Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Sacramento River
National Wildlife Refuge
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
June 2005
Sacramento River
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Vision Statement
“The Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge will create a
linked network of up to 18,000 acres of floodplain forests,
wetlands, grasslands, and aquatic habitats stretching over 100
miles from Red Bluff to Colusa. These refuge lands will fulfill the
needs of fish, wildlife, and plants that are native to the
Sacramento River ecosystem. Through innovative revegetation,
the Refuge will serve as an anchor for biodiversity and a model
for riparian habitat restoration throughout the Central Valley.
We will forge habitat, conservation, and management links with
other public and private conservation land managers.
The Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge is committed to
the preservation, conservation, and enhancement of a quality
river environment for the American people along the
Sacramento River. In this pursuit, we will work with partners to
provide a wide range of environmental education programs and
promote high quality wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities to build a refuge support base and attract new
visitors. Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, environmental education and interpretation will
be provided on the Refuge.
Just as the floodplain along the Sacramento River has been
important to agriculture, it is also an important natural
corridor for migratory birds, anadromous fish, and threatened
and endangered species. Encouraging an understanding and
appreciation for the Sacramento River will be a focus of the
Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge for generations to
come.”
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
California/Nevada Refuge Planning Office
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-1832
Sacramento, CA 95825
June, 2005
Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge i Finding of No Significant Impact
U. S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
California/Nevada Refuge Planning Office
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Assessment for Management of
Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Tehama, Butte, Glenn and Colusa Counties, California
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed the Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) and the Environmental Assessment (EA) for Sacramento River
National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The CCP will guide Refuge management for the next
15 years. The CCP and EA (herein incorporated by reference) describe the Service’s
proposals for managing the Refuge and their associated effects on the human
environment under three alternatives, including the no action alternative.
Decision
Following comprehensive review and analysis, the Service selected Alternative B for
implementation because it is the alternative that best meets the following criteria:
􀂄􈐠 Achieves the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
􀂄􈐠 Achieves the purposes of the Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge.
􀂄􈐠 Will be able to achieve the Service’s vision and goals for the Refuge.
􀂄􈐠 Maintains and restores the ecological integrity of the habitats and populations on the
Refuge.
􀂄􈐠 Addresses the important issues identified during the scoping process.
􀂄􈐠 Addresses the legal mandates of the Service and the Refuge.
􀂄􈐠 Is consistent with the scientific principles of sound fish and wildlife management and
endangered species recovery.
􀂄􈐠 Facilitates priority public uses which are compatible with the Refuge purposes and the
Refuge System mission.
Alternative Considered
Following is a brief description of the alternatives for managing Sacramento River
Refuge, including the selected plan (Alternative B). For a complete description of each
alternative, see the draft EA.
Alternative A
Under the No Action Alternative, the Refuge would continue to be managed as it has in
the recent past. The Refuge currently has no unit-wide management plan. Recent
management has followed existing step-down management plans:
􀂄􈐠 Environmental Assessment for Proposed Restoration
Activities on Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
􀂄􈐠 Fire Management Plan for Sacramento River National
Wildlife Refuge
Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge ii Finding of No Significant Impact
􀂄􈐠 Annual Habitat Management Plan for Sacramento River
National Wildlife Refuge
􀂄􈐠 Cultural Resource Overview and Management Plan
The focus of the Refuge would remain the same: to provide habitat and maintain current
active management practices; restore the 9 units identified in the Environmental
Assessment for Proposed Restoration Activities on Sacramento River National Wildlife
Refuge (USFWS 2002) for threatened and endangered species, migratory and resident
birds, and other wildlife. The Refuge would remain closed to visitor services other than
the limited existing opportunities for fishing at Packer Lake. Current staffing and
funding levels would remain the same.
This Alternative was not selected for implementation because it does not include needed
improvements for habitat restoration, for management of migratory birds and special
status species and it does not accommodate the growing demand for wildlife-dependant
recreation.
Alternative B (Selected Plan)
Under Alternative B, the Refuge would use active and passive management practices to
achieve and maintain full restoration/enhancement of all units where appropriate, as
funding becomes available. The agricultural program would be phased out as restoration
funding becomes available. The Refuge would employ both cultivated and natural
recruitment restoration techniques as determined by site conditions. Public Use
opportunities would be optimized to allow for a balance of Big 6 wildlife-dependant public
uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education,
and interpretation) throughout the entire Refuge river reach in coordination with other
agencies and programs. Staffing and funding levels would need to increase to implement
this alternative.
The Service would manage migratory birds threatened and endangered species the same
as under Alternative A. However, the Refuge would prepare a surveying and monitoring
plan for special status species, and substantially expand research on the ecology and
management of special status species. Special regulations and temporary closures would
be instituted for the protection of wildlife species and their habitats during critical periods
of their life cycles. In cooperation with partners, the Refuge would continue to monitor
restoration projects, avian bird populations, migratory waterfowl and other wildlife. The
Refuge would develop and implement a long-term monitoring program to assess the
success of current management and restoration activities.
Under Alternative B, the Service would improve and expand visitor services with a focus
on a balance of Big 6 wildlife-dependent public use opportunities distributed throughout
the entire Refuge. New visitor services projects under this alternative include: developing
interpretive kiosks, creating a new refuge brochure, and constructing walking trails and
parking facilities on vehicle accessible units. Hunting opportunities would increase under
Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge iii Finding of No Significant Impact
Alternative B. Approximately 52 percent of the Refuge would be opened to hunting of
dove, waterfowl, coot, common moorhen, pheasant, quail, snipe, turkey and deer. Hunting
will be limited to shotgun or archery only. Twenty-three riverbank miles and seasonally
submerged areas would be opened to sport fishing consistent with State regulations.
Camping would be allowed on gravels bars below the ordinary high water mark.
This alternative was selected for implementation because it includes needed
improvements in migratory bird and special status species management and makes an
important contribution to regional biodiversity. It also provides a balanced mix of
compatible wildlife-dependant recreation opportunities to meet the growing demand in
the region. Implementation of this alternative will require additional staff and funding.
Alternative C
The Refuge would use active and passive management practices to achieve and maintain
full restoration of all units under Alternative C. The agricultural program would cease
immediately and remaining orchards would be removed. Restoration of these sites would
be implemented as funding becomes available. Additional NEPA compliance documents
may be needed depending on the size and scope of the restoration activities. Management
and restoration of riparian habitats, threatened and endangered species and cultural
resources would be the same as Alternative B.
Public use opportunities would be maximized to allow for all Big 6 wildlife-dependent
public uses throughout the majority of the Refuge. In addition, staffing and funding levels
would need to increase substantially to implement the alternative. Hunting opportunities
would increase to 69 percent of the Refuge. Hunting would be allowed on most of the units
open to the public. The Service would manage the hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
photography, environmental education and interpretation programs similar to Alternative
B.
Alternative C was not selected for implementation because of the negative effects of the
immediate removal of agriculture from the Refuge. These negative effects include the loss
of funding for restoration activities, the potential for non-native or invasive plant species
to invade these units which may impact biodiversity, unmanaged pests that may impact
adjacent landowners and agricultural operations, and the abrupt impact on the local
economy. Lastly, the topic of hunting dominated the comments received on the Draft
CCP. Although the majority of the comments received were in favor of hunting, a great
deal were against hunting. By opening 69 percent of the Refuge to hunting, more contact
between hunters and other visitors may lead to increased competition for recreation
space.
Effects of management of the Refuge in the human environment
As described in the EA, implementing the selected alternative will have no significant
impacts on any of the environmental resources identified in the EA. A summary of the
impacts analysis and conclusions follows:
Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge iv Finding of No Significant Impact
Soils
The overall effect on soils from implementation of the selected alternative is negligible.
The surface erosion potential is low, and because restoration site preparation activities
would be conducted in small increments, any temporary increase in erosion and
sedimentation rates resulting from the project would likely be minor. Any temporary
increase in erosion and sedimentation rates would be offset by the substantial long-term
reduction in erosion and sedimentation rates that would result from taking the Refuge
units out of agricultural production and restoring them to native riparian habitat. Long-term
pesticide and herbicide applications would also be reduced or eliminated under the
selected alternative, leading to a positive or negligible effect on soils.
Geology and Hydrology
Potential changes in water surface elevations were evaluated in hydrologic models to
assess the potential effects of converting agricultural land to riparian habitat on 9 units of
the Refuge under the Restoration EA (USFWS 2002b). Any future restoration plans
outside of these 9 units would be evaluated on an individual basis to assure that
restoration projects would have a neutral affect on water surface elevations and no
adverse effects to adjacent properties. As agricultural operations cease and Refuge lands
are restored to riparian habitat, the need for flood protection of these properties is
reduced. By restoring the floodplain hydrology on Refuge lands, flooding on neighboring
agricultural operations may be reduced.
Air Quality
Under the selected plan, both short and long-term increases in pollutant emissions are
expected. Short-term increases in dust and tailpipe emissions due to restoration projects
which disturb the soil and/or require the use of heavy equipment work will occur. Long-term
minor increases in tailpipe and fugitive dust emissions due to increased visitor trips
and the construction of parking lots will also occur. However, the selected plan would have
an overall positive effect on air quality with the implementation of full restoration over
time.
Limited prescribed fire will be used under the selected plan to control nonnative weeds
which may also temporarily impact air quality. Burning vegetation could temporarily and
substantially increase PM10 concentrations in the areas. Adverse impacts from
prescribed fire are expected to be minimal due to the small burn size and measures to
avoid adverse impacts described in the Fire Management Plan.
Water Quality/Contaminants
Land-disturbing construction activities would occur under the selected alternative, but
would have minimal impacts on water quality. To prevent groundwater contamination, the
Refuge would identify and protect wells expected to be exposed to inundation, or would
abandon and seal the wells according to county specifications. With the conversion of
agricultural lands to riparian, the selected alternative would result in an overall long-term
reduction in pesticide applications within the Sacramento River floodplain. Over time, the
selected alternative is expected to result in positive effects on water quality on the
Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge v Finding of No Significant Impact
Sacramento River. Restoring the floodplain hydrology on Refuge lands reduces the need
for flood protection of these properties and may also reduce flooding on neighboring
agricultural operations. Sediment and contaminant levels could also be reduced. These
effects, although beneficial, are not significant.
Vegetation
The riparian restoration would have beneficial long-term impacts on the Refuge.
Approximately 2,372 acres of land on 9 existing units will be planted or allowed to
revegetate with native vegetation based on the Restoration EA. The additional 3,255 acres
that would be restored under selected alternative would have additional beneficial effects.
Habitat restoration fulfills the Service’s congressional mandate to preserve, restore, and
enhance riparian habitat for threatened and endangered species, songbirds, waterfowl,
other migratory birds, anadromous fish, resident riparian wildlife, and plants. In the
context of the large amount of habitat lost along the Sacramento River compared to the
amount of habitat that would be restored, the beneficial effects are not significant.
Restoration activities under the selected alternative would not have adverse effects on
special-status plants or sensitive natural communities since these activities are limited to
existing fallow or agricultural areas. Special-status plants and sensitive natural
communities would benefit from implementation of the selected alternative. The selected
plan would utilize herbicides for weed maintenance in existing riparian areas and in
restoration sites, and for weed maintenance in orchards. Use of herbicides would have a
positive effect on vegetation, since the control of nonnative weeds would result in an
increase in native species with minimal environmental cost.
Increased public use will cause small dispersed impacts to some vegetated areas. Areas
with special-status plants and sensitive natural communities would be avoided in the
placement of trails, parking lots, and other public use facilities. Foot traffic would likely
increase in areas that are most easily traversed and the small amount of trampling that
would result would have temporary and small-scale impacts on vegetation.
Wildlife Resources
The selected alternative will result in short-term and long-term benefits and potentially
some adverse impacts on wildlife. The restoration of 2,372 acres covered under the
Restoration EA and the additional 3,255 acres of habitat under the selected plan could
temporarily disturb wildlife in these units. However, once restoration is completed there
will be a long-term benefit to wildlife due to improved habitat conditions. These effects
though beneficial are not significant.
Increased public use under the selected alternative would result in disturbance to wildlife.
Due to the inaccessible “jungle-like” nature of a mature riparian forest; disturbance would
be limited to those habitats that are more open to foot travel. There would also be
increased public education, trails and signage, and law enforcement, all of which would
help to alleviate the degree of disturbance.
Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge vi Finding of No Significant Impact
Special Status Species
Under the selected plan the federally-listed endangered Chinook salmon (winter-run
ESU); federally listed threatened bald eagle, giant garter snake, Chinook salmon (spring-run
ESU), steelhead, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle; and federal candidate western
yellow-billed cuckoo and Chinook salmon (fall- and late-fall run ESU) would continue to
benefit from the Service’s efforts to improve habitat quality. Short and long-term benefits
for special status wildlife species due to restoration of riparian habitat would occur under
the selected plan. The Section 7 consultation with USFWS (2004) and NOAA-Fisheries
(2004) concluded that the selected plan is not likely to adversely affect any of the special
status species occurring on the Refuge.
Every effort would be made to incorporate existing elderberry shrubs in agricultural
habitats into the restoration plans, although an occasional shrub may be affected. This
effect would be infrequent and offset by the substantial increase in Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle (VELB) habitat created by restoration activities. Public education efforts
and increased law enforcement should help to decrease the potential for negative impacts
to VELB and associated habitats. Adjacent landowners have expressed concerns that
planting elderberry shrubs near their properties could lead to the spread of VELB onto
their properties, with resulting special-status species issues. The selected alternative
leaves a 100-foot-wide corridor along the inside of the Refuge perimeter in which no
elderberry shrubs would be planted, reducing the likelihood that VELB would colonize
elderberry shrubs on adjacent properties.
Adverse effects to giant garter snake (GGS) could occur if restoration activities were to
occur in potential GGS habitat. Specified measures would be taken to protect GGS and its
habitat when threatened by restoration activities. Increased public use due to
implementation of the selected alternative is unlikely to cause any adverse effects on GGS.
It is unlikely that wildlife-dependant public use activities (hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation) will affect this
species in these habitats.
The selected alternative would provide positive effects for special status wildlife species
since additional acreage would be restored to riparian habitat. However, the beneficial
short and long-term effects on wildlife would not be significant. The implementation of
could create some disturbance to special status species due to increased public use. To
alleviate any negative effects, areas that are known to have sensitive species would have
restricted public access and may have temporary closures instituted for protection during
critical lifecycle periods.
Fisheries Resources
The implementation of riparian restoration in the selected alternative would result in
long-term beneficial effects on fish in the Sacramento River, including winter/spring run
Chinook salmon, steelhead, and Sacramento splittail. The resulting riparian habitats
would provide shaded riverine aquatic habitat and large woody debris, increasing cover,
food, and other main channel and floodplain habitat components for fish. These effects,
Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge vii Finding of No Significant Impact
although beneficial, are not significant. The loss of riparian habitat on the Sacramento
River has contributed, in part, to the decline of our native fisheries resources. The Refuge
encompasses only a small portion of the Sacramento River, therefore, is only part of what
maybe required for the continued long-term survival of our fisheries resources.
Temporary impacts on fish species could occur during restoration implementation
resulting in a temporary increase sediment load in the river. Increased input of sediment
has the potential to increase turbidity, possibly reducing the feeding efficiency of juvenile
and adult fish. Because the Sacramento River is typically a turbid system, additional
sediment input from restoration activity would be comparatively minimal and would not
have any noticeable effect to the overall condition of the river. The selected alternative
would allow fishing at the Refuge, but is not expected to significantly affect fish harvest
since most areas along the river are accessible by boat only and are already being fished.
Visitor Services
Under the selected plan, the Service will improve and expand all visitor services on the
Refuge as funding becomes available. There would be an increased promotion of the
Refuge with schools, the development of an educator-led curriculum for Refuge resources,
and additional refuge signs, trails, restrooms, and parking lots under the selected
alternative. Visitation may increase to approximately 5,500 total annual visits. The public
would be allowed daytime access to much of the Refuge for hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education. The selected
alternative balances these public uses with the mission of the Service and the purposes of
the Refuge. Sensitive areas for wildlife, plants and cultural resources have been set aside
as sanctuaries (20%) and will be closed to the public. The remaining 80 percent of the
Refuge that allows wildlife-dependent public uses have been carefully planned.
Approximately 52 percent of the Refuge will be opened to hunting and 23 riverbank miles
will be opened for fishing. Compatible locations of trails and facilities including restrooms
and parking lots have been chosen to minimize disturbance to wildlife. Areas outside the
trails and facilities, will not receive as much visitation or as concentrated visitation due to
the thick “jungle” nature of the riparian habitat. The overall increase in wildlife-dependent
recreational opportunities is not significant.
Public Review
The planning process incorporated extensive public involvement in developing and
reviewing the CCP. This included four public workshops, four planning updates, and
public review and comment on the planning documents. The details of the Service’s public
involvement program are described in the CCP and EA.
Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge viii Finding of No Significant Impact
Illustration by Jennifer Isola
I
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ............................................................................... 1
Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1
Need for This CCP ..................................................................................................................... 3
Legal and Policy Guidance ........................................................................................................ 3
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.......................................................................................... 6
The National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................... 6
The Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex ............................................................ 7
The Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................. 9
Refuge Units......................................................................................................................... 12
Land Acquisition.................................................................................................................. 12
Oil and Gas Extraction........................................................................................................ 12
Refuge Purposes....................................................................................................................... 13
The Refuge Vision .................................................................................................................... 14
Existing and New Partnerships ............................................................................................. 15
Ecosystem Context .................................................................................................................. 18
Threats and Opportunities ...................................................................................................... 22
Conservation Priorities and Initiatives ................................................................................. 25
Wilderness Review ................................................................................................................... 26
Refuge River Jurisdiction ....................................................................................................... 27
Chapter 2. The Planning Process............................................................................................. 31
Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 31
The Planning Process............................................................................................................... 32
Planning Hierarchy .................................................................................................................. 33
The Planning Team .................................................................................................................. 33
Core Team ............................................................................................................................ 33
Expanded Team................................................................................................................... 34
Pre-Planning ............................................................................................................................. 35
Public Involvement in Planning.............................................................................................. 35
Public Outreach........................................................................................................................ 37
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................................... 37
Development of the Refuge Vision......................................................................................... 38
Determining the Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies............................................... 38
Goals ..................................................................................................................................... 39
Objectives, Rationale, and Strategies............................................................................... 39
Development of the Refuge Management Alternatives...................................................... 40
Alternative A: No Action .................................................................................................... 40
Alternative B: Optimize Habitat Restoration and Public Use (Proposed Action) ..... 40
Alternative C: Accelerated Habitat Restoration and Maximize Public Use............... 41
Selection of the Refuge Proposed Action.............................................................................. 41
Plan Implementation................................................................................................................ 42
Chapter 3. The Refuge Environment ...................................................................................... 43
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting .............................................................................................. 43
II
The Sacramento River Ecosystem.................................................................................... 43
Physical Environment.............................................................................................................. 46
Climate and Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 46
Geology, Hydrology, and Soils........................................................................................... 48
Contaminants and Water Quality...................................................................................... 49
Vegetation............................................................................................................................ 50
Agricultural .......................................................................................................................... 50
Riparian Habitats ................................................................................................................ 51
Fish and Wildlife.................................................................................................................. 54
Social and Economic Environment ........................................................................................ 67
Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 67
Employment ......................................................................................................................... 67
Local Economy..................................................................................................................... 68
Land Use and Zoning.......................................................................................................... 69
Demographics...................................................................................................................... 69
Cultural Resources................................................................................................................... 70
Public Use ................................................................................................................................. 73
Trends................................................................................................................................... 73
Environmental Education .................................................................................................. 75
Interpretation...................................................................................................................... 76
Refuge Unit Descriptions........................................................................................................ 76
La Barranca......................................................................................................................... 76
Blackberry Island ................................................................................................................ 77
Todd Island.......................................................................................................................... 77
Mooney ................................................................................................................................. 78
Ohm....................................................................................................................................... 78
Flynn..................................................................................................................................... 79
Heron Island......................................................................................................................... 82
Rio Vista............................................................................................................................... 82
Foster Island ........................................................................................................................ 85
McIntosh Landing North ................................................................................................... 85
McIntosh Landing South.................................................................................................... 85
Capay.................................................................................................................................... 88
Phelan Island........................................................................................................................ 91
Jacinto .................................................................................................................................. 91
Dead Man’s Reach ............................................................................................................... 91
North Ord ............................................................................................................................. 92
Ord Bend.............................................................................................................................. 92
South Ord............................................................................................................................. 92
Llano Seco Riparian Sanctuary and Islands 1 and 2...................................................... 94
Hartley Island ...................................................................................................................... 94
Sul Norte.............................................................................................................................. 97
Codora .................................................................................................................................. 97
Packer................................................................................................................................... 99
Head Lama ........................................................................................................................... 99
III
Drumheller Slough ............................................................................................................ 100
Llano Seco Riparian Easement ....................................................................................... 102
Chapter 4. Current Refuge Management and Programs................................................. 105
Habitat Management ............................................................................................................. 105
Water Management........................................................................................................... 106
Riverbank Management ................................................................................................... 106
Technical Analysis ............................................................................................................. 107
Control of Invasive Exotic Species ................................................................................. 108
Mosquitoes......................................................................................................................... 112
Vegetation Management................................................................................................... 112
Riparian Grassland/Savannah Units ............................................................................112
Riparian Forest Units ....................................................................................................113
Croplands .........................................................................................................................113
Orchardlands...................................................................................................................114
Cooperative Land Management Agreements/Cooperative Agreements ...............114
Habitat Restoration........................................................................................................... 115
Riparian Grassland/Savannah Restoration .................................................................115
Riparian Forest Restoration .........................................................................................116
Fish and Wildlife Management ............................................................................................ 117
Migratory Bird Management........................................................................................... 117
Threatened and Endangered Species Management .................................................... 117
Fisheries Management ..................................................................................................... 121
Game Management............................................................................................................ 121
Monitoring, Research, and Investigations..................................................................... 122
Wildlife Disease Monitoring and Treatment ................................................................. 123
Other Wildlife Management Activities................................................................................ 123
Cooperation with Adjacent Landowners............................................................................. 123
Fire Prevention and Hazard Reduction .............................................................................. 124
Law Enforcement and Resource Protection ...................................................................... 125
Cultural Resource Management .......................................................................................... 126
Facilities Maintenance........................................................................................................... 126
Safety....................................................................................................................................... 127
Visitor Programs and Facilities............................................................................................ 127
Environmental Education ................................................................................................ 128
Fishing................................................................................................................................ 128
Outreach............................................................................................................................. 129
Refuge Fee Program......................................................................................................... 129
Hunting ............................................................................................................................... 129
Chapter 5. Planned Refuge Management and Programs ................................................ 131
Overview of Refuge Management Goals, Objectives, and Strategies............................. 131
Organization ............................................................................................................................ 132
Refuge Management Goals, Objectives, and Strategies................................................... 132
Goal 1: Wildlife and Habitat ............................................................................................. 132
Objective 1.1: Riparian Vegetation and Habitat.........................................................135
Objective 1.2: Floodplain and River Processes...........................................................143
IV
Objective 1.3: Threatened & Endangered Species.....................................................146
Objective 1.4: Migratory and Resident Landbirds.....................................................147
Objective 1.5: Winter Migratory Landbirds................................................................149
Objective 1.6: Waterfowl and other Waterbirds.........................................................150
Objective 1.7: Anadromous Fisheries and Native Fisheries.....................................151
Objective 1.8: Native Plant Species ..............................................................................153
Objective 1.9: Exotic, Invasive Species Control .........................................................154
Objective 1.10: Wildlife and Cultural Sanctuary ........................................................155
Goal 2: Visitor Services ..................................................................................................... 156
Objective 2.1: Hunting ....................................................................................................157
Objective 2.2: Fishing .....................................................................................................163
Objective 2.3: Wildlife Observation and Photography...............................................165
Objective 2.4: Environmental Education .....................................................................167
Objective 2.5: Interpretation .........................................................................................169
Objective 2.6: Public Outreach ......................................................................................170
Objective 2.7: Volunteers ...............................................................................................171
Goal 3: Partnerships.......................................................................................................... 173
Objective 3.1: Partnerships............................................................................................173
Objective 3.2: Cooperation with Adjacent Landowners: ...........................................175
Goal 4: Resource Protection............................................................................................. 176
Objective 4.1: Law Enforcement...................................................................................176
Objective 4.2: Safety .......................................................................................................178
Chapter 6. Management Plan Implementation ................................................................. 185
Implementation...................................................................................................................... 185
Funding & Staffing................................................................................................................. 185
Step-Down Management Plan Summaries......................................................................... 190
Hunting Plan ...................................................................................................................... 190
Fishing Plan........................................................................................................................ 191
Fire Management Plan ..................................................................................................... 191
Draft Integrated Pest Management Plan...................................................................... 192
Habitat Management Plan ............................................................................................... 192
Cultural Resource Management Plan ............................................................................ 193
Restoration and Enhancement Plan............................................................................... 193
Compatibility Determinations .............................................................................................. 193
Compliance Requirements .................................................................................................... 194
Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................... 194
Adaptive Management........................................................................................................... 195
CCP Plan Amendment and Revision................................................................................... 195
V
Figures
Figure 1. Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge..............................................................2
Figure 2. Watershed/Ecosystem Setting...................................................................................19
Figure 3. Life History Characteristics of Four Races of Chinook Salmon in the Central
Valley of California................................................................................................................21
Figure 4. Riparian Bird Focal Species. ......................................................................................22
Figure 5. Potential Effects of Altered Hydrology on Breeding Bird Populations. .............24
Figure 6. Contributing Factors for the Decline in Anadromous Salmonids of the Pacific
(NOAA-NMFS). ....................................................................................................................25
Figure 7. The CCP Process..........................................................................................................32
Figure 8. Relationships between Service, System and other planning efforts. ...................34
Figure 9. Typical Plant Communities and Successional Stages on the Sacramento River.
.................................................................................................................................................45
Figure 10. Typical Life Cycle of Anadromous Salmonids. ......................................................59
Figure 11. Map of La Barranca, Blackberry Island, Todd Island and Mooney units.........80
Figure 12. Map of Ohm and Flynn units. ...................................................................................81
Figure 13. Map of Heron Island Unit.........................................................................................83
Figure 14. Map of Rio Vista Unit. ...............................................................................................84
Figure 15. Map of Foster Island Unit. .......................................................................................86
Figure 16. Map of McIntosh Landing North and South units................................................87
Figure 17. Map of Pine Creek Unit. ...........................................................................................89
Figure 18. Map of Capay and Phelan Island units. ..................................................................90
Figure 19. Map of Jacinto, Dead Man’s Reach, North Ord, Ord Bend, and South Ord
units.. ......................................................................................................................................93
Figure 20. Map of Llano Seco Island 1 and 2 and Llano Seco Riparian Sanctuary. ...........95
Figure 21. Map of Hartley Island Unit.. ....................................................................................96
Figure 22. Map of Sul Norte, Codora, Packer and Head Lama units. ..................................98
Figure 23. Map of Drumheller Slough Unit. ...........................................................................101
Figure 24. Llano Seco Conservation Easement......................................................................103
Figure 25. Potential Public Use / Biological Activity Time Frames ....................................160
Figure 26. Sacramento River Refuge Public Use Sign..........................................................162
Figure 27. Public Use Sign Placement.....................................................................................162
Figure 28. Map of Visitor Services Alternative B ..................................................................181
VI
Tables
Table 1. Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge: Location and Size, June 20051. ......10
Table 2. Partnerships in habitat acquisition, restoration, and management........................17
Table 3. Public Scoping Meetings. ..............................................................................................36
Table 4. Refuge Issues Identified Through Public Comment. ...............................................36
Table 5. Special status wildlife species occurring or potentially occurring at Sacramento
River Refuge. .........................................................................................................................61
Table 6. Ranks of three wildlife dependent activities ..............................................................74
Table 7. Invasive Exotic Plant Species at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
...............................................................................................................................................109
Table 8. Habitat restoration and management for selected special status wildlife species
occurring or potentially occurring at Sacramento River Refuge.................................119
Table 9. Anticipated Restoration and Public Use Matrix......................................................137
Table 10.California Hunting Seasons 2003-2004.....................................................................159
Table 11. Maintenance Management System Backlog for Sacramento River Refuge. ....186
Table 12. RONS Project Summary for Sacramento River Refuge, 2004............................187
Table 13. Staffing Plan................................................................................................................189
Appendices
Appendix A Environmental Assessment
Appendix B Compatibility Determinations
Appendix C Hunting Plan
Appendix D Fishing Plan
Appendix E Fire Management Plan
Appendix F Compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
Appendix G Wildlife and Plant Species Lists
Appendix H Glossary
Appendix I Bibliography
Appendix J Consultation and Coordination with Others
Appendix K List of Planning Team Members and Preparers
Appendix L Rationale for Public Use Determinations
Appendix M Applicable Laws and Executive Orders and Relationships to Federal,
State, and Local Policies and Plans
Appendix N Referenced Tables from Sacramento River Public Recreation Access
Study
Appendix O Monitoring & Research Investigations at Sacramento River Refuge
Appendix P Integrated Pest Management Plan for Mosquito Control
Appendix Q Integrated Pest Management Plan for Walnut Production
Appendix R Response to Comments
VII
Acronyms
ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AHPA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CALFED California Bay-Delta Program
CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game (also, DFG)
CDPR California Department of Parks and Recreation
CSU Chico California State University at Chico
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWA California Waterfowl Association
DFG California Department of Fish and Game (also, CDFG)
DOI Department of the Interior
DU Ducks Unlimited
DWR Department of Water Resources
EA Environmental Assessment
EE Environmental Education
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit
FR Federal Register
FTE Full-time Equivalent
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, Service)
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Global Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997
IPM Integrated Pest Management
LWD Large Woody Debris
MMS Maintenance Management System
MDN Marine Derived Nitrogen
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NWR National Wildlife Refuge
NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System
PRBO PRBO Conservation Science
PUP Pesticide Use Permit
RMIS Refuge Management Information System
RP River Partners
VIII
RONS Refuge Operating Needs System
Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, FWS)
SoC Species of Concern
SRA Shaded Riverine Aquatic habitat
SRCAF Sacramento River Conservation Area Forum
SUP Special Use Permit
T&E Threatened and Endangered Species
TNC The Nature Conservancy
UC Davis University of California at Davis
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, Service)
USGS U.S. Geological Service
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
Chapter 1. Introduction and
Background
Introduction
The Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is located
in the Sacramento Valley of north-central California and was
proposed to acquire 18,000 acres from Red Bluff to Colusa. The
Refuge currently meanders along 77 miles of California’s largest
waterway, the Sacramento River, between Red Bluff and Princeton
(Figure 1). Its many units are located along both sides of the river
and serve to protect and provide a wide variety of riparian habitats
for birds, fish, and other wildlife. The Refuge is one of many partners
protecting and restoring riparian habitat along the Sacramento River
and its watershed.
This document is a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
designed to guide management of the Refuge for the next 15 years.
Guidance within the CCP will be in the form of goals, objectives,
strategies, and compatibility determinations. The purposes of this
CCP are to:
􀂄􈐠 Provide a clear statement of direction for the future management
of the Refuge;
􀂄􈐠 Provide long-term continuity in Refuge management;
􀂄􈐠 Communicate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service)
management priorities for the Refuge to their partners, neighbors,
visitors, and the general public;
􀂄􈐠 Provide an opportunity for the public to help shape the future
management of the Refuge;
􀂄􈐠 Ensure that management programs on the Refuge are consistent
with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge
System) and the purposes for which the Refuge was established;
􀂄􈐠 Ensure that the management of the Refuge is consistent with
Federal, State, and local plans; and
􀂄􈐠 Provide a basis for budget requests to support the Refuge’s needs
for staffing, operations, maintenance, and capital improvements.
This CCP provides a description of the desired future conditions on
the Refuge and long-range guidance to accomplish the purposes for
which the Refuge was established. The CCP and accompanying
Environmental Assessment (EA) address Service legal mandates,
policies, goals, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
compliance. A range of administrative, habitat management, and
Chapter 1
2 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Foster Island
Todd Island
Hartley Island
Head Lama
Ohm
Rio Vista
Flynn
Capay
La Barranca
Codora Sul Norte
Mooney
Phelan Island
Packer
Pine Creek
Dead Man's Reach
Llano Seco Riparian Sanctuary
Heron Island
Ord Bend
South Ord
Drumheller Slough
McIntosh Landing South
McIntosh Landing North
Jacinto
North Ord
Blackberry Island
Llano Seco Island 1
Llano Seco Island 2
99
70
162
32
45
36
191
20
149
20
162
162
5
32 Chico
Colusa
Orland
Willows
Corning
Live Oak
Oroville
Paradise
Princeton
Red Bluff
Butte County
Tehama County
Glenn County
Colusa County
Sutter County
Butte County
Glenn County
Figure 1. Refuge Map
Sacramento River
National Wildlife Refuge
Sacramento River Refuge
Sacramento River Refuge Pending Acquisitions
Other National Wildlife Refuge Units
Fish & Wildlife Service Conservation Easements
0 Miles 10
0 km 10
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
visitor services alternatives that consider issues and opportunities on
the Refuge were analyzed in the draft EA (Appendix A). This
document presents the Service’s plan for future management of the
Refuge.
The CCP is accompanied by four new plans: a Hunting Plan
(Appendix C), Fishing Plan (Appendix D), Fire Management Plan
(Appendix E), and Integrated Pest Management Plans (Appendices
P & Q). Other existing plans that will remain in place include a
Habitat Management Plan, Cultural Resource Management Plan,
and Restoration and Enhancement Plan.
The CCP serves as a management tool for the Refuge staff. It will
guide management decisions, and describe strategies for achieving
Refuge goals and objectives over a 15-year period. It is divided into
six chapters: Chapter 1, Introduction; Chapter 2, Planning Process;
Chapter 3, Refuge Environment; Chapter 4, Current Refuge
Management and Programs; Chapter 5, Planned Refuge
Management and Programs; and Chapter 6, Plan Implementation.
Need for This CCP
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
(Public Law 105-57) (Improvement Act) requires that all Federal
refuges be managed in accordance with an approved CCP by 2012.
This plan provides the necessary guidance as the Refuge has no
integrated plan that guides the management of all of its resources
and uses. The Service has prepared this CCP to meet the dual needs
of complying with the Improvement Act and providing long-term
integrated management guidance for the Refuge.
Legal and Policy Guidance
National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the
Refuge System, purposes of the Refuge, Service policy, laws, and
international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by
the Improvement Act, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected
portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife
Service Manual. The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended,
authorized the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges,
hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use when
such uses did not interfere with the area’s primary purpose.
Chapter 1
4 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
The Improvement Act:
􀂄􈐠 Identified a new mission statement for the Refuge System;
􀂄􈐠 Established six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, environmental education and
interpretation);
􀂄􈐠 Emphasized conservation and enhancement of the quality and
diversity of fish and wildlife habitat;
􀂄􈐠 Stressed the importance of partnerships with Federal and State
agencies, Tribes, non-governmental organizations, industry, and
the general public;
􀂄􈐠 Mandated public involvement in decisions on the acquisition and
management of refuges; and
􀂄􈐠 Required, prior to acquisition of new refuge lands, identification of
existing compatible wildlife-dependent uses that would be
permitted to continue on an interim basis pending completion of
comprehensive conservation planning.
The Improvement Act establishes the responsibilities of the
Secretary of the Interior for managing and protecting the Refuge
System; requires a CCP for each refuge by the year 2012; and
provides guidelines and directives for the administration and
management of all areas in the Refuge System, including wildlife
refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife
threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife
management areas, or waterfowl production areas.
The Improvement Act also establishes a formal process for
determining whether uses are “compatible” with the refuge’s
purposes. Federal law requires that before any uses, including
priority public uses, are allowed on the refuge, a compatibility
determination must be made. A compatible use is defined as a use
that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will
not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the
purposes of the refuge. Sound professional judgment is defined as a
finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with the
principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration,
available science and resources (funding, personnel, facilities, and
other infrastructure), and applicable laws. The Service strives to
provide priority public uses when they are compatible. If financial
resources are not available to design, operate, and maintain a
priority use, the refuge manager will take reasonable steps to obtain
outside assistance from the State and other conservation interests.
Compatibility determinations are included in this document
(Appendix B). These were finalized at the same time as the CCP.
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
In addition, the Improvement Act directs the Service to “ensure that
the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the
Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans...” The policy is an additional directive for
refuge managers to follow while achieving Refuge purpose(s) and
System mission. It provides for the consideration and protection of
the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on
Refuges and associated ecosystems. Further, it provides refuge
managers with an evaluation process to analyze their refuge and
recommend the best management direction to prevent further
degradation of environmental conditions; and where appropriate and
in concert with refuge purposes and System mission, restore lost or
severely degraded components. When evaluating the appropriate
management direction for refuges, refuge managers will use sound
professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple
landscape scales.
While the Refuge System mission and the purposes for which the
Refuge was established provide the foundation for management,
National Wildlife Refuges are also governed by other Federal laws,
Executive Orders, treaties, interstate compacts, regulations and
conservation initiatives pertaining to the conservation and protection
of natural and cultural resources (Appendix M). Some of these
include: Floodplain Management (EEO 11988), Protection of
Wetlands (EO 11990), Management of General Public Use of
National Wildlife Refuge System (EO 12996), Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (EO 12898),
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act of 1986, Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Responsibilities of
Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (EO 13186), Migratory
Bird Treaty Act of 1918, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of
1980, as amended, Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of
2000, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Plan, Riparian Bird Conservation Plan (Riparian
Habitat Joint Venture / California Partners in Flight), North
American Bird Conservation Initiative, and the North American
Waterbird Conservation Plan.
Chapter 1
6 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The mission of the Service is: “working with others to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for
the continuing benefit of the American people.”
The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for
conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Although
the Service shares this responsibility with other Federal, State,
Tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific
responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered
species, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and certain marine
mammals. These are referred to as Federal trust species. The
Service also manages the Refuge System, national fish hatcheries,
enforces Federal wildlife laws and international treaties on importing
and exporting wildlife, assists State fish and wildlife programs, and
helps other countries develop wildlife conservation programs.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and
waters set aside specifically for the conservation of wildlife and
ecosystem protection. The Refuge System consists of over 540
national wildlife refuges that provide important habitat for native
plants and many species of mammals, birds, fish, and threatened and
endangered species. The mission of the Refuge System, as stated in
the Improvement Act, is “to administer a national network of lands
and waters for the conservation, management, and where
appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and
their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans” (Improvement Act, 1997).
Gadwall
Photo by Steve Emmons
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
The goals of the Refuge System are to:
􀂄􈐠 Preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when
practicable) all species of animals and plants that are endangered
or threatened with becoming endangered;
􀂄􈐠 Perpetuate the migratory bird resource;
􀂄􈐠 Preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on
refuge lands; and
􀂄􈐠 Provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife
ecology and the human role in the environment and to provide
refuge visitors with high-quality, safe, wholesome, and enjoyable
recreational experiences oriented toward wildlife to the extent that
these activities are compatible with the purposes for which the
refuge was established.
In addition, the guiding principles of the Refuge System are:
􀂄􈐠 We are land stewards, guided by Aldo Leopold's teachings that
land is a community of life and that love and respect for the land
is an extension of ethics. We seek to reflect that land ethic in our
stewardship and to instill it in others;
􀂄􈐠 Wild lands and the perpetuation of diverse and abundant wildlife
are essential to the quality of the American life;
􀂄􈐠 We are public servants. We owe our employers, the American
people, hard work, integrity, fairness, and a voice in the
protection of their trust resources;
􀂄􈐠 Management, ranging from preservation to active manipulation
of habitats and populations, is necessary to achieve Refuge
System and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service missions;
􀂄􈐠 Wildlife-dependent uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, interpretation, and education, when
compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses of the Refuge
System;
􀂄􈐠 Partnerships with those who want to help us meet our mission are
welcome and indeed essential;
􀂄􈐠 Employees are our most valuable resource. They are respected
and deserve an empowering, mentoring, and caring work
environment; and
􀂄􈐠 We respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of our neighbors.
The Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex
For thousands of years the Sacramento Valley has provided a winter
haven for ducks, geese, and swans. Waterfowl migrate here by the
millions from as far away as the Arctic regions of Alaska, Canada,
and Siberia. The five national wildlife refuges and three wildlife
management areas of the Sacramento Refuge Complex represent an
island of habitat in a sea of Sacramento Valley agriculture. This
Chapter 1
8 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
valley represents one of the most important wintering areas for
waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway.
The Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex)
represents a small portion of the vast seasonal wetlands and
grasslands that once existed in the Sacramento Valley. Millions of
waterfowl migrated south in the Pacific Flyway to winter in the
valley among resident waterbirds, deer, elk, pronghorn, and grizzly
bear. With the development of agriculture during the late 1800's and
early 1900's, natural habitat was replaced with rice and other crops.
Waterfowl substituted these farm crops for their original wetland
foods, causing serious crop losses for farmers.
Today, 95 percent of California's wetlands are gone, along with the
pronghorn and grizzly bear. Constructed levees now confine the river
for irrigation and flood control, preventing the natural flooding and
formation of new wetlands. Despite these changes, the birds continue
to fly their ancient migration routes along the Pacific Flyway and
crowd into the remaining wintering habitat. The Refuges provide a
significant amount of the wintering habitat that supports waterfowl
and other migratory birds in the Sacramento Valley.
Four of the five refuges of the Complex are almost entirely human
made. In 1937, when Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge was
established, managers and biologists worked to transform many of
the Refuge's dry, alkaline lands into productive managed marshes.
Additional Refuges were created in the 1950’s through the 1980’s,
forming the Sacramento Refuge Complex.
Four of the five Refuges were created to provide wintering habitat
for waterfowl and reduce crop damage. These Refuges--Sacramento,
Delevan, Colusa, Sutter, and Butte Sink National Wildlife
Management Area--consist of wetland, grassland, and riparian
habitats. The Refuge staff maintains more than 32,000 acres of
wetlands and uplands on the Complex. Water regimes are managed
to mimic the Sacramento River's historic flood cycle. The Refuges'
seasonal marshes are drained during late spring and summer to
encourage plant growth on the moist, exposed soil. Re-flooding in the
fall makes seeds and plants available for wildlife. Water
management, prescribed burns, discing, and mowing are some of the
techniques used to create and maintain wetland habitats.
The fifth Refuge, Sacramento River Refuge, was established in 1989
to help protect and restore riparian habitat along the Sacramento
River as it meanders through the Sacramento Valley from Red Bluff
to Colusa.
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
The Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Sacramento River Refuge is located in the Sacramento Valley of
north-central California and is part of the Sacramento Refuge
Complex (Figure 1). The Refuge was established in 1989 by the
authority provided under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, and the Fish and
Wildlife Act of 1956. The Service proposed acquisition of up to 18,000
acres of land to establish the Sacramento River Refuge (USFWS 1989).
The area considered for acquisition is primarily located in the
Sacramento River’s 100-year meander zone between Red Bluff and
Colusa, in Tehama, Butte, Glenn, and Colusa counties (Figure 1). The
Refuge is currently composed of 26 properties (units) along a 77-mile
stretch of the Sacramento River between the cities of Red Bluff and
Princeton (Table 1). Though adjacent to the Sacramento River
Refuge, the Llano Seco Unit and Llano Seco Unit Sanctuary (Figure
1) were acquired through a separate authority, the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989, and are considered part of the
North Central Valley Wildlife Management Area. Therefore, the
Llano Seco Unit and Llano Seco Unit Sanctuary and the
conservation easements east of Angel Slough on Llano Seco are not
evaluated in this plan. These units and easements will be included in
the CCP separately developed for the North Central Valley Wildlife
Management Area.
As of June 2005, the Refuge consisted of 10,304 acres of riparian and
agricultural habitats owned by the Service and 1,281 acres of riparian
habitats in conservation easement owned by Llano Seco Ranch.
Riparian and agricultural habitats at the Refuge include sand and
gravel bars, willow scrub, cottonwood forest, herblands, mixed
riparian forest,
valley oak
woodlands and
savannas,
grasslands,
freshwater
wetlands,
pastures, cover
crops (i.e.,
winter wheat,
safflower, corn,
bell beans),
almond and
walnut
orchards.
Sacramento River
Photo by Greg Golet
Chapter 1
10 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Table 1. Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge: Location and Size, June
20051.
1 Acres represent original acquired acres and do not indicate eroded and accreted
land. 2 Currently owned by BLM and included in total refuge acreage. 3 Privately
owned and in acquisition process (included in total acreage).
Refuge Unit Name River Mile County Acres Date Acquired
La Barranca 239R Tehama 1,066 1989, 1991
Blackberry Island 239L Tehama 52 2002
Todd Island2 238R Tehama 185 BLM owned
Mooney 236R Tehama 342 1994
Ohm 234R Tehama 757 1989, 1991
Flynn 232R Tehama 630 1990, 1998
Heron Island 228L Tehama 126 1990
Rio Vista 217L Tehama 1,149 1991
Foster Island2 211R Glenn 174 BLM owned
McIntosh Landing North 202R Glenn 63 1994
McIntosh Landing South 201R Glenn 67 1994
Pine Creek 199L Butte 564 1995, 2003
Capay 194R Glenn 666 1999
Phelan Island 191R Glenn 308 1991
Jacinto 187R Glenn 69 1996
Dead Man’s Reach 186L Butte/Glenn 637 1999
North Ord 185R Glenn 29 2002
Ord Bend 184R Glenn 111 1995
South Ord 182R Glenn 122 1999
Llano Seco Riparian
Sanctuary and Islands
177L/R Butte 906 1991
Hartley Island3 173L Butte 487 2004 (67 acres),
420 acres
privately owned
Sul Norte 168R Glenn 590 1990, 1991
Codora 167R Glenn 399 1994
Packer 168R Glenn 404 1997
Head Lama3 166L Glenn 177 Privately owned
Drumheller Slough 165L Glenn 224 1998, 1999
Refuge Total Fee Acres 10,304
Llano Seco Riparian
Easement
138L Butte 1,281 1991
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
The Great Central Valley, which encompasses the Sacramento
Valley, is an extensive agricultural area that was once characterized
by diverse types of natural vegetation that provided habitat for a
great number of plant and animal species. Most of the streams and
tributaries supported Chinook salmon runs, the forests were
important songbird breeding areas, and the wetlands were major
waterfowl wintering areas. Currently, lands that surround the
Refuge mostly consist of orchards and irrigated rice lands with some
livestock, safflower, barley, wheat, and alfalfa crops. Topography is
flat with a gentle slope to the south. The predominant soil type
occurs in mixed alluvium and includes fluvial gravel and sands and
various Columbia loams.
Numerous plans and initiatives have identified riparian habitat along
the Sacramento River as critically important for various endangered
and threatened species, fisheries, migratory birds, plants, and to the
functional processes of the river ecosystem. There has been an 85
percent reduction of riparian vegetation throughout the Sacramento
Valley and foothills region, and probably in excess of a 95 percent
reduction along this area’s major river systems (Thompson 1961). The
relatively small amount of remaining riparian forest provides a
strikingly disproportionate amount of habitat value for wildlife when
compared with what is needed for healthy fish and wildlife
populations. The Refuge was established to preserve, restore, and
enhance riparian habitat for threatened and endangered species,
breeding and wintering migratory birds, anadromous fish, resident
species, and native plants. The Refuge is managed to maintain,
enhance and restore habitats for these species. To the extent
possible, habitat is managed for natural diversity of indigenous flora
and fauna. Riparian forests are being restored by converting flood-prone
agricultural lands along the Sacramento River in cooperation
with The Nature Conservancy (TNC), River Partners (RP), and local
farmers.
Public access is currently limited to the Todd and Foster Island units
(BLM properties currently in the acquisition process) and the Packer
Unit. Currently, all types of river access recreational uses are
allowed on Todd and Foster Islands under the multiple use polices of
BLM. The Packer Unit provides an unimproved access point for
bank fishing and small boat access to Packer Lake.
Chapter 1
12 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Units
The Refuge is comprised of 26 different units, each having its own
specific projects and management needs. Though some units are
adjacent to one another, most are geographically separate. Some
units solely consist of pre-existing native riparian habitats; some are
being restored to riparian habitats, while others may remain in
agricultural production until restoration plans can be finalized. A
brief summary of size, location, and composition of each unit can be
found in the Refuge Unit Descriptions section of Chapter 3.
Land Acquisition
The area approved for acquisition to meet the 18,000-acre goal of the
Refuge is located along the Sacramento River, generally within the
100-year meander zone, between Red Bluff and Colusa, as outlined in
the Middle Sacramento River Refuge Feasibility Study (USFWS 1987)
and the Environmental Assessment–Proposed Sacramento River
National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 1989). Acquisition is conducted on a
willing-seller basis only. The refuge staff evaluates the properties to
determine if the land will help to meet the conservation goals and
objectives of the Refuge. Appraisals are done in accordance with
standard appraisal procedures in order to determine fair market
value of the proposed area. The appraisers are contracted by the
Service. The approved appraisal is the basis upon which negotiations
with the landowner and a Realty Specialist are initiated. If the
landowner agrees and is willing, the Service will offer to purchase the
property depending on funding availability. Funding typically comes
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), CALFED
program, or private donations. The history of land acquisition on the
Refuge is illustrated in Table 1.
Oil and Gas Extraction
There is one natural gas well located within the boundaries of the
Sacramento River Refuge. The well is located on the Sul Norte Unit,
where it has operated until recently. As part of the transfer
agreement, private interests retained the mineral rights. Access to
and operation of the gas well is regulated by the refuge manager by
special conditions set forth in a Special Use Permit required under
the title agreement.
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Refuge Purposes
The Service acquires Refuge
System lands under a variety of
legislative acts and
administrative orders. Usually
the transfer and acquisition
authorities used to obtain the
lands have one or more purposes
for which land can be
transferred or acquired. These
purposes, along with the Refuge
System mission, form the
standard for determining if
proposed refuge uses are
compatible.
Sacramento River
USFWS Photo
The Refuge purposes are:
“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered
species or threatened species .... or (B) plants ...” 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1534
(Endangered Species Act of 1973)
".. the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain
the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international
obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and
conventions ..."16 U.S.C. 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of
1986)
“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation,
and protection of fish and wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. 742f (a) (4)
“... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in
performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be
subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or
condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. Sec. 742f (b) (1) (Fish and Wildlife
Act of 1956)
Chapter 1
14 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
The Refuge Vision
A vision statement is developed or revised for each individual refuge
unit as part of the CCP process. Vision statements are grounded in
the unifying mission of the Refuge System, and describe the desired
future conditions of the refuge unit in the long term (more than 15
years), based on the refuge’s specific purposes, the resources present
on the refuge, and any other relevant mandates. This CCP
incorporates the following vision statement for the Sacramento River
Refuge.
“The Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge will
create a linked network of up to 18,000 acres of
floodplain forests, wetlands, grasslands, and aquatic
habitats stretching over 100 miles from Red Bluff to
Colusa. These refuge lands will fulfill the needs of fish,
wildlife, and plants that are native to the Sacramento
River ecosystem. Through innovative revegetation, the
Refuge will serve as an anchor for biodiversity and a
model for riparian habitat restoration throughout the
Central Valley. We will forge habitat, conservation, and
management links with other public and private
conservation land managers.
The Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge is
committed to the preservation, conservation, and
enhancement of a quality river environment for the
American people along the Sacramento River. In this
pursuit, we will work with partners to provide a wide
range of environmental education programs and promote
high quality wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities to build a refuge support base and attract
new visitors. Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, environmental education and
interpretation will be provided on the Refuge.
Just as the floodplain along the Sacramento River has
been important to agriculture, it is also an important
natural corridor for migratory birds, anadromous fish,
and threatened and endangered species. Encouraging an
understanding and appreciation for the Sacramento
River will be a focus of the Sacramento River National
Wildlife Refuge for generations to come.”
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Existing and New Partnerships
In “Fulfilling the Promise” (USFWS 1999) the Service identified the
need to forge new and non-traditional alliances and strengthen
existing partnerships with States, Tribes, non-profit organizations
and academia to broaden citizen and community understanding of
and support for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Service
recognizes that strong citizen support benefits the Refuge System.
Involving citizen groups in Refuge resource and management issues
and decisions helps managers gain an understanding of public
concerns. Partners yield support for Refuge activities and programs,
raise funds for projects, are activists on behalf of wildlife and the
Refuge System, and provide support on important wildlife and
natural resource issues.
A variety of people including, but not limited to, scientists, birders,
anglers, hunters, farmers, outdoor enthusiasts and students are
keenly interested in the management of Sacramento River Refuge,
its fish and wildlife species, and its plants and habitats; this is
illustrated by the number of visitors the Refuge receives and the
partnerships that have already developed. New partnerships will be
formed with interested organizations, local civic groups, community
schools, Federal and State governments, and other civic
organizations as funding and staff become available.
The Service is a signatory to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between local, State and Federal agencies involved with riparian
habitat restoration. The MOA is the result of years of effort and is
focused on implementing the Sacramento River Conservation Area
Handbook. The Handbook addresses both the biological basis and
the institutional framework for restoration work along the river and
builds on the concepts originally set forth in the 1989 Upper
Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Management
Plan, prepared under California State Senate Bill 1086. The
Sacramento River Refuge is included within the geographic area and
the refuge staff coordinates activities with the non-profit Sacramento
River Conservation Area Forum.
The Sacramento River Refuge has a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
and the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) for
cooperative land management along the Sacramento River (USFWS
et al 2001). The purpose of the MOU is to formally document an
agreement to mutually manage, monitor, restore, and enhance lands
managed for fish, wildlife, and plants along the Sacramento River in
Tehama, Butte, Glenn, and Colusa counties. An additional purpose is
to regularly communicate between agencies to prevent duplicating or
Chapter 1
16 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
prescribing conflicting land management and acquisition efforts. The
affected area includes all lands owned and managed as the
Sacramento River Refuge, Sacramento River Wildlife Area, and
State Parks located along the Sacramento River in the designated
counties. These lands have been identified in several documents as
providing essential habitat for numerous species of fish and wildlife
including many threatened and endangered species. The Service,
Department, and State Parks mutually agree to manage these lands
for the conservation of biological, cultural, and scenic values, and for
promoting compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities.
The Sacramento River Refuge has entered into Cooperative Land
Management Agreements (CLMA) with TNC, River Partners, Ohm,
and Llano Seco Rancho for selected units within and adjacent to the
Refuge. The CLMA agreements are authorized by the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows: “Cooperative agreements with
persons for crop cultivation, haying, grazing, or the harvest of
vegetative products, including plant life, growing with or without
cultivation on wildlife refuge areas, may be executed on a share-in-kind
basis when such agreements are in aid of or benefit to the
wildlife management of the area” (50 CFR 29.2).
The Service and the Refuge also have agreements with the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and several volunteer
fire departments to assist with fire suppression on refuge lands.
The Refuge is part of a mosaic of public and private land along the
Sacramento River corridor. To maximize conservation efforts along
the river, the Refuge has coordinated its CCP process with other
ongoing planning efforts. This includes participating on the steering
committee for CDFG’s Sacramento River Wildlife Area
Comprehensive Management Plan. In addition the Refuge
coordinated with the CDPR’s plan for Bidwell-Sacramento River
State Park. Coordination with these agencies, Refuge partners
(Table 2), and the local community was vital during the preparation
of the CCP and will continue to be important in the ongoing
management of the Refuge.
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Table 2. Partnerships in habitat acquisition, restoration, and management.
1 Federal government.
Partner Organization Name Areas of Expertise / Information and Services
Provided
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1 National Wildlife Refuge management and science,
endangered species conservation, land acquisition,
habitat restoration funding, and migratory bird
management
The Nature Conservancy 2 Land acquisition, agricultural lands management,
riparian restoration, land stewardship and science,
cooperative land management at Llano Seco
River Partners 2 Agricultural lands management, riparian
restoration, land stewardship and science
California State University, Chico 3 Natural and cultural resources science through
professional experts, professors, and graduate
students
Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Chico Soil Survey 1
Soil science, soil maps and interpretation, landscape
interpretation
PRBO (PRBO Conservation
Science) 2
Avian ecology, conservation and management, status
of Sacramento River avifauna
California Department of Water
Resources 3
Fluvial geology, geologic maps, landscape
interpretation
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1 Land acquisition and riparian vegetation,
savanna/grassland, and freshwater wetland
restoration funding
Parrott Investment Company 4 Llano Seco Ranch history and management,
cooperative land management at Llano Seco
California Department of Fish and
Game 3
Rare, threatened and endangered species
conservation, anadromous fish and fisheries science
and conservation, law enforcement, land acquisition,
and cooperative land management at Llano Seco
National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration,
Fisheries 1
Anadromous fish and fisheries science and
conservation
Sacramento River Preservation
Trust 2
Sacramento River conservation issues
Ducks Unlimited 2 Freshwater wetland and grassland habitat
restoration funding
California Waterfowl Association 2 Freshwater wetland habitat restoration funding
California Department of Parks and
Recreation
Public use, law enforcement, ecology, land
acquisition, facilities and access
Sacramento River Conservation
Area Forum
Forum for public information
2 Private non-profit conservation organizations.
3 State of California.
4 Private
Chapter 1
18 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Ecosystem Context
The Great Central Valley consists of four physiographic regions: the
Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, the Tulare Basin, and
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Warner and Hendrix 1985). The
Sacramento River and the San Joaquin River watersheds drain into
San Francisco Bay via the Delta (Figure 2). The Sacramento River is
the largest river in California. Above Red Bluff, the Sacramento
River forms a V-shaped canyon by down-cutting through the
Cascade Mountain Range. Below Colusa, the river is completely
confined within narrow channels by bank stabilization. The middle
Sacramento River, which occurs between Red Bluff and Colusa,
represents an alluvial river ecosystem that is characterized by the
physical processes of flooding, erosion, deposition, and channel
movement (i.e., sinuous meandering). Oxbow lakes and abandoned
channels form when the sinuous loops of a meandering river are cut
off from the main channel. Operation of Shasta Dam for water
delivery and flood control has altered the frequency, duration, and
magnitude of flooding on the Sacramento River floodplain. However,
relatively moderate bank stabilization occurs between Red Bluff and
Princeton and here alluvial river processes still influence portions of
the landscape.
The Sacramento River floodplain is often described in three relative
positions: the low, mid, and high floodplain. The low floodplain occurs
next to the river, below the mean high water mark. This zone is
characterized by frequent erosion and deposition of gravels and
sands (point bars are common). The mid floodplain occupies the 100-
year meander belt, above the ordinary high water mark. This zone is
frequently flooded and is also characterized by erosion and
deposition (steep vertical banks are common). Natural levees of great
proportions developed in this zone. The high floodplain occurs in the
500-year meander belt. This zone is occasionally flooded and often
located off of the main river channel.
Four geologic formations are identified for the middle Sacramento
River (Harwood and Helley 1982). The Tehama Formation is the oldest
and is relatively resistant to the erosive forces of the river (Buer et al.
1989). The Tehama Formation provides geologic control because river
meandering is impeded. The Red Bluff and River Bank formations
are younger and less resistant to erosion (Brice 1977; California
Department of Water Resources 1994). The most extensive geology on the
Sacramento River is associated with the Modesto Formation. The
Modesto Formation generally occupies the mid floodplain and is
characterized by unstratified Columbia loam soils with various
amounts of sand and silt (California Department of Water Resources,
Northern District 1980, 1984). Channel deposits, known as xerofluvial
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Figure 2. Watershed/Ecosystem Setting
Stone Lakes NWR
Bitter Creek NWR
Sacramento NWR
Kern NWR
San Pablo Bay NWR
San Luis NWR
Delevan NWR
Grasslands WMA
Don Edwards
San Francisco Bay NWR
Pixley NWR
Colusa NWR
Modoc NWR
Blue Ridge NWR
Antioch Dunes NWR
Willow Creek-Lurline WMA
San Joqauin River NWR
Butte Sink WMA
Merced NWR
North Central Valley WMA
Sutter NWR
Marin Islands NWR
Fresno
Sacramento
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Sacramento River
National Wildlife
Refuge
Redding
Bakersfield
Modesto
101
101
99
5
80
580
99
5
e g o n
N e v a d a
C a l i f o r n i a
P a c i f i c O c e a n
O r
Pacific
Flyway
Area
Enlarged
Figure 2. Watershed / Ecosystem Setting
Sacramento River
National Wildlife Refuge
National Wildlife Refuges
Sacramento River Watershed
Central Valley-San Francisco Bay Ecoregion
0 25 50 75 100
Miles
Chapter 1
20 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
gravels and sands, and mixed alluvium characterize low floodplain
geology (California Department of Water Resources 1994, Helley and Harwood
1985, Saucedo and Wagner 1992).
Riparian areas are transitional between terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems and are distinguished by gradients in biophysical
conditions, ecological process and biota. Habitat includes water, food,
and areas or territories necessary for reproduction and survival.
Therefore, riparian habitat includes the various forms of vegetation,
wetlands, banks, and sand and gravel bars along the river. Middle
Sacramento River vegetation includes herbaceous scrublands
(mugwort, tarweed-buckwheat), willow scrub, cottonwood forest,
mixed riparian forest, valley oak woodland and savanna, elderberry
savanna, grassland, and freshwater wetlands. These wetlands include
the main channel, tributaries, sloughs, abandoned channels, oxbow
lakes, and ponds. The Geographic Information Center at California
State University, Chico has developed vegetation categories, which
the California Department of Water Resources is using. Since these
are partners of Sacramento River Refuge, the Refuge is adopting
their system. These categories are described in detail in Chapter 3.
A diversity of fish and wildlife are associated with the Sacramento
River alluvial ecosystem. The Sacramento River is the only river in
the Pacific with four runs of Chinook salmon: winter-run, spring-run,
fall-run and late fall run (Figure 3). Anadromous fish use the
tributaries, main channel, floodplain, sloughs, oxbow lakes, delta,
estuary, bay, and open ocean at various points in there life history
(Croot and Marcolis 1991). A wide range of migratory and resident
songbirds and waterfowl use the Sacramento River riparian habitats
because of the great diversity of soil substrate, vegetation structure,
and types of wetlands. Neotropical migratory landbirds breed in
various habitats along the river (Figure 4) and winter in Central
America, while northern breeding waterfowl use flooded river
habitats in the winter (Gaines 1977; Small et al. 2000).
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Oxbow Lake Habitat
Photo by Joe Silveira
Figure 3. Life History Characteristics of Four Races of Chinook
Salmon in the Central Valley of California.
Chapter 1
22 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Riparian Bird Focal Species.
n depicting the diversity,
e that the steep cut banks
by
pportunities
The Sacramento Refuge Complex serves as part of the last safety net
sity of the Great Central Valley. Only two
t
Riparian Habitat Joint Venture (2004) illustratio
complexity, and structure of riparian habitat. Not
critical for establishing bank swallow colonies are not pictured. Illustration
Zac Denning.
Threats and O
to support biological diver
percent of the original Great Central Valley riparian habitats remain.
Forest clearing began in the mid 1800s along the Sacramento River
(Katibah 1989; Scott and Marquiss 1989; Thompson 1961), first for dry land
farming and later, for irrigated agriculture. Wood was used to power
steamboats that carried agricultural products to San Francisco
markets. Shasta and Keswick dams stored water for agriculture and
urban uses, and provided flood control and hydrologic power.
Construction of private and public levees and bank revetment (e.g.,
rip-rap) resulted in various degrees of channel constriction tha
separated the river channel from the floodplain (California Department
of Water Resources, Northern District 1980, 1984).
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
While little remains of the original Sacramento River riparian
habitats, bank stabilization, water diversion projects, and other
activities that cause fragmentation of riparian habitats and loss of
connectivity between the channel and floodplain continue. Runoff of
sediments, pesticides, and herbicides also result in reduced ecologic
functions and habitat loss of aquatic resources. These have the
potential to cause further degradations in habitat quality. The
cumulative effects of land and water resource development activities
have caused simplification of the remaining wildlife habitats within
the ecosystem, resulting in both direct and indirect negative impacts
to habitat and fish and wildlife populations.
The species most adversely affected are those dependent upon the
Sacramento River and riparian habitats during all or a portion of
their life history (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration–National
Marine Fisheries Service 1997; Riparian Habitat Joint Venture 2004). Riparian
forest and habitat succession have been attenuated by dams and the
resulting altered hydrograph, bank protection, and deforestation.
This has led to severely reduced diversity, quantity, and quality of
habitat for breeding migratory and resident birds (Riparian Habitat
Joint Venture 2004; Small et al. 1999, 2000). Poor habitat complexity and
structure have eliminated or reduced nesting habitat while
increasing nest parasite and predator populations (Figure 5). Rip-rap
and levees have reduced the number and size of bank swallow
colonies along the middle portion of the Sacramento River. The least
Bell’s vireo no longer breeds in northern California, and the warbling
vireo has been extirpated (completely eliminated) as a breeding bird
from the middle Sacramento River (Grinnell 1915, 1918, Gaines 1974, 1977).
The western yellow-billed cuckoo is threatened by loss of mature
cottonwood forests adjacent to mature mid-story habitats (Gaines
1974). Species dependent on mature valley oak forests, such as the
acorn woodpecker, are absent from the majority of their historic
range due to the near complete loss of this habitat type (refer to
Holland and Roye 1989; Holmes et al. 1915; and, Bureau of Soils 1913 for historic
distribution of valley oak forest and savanna/Columbia soil in the Sacramento
Valley).
Chapter 1
24 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. Potential Effects of Altered Hydrology on Breeding
Bird Populations.
Chinook salmon and steelhead (salmonids) use the channel for
migration and spawning. Dams, bank revetment, and deforestation
have resulted in declining anadromous salmonid populations (NOAA-NMFS
1997), (Figure 6). Dams block fish passage and prevent
spawning gravel from moving downstream. During periods of
excessive runoff, silt accumulates in gravel, which starves eggs of
oxygen. Rip-rap and forest clearing near the channel reduces the
amount of large woody debris (LWD) that enters the channel (USFWS
2000). LWD is an important substrate for a fishery food-web. LWD
also widens the channel and reduces down-cutting, creates aquatic
habitat diversity, provides escape cover, and traps spawning gravel
and fish carcasses (USFWS 2000). Salmonid fish carcasses are
important sources of marine derived nitrogen which is critical to the
productivity of the Sacramento River ecosystem. Forest clearing also
reduces the number of overhanging trees that create Shaded
Riverine Aquatic Habitat, which reduces water temperatures.
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Figure 6. Contributing Factors for the Decline in Anadromous
Salmonids of the Pacific (NOAA-NMFS).
ood opportunities for riparian land acquisition and restoration exist
s
o
sh,
onservation Priorities and Initiatives
lly listed endangered and
o
al
e
d
lley
G
primarily within flood-prone agricultural lands located in the lower
portions of the floodplain. The relatively high costs of maintaining
these orchards have made it beneficial for farmers to sell these land
and concentrate their agricultural operations above the lower
floodplain. Some farmers have noticed reduced flood impacts t
orchards located behind restoration sites, where snags, logs, bru
gravel, and sand are filtered by the restoration site.
C
The conservation priorities for federa
threatened species and migratory birds that occur at Sacrament
River Refuge are frequently reinforced by the designation of critic
habitat, recovery plans, and conservation plans. A draft recovery
plan has been completed for the Sacramento River winter-run
Chinook salmon (NOAA-NMFS 1997), and the Refuge lies within th
designated critical habitat for Sacramento River winter-run Chinook
salmon (federally listed endangered species), Central Valley spring-run
Chinook salmon (federally listed threatened species), and
Central Valley, California steelhead (federally listed threatene
species). A recovery plan has also been completed for the Valley
elderberry longhorn beetle (federally listed threatened species).
Population and habitat conservation initiatives and plans exist for
migratory waterfowl (North American Waterfowl Management Plan 1986,
North American Waterfowl and Wetlands Conservation Act of 1986; Central Va
Chapter 1
26 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Habitat Joint Venture 1990) and migratory and resident landbirds
(Riparian Habitat Joint Venture 2004). Appendix M contains a list of o
laws and executive orders that may affect the CCP or the Service’s
implementation of the CCP. It also contains an overview of polices
and plans that are relevant to Sacramento River Refuge.
ther
he implementation of conservation plans requires the cooperation of
nity,
to
s
tners
ilderness Review
process, lands within the boundaries of
ability.
acramento River Refuge does not contain 5,000 contiguous roadless
tion of
ng
t
ould
T
a variety of Federal, State, local, and private interests. Most
conservation implementation projects involve the local commu
including farmers, farm suppliers, and schools. Local support is
essential, not only to facilitate the conversion of agricultural land
wildlife habitat, but also for the long-term interest of Refuge
conservation programs. Therefore, the Refuge and its partner
engage the local community whenever possible. Some of our par
are listed in Table 2.
W
As part of the CCP
Sacramento River Refuge were reviewed for wilderness suit
No lands were found suitable for designation as Wilderness as
defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964.
S
acres, nor does the Refuge have any units of sufficient size to make
their preservation practicable
as Wilderness. The lands of the
Refuge have been substantially
affected by humans,
particularly through
agriculture and regula
the flows of the Sacramento
River. As a result of the
extensive modification of
natural habitats and ongoi
manipulation of natural
processes, adopting a
wilderness managemen
approach at the Refuge w
not facilitate the restoration of
a pristine or pre-settlement
condition, which is a goal of
wilderness designation.
Acorn Woodpecker
Photo by Steve Emmons
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Refuge River Jurisdiction
Navigability and jurisdiction on and under water bodies, including
lakes, rivers, and streams, is a complex and confusing issue. In
California, the precedents have been established through a
combination of legislation and court decisions.
The following text in italics is excerpted in part from a Formal
Opinion of State Attorney General Dan Lungren dated November 12,
1997 (No. 97-307):
The state (in Harbor and Navigation Code Section 240)
recognizes the paramount authority of the United States over
navigable waters and applies its regulations to navigation on
such waters only insofar as the regulations do not conflict
with the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction and laws of the
United States. The public’s right to use navigable waterways
includes their use for boating and recreation; indeed, waters
capable of use for recreational boating are deemed navigable.
(People ex rel. Baker v. Mack (1971) 19 Cal. A; 3d 1040.). The
public’s right to use navigable waters for boating and
recreation is not only guaranteed by the state Constitution, it
is also guaranteed by the Legislature (Gov. Code Section
39933), and the right is inherent in the public trust under
which the navigable waters are held. (See Marks v. Whitney
(1971) 6 Cal.3d 251; People b. California Fish Co., supra, 166
Cal. At 598-599; 79 Ops. Cal Atty. Gen.133, 135-146 (1996).)
“The State of California owns and administers several different types
of interests in rivers and streams with the state’s borders by virtue of
being the sovereign representative of the people. These rights are
the property of the state, and the state’s powers with respect to these
property rights are similar in certain ways to the rights of private
property owners, but are governed by the law of public trust. The
Public Trust Doctrine, as it affects these rights, is designed to
protect the rights of the public to use watercourses for commerce,
navigation, fisheries, recreation, open space, preservation of
ecological units in their natural state, and similar uses for which
those lands are uniquely suited” (California’s Rivers, A Public Trust Report,
California State Lands Commission 1993).
The state lays claim to the beds of all nontidal, navigable rivers and
streams up to the ordinary low water mark. In addition, the state
claims a right often termed a “public trust easement” in the area
between the ordinary low water mark and ordinary high water mark.
Chapter 1
28 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
The Service has statutory authority under the Improvement Act to
as
d States
by the United States.
l
hat own and manage lands that encompass
ortions of water bodies (lakes or rivers). The Federal Courts have
consistently maintained that Federal agencies have jurisdiction over
recrea
integra
wildlife
For ex
Distric
Consti
non-fed
Forest al
proper
“Congr
regula
archae
lands”
Oregon,
a
. In this
ss may make those rules
egarding non-federal lands as are necessary to accomplish its goals
ole in establishing the Refuge and is a necessary component for the
Refuge to meet its purposes. Moreover, regardless of jurisdiction,
regulate activities that occur on water bodies “within” refuge units.
The Service, in terms of its refuge administration regulations, h
effectively defined this authority to apply to areas the Unite
holds in fee or to the extent of the interest held
Federal Courts have clarified these issues in regards to Federa
agencies (i.e., National Parks, National Forests, and National
Wildlife Refuges) t
p
tional uses on these water bodies when the water body is
l to the primary purposes for which the park, forest, or
refuge was established.
ample, in the U.S. v. Hells Canyon Guide Service case, the
t Court maintained that the Property Clause of the
tution gave the government power “to regulate conduct on
eral land (the Snake River that runs through the National
) when reasonably necessary to protect adjacent Feder
ty or navigable waters.” In addition, this case stated
ess’ power over Federal lands includes the authority to
te activities on non-federal waters in order to protect the
ological, ecological, historical and recreational values on the
(United States v. Hells Canyon Guide Service; U.S. District Court of
Civil No. 79-743; 5-6; 1979).
In the court decision in U.S. v. Brown, the Circuit Court wrote,
“…we view the congressional power over Federal lands to include
the authority to regulate activities on non-federal public waters in
order to protect wildlife and visitors on the lands” (United States v.
Brown 552 F.2d 822; 8th Cir. 1977).
Finally in the U.S. v. Armstrong case the Circuit Court upheld
conviction against Armstrong and Brown who were conducting a
commercial business without a permit within a National Park
case, the Circuit Court relied on a U.S. Supreme Court precedent
stating, “In Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 546(1976), the
Supreme Court held that the Congre
r
with respect to Federal lands” (United States v. Armstrong; No. 99-1190; 8th
Cir. 1999).
The meandering nature of the Sacramento River has played a critical
r
Introduction
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
the Refuge’s first priority is to work with the State of California and
local counties to ensure that public trust rights are protected while
meeting the Refuge goals and objectives.
In closing, it is the policy of the Sacramento River Refuge to
ecognize the rights of the public to use, consistent with State and
the
ater
es in
r
Federal laws, the waters below the ordinary low water mark and
“public trust easement” in the area between the ordinary low w
mark and ordinary high water mark. Accordingly, the public us
these areas will be outlined and evaluated in this CCP, the
Environmental Assessment, and associated Compatibility
Determinations.
California hibiscus
Photo by Joe Silveira
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Chapter 2. The Planning
Process
Introduction
The CCP for the Sacramento River Refuge is intended to
comply with the requirements of the Improvement Act and the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Refuge
planning policy guided the process and development of the
CCP, as outlined in Part 602, Chapters 1, 3, and 4 of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (May 2000).
Service policy, the Improvement Act, and NEPA provide
specific guidance for the planning process, such as seeking
public involvement in the preparation of the Environmental
Assessment (EA) document. The development and analysis of
“reasonable” management alternatives within the EA include a
“no action” alternative that reflects current conditions and
management strategies on the Refuge. Management
alternatives were developed as part of this planning process
and can be found in Appendix A: Environment Assessment.
The planning process for this CCP began in March 2001 with
pre-planning meetings and coordination. CCP teams were
formed. For the first few months, the core team met weekly in
order to expedite the start of the public scoping process and
benefit from the existing assistant refuge manager’s
institutional knowledge prior to his transfer to New Mexico in
June 2001.
Initially, members of the Refuge staff and planning team
identified a preliminary list of issues, concerns, and
opportunities that were derived from wildlife and habitat
monitoring and field experience with the past management and
history of the Refuge. Early in the process, visitor services,
especially hunting and fishing, were identified as primary
issues. This preliminary list was expanded during public
scoping and then refined and finalized through the planning
process to generate the vision, goals, objectives, and strategies
for the Refuge. Throughout this process, close coordination
with the CDFG was emphasized to coordinate the CCP and
their parallel wildlife management planning efforts for the
Sacramento River.
Chapter 2
32 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
The following describes the comprehensive conserva
planning process for the Refuge:
The Planning Proc
tion
ess
art of comprehensive conservation planning includes
of a NEPA document. Key steps in the CCP
ls
6. Identifying the preferred alternative plan
in a
detail on
P preparation
planning process and the parallel NEPA process include:
1. Preplanning and Team formation
2. Public Scoping
3. Identifying issues, opportunities, and concerns
4. Defining and revising vision statement and Refuge goa
5. Developing and assessing alternatives
7. Draft CCP and EA
8. Revising draft documents and releasing final CCP
9. Implementing the CCP
10. Monitoring / Feedback (Adaptive Management)
Figure 7 shows the overall CCP planning steps and process
linear cycle. The following sections provide additional
individual steps in the planning process.
Figure 7. The CCP Process.
Review and
Revise the
Plan
Public Scoping
& Identify
Issues
Prepare
Draft Plan
Final Plan
Implement
Plan &
Monitor
Vision Statement
& Goals
Develop
Objectives,
Strategies, &
Alternatives
Initiate Study
Pre-Planning
The
CCP
Process
Public
Input
Public
Input
Public
Input
Public
Input
Review and
Revise the
Plan
Public Scoping
& Identify
Issues
Prepare
Draft Plan
Final Plan
Implement
Plan &
Monitor
Vision Statement
& Goals
Develop
Objectives,
Strategies, &
Alternatives
Initiate Study
Pre - Planning
Public
Input
Public
Input
Public
Input
Public
Input
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Planning Hierarchy
The Service planning hierarchy that determines the direction of
he goals, objectives and strategies is a natural progression
e specific. Described as a linear process,
l flow
T for the Refuge.
reflects the refuge purpose(s), the
Rr
G l of the vision.
O asurable
steps toward achieving those goals.
S .
bjectives is repetitive and dynamic. During the planning
he Planning Team
e teamwork with the staff,
planning steps, tasks, and work to generate the CCP document
and associated EA. Two teams were formed:
Core Team
The core team is the working/production entity of the CCP. The
members are responsible for researching and generating the
contents of the CCP document and participate in the entire
planning process. The team consists of Refuge staff, planners,
and Geographic Information System personnel. The
Sacramento River Refuge core team, facilitated by the refuge
planner, meets regularly to discuss and work on the various
steps and sections of the CCP. The team members also work
independently in producing their respective CCP sections,
based on their area of expertise. Multi-tasking by team
members is a standard requirement since work on the CCP
occurs in addition to their regular workload. (Appendix K).
t
from the general to th
the planning hierarchy is, in reality, a multi-dimensiona
that is linked by the Refuge purposes, missions, laws,
mandates, and other statutory requirements (Figure 8).
􀂄􈑨 he Refuge purposes provide direction
􀂄􈐠 A Refuge vision broadly
efuge System mission and goals, other statutory
equirements, and larger-scale plans as appropriate.
􀂄􈑯 oa s then define general targets in support
􀂄􈑢 bjectives direct effort into incremental and me
􀂄􈑴 trategies identify specific tools to accomplish objectives
In practice, the process of developing vision, goals, and
o
process or as new information becomes available, the plan
continues to develop.
T
The CCP process requires clos
planners, and other partners to accomplish the necessary
Chapter 2
34 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 8. Relationships between Service, System and other
planning efforts.
Expanded Team
The expanded team is the advisory and coordination forum of
the CCP. It is significant for this Refuge because of the
Refuge’s basis and history of working in close partnership wit
other local, State, Federal, and private agencies and
organizations concerned with the Sacramento River and its
watershed. The Sacramento River Refuge expanded team is
composed of the Core team, other Service and Federal
h
ersonnel, and State of California personnel to provide
overview, discussion, and coordination during the planning
process. (Appendix K).
p
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Pre-Planning
Pre-Planning involved formation of the planning teams,
evelopment of the CCP schedule, and gathering data. The
rk allocations, and outreach
strategies. They also created a preliminary mailing list.
Public Involvement in Planning
Public involvement is an important and necessary component of
the CCP and NEPA process. Public scoping meetings allow the
Service to provide updated information about the Refuge
System and the Refuge itself. Most important, these meetings
allow the Refuge staff to hear public comments, concerns, and
opportunities. These public meetings provide valuable
discussions and identify important issues regarding the Refuge
and the surrounding region.
The Refuge hosted four public scoping meetings in different
towns in May and June 2001 (Table 3). Each meeting began
with a presentation introducing the Refuge and the Service
staff, provided an open forum for public comment, and ended
with a breakout session consisting of various tables with people
and information available to address Refuge management,
wildlife and habitat, and public use. A separate table was set up
to handle questions about a separate EA document for planned
Refuge restoration efforts. In addition to comments made and
noted on flip charts at the meetings, comments were also
received by postcard mailers, email, and letters. These
comments were analyzed and used to further identify Refuge
issues and revise CCP strategies (Table 4).
d
teams determined procedures, wo
Public Scoping Meetings. June, 2001
USFWS Photo
Chapter 2
36 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Table 3. Public Scoping Meetings.
Meeting Date Location Attendance
30 May 2001 Willows, CA 23
04 June 2001 Chico, CA 55
05 June 2001 Red Bluff, CA 13
06 June 2001 Colusa, CA 8
Table 4. Refuge Issues Identified Through Public Comment
.
Refuge Issue Category Number of Comments
Received (2831)
Public Use Issues 63
Big 6 Uses 36
Camping 7
Biking 5
Public Use Issues 30
Public Access Issues 69
Hunting/Fishing Access 17
River Access/Boat Ramps 9
Disabled Access 4
Refuge Access Issues 43
Management Issues 83
LE/Fire 14
Agricultural/Adjacent Land
Owner Concerns
18
Refuge Management Issues 51
Outreach/Informational
Issues
16
Flood & Erosion
Management Issues
11
Opinions / Questions 41
1 Total number of comments received. Numbers within Refuge issue
ived since many comments
covered multiple categories.
categories do not equal the total comments rece
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Public Outreach
uge staff continued to
actively participate with the various working groups and agency
t the o River. met
with various interest a s to lain the Refuge and
the planning process, a to their concerns.
A letter g U tes” was also
mailed to the public. These periodic publications were created
t ublic w te Ref e information and
rogress on the CCP process. The Planning Updates were also
o tified or
Draft CCP, were sent planning updates, or attended scoping
meetings.
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Through the scoping process and team discussions, the
planning te ed issues, concerns, and opportunities.
Over 170 people attended the four public scoping sessions held
in May and June 2001. The public provided over 280 comments
as of Oc ) for consideration identifying
i r the CCP. The team categorized the
comments into five main areas of interest: public use, public
acce d erosion contr nd general
opinion
Public use issue categories included wildlife-d endant
activities which include hunting, fishing, camping on gravel
bars, of recreation. Out of 32 comments
received about hunting, 3 opposed and 29 supported opening
the Refuge to hunting. Three comments specifically stated the
need for are Refuge for bank fishing. Three comments
su g motor and off-road vehicles,
while 1 comment suggested a
vehicles on the Refuge. Having a place to conduct dog trials or
do by 3 commen
The pu access for hunting
and fishing, access to the river, access for disabled people, and
o issues. Out of 69 comments received only 2
comments opposed allowing access to the Refuge while the rest
overwhelmingly supported openin
During the planning process, the Ref
eams concerning Sacrament The staff also
nd local group exp
nd to listen
n information called “Plannin pda
o provide the p ith up-to-da ug
p
made available on the Refuge, Region webpage, and at various
outreach meetings. Appendix J contains a list of individuals and
rganizations that were no were sent a copy of the
am identifi
tober 2001 (Table 4 in
ssues and opportunities fo
ss, management, flood an ol, a
s and questions.
ep
biking and other types
as on the
ggested limiting or controllin
llowing motor and off-road
g training was also requested ts.
blic access issue categories included
ther Refuge access
g the Refuge.
Chapter 2
38 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Management issue categories included law enforcement/fire
management issues, agriculture/adjacent land owner issues,
and Refuge management concerns. Some of the Refuge
management concern comments included how to manage the
Refuge, what techniques to use to manage and what the
management priorities should be. Many of the comments
received in the outreach and informational issue category were
requests for information including several types of brochures,
posting signs on the Refuge, and providing access to wildlife
survey data. This category also included requests for special
events and more education programs.
The flood control and erosion management issue categories
included flood control, levee maintenance, and bank
stabilization. The opinions/questions/other issues category had
comments that ranged from questions about the CCP process
to stating personal opinions on a wide variety of topics.
The team also noted resource issues and opportunities that
were identified during the scoping process. All comments and
issues were reviewed and compiled; the CCP teams consulted
them during the process of creating and refining the Refuge’s
CCP vision, goals, objectives, and strategies.
Development of the Refuge Vision
A vision statement is developed or reviewed for each individual
refuge unit as part of the CCP process. Vision statements are
grounded in the unifying mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, and describe the desired future conditions of
the refuge unit in the long term (more than 15 years). They are
based on the refuge’s specific purposes, the resources present
on the refuge, and any other relevant mandates. Please refer to
Chapter 1 for the Refuge vision statement.
Determining the Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
The purpose for creating the Refuge is established by law
(Chapter 1). The Improvement Act directs that the planning
effort develop and revise the management focus of the Refuge
within the Service’s planning framework, which includes: the
Service mission, the Refuge System mission, ecosystem
guidelines, and refuge purposes. This is accomplished during
the CCP process through the development of goals, objectives,
and strategies.
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Goals
Goals describe the desired future conditions of a refuge in
succinct statements. Each one translates to one or more
objectives that define these conditions in measurable terms.
well-written goal directs work toward achieving a refuge’s
vision and ultimately the purpose(s) of a refuge. Colle
A
ctively, a
et of goals is a framework within which to make decisions. The
pportunities for the understanding and appreciation
of wildlife ecology and the human role in the environment;
dependent recreation,
d Strategies
nce the Refuge goals are reviewed and revised then various
e
ry to
ossess the
llowing five properties: specific, measurable, achievable,
tions, and
ources of information. This promotes informed debate on the
objective’s merits, provides continuity in management through
s
existing interim Refuge goals are as follows.
Interim Refuge Goals:
􀂄􈐠 Provide natural habitats and management to restore and
perpetuate endangered or threatened species, or species of
special concern.
􀂄􈐠 Preserve a natural diversity and abundance of flora and
fauna.
􀂄􈐠 Provide o
and provide high-quality wildlife
education, and research.
􀂄􈐠 Provide a diversity of riparian and wetland habitats for an
abundance of migratory birds, particularly waterfowl and
other water birds.
Through the CCP process these interim goals were evaluated
and revised and are stated in Chapter 5.
Objectives, Rationale, an
O
objectives, a rationale, and strategies are determined to
accomplish each of the goals.
Objectives: Objectives are incremental steps we take to achiev
a goal. They are derived from goals and provide a foundation
for determining strategies, monitoring refuge
accomplishments, and evaluating success. The number of
objectives per goal will vary, but should be those necessa
satisfy the goal. Where there are many, an implementation
schedule may be developed. All objectives must p
fo
results-oriented, and time-fixed.
Rationale: Each objective should document the rationale for
forming the objective. The degree of documentation will vary,
but at a minimum, it should include logic, assump
s
Chapter 2
40 Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
staff turnover, and allows reevaluation of the objective as new
information becomes available.
Strategy: A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of
actions, tools, and techniques used to meet an objective.
Multiple strategies can be used to support an objective.
Development of the Refuge Management Alternatives
The development of alternatives, assessment of their
environmental effects, and the identification of the preferred
management alternative are fully descr
ibed in the EA
ppendix A). Alternatives were developed to represent
d
lternative A: No Action
nue
vironmental
ssessment for Proposed Restoration Activities on Sacramento
or migratory birds and
nd
s
ildlife Refuge
Fire Management Plan for Sacramento River National
Use
al) and passive management practices to
chieve and maintain full restoration/enhancement of all units
where