Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Prepared By:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Nevada Region Refuge Planning 2800 Cottage Way, W-1832 Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
and
Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex 1020 Ranch Rd. Loleta, CA 95551-9633
January 2009 Abbreviations and Acronyms
AFWO Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office AQMD Air Quality Management District Bay Humboldt Bay BCC Birds of Conservation Concern BCR Bird Conservation Regions BIDEH Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health (601 FW3) BLM Bureau of Land Management BMC Birds of Management Concern CCC California Conservation Corps CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan CDF California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (also, CAL FIRE) CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDPH California Department of Public Health CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CESA California Endangered Species Act CLMA Cooperative Land Management Agreement CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNLM Center for Natural Lands Management CNPS California Native Plant Society CWA California Waterfowl Association DPS Distinct Population Segment DU Ducks Unlimited EA Environmental Assessment EDPA Eureka Dunes Protected Area EE/I Environmental Education/Interpretation EO Executive Order ES Endangered Species ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit (applied to ESA listed fish) FBM Freshwater and Brackish Marsh FOD Friends of the Dunes FHBNWR Friends of the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge FTE Full Time Employee GIS Geographic Information System HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan HBEP Humboldt Bay Ecosystem Program HBHRCD Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District HBMP Humboldt Bay Management Plan HBWAC Humboldt Bay Watershed Advisory Committee HFAC Humboldt Fish Action Council IFA Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 HSU Humboldt State University IIU Indian Island Unit Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 IPM Integrated Pest Management LPP Land Protection Planning MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCSD Manila Community Services District MDCMA Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Agreement
ii January 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
MLPA Marine Life Protected Area MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet NCRWQCB North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS National Park Service NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NWI National Wetland Inventory NWR National Wildlife Refuge NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System PCFWWRA Pacific Coast Fish Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Assoc. PCJV Pacific Coast Joint Venture PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation PIF Partners in Flight Porter-Cologne State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act PRBO Point Reyes Bird Observatory PVA Population Viability Assessment RCAA Redwood Community Action Agency Refuge System The National Wildlife Refuge System RNA Research Natural Area SCC State Coastal Conservancy SCEP Student Career Employment Program SEFI Southeast Farallon Island Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, USFWS) SFBNWRC San Francisco Bay NWR Complex SHC Strategic Habitat Conservation SHPO (California) State Historic Preservation Office SIU Sand Island Unit SLAMM Sea Level Affecting Marsh Management) SSC Species of Special Concern SWFSC Southwest Fisheries Science Center TNC The Nature Conservancy TS Threatened Species USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USCG U.S. Coast Guard USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, Service) USGS U.S. Geological Survey WMA Weed Management Area WNV West Nile Virus WSHRN Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network YCC Youth Conservation Corps
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2009 iii
Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................ii
Contents..........................................................................................................................................................v
Lists of Figures .........................................................................................................................................................ix
Lists of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................xi
1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................1
1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ............................................................ 1
1.3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................1
1.3.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Responsibilities .......................................................................... .1
1.3.2. The National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................................... 1
1.3.3. Refuge Purposes ............................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.4. Refuge Vision Statements ............................................................................................................... 3
1.4. Legal and Policy Guidance........................................................................................................................ 3
1.5. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex ................................................................................4
1.5.1. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge ...................................................................................... 4
1.5.2. Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................... 6
1.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Complex Location .................................................................................................6
1.6.1. Flyway Setting ................................................................................................................................. 6
1.6.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Setting ..........................................................................................................7
1.6.3. Historic Conditions of Humboldt Bay NWR ................................................................................ 7
1.6.4. History of Humboldt Bay NWR Establishment and Acquisitions ............................................ 9
1.6.5. Current Management of Humboldt Bay NWR .......................................................................... 11
1.6.6. Castle Rock NWR Setting ............................................................................................................. 14
1.6.7. Historic Conditions of Castle Rock NWR ...................................................................................14
1.6.8. History of Castle Rock NWR Establishment and Acquisitions ...............................................15
1.6.9. Current Management of Castle Rock NWR ............................................................................... 15
1.7. Related Projects and Studies in the Area ............................................................................................. 15
1.7.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, and Pacific Flyway Projects and Studies ................15
1.7.2. California Department of Fish and Game Projects and Studies .............................................. 17
1.7.3. Other Pertinent Projects, Programs, and Documents ............................................................... 18
2. The Planning Process .............................................................................................................................21
2.1. Planning Process Policies ........................................................................................................................ 21
2.1.1. The Planning Process ..................................................................................................................... 21
2.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Complex CCP Process ....................................................................................... 21
2.2.1. Public Involvement During Public Scoping Meetings and Initiation of CCP/NEPA
Process ............................................................................................................................................ 21
2.2.2. Public Scoping Meetings ................................................................................................................ 22
2.2.3. Supplemental Request for Comments on Castle Rock NWR .................................................. 22
2.2.4. Comments Received ....................................................................................................................... 22
3. Refuge Resources...................................................................................................................................23
3.1. Overview of Humboldt Bay NWR .......................................................................................................... 23
3.1.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Physical Environment Geography and Climate ...................................23
3.1.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Global Climate Change and Sea Level Rise .......................................... 23
3.1.3. Humboldt Bay NWR Hazardous Materials and Contaminants ...............................................25
3.1.4. Humboldt Bay NWR Air Quality ................................................................................................. 26
3.1.5. Humboldt Bay NWR Paleontological Resources ....................................................................... 27
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2009 v
3.1.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Minerals ..................................................................................................... 27
3.1.7. Humboldt Bay NWR Geology ..................................................................................................... ..27
3.1.8. Humboldt Bay NWR Soils.. .......................................................................................................... 28
3.1.9. Humboldt Bay NWR Water Resources ....................................................................................... 29
3.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 31
3.2.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Ecoregional Context.. ............................................................................... 31
3.2.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Units ........................................................................................................... 31
3.2.3. Humboldt Bay NWR Plant Communities and Habitats ........................................................... 39
3.2.4. Overview of Humboldt Bay NWR Fish and Wildlife.. ............................................................... 42
3.2.5. Humboldt Bay NWR Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 44
3.2.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Special Status Species .............................................................................. 54
3.3. Humboldt Bay NWR Visitor Services ................................................................................................... 56
3.3.1. Overview of Humboldt Bay NWR Visitor Services ................................................................... 56
3.3.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Visitor Services ......................................................................................... 57
3.4. Humboldt Bay NWR Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 59
3.4.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Prehistoric Archaeology .......................................................................... 59
3.4.2. Humboldt Bay NWR EuroAmerican Settlement.. .................................................................... 60
3.5. Humboldt Bay NWR Social and Economic Conditions ....................................................................... 60
3.5.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Social and Economic Regional Overview .............................................. 60
3.5.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Management Economics .......................................................................... 61
3.5.3. Humboldt Bay NWR Regional Land Use ................................................................................. ..62
3.5.4. Humboldt Bay NWR Land Use... ................................................................................................. 63
3.5.5. Humboldt Bay and Surrounding Area Demographics .............................................................. 63
3.5.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Local Economy and Employment .......................................................... 63
3.6. Overview of Castle Rock NWR .............................................................................................................. 64
3.6.1. Castle Rock NWR Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ................................................................... 64
3.6.2. Castle Rock NWR Physical Geography and Climate.. .............................................................. 64
3.6.3. Castle Rock NWR Climate Change and Sea Level Rise. .......................................................... 66
3.6.4. Castle Rock NWR Geology, Hydrology, and Soils ...................................................................... 66
3.6.5. Castle Rock NWR Minerals .......................................................................................................... 67
3.6.6. Castle Rock NWR Paleontological Resources ............................................................................ 67
3.6.7. Castle Rock NWR Water Resources ............................................................................................ 67
3.6.8. Castle Rock NWR Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... ..67
3.7. Castle Rock NWR Biological Resources ............................................................................................... 67
3.7.1. Castle Rock NWR Ecoregional Context ..................................................................................... 67
3.7.2. Castle Rock NWR Fish and Wildlife ......................................................................................... ..67
3.7.3. Castle Rock NWR Plant Communities ........................................................................................ 67
3.7.4. Castle Rock NWR Seabirds .......................................................................................................... 69
3.7.5. Castle Rock NWR Nesting Seabirds ........................................................................................... 70
3.7.6. Castle Rock NWR Other Bird Species ........................................................................................ 75
3.7.7. Castle Rock NWR and Surrounding Area Marine Mammals .................................................. 75
3.7.8. Castle Rock NWR Mammals ........................................................................................................ 79
3.7.9. Castle Rock NWR Amphibians and Reptiles ............................................................................. 80
3.7.10. Castle Rock NWR Invertebrates ............................................................................................... 80
3.7.11. Castle Rock NWR Special Status Species ................................................................................ 80
3.7.12. Castle Rock NWR Non-native Wildlife ..................................................................................... 81
3.8. Castle Rock NWR Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 81
3.8.1. Prehistoric Use of Castle Rock and Surrounding Area ............................................................ 81
3.8.2. Castle Rock NWR History ............................................................................................................ 82
3.9. Castle Rock NWR Social Environment ................................................................................................. 82
3.9.1. Del Norte County Demographics ................................................................................................. 82
3.10. Castle Rock NWR Social and Economic Conditions ........................................................................... 83
3.10.1. Castle Rock NWR Social and Economic Regional Overview ................................................. 83
3.10.2. Castle Rock NWR Regional Land Use ...................................................................................... 83
3.10.3. Castle Rock NWR Local Land Use ........................................................................................... 83
3.10.4. Castle Rock NWR Local Economy and Employment ............................................................. 83
3.10.5. Castle Rock NWR Management Economics ............................................................................ 84
3.10.6. Castle Rock NWR Environmental Justice ................................................................................ 84
vi January 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3.11. Castle Rock NWR Public Access and Recreation ................................................................................84
3.11.1. Castle Rock NWR Traffic, Public Access, and Recreation ..................................................... 84
3.11.2. Aesthetics of Castle Rock NWR. ................................................................................................84
3.12. Castle Rock NWR Public Use ................................................................................................................ 84
3.12.1. Castle Rock NWR Environmental Education and Interpretation ........................................ 84
3.12.2. Castle Rock NWR Trends.. ......................................................................................................... 85
3.12.3. Castle Rock NWR Management and Monitoring .................................................................... 85
4. Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities ................................................................................................87
4.1. Issues and Challenges Identified by the Public and the Service ....................................................... 87
4.1.1. Potential Impacts of Global Climate Change on the Complex ................................................. .87
4.1.2. Staffing Needs for the Complex.................................................................................................... 87
4.1.3. Aleutian Cackling Goose Habitat Management ......................................................................... 87
4.1.4. Estuarine Habitat Restoration on Humboldt Bay NWR .......................................................... 87
4.1.5. Replacement of Eucalyptus Trees with Native Vegetation ....................................................... 88
4.1.6. Potential Water Quality Concerns with Increased Public Use in Mad River Slough ............ 89
4.1.7. Invasive Plant Species on Humboldt Bay and Adjacent Lands ............................................... 89
4.1.8. Flooding of Highway 101 ...............................................................................................................90
4.1.9. Legal Jurisdiction of Tidelands ................................................................................................... 90
4.1.10. Hunting Regulations on Humboldt Bay NWR .........................................................................90
4.1.11. Sport Fishing Regulations on Humboldt Bay NWR ............................................................... 90
4.1.12. Non-Wildlife Dependent Visitor Services on Humboldt Bay NWR ...................................... 91
4.1.13. Traditional Tribal Uses on Humboldt Bay NWR ..................................................................... 91
4.1.14. Mosquito Integrated Pest Management on Humboldt Bay NWR ........................................ 91
4.1.15. Management of Older Buildings on Humboldt Bay NWR ..................................................... 91
4.1.16. Potential Humboldt Bay NWR Acquisitions.. ........................................................................... 92
4.1.17. Potential Management Options for the Hookton Slough Unit ............................................... 92
4.1.18. Habitat Management on Castle Rock NWR ............................................................................. 93
4.1.19. Protection of Castle Rock NWR from Disturbance ................................................................. 93
4.1.20. Educational Outreach Regarding Castle Rock NWR ............................................................. 93
4.1.21. Seabird Monitoring on Castle Rock NWR ................................................................................93
5. Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .........................................................................95
6. Management Plan Implementation ....................................................................................................121
7. References .............................................................................................................................................131
Appendices ................................................................................................................................................145
Appendix A: Glossary .................................................................................................................................... A–1
Appendix B: Draft Visitor Services Plan ..................................................................................................... B–1
Appendix C: Draft Waterfowl Hunt Plan .................................................................................................... C–1
Appendix D: Draft Sport Fishing Plan ........................................................................................................ D–1
Appendix E: Draft Environmental Assessment .........................................................................................E–1
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations ................................................................................................ F–1
Compatibility Determination for Environmental Education and Interpretation for
Humboldt Bay NWR ............................................................................................................................. F–1
Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation and Photography for Humboldt Bay
NWR ....................................................................................................................................................... F–7
Compatibility Determination for Recreational Boating for Humboldt Bay NWR ..................... F–15
Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting for Humboldt Bay NWR ........................F–21
Compatibility Determination for Fishing for Humboldt Bay NWR ............................................ F–31
Compatibility Determination for Grazing and Haying for Humboldt Bay NWR ...................... F–35
Compatibility Determination for Mosquito Control for Humboldt Bay NWR ...........................F–39
Compatibility Determination for Plant Gathering for Humboldt Bay NWR .............................. F–43
Compatibility Determination for Research for Humboldt Bay NWR ......................................... F–47
Compatibility Determination for Research for Castle Rock NWR ..............................................F–53
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2009 vii
Appendix G: Wilderness Review for Humboldt Bay NWR and Castle Rock NWR.............................. G–1
Appendix H: Supplemental Legal and Policy Guidance ............................................................................H–1
Appendix I: Section 7 ESA Listed Species................................................................................................... I–1
Appendix J: Plant Lists..................................................................................................................................J–1
Humboldt Bay NWR Flora...................................................................................................................J–1
Castle Rock NWR Flora......................................................................................................................J–27
Appendix K: Wildlife Lists............................................................................................................................ K–1
Reptiles and Amphibians..................................................................................................................... K–1
Mammals................................................................................................................................................ K–3
Birds. ...................................................................................................................................................... K–5
Fish.. ......................................................................................................................................................K-19
Appendix L: Locally Occurring Special Status Species............................................................................. L–1 Appendix M: Public Involvement Process for the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex
CCP/EA.......................................................................................................................................................M–1
Appendix N: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex History .................................................. N–1
Appendix O: List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................... O–1
viii January 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Lists of Figures
Figure 1. Watershed ecosystem map ..................................................................................................................5
Figure 2. Historic and current tidal marsh surrounding Humboldt Bay ......................................................8
Figure 3. Historic and current tidal marsh surrounding Humboldt Bay, including density of
non-native dense-flowered cordgrass populations .........................................................................10
Figure 4. The CCP planning process ................................................................................................................21
Figure 5. Refuge boundary and management units for Humboldt Bay NWR ...........................................32
Figure 6. Terrestrial vegetation of White Slough, Salmon Creek, Hookton Slough, and Table Bluff
units .....................................................................................................................................................35
Figure 7. Terrestrial vegetation of Lanphere Dunes, Ma-le’l Dunes, Jacoby Creek, and Eureka
Slough units ........................................................................................................................................38
Figure 8. Abundance of Aleutian cackling geese .............................................................................................47
Figure 9. Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) on Salmon Creek restoration area .. 50
Figure 10. Population status of Humboldt Bay wallflower ..............................................................................55
Figure 11. Historic vegetative cover map of Castle Rock ................................................................................68
Figure 12. Castle Rock NWR interpretive panels along Pebble Beach Drive, Crescent City ....................84
Figure 13. Dune units of Humboldt Bay NWR .................................................................................................89
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2009 ix
Lists of Tables
Table 1. Monthly and annual precipitation data for Eureka, CA, from 1948 through 2007 ....................24
Table 2. Habitat type and acreage by unit .....................................................................................................34
Table 3. Abundance of Aleutian cackling geese from direct counts............................................................48
Table 4. Value of agricultural commodities produced in Humboldt County for 2005 ...............................61
Table 5. Eureka commercial fish harvest through 2005 ...............................................................................61
Table 6. Non-agricultural sector employment in Humboldt County as of 2006 ........................................62
Table 7. Current land use in Humboldt Bay area as of 2001 .......................................................................62
Table 8. Monthly and annual precipitation data for Crescent City, CA, from 1948 through 2007 ..........65
Table 9. Complete seabird breeding population estimates on Castle Rock, 1970 to 1989 .......................69
Table 10. Population estimates for surface nesting and diurnal cavity nesting species at
Castle Rock, 1979-1999 ......................................................................................................................70
Table 11. Counts of harbor seals in the Castle Rock vicinity in 2004 ...........................................................76
Table 12. Counts of California sea lions at Castle Rock and reef during July 2000-2004 ..........................77
Table 13. Steller sea lion count data for the St. George Reef and Castle Rock, July 5-17, 2000-2004 .....78
Table 14. Northern elephant seals at Castle Rock and Castle Rock shoals in 1994-1995..........................79
Table 15. Threatened and Endangered species that occur or have occurred at Castle Rock NWR
or adjacent marine waters .................................................................................................................80
Table 16. Estimated initial capital outlay to fully implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ...122
Table 17. Esimated annual cost to fully implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ..................125
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2009 xi
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex), which includes Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Castle Rock NWR, is located on the northern coast of California. Humboldt Bay NWR is located in the vicinity of Eureka and Arcata with refuge units distributed around Humboldt Bay, the largest bay between San Francisco Bay and Coos Bay, Oregon. In 1971, Humboldt Bay NWR was established to conserve coastal habitats for a great diversity of animals and plants, especially migratory birds. Y ears later Humboldt Bay NWR added the Lanphere and Ma­le’l Dunes Units to help conserve the most pristine remaining dune ecosystem on the west coast of the United States. The Humboldt Bay NWR authorized boundary consists of 9,502 acres (3,379 acres owned in fee title) of freshwater, brackish, and salt marsh; agricultural wetlands; intertidal mudflats; eelgrass beds; and some of the most pristine dune habitats in the western United States. Castle Rock NWR is a 14-acre nearshore island located in Del Norte County, California, less than a mile northwest of Crescent City. The island is primarily rock with sparse vegetation. Castle Rock NWR hosts one of the largest and most diverse assemblages of breeding seabirds on the Pacific coast, provides a critical roost for thousands of Aleutian cackling geese (Branta hutchinsii leucopareia) prior to their transoceanic migration, and provides resting sites for seals and sea lions. 1.2. Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepared this draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) to guide management of fish, wildlife, plants, other natural resources, and visitor uses on the Humboldt Bay NWR Complex for the next 15 years. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 United States Code [USC] 668dd-668ee) (Improvement Act) requires
that all refuges be managed in accordance with an approved CCP by 2012. Under the 1997 Improvement Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is to be consistently directed and managed to fulfill the specific purpose(s) for which each refuge was established and the Refuge System mission. The CCP planning process helps the Service achieve the individual refuge’s purposes and the Refuge System mission by identifying specific goals, objectives, and strategies to implement on each refuge. 1.3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Wildlife Refuge System 1.3.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Responsibilities The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant populations, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of the American people. Although the Service shares this responsibility with other Federal, tribal, State, local, and private entities, the Service has specific responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, interjurisdictional fish, and certain marine mammals. These groups of species are collectively referred to as Federal Trust Species. The Service also manages the Refuge System and National Fish Hatcheries, enforces Federal wildlife laws and international treaties related to importing and exporting wildlife, assists State fish and wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation programs. 1.3.2. 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. Unlike other Federal lands that are managed under a multiple-use mandate (National Forests and lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management [BLM]), the Refuge System is managed primarily for the benefit of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats. The Refuge System consists of more than
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2009 1
CHAPTeR 1
545 units that provide nearly 95 million acres of important habitat for native plants and many species of mammals, birds, and fish, including threatened and endangered species. National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals The mission of the Refuge System 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” (1997 Improvement Act). The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System are to: a. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. b. Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges. c. Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented in existing protection efforts. d. Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation). e. Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. 1.3.3. Refuge Purposes Lands within the Refuge System are acquired and managed under a variety of legislative acts and administrative orders and authorities. The official purpose or purposes for a refuge are specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order (EO), agreement, public land order, funding source, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. The purpose of a refuge is defined when it is established or when new land is added to an existing refuge. When an
addition to a refuge is acquired under an authority different from the authority used to establish the original refuge, the addition takes on the purposes of the original refuge, but the original refuge does not take on the purposes of the addition. Refuge managers must consider all of the purposes. However, purposes that deal with the conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats take precedent over other purposes in the management and administration of a refuge. The 1997 Improvement Act directs the Service to manage each refuge to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System, as well as the specific purposes for which that refuge was established. Refuge purposes are the driving force in developing refuge vision statements, goals, objectives, and strategies in the CCP. Refuge purposes are also critical to determining the compatibility of all existing and proposed refuge uses. Humboldt Bay NWR was established under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. According to these authorities, Humboldt Bay NWR’s purposes are: “…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. §§ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) “…as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to… all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird Conservation Act]…except the inviolate sanctuary provisions…” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) (Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act) “…for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources…” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(a)(4) and “…for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude…” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) “…suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species…” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-1 and “…the Secretary…may accept and use…real…property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions
2 January 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
of restrictive covenants imposed by donors…” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-460k-4], as amended) “…to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species ....or (B) plants…” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge was established under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. According to this authority, Castle Rock NWR’s purpose is: “…to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species…or (B) plants…” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 1.3.4. Refuge Vision Statements The Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge conserves and manages some of the most significant historic and restored natural areas in the Humboldt Bay area. The refuge sustains varied and important habitats ranging from estuarine and freshwater wetlands to open grasslands and dynamic dune ecosystems. Humboldt Bay NWR also conserves important plant and animal populations and plays a critical role in preserving biodiversity locally, regionally, and within the Refuge System. Refuge staff applies sound scientific principles and adaptive management strategies to sustain the long-term health and ecological integrity of the Humboldt Bay NWR and the surrounding area. Refuge habitats link with other public and private lands to support threatened and endangered species in addition to hundreds of species of migratory wildlife within the Pacific Flyway. The refuge provides migration and wintering habitats of sufficient size and quality to assist in maintaining migrating bird populations on the Pacific Flyway, especially Pacific brant, Aleutian cackling geese, and shorebirds. The staff at the Humboldt Bay NWR works with a broad cross section of tribal, governmental, community, and private partners to promote the ecological integrity of the landscape, ecotourism, and the historic and cultural attractions of the region. The refuge staff, assisted by Friends groups, volunteers, and the public, seeks to provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for the public on refuge lands, expand community outreach, and stimulate area residents
and visitors to embrace sustainable stewardship of natural resources. By pursuing this vision, staff and others at the Humboldt Bay NWR seek to ensure healthy fish, wildlife, and plant resources for people to enjoy today and an enduring legacy for generations to come. Vision Statement for Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge preserves in perpetuity one of the most important seabird nesting colonies on the Pacific coastline. This 14-acre island continues to be preserved in a natural condition with minimal human intrusion. Management activities focus on research and monitoring of refuge wildlife and on protection and maintenance of a natural, functioning ecosystem. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service coordinates with tribes, other agencies and entities, and the public to ensure the long-term health and viability of native seabird and marine mammal populations. We work with others to provide wildlife viewing and interpretation at selected locations on the adjacent coastline. Fostering an appreciation for Pacific coast wildlife enriches people in a variety of ways and ensures that this outstanding legacy of wildlife is passed on to future generations. 1.4. Legal and Policy Guidance Refuges are guided by the purposes of the individual refuge, the mission and goals of the Refuge System, Service policy, laws, and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962; the 1997 Improvement Act; the Endangered Species Act, as amended; selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations; and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Refuges are also governed by a variety of other Federal laws, Executive Orders, treaties, interstate compacts, regulations, and policies pertaining to the conservation and protection of natural and cultural resources (see Service Manual 602 FW 1, 1.3). The 1997 Improvement Act’s main components include: ■ A strong and singular wildlife conservation mission for the Refuge System. ■ A recognition of six priority public uses of the Refuge System (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation).
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2009 3
CHAPTeR 1
■ A requirement that the Secretary of the Interior maintain the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of Refuge System lands. ■ A new process for determining compatible uses on refuges. ■ A requirement for preparing a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge by 2012. First and foremost, refuges are managed for fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. In addition, units of the Refuge System are legally closed to all public access and use, including economic uses, unless and until they are officially opened through an analytical public process called the refuge compatibility process. All refuge uses are subservient to the Refuge System’s primary wildlife management responsibility and they must be determined compatible to be authorized. The 1997 Improvement Act established the formal process for determining compatibility of uses. A compatibility determination is required for a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other public use of a refuge. A compatible use is one which, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of refuge purpose(s) or the Refuge System mission. The Service strives to provide wildlife-dependent public uses when compatible. If financial resources are not available to design, operate, and maintain a priority use, the refuge manager will take reasonable steps to obtain outside assistance from the State and other conservation interests. This draft CCP contains several draft compatibility determinations for proposed uses on both refuges in the Complex (Appendix F). These compatibility determinations are open to public comment with the draft CCP and finalized along with the CCP. This document also includes a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) (attached as Appendix E) as required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4321). The purpose of the EA is to evaluate the environmental effects of the CCP on the quality of the human environment. The EA includes the components listed below. ■ A description of the alternatives considered for the CCP. ■ Identification and analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed management program and the management alternatives. ■ Documentation of the involvement of affected State and Federal agencies, appropriate Tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and members of the public in the CCP process.
The CCP is also accompanied by a revised sport hunting plan (Appendix C), a revised sport fishing plan (Appendix D), a wilderness review (Appendix G), and a visitor services plan (Appendix B). 1.5. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex 1.5.1. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge The Humboldt Bay NWR boundary (Figure 1) contains much of the remaining natural habitats and shoreline areas of Humboldt Bay, including areas that both conserve key habitats for fish, wildlife, and plants, and are aesthetically pleasing landscapes. However, to understand the health of refuge habitat, it is necessary to consider the general health of the bay as a whole, including the condition of lands and waters outside, as well as inside, the refuge. The bay area contains many species of native and introduced plants and animals. These species and their habitats have complex interrelationships; significant changes in any one habitat type can directly or indirectly affect other habitats and species that use that habitat. Most fish and wildlife species found on Humboldt Bay NWR use areas both inside and outside of refuge boundaries. Humboldt Bay NWR is important to the overall Refuge System primarily due to the concentrations of migratory waterbirds, conservation of species listed under the Federal ESA that use refuge habitats, and conservation of globally endangered dune habitats. Migratory birds largely depend upon the bay and surrounding wetland habitats, including the refuge, in the fall, winter, and spring. This is especially true of the Pacific brant (Branta bernicla nigricans). Humboldt Bay NWR is currently the southernmost in a chain of National Wildlife Refuges that provide habitat for most of the world’s population of Pacific brant. Humboldt Bay is an area of international significance to many species of migratory birds, which largely depend upon the bay and surrounding wetland habitats, including the refuge, in the fall, winter, and spring. Chief among these are waterfowl, shorebirds, gulls, and terns. Total use-days for all of the bird species have been estimated at 4 million annually for South Bay alone (Nelson 1989). Most of the birds using the bay frequent areas within the existing refuge boundaries on a daily basis. Over 260 species of birds, including 39 species of shorebirds and 26 species of raptors, have been seen
4 January 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 1. Watershed / Ecosystem Map
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map. Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.Watershed Ecosystem Map.
Region 8 Refuge Planning - July 2008
50 25 0 50
Miles
I
Northern California Coastal Watershed Klamath/Central Pacific Coast Ecoregion
Figure 1. Watershed ecosystem map.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2009 5
CHAPTeR 1
in the vicinity of Humboldt Bay (Yocom and Harris 1975, Ralph et al. 1998). In recognition of the species richness found in the bay, it has been identified as an Important Bird Area by the National Audubon Society. The majority of birds use the Humboldt Bay NWR as a stop-over to rest and replenish energy reserves. Others spend the winter on the refuge and some use it for nesting. The wetlands in and around Humboldt Bay are critical to tens of thousands of shorebirds. As a result, the bay has been designated as a site of International Importance by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. This is the northernmost area on the Pacific coast where species such as American avocets (Recurvirostra americana), long-billed curlews (Numenius americanus), marbled godwits (Limosa fedoa), and willets (Tringa semipalmata) spend the winter in large numbers. They can be seen feeding on the mudflats or skimming over the bay in large eye-catching flocks from late July through April.
Humboldt Bay is a key area for Pacific brant. Humboldt Bay NWR is currently the southernmost in a chain of National Wildlife Refuges that provide habitat for most of the world’s population of Pacific brant. These small geese require eelgrass-filled bays during their travels between Arctic wetlands where they nest and coastal lagoons of Baja California and mainland Mexico where they overwinter. In November, most Pacific brant fly nonstop from Izembek Lagoon in Alaska to Mexico in 48 to 60 hours. On their return trip from January through April, as much as 60 percent of the flyway population stops in Humboldt Bay, with as many as 10,000 to 20,000 Pacific brant on Humboldt Bay at one time. The Humboldt Bay area has also recently (as of 2002) become the focal area during late winter and spring for the bulk of the Aleutian cackling goose population.
In addition to birds, Humboldt Bay is also a regionally important spawning and nursery ground for commercia1 and sport finfish and shellfish, especially oysters. The bay provides habitat for at least 111 species of fish (Barnhart et al. 1992), many of which contribute to sport or commercial fisheries. Both Jacoby Creek and Salmon Creek provide habitat for anadromous salmonids.
Four species listed as endangered under the Federal ESA utilize habitat within the refuge boundary: the Humboldt Bay wallflower (Erysimum menziesii ssp. eurekense), beach layia (Layia carnosa), tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), and brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). Three species listed as threatened under the Federal ESA use habitat within the refuge boundary: Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Three recovered species, the Aleutian cackling goose, bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), also use refuge habitat. In addition, the Humboldt Bay NWR provides habitat for rare plants, globally declined species, and marine mammals. 1.5.2. Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge Castle Rock is one of only two islands on the outer coast of California included in the National Wildlife Refuge System. These two islands, Southeast Farallon Island (SEFI) and Castle Rock, are the largest, most important seabird colonies in the state. SEFI has a long continuous history of human occupation. Research and monitoring takes place year round on the island primarily through a cooperative agreement with Point Reyes Bird Observatory Conservation Science (PRBO). Until recently, Castle Rock had no management plan or long-term monitoring program, so seabird monitoring was accomplished through short-term projects and large-scale cooperative monitoring efforts aimed at selected species. Like many other “seabird islands” within the Refuge System, Castle Rock is so rich with sensitive wildlife species and fragile habitat that it cannot accommodate direct public access and still fulfill the purposes for which it was established. Only very limited access is allowed for research, monitoring, and management. The original concept for management of the island was to leave it alone with the caveat that direct management may be needed in the future. The dilemma is that some of the island’s most sensitive resources cannot be monitored without some level of presence on the island, and without monitoring species status cannot be determined, nor if management might be warranted. 1.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Complex Location 1.6.1. Flyway Setting The refuge is located within the Pacific Flyway. The Pacific Flyway is used by millions of birds for migration to wintering and breeding grounds. This refuge provides important habitat is a key migratory stopover and/or wintering area for several species of waterfowl and shorebirds including Pacific brant, Aleutian cackling geese, western sandpipers (Calidris mauri), dunlin (Calidris alpina), marbled godwits, and long-billed curlews. The north coast of California is one of richest areas in the country
6 January 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
in terms of avian diversity. Between 300 and 350 species of birds can be found from just offshore to the first inland ridgeline (Harris 1996, Ralph et al. 1998). 1.6.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Setting The Humboldt Bay region is composed of diverse ecosystems. The bay area’s topography, wetlands, riparian and coastal areas provide a variety of habitats for wildlife and migratory birds. Humboldt Bay is 14 miles long and from 0.5 to 3.5 miles wide. It comprises three sub-bays, each situated at the end of one or several stream valleys. It is bounded on the east by mountain ridges of the coast range. Humboldt Bay is California’s second largest coastal estuarine system. Humboldt Bay has been drastically changed since the turn of the 19th century (Figure 2). Vast expanses of wetlands around both North and South Bays have been altered by diking, filling, dredging, sedimentation, and mariculture, as well as residential, industrial, and recreational development. Originally, Humboldt Bay and its natural wetlands encompassed more than 27,000 acres, but by 1980 this area had been reduced by 30 percent to ~17,000 acres (Shapiro and Associates 1980). Consequently, there has been a dramatic change in both the quantity and composition of wetlands. In 1870, when some minor salt marsh conversion had already occurred, there was an estimated 9,500 acres of salt marsh. After completion of the railroad around the margin of the bay, salt marsh was reduced by 90 percent. The current estimate of the salt marsh area is ~900 acres. 1.6.3 Historic Conditions of Humboldt Bay NWR The pre-European settlement Humboldt Bay watershed was covered mostly by old-growth redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) forest in the uplands. The coastal forests reached from the ocean to 35 miles inland. Pre-1850 it was common to see herds of 40 to 50 elk (Loud 1918). Waterfowl, salmon, deer, and bear were abundant. Forest soils and vegetation diminished rainfall runoff and prevented significant changes in water quality. The bay margins were heavily forested from Arcata south to the Elk River (Coy 1982). The coastline, bay margins, and riparian area forests were dominated by Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and red alder (Alnus rubra), and contained Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), coast hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), red cedar (Thuja plicata), and tanoak
(Lithocarpus densiflorus) (Loud 1918). Lowland and marsh areas around the bay were restricted due to surrounding mountain ridges.
In 1850 there were extensive intertidal flats and salt marshes in Humboldt Bay. The largest salt marshes were along Mad River Slough, McDaniel Slough, Eureka Slough, Hookton Slough, and Salmon Creek (Loud 1918). The lower Elk River and lower Salmon Creek deltas were tidally influenced alluvial plains. The north spit of Humboldt Bay was a mix of unvegetated, herbaceous, and forested dunes. The South Spit was primarily non-vegetated dune. The mouth of the bay was both shallow and narrow (Lewis 1943).
Landscapes found by early explorers and settlers were shaped and regularly renewed in part by the land management practices of Native American people (Anderson 2005).
Before EuroAmerican influence, there were an estimated 1,000 Wiyot people in the Humboldt Bay region. They occupied ~465 square miles, including the entire Humboldt Bay area. At the time of contact with EuroAmericans, the Wiyot were divided into three main groups: the Potawót, the Wigki, and the Wiyot. The Potawót settlements were on the lower Mad River, while the Wigki and the Wiyot settlements were near the Eel River (Seidner 1999). In 1850 there were 32 principal population centers and many smaller villages (Loud 1918). Population decreases were due to a number of factors (all attributable to the coming of the Europeans ), and included reduction in the available resource base for subsistence, EuroAmerican-induced epidemics, displacement, and killings. By 1851 the Wiyot population of Humboldt Bay and north to Mad River was estimated at about 300 to 500. By 1910, due to conflicts with settlers, the Wiyot population had decreased to ~100 (Loud 1918).
The Humboldt Bay area provided a cornucopia of plant and wildlife resources to sustain the Wiyot people. The ancestral Wiyot territory extended from Little River to the north, Bear River Ridge to the south, and from the Pacific coast out to as far as Berry Summit in the northeast and Chalk Mountain in the southeast (Wiyot Constitution and Bylaws 1978). The Wiyot people lived along the rivers, bay, and estuarine environments. The land provided redwood for house planks and canoes, iris leaves for nets and ropes, grey pines (Pinus sabiniana), California hazelnut (Corylus cornuta var. californica), huckleberry (Vaccineum ovatum and V. parvifolium), strawberry (Fragaria spp.), grass seeds, clover roots and bulbs, ferns, nettles, sea otter (Enhydra lutris), Roosevelt elk (Cervus
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2009 7
CHAPTeR 1
Figure 2. Historic and current tidal marsh surrounding Humboldt Bay.
8 January 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
canadensis roosevelti), Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii), Steller Sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), and black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus) for food and household materials. It was said that the salmon ran so thick in the Mad River and Arcata sloughs you could catch them with a pitchfork (Loud 1918).
The Wiyot people were intricately involved with their environment. They, as many Pacific North Coast peoples, manipulated the tidal flats to harness the productivity of the salt marshes, one of the world’s most biologically productive environments (Deur 2005). The tribe modified estuarine soils, plants, and hydrology for the production of root crops. Silverweed (Potentilla anserina ssp. pacifica) and coast clover (Trifolium wormskioldii) were important food sources, which were cultivated in family plots. Root cultivation methods demonstrated a detailed understanding of environmental systems. With EuroAmerican settlement of the region during the 19th century, estuarine cultivation practices were rapidly swept away.
In 1806, the first EuroAmerican explorers arrived at the bay. However, no settlement took place until the 1850s when Humboldt Bay became a place of departure and supply for the gold mines of Trinity and Siskiyou counties. Most of the current agricultural lands around Arcata and the Mad River bottoms were occupied by settlers by 1853.
In the 1850s the Humboldt timber industry began, which greatly impacted the biological functioning of the bay. The timber industry became successful in part by the passage of the Morril Land Act of 1862, which allowed large areas of timber to be purchased for commercial use. Timber exportation prompted the start of the shipping industry for timber and agricultural exports. Early land use changes in the bay were primarily a result of the shipping industry. Docks were built in Eureka and Fields Landing. Fish companies became established at the mouth of the Mad and Eel rivers by 1854. Clams, sharks, Dungeness crab (Cancer magister), oysters, shrimp sole, rockfish, and tuna were all harvested for export.
The completion of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad along the eastern margins of Humboldt Bay in 1901 caused major wetland changes. The railroad functioned as a dike, and tidegates were placed at most slough crossings. Many of the wetlands were converted to agricultural lands with seasonal wetlands used for grazing. By 1927, with the construction of Highway 101, most of the marshes east of Humboldt Bay had been diked and drained.
Exotic invasive species have greatly altered the pre-1850 salt marshes (Figure 3). Dense-flowered
cordgrass (Spartina densiflora), introduced in the late-1800s, is currently the dominant species in many of the bay’s salt marshes. The burrowing exotic isopod, Sphaeroma quoyanum, is also currently degrading the salt marsh. Within the bay itself there are 95 species of exotic organisms ranging across a variety of taxonomic groups (Boyd et al. 2002). 1.6.4. History of Humboldt Bay NWR establishment and Acquisitions In recognition of the area’s unique fish and wildlife resource values, and especially the bay’s importance to Pacific brant, parts of Humboldt Bay were initially proposed for refuge status in the early 1960s. However, it was not until September 1971 that refuge boundaries were set and acquisition began, officially establishing the Humboldt Bay NWR. An environmental assessment for proposed land acquisitions was originally written in 1974, and updated in both 1980 and 1988. The original refuge boundary included 7,814 acres, which was increased by 1,122 acres in 1989. With this addition, the refuge totaled 8,936 acres. Approximately 1,081 acres of the Salmon Creek Unit were purchased by the Service in 1989 following expansion of the refuge boundary (1988) to include all of the former McBride Ranch. In 1998, the 474-acre Lanphere Dunes Unit was donated to the refuge by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Ma-le’l Dunes officially became a unit of Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge on August 12, 2005, the culmination of years of cooperative effort. The acquisition of this property and its transfer to the refuge was jointly funded by the Service and State Coastal Conservancy (SCC), and made possible through the collaborative efforts of many, including the SCC, BLM, Center for Natural Lands Management, Friends of the Dunes, the Humboldt Coastal Coalition, Wiyot Tribe-Table Bluff Reservation, and many individual members of the local community. The 160-acre parcel is managed together with the southern 120 acres of the Lanphere Dunes Unit as the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit. The unit bears the Wiyot name for the locale, which was used for thousands of years by the ancestral Wiyot people for fishing, gathering, and implement-making. Today, the approved refuge boundary consists of a total of 9,502 acres, of which 3,379 acres are owned in fee title.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2009 9
CHAPTeR 1
Figure 3. Historic and current tidal marsh surrounding Humboldt Bay, including density of non-native dense-flowered cordgrass populations.
10 January 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1.6.5. Current Management of Humboldt Bay NWR
The primary focus of Humboldt Bay NWR is the enhancement, restoration, and management of a diversity of wetland and upland habitats for the benefit of all the natural resources that those habitats ultimately help sustain. These habitats include a continuum of estuarine, freshwater, riparian and seasonal wetlands; agricultural grasslands; and a large dune-dominated landscape. Another focus of the refuge is its public use, or visitor services, program. This program is geared toward providing quality opportunities for the public to engage in the six priority public uses which were established by Congress: wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation, hunting and fishing.
Providing support for the habitat and visitor services programs is the primary role of all refuge staff as well as contractors, volunteers, and the Friends of Humboldt Bay NWR. Support includes a wide range of duties including: facilities maintenance, heavy equipment use, habitat management and administrative assistance.
Habitat Management Program
All of the refuge units in South Bay were historically salt and brackish marsh that was diked off by previous landowners more than 100 years ago. These dikes allowed development and changes in land use, and have resulted in alterations in hydrology, sedimentation, and topography. In some locations these dikes have been actively breached (Table Bluff Unit), while at others (Teal Island) nature has/is taking its course. The dikes on the Salmon Creek and Hookton Slough Units have been, and are currently, maintained where there is risk of flooding to adjacent private lands and/or public facilities and infrastructure.
Wetland Management. The Salmon Creek, Hookton Slough, and White Slough Units are all in the floodplain, and flood seasonally every year, generally from November through March. Prior to refuge acquisition, these lands were managed for grazing. Water was drained off the land as quickly as possible through a system of ditches, culverts, and tidegates. Because the refuge has different objectives, the drainage system has been modified with dozens of water control structures to hold freshwater seasonally, creating hundreds of acres of seasonal wetlands in an area historically occupied by salt and brackish marsh. These seasonal wetlands provide migration and wintering habitat for thousands of waterbirds annually.
Estuarine Restoration. In 1989, the Fish and Wildlife Service purchased what is now the Salmon Creek Unit of Humboldt Bay NWR. The previous landowners had rerouted and channelized Salmon Creek and cleared vegetation from the creek/ditch every few years. One of the refuge’s initial goals was to restore the channelized portion of Salmon Creek on the refuge. In addition, the upper portions of the watershed had been extensively impacted through timber harvest, livestock management, and rural development, impacts that carried downstream in the form of sediment buildup and aggradation of the stream and slough channels. Currently, the upper Salmon Creek watershed is the BLM-owned Headwaters Conservation Area, which is dedicated to habitat restoration that is expected to reduce sediment input to the watershed.
In 1993, refuge staff and others were able to reroute approximately half of the creek on the refuge into a meandering channel located as close as possible to the historic channel alignment. This creek channel now includes some large woody debris and riparian overstory that provides shade and structure to the creek habitat. The restoration resulted in increased riparian habitat, increased juvenile fish habitat, and improved water quality, however problems and concerns still exist. An aggraded channel bottom (up to 3-5 feet) reduces stream depth and increases water temperatures and sediment deposition. In addition, in 1997, all salmonids that use Salmon Creek (Coho, Chinook, steelhead, coastal cutthroat) were listed as threatened under the Federal ESA. The tidewater goby had already been listed as endangered in 1994.
Salmon Creek Restoration Project Phase I. In 2001, an effort was initiated to significantly modify the tidegates on lower Salmon Creek and on Hookton Slough to improve fish passage, sediment routing, and water quality. It was a collaborative effort that included the refuge, the Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Association (PCFWWRA), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, the Coastal Program managed from the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (AFWO), and many local contractors who have contributed and volunteered significant amounts of time and effort to the project. The work was completed in 2008.
Salmon Creek Restoration Project Phase II.
Phase II is in the planning stages and will require excavation of approximately one half mile of former creek channel and construction of a small fish screen to allow seasonal water diversions to flood refuge wetlands. Phase II is needed to complete all the objectives of Phase I and the restoration of that
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2009 11
CHAPTeR 1
portion of Salmon Creek on the refuge. It is also expected to significantly improve habitat conditions of the creek up to a mile upstream of the refuge.
Agricultural Grassland Management. The refuge currently manages grazing and haying on the refuge through a cooperative land management agreement with local ranchers, which is based on grazing and haying rates established by the UC Agricultural Extension Office. Grazing and haying provide short grass habitat (2 to 6 inches) primarily used by Aleutian cackling geese, but also wigeon, swans, shorebirds, and other species. Grazing and haying generally occur from late spring (late April to early May) through September or October. The pH of pasture soils is monitored every 3 to 5 years and lime is periodically added as needed to maintain soil conditions favorable to growing pasture grasses. In addition, refuge staff conducts mowing (outside of nesting season) along edges where agricultural grasslands merge into wetland plant communities. This is done throughout the Salmon Creek Unit in places where haying is not feasible to maintain short grass habitat and to control non-native invasive weeds, such as thistle (Cirsium spp.).
Dune Restoration. Restoration at the Lanphere Dunes Unit has been ongoing, beginning under ownership by the Lanpheres through 1997 by The Nature Conservancy. In 1998, when TNC donated its holdings at Lanphere Dunes to the refuge, restoration focused on invasive species eradication with associated research on ecosystem function and restoration techniques. Management objectives and associated monitoring plans have been completed for the Lanphere Dunes Unit, and work is ongoing to meet these objectives. In 2003 the refuge created a restoration, management, and monitoring plan for beach pine/Sitka spruce and red alder riparian forest on the Lanphere Dunes Unit (USFWS 2003b) to prioritize forest management tasks. The goal is to restore and maintain the ecological integrity of the native beach pine/Sitka spruce and riparian forest communities. The plan also includes objectives related to monitoring, research, and coordination with tribal entities.
The Ma-le’l Dunes Unit is being restored consistent with a restoration plan prepared as part of a mitigation program funded by California Department of Corrections. This plan includes elements on invasives control, as well as habitat manipulation and revegetation.
The Refuge does not currently have a regionally approved Habitat Management Plan. However, the Service expects that an HMP will be developed within four years of completion of the CCP.
Invasive Species Management. Invasive plant species are regularly surveyed by staff, volunteers, and partners. The refuge does not currently have an approved Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan. However, once documented and mapped, an attempt is made to either eradicate or control priority invasive plants throughout the Humboldt Bay NWR using a variety of IPM techniques, including mechanical, cultural, and chemical control methods. Plants controlled in the South Bay units include blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), thistles (Cirsium vulgare and C. arvense), bristly ox-tongue (Picrus echioides), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), white morning glory (Calystegia silvatica), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), and others. Two key invasives that have been found in the area (and could do profound damage to existing habitats), but have not yet reached the refuge are Japanese eelgrass (Zostera japonica) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria).
Restoration of salt marsh at the Lanphere and Ma­le’l Units has begun, through collaboration with the State Coastal Conservancy and others, to remove dense-flowered cordgrass (Spartina densiflora) and revegetate with native salt marsh species. Successful techniques will be adapted for use at other refuge units and likely at other locations around the bay.
Major invasive plant removal initiatives at the Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes have included European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria), yellow bush lupine (Lupinus arboreus), ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis x C. chilense hybrids), English ivy (Hedera helix), a suite of invasive annual grasses, and dense-flowered cordgrass. Management of the first three species is in a maintenance stage, where minor work is needed to prevent new starts or complete eradication of any small persisting populations. English ivy management is nearing a maintenance stage, but requires some additional work. Annual grass management work is still in progress. However, while major progress has been made, control is hampered by off-refuge sources. The cordgrass management initiative has resulted in the restoration of 10 to 15 acres of salt marsh in the Lanphere and Ma-le’l units. All of these initiatives have been carried out using manual or mechanical methods of control.
Herbicides that are periodically used to control invasive plants on the Humboldt Bay NWR include Rodeo, Roundup pro, and Roundup pro concentrate. Prior to any herbicide use on Humboldt Bay NWR, a Pesticide Use Permit is filed in the regional and national office for each herbicide. All pesticide usage is in compliance with labeling instructions and under the direction of a certified applicator. The refuge
12 January 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
does not currently have an approved IPM Plan but will be developing one within 4 years of completion of the CCP.
Biological Program
Monitoring and Surveys of Fish, Wildlife, and Plants. Monitoring and survey efforts are meant to complement and inform refuge management, and often vary in degree of intensity and/or regularity based on a combination of refuge staffing, funding, and competing priorities. Habitat management is dependent upon biological information collected through monitoring and research, without which managers have little basis for prescribing management actions.
The refuge participates in ongoing partnerships with AFWO and CDFG to monitor lower Salmon Creek and Hookton Slough for salmonids, tidewater goby, and amphibians.
Other wildlife species monitored or surveyed on the refuge or by refuge staff, contractors, or partners include Aleutian cackling geese, western Canada geese (Branta canadensis moffitti), Pacific brant, tundra swans (Cygnus columbianus), ducks, shorebirds, snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), seabirds, passerine birds, deer, otter, and frogs. In addition, birds on the refuge are monitored annually for avian influenza and avian cholera.
In keeping with the management goals and objectives formulated for the Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dune Units, there is ongoing monitoring of the following target plants and plant communities:
■
Humboldt Bay wallflower (Erysimum menziesii ssp. eurekense)
■
Beach layia (Layia carnosa)
■
Pink sand verbena (Abronia umbellata ssp. breviflora)
■
Humboldt Bay Owl’s-clover (Castilleja ambigua ssp. humboldtiensis)
■
Point Reyes bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris)
■
Dune mat plant community
■
Salt marsh plant community
■
Forest mycoheterotrophs (orchids and other species that are mutualists with mycorrhizal fungi associated with woody plants) and culturally significant geophytes (bulb plants)
Vegetation surveys were conducted for the wetland and dune vegetation of the refuge from 2005-2007. A vegetation classification based on quantitative sampling is still being finalized.
Visitor Services Program
Visitor Services are managed primarily from the Richard J. Guadagno Office and Visitor Center, located on the Salmon Creek Unit of the refuge. It was opened in spring 2002, and accommodates most of the refuge staff. The Center has several high quality interpretive dioramas and a large room for refuge-designed public events and wildlife viewing of the surrounding seasonal wetlands. The refuge hosts a very informative website that provides detailed information about all refuge programs, especially visitor services opportunities (www.fws. gov/humboldtbay). The proposed Visitor Services Plan is included in Appendix B.
Wildland and Wildlife Observation and Photography. Currently, the refuge maintains the 1.75-mile Shorebird Loop Trail on the Salmon Creek Unit, the 1.5-mile Hookton Slough Trail on the Hookton Slough Unit, and ~2 miles of trails on the Lanphere Dunes Unit. All of these trails offer great opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. There is also a photoblind for use at the Salmon Creek Unit.
Refuge staff coordinates with two Friends groups, (Friends of the Humboldt Bay NWR and Friends of the Dunes), and Audubon volunteers who offer
Birdwatching walk.
Photo: Shannon Smith
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2009 13
CHAPTeR 1
guided walks on the refuge units several times per month.
The refuge maintains a non-motorized boat dock at the Hookton Slough Unit as a way to encourage wildlife observation from the bay. The refuge is currently working with the State Coastal Conservancy (SCC), the Humboldt Bay Harbor Recreation and Conservation District, the Redwood Community Action Agency, and Explore Northwest to develop safe, sustainable options for boating access on the bay that minimize impacts to natural resources.
The refuge is also working with the SCC, BLM, and Friends of the Dunes on development of the Ma­le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area Access Plan. This plan will ultimately provide increased opportunities for the public to enjoy this magnificent dune and slough area south of the Lanphere Dunes Unit. The most recent draft of this plan can be found on the refuge website.
Environmental Education and Interpretation.
Currently, the refuge accommodates pre-scheduled classroom visits, drop-in classroom visits, and also on-site visits where volunteers and/or staff go into schools and provide programs. The Friends groups are instrumental in providing these opportunities. The refuge currently offers and/or participates in seven annual special events: the Aleutian Goose Fly-off and Family Fun Weekend the first weekend in March, the Aleutian Goose Festival, Godwit Days, Migratory Bird Day, and the Lupine Bash each spring, Outdoor Youth Days in August, and a celebration for National Refuge Week in October.
Hunting. Hunting on Humboldt Bay NWR is managed in compliance with the 1990 Sport Hunting Management Plan. Waterfowl, coot (Fulica americana), and snipe (Gallinago spp.) hunting is permitted in accordance with State regulations on most areas of the refuge, including the Eureka Slough, Jacoby Creek, and Table Bluff Units. On the Salmon Creek Unit during the regular waterfowl season a lottery draw hunt is held from shoot time until 3:00 p.m. on Tuesdays and Saturdays. The waters and islands of Hookton and White Slough are open concurrently with over-water shoot days on the bay. The proposed Sport Hunting Plan is included in Appendix C.
Fishing. Fishing on the Humboldt Bay NWR is managed in compliance with the 1992 Fishery Management Plan. Fishing is permitted in Humboldt Bay and in tidal sloughs year round in accordance with State regulations. The Hookton Slough Trail and boat dock are open to fishing; access to other areas is by boat. Limited fishing does
occur for sharks and rays, and shellfish on Humboldt Bay NWR. The proposed Sport Fishing Plan is included in Appendix D. 1.6.6. Castle Rock NWR Setting Castle Rock is a 14-acre island located in Del Norte County, less than a mile northwest of Crescent City. Castle Rock in located on California’s northwest coast between Arcata and the Oregon border. Castle Rock remains largely in its natural state, as a rocky nearshore island with little disturbance by people. 1.6.7. Historic Conditions of Castle Rock NWR The first historic accounts of seabird populations on Castle Rock came from the field notes of Clay, an egg-collector in the early 1900s (Clay 1901-1953 MS). Clay first visited the island in 1916, spent two weeks there in late July 1917, and returned in 1934 and 1935. He reported that Leach’s storm-petrels (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) were nesting by the “tens of thousands” on the island. Fork-tailed storm-petrels (Oeanodroma furcata) and tufted puffins (Fratercula cirrhata) were also present and breeding. Another egg-collector, T. Fraser, visited the island around the same time. Altogether, nine seabird species were observed, including common murre (Uria aalge), Brandt’s cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicillatus), western gull (Larus occidentalis), and Cassin’s auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus). Ornithologist Robert Talmage (in Osborne 1972) visited the island in the mid-1930s and observed a few double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) describing their breeding status as sporadic. He looked for rhinoceros auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata) without success. Osborne observed breeding rhinoceros auklets on Castle Rock in 1969-1970. Black oystercatchers (Haematopus bachmani) have bred in small numbers on the island since at least the 1930s (Osborne 1972). All of the contemporary seabird species breeding on Castle Rock were present during the early 1900s, as recorded in the notes of early ornithologists. Over the last century, distinct changes to the vegetation has occurred, as have the populations of seabirds. Unfortunately, the cause and effects of these changes are primarily unknown. Meadow areas once covered with Pacific reedgrass (Calamagrostis nutkaensis) have receded and been replaced with goldfields (Lasthenia maritima) and sand spurrey (Spergularia macrotheca) (Castle Rock NWR plant communities are discussed in detail in Section 3.7.3). Photographs taken in 1935 show reedgrass growing over most of the meadow, covering an estimated 3 acres (Osborne 1972). By 1961 the area covered in reedgrass was reduced by
14 January 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
about 50 percent. In 1970, reedgrass covered only 1 acre and was largely replaced by bluegrass (Poa sp.) (Osborne 1972). By 1984 the hummocks of reedgrass were mostly dead. “Rhizomes and roots were all that was left of the once extensive populations” (Sawyer 1984). In 1989 only a few tussocks remained on the east end of the island (Carter et al. 1992). By 2000 there was no evidence of this species as viewed from shore or boat (D. Jaques unpublished). Aleutian geese have been known to use Castle Rock since at least pre-European times as they are known from Tolowa verbal history. In 1974, there were fewer than 1000 geese using the island and today there are ~20-25,000 which use the island for roosting each winter and spring. The effects of that many geese include impacts on vegetation and substrate, biological contribution of their droppings, and possible exclusion of area to other species due to their large numbers and interspecific behavior. 1.6.8. History of Castle Rock NWR establishment and Acquisitions The Service proposed to purchase Castle Rock in 1978 to protect critical habitat for the then-endangered Aleutian Canada goose (now called Aleutian cackling goose) (USFWS 1978). The geese were first detected at Castle Rock in spring of 1975. It was later found that the island and nearby mainland agricultural grasslands were the spring staging ground for virtually the entire population of Aleutian Canada geese (Woolington et al. 1979). The island was recommended for critical habitat status in 1977 (USFWS 1991), and a negative declaration for purchase of the island was completed in 1978 (USFWS 1978). The original proposal included lease acquisition, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and Cooperative Agreements to also preserve nearly 800 acres of grazing habitat on Point St. George. In 1979, TNC purchased Castle Rock from the G. E. Kibbe Estate. The Service purchased the island from TNC by fee acquisition in 1980 for $41,250, using funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. A letter from the Service to TNC on July 5, 1980 stated, “We plan to manage Castle Rock primarily for its values to endangered species (mainly the Aleutian Canada goose) and nesting marine birds (murres, auklets, petrels, etc.)…Like the Farallon Island NWR, Castle Rock would be managed by the FWS as a sanctuary. Human disturbance is the main factor that must be controlled…We would expect to permit a limited amount of research but only that which would have high potential to increase management knowledge of these avian resources.���
1.6.9. Current Management of Castle Rock NWR Castle Rock NWR is so rich with sensitive wildlife species, and the habitat so fragile, that only very limited access for research, monitoring, and management has been allowed. Currently, refuge staff collaborates with San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex (SFBNWRC) and partners such as Humboldt State University (HSU), the Service’s Coastal Program at Humboldt Bay, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to conduct photo surveys of birds and marine mammals utilizing Castle Rock NWR and associated habitat. Associates from HSU and SFBNWRC maintain remote automatic cameras on Castle Rock NWR used to assess the ecology and populations of nesting seabirds, and are working with the refuge to develop a long-term monitoring plan. Live video from these cameras can be viewed seasonally by the public at the National Park Service (NPS) Visitor Center in Crescent City or over the internet. In addition, the refuge is looking into using this footage to develop short educational/interpretive films appropriate for different grade levels. Interpretive panels highlighting Castle Rock NWR wildlife are located on Pebble Beach Drive, adjacent to the shore overlooking Castle Rock NWR. 1.7. Related Projects and Studies in the Area 1.7.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, and Pacific Flyway Projects and Studies Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) The Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover is listed as threatened under the Federal ESA (USFWS 2007). The Pacific western snowy plover is a small bird that winters mainly in coastal areas from southern Washington to Central America. The Pacific coast population breeds primarily above the high tide line on coastal beaches, sand spits, dune-backed beaches, sparsely-vegetated dunes, beaches at creek and river mouths, and salt pannes at lagoons and estuaries. Habitat degradation, caused by human disturbance, urban development, introduced beachgrass, and expanding predator populations, has resulted in a decline in nesting areas and in the size of the populations (USFWS 2007).
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2009 15
CHAPTeR 1
Recovery Plan For the Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) The tidewater goby is listed as endangered under the Federal ESA (USFWS 2006a). This small fish inhabits coastal brackish water habitats entirely within California, including portions of the Humboldt Bay NWR, which are identified in the plan as critical habitat. The tidewater goby is uniquely adapted to coastal lagoons and the uppermost brackish zone of larger estuaries, rarely invading marine or freshwater habitats. Principal threats include loss and modification of habitat, water diversions, predatory and competitive introduced fish species, habitat channelization, and degraded water quality. Recovery Plan for Seven Coastal Plants and the Myrtle’s Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene myrtleae) Seven plants and one invertebrate native to the coastal dunes of northern and central California are covered in this recovery plan (USFWS 1998). Two species, Humboldt Bay wallflower and beach layia, are present on the Humboldt Bay NWR. The recovery plan calls for seven primary actions to be taken to recover the two species: 1. Protect existing populations and habitats. 2. Minimize the threats to the plants. 3. Develop management strategies incorporating ecological and land use strategies. 4. Manage populations and habitats to achieve delisting. 5. Monitor population trends to evaluate recovery success. 6. Coordinate recovery actions to protect other listed and sensitive species. 7. Develop and implement an outreach program. Final Revised Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan Current Species Status: The Steller sea lion was listed as a threatened species under the ESA on April 5, 1990 (55 FR 12645) due to substantial declines in the western portion of the range. At the time of listing, the overall abundance of sea lions in the eastern portion of the range (in southeastern Alaska and Canada) was increasing at approximately 3 percent per year. Critical habitat was designated on August 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269) based on the location of terrestrial rookery and haulout sites, spatial extent of foraging trips, and availability of prey. In 1997, based on demographic and genetic dissimilarities, NOAA Fisheries Service designated two distinct population segments (DPSs) of Steller sea lions under the ESA: a western distinct population segment (DPS) and an eastern DPS (62 FR 24345, 62 FR 30772). Due to
persistent decline, the western DPS was reclassified as endangered, while the increasing eastern DPS remained classified as threatened. The eastern DPS was estimated to number between 46,000 and 58,000 animals in 2002, and has been increasing at approximately 3 percent per year since the late 1970s (Pitcher et al. 2007). Castle Rock NWR is within the range of and used by a portion of the eastern population segment. The Final Revised Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan can be viewed at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. The primary objective of all recovery plans is to manage the threats to and improve the population status of the species sufficiently to warrant reclassification (from endangered to threatened status) or delisting. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Pacific Population of Brant The goal of the Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Pacific Population of Brant is to identify the requirements and responsibilities necessary to cooperatively manage the population on a sustained basis (PFC 2002). An essential part of this goal is the continued availability and health of Pacific brant habitats throughout their range, including eelgrass beds and associated habitat in Humboldt Bay and on the refuge. Pacific brant are found in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Russia, and Japan. As such, a cooperative effort has been, and will continue to be, required for sound management. The winter population objective of Pacific brant for Humboldt Bay is 5,000 (PFC 2002). The overall population objective for Pacific brant is 150,000. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for Pacific Population of Aleutian Cackling Geese The goal of the Pacific Flyway Management Plan for Aleutian Cackling Geese is to identify the requirements and responsibilities necessary
16 January 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Tidewater Goby
Photo: © Greg Goldsmith to cooperatively manage the Aleutian cackling goose population on a sustained basis (PFC 2006). Essential components of this goal are to reduce the goose population to 60,000, and manage goose habitat on public lands in northern California to the maximum extent practicable in order to reduce depredation impacts on private landowners. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Western Population of Tundra Swans The purpose of the Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Western Population of Tundra Swans is to establish guidelines for the cooperative management of the Western Population of tundra swans (PFC 2001). The goal of the Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Western Population of Tundra Swans is to ensure the maintenance of the Western Population of tundra swans at a size and distribution that will provide for all their benefits to society. The objectives are to: ■ Maintain a population of at least 60,000 swans to provide suitable public benefits. ■ Maintain current patterns of distribution throughout the Western Population tundra swan range. ■ Provide breeding, migration, and wintering habitats of sufficient quantity and quality to maintain the desired numbers and distribution of swans. ■ Provide for aesthetic, educational, and scientific uses of swans. ■ Provide for sustainable sport and subsistence harvests of western population tundra swans. Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region The Seabird Conservation Plan identifies the Service’s priorities for seabird management, monitoring, research, outreach, planning, and coordination (USFWS 2005). The Seabird Conservation Plan prioritizes all species at a regional scale (California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and U.S. Pacific Island commonwealths, territories, and possessions), and identifies prioritized recommendations for conservation actions. Objectives and strategies with implications for Castle Rock NWR include: ■ 7.g.(i). Count archived common murre and cormorant aerial photographs from 1980 through the present from California and Oregon colonies. Highest priority to photographs taken 1995 through the present. ■ 10.a. Develop K-12 curricula on seabirds with specific chapters on the California Current System and tropical/subtropical island systems.
Tundra swans at the Salmon Creek Unit.
Photo: USFWS
Southern Pacific Shorebird Conservation Plan The Southern Pacific Shorebird Conservation Plan (Hickey et al. 2003) identifies priority shorebird species, habitats, sites and conservation actions within coastal California and the Central Valley. It specifically identifies Humboldt Bay as one of 25 Coastal Wetlands of Importance to shorebirds in the region. Specific conservation actions for Humboldt Bay include: ■ Prohibit further alteration of tidal flats for oyster culture. ■ Eliminate the introduced salt-water cordgrass from the tidal flats of Humboldt Bay. ■ Protect seasonal wetlands and pastures important to shorebirds from development. Lower Salmon Creek Delta Salmonid Habitat Enhancement Opportunities: Humboldt Bay NWR In 2003, the Lower Salmon Creek Delta Salmonid Habitat Enhancement Opportunities document (Salmon Creek Restoration Plan) was funded through the CDFG’s Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCFWWRA 2003). The Salmon Creek Restoration Plan identifies opportunities for salmonid habitat restoration and improved salmonid access on Humboldt Bay NWR’s Salmon Creek Unit and is the template for ongoing restoration work there. 1.7.2. California Department of Fish and Game Projects and Studies California Wildlife Action Plan In compliance with the Congressionally enacted State Wildlife Grants Program, CDFG created the California Wildlife Action Plan (comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy) (CDFG 2007). A
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2009 17
CHAPTeR 1
major component of the Wildlife Action Plan is to identify and compile information on wildlife species, including low and declining populations that are indicative of the diversity and health of the State’s wildlife populations. The CDFG uses a Special Animals List, which is maintained and updated within the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). This list is commonly referred to as the list of special status species. Many of the special status species have been identified as Species of Special Concern due to their low or declining numbers. In addition, the Wildlife Action Plan regional chapters describe major problems and threats that may adversely affect wildlife and their habitats within each region. Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon The CDFG, with the assistance of recovery teams representing diverse interests and perspectives, created the Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon as a guide for recovering Coho salmon on the north and central coasts of California (CDFG 2004a). Five primary goals have been identified to recover Coho salmon on the north coast of California: 1. Maintain and improve the number of key populations and increase the number of populations and cohorts of Coho salmon. 2. Maintain and increase the number of spawning adults. 3. Maintain the range, and maintain and increase distribution of Coho salmon. 4. Maintain existing habitat essential for Coho salmon. 5. Enhance and restore habitat within the range of Coho salmon. 1.7.3. Other Pertinent Projects, Programs, and Documents Wiyot Tribe Restoration Project on Indian Island Indian Island, the largest contiguous salt marsh area left in Humboldt Bay, provides food and shelter for hundreds of species of native plants, fish, shellfish, and birds. Around 1870, a shipyard repair facility was built on the property now owned by the Tribe. This shipyard operated until the 1980s. Creosote, solvents, and other chemicals used to maintain ships remain. Dilapidated buildings and tons of scattered metal and wood debris still litter the area. Remains of dikes and drains built by settlers to control tidal flow across the island still impact the land, and continue to degrade valuable habitat.
The Table Bluff Reservation/Wiyot Tribe plans to clean up the debris and pollutants left on the village site. The Tribe is exploring ways to restore the natural waterways of the area to allow the bay to interact more naturally with the tidal marsh area, increasing native plant and fish populations. The result will be a cleaner place for people, surrounded by more productive and diverse habitats for wildlife.
The Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management manages lands that directly impact both refuges of the Complex. They manage the Headwaters Reserve, which includes the headwaters of both Elk River and Salmon Creek. These terminate in Mid and South Bay respectively. BLM also manages South Spit, which is owned by CDFG. On the North Spit, BLM manages additional lands, including part of the Ma­le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area. The Ma­le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area consists of the BLM’s Manila Dunes and the refuge’s Ma­le’l Dunes Units. This 444-acre stretch of dune and wetland habitats is managed cooperatively by USFWS and BLM. Partners in this project include the State Coastal Conservancy; the Wiyot Tribe, Blue Lake Rancheria, and Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria; Friends of the Dunes; and the Redwood Gun Club.
In addition, BLM manages the California Coastal National Monument, which includes all the rocks, reefs, and islands of the California coast not owned by the Service, National Park Service, or other entities.
Pacific Coast Joint Venture Northern California Component
The Pacific Coast Joint Venture (PCJV) was established in 1991 to implement the North American Waterfowl Management Plan of 1986 to restore waterfowl populations of the Pacific Coast in Canada, the United States, and Mexico to the levels recorded during the 1970s (PCJV 2004). The PCJV partners have acquired and restored important wetlands, including portions of the Humboldt Bay NWR.
State Coastal Conservancy
The State Coastal Conservancy is involved in multiple projects and planning efforts on the north coast, including the Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area, Aleutian Cackling Goose Management, Spartina Control Research and Implementation, and Humboldt BayTrails Projects (both water-based and land-based).
The Humboldt County Dunes Cooperative
This cooperative consists of Federal, State, Tribal, local, and private entities that work together to
18 January 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
research, evaluate, prioritize, and implement dune conservation and restoration in Humboldt County. One of their first projects was the Coastal Dune Mapping Project, which will result in the classification and mapping of all dune vegetation in Humboldt County. Friends of the Dunes Plans are currently underway to transform the ocean and bay view property formerly known as the Stamps House into a “gateway to the dunes.” Featuring an interpretive nature center, restrooms, ample parking, and a marked trail system, the Humboldt Coastal Nature Center will provide the community with an easy point of entry to the coastlands and dune trails that will connect to the Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area to the north, and Manila Community Services District to the south. The linked trail system will provide visitors with access to ~1,000 acres of coastal dune habitats, and the nature center and an adjacent loop trail will be wheelchair accessible. In addition, the facility will serve as a home base for the Friends of the Dunes ongoing education and restoration activities. Humboldt/Del Norte County Weed Management Area This group’s purpose is to effectively manage, coordinate, and implement the invasive plant species programs among the BLM, U.S. Forest Service, NPS, US Fish and Wildlife Service, California State Parks, CDFG, California Department of Transportation, Humboldt County, Del Norte County, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Humboldt County Resource Conservation District, California Cattlemen’s Association, California Department of Food and Agriculture, UC Cooperative Extension, City of Eureka, City of Arcata, Friends of the Dunes, Center for Land Management, Manila Community Services District, and the North Coast Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. The groups have mutually agreed to: 1. Participate and/or cooperate in the development of a Weed Management Plan, which will be created for the Humboldt-Del Norte County Weed Management Area (WMA). 2. Share information among cooperators and provide assistance and expertise regarding alien species management (e.g., control methods, introduction prevention measures, restoration tools) activities on their units. 3. Provide opportunities to outside interest groups, private landowners, and the public for involvement in carrying out the Weed Management Plan on lands within the Humboldt-Del Norte County WMA.
The Humboldt Bay Management Plan
In order to balance port-related commercial and industrial uses, expanding recreational uses, and environmental protection, a planning document for Humboldt Bay was deemed necessary by the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District (HBHRCD 2007). The HBMP is the region’s first ecosystem-based management approach intended to improve the management of Humboldt Bay. The Humboldt Bay Management Plan (HBMP) is a large cooperative project funded by Federal, State, and local agencies. Many Conservation Element Policies from the HBMP are relevant to Service cooperation with other regional organizations and management of Humboldt Bay NWR. The Humboldt Bay Management Plan contains a tremendous amount of information on the history of development and the natural ecology of Humboldt Bay (www.humboldtbay.org).
Humboldt Bay Ecosystem Program
The Humboldt Bay Ecosystem Program (HBEP) is a relatively new ecosystem-based management program coordinated by the Eureka Sea Grant Office (UCANRP 2007). The mission of the Humboldt Bay Ecosystem Program is to increase the scientific understanding of the Humboldt Bay ecosystem and to create an integrated framework for resource management and collaboration that links the needs of people, habitats and species to ensure a healthy future for Humboldt Bay’s natural and human communities.
The HBEP defines ecosystem-based management as a comprehensive process of integrated resource management that considers the entire ecosystem, including humans. It integrates the best available scientific, traditional and local knowledge, is geographically specific, defines management based on ecological boundaries, addresses complexities of natural processes and social systems, considers multiple simultaneous factors influencing management, and is collaborative, integrating social and environmental goals. The purpose of this project is to develop practical implementation of an ecosystem approach.
The foundation for this program is two community based plans, the Humboldt Bay Management Plan and the Humboldt Bay Watershed Salmon and Steelhead Conservation Plan. Issues, priorities and recommendations in these plans were used to develop ecosystem-based management approaches to sediment dynamics, governance, ecosystem and socio-economic indicators concept proposals. These proposals will be further developed and explored in 2009.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2009 19
CHAPTeR 1
The Humboldt Bay Watershed Salmon and Steelhead Conservation Plan
The Humboldt Bay Watershed Salmon and Steelhead Conservation Plan compiles and evaluates watershed information, with a list of high priority goals and objectives aimed at protecting and/ or restoring watershed processes to preserve and enhance salmon and steelhead habitat (HBWAC, RCAA 2005). The Salmon and Steelhead Conservation Plan was developed by the Humboldt Bay Watershed Advisory Committee (HBWAC), a diverse group of watershed stakeholders, “to improve the Humboldt Bay watershed’s anadromous salmonid populations and related resources while considering regional ecological and socioeconomic needs.”
Other Wetland Habitat Restoration Projects
Other wetland habitat restoration projects in the Humboldt Bay/Eel River area include the City of Arcata’s McDaniel Slough and Baylands Restorations, and collaborative efforts involving the Service, CDFG, the Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA), and other parties on Jacoby Creek, Gannon Slough, Rocky Gulch, Washington Gulch, Cochrane Creek, Fay Slough, Freshwater Slough and Wood Creek, Martin Slough, Elk River, and Salmon Creek on Humboldt Bay, and the Salt River (tributary on the lower Eel River). Service staff of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and the Coastal Program at Humboldt Bay have provided funds and technical assistance to many of these projects.
Steller Sea Lion
Photo: © Ron LeValley
Marine Mammal Monitoring Surrounding Castle Rock NWR
The NOAA Fisheries Service monitors pinnipeds on and surrounding Castle Rock NWR. The Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) conducts a Pinniped Aerial Surveys Project, which includes censuses at the refuge. Surveys are flown for breeding elephant seals in February, harbor seals in May to July, and Steller’s and California sea lions in July. Surveys are conducted at an altitude of either 750 to 800 feet, or 1400 feet, depending on the camera equipment used and sensitivity of marine mammals at a particular location. Stock assessment reports are produced and are available online (swfsc.noaa.gov). The reports generally do not provide specific information for Castle Rock NWR populations, but can be used to assess regional trends.
20 January 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2. The Planning Process
2.1. Planning Process Policies Service policy, the Improvement Act, and NEPA provide specific guidance for the planning process, such as seeking public involvement in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment document. The development and analysis of a reasonable range of management alternatives within the EA include a no action alternative (Alternative A) that reflects current conditions and management strategies for both refuges in the Complex. Management alternatives were developed as part of this planning process (see Appendix E: Environmental Assessment). 2.1.1. The Planning Process Part of comprehensive conservation planning includes preparation of a NEPA document. Key steps in the CCP planning process and the parallel NEPA process include (Figure 4): ■ Preplanning and Team formation ■ Public Scoping ■ Identifying issues, opportunities, and concerns ■ Defining and revising vision statement and Refuge goals ■ Developing and assessing alternatives ■ Identifying the preferred alternative plan ■ Draft CCP and EA ■ Revising draft documents and releasing final CCP ■ Implementing the CCP ■ Monitoring / Feedback (Adaptive Management) 2.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Complex CCP Process Preliminary CCP planning began with information gathering in the fall of 2006. The official process began on January 29, 2007, when a Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP and EA published in the Federal Register (Vol. 72, No. 18, p. 4020). The Notice of Intent requested that the public submit comments on the scope of issues to be considered in the CCP and EA by March 15, 2007. A core planning team was established to prepare the CCP and EA. Planners, biologists, and managers from the Service formed the core planning team.
Figure 4. The CCP planning process.
The extended planning team included members of tribal governments, Service archaeologists, and specialists from various relevant disciplines. Elected officials and State resource agencies were offered briefings on the CCP/NEPA process and were invited to provide input on Complex management. CCP briefings were provided to representatives of interested County, State, Congressional, and Tribal governments. Meetings were held with the planning teams throughout the process to discuss various planning issues and develop vision statements, goals, alternatives, objectives, and strategies, as well as to share information about the Complex. 2.2.1. Public Involvement During Public Scoping Meetings and Initiation of CCP/NePA Process Prior to public scoping meetings, the Complex issued a press release to many local media outlets such as local radio stations including KHSU, KHUM, KSLUG, and KEKA; local newspapers including the Eureka Times Standard, Eureka Reporter, Humboldt Beacon, EcoNews, and the North Coast Journal; and local television stations including FOX, ABC, NBC, and PBS (community calendar). Flyers advertising the public meetings were posted on community bulletin boards by
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan January 2009 21
CHAPTeR 2
members of the Service in January of 2007. Service staff provided an interview to a local television news show and to a radio station prior to the public meetings. A planning update was distributed in January 2007 to interested stakeholders that had been identified through prior planning processes. An issues workbook was also distributed to the mailing list and at public meetings to help focus public input on issues relevant to the CCP. 2.2.2. Public Scoping Meetings Three Public Scoping Meetings were held in Del Norte and Humboldt counties to receive public input on the scope of the Complex’s CCP and associated NEPA document. Each public scoping meeting consisted of a presentation by Service staff on the CCP/NEPA process, a presentation on the history of the Complex’s refuges, questions and answers, and documentation of public comments. The majority of each public meeting was spent documenting public comments. The first meeting was held on February 13, 2007, at the Del Norte Family Resource Center from 6:00 p.m.–8:30 p.m. in Crescent City, CA. Five members of the public attended the meeting. The second meeting was held on February 15, 2007, at the College of the Redwoods from 5:30 p.m.–8:00 p.m. in Eureka, CA and 23 members of the public attended and signed in. The third meeting was held on February 17, 2007 at the Humboldt Area Foundation from 2:30 p.m.–5:00 p.m. in Bayside, CA and 14 members of the public attended and signed
in. Members of the public attending the meetings were encouraged to also submit written comments by March 15, 2007. Copies of the Issues Workbook were distributed to interested stakeholders at the meetings. 2.2.3. Supplemental Request for Comments on Castle Rock NWR Due to Castle Rock NWR’s seasonal popularity, primarily related to birding events, the Service attempted to obtain additional public input on the CCP by distributing an additional planning update to members of the public attending the annual Aleutian Cackling Goose Festival during the week of April 2, 2007. The second planning update encouraged the public to provide comments on the future management of Castle Rock NWR by May 17, 2007. 2.2.4. Comments Received A complete list of public comments received orally and in writing during the public scoping process are contained in Appendix M: Public Involvement Process. Hundreds of comments were received during the public scoping meetings on a wide variety of Complex management topics. In total, 14 completed issues workbooks were returned during the public scoping period. In total, 13 letters or e-mails were received during the open comment period. In addition, three sets of written comments were turned in during public meetings.
22 January 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3. Refuge Resources
3.1. Overview of Humboldt Bay NWR California’s north coast ecoregion is a unique area where the southern extension of the temperate coastal rain forests of the Pacific Northwest meet the relatively drier coastal forests of California. The north coast region is characterized by mountain ranges that parallel the coast, ranging in elevation from sea level to over 4,000 feet. Ocean currents and plate tectonics combine to produce long narrow valleys and large rivers that produce rich estuaries as they drain into the Pacific Ocean. Foggy forested mountain ranges descend into remnants of once vast coastal marshes. A variety of habitat types still exist along the coast supporting a wide diversity of flora, fauna, recreational uses, and resource economies. Northern California’s coastal habitats include grasslands, terrace prairies, dunes, marshes, eelgrass beds, mudflats, and diverse forest types. Lowland areas near the north coast are dominated by coastal redwood, Sitka spruce, and Douglas-fir forest. Inland ecosystems include Douglas-fir/tanoak forest, Oregon oak woodland, annual grasslands, and mixed broadleaf/coniferous evergreen forests. 3.1.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Physical environment Geography and Climate The Humboldt County coast has a Mediterranean climate characterized by moderate temperatures, heavy precipitation, with many foggy days throughout the year (HC 2001). The average annual precipitation for Eureka, California, just north of the Complex, is 38.10 inches as recorded for the period 1887–2003. Record annual average precipitation rates range from a high o