Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Salinas River National
Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
CCPs provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to
accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program
planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for
Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for
staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Salinas River
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Vision Statement
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
“The Refuge will be managed for the
conservation and enhancement of populations
of native species of plants, wildlife, fish, and
their habitats. Endangered or threatened
species will receive management priority,
with special emphasis placed on the
conservation and recovery of the western
snowy plover. Whenever possible, habitats and
populations will be managed in partnership
with local landowners, local and regional
organizations, and local, State, and other
Federal agencies to achieve regional
conservation goals.”
December 2002
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
California/Nevada Refuge Planning Office
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-1916
Sacramento, CA 95825
I
Salinas River
National Wildlife Refuge Table of Contents
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1. Introduction and Background ________________________________________ 1
Content and Purpose of This Document ____________________________________ 1
Need for This CCP _____________________________________________________ 2
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NWR System _____________________ 2
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Responsibilities _______________________ 2
The National Wildlife Refuge System _______________________________ 2
The Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge ________________________________ 4
Introduction to the Salinas River NWR ______________________________ 4
Establishment and History of the Salinas River NWR _________________ 4
Salinas River NWR Vision Statement _______________________________ 5
Management Goals for the Salinas River NWR _______________________ 6
Existing Partnerships for Management of the Salinas River NWR _______ 6
Adaptive Management ____________________________________________ 7
Document Organization _________________________________________________ 7
2. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process ___________________ 9
The Planning Process – How This CCP Was Developed _________________________ 9
The Planning Team ________________________________________________ 9
Public Involvement in Planning _____________________________________ 10
Public Comments on Refuge Planning ______________________________________ 11
Recreation and Public Use _________________________________________ 11
Habitat and Wildlife Management ___________________________________ 11
Administration and Management ____________________________________ 12
Planning Process _________________________________________________ 12
Development of Refuge Goals _____________________________________________ 12
Development of Alternatives ______________________________________________ 13
Plan Implementation ___________________________________________________ 13
3. Current and Future Refuge Management ____________________________ 15
Current Management __________________________________________________ 15
Management Alternatives ______________________________________________ 16
Refuge Management Direction: Objectives and Strategies ___________________ 17
Organization ____________________________________________________ 18
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies __________________________________ 18
Mitigation Measures ___________________________________________________ 29
Water Quality/Contaminants ______________________________________ 29
Hazardous Materials and Safety Issues _____________________________ 30
Biological Resources _____________________________________________ 30
Cultural Resources _____________________________________________ 33
4. Existing Conditions ____________________________________________ 35
Physical Resources ____________________________________________________ 35
Climate ________________________________________________________ 35
Surface Hydrology ______________________________________________ 35
Geology ________________________________________________________ 38
Soils ___________________________________________________________ 39
Air Quality _____________________________________________________ 41
Hazardous Materials and Contaminants ____________________________ 42
Biological Resources at the Refuge _______________________________________ 44
Historic and Regional Context ____________________________________ 44
Vegetation _____________________________________________________ 45
Wildlife ________________________________________________________ 48
Federally Listed Species at the Refuge _____________________________ 52
Cultural Resources ____________________________________________________ 58
Cultural Setting _________________________________________________ 58
Social Environment ____________________________________________________ 61
Land Use ______________________________________________________ 61
II
Traffic and Public Access _________________________________________ 61
Recreation _____________________________________________________ 62
5. Plan Implementation ___________________________________________ 65
Funding and Personnel _________________________________________________ 65
Step-Down Management Plans __________________________________________ 68
Compliance Requirements ______________________________________________ 68
Partnership Opportunities ______________________________________________ 68
Adaptive Management _________________________________________________ 68
Plan Amendment and Revision __________________________________________ 69
III
Appendices
APPENDIX A. Citations
APPENDIX B. Glossary of Terms
APPENDIX C. Refuge Plant List and Special-Status Species on the Refuge
APPENDIX D. Relationship between Vegetation Types Used in this CCP and
National Vegetation Classification System
APPENDIX E. Planning Team Members and Persons Responsible
for Preparing this Document
APPENDIX F. Wilderness Review
APPENDIX G. Compatibility Determinations
APPENDIX H. Salinas River NWR Avian Predator Management Plan
APPENDIX I. Salinas River NWR Wildland Fire Management Plan
APPENDIX J. Salinas River NWR Hunting Plan
APPENDIX K. Response to Comments
IV
Figures
Figure 1. Location map __________________________________________________________________________________ follows 4
Figure 2. Refuge map ___________________________________________________________________________________ follows 4
Figure 3. Comprehensive conservation planning process ___________________________________________________________ 10
Figure 4. Hierarchy of Refuge planning levels in the National Wildlife Refuge System __________________________________ 13
Figure 5. Public Use Plan ________________________________________________________________________________ follows 18
Figure 6. Coastal dunes and land ownership along southern Monterey Bay ______________________________________ follows 26
Figure 7. Vegetation map ________________________________________________________________________________ follows 46
Tables
Table 1. 15-year vision for the primary habitats and for recreation on the Refuge _______________________________________ 6
Table 2. Current partnerships on the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge ___________________________________________ 7
Table 3. Organization of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ______________________________________________________ 8
Table 4. Soils of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge _________________________________________________________ 40
Table 5. Estimates of annual recreation use at the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge _______________________________ 64
Table 6. Recreation use at public parks along the coast near the Refuge ______________________________________________ 64
Table 7. Budget proposal for Salinas River NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan ___________________________________ 66
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
Sand verbena (Verbena sp.)
USFWS Photo
Chapter 1. Introduction and
Background
Content and Purpose of This Document
This document is a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) designed to
guide the management of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge in
Monterey County, California for the next 15 years. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s (Service) management planning process for National
Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) involves two phases: (1) the development of a
broad Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) that articulates a vision
and specific goals for the refuge, and (2) the formulation of more detailed
“step-down” management plans that enable the implementation of the
CCP’s vision.
The purposes of this CCP are:
O To provide a clear statement of direction for the management of the
Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) over the next 15 years;
O To provide long-term continuity in Refuge management;
O To communicate the Service’s management priorities for the Salinas
River NWR to its neighbors and visitors and to the public;
O To provide an opportunity for the public to help shape the future
management of the Salinas River NWR;
O To ensure that management programs on the Salinas River NWR are
consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System
(Refuge System) and the purpose of the Refuge as stated in establishing
legislation;
O To ensure that the management of the Salinas River NWR is consistent
with Federal, State, and local plans; and
O To provide a basis for budget requests to support the Salinas River
NWR’s needs for staffing, operations, maintenance, and capital
improvements.
Chapter 1
2 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
This document incorporates a CCP and three new step-down plans: an
Avian Predator Management Plan, Wildland Fire Management Plan, and
Hunt Plan. In addition, the existing Predator Management Plan (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1993a) will remain in place as a step-down plan.
When it is implemented, this CCP will further the purposes and goals of
the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge, contribute to the overall
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (see page 3), and address
other relevant mandates, such as recovery of endangered species.
Chapter 2 describes the CCP planning process. Chapter 3 presents the
management program proposed in this CCP.
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. Moreover, the
Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge currently has no integrated plan
that guides the management of all of its resources and uses. In order to
meet the dual needs of complying with the Improvement Act and providing
long-term integrated management guidance for the Refuge, the Service
proposes this CCP.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge
System
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Responsibilities
The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for conserving and
enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats.
Although the Service shares this responsibility with other Federal, State,
Tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific responsibilities
for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish,
and certain marine mammals. The Service has similar responsibilities for
the lands and waters it administers to support the conservation and
enhancement of fish and wildlife.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of
lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife conservation. Operated and
managed by the Service, it comprises more than 500 national wildlife
refuges with a combined area of more than 92 million acres. The majority
of refuge lands (approximately 77 million acres) are located in Alaska. The
remaining 15 million acres are spread across the other 49 states and
several island territories.
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals. The mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System, as stated in the Improvement Act, is “to
administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and
plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit
of present and future generations of Americans” (16 USC 668dd et seq.).
Introduction and Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System are:
O To preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when
practicable) all species of animals and plants that are endangered or
threatened with becoming endangered;
O To perpetuate the migratory bird resource;
O To preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on
refuge lands; and
O To provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife
ecology and the human role in the environment and to provide refuge
visitors with high-quality, safe, wholesome, and enjoyable recreational
experiences oriented toward wildlife to the extent these activities are
compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established.
The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to resource management
and has identified 52 ecosystem units within the United States. The Salinas
River National Wildlife Refuge is situated in the Service’s Southern
California Ecoregion. The Draft Conceptual Management Approach for
Southern California Ecoregion Goals can be obtained from the Service by
request. Specific ecoregion goals relevant to the Salinas River National
Wildlife Refuge are discussed in Chapter 3 of this CCP.
Legal and Policy Guidance for Management of National Wildlife Refuges.
Individual refuges (refuge units) are guided by the mission and goals of the
National Wildlife Refuge System (see preceding section) and by the
designated purpose of the refuge unit as described in establishing
legislation or executive orders, Service laws and policy, and international
treaties. Key concepts guiding the System are contained in the Refuge
Recreation Act of 1962, the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, and, most recently, the
Improvement Act.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the only network of Federal lands
administered first for the protection of wildlife. No use of a refuge may be
allowed unless it is determined to be compatible with the refuge’s purpose.
A compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the
refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from the
fulfillment of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the
purposes of the individual refuge unit. Sound professional judgment is
further defined as a decision that is consistent with principles of fish and
wildlife management and administration, available science and resources,
and adherence with law. In this context, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, hatcheries,
and other conservation areas for recreational use when such uses do not
interfere with the area’s primary purpose.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 provides
guidelines and directives for administration and management of all areas
in the System, including wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and
conservation of fish and wildlife threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges,
game ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl production areas.
This Act was amended in 1997 by passage of the Improvement Act, which
includes a unifying mission statement for the National Wildlife Refuge
System (see page 3), establishes new guidelines for determining
compatible uses on refuges, and requires that each refuge be managed
under a CCP developed in an open public process. Under the Improvement
Act, all refuge units are required to have a CCP in place by the year 2012.
The Improvement Act further states that wildlife conservation is the
Chapter 1
4 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
priority of National Wildlife Refuge System lands and that the Secretary
of the Interior shall ensure that the biological integrity and diversity and
the environmental health of refuge lands are maintained. In addition, the
Improvement Act encourages partnerships with Federal and State
agencies, Tribes, organizations, industry, and the general public.
The Improvement Act identifies six wildlife-dependent recreational uses as
priorities: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
environmental education, and environmental interpretation. As expressed
priorities of the National Wildlife Refuge System, these public uses take
precedence over other potential uses in refuge planning and management.
However, the Improvement Act also requires identification of existing
compatible wildlife-dependent uses that will be permitted to continue on an
interim basis pending completion of the CCP development process.
Refuge Vision. A vision statement is developed or revised for each
individual refuge unit as part of the CCP process. Vision statements are
grounded in the unifying mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System,
and describe the desired future conditions of the refuge unit in the long
term (more than 15 years), based on the refuge’s specific purposes, the
resources present on the refuge, and any other relevant mandates.
The Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Introduction to the Salinas River NWR
The Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (hereafter, Refuge)
encompasses 367 acres located 11 miles north of Monterey, California,
where the Salinas River empties into Monterey Bay (Figures 1 and 2). The
Refuge is part of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Complex, which has its headquarters in Fremont, California.
Refuge lands include a range of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, including
coastal dunes and beach, grasslands, wetlands, and riparian scrub. Because
of its location within the Pacific Flyway, the Refuge is used by a variety of
migratory birds during breeding, wintering, and migration periods. It also
provides habitat for several threatened and endangered species, including
western snowy plover, California brown pelican, Smith’s blue butterfly,
Monterey gilia, and Monterey spineflower. Approximately 40 species that
occur or are suspected to occur on the Refuge are considered sensitive by
Federal or State agencies (see Appendix C). Current recreational uses on
the Refuge include wildlife observation and photography and access to surf
fishing and waterfowl hunting. Chapter 4 presents a detailed description of
natural resources on the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge.
Establishment and History of the Salinas River NWR
The Refuge was established in 1973 because of its “particular value in
carrying out the national migratory bird management program” (16 USC
Sec. 667b). The land was acquired by the Service through a transfer of
surplus military land from the U.S. Army and the U.S. Coast Guard. From
1974 through 1991, what is now the Refuge was operated as a Wildlife
Management Area under a cooperative agreement with the California
Department of Fish and Game. By the mid-1980s, growing awareness of
the Refuge’s importance as habitat for sensitive species prompted a shift
toward more active management and protection of its resources. In 1991,
the Service began managing the area as a National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, the
Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and the Improvement Act of 1997.
Refuge Purpose: The Refuge
was established in 1973 because
of its “particular value in
carrying out the national
migratory bird management
program” (16 USC Sec. 667b).
Salinas River
National Wildlife Refuge
Salinas
San Jose
Hollister
Santa Cruz
San Francisco
Monterey
|ÿ1
tu101
|}ÿ68
tu101
§¨¦5
|}ÿ156
|}ÿ1
|}ÿ152
|}ÿ129
Monterey Bay
SSaa nn tt aa CCrr uu zz CCoo ..
SSaa nn Maa tt ee oo CCoo ..
AAll aamee dd aa CCoo ..
SSaa nn tt aa CCll aa rr aa CCoo ..
SSaa nn BBee nn ii tt oo CCoo ..
SStt aa nn ii ss ll aa uu ss CCoo ..
Mee rr cc ee dd CCoo ..
Moo nn tt ee rr ee yy CCoo ..
Figure 1. Location Map
CA/NV Refuge Planning Office - July 2001 I
CALIFORNIA
Area
Enlarged
10 5 0 10 20 30
Miles
Introduction and Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
Since 1991, Refuge management efforts have focused on sensitive species
protection, habitat enhancement (including riparian restoration along the
Salinas River), and public use management. Limited recreational
opportunities have also been available to the public, including waterfowl
hunting, access to surf fishing, and wildlife observation and photography.
Much of the management and monitoring on the Refuge has been
accomplished in cooperation with various partner organizations (see
Existing Partnerships below). The Service’s approach to managing the
Refuge has been regional in perspective, and has emphasized balancing
appropriate uses among the various public lands in the Monterey Bay area.
Additional detailed information on past and current Refuge management is
provided in Chapters 3 and 4.
Salinas River NWR Vision Statement
This CCP incorporates the following vision statement for the Salinas River
National Wildlife Refuge.
The Refuge will be managed for the conservation and enhancement
of populations of native species of plants, wildlife, fish, and their
habitats. Endangered or threatened species will receive management
priority, with special emphasis placed on the conservation and
recovery of the western snowy plover. Whenever possible, habitats
and populations will be managed in partnership with local
landowners, local and regional organizations, and local, State, and
other Federal agencies to achieve regional conservation goals.
The vision for the Refuge reflects the regional approach that the Service
has taken since it began active management of the Refuge in 1991. Under
this approach, the Refuge is viewed as part of a mosaic of different types of
open spaces (State beaches, private lands, the Refuge, etc.) in the
Monterey coastal region. Each type of open space may support different
recreational uses that reflect the particular mission of the agency or entity
with stewardship responsibility for those lands.
In keeping with this approach and with the mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, the Refuge will continue to offer limited but unique
wildlife-oriented recreational opportunities; however, significant increases
in public use will not be encouraged. State and local beaches will continue
to provide the primary recreational opportunities for the Monterey Bay
area shoreline. State beaches in Monterey Bay typically offer opportunities
for recreational activities—such as hang-gliding, camping, and horseback
riding—that the Refuge does not allow. These uses, as well as unrestricted
public use in general, are incompatible with the Refuge’s purpose. The
Refuge vision statement reflects the Service’s view that, within the wider
context of public lands along the Monterey Bay, the Refuge should support
relatively undisturbed habitat for threatened and endangered species and
other wildlife, where public uses are subordinate to the primary purpose of
wildlife conservation.
Chapter 1
6 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Table 1 presents the 15-year vision for the Refuge’s four primary habitats
and for recreation.
Table 1. 15-year vision for the primary habitats and for recreation on the Refuge.
Coastal Dunes and
Beach
The natural processes of dune formation will be restored.
Native vegetation in the dune complex of the Refuge will be
protected and enhanced. Populations of endangered and
threatened species such as Smith’s blue butterfly, Monterey
gilia, Monterey spineflower, brown pelican, and western
snowy plover will be protected and enhanced.
Grassland The native coastal prairie will be restored by mimicking
natural processes through active management. The
restored coastal prairie will provide excellent foraging
habitat for native grassland birds.
Wetlands The saline pond will be maintained for migratory bird use.
The salt marsh habitat will be enhanced for use by
migratory and resident birds. Historic wetlands on the
Refuge will be identified and restored.
Riparian/Riverine
Habitats
Riparian scrub will be restored along the Salinas River to
provide habitat for migratory and resident birds while
allowing for natural migration of the river channel. Riverine
habitat will be enhanced for use by native waterfowl and
fish.
Recreation Limited wildlife-dependent recreation will occur on the
Refuge, when compatible with the purpose of the Refuge
and the conservation and recovery of endangered species.
Management Goals for the Salinas River NWR
Three goals have been identified to realize the vision proposed for the
Refuge.
Goal 1. Protect, restore, and enhance populations of migratory birds
and other native species and their habitats.
Goal 2. Protect and enhance populations of endangered, threatened,
and rare species and promote their recovery by restoring and
enhancing their natural habitats.
Goal 3. Provide opportunities for safe, unique, wildlife-dependent
recreation when compatible with the Refuge purpose and
with other Refuge goals.
These goals represent broad statements of the priorities for ongoing
Refuge management.
Existing Partnerships for Management of the Salinas River NWR
Partnerships are integral to the success of many refuges, and the Service
encourages partnerships with local organizations who share the Service’s
mission to conserve and enhance natural resources. The Refuge currently
maintains partnerships with many organizations to help achieve its goals
and those of the partner organizations. Table 2 summarizes current
partnerships on the Refuge.
Introduction and Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Table 2. Current partnerships on the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge.
Organization Nature of Partnership
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Wildlife Services
Assists with the Refuge’s predator management
program
California Department of Fish and
Game
Coordinates programs for managing special-status
species, such as western snowy plover, on nearby
State lands.
California Department of Parks and
Recreation
Assists the Service with public use monitoring,
habitat management, and snowy plover
management
Watershed Institute of California
State University, Monterey Bay
Conducts restoration of native grassland and
riparian habitats, erosion monitoring, and scientific
research
Point Reyes Bird Observatory Conducts monitoring of western snowy plover
populations
Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research
Group
Assists with the Refuge’s experimental avian
predator management program
Neighboring landowners Control nonnative plants on dune habitat
Source: Christopher Barr and Ivette Loredo, USFWS
Adaptive Management
The Service acknowledges that much remains to be learned about the
species, habitats, and physical processes that occur on the Refuge, and
about the ecological interactions between species. When faced with
uncertainty resulting from complex ecological interactions or gaps in
available data, the most effective approach to resource management over
the long term is an adaptive one. Adaptive management refers to a
management style in which the effectiveness of management actions is
monitored and evaluated, and future management is modified as needed,
based on the results of this evaluation or other relevant information that
becomes available. The Service has been practicing adaptive management
on the Refuge since 1991 and plans to continue this practice. Accordingly,
the management scenario proposed in this CCP provides for ongoing
adaptive management of the Refuge; its adaptive management component
is described more fully in Chapter 6, Plan Implementation.
Document Organization
This document is organized into six chapters and eleven appendices. Table
3 summarizes their contents.
Chapter 1
8 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Table 3. Organization of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Document
Section Content
Chapter 1 Description of CCP development process. Overview of mission and responsibilities of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and goals
of National Wildlife Refuge System. Summary of history and vision of Salinas River NWR.
Chapter 2 Summary of process for development of this CCP, including specific public concerns identified and addressed during CCP
development.
Chapter 3 Descriptions of current and future management of the Salinas River NWR.
Chapter 4 Description of existing resources on the Salinas River NWR.
Chapter 5 Overview of process for implementing this CCP.
Appendix A List of references cited.
Appendix B Glossary of technical terms.
Appendix C List of special-status plant and animal species with the potential to occur on the Salinas River NWR or in the surrounding
area.
Appendix D Matrix showing relationship between vegetation classification system used in this document and National Vegetation
Classification System.
Appendix E List of members of the Salinas River NWR CCP planning team and members of the team that prepared this document.
Appendix F Overview of wilderness review process (process that establishes whether lands should be recommended to Congress for
designation as wilderness and inclusion in the National Wilderness System) and results of wilderness review for Salinas River
NWR.
Appendix G Compatibility determinations (results of formal review of compatibility of proposed public uses with stated refuge purpose) for
Salinas River NWR.
Appendix H Salinas River NWR Avian Predator Management Plan (step-down plan).
Appendix I Salinas River NWR Wildland Fire Management Plan (step-down plan).
Appendix J Salinas River NWR Hunt Plan (step-down plan).
Appendix K Response to Comments
1See discussion in Chapter 1.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Chapter 2. The Comprehensive
Conservation Planning
Process
This CCP for the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge is intended to
meet the requirements of compliance with the Improvement Act1. The
development of this CCP was also guided by the refuge planning policy
outlined in Part 602, Chapters 1, 3, and 4 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Manual (May 2000).
Service policy, the Improvement Act, and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) provide specific guidance for the planning process. For
example, Service policy and NEPA require the Service to actively seek
public involvement in the preparation of environmental documents such as
Environmental Assessments (EAs). NEPA also requires the Service to
give serious consideration to all reasonable alternatives, including the “no
action” alternative, which represents continuation of current conditions
and management practices. Alternative management scenarios were
developed as part of the planning process described in this chapter.
The Planning Process – How This CCP Was Developed
Key steps in the Service’s CCP planning process include:
1. Forming the planning team and conducting preplanning;
2. Initiating public involvement and scoping;
3. Identifying issues and developing or revising vision and goal
statements;
4. Developing alternatives and assessing their environmental
effects;
5. Identifying the proposed action (i.e., the preferred alternative);
6. Publishing the draft plan and NEPA document;
7. Revising the draft plan and publishing a final plan; and
8. Implementing the plan.
Figure 3 diagrams the CCP planning process; the following sections
provide additional detail on individual steps in the process.
The Planning Team
The planning team responsible for leading the CCP effort included Service
biologists, planners, and public use specialists from the San Francisco Bay
NWR Complex and the California/Nevada Refuge Planning Office.
Biologists and planners from Jones & Stokes, an environmental consulting
firm, also participated in the planning team effort. This document was
prepared by a technical team from Jones & Stokes, under the direction and
with the assistance of the Service. Appendix E lists the members of the
planning and technical teams.
Chapter 2
10 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Coordination and cooperation among participating stakeholders was a
fundamental element of the CCP development process. The Planning
Team considered the interests and expertise of many agencies and
organizations, including:
O U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
O California Department of Fish and Game,
O California Department of Parks and Recreation,
O Point Reyes Bird Observatory,
O Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group,
O California State University, Monterey Bay Watershed Institute, and
O U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services.
Project planning meetings attended by representatives of these entities
were held regularly throughout the planning process, from November 1999
through July 2000. Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified
through discussions with planning team members and key contacts and
through public involvement.
Public Involvement in Planning
Public involvement is an essential component of the CCP process. The
Service announced the initiation of the Refuge planning effort to the public
on May 19, 2000, through a planning update newsletter, followed by a
formal notice in the Federal Register published on May 23, 2000. A press
release was also issued prior to the public meeting.
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Public scoping meeting, Monterey, CA
Jones & Stokes Photo
There were several avenues for public involvement in Refuge planning. A
public workshop was held on June 1, 2000, in Monterey, California, to
inform the public of the planning process, and written public comments
were solicited until the public comment period ended on June 22, 2000.
Public Comments on Refuge Planning
The following sections present issues, concerns, and opportunities
summarized from all public input received during the scoping process.
(The public workshop and written comment period are collectively referred
to as the scoping process.)
Recreation and Public Use
Public comments included concerns over recreation use, including both
access issues and issues related to impacts. Some respondents felt that
access to the portion of the Salinas River mouth below high tide should be
prohibited. Concern was also expressed regarding the effects of human
population density and recreational use on native plants and wildlife.
Commentors suggested that snowy plover signage should be posted in
English, Spanish, Chinese, and Tagalog. Some commentors suggested that
signage prohibiting dogs should be clarified and increased. Others
suggested that the Service issue a map showing areas in the Monterey
region where dogs are allowed. Commentors recommended enhanced
signage to identify areas of the Salinas River (both within and beyond the
Refuge boundaries) where fishing is permitted. A desire for bilingual
Spanish and English signage was expressed. Investigation into the impacts
of hunting and other recreational activities on wildlife, such as disturbance
of non-target species, was requested. The Service was also asked to
consider the incompatibility of recreational hunting on the Refuge.
Habitat and Wildlife Management
Many people were concerned about the loss of wildlife habitat and felt that
protecting, restoring, and enhancing wildlife populations and habitats
should be a Refuge priority. Development of a database of pertinent
scientific information regarding habitats and wildlife on the Refuge was
Chapter 2
12 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
suggested. Some commentors recommended a rigorous biological
assessment and inventory of all plant, fish, and wildlife species present on
the Refuge, including birds and invertebrates. Respondents suggested that
the Service consider the use of prescribed burning to restore grassland.
Control of invasive species was also identified as a concern, and
respondents recommended that additional approaches to avian predator
management be considered, such as creating foraging habitat by mowing
grassland. People stressed the need for long-term, effective, humane, and
socially acceptable predator-management strategies. In addition,
commentors expressed concern for the maintenance of good water quality
on the Refuge.
Administration and Management
The Service received a variety of comments related to Refuge
administration and management. Some comments suggest that the Refuge
requires improved and additional publicity; many members of the public
had not heard of the Refuge or the CCP process. Commentors
recommended that the Service determine the CCP���s consistency with other
relevant programs and existing watershed and ecosystem efforts and
ensure partnership with the California Department of Fish and Game.
They also pointed out the need to comply with each requirement of the
Refuge Administration Act, and to prioritize activities proposed in the
CCP. Adoption of monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management
strategies was also suggested. Other commentors indicated a need for
additional refuse receptacles at the Refuge, recommended that the access
road be maintained as unpaved, suggested that the Refuge entrance and
parking lot be moved to a location directly adjacent to the highway, and
requested that areas in the Salinas River where fishing is allowed be
clearly defined. Improved communication with local airports was also
recommended, because low-flying airplanes and hang gliders have been
spotted over the Refuge; commentors expressed concern about
disturbance to wildlife. Participants expressed interest in identification of
additional research opportunities. One respondent suggested that
additional funding sources to support expanding the Refuge should be
identified.
Planning Process
Some meeting participants recommended that mechanisms for providing a
response to public comments be established.
Development of Refuge Goals
The purpose of the Refuge is established by law; however, before this CCP
effort, the Refuge had no vision statement. Under the Improvement Act,
the task of the planning team was to revise and further develop the
management focus of the Refuge within the Service’s planning framework
(Figures 3 and 4). Developing the new vision statement was given high
priority because its description of desired future conditions on the Refuge
helped guide the remainder of the planning process. The vision statement
was based, in part, on the public comments received during the scoping
period. Once the vision statement was articulated, the planning team used
it to examine and clarify the Refuge’s three interim goals. The revised
Refuge goals that resulted are presented in Chapter 1.
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Figure 4. Hierarchy of Refuge Planning Levels in the National Wildlife Refuge
System
Development of Alternatives
The remaining steps in the CCP process, including development of
alternatives, assessment of their environmental effects, and identification
of the preferred management alternative (proposed action) were
addressed in the EA (published as a CCP/EA).
Plan Implementation
Chapter 5 describes the process for implementing the management plan
proposed in this CCP.
Chapter 2
14 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Wildlife monitoring
USFWS Photo
Chapter 3. Current and
Future Refuge Management
Current Management
The Refuge currently has no integrated plan to guide the management of
all of its resources and uses. Current management efforts on the Refuge
focus on the protection of sensitive species, the enhancement of their
habitats, and the management of public access to and use of Refuge lands.
A major emphasis of current management is the protection of the western
snowy plovers by a variety of means, including: “Sensitive Wildlife Habitat
– Closed Area” signs; nest exclosures; symbolic fencing (low cable fence
used to keep humans from approaching nests); and law enforcement
patrols. Western snowy plovers are monitored each breeding season for
reproductive success and all chicks are banded for further monitoring. In
addition, mammalian predators (including nonnative red foxes, feral cats,
and skunks) are managed to selectively remove problem predators during
the snowy plover breeding season. Black legless lizards are surveyed
monthly using a standardized protocol. Coastal sand dune habitat on the
Refuge is maintained by intensive hand-weeding and chemical control of
invasive nonnative vegetation. Native grassland has been restored and is
maintained by regular mechanical mowing and weed-whacking, and
riparian restoration is an ongoing effort along the Salinas River.
Wildlife and habitat protection has been a clear management priority for
the Refuge because of the National Wildlife Refuge System’s conservation
responsibility. Unrestricted or uncontrolled public use is not compatible
with this mission nor with the purpose for which the Refuge was created.
However, limited recreational opportunities have been available for the
public on the Refuge, including waterfowl hunting, surf fishing access, and
wildlife observation and photography. Because the State Lands
Commission owns the land below mean high water, the Service cannot,
under any alternative, prohibit public access to these tidal lands adjacent
to the Refuge.
Chapter 3
16 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Beach access trail
Jones & Stokes Photo
Management Alternatives
In compliance with NEPA, four management alternatives were developed:
O Alternative 1: No Action,
O Alternative 2: Reduce Public Use and Improve and Expand Resource
Management,
O Alternative 3: Improve Public Use and Resource Management, and
O Alternative 4: Expand and Improve Public Use and Resource
Management.
See the Draft CCP/EA for a summary and description of these
alternatives.
Following comprehensive review and analysis, the Service selected
Alternative 3 as its proposed action for the Refuge because it is the
alternative that the Service believes best meets the following criteria.
O Achieves the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
O Is consistent with the Service's ecoregion goals.
O Achieves the purpose of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge.
O Will be able to achieve the 15-year vision and goals for the Refuge.
O Maintains and restores the ecological integrity of the habitats and
populations on the Refuge.
O Addresses the important issues identified during the scoping process.
O Addresses the legal mandates of the Service and the Refuge.
O Addresses the legal mandates of the Service and the Refuge.
O Is consistent with the scientific principles of sound fish and wildlife
management and endangered species recovery.
Under Alternative 3, Improve Public Use and Resource Management,
public use of the Refuge will be improved but not substantially expanded.
For example, informational signs and interpretive exhibits will be installed
on the Refuge. In addition, the existing parking lot will be improved (e.g.,
graded and covered with gravel or another pervious material). The area in
which seasonal waterfowl hunting is permitted will be reduced by
approximately 15% to protect roosting California brown pelicans
(Figure 5).
Current and Future Refuge Management
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Coastal sand dunes
USFWS Photo
All of the current management activities will continue. Some activities,
such as special-status species inventories, will be substantially expanded.
New management tools and techniques will include: use of prescribed fire
to augment mowing and herbicide use in the grassland/shrubland habitat;
inventories of all habitats on the Refuge; translocation of problem avian
predators of the western snowy plover; and creation of a GIS database to
track vegetation and population trends. In addition, the Service will pursue
a long-term lease with the State Lands Commission so it can manage the
beach and tidelands below mean high water. The selected management
scenario is described in detail in the next section.
Refuge Management Direction: Objectives and Strategies
Under the Improvement Act, specific management direction for NWRs is
expressed in terms of objectives and strategies. As discussed in Chapter 1,
refuge goals are broad, open-ended statements of refuge emphasis and
direction. Refuge goals may or may not be feasible within the 15-year time
frame of the CCP. In contrast, refuge objectives are concise statements of
what will be achieved to help meet a particular refuge goal. When possible,
refuge objectives should be measurable, clear, and specific, and should be
feasible within the 15-year lifespan of the CCP. Refuge strategies describe
specific actions or combinations of actions that can be used to meet an
objective. In some cases, strategies describe specific projects in enough
detail to assess funding and staffing needs. In other cases, further
site-specific detail is required to implement a strategy; this usually takes
the form of a step-down management plan (see Figure 4).
The three Refuge management goals stated in Chapter 1 are repeated
below to provide the context for the proposed management direction. The
objectives and strategies of this CCP are listed below as they apply to each
of the three Refuge goals.
Chapter 3
18 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Organization
Each objective and each strategy is given a unique numeric code for easy
reference. Objectives have a two-digit code (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2). The first
digit corresponds to the goal to which the objective applies. The second
digit is sequential and corresponds approximately to the priority given to
that objective relative to others under the same goal. Similarly, each
strategy has a three-digit code (e.g., 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.1.2). The first and
second digits refer to the appropriate goal and objective, respectively. The
third digit is sequential; it indicates priority only for actions with deadlines.
Strategies are sometimes also grouped by subtopic.
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Goal 1.0. Protect, restore, and enhance populations of migratory
birds and other native species and their habitats
Objective 1.1:
By 2017, the Refuge will restore native riparian vegetation along
at least 1,500 feet of the south bank of the Salinas River to
increase the density and diversity of migratory and resident
songbirds on the Refuge.
Rationale: Protection and enhancement of riparian habitat, coastal
lagoons, and estuaries is a major ecoregional goal. The Salinas
River is specifically identified as a priority site in The Riparian
Bird Conservation Plan (RHJV 2000), and recommendations
therein will guide habitat restoration efforts along the river.
Promoting structural diversity and volume of the understory and
to restoring the width of the riparian corridor will be of primary
importance. In addition to enhancing productivity of riparian-dependent
birds, riparian restoration efforts will improve
conditions for native fish by shading and cooling the water’s edge.
Restoration should also help slow erosion of the river bank.
Special consideration will be given to habitat needs of USFWS
Birds of Conservation Concern that are included on the Pacific
Region and Coastal California Bird Conservation lists (hereafter,
Birds of Conservation Concern) (see Table C-2 in Appendix C).
Objective 1.1 – Restore Native Riparian Vegetation
Code Strategy
Restore Native Riparian Vegetation
1.1.1 Continue to plant and maintain riparian trees and shrubs native to the lower Salinas River along the
riverbank using cuttings from upstream populations; focus on improving structural diversity and corridor
width and maintaining dense shrub and herbaceous layer vegetation. Continue to provide support to
partners such as the Watershed Institute of CSU Monterey Bay to implement this strategy.
1.1.2 Work with restoration partners to develop by 2005 a long-term monitoring strategy to evaluate the survival
and density of riparian revegetation.
1.1.3 Evaluate the erosion of the south bank of the Salinas River and the effectiveness of riparian restoration in
stabilizing this erosion by monitoring its location using Global Positioning System equipment. These data
will be entered into the Refuge GIS database.
1.1.4 By 2010, establish a program to monitor the response of migratory and resident bird populations to riparian
restoration on the Refuge. Work with staff from the Service’s Migratory Bird and Habitat Programs to
develop the monitoring strategy, and foster partnerships with nonprofit groups such as the Ventana
Wilderness Society to help implement this strategy.
Current and Future Refuge Management
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Objective 1.2:
Within the mosaic of grassland and northern coastal scrub
habitat, the Refuge will maintain between 50% and 75% cover of
native grassland composed of at least 90% (by plant cover) grasses
and herbs native to the local area.
Rationale: Although extensive in the past, native grassland is now
a rare plant community and wildlife habitat in California.
Historically, native grasslands were naturally maintained by
recurring fires that prevented conversion to shrub-dominated
habitats. Since the end of agricultural operations on the Refuge in
the 1980s, shrubs have been slowly invading the grassland in the
absence of fire to suppress them. By maintaining a majority of the
shrubland/grassland mosaic in native grassland habitat, the
Refuge will likely retain this important habitat in sufficient
quantity to maintain the diversity of wildlife that now inhabits the
Refuge, and perhaps attract additional grassland- or shrub-dependent
species. Special consideration will be given to habitat
needs of Birds of Conservation Concern. Prescribed burns will
initially be used to restore and enhance the native grassland;
burning to control nonnative weeds will be conducted for several
consecutive years. Once nonnative species are reduced to
controllable levels in a given area, fire will then be used for
maintenance of the grasslands, requiring only periodic burns.
Objective 1.2 – Maintain Native Grassland and Coastal Scrub
Code Strategy
Enhance Native Grassland
1.2.1 Continue to mow the grassland annually and apply herbicide to control invasive plants such as poison
hemlock and wild radish.
1.2.2 By 2004, initiate a prescribed burn program on the Refuge as an additional management tool (to augment
mowing and herbicide use) for the enhancement and maintenance of native grassland. See Appendix I for
the Draft Wildland Fire Management Plan.
1.2.3 By 2005, inventory and quantify the composition of the grassland on the Refuge. This inventory will include
documenting historical land use of the grassland and the methodology and results of past restoration
efforts.
Objective 1.3:
The Refuge will maintain and enhance its wetland and aquatic
habitat.
Rationale: Protection and enhancement of wetlands is a major
ecoregional goal. The saline pond is a unique resource on the
Refuge that is important habitat for shorebirds such as American
avocet, black-necked stilt, and other water birds. Increasing
breeding populations of snowy plover, black-necked stilt, and
American avocet by enhancing, restoring, or creating nesting
habitat is a conservation priority identified in the National and
Southern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Plans. The aquatic
habitat of the Salinas River Lagoon is a unique regional resource
that provides cover and food for a diverse assemblage of fish,
insects, invertebrates, and waterfowl, as well as terns, osprey, and
muskrat. The lagoon supports several special-status species,
including steelhead (federally listed as threatened). The Salinas
River is also the only habitat in which hunting is now permitted on
the Refuge. Special consideration will be given to the habitat
needs of Birds of Conservation Concern.
Chapter 3
20 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
After a prescribed burn on a national wildlife
refuge
J&K Hollingsworth Photo
Objective 1.3 – Maintain and Enhance Wetland and Aquatic Habitats
Code Strategy
Enhance Wetland and Aquatic Habitats
1.3.1 By 2005, conduct a hydrologic study of the Refuge that includes quantifying the water balance of the
saline pond, conducting water quality testing of the pond, and determining the possible sources of any
contaminants in the pond.
1.3.2 By 2005, determine the historic extent of wetlands on the Refuge and the potential to restore degraded
wetlands.
1.3.3 By 2010, complete a 2-year inventory of the species present in the Salinas River Lagoon.
1.3.4 Manage the saline pond for black-necked stilts, American avocets, and other shorebirds, as well as
waterfowl, other water birds, and other species that depend on this habitat.
1.3.5 Continue to coordinate with the California Coastal Commission (CCC), National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), and the Service’s Endangered Species Division regarding breaching of the Salinas River mouth
by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. If, in the future, this activity is proposed for lands
owned or leased by the Service, a special use permit from the Service and continued consultation with the
CCC would be required.
Objective 1.4:
The Refuge will enhance the coastal dune habitat for a diversity of
native species.
Rationale: Enhancement of coastal dune habitats is a major
ecoregional goal. A majority of the Refuge’s listed and
special-status species occur in or near coastal dune scrub.
Enhancing this habitat will benefit these species, including Smith’s
blue butterfly, black legless lizard, Monterey gilia, and Monterey
spineflower. Special consideration will be given to the habitat
needs of Birds of Conservation Concern. Removing and controlling
invasive plants is critical to enhancement efforts because of their
ability to spread rapidly and quickly displace native plants and
wildlife (Pickart and Sawyer 1998).
Current and Future Refuge Management
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Objective 1.4 – Enhance Coastal Dune Habitat
Code Strategy
Enhance Coastal Dune Scrub
1.4.1 Maintain and enhance partnerships with State Parks to share information and coordinate monitoring to
cooperatively and consistently manage coastal dune habitat.
1.4.2 Implement techniques to control invasive plants, using a combination of chemical and mechanical means.
Chemical control may be conducted only during the non-breeding season (October through March). Hand-pulling
may be conducted year-round in the backdunes, but only during October–March in the foredunes,
where plovers nest. The method to be used will be determined by weed infestation size, potential for
habitat disturbance, effects on non-target species, and efficiency.
Note: Strategies 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.7, 2.1.8, 2.1.9, 2.3.1, and 2.3.2 also help to achieve this objective.
Goal 2.0. Protect and enhance populations of endangered,
threatened, and rare species, and promote their recovery by
restoring and enhancing their natural habitats
Objective 2.1:
The Salinas River NWR will implement management actions to
protect, conserve, and enhance populations of special-status
species on the Refuge. Priority will be given to species that are
state- or federally listed, are proposed for listing, or are
candidates for listing.
Rationale: The Service manages endangered and threatened
species as trust species. Thus, the Service is responsible for
assisting in the recovery of endangered and threatened species
that occur within the refuge system. In order to implement
effective active management for the protection and recovery of
endangered and threatened species, a major goal of the refuge
system overall and within the southern California ecoregion is to
develop priorities for refuge management among species.
Prioritization is important because limitations in funding and staff
time prevent targeting all special-status species for management.
Limited resources are allocated, in part, through inventories of
special-status species and prioritization of management needs.
Chapter 3
22 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Objective 2.1 – Protect Populations of Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species
Code Strategy
Mapping, Species Inventories, and Monitoring
2.1.1 By 2004, develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) database for the Refuge and overlay vegetation
and wildlife habitat types. This database will be used to record locations of special-status species and to
track habitat management actions, restoration projects, and maintenance actions.
2.1.2 By 2005, complete a 2-year inventory of the special-status species that occur on the Refuge. This inventory
will include mapping the distribution and estimating the size of all populations of special-status species.
Inventories will consist of field surveys and literature searches for historical records of special-status
species. Locations of special-status species will be entered in the GIS database.
2.1.3 After completion of the 2-year baseline inventory of species on the Refuge, develop and implement a long-term
monitoring program that tracks the effects of management actions and public use on special-status
species. Monitoring data will be stored in the Refuge’s GIS database.
2.1.4 By 2008, evaluate and prioritize the special-status species that occur on the Refuge to determine which
species require active management and the level and type of management needed. Criteria for prioritization
will include: listing status, implementation of actions identified in Recovery Plans, status in the Monterey
Bay area, taxonomic distinctiveness, population size on the Refuge, threats to survival, sensitivity to
disturbance, and the ability of the Refuge to contribute to recovery or conservation of the species.
Management and Research
2.1.5 Encourage research on each priority special-status species on the Refuge to determine its ecology relevant
to conservation. Research could be conducted by local universities or other organizations with assistance
from the Refuge in the form of funding, supplies, volunteers, or technical assistance.
2.1.6 By 2006 (assuming additional lands are acquired), establish a satellite Refuge office in Monterey or Santa
Cruz County to permit more efficient management of the two Monterey Bay area National Wildlife
Refuges. Currently, Refuge staff are headquartered 80 miles away in Fremont, and a significant amount of
time is spent commuting to and from the Refuge. This strategy will assist the Refuge in achieving all of the
goals and objectives in this CCP.
2.1.7 By 2010, develop habitat management strategies to preserve and enhance populations of high-priority
special-status species on the Refuge. These strategies will include detailed prescriptions for habitat
management, protocols to monitor the status of these species, and methods to evaluate the effectiveness of
management actions. The impacts of public use on special-status species will also be monitored. The
strategies will cover federally listed species such as the California brown pelican, Smith’s blue butterfly,
Monterey gilia, and Monterey spineflower, and high-priority special-status species such as the black legless
lizard.
Note: Strategies 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.7, and 2.2.8 also help to achieve this Objective.
Objective 2.2:
The Salinas River NWR will enhance the population of the
western snowy plover on the foredunes of the Refuge so that by
2017 the snowy plover produces at least 1.0 fledged chick per male
and there is at least 35 acres of high-quality breeding habitat for
the plover.
Rationale: The western snowy plover relies heavily on coastal
beaches from southern Washington to Baja California for food,
shelter, and raising its young. The Pacific coast populations of this
species have been declining dramatically over the past decade
because of substantial habitat loss related to industrial, urban, and
recreational development, human disturbance, and encroachment
of exotic vegetation. The coastal population of western snowy
plover was listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in 1993 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993b).
Current and Future Refuge Management
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Western snowy plover chick (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) on the Salinas River
NWR
USFWS Photo
Historically, the Monterey Bay area has supported one of the most
productive populations of western snowy plovers on the central
California coast (Page pers. comm.). Populations of snowy plovers
in the Monterey Bay area have been dramatically reduced as a
result of habitat loss and disturbance by thousands of beach
visitors in summer. Since 1986, there has been a dramatic decline
in plover nest success at the Refuge and on adjacent lands (see
Chapter 4). Nonetheless, the plover breeding colony on and near
the Refuge is one of California’s most important, and protection of
this resource is considered essential to the continued success of
the species.
The strategies outlined to achieve this objective are consistent
with the goals of the Draft Recovery Plan for the snowy plover
recently released by the Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2001). Achieving a fledge rate of at least 1.0 chick per male will
provide a modest regional growth rate for plovers. This figure is
based on the best available scientific information. During
1996–2000, the nest hatch rate on the Refuge was 67% and the
chick fledge rate was 22%, with an average of 23.6 nests recorded
per year. There is currently approximately 20 acres of high-quality
nesting habitat for the plover on the Refuge. Maintaining at least
35 acres of suitable habitat for the plover on the Refuge would also
ensure modest growth of the plover population on the Refuge. The
population of plovers on the Refuge could become a “source”
population (a population growing at a rate that is more than self-supporting)
for plovers in the Monterey Bay area (Monterey Bay
Area Snowy Plover Working Group 1999). Adult plovers on the
Refuge have the potential to produce juveniles that could colonize
new sites in the area or supplement existing populations elsewhere
that are not self-supporting. Achieving this objective would help
meet recovery goals for the western snowy plover (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2001). Strategies that will implement specific
recovery plan tasks are noted. Strategies for controlling invasive
plans and minimizing disturbance to plovers should also benefit
other nesting or winter shorebirds on the Refuge.
Chapter 3
24 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Objective 2.2 – Enhance Western Snowy Plover Population
Code Strategy
Facilitate Regional Management
2.2.1 Continue to facilitate regular meetings of the Monterey Bay Area Snowy Plover Working Group to share
information and develop successful management strategies to increase the population and geographic
extent of snowy plovers throughout the Monterey Bay area. (Recover Plan task 3.1.1.)
2.2.2 Continue partnership with Point Reyes Bird Observatory to monitor snowy plover reproductive success
on the Refuge. Each nest will be closely monitored and data will be collected on adult breeding population
size, hatch rates, and fledge rates. All snowy plover chicks will be banded in order to collect information
on survival and movement patterns. (Recovery Plan task 1.1.)
Control Invasive Plants
2.2.3 Remove all European beach grass, iceplant, and other invasive plants from the foredunes of the Refuge
by 2017. Control invasive plants in fall and winter (outside the plover breeding season) using chemical and
mechanical means such as herbicide spraying, hand pulling, or heavy equipment. Techniques will be
chosen based on their likelihood of success, their financial and labor costs, and their low potential for
adverse environmental effects. (Recovery Plan task 1.2.5.1.)
Minimize Human Disturbance in Nesting Habitat
2.2.4 Install clearer ‘closed area’ signs at the boundary of sensitive dune habitat by 2003. These signs should be
similar to signs used at other plover nesting sites in the region. Install entrance signs, both at the parking
lot and at the northern and southern beach access points, that clearly state that dogs and horses are not
allowed on the Refuge (except dogs when hunting). (Recovery Plan tasks 1.3.1, 1.3.3, and 2.2.2.)
2.2.5 Develop and implement a docent program on the Refuge by 2006, in coordination with other agencies, to
educate Refuge users during the sensitive breeding season on the ecology of western snowy plovers and
the sensitivity of their habitat and nests to disturbance. (Recovery Plan tasks 5.4 and 5.5.)
2.2.6 Design and install interpretive signs at the entrance to and along the coastal dune trail by 2007 that
explain to visitors the ecology of the western snowy plover and the plover’s sensitivity to disturbance.
Coordinate with other agencies to design interpretive signs with a message that is consistent with
interpretive signs for snowy plovers at other sites in the Monterey Bay area. (Recovery Plan tasks 5.1,
5.3, and 5.4.)
2.2.7 By 2005, install symbolic fencing along beach trail around plover nests likely to be disturbed by the public;
if trespass into closed areas continues, install symbolic fencing along the edge of foredune habitat to
delineate sensitive areas and restrict human access. (Recovery Plan tasks 1.3.1 and 2.2.2.)
2.2.8 Increase enforcement of the closed dune habitat by increasing the presence of Service staff and law
enforcement officers on the Refuge to at least one day per week each (two person-days per week) during
the plover breeding season. (Recovery Plan tasks under 1.3 as well as 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.2.4.)
2.2.9 Negotiate a long-term lease with the State Lands Commission to manage the beach, foredunes, and
tidelands immediately west of the current boundary. (Recovery Plan tasks 1.3.1 and 2.2.2.)
Control Predators on Eggs and Chicks
2.2.10 Continue to implement the Monterey Predator Management Program* on the Refuge to control
predation on western snowy plovers by mammals. This program uses humane and target species–specific
methods to control problem mammalian predators, primarily red foxes, feral cats, and skunks. Nonlethal
methods (e.g., box-type traps, soft-catch padded leghold traps, hazing, bow nets, lures) will be used
whenever possible. Lethal methods, including shooting and euthanasia, will be used when necessary. The
Service will continue to coordinate this effort with other agencies such as the California Departments of
Parks and Recreation and Fish and Game, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services.
(Recovery Plan tasks 1.4.3. and 1.4.4.)
2.2.11 Revise the Goals in the Refuge’s Predator Management Plan to the following: “Maintain a 5-year
productivity of at least 1.0 fledged chick per male and 40 breeding adults to reflect best available scientific
information on requirements for achieving a self-sustaining population.”
Current and Future Refuge Management
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
The endangered Smith’s blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi)
Objective 2.2 – Enhance Western Snowy Plover Population (continued)
Facilitate Regional Management
2.2.12 Implement the Avian Predator Management Plan to provide for removal and relocation of individual
American kestrels, northern harriers, loggerhead shrikes, crows, ravens, and other problem avian
predators that threaten nesting western snowy plovers on the Refuge and adjacent lands (see Appendix
H for details of this proposed new project). (Recovery Plan tasks 1.4.2. and 1.4.4.)
* The details of the current Predator Management Program have been described and the environmental effects of
this program evaluated in a previous plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993a). This plan and the associated
NEPA document are available from the Service upon request.
Objective 2.3:
The Refuge will protect and will encourage protection of as much
of the coastal sand dune ecosystem in the Monterey Bay area as
possible.
Rationale: Protection and enhancement of coastal dune habitats is
a major ecoregional goal and an important recovery action for the
federally listed species that inhabit them. The coastal dune
ecosystem is a rare habitat in California and is under increasing
threats from development, off-highway vehicle use, and invasive
plants. The dune system in the Monterey Bay area is among those
in the State threatened by these factors (Big Sur Land Trust
1992). Coastal dunes north of the Refuge are largely protected by
State parks and an ecological reserve (Figure 6). However, dunes
south of the Refuge are largely unprotected; most dunes are
privately owned within the cities of Marina, Sand City, Seaside, or
Monterey. A 67% undivided interest in the Martin Dunes site,
immediately south of the Refuge, was purchased in 2000 by the
Big Sur Land Trust; several large private parcels between the
Martin Dunes property and Marina State Beach support sand
mining operations (California Department of Conservation 1992).
The majority of these parcels remain undeveloped and encompass
important coastal dune habitat that supports many listed species
(California Department of Conservation 1992; Big Sur Land Trust
1992).
Chapter 3
26 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
California brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis)
USFWS Photo
Objective 2.3 – Protect Coastal Sand Dune Ecosystem
Code Strategy
Protect Coastal Sand Dune Ecosystem
2.3.1 Establish partnerships with other landowners of coastal dune habitat to manage this habitat for
conservation (e.g., controlling invasive plants on coastal dunes) through cooperative agreements,
conservation easements, or financial incentives such as funding through the Partners for Wildlife
program. The Service could also provide technical assistance, volunteer labor, financial assistance, or
supplies to landowner partners.
2.3.2 Explore expansion of the current Refuge boundary by initiating the Service’s planning process for
expanding refuges, which culminates with a Land Protection Plan, Conceptual Management Plan, and
NEPA document.
Goal 3.0. Provide opportunities for safe, unique, wildlife-dependent
recreation when compatible with the purpose and goals of
the Refuge
Objective 3.1:
The Refuge will provide limited opportunities for hunting and
access to fishing when they are compatible with the purpose of the
Refuge and refuge goals.
Rationale: Hunting and fishing were identified in the
Improvement Act as priority uses for refuges when they are
compatible with refuge purposes. As a result, the Service
encourages hunting and fishing on many NWRs. Because
waterfowl hunting opportunities are limited in the Monterey Bay
area (see Chapter 4), the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
provides an important regional recreational opportunity for
waterfowl hunters, and is unique in the area in providing
opportunities for walk-in hunting (see Chapter 4). Hunting must
be limited on the Refuge because of its importance to special-status
species that are sensitive to disturbance. For example, the
California brown pelican roosts near the current hunt area (see
Chapter 4).
Current and Future Refuge Management
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Objective 3.1 – Provide Fishing and Waterfowl Hunting Access or Opportunities
Code Strategy
Hunting Opportunities
3.1.1 Reduce the hunting area on the Refuge from approximately 45 acres to approximately 38 acres (Figures 2
and 5) to reduce disturbance to pelicans roosting on the Refuge’s island in the Salinas River. Clearly
delineate hunt area with signs.
3.1.2 Annually monitor hunting use of the Refuge beginning in 2004. The information gathered will be used to
review and possibly revise Refuge hunting regulations to enhance the quality and safety of the Refuge’s
hunting program.
Surf Fishing Opportunities
3.1.3 Continue to provide access to opportunities for surf fishing between the high tide and surf zones.
Objective 3.2:
The Refuge will provide opportunities for wildlife observation and
photography that will enable visitors to experience and enjoy the
wildlife of the Refuge and develop an appreciation for wildlife
species and their unique habitats.
Rationale: The Improvement Act identified wildlife observation
and wildlife photography as priority public uses for NWRs.
Because these public uses are often compatible with wildlife
management goals, the Service encourages wildlife watching and
photography on almost all NWRs.
Objective 3.2 – Provide Wildlife Observation and Photography Opportunities
Code Strategy
Wildlife Observation and Photography
3.2.1 By 2005, design and install an orientation kiosk at the Refuge entrance that includes three signs: a sign
providing a trail map, trail information, and trail regulations; a sign that describes the National Wildlife
Refuge System and allowed uses on the Refuge; and interchangeable signs for hunting and snowy plover
nesting seasons.
3.2.2 By 2007, construct and maintain a 1,500-foot trail accessible to persons with disabilities from the parking
lot of the Refuge to the Salinas River. This trail would improve access to the river and to minimize the
impacts of public use through these sensitive habitats (Figure 5).
3.2.3 By 2007, improve the parking lot with a gravel or other unpaved surface to provide visitors with better
all-season parking at the Refuge.
3.2.4 Maintain trails on the Refuge and clearly delineate trail portion along the Salinas River.
3.2.5 Coordinate with the CCC and the Service’s Endangered Species Division on the prospect of routing the
proposed pedestrian Coastal Trail through the Refuge. Siting, design, and use of the trail would consider
potential effects on sensitive resources and would need to be compatible with the Refuge’s purpose.
Objective 3.3:
The Refuge will expand opportunities for interpretation and
environmental education that will foster visitors��� appreciation,
understanding, and stewardship of the Refuge’s habitats and
protected species.
Rationale: The Improvement Act identifies environmental
interpretation and environmental education as priority uses on
NWRs. Because these uses are often compatible with other refuge
management goals, the Service actively encourages environmental
education and interpretation on many refuges. The mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System encourages study sites, facilities,
and active support for educational programs that focus on fish and
Chapter 3
28 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Salinas River NWR CCP Planning Team on field visit
USFWS Photo
wildlife resources and environmental problems. High-quality
interpretive and educational opportunities will greatly enhance
visitors’ experience of the Refuge. Increased knowledge of Refuge
resources will ensure a more comprehensive understanding of
NWRs and their significance.
In addition, formal cultural resource surveys are highly
recommended for the Refuge to complement ongoing and proposed
biological and hydrologic studies; little information now exists on
the Refuge’s cultural resources, but activities included under all of
the management alternatives have the potential to affect cultural
resources. At a minimum, cultural resources inventories will be
required in areas where ground-disturbing activities are proposed,
including the use of prescribed fire and construction of trails or
other facilities. In addition, the World War II bomb shelter should
be formally recorded by a qualified cultural resources specialist.
Inventories, evaluation, or data recovery on cultural resources on
the Refuge could help address important academic questions for
the region. Any information gathered during cultural resource
surveys will be incorporated into interpretive and educational
material.
Current and Future Refuge Management
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Objective 3.3 – Provide Interpretation and Education
Code Strategy
Interpretation and Education
3.3.1 By 2007, design and install interpretive signs along existing trails to explain the ecology of native habitats
on the Refuge and the species within them.
3.3.2 Maintain and enhance existing environmental education partnerships with the California State University
and develop new partnerships with other local agencies, schools, universities, and organizations.
3.3.3 Develop environmental education and interpretive materials including a Refuge brochure, fact sheets on
specific species and habitats, and a guide for educators on endangered species issues.
3.3.4 Conduct a sitewide inventory of potential archaeological and historic resources on the Refuge; incorporate
information about these resources into interpretive and educational material (Strategies 3.3.1 and 3.3.3).
Note: Strategies 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 also help to achieve this Objective.
Objective 3.4:
The Refuge will take measures to ensure the safety of resources,
property, and visitors.
Rationale: Increased safety measures would enable the Refuge to
better fulfill its conservation mission, and would ensure improved
experiences for Refuge visitors.
Objective 3.4 – Ensure Safety of Resources, Property, and Visitors
Code Strategy
Increase Safety Measures
3.4.1 Increase law enforcement patrols.
3.4.2 Develop cooperative agreements with State and local agencies to support increased law enforcement
patrols.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures developed during the planning and environmental
review processes have been incorporated into this CCP. Moreover,
measures set forth in the Biological Opinion for the Salinas River
National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Monterey
County, California (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) have also been
incorporated. These measures are listed below by resource area. For
additional information regarding the impacts addressed by these
measures, the reader is directed to the draft CCP/EA (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2001.)
Water Quality/Contaminants
Herbicides will be applied at label rates and all label recommendations will
be followed. In addition, the following specific precautions will be taken to
avoid and minimize impacts related to use of herbicides.
O Herbicides will be selected based on the characteristics of each
treatment site, including its location relative to aquatic and wetland
habitats. (Existing management practice is to use Roundup™ at sites
>100 feet from open water or wetlands and Rodeo™ at sites within 100
feet of open water or wetlands.)
O No spraying will take place when wind velocities exceed 5 mph, when
vegetation is wet, or when precipitation is occurring or is forecast in the
following 24–36 hours. Wind meters and smoke devices will be used to
assess wind direction and wind speed; smoke from existing burning
Chapter 3
30 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
activity or smokestacks (such as those at Moss Landing) may be used to
check for the presence of inversion conditions, if the source of smoke is
near the application site and is similar in elevation to the application
site.
O Nozzles with orifice diameters >1/16 inch, or low-drift flat spray
nozzles, will be used. When appropriate, the lowest possible pressure
within the nozzle’s ideal range will be used.
O No spraying will occur if western snowy plovers are within 75 meters of
the application site. No spraying will occur until all western snowy
plover activity within 75 meters of the area to be treated has ceased for
7 days. Refuge staff will consult with Point Reyes Bird Observatory
who are monitoring plovers on the Refuge to ensure that the species is
absent from the work area.
O No spraying will occur in areas where endangered plants or host plants
for Smith’s blue butterfly may be affected by drift. Invasive non-natives
in these areas will be mechanically removed.
Hazardous Materials and Safety Issues
Closed area signs posted in the northwest corner of the Refuge will
incorporate a warning about the low risk of encountering unexploded
ordnance from past military activities.
Biological Resources
Vegetation. The Service will maintain a trail through the grassland to the
hunt area and will install and maintain signs marking the hunt area
boundary. In addition, by 2007, interpretive signs and an orientation kiosk
will be installed on the Refuge to inform visitors about the Refuge’s
habitats and wildlife and ways of avoiding adverse impacts, including
staying on trails. The trails and interpretive signs will minimize
disturbance to grassland and riparian habitats by providing easy access to
the hunt area and by interpreting the importance and sensitivity of Refuge
habitats and restoration efforts. Similarly, the trail to the beach will have
symbolic cable fencing and interpretive signs. If necessary, cable fence will
be installed along the foredune boundary (along the beach) as well.
Wildlife. The Service will maintain a trail through the grassland to the hunt
area and will install and maintain signs marking the hunt area boundary.
In addition, by 2007, interpretive signs and an orientation kiosk will be
installed on the Refuge to inform visitors about the Refuge’s habitats and
wildlife and ways of avoiding adverse impacts, including staying on trails.
The trails and interpretive signs will minimize disturbance to wildlife in
upland, riparian, and aquatic habitats by providing easy access to the hunt
area and by interpreting the importance and sensitivity of Refuge habitats
and restoration efforts.
Interpretive signage, including the kiosk, will stress the need to avoid
littering on the Refuge.
Hunters will be permitted to have no more than 25 shells in their
possession while on the Refuge. This will discourage hunters from taking
long shots, reducing noise-related disturbance of wildlife and decreasing
the possibility of target misidentification and take of non-target species.
Waterfowl hunters will be required to use only approved nontoxic shots
while on the Refuge.
The Biological Opinion imposes a series of measures for addressing
impacts, including take, that could affect western snowy plover, brown
pelican, and Smith’s blue butterfly.
Current and Future Refuge Management
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Incidental Take. The Refuge will contact the Service whenever a dead
western snowy plover or abandoned nest, a dead brown pelican, or a
dead Smith’s blue butterfly is found and the cause of death or injury is
unknown or may be due to the Refuge’s activities. Provided that
protective measures proposed by the Refuge and the terms and
conditions of the BO are being fully implemented, operations need not
cease while the cause of mortality is being determined. Once the cause
of death or injury has been determined, the Service shall decide, in
cooperation with the Refuge, whether any additional protective
measures are required to address the cause of the loss of the western
snowy plover or nest, brown pelican, or Smith’s blue butterfly.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures.
1. Only qualified biologists shall monitor the status of the
western snowy plover, brown pelican, and Smith’s blue
butterfly on the Refuge or monitor the installation or
maintenance of symbolic fencing within western snowy plover
nesting habitat during the breeding season.
2. The Refuge shall use well-defined operational procedures,
education programs, and qualified personnel to minimize the
incidental take of western snowy plovers, brown pelicans, and
Smith’s blue butterflies during resource management and
public use actions at the Refuge.
3. The Refuge shall ensure that fencing or signs do not promote
avian predator presence on the Refuge.
Terms and Conditions.
1. The following term and condition implements reasonable and
prudent measure 1:
a. Only qualified biologists covered under a section 10(a)(1)(A)
recovery permit or approved by the Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office shall monitor the status of the western snowy
plover, brown pelican, and Smith’s blue butterfly on the
Refuge or monitor the installation and maintenance of
symbolic fencing within western snowy plover nesting
habitat during the breeding season. The Refuge shall
submit the credentials of individuals it wishes to conduct
these activities to the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office for
review and approval at least 15 days prior to the onset of
these activities. Once the Service has approved an
individual to conduct these activities, this person may direct
nonapproved individuals in these activities while on site.
2. The following terms and conditions implement reasonable and
prudent measure 2:
a. The Refuge shall instruct Refuge personnel and contractors
on how best to conduct activities and reduce impacts on the
listed species present on the Refuge before carrying out
resource management and public use actions.
Chapter 3
32 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
b. The Refuge shall train volunteer docents to identify all the
listed species and their habitat on the Refuge, including
western snowy plover nests, chicks, and eggs, to minimize
the risk of crushing any that may be outside of exclosures.
In addition, volunteer docents shall not be allowed to enter
nesting areas unless properly trained and permitted to do
so.
3. The following terms and conditions implement reasonable and
prudent measure 3:
a. The Refuge shall modify signs and fencing with anti-perching
material to discourage perching if avian predators
are determined to be frequenting them.
Disposition of Dead or Injured Specimens. Upon locating a dead
or injured brown pelican, western snowy plover, or Smith’s blue
butterfly, initial notification must be made in writing to the
Service’s Division of Law Enforcement in Torrance, California
(370 Amapola Avenue, Suite 114, Torrance, CA 90501) and by
telephone and writing to the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office in
Ventura, California (2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA
93003, [805] 644-1766) within 3 working days of the finding. The
report shall include the date, time, location of the carcass, a
photograph, cause of death, if known, and any other pertinent
information.
Care shall be taken in handling dead specimens to preserve
biological material in the best possible state for later analysis.
Should any injured birds survive, the Service should be contacted
regarding their final disposition. The remains of intact brown
pelicans, western snowy plovers, and Smith’s blue butterflies shall
be placed with the California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate
Park, San Francisco, California; or the Museum of Vertebrate
Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California.
In the case of take or suspected take of listed species not
exempted in the BO, the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office shall be
notified within 24 hours.
Reporting Requirement. The Refuge shall provide a written
annual report to the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office within 90
days following the end of each year that this BO is in effect. The
report shall document the number of western snowy plovers,
brown pelicans, and Smith’s blue butterflies killed or injured by
the proposed activities. The report shall also include a
quantification of dune habitat (including numbers of Monterey
gilia, Monterey spineflower, and Smith’s blue butterfly host
plants) disturbed or degraded by human disturbance or the spread
of invasive nonnative vegetation. The report shall also contain a
discussion of activities that resulted in disturbance to nesting
western snowy plovers and brown pelicans; the results of
biological surveys and sighting records; the results of
management activities carried out on the Refuge; and any other
pertinent information. This document will assist the Ventura Fish
and Wildlife Office and the Refuge in evaluating future measures
for the conservation of the species during ongoing activities and
for future projects.
Current and Future Refuge Management
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Cultural Resources
All undertakings, including but not limited to ground-disturbing activities
and prescribed burns, will be coordinated with the Service’s Regional
Archaeologist, in order to preserve the Refuge’s archaeologic and historic
resources of the Refuge. Following are specific guidelines that may apply,
depending on site-specific conditions.
O A cultural resources survey by a qualified archaeologist may be
required in areas where a ground-disturbing activity or prescribed
burning is proposed. If burning is proposed entirely within a flood zone
or in a previously disked or plowed area, or if burning has been an
ongoing practice on the site, a cultural resources survey may not be
required. However, cultural resources surveys will likely be necessary
for all burns on upland sites, and for burns that require excavation
(scraping, plowing, or disking) to establish a fireline. In some cases, it
may be appropriate to conduct cultural resources survey work after a
prescribed burn has been completed, because (1) visibility of artifacts or
other resources may be increased after burning, and (2) artifacts may
be more vulnerable to vandalism or theft when exposed by burning.
O As required by the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (25 USC 3001 et seq. or 43 CFR 10), any
construction or ground-disturbing activity on the Refuge with the
potential to disturb human remains, burial objects, sacred objects, or
objects of cultural patrimony will be planned and implemented in
consultation with affected Tribes.
O If potentially significant artifacts are found during any activity on the
Refuge, work will cease within 100 feet of the find and access will be
restricted until a qualified archaeologist and members of local Tribes
can assess the significance of the find and propose appropriate methods
of treatment, as required by NAGPRA.
O If human remains are found during any activity on the Refuge, work
will cease within 100 feet of the find and access will be restricted, and
the Monterey County Coroner will been informed of the discovery,
under Public Resources Code Section 5050.5. If no investigation of the
cause of death is required, remains will be treated in accordance with
the requirements of NAGPRA.
Chapter 3
34 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Saline pond on Salinas River NWR
USFWS Photo
Chapter 4. Existing
Conditions
This chapter describes the characteristics and resources of the Refuge. It
specifically addresses physical resources, biological resources, cultural
resources, socioeconomic resources, and recreational opportunities.
Physical Resources
Climate
Like the rest of the California coast, northwestern Monterey County
enjoys a Mediterranean climate, with dry, warm summers and moderately
wet, mild winters. Precipitation in the Refuge area averages approximately
16 inches per year, 90% of which falls between November and April (Soil
Conservation Service 1978). Prevailing winds throughout most of the year
are northwesterly. During the late summer and fall, prevailing winds are
southeasterly.
Surface Hydrology
The Refuge is located at the western (downstream) end of the Salinas
River watershed. This watershed, between the Santa Lucia and Diablo
ranges, is approximately 150 miles long and averages 20–40 miles wide. It
is one of the larger watersheds in California, draining an area of 4,231
square miles.
Surface drainage in the vicinity of the Refuge is dominated by the
gradients associated with the Salinas River and the Pacific Ocean. Much of
the surface runoff in the project area drains in a general northward
direction into the Salinas River. Some runoff may also drain west, directly
into the Pacific Ocean, via overland flow or via subsurface flow under the
dune lands. In addition to natural runoff, off-site drainage from
agricultural lands south of the project site is conveyed northward into the
Refuge. Agricultural runoff apparently flows into the Refuge’s large saline
pond; if the capacity of the saline pond is exceeded, runoff overflows
northward into the Salinas River.
Chapter 4
36 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
The Refuge’s saline pond is likely a remnant of an abandoned meander of
the Salinas River. Based on analysis of historic U.S. Coast and Geodetic
Survey maps, the pond has existed since at least 1857 (John Gilchrist &
Associates et al. 1997) and was connected to the Salinas River until 1913.
Since its formation, the pond has gradually shrunk in size and depth,
probably in part because of gradual infiltration and in part because of
encroachment by the Refuge’s eastward- migrating dunes. Nonetheless,
this 15-acre pond and associated salt marsh are noteworthy, as there are
few other saline ponds of this type on the central California coast.
In addition to agricultural runoff, the Refuge’s saline pond also receives
input from rainfall, from seawater that washes over the dunes, from
groundwater, and, during major floods, from the Salinas River. The depth
of the pond varies in response to the balance among these factors. Between
1989 and 1991, the depth of the pond ranged from 0.5 foot to 2.0 feet; the
pond was nearly dry in November 1990. As water levels drop, salt from
seawater input concentrates in the pond. Water salinity in the pond ranges
from 1 part per thousand (ppt) immediately after heavy rains to 150 ppt
during prolonged droughts; for comparison, the salinity of seawater is
about 35 ppt.
The Salinas River. Like all rivers, the Salinas River is a dynamic system.
Under natural conditions, its course changes because of gradual, ongoing
processes of erosion and sediment deposition. During major floods, these
processes may be accelerated, resulting in rapid shifts in the location of the
active river channel.
Historic maps of the Salinas area show that the course of the Salinas River
has altered significantly over the past two centuries (John Gilchrist &
Associates et al. 1997). In 1857, the river entered what is now the Refuge
from the northeast rather than the southeast. By 1933 the river occupied a
channel similar in location and configuration to its present course, which
describes a gentle northwestward curve across the Refuge. Since at least
the 1930s, the south bank of the river (the outside of the curve) has slowly
eroded, while the north bank (the inside of the curve) has built southward
through the steady accumulation of sediment. Thus, the Salinas River
channel has shifted to the southwest, farther onto the Refuge site; the net
result has been to reduce the amount of land and increase the amount of
open water within the Refuge boundary. This natural process of channel
migration is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.
In an attempt to slow the rate of erosion along the Salinas River’s south
bank, erosion-control structures were installed along the river near the
Highway 1 bridge immediately upstream from the Refuge. Some of the
structures have failed and been washed away; others have succeeded in
slowing erosion locally. The width of the stabilized reach of the channel has
decreased from ~600 feet in 1933 to ~150 feet today, in part because the
stabilized south bank is prevented from migrating laterally while sediment
deposition continues on the north bank (John Gilchrist & Associates et al.
1997). Flow diversions may also have contributed to the decrease in
channel width.
On the Refuge, the Salinas River’s south bank is unprotected and
experiences significant erosion. One goal of riparian restoration work along
the south bank of the river in the Refuge is to slow the rate of bank
erosion. The Biological Resources section of this chapter contains
additional information on riparian restoration on the Refuge.
Existing Conditions
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Riparian restoration along Salinas River
Jones & Stokes Photo
Flooding:
The central California coast, including the Refuge, experiences annual
flooding related to winter storms originating over the Pacific Ocean.
Extended periods of heavy rainfall produce floods characterized by a rapid
rise in streamflow. The subsequent decrease in streamflow may be almost
as rapid; however, a series of storms, or a single stalled stormfront, can
produce large, catastrophic riverine floods. Flooding in the coastal areas of
Monterey County is also associated with simultaneous occurrence of very
high tides and large waves. Property damage results from erosion,
flotation, and inundation, and from the deposition of debris on downstream
properties.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate
Maps indicate that, except for the coastal dunes and the upper terrace
deposits along the site’s southern boundary, much of the Refuge is within
the 100-year floodplain of the Salinas River. This means that under natural
conditions much of the Refuge should be inundated every 100 years on the
average. The 100-year water surface elevation ranges from 8.8 feet above
mean sea level near the mouth of the Salinas River to 10.6 feet above mean
sea level at the eastern boundary of the Refuge (Federal Emergency
Management Agency 1991).
Lagoon Breaching:
The mouth of the Salinas River experiences intermittent partial blockage
as a result of natural sandbar development. This causes water levels in the
Salinas River Lagoon behind the bar to rise; agricultural lands to the north
of the Salinas River begin to flood when the stage in the lagoon exceeds
approximately 5.5 feet. To prevent flooding, the Monterey County Water
Resources Agency (MCWRA) periodically breaches the sandbar in the
winter from the north side of the Salinas River Lagoon through adjacent
State property according to the Salinas River Lagoon Management and
Enhancement Plan. (John Gilchrist & Associates et al. 1997.) Though this
activity occurs on State-owned lands, the Refuge does coordinate with the
MCWRA and is a member of the Salinas River Lagoon Task Force.
Chapter 4
38 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
MCWRA breaches the rivermouth under the following conditions:
O When flows of approximately 500 cfs or greater are forecast at the U.S.
Geological Survey gage at Spreckles;
O When forecast extended flows might cause flooding on nearby farmland
if the Salinas River mouth is not breached;
O When the water level in the Salinas River Lagoon is high, and
continuous or imminent river flow into the lagoon is forecast; or
O When a forecast by the MCWRA’s ALERT flood warning system
indicates that flow into the Salinas River Lagoon will result in flooding if
the rivermouth is not breached.
It takes approximately 24–48 hours to mobilize and clear a channel
through the sandbar with a bulldozer (John Gilchrist & Associates et al.
1997). The timing of breaching affects both water level and water salinity
in the lagoon.
Water Quality. Water quality in the Salinas River has been altered by a
number of practices, including:
O Surface-water diversion,
O Groundwater pumping,
O Diking and drainage of wetlands,
O Agriculture, and
O Contamination from industrial point sources and from urban runoff.
Alteration of flows alters the salt balance in the Salinas River Lagoon and
adjacent marshes, but the greatest threats to water quality in the lagoon
and the saline pond on the Refuge are nutrients and pesticides from
adjacent and upstream agricultural lands. At present, it is unknown
whether the Refuge receives these contaminants from agricultural runoff.
Excess nutrients may cause eutrophication, or over-enrichment in
nutrients, producing excess growth of algae and mortality of other
organisms; this in turn decreases concentrations of dissolved oxygen and
contributes to noxious odors. Persistent pesticides in the area may include
DDT, toxaphene, dieldrin, endrin, aldrin, and endosulfan, all of which have
been used extensively in the Salinas Valley. The use of these pesticides has
been banned in California, but they were used for many years, and are
known to have been used extensively in the Salinas Valley (John Gilchrist
& Associates et al. 1997). These pesticides have been linked to various
problems in local wildlife, including widespread mortality resulting from
spills, reproductive failure caused by bioaccumulation, behavioral and
physiological problems, decreased food consumption, and increased
susceptibility to predation and cold.
Geology
Geologic Setting. The Refuge is located in a portion of the California Coast
Ranges referred to as Salinia or the Salinian block. Basement rocks in the
Coast Ranges are as old as Mesozoic (65–245 million years old) (e.g.,
Jennings and Strand 1959), and record the long and complex history of the
California continental margin. However, the Coast Range itself is a
relatively recent feature. Uplift of the Coast Range probably began no
earlier than about 5–8 million years ago (Buising and Walker 1995,
Atwater and Stock 1998), and uplift of some parts of the range has
continued into the past 2 million years (Burgmann et al. 1994, Sedlock
1995). The region is also currently experiencing active strike-slip tectonics
related to the San Andreas fault system.
Existing Conditions
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
The Salinian block, bounded on the landward side by the San Andreas
fault, and on the oceanward side by the offshore San Gregorio-Hosgri fault
system, is a geologic orphan, sliced off of rocks to the south and slid into its
current location by large-scale translation along the San Andreas fault
(Mattinson and James 1985). Unlike adjacent portions of the Coast
Ranges, which are largely underlain by basement rocks belonging to the
Franciscan complex, Salinia is characterized by a basement assemblage of
plutonic (granitic-granodioritic) and metamorphic rock (e.g., Mattinson and
James 1985). In the vicinity of the Refuge, this crystalline basement is
overlain by terrestrial and marine sedimentary strata that range from
Miocene to Pliocene (approximately 23 million years to 1.6 million years) in
age. The Refuge itself is situated primarily on inactive dune deposits of
Pleistocene age (1.6 million to approximately 10,000 years old), on active
coastal deposits (including active dunes) and on active alluvium of the
Salinas River floodplain (see Jennings and Strand 1959).
Seismic Activity. The Refuge is located in a seismically active region.
Although the Refuge does not encompass any active faults (defined by the
California Division of Mines and Geology as faults that have experienced
motion in the last 11,000 years) (Hart and Bryant 1997), the San Andreas
fault zone is located less than 15 miles northeast of the Refuge. Several
strong earthquakes have occurred within a 50-mile radius of the Refuge.
The closest recorded strong earthquake occurred in 1910, approximately 8
miles north of the Refuge; it measured 5.3 on the Richter scale (Ellsworth
1990). The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, with a Richter magnitude of 6.9,
was epicentered approximately 20 miles northwest of the Refuge
(http://www.quake.usgs.gov/prepare/ index.html, accessed June 16, 2001).
Because of its proximity to active fault strands, the Refuge can be expected
to experience ongoing earthquake activity in the future.
Soils
Overview of Soils on the Refuge. Soils in the Refuge area include the
following mapped units: Alviso silty clay loam, coastal beaches, Metz fine
sandy loam, Mocho silty loam, Mocho silty clay loam, and Pico fine sandy
loam (Soil Conservation Service 1978). Table 4 summarizes the
characteristics of the Refuge’s soil units.
Soils of the Refuge include floodplain and tidal basin soils, as well as a
substantial area of coastal dunes. The Refuge’s dune lands represent the
northern tip of a dune system that extends more than 12 miles south of the
Refuge, reflecting the combined influences of the Salinas River, coastal
waves and tides, and prevailing winds. Sand is supplied primarily by
longshore transport of sediment delivered by rivers to the north (including
the Salinas River) and is reworked and sculpted into dune forms largely by
onshore winds. High storm tides subject the dunes to intermittent wave
erosion.
The Refuge’s dune system is highly dynamic, shifting its position and form
in response to changes in the balance between sand supply, wind transport,
and wave erosion. Analysis of historic maps shows that between 1937 and
1987, the beach and dunes on the Refuge migrated landward
approximately 300–400 feet to cover approximately 13 acres of the salt
marsh and the saline pond. This change is equivalent to an average of 6–10
feet of landward migration per year. This rate of movement is not unique
to the Refuge; similar rates have been measured in the dunes and beaches
in nearby Marina, Seaside, and Monterey (John Gilchrist & Associates et
al. 1997).
Chapter 4
40 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Central dune scrub habitat on Salinas River NWR
Jones & Stokes Photo
Table 4. Soils of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge.
Soil Unit Description Permeability/Runoff Erosion Hazard Depth to Water Table
Alviso silty
clay loam
Typically <20 inches thick; occurs in basins
and on tidal flats.
Low/Very Slow
(Very poorly drained
under natural conditions.)
Low 6–12 inches
Coastal
beaches
Characterized by a narrow sandy strand and
adjacent sand dunes; partly inundated
during high tide and exposed during low
tide. May consist of sand, gravel, and
cobbles, in any combination.
Very Rapid/Very Slow Very High
Dune lands Gently sloping to steep landforms composed
of loose, wind-deposited quartz and feldspar
sands.
Very Rapid/Very Slow Very High (subject
to wind erosion)
Metz fine
sandy loam
Nearly level floodplain deposit. Moderate/Slow Slight, but subject
to effects of wind
Typically > 60 inches
Mocho silty
loam
Formed on floodplains in alluvium derived
primarily from sedimentary rocks.
Moderate/Slow Slight Typically > 60 inches
Mocho silty
clay loam
Formed on floodplains in alluvium derived
primarily from sedimentary rocks.
Slow/Slow Slight Typically > 60 inches
Pico fine
sandy loam
Formed on floodplains in alluvium derived
primarily from sedimentary rocks.
Moderately Rapid/Slow Slight, but subject
to effects of wind
Typically > 60 inches
Source: Soil Conservation Service 1978
Soils-Related Hazards on the Refuge. The following paragraphs briefly
discuss soils-related hazards that may affect land use decisions on the
Refuge.
Expansive soils contain clay minerals (the so-called “swelling clays”) that
take on water and expand when wetted and contract again as they dry.
Structures built on expansive soils—for example, buildings, pavements,
and embankments—may be damaged by the movement and settlement
that accompany this shrink-swell behavior. At the Refuge, the Alviso,
Existing Conditions
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Mocho, and Pico soils exhibit moderate to high shrink-swell potential; the
area’s other soils have low shrink-swell potential (Soil Conservation
Service 1978).
Erosive soils are soils that are particularly vulnerable to erosion by water,
typically because of loose textures (low clay content) and/or steep slopes.
Excessive erosion generally occurs when human intervention accelerates
the natural erosion process. Removal of vegetation and decrease in
permeable surface area, both of which are common corollaries of
development, can increase surface runoff, which may in turn increase
erosion rates. Increased erosion generally causes increased sediment
loading in area creeks and rivers, and may result in gullying that
undermines remaining vegetation. Some of the Refuge’s soils occur on
steep slopes or have loose textures, and as a result exhibit moderate to
high erosion potential. In addition, the Refuge’s coastal beaches, dune
lands, and sandy soils are subject to wind erosion.
Corrosive soils are soils whose chemistry is such that they may react with
and damage a variety of construction materials when wet. Corrosivity of
soils to steel is related to soil moisture, total acidity, and electrical
conductivity of the soil; corrosivity of soils to concrete is related to the
sulfate content and acidity of the soil. Unless precautions are taken,
corrosive soils can eventually cause foundation and structural damage. In
the Refuge area, Alviso soils are typically highly corrosive to uncoated
steel and concrete and Metz, Mocho, and Pico soils are corrosive to
uncoated steel (Soil Conservation Service 1978).
Air Quality
The Refuge is located in California’s North-Central Coast Air Basin
(NCCAB). The NCCAB is subject to State and Federal air quality
standards. Areas that do not meet the standards are designated as
nonattainment areas, and those that do comply are designated as
attainment areas.
The primary types of pollutants regulated by State and Federal law
include:
O Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10),
O Ozone,
O Carbon monoxide (CO),
O Oxides of nitrogen (NOx),
O Sulfur dioxide (SO2), and
O Lead.
The NCCAB is an attainment area for both State and Federal CO, NOx,
SO2, and lead ambient standards, and for Federal PM10 and ozone
standards. It is a nonattainment area for State PM10 and ozone ambient
standards.
The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (Air District) is
the local agency responsible for ensuring compliance with State and
Federal air quality standards in the Refuge area (see California Air
Resources Board website, http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm). It is
unlikely that Refuge operations would affect ozone levels. However,
Refuge management activities that alter the area’s hydrology or vegetative
cover may expose soil to blowing wind, possibly increasing PM10
emissions.
Chapter 4
42 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Hazardous Materials and Contaminants
Because of both past and current land uses, hazardous materials or
contaminants may be present on the Refuge. Potential sources of
hazardous materials or contaminants include the Refuge’s past military
use, past and current agricultural operations, and current mosquito control
operations.
Military Use. Between 1942 and 1973, the U.S. military operated several
facilities on what are now Refuge lands (see United States Military at the
Refuge in Cultural Resources below for a summary of the Refuge’s
military history). As discussed below, the exact nature of these operations
is unknown. However, when lands that now make up the Refuge were
transferred from the Army to the Service, the Army removed several small
facilities built in 1945 during the Navy’s tenure, including a power
substation, a garage, a bomb shelter, and aboveground features associated
with two water wells (185 and 196 feet deep, respectively). Records of the
removal of these structures provide some indication of the site’s former
land uses and give some suggestion of the types of contaminants or
hazardous materials that may remain on the Refuge as a result of former
military operations. Additionally, the Department of Defense recently
assessed the potential for contamination on the Refuge under the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 1999). Their assessment consisted of a review of the site’s
history, interviews with individuals familiar with the site and its history,
and a site visit to perform random visual search and a metal detector
survey.
Records show that the Army had an officers’ hunting club at the Refuge
site. This may have resulted in some level of lead contamination, but the
current concentration of lead in the site’s soils and in the sediments of the
Salinas River Lagoon is unknown.
Part of what is now the Refuge was used by the Navy for aerial bombing
practice. The target was a 550-foot long and 65-foot wide silhouette of a
cruiser located behind the active dunes in the northwestern corner of the
Refuge. Records indicate that the bombs used contained small spotting
charges rather than explosives. In addition, other sites in the vicinity of the
Refuge were used for shore bombardment practice by Navy ships;
however, the Refuge lands were not used for that purpose. Since the
establishment of the Refuge, there has been only one incident of anyone
finding live ordnance. This occurred in late 1997 when a visitor found a live
5-inch Navy projectile on the beach. The explosive was detonated on-site
by an expert from Moffett Field. Because the Refuge was not used for
shore bombardment, the projectile likely washed ashore in the past and
was uncovered by the tides. The random visual and metal detector survey
conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1998 did not detect any
further ordnance, spent or live, on the Refuge (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 1999). A second site visit was conducted by the Corps on June
6, 2001 to investigate the potential for unexploded ordnance or other
hazardous material on the Refuge; none was found.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers uses two measures to prioritize further
investigation and remediation of former defense sites: hazard severity and
hazard probability. Based on their historic investigation, interviews, and
Existing Conditions
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
site visit, the Corps gave the Refuge a hazard severity value of 6 on a scale
of 0 (lowest severity) to 60 (highest severity), which represents “marginal
severity.” The site was given a hazard probability value of 13 on a scale of
0 (lowest probability) to 30 (highest probability). Overall, the site was given
a risk assessment code of 4, which is the lowest code that corresponds to a
recommendation for action by the Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1999). The June 2001 site visit confirmed the very low probability of
hazards on the Refuge. The Refuge may be investigated further by the
Corps, but in view of the low risk rating and resulting low priority, it may
be many years before this investigation is conducted. The former target
range is already closed to the public to protect sensitive habitats.
In 1992, a 3,000-gallon underground storage tank was discovered in the
southeast corner of the Refuge, approximately 500 feet from the Salinas
River and less than one mile from the Pacific Ocean. The tank contained a
mixture of diesel fuel and water that had leaked in over time. The tank, an
associated pipeline, and the surrounding soil were subsequently removed
from the site in June 1997. As part of this remediation, 250 cubic yards of
soil were cleaned and spread on the site and 13,300 gallons of groundwater
were pumped out of the area and taken to an off-site disposal facility
(Regional Water Quality Control Board 1998, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 1999). The excavation site was backfilled with clean soil. The
Monterey County Department of Health confirmed the completion of site
remediation and site closure in a letter dated February 12, 1999.
Agriculture. Past and current agricultural use in the area is also a potential
source of contamination on the Refuge. Prior to 1973, part of the Refuge
was in agricultural production. The Refuge receives runoff from
agricultural areas to the south and across the Salinas River to the north.
As a result, the saline pond and Salinas Lagoon are probably
intermittently contaminated by pesticides and nutrients from upstream
agricultural lands. In addition, because the Refuge is located at the
downstream end of the highly agricultural Salinas River Valley, the
finer-textured soils on the Refuge may contain persistent pesticides such
as DDT, toxaphene, dieldrin, endrin, aldrin, and endosulfan (now banned in
California).
After heavy flooding in 1995, an area along the Salinas River was exposed
and found to contain debris and waste that may have been a former small
landfill (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1999). The origins of this site are
unknown but it may have been established during agricultural operations
on the Refuge prior to 1973. There are no records of an active landfill in
the records of military use of the Refuge. The possible landfill site has not
been observed in the years since 1995, possibly because the debris has
washed into the Salinas Lagoon.
Mosquito Control. The Northern Salinas Valley Mosquito Abatement
District (NSVMAD) has been conducting mosquito control at the Refuge
for many years. Chemical spraying is conducted almost exclusively by
helicopter. On rare occasions, when the treatment area is small, spraying is
done by hand. Aerial applications are made from an altitude of 5–10 feet at
an airspeed of 55 mph. Swath width is 66 feet, so several passes are made.
Treatment duration is approximately 15–20 minutes.
Chapter 4
44 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Mosquito populations are related to precipitation amounts. In years when
rainfall is below normal, mosquito populations are low and control is
reduced or nonexistent. Conversely, when rainfall is above normal,
mosquito populations are larger and mosquito control is increased. In the
last six years, mosquito control applications occurred approximately 2–4
times per year. Spraying typically occurs from December through April in
the saline pond and salt marsh habitat on the Refuge.
Since 1996, NSVMAD has used either VectoBac© G or 12AS to treat all or
most of the Refuge. BothVectoBac© G and 12AS are aqueous suspensions
of Bacillus thuringiensis, an insecticidal bacterium. The strain used by
NSVMAD specifically targets mosquitoes, black flies, and fungus gnats
and is non-toxic to humans, wildlife, and plants (National Integrated Pest
Management Network, http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/IPM/, accessed
June 2001). Two other chemicals could be used by NSVMAD to increase
effectiveness: Golden Bear 1111, a petroleum distillate, and Altosid ALL,
otherwise known as S-methoprene. Material selection is based on efficacy,
mosquito instar present, water temperature, and species of mosquito.
Currently, NSVMAD does not have a Special Use Permit from the Service.
Typically, they notify the Refuge 1–2 days before spraying. In the future,
the Service will require a Special Use Permit each year that NSVMAD
conducts spraying. This permit will stipulate that all control work will be
carried out in conformance with pre-approved Pesticide Use Proposals and
Section 7 Endangered Species consultations.
NSVMAD will notify the Refuge prior to monitoring or treating so that
Refuge staff can determine whether treatment will be allowed based on the
presence of nesting birds. The Refuge recognizes that a notification period
of several days prior to treatment may allow larval development of
mosquitos and precipitate the use of more harmful treatment materials
(e.g., Golden Bear, a pupicidal oil). Therefore, NSVMAD will be required
to notify the Refuge prior to monitoring/sampling efforts so Refuge staff
will be aware that treatment may be imminent. In all cases, the permittee
will give as much notice to the Refuge as is possible, and at least 24 hours
notice. Spraying is not allowed during the shorebird nesting season (March
15–August 31) if avocets or stilts are known to be incubating or if snowy
plovers with chicks are utilizing the pond. Terms and conditions of the
Special Use Permit will be subject to annual modification if helicopter
disturbance is considered to interfere with or detract from the fulfillment
of the purpose of the Refuge. For more information on this activity, see
Appendix G (Compatibility Determinations).
Biological Resources at the Refuge
Historic and Regional Context
Historic accounts describe the Salinas Valley area as a rich patchwork of
shallow lakes, sloughs, vernal pools, marsh vegetation, expanses of
grassland, and riparian corridors. The Salinas River was part of a large
wetland ecosystem that included Elkhorn Slough and the Pajaro River.
This wetland once supported California grizzly bear, tule elk, and a great
number and diversity of waterbirds.
Beginning with early European settlement in California, extensive areas
were converted for agricultural purposes. By the early 1900s, much of the
land in the lower Salinas Valley was under agricultural cultivation. A series
of large finger lakes and associated wetlands had been drained, vernal
pools were converted to cropland, and riparian habitat was removed. The
Salinas and Pajaro Rivers were channelized and their wetlands drained,
Existing Conditions
1The vegetation classification used in this CCP is based on Holland (1986).
A matrix correlating the Refuge’s vegetation types with the National Vegetation
Classification System (Federal Geographic Data Committee 1997) is presented in
Appendix D.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
fragmenting the wetland ecosystem and reducing its size. The conversion
of valuable wildlife habitat to cropland and pastures resulted in substantial
adverse effects on the area’s wildlife. The reduction in wetland area led to a
significant drop in the numbers and diversity of the area’s bird population
(particularly waterbirds and neotropical migrant species), the extirpation
of bear and tule elk from the region, and the probable loss of many vernal
pool species.
More than 90% of the Salinas Valley’s original wetlands have been
converted to agricultural production. Lands that now make up the Refuge
were spared from conversion because of their close proximity to the ocean,
their susceptibility to flooding, and their former military ownership. The
Refuge is now one of only a few places in the area where a significant
expanse of wetland and riparian habitat remains.
Today, despite its small size, the Refuge supports some of the most
important habitat for wildlife on the central California coast (John Gilchrist
& Associates et al. 1997). Its importance reflects its unique wildlife and
diversity of habitats, as well as the lack of remaining wetland habitat
elsewhere on the central coast. The Refuge now plays a key role in
protecting and sustaining wildlife resources, including the many migratory
birds that follow the Pacific Flyway. The Riparian Bird Conservation
Plan (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture 2000) recognizes the Salines River
as a Portfolio Site, important because it contains the largest remaining
riparian habitat in the central coast region of the state and historically
supported least Bell’s vireo, a species listed as endangered under the ESA.
Moreover, the Southern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Plan (Page and
Shuford 2000) identifies the Salinas River mouth as a wetland of
importance to shorebirds, accommodating up to 1,000 shorebirds in fall and
spring.
Vegetation
The Refuge supports seven different types of natural plant communities
that are typical of coastal dune, salt marsh, riparian, and disturbed
environments on the central California coast (Figure 7).1 The diversity of
plant communities on the Refuge reflects variations in the site’s soils,
topography, and hydrology. Wetland plant communities are found along
the Salinas River, Salinas River Lagoon, saline pond, and in low-lying
areas in the central portion of the Refuge. Wetland communities include
northern coastal salt marsh, coastal brackish marsh, and central coast
riparian scrub. Upland plant communities are found at higher elevations in
the Refuge. The Refuge’s sand dune complex, which includes both active
and stabilized dunes and consists of sands deposited by the Salinas River
and redistributed by wind and wave action, provides the major topographic
relief in the Refuge. The plant communities of the active dune and beach
areas include central foredunes and central dune scrub. The dominant
plant community in the Refuge is coyote brush scrub, which occupies
stabilized dune uplands over most of the southern portion of the Refuge.
Some of the plant species found on the Refuge are listed in Table C-1 in
Appendix C.
Chapter 4
46 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Vegetation in Wetland Areas. Vegetation in the Refuge’s wetland areas
includes northern coastal salt marsh and coast brackish marsh, as well as
freshwater riparian vegetation such as central coast arroyo willow riparian
forest and central coast riparian scrub.
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh:
Northern coastal salt marsh is limited to areas with saturated soils and a
narrow range of water salinities and water depths. This plant community
is typically found at elevations between 0.75 and 2 m above mean sea level
(msl) on the Refuge (John Gilchrist & Associates et al. 1997). Much of the
central portion of the Refuge immediately inland from the sand dunes (as
far north as the Salinas River Lagoon) supports northern coastal salt
marsh vegetation. This community also occurs in small depressions within
the coastal sand dune complex. Along the Salinas River, salt marsh habitat
is replaced by coastal brackish marsh because of decreasing salinity.
The northern coastal salt marsh community is dominated by low-growing
(<1 m high) perennial subshrubs that are tolerant of saturation,
inundation, and high levels of salinity. The dominant species of northern
coastal salt marsh are pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), alkali heath
(Frankenia grandiflora), and fleshy jaumea (Jaumea carnosa). At slightly
higher elevations mixed halophytes become dominant, including coastal
gumplant (Grindelia latifolia), salt grass (Distichlis spicata) and alkali
heath. The margins (typically the highest elevations) of the salt marshes
support a grassland community dominated by salt grass, wet-meadow wild
rye (Leymus triticoides), and Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) (John Gilchrist
& Associates et al. 1997).
Coast Brackish Marsh:
Coast brackish marsh occurs in