters, to improve the quality of hunting
opportunities.
M o n t e r e y B a y
Salinas River
National Wildlife Refuge
Salinas State Beach
Zmudowski State Beach
Moss Landing State Beach
Martin Dunes
Elkhorn Slough
Ecological Reserve
Moss Landing Wildlife Area
Moro Cojo
Ecological
Reserve
Del Monte Dunes
Ecological Reserve
Santa Cruz Long-Toed Salamander
Ecological Reserve
Kirby Park PA
Elkhorn Slough Preserve
Manzanita
Regional Park
Royal Oaks Park
Struve Pond Easement
Elkhorn Slough Preserve
Marina State Beach
Asilomar
State
Beach
Monterey State Beach
Marina
Salinas
Seaside
Sand City
Prunedale
Monterey
Elkhorn
Aromas
Pacific Grove
Del Monte Forest
Las Lomas
Castroville
Pajaro
tu101
|}ÿ1
|}ÿ183
|}ÿ68
|}ÿ156
|}ÿ68
Figure 6. Coastal Dunes and Land Ownership along Southern Monterey Bay
1 0 1 2 3 I
Miles
CA/NV Refuge Planning Office - July 2001
Coastal Sand Dunes
Refuge Boundaries
CA Dept. Of Fish and Game
CA Dept. of Parks and Rec.
Land Trust/Conservation Org.
Regional Parks
BLM
Cities and Towns
Sources: Natural Resources Conservation
Service, CA Department of Parks and Recreation,
CA Department of Fish and Game, Bureau of Land
Management, and GreenInfo Network
Current Refuge Management and Management Alternatives
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 35
Objective 3.1 – Provide Fishing and Waterfowl Hunting Access or Opportunities (continued)
Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative
1 2 3 4 Code Strategy
Surf Fishing Opportunities
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜳 3.1.4 Continue to provide access to opportunities for surf fishing between the high tide and
surf zones.
Objective 3.2:
The Refuge will provide opportunities for wildlife observation
and photography that will enable visitors to experience and
enjoy the wildlife of the Refuge and develop an appreciation for
wildlife species and their unique habitats.
Rationale: The Improvement Act identified wildlife observation
and wildlife photography as priority public uses for NWRs.
Because these public uses are often compatible with wildlife
management goals, the Service encourages wildlife watching and
photography on almost all NWRs.
Objective 3.2 – Provide Wildlife Observation and Photography Opportunities
Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative
1 2 3 4 Code Strategy
Wildlife Observation and Photography
􀀷􃜳 3.2.1 Establish regularly scheduled wildlife observation and photography tours of the
Refuge led by Service staff.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜳 3.2.2 By 2005, design and install an orientation kiosk at the Refuge entrance that includes
three signs: a sign providing a trail map, trail information, and trail regulations; a sign
that describes the National Wildlife Refuge System and allowed uses on the Refuge;
and interchangeable signs for hunting and snowy plover nesting seasons.
􀀷􃜳 3.2.3 By 2003, construct and maintain a 1,500-foot wheelchair-accessible trail from the
parking lot of the Refuge to the River Trail Loop to improve access to the Salinas
River and to minimize the impacts of public use through these sensitive habitats
(Figure 5).
􀀷􃜳 3.2.4 By 2005, construct and maintain a new wheelchair-accessible boardwalk from the
parking lot of the Refuge to the beach to improve access to the beach (Figure 5).
􀀷􃜳 3.2.5 By 2005, install a restroom facility at the parking lot.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜳 3.2.6 By 2010, improve the parking lot surface to provide visitors with better all-season
parking at the Refuge.
􀀷􃜳 3.2.7 Subject to landowner approval, improve the access road surface to provide visitors
with all-season and safer access to the Refuge by 2015.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜳 3.2.8 Maintain trails on the Refuge and clearly delineate trail portion along the Salinas
River.
Note: Strategy 3.1.3 also helps to achieve this Objective (hunting blinds can also be used as wildlife observation
blinds).
Chapter 3
36 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Salinas River NWR CCP Planning Team on field visit
USFWS Photo
Objective 3.3:
The Refuge will expand opportunities for interpretation and
environmental education that will foster visitors’ appreciation,
understanding, and stewardship of the Refuge’s habitats and
protected species.
Rationale: The Improvement Act identifies environmental
interpretation and environmental education as priority uses on
NWRs. Because these uses are often compatible with other
refuge management goals, the Service actively encourages
environmental education and interpretation on many refuges. The
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System encourages study
sites, facilities, and active support for educational programs that
focus on fish and wildlife resources and environmental problems.
High-quality interpretive and educational opportunities will
greatly enhance visitors’ experience of the Refuge. Increased
knowledge of Refuge resources will ensure a more comprehensive
understanding of NWRs and their significance.
In addition, formal cultural resource surveys are highly
recommended for the Refuge to complement ongoing and
proposed biological and hydrologic studies; little information now
exists on the Refuge’s cultural resources, but activities included
under all of the management alternatives have the potential to
affect cultural resources. At a minimum, cultural resources
inventories will be required in areas where ground-disturbing
activities are proposed, including the use of prescribed fire and
construction of trails or other facilities. In addition, the World
War II bomb shelter should be formally recorded by a qualified
cultural resources specialist.
Inventories, evaluation, or data recovery on cultural resources on
the Refuge could help address important academic questions for
the region. Any information gathered during cultural resource
surveys will be incorporated into interpretive and educational
material.
Current Refuge Management and Management Alternatives
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 37
Objective 3.3 – Provide Interpretation and Education
Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative
1 2 3 4 Code Strategy
Interpretation and Education
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜳 3.3.1 By 2007, design and install interpretive signs along existing trails to explain the
ecology of native habitats on the Refuge and the species within them.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀􀀷􃜳 3.3.2 Maintain and enhance existing environmental education partnerships with the
California State University and develop new partnerships with other local agencies,
schools, universities, and organizations.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀􀀷􃜳 3.3.3 Develop environmental education and interpretive materials including a Refuge
brochure, fact sheets on specific species and habitats, and a guide for educators on
endangered species issues, to enable educators to use the Refuge as an outdoor
classroom, without staff assistance.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜳 3.3.4 Conduct a sitewide inventory of potential archaeological and historic resources on the
Refuge; incorporate information about these resources into interpretive and
educational material (Strategies 3.3.1 and 3.3.3).
􀀷􃜳 3.3.5 By 2010, redesign and retrofit the existing bomb shelter in a way compatible with its
cultural significance to be used as an open-air shelter for staging interpretive
programs.
Note: Strategies 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 also help to achieve this Objective.
Objective 3.4:
The Refuge will take measures to ensure the safety of resources,
property, and visitors.
Rationale: Increased safety measures would enable the Refuge to
better fulfill its conservation mission, and would ensure improved
experiences for Refuge visitors.
Objective 3.4 – Ensure Safety of Resources, Property, and Visitors
Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative
1 2 3 4 Code Strategy
Increase Safety Measures
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀􀀷􃜳 3.4.1 Increase law enforcement patrols.
􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀 􀀷􃜀􀀷􃜳 3.4.2 Develop cooperative agreements with State and local agencies to support increased
law enforcement patrols.
􀀷􃜳 3.4.3 By 2005, install an emergency phone (i.e., one able to dial 911 only) at the Refuge
parking lot.
Chapter 3
38 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 39
Saline pond on Salinas River NWR
USFWS Photo
Chapter 4. Affected
Environment
This chapter describes the characteristics and resources of the Refuge. It
specifically addresses physical resources, biological resources, cultural
resources, socioeconomic resources, and recreational opportunities.
Physical Resources
Climate
Like the rest of the California coast, northwestern Monterey County
enjoys a Mediterranean climate, with dry, warm summers and moderately
wet, mild winters. Precipitation in the Refuge area averages
approximately 16 inches per year, 90% of which falls between November
and April (Soil Conservation Service 1978). Prevailing winds throughout
most of the year are northwesterly. During the late summer and fall,
prevailing winds are southeasterly.
Surface Hydrology
The Refuge is located at the western (downstream) end of the Salinas
River watershed. This watershed, between the Santa Lucia and Diablo
ranges, is approximately 150 miles long and averages 20–40 miles wide. It
is one of the larger watersheds in California, draining an area of 4,231
square miles.
Surface drainage in the vicinity of the Refuge is dominated by the
gradients associated with the Salinas River and the Pacific Ocean. Much
of the surface runoff in the project area drains in a general northward
direction into the Salinas River. Some runoff may also drain west, directly
into the Pacific Ocean, via overland flow or via subsurface flow under the
dune lands. In addition to natural runoff, off-site drainage from
agricultural lands south of the project site is conveyed northward into the
Refuge. Agricultural runoff apparently flows into the Refuge’s large salt
pond; if the capacity of the salt pond is exceeded, runoff overflows
northward into the Salinas River.
Chapter 4
40 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
The Refuge’s salt pond is likely a remnant of an abandoned meander of
the Salinas River. Based on analysis of historic U.S. Coast and Geodetic
Survey maps, the pond has existed since at least 1857 (John Gilchrist &
Associates et al. 1997) and was connected to the Salinas River until 1913.
Since its formation, the pond has gradually shrunk in size and depth,
probably in part because of gradual infiltration and in part because of
encroachment by the Refuge’s eastward- migrating dunes. Nonetheless,
this 45-acre pond is noteworthy, as there are few other saline ponds of this
type on the central California coast.
In addition to agricultural runoff, the Refuge’s salt pond also receives
input from rainfall, from seawater that washes over the dunes, from
groundwater, and, during major floods, from the Salinas River. The depth
of the pond varies in response to the balance among these factors.
Between 1989 and 1991, the depth of the pond ranged from 0.5 foot to 2.0
feet; the pond was nearly dry in November 1990. As water levels drop,
salt from seawater input concentrates in the pond. Water salinity in the
pond ranges from 1 part per thousand (ppt) immediately after heavy rains
to 150 ppt during prolonged droughts; for comparison, the salinity of
seawater is about 35 ppt.
The Salinas River. Like all rivers, the Salinas River is a dynamic system.
Under natural conditions, its course changes because of gradual, ongoing
processes of erosion and sediment deposition. During major floods, these
processes may be accelerated, resulting in rapid shifts in the location of
the active river channel.
Historic maps of the Salinas area show that the course of the Salinas
River has altered significantly over the past two centuries (John Gilchrist
& Associates et al. 1997). In 1857, the river entered what is now the
Refuge from the northeast rather than the southeast. By 1933 the river
occupied a channel similar in location and configuration to its present
course, which describes a gentle northwestward curve across the Refuge.
Since at least the 1930s, the south bank of the river (the outside of the
curve) has slowly eroded, while the north bank (the inside of the curve)
has built southward through the steady accumulation of sediment. Thus,
the Salinas River channel has shifted to the southwest, farther onto the
Refuge site; the net result has been to reduce the amount of land and
increase the amount of open water within the Refuge boundary. This
natural process of channel migration is expected to continue for the
foreseeable future.
In an attempt to slow the rate of erosion along the Salinas River’s south
bank, erosion-control structures were installed along the river near the
Highway 1 bridge immediately upstream from the Refuge. Some of the
structures have failed and been washed away; others have succeeded in
slowing erosion locally. The width of the stabilized reach of the channel
has decreased from ~600 feet in 1933 to ~150 feet today, in part because
the stabilized south bank is prevented from migrating laterally while
sediment deposition continues on the north bank (John Gilchrist &
Associates et al. 1997). Flow diversions may also have contributed to the
decrease in channel width.
On the Refuge, the Salinas River’s south bank is unprotected and
experiences significant erosion. One goal of riparian restoration work
along the south bank of the river in the Refuge is to slow the rate of bank
erosion. The Biological Resources section of this chapter contains
additional information on riparian restoration on the Refuge.
Affected Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 41
Riparian restoration along Salinas River
Jones & Stokes Photo
Flooding:
The central California coast, including the Refuge, experiences annual
flooding related to winter storms originating over the Pacific Ocean.
Extended periods of heavy rainfall produce floods characterized by a
rapid rise in streamflow. The subsequent decrease in streamflow may be
almost as rapid; however, a series of storms, or a single stalled
stormfront, can produce large, catastrophic riverine floods. Flooding in
the coastal areas of Monterey County is also associated with simultaneous
occurrence of very high tides and large waves. Property damage results
from erosion, flotation, and inundation, and from the deposition of debris
on downstream properties.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate
Maps indicate that, except for the coastal dunes and the upper terrace
deposits along the site’s southern boundary, much of the Refuge is within
the 100-year floodplain of the Salinas River. This means that under
natural conditions much of the Refuge should be inundated every 100
years on the average. The 100-year water surface elevation ranges from
8.8 feet above mean sea level near the mouth of the Salinas River to 10.6
feet above mean sea level at the eastern boundary of the Refuge (Federal
Emergency Management Agency 1991).
Lagoon Breaching:
The mouth of the Salinas River experiences intermittent partial blockage
as a result of natural sandbar development. This causes water levels in the
Salinas River Lagoon behind the bar to rise; agricultural lands to the
north of the Salinas River begin to flood when the stage in the lagoon
exceeds approximately 5.5 feet. To prevent flooding, the Monterey
County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) periodically breaches the
sandbar in the winter, usually from the north side of the Salinas River
Lagoon through adjacent State property, but occasionally from the south,
through the Refuge.
MCWRA breaches the rivermouth under the following conditions:
O When flows of approximately 500 cfs or greater are forecast at the U.S.
Geological Survey gage at Spreckles;
Chapter 4
42 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
O When forecast extended flows might cause flooding on nearby farmland
if the Salinas River mouth is not breached;
O When the water level in the Salinas River Lagoon is high, and
continuous or imminent river flow into the lagoon is forecast; or
O When a forecast by the MCWRA’s ALERT flood warning system
indicates that flow into the Salinas River Lagoon will result in flooding
if the rivermouth is not breached.
It takes approximately 24–48 hours to mobilize and clear a channel
through the sandbar with a bulldozer (John Gilchrist & Associates et al.
1997). The timing of breaching affects both water level and water salinity
in the lagoon.
Water Quality. Water quality in the Salinas River has been altered by a
number of practices, including:
O Surface-water diversion,
O Groundwater pumping,
O Diking and drainage of wetlands,
O Agriculture, and
O Contamination from industrial point sources and from urban runoff.
Alteration of flows alters the salt balance in the Salinas River Lagoon and
adjacent marshes, but the greatest threats to water quality in the lagoon
and the salt pond on the Refuge are nutrients and pesticides from
adjacent and upstream agricultural lands. At present, it is unknown
whether the Refuge receives these contaminants from agricultural runoff.
Excess nutrients may cause eutrophication, or over-enrichment in
nutrients, producing excess growth of algae and mortality of other
organisms; this in turn decreases concentrations of dissolved oxygen and
contributes to noxious odors. Persistent pesticides in the area may
include DDT, toxaphene, dieldrin, endrin, aldrin, and endosulfan, all of
which have been used extensively in the Salinas Valley. The use of these
pesticides has been banned in California, but they were used for many
years, and are known to have been used extensively in the Salinas Valley
(John Gilchrist & Associates et al. 1997). These pesticides have been
linked to various problems in local wildlife, including widespread mortality
resulting from spills, reproductive failure caused by bioaccumulation,
behavioral and physiological problems, decreased food consumption, and
increased susceptibility to predation and cold.
Geology
Geologic Setting. The Refuge is located in a portion of the California
Coast Ranges referred to as Salinia or the Salinian block. Basement rocks
in the Coast Ranges are as old as Mesozoic (65–245 million years old) (e.g.,
Jennings and Strand 1959), and record the long and complex history of the
California continental margin. However, the Coast Range itself is a
relatively recent feature. Uplift of the Coast Range probably began no
earlier than about 5–8 million years ago (Buising and Walker 1995,
Atwater and Stock 1998), and uplift of some parts of the range has
continued into the past 2 million years (Burgmann et al. 1994, Sedlock
1995). The region is also currently experiencing active strike-slip tectonics
related to the San Andreas fault system.
The Salinian block, bounded on the landward side by the San Andreas
fault, and on the oceanward side by the offshore San Gregorio-Hosgri
fault system, is a geologic orphan, sliced off of rocks to the south and slid
into its current location by large-scale translation along the San Andreas
Affected Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 43
fault (Mattinson and James 1985). Unlike adjacent portions of the Coast
Ranges, which are largely underlain by basement rocks belonging to the
Franciscan complex, Salinia is characterized by a basement assemblage of
plutonic (granitic-granodioritic) and metamorphic rock (e.g., Mattinson
and James 1985). In the vicinity of the Refuge, this crystalline basement
is overlain by terrestrial and marine sedimentary strata that range from
Miocene to Pliocene (approximately 23 million years to 1.6 million years)
in age. The Refuge itself is situated primarily on inactive dune deposits of
Pleistocene age (1.6 million to approximately 10,000 years old), on active
coastal deposits (including active dunes) and on active alluvium of the
Salinas River floodplain (see Jennings and Strand 1959).
Seismic Activity. The Refuge is located in a seismically active region.
Although the Refuge does not encompass any active faults (defined by the
California Division of Mines and Geology as faults that have experienced
motion in the last 11,000 years) (Hart and Bryant 1997), the San Andreas
fault zone is located less than 15 miles northeast of the Refuge. Several
strong earthquakes have occurred within a 50-mile radius of the Refuge.
The closest recorded strong earthquake occurred in 1910, approximately 8
miles north of the Refuge; it measured 5.3 on the Richter scale (Ellsworth
1990). The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, with a Richter magnitude of 6.9,
was epicentered approximately 20 miles northwest of the Refuge
(http://www.quake.usgs.gov/prepare/ index.html, accessed June 16, 2001).
Because of its proximity to active fault strands, the Refuge can be
expected to experience ongoing earthquake activity in the future.
Soils
Overview of Soils on the Refuge. Soils in the Refuge area include the
following mapped units: Alviso silty clay loam, coastal beaches, Metz fine
sandy loam, Mocho silty loam, Mocho silty clay loam, and Pico fine sandy
loam (Soil Conservation Service 1978). Table 4 summarizes the
characteristics of the Refuge’s soil units.
Soils of the Refuge include floodplain and tidal basin soils, as well as a
substantial area of coastal dunes. The Refuge’s dune lands represent the
northern tip of a dune system that extends more than 12 miles south of
the Refuge, reflecting the combined influences of the Salinas River,
coastal waves and tides, and prevailing winds. Sand is supplied primarily
by longshore transport of sediment delivered by rivers to the north
(including the Salinas River) and is reworked and sculpted into dune
forms largely by onshore winds. High storm tides subject the dunes to
intermittent wave erosion.
The Refuge’s dune system is highly dynamic, shifting its position and form
in response to changes in the balance between sand supply, wind
transport, and wave erosion. Analysis of historic maps shows that between
1937 and 1987, the beach and dunes on the Refuge migrated landward
approximately 300–400 feet of their present position, covering
approximately 13 acres of the salt marsh and the present location of the
salt pond. This change is equivalent to an average of 6–10 feet of landward
migration per year. This rate of movement is not unique to the Refuge;
similar rates have been measured in the dunes and beaches in nearby
Marina, Seaside, and Monterey (John Gilchrist & Associates et al. 1997).
Chapter 4
44 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Central dune scrub habitat on Salinas River NWR
Jones & Stokes Photo
Table 4. Soils of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge.
Soil Unit Description Permeability/Runoff Erosion Hazard Depth to Water Table
Alviso silty
clay loam
Typically <20 inches thick; occurs in basins
and on tidal flats.
Low/Very Slow
(Very poorly drained
under natural conditions.)
Low 6–12 inches
Coastal
beaches
Characterized by a narrow sandy strand
and adjacent sand dunes; partly inundated
during high tide and exposed during low
tide. May consist of sand, gravel, and
cobbles, in any combination.
Very Rapid/Very Slow Very High
Dune lands Gently sloping to steep landforms composed
of loose, wind-deposited quartz and feldspar
sands.
Very Rapid/Very Slow Very High (subject
to wind erosion)
Metz fine
sandy loam
Nearly level floodplain deposit. Moderate/Slow Slight, but subject
to effects of wind
Typically > 60 inches
Mocho silty
loam
Formed on floodplains in alluvium derived
primarily from sedimentary rocks.
Moderate/Slow Slight Typically > 60 inches
Mocho silty
clay loam
Formed on floodplains in alluvium derived
primarily from sedimentary rocks.
Slow/Slow Slight Typically > 60 inches
Pico fine
sandy loam
Formed on floodplains in alluvium derived
primarily from sedimentary rocks.
Moderately Rapid/Slow Slight, but subject
to effects of wind
Typically > 60 inches
Source: Soil Conservation Service 1978
Soils-Related Hazards on the Refuge. The following paragraphs briefly
discuss soils-related hazards that may affect land use decisions on the
Refuge.
Expansive soils contain clay minerals (the so-called “swelling clays”) that
take on water and expand when wetted and contract again as they dry.
Structures built on expansive soils—for example, buildings, pavements,
and embankments—may be damaged by the movement and settlement
that accompany this shrink-swell behavior. At the Refuge, the Alviso,
Mocho, and Pico soils exhibit moderate to high shrink-swell potential; the
area’s other soils have low shrink-swell potential (Soil Conservation
Service 1978).
Affected Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environm