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

              Humboldt Bay
National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Final Environmental Assessment
Prepared By:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Pacific Southwest Region
Refuge Planning
2800 Cottage Way, W-1832
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
and
Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex
1020 Ranch Road
Loleta, California 95551-9633
September 2009
Approved: ___________________________________________________ Date: __________________________
Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region
Implementation of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan and alternative management actions/programs have been assessed
consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq.)Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 iii
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AFWO Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office
AQMD Air Quality Management District
Bay Humboldt Bay
BCC Birds of Conservation Concern
BCR Bird Conservation Regions
BIDEH Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health (601 FW3)
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMC Birds of Management Concern
BMP Best Management Practices
CCC California Conservation Corps
CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CCS California Current System
CDF California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (also, CAL FIRE)
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CLMA Cooperative Land Management Agreement
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNLM Center for Natural Lands Management
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CWA California Waterfowl Association
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
DPS Distinct Population Segment
DU Ducks Unlimited
EA Environmental Assessment
EDPA Eureka Dunes Protected Area
EE/I Environmental Education/Interpretation
EO Executive Order
ES Endangered Species
ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit (applied to ESA listed fish)
FBM Freshwater and Brackish Marsh
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FOD Friends of the Dunes
FHBNWR Friends of the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge
FTE Full Time Employee
GIS Geographic Information System
HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan
HBEP Humboldt Bay Ecosystem Program
HBHRCD Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District
HBMP Humboldt Bay Management Plan
HBWAC Humboldt Bay Watershed Advisory Committee
HFAC Humboldt Fish Action Council
IFA Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986
HSU Humboldt State University
IIU Indian Island Unit
iv September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
IPM Integrated Pest Management
LPP Land Protection Planning
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCSD Manila Community Services District
MDCMA Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Agreement
MLPA Marine Life Protected Area
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet
NCIC North Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources


Information System
NCRWQCB North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries Service)
NPS National Park Service
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NWI National Wetland Inventory
NWR National Wildlife Refuge
NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System
PCFWWRA Pacific Coast Fish Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Association
PCJV Pacific Coast Joint Venture
PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation
PIF Partners in Flight
Porter-Cologne State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
PRBO Point Reyes Bird Observatory
PVA Population Viability Assessment
RCAA Redwood Community Action Agency
Refuge System The National Wildlife Refuge System
RNA Research Natural Area
ROW Right of way
SCC State Coastal Conservancy
SCEP Student Career Employment Program
SEFI Southeast Farallon Island
Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, USFWS
SFBNWRC San Francisco Bay NWR Complex
SHC Strategic Habitat Conservation
SHPO (California) State Historic Preservation Office
SIU Sand Island Unit
SLAMM Sea Level Affecting Marsh Management)
SSC Species of Special Concern
SWFSC Southwest Fisheries Science Center
TNC The Nature Conservancy
TS Threatened Species
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, Service)
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WMA Weed Management Area
WNV West Nile Virus
WSHRN Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network
YCC Youth Conservation Corps
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 v
Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms.................................................................................................................................... iii
Contents..........................................................................................................................................................v
Lists of Figures........................................................................................................................................................... x
Lists of Tables............................................................................................................................................................. xi
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................1
1.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan............................................................. 1
1.3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Wildlife Refuge System................................................. 1
 1.3.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Responsibilities............................................................................ 1
 1.3.2. The National Wildlife Refuge System............................................................................................ 1
 1.3.3. Refuge Purposes............................................................................................................................... 2
 1.3.4. Refuge Vision Statements................................................................................................................ 3
1.4. Legal and Policy Guidance........................................................................................................................ 3
1.5. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex................................................................................. 4
 1.5.1. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge....................................................................................... 4
 1.5.2. Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge............................................................................................ 6
1.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Complex Location.................................................................................................. 6
 1.6.1. Flyway Setting.................................................................................................................................. 6
 1.6.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Setting........................................................................................................... 7
 1.6.3. Historic Conditions of Humboldt Bay NWR................................................................................. 7
 1.6.4. History of Humboldt Bay NWR Establishment and Acquisitions............................................. 9
 1.6.5. Current Management of Humboldt Bay NWR........................................................................... 11
 1.6.6. Castle Rock NWR Setting.............................................................................................................. 14
 1.6.7. Historic Conditions of Castle Rock NWR.................................................................................... 14
 1.6.8. History of Castle Rock NWR Establishment and Acquisitions................................................ 15
 1.6.9. Current Management of Castle Rock NWR................................................................................ 15
1.7. Related Projects and Studies in the Area.............................................................................................. 15
 1.7.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, and Pacific Flyway Projects and Studies................. 15
 1.7.2. California Department of Fish and Game Projects and Studies............................................... 17
 1.7.3. Other Pertinent Projects, Programs, and Documents................................................................ 18
2. The Planning Process.............................................................................................................................21
2.1. Planning Process Policies........................................................................................................................ 21
 2.1.1. The Planning Process...................................................................................................................... 21
2.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Complex CCP Process........................................................................................ 21
 2.2.1. Public Involvement During Public Scoping Meetings and Initiation of CCP/NEPA
 Process............................................................................................................................................. 21
 2.2.2. Public Scoping Meetings................................................................................................................. 22
 2.2.3. Supplemental Request for Comments on Castle Rock NWR................................................... 22
 2.2.4. Comments Received During Scoping........................................................................................... 22
 2.2.5. Public Involvement During the Public Comment Period for the Draft CCP/EA................... 22
3. Refuge Resources...................................................................................................................................23
3.1. Overview of Humboldt Bay NWR........................................................................................................... 23
 3.1.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Physical Environment Geography and Climate.................................... 23
 3.1.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Global Climate Change and Sea Level Rise........................................... 23
 3.1.3. Humboldt Bay NWR Hazardous Materials and Contaminants................................................ 26
vi September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 3.1.4. Humboldt Bay NWR Air Quality.................................................................................................. 26
 3.1.5. Humboldt Bay NWR Paleontological Resources........................................................................ 27
 3.1.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Minerals...................................................................................................... 28
 3.1.7. Humboldt Bay NWR Geology........................................................................................................ 28
 3.1.8. Humboldt Bay NWR Soils............................................................................................................. 29
 3.1.9. Humboldt Bay NWR Water Resources........................................................................................ 29
3.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Biological Resources........................................................................................... 31
 3.2.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Ecoregional Context.................................................................................. 31
 3.2.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Units............................................................................................................ 32
 3.2.3. Humboldt Bay NWR Plant Communities and Habitats............................................................ 39
 3.2.4. Overview of Humboldt Bay NWR Fish and Wildlife.................................................................. 44
 3.2.5. Humboldt Bay NWR Wildlife........................................................................................................ 44
 3.2.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Special Status Species............................................................................... 55
3.3. Humboldt Bay NWR Visitor Services.................................................................................................... 57
 3.3.1. Overview of Humboldt Bay NWR Visitor Services.................................................................... 57
 3.3.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Visitor Services.......................................................................................... 58
3.4. Humboldt Bay NWR Cultural Resources.............................................................................................. 60
 3.4.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Native American Cultural History.......................................................... 60
 3.4.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Ethnographic and Contemporary Native American Setting............... 62
 3.4.3. Humboldt Bay NWR EuroAmerican Cultural History.............................................................. 62
3.5. Humboldt Bay NWR Social and Economic Conditions........................................................................ 63
 3.5.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Social and Economic Regional Overview............................................... 63
 3.5.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Management Economics........................................................................... 63
 3.5.3. Humboldt Bay NWR Regional Land Use.................................................................................... 64
 3.5.4. Humboldt Bay NWR Land Use..................................................................................................... 65
 3.5.5. Humboldt Bay and Surrounding Area Demographics............................................................... 65
 3.5.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Local Economy and Employment........................................................... 65
3.6. Overview of Castle Rock NWR............................................................................................................... 67
 3.6.1. Castle Rock NWR Geographic/Ecosystem Setting.................................................................... 67
 3.6.2. Castle Rock NWR Physical Geography and Climate................................................................. 68
 3.6.3. Castle Rock NWR Climate Change and Sea Level Rise............................................................ 69
 3.6.4. Castle Rock NWR Geology, Hydrology, and Soils....................................................................... 69
 3.6.5. Castle Rock NWR Minerals........................................................................................................... 69
 3.6.6. Castle Rock NWR Paleontological Resources............................................................................. 70
 3.6.7. Castle Rock NWR Water Resources............................................................................................. 70
 3.6.8. Castle Rock NWR Hazardous Materials...................................................................................... 70
3.7. Castle Rock NWR Biological Resources................................................................................................ 70
 3.7.1. Castle Rock NWR Ecoregional Context...................................................................................... 70
 3.7.2. Castle Rock NWR Fish and Wildlife............................................................................................ 70
 3.7.3. Castle Rock NWR Plant Communities......................................................................................... 70
 3.7.4. Castle Rock NWR Seabirds........................................................................................................... 71
 3.7.5. Castle Rock NWR Nesting Seabirds............................................................................................ 72
 3.7.6. Castle Rock NWR Other Bird Species......................................................................................... 77
 3.7.7. Castle Rock NWR and Surrounding Area Use by Marine Mammals...................................... 78
 3.7.8. Castle Rock NWR Mammals......................................................................................................... 82
 3.7.9. Castle Rock NWR Amphibians and Reptiles.............................................................................. 82
 3.7.10. Castle Rock NWR Invertebrates................................................................................................ 82
 3.7.11. Castle Rock NWR Special Status Species................................................................................. 82
 3.7.12. Castle Rock NWR Non-native Wildlife...................................................................................... 83
3.8. Castle Rock NWR Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 83
 3.8.1. Prehistoric Use of Castle Rock and Surrounding Area............................................................. 83
 3.8.2. Castle Rock NWR History............................................................................................................. 84
3.9. Castle Rock NWR Social Environment.................................................................................................. 85
 3.9.1. Del Norte County Demographics.................................................................................................. 85
3.10. Castle Rock NWR Social and Economic Conditions............................................................................ 85
 3.10.1. Castle Rock NWR Social and Economic Regional Overview.................................................. 85
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 vii
 3.10.2. Castle Rock NWR Regional Land Use....................................................................................... 86
 3.10.3. Castle Rock NWR Local Land Use............................................................................................ 86
 3.10.4. Castle Rock NWR Local Economy and Employment.............................................................. 86
 3.10.5. Castle Rock NWR Management Economics............................................................................. 86
 3.10.6. Castle Rock NWR Environmental Justice................................................................................. 86
3.11. Castle Rock NWR Public Access and Recreation................................................................................. 87
 3.11.1. Castle Rock NWR Traffic, Public Access, and Recreation...................................................... 87
 3.11.2. Aesthetics of Castle Rock NWR.................................................................................................. 87
3.12. Castle Rock NWR Public Use................................................................................................................. 87
 3.12.1. Castle Rock NWR Environmental Education and Interpretation......................................... 87
 3.12.2. Castle Rock NWR Trends............................................................................................................ 87
 3.12.3. Castle Rock NWR Management and Monitoring..................................................................... 87

4. Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities.................................................................................................89
4.1. Issues and Challenges Identified by the Public and the Service........................................................ 89
 4.1.1. Potential Impacts of Global Climate Change on the Complex.................................................. .89
 4.1.2. Staffing Needs for the Complex.................................................................................................... 89
 4.1.3. Aleutian Cackling Goose Habitat Management.......................................................................... 89
 4.1.4. Estuarine Habitat Restoration on Humboldt Bay NWR........................................................... 90
 4.1.5. Replacement of Eucalyptus Trees with Native Vegetation........................................................ 90
 4.1.6. Potential Water Quality Concerns with Increased Public Use in Mad River Slough............. 91
 4.1.7. Invasive Plant Species on Humboldt Bay and Adjacent Lands................................................ 92
 4.1.8. Flooding of Highway 101................................................................................................................ 92
 4.1.9. Legal Jurisdiction of Tidelands .................................................................................................... 92
 4.1.10. Hunting Regulations on Humboldt Bay NWR.......................................................................... 92
 4.1.11. Sport Fishing Regulations on Humboldt Bay NWR................................................................ 93
 4.1.12. Non-Wildlife Dependent Visitor Services on Humboldt Bay NWR....................................... 93
 4.1.13. Traditional Tribal Uses on Humboldt Bay NWR...................................................................... 93
 4.1.14. Mosquito Integrated Pest Management on Humboldt Bay NWR......................................... 94
 4.1.15. Management of Older Buildings on Humboldt Bay NWR...................................................... 94
 4.1.16. Potential Humboldt Bay NWR Acquisitions.............................................................................. 94
 4.1.17. Potential Management Options for the Hookton Slough Unit................................................ 94
 4.1.18. Dioxin and Pentachlorophenol Contamination......................................................................... 95
 4.1.19. Habitat Management on Castle Rock NWR.............................................................................. 95
 4.1.20. Protection of Castle Rock NWR from Disturbance.................................................................. 96
 4.1.21. Educational Outreach Regarding Castle Rock NWR.............................................................. 96
 4.1.22. Seabird Monitoring on Castle Rock NWR................................................................................. 96
5. Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies..........................................................................97
Humboldt Bay NWR Goals, Objectives, and Strategies............................................................................... 97
Goal 1. Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance estuarine and palustrine wetland habitats
representative of the Humboldt Bay area ...................................................................................................... 97
 Objective 1.1. Salmon Creek Delta Restoration.................................................................................... 97
 Objective 1.2. Salt Marsh Habitat........................................................................................................... 99
 Objective 1.3. Freshwater and Brackish Marsh (FBM)..................................................................... 100
 Objective 1.4. Riparian Swamp Habitat............................................................................................... 102
 Objective 1.5. Eelgrass and Mudflat Habitat....................................................................................... 102
 Objective 1.6. Floodplain Management................................................................................................ 103
Goal 2. Conserve and restore globally rare dune and dune forest habitats, and support recovery of
threatened, endangered species...................................................................................................................... 104
 Objective 2.1. Dune Mat/Foredune Grassland..................................................................................... 104
 Objective 2.2. Dune Swale...................................................................................................................... 105
 Objective 2.3. Dune Riparian/Swamp................................................................................................... 106
 Objective 2.4. Coniferous Dune Forest................................................................................................. 107
viii September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Goal 3. Conserve and restore all refuge habitats through the prevention and control of invasive
plants and animals........................................................................................................................................... 108
 Objective 3.1. Prevention and Early Detection................................................................................... 108
 Objective 3.2. Control and Reduce the Spread of Established Invasive Species Populations in
 Refuge Habitats...................................................................................................................................... 109
 Objective 3.3. Control of Spartina densiflora...................................................................................... 110
Goal 4. Promote long-term viability of the Humboldt Bay estuarine and dune ecosystems.................. 111
 Objective 4.1. Ecosystem Management................................................................................................ 111
Goal 5. Provide accessible, safe, high-quality wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities................... 113
 Objective 5.1. Visitor Services—Wildlife Observation and Photography........................................ 113
 Objective 5.2. Visitor Services—Environmental Education and Interpretation............................ 114
 Objective 5.3. Visitor Services—Outreach/Friends and Partners..................................................... 116
 Objective 5.4. Visitor Services—Hunting............................................................................................. 116
 Objective 5.5. Visitor Services—Fishing.............................................................................................. 118
Goal 6. Identify and protect tribal cultural resources on the Humboldt Bay NWR................................ 118
 Objective 6.1. Cultural Resource Management................................................................................... 118
 Objective 6.2. Cultural Resource Management—Education............................................................. 119
 Objective 6.3. Cultural Resource Management—Coordination........................................................ 120
Castle Rock NWR Goals................................................................................................................................. 121
Goal 1. Protect and maintain habitats for migratory birds and marine mammals.................................. 121
 Objective 1.1. Castle Rock Research and Monitoring........................................................................ 121
 Objective 1.2. Castle Rock NWR Wilderness Designation................................................................ 122
Goal 2. Provide high quality environmental education, interpretive information, and outreach........... 122
 Objective 2.1. Environmental Education, Interpretive Information, and Outreach...................... 122

6. Management Plan Implementation.....................................................................................................125
7. References..............................................................................................................................................135
Appendices.................................................................................................................................................149
Appendix A: Glossary......................................................................................................................................A-1
Appendix B: Visitor Services Plan..................................................................................................................B-1
Appendix C: Waterfowl Hunt Plan.................................................................................................................C-1
Appendix D: Sport Fishing Plan.....................................................................................................................D-1
Appendix E: Final Environmental Assessment............................................................................................E-1
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations.................................................................................................. F-1
 Compatibility Determination for Environmental Education and Interpretation for
 Humboldt Bay NWR.............................................................................................................................. F-1
 Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation and Photography for Humboldt Bay
 NWR......................................................................................................................................................... F-7
 Compatibility Determination for Recreational Boating for Humboldt Bay NWR....................... F-15
 Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting for Humboldt Bay NWR.......................... F-21
 Compatibility Determination for Fishing for Humboldt Bay NWR.............................................. F-31
 Compatibility Determination for Grazing and Haying for Humboldt Bay NWR........................ F-35
 Compatibility Determination for Mosquito Control for Humboldt Bay NWR............................. F-39
 Compatibility Determination for Plant Gathering for Humboldt Bay NWR................................ F-45
 Compatibility Determination for Research for Humboldt Bay NWR........................................... F-49
 Compatibility Determination for Research for Castle Rock NWR................................................ F-55
Appendix G: Wilderness Review for Humboldt Bay NWR and Castle Rock NWR................................G-1
Appendix H: Supplemental Legal and Policy Guidance..............................................................................H-1
Appendix I: Compliance with Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act.................................... I-1
Appendix J: Plant Lists...................................................................................................................................J-1
 Humboldt Bay NWR Flora.....................................................................................................................J-1
 Castle Rock NWR Flora........................................................................................................................J-27
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 ix
Appendix K: Wildlife Lists..............................................................................................................................K-1
 Reptiles and Amphibians.......................................................................................................................K-1
 Mammals..................................................................................................................................................K-3
 Birds.........................................................................................................................................................K-5
 Fish.........................................................................................................................................................K-19
Appendix L: Locally Occurring Special Status Species...............................................................................L-1
Appendix M: Public Involvement Process for the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex
 CCP/EA.........................................................................................................................................................M-1
Appendix N: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex History....................................................N-1
Appendix O: List of Preparers.......................................................................................................................O-1
Appendix P: Coastal Flood Hazard Maps.......................................................................................................P-1
Appendix Q: Compliance with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act ............................................Q-1
Appendix R: Responses to Comments on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
 Environmental Assessment....................................................................................................................R-1
x September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CHAPTER
Lists of Figures
Figure 1. Watershed ecosystem map...................................................................................................................5
Figure 2. Historic and current tidal marsh surrounding Humboldt Bay.......................................................8
Figure 3. Historic and current tidal marsh surrounding Humboldt Bay, including density of
non-native dense-flowered cordgrass populations..........................................................................10
Figure 4. The CCP planning process.................................................................................................................21
Figure 5. Refuge boundary and management units for Humboldt Bay NWR............................................33

Figure 6. Terrestrial vegetation of White Slough, Salmon Creek, Hookton Slough, and Table Bluff
units......................................................................................................................................................35

Figure 7. Terrestrial vegetation of Lanphere Dunes, Ma-le’l Dunes, Jacoby Creek, and Eureka
Slough units.........................................................................................................................................38
Figure 8. Abundance of Aleutian cackling geese..............................................................................................47
Figure 9. Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) on Salmon Creek restoration area... 51
Figure 10. Population status of Humboldt Bay wallflower...............................................................................56
Figure 11. Historic vegetative cover map of Castle Rock.................................................................................71
Figure 12. Castle Rock NWR interpretive panels along Pebble Beach Drive, Crescent City.....................87
Figure 13. Dune units of Humboldt Bay NWR..................................................................................................91
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 xi
Lists of Tables
Table 1. Monthly and annual precipitation data for Eureka, CA, from 1948 through 2007.....................24
Table 2. Habitat type and acreage by unit......................................................................................................34
Table 3. Abundance of Aleutian cackling geese from direct counts............................................................48
Table 4. Value of agricultural commodities produced in Humboldt County for 2005................................63
Table 5. Eureka commercial fish harvest through 2005................................................................................64
Table 6. Non-agricultural sector employment in Humboldt County as of 2006.........................................64
Table 7. Current land use in Humboldt Bay area as of 2001........................................................................65
Table 8. Monthly and annual precipitation data for Crescent City, CA, from 1948 through 2007...........67
Table 9. Complete seabird breeding population estimates on Castle Rock, 1970 to 1989........................72
Table 10. Population estimates for surface nesting and diurnal cavity nesting species at
Castle Rock, 1979-1999.......................................................................................................................73
Table 11. Counts of harbor seals in the Castle Rock vicinity in 2004............................................................79
Table 12. Counts of California sea-lions at Castle Rock and reef during July 2000-2004..........................80
Table 13. Steller sea-lion count data for the St. George Reef and Castle Rock, July 5-17, 2000-2004......81
Table 14. Northern elephant seals at Castle Rock and Castle Rock shoals in 1994-1995..........................82
Table 15. Threatened or Endangered species that occur or have occurred at Castle Rock NWR
or adjacent marine waters..................................................................................................................83
Table 16. Estimated initial capital outlay to fully implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan....126
Table 17. Esimated annual cost to fully implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan...................129
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 1
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex
(Complex), which includes Humboldt Bay National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Castle Rock NWR, is
located on the northern coast of California.
Humboldt Bay NWR is located in the vicinity of
Eureka and Arcata with refuge units distributed
around Humboldt Bay, the largest bay between
San Francisco Bay and Coos Bay, Oregon. In 1971,
Humboldt Bay NWR was established to conserve
coastal habitats for a great diversity of animals
and plants, especially migratory birds. Years later
Humboldt Bay NWR added the Lanphere and Ma-le’l
Dunes Units to help conserve the most pristine
remaining dune ecosystem on the west coast of the
United States.
The Humboldt Bay NWR authorized boundary
consists of 9,502 acres (3,379 acres owned in fee title)
of freshwater, brackish, and salt marsh; agricultural
wetlands; intertidal mudflats; eelgrass beds; and
some of the most pristine dune habitats in the
western United States.
Castle Rock NWR is a 14-acre nearshore island
located in Del Norte County, California, less than
a mile northwest of Crescent City. The island is
primarily rock with sparse vegetation. Castle Rock
NWR hosts one of the largest and most diverse
assemblages of breeding seabirds on the Pacific
coast, provides a critical roost for thousands
of Aleutian cackling geese (Branta hutchinsii
leucopareia) prior to their transoceanic migration,
and provides resting sites for seals and sea-lions.
1.2. Purpose and Need for the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) to guide management of fish, wildlife, plants,
other natural resources, and visitor uses on the
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex for the next 15 years.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 (16 United States Code [USC] 668dd-
668ee) (Improvement Act) requires that all refuges
be managed in accordance with an approved CCP
by 2012. Under the 1997 Improvement Act, the
National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)
is to be consistently directed and managed to fulfill
the specific purpose(s) for which each refuge was
established and the Refuge System mission. The
CCP planning process helps the Service achieve the
individual refuge’s purposes and the Refuge System
mission by identifying specific goals, objectives, and
strategies to implement on each refuge.
1.3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Wildlife Refuge System
1.3.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Responsibilities
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary
Federal agency responsible for conserving,
protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s fish,
wildlife, and plant populations, and their habitats,
for the continuing benefit of the American people.
Although the Service shares this responsibility
with other Federal, tribal, State, local, and private
entities, the Service has specific responsibilities
for migratory birds, threatened and endangered
species, interjurisdictional fish, and certain marine
mammals. These groups of species are collectively
referred to as Federal Trust Species. The Service
also manages the Refuge System and National
Fish Hatcheries, enforces Federal wildlife laws
and international treaties related to importing and
exporting wildlife, assists State fish and wildlife
programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife
conservation programs.
1.3.2. The National Wildlife Refuge System
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s
largest collection of lands specifically managed for
fish and wildlife conservation. Unlike other Federal
lands that are managed under a multiple-use
mandate (National Forests and lands administered
by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management [BLM]),
the Refuge System is managed primarily for the
benefit of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their
habitats. The Refuge System consists of more than
545 units that provide nearly 95 million acres of
2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CHAPTER 1
important habitat for native plants and many species
of mammals, birds, and fish, including threatened
and endangered species.
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and
Goals
The mission of the Refuge System is “…to
administer a national network of lands and waters
for the conservation, management and, where
appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and
plant resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans” (1997 Improvement Act).
The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System
are to:
a. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants
and their habitats, including species that
are endangered or threatened with becoming
endangered.
b. Develop and maintain a network of habitats
for migratory birds, anadromous and
interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal
populations that is strategically distributed and
carefully managed to meet important life history
needs of these species across their ranges.
c. Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities,
wetlands of national or international
significance, and landscapes and seascapes that
are unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented
in existing protection efforts.
d. Provide and enhance opportunities to
participate in compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, and environmental education
and interpretation).
e. Foster understanding and instill appreciation
of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish,
wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
1.3.3. Refuge Purposes
Lands within the Refuge System are acquired and
managed under a variety of legislative acts and
administrative orders and authorities. The official
purpose or purposes for a refuge are specified in or
derived from the law, proclamation, executive order
(EO), agreement, public land order, funding source,
donation document, or administrative memorandum
establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge,
refuge unit, or refuge subunit. The purpose of a
refuge is defined when it is established or when
new land is added to an existing refuge. When an
addition to a refuge is acquired under an authority
different from the authority used to establish the
original refuge, the addition takes on the purposes
of the original refuge, but the original refuge does
not take on the purposes of the addition. Refuge
managers must consider all of the purposes.
However, purposes that deal with the conservation,
management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and
plants and their habitats take precedent over other
purposes in the management and administration of
a refuge.
The 1997 Improvement Act directs the Service
to manage each refuge to fulfill the mission of the
Refuge System, as well as the specific purposes
for which that refuge was established. Refuge
purposes are the driving force in developing refuge
vision statements, goals, objectives, and strategies
in the CCP. Refuge purposes are also critical to
determining the compatibility of all existing and
proposed refuge uses.
Humboldt Bay NWR was established under the
authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of
1929, the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation
Stamp Act of 1934, the Fish and Wildlife Act of
1956, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
According to these authorities, Humboldt Bay
NWR’s purposes are:
“…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other
management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16
U.S.C. §§ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
“…as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to…
all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird
Conservation Act]…except the inviolate sanctuary
provisions…” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) (Migratory Bird
Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act)
“…for the development, advancement, management,
conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife
resources…” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(a)(4) and “…for
the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, in performing its activities and services.
Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of
any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition
of servitude…” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and
Wildlife Act of 1956)
“…suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented
recreational development, (2) the
protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation
of endangered species or threatened species…” 16
U.S.C. §§ 460k-1 and “…the Secretary…may accept
and use…real…property. Such acceptance may
be accomplished under the terms and conditions
of restrictive covenants imposed by donors…” 16
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 3
U.S.C. §§ 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C.
§§ 460k-460k-4], as amended)
“…to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as
endangered species or threatened species ....or (B)
plants…” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended)
Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge was
established under the authority of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended.
According to this authority, Castle Rock NWR’s
purpose is:
“…to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as
endangered species or threatened species…or (B)
plants…” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species
Act of 1973)
1.3.4. Refuge Vision Statements
Vision Statement for Humboldt Bay National
Wildlife Refuge
The Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge
conserves and manages some of the most significant
historic and restored natural areas in the Humboldt
Bay area. The refuge sustains varied and important
habitats ranging from estuarine and freshwater
wetlands to open grasslands and dynamic dune
ecosystems. Humboldt Bay NWR also conserves
important plant and animal populations and
plays a critical role in preserving biodiversity
locally, regionally, and within the Refuge System.
Refuge staff applies sound scientific principles
and adaptive management strategies to sustain
the long-term health and ecological integrity of the
Humboldt Bay NWR and the surrounding area.
Refuge habitats link with other public and private
lands to support threatened and endangered species
in addition to hundreds of species of migratory
wildlife within the Pacific Flyway. The refuge
provides migration and wintering habitats of
sufficient size and quality to assist in maintaining
migrating bird populations on the Pacific Flyway,
especially Pacific brant, Aleutian cackling geese,
and shorebirds.
The staff at the Humboldt Bay NWR works with
a broad cross section of tribal, governmental,
community, and private partners to promote the
ecological integrity of the landscape, ecotourism,
and the historic and cultural attractions of the
region. The refuge staff, assisted by Friends
groups, volunteers, and the public, seeks to provide
compatible wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities for the public on refuge lands, expand
community outreach, and stimulate area residents
and visitors to embrace sustainable stewardship of
natural resources.
By pursuing this vision, staff and others at the
Humboldt Bay NWR seek to ensure healthy fish,
wildlife, and plant resources for people to enjoy
today and an enduring legacy for generations to
come.
Vision Statement for Castle Rock National
Wildlife Refuge
Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge preserves
in perpetuity one of the most important seabird
nesting colonies on the Pacific coastline. This
14-acre island continues to be preserved in a
natural condition with minimal human intrusion.
Management activities focus on research and
monitoring of refuge wildlife and on protection and
maintenance of a natural, functioning ecosystem.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service coordinates with
tribes, other agencies and entities, and the public to
ensure the long-term health and viability of native
seabird and marine mammal populations.
We work with others to provide wildlife viewing and
interpretation at selected locations on the adjacent
coastline. Fostering an appreciation for Pacific
coast wildlife enriches people in a variety of ways
and ensures that this outstanding legacy of wildlife
is passed on to future generations.
1.4. Legal and Policy Guidance
Refuges are guided by the purposes of the individual
refuge, the mission and goals of the Refuge
System, Service policy, laws, and international
treaties. Relevant guidance includes the Refuge
Recreation Act of 1962; the 1997 Improvement Act;
the Endangered Species Act, as amended; selected
portions of the Code of Federal Regulations;
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
Refuges are also governed by a variety of other
Federal laws, Executive Orders, treaties, interstate
compacts, regulations, and policies pertaining to the
conservation and protection of natural and cultural
resources (see Service Manual 602 FW 1, 1.3).
The 1997 Improvement Act’s main components
include:
■ A strong and singular wildlife conservation
mission for the Refuge System.
■ A recognition of six priority public uses of
the Refuge System (hunting, fishing, wildlife
4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CHAPTER 1
observation and photography, and environmental
education and interpretation).
■ A requirement that the Secretary of the Interior
maintain the biological integrity, diversity and
environmental health of Refuge System lands.
■ A new process for determining compatible uses on
refuges.
■ A requirement for preparing a comprehensive
conservation plan for each refuge by 2012.
First and foremost, refuges are managed for fish,
wildlife, plants, and their habitats. In addition, units
of the Refuge System are legally closed to all public
access and use, including economic uses, unless and
until they are officially opened through an analytical
public process called the refuge compatibility
process. All refuge uses are subservient to the
Refuge System’s primary wildlife management
responsibility and they must be determined
compatible to be authorized.
The 1997 Improvement Act established the formal
process for determining compatibility of uses.
A compatibility determination is required for a
wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other
public use of a refuge. A compatible use is one
which, in the sound professional judgment of the
refuge manager, will not materially interfere with
or detract from the fulfillment of refuge purpose(s)
or the Refuge System mission. The Service strives
to provide wildlife-dependent public uses when
compatible. If financial resources are not available
to design, operate, and maintain a priority use,
the refuge manager will take reasonable steps to
obtain outside assistance from the State and other
conservation interests.
This CCP contains several compatibility
determinations for proposed uses on both refuges
in the Complex (Appendix F). These compatibility
determinations were open to public comment with
the draft CCP and finalized along with the CCP.
This document also includes an environmental
assessment (EA) (attached as Appendix E) as
required under the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4321). The purpose of
the EA is to evaluate the environmental effects of
the CCP on the quality of the human environment.
The EA includes the components listed below.
■ A description of the alternatives considered for
the CCP.
■ Identification and analysis of the potential
environmental effects of the proposed
management program and the management
alternatives.
■ Documentation of the involvement of affected
State and Federal agencies, appropriate Tribal
governments, nonprofit organizations, and
members of the public in the CCP process.
The CCP is also accompanied by a revised sport
hunting plan (Appendix C), a revised sport fishing
plan (Appendix D), a wilderness review (Appendix
G), and a visitor services plan (Appendix B).
1.5. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife
Refuge Complex
1.5.1. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge
The Humboldt Bay NWR boundary (Figure 1)
contains much of the remaining natural habitats and
shoreline areas of Humboldt Bay, including areas
that both conserve key habitats for fish, wildlife, and
plants, and are aesthetically pleasing landscapes.
However, to understand the health of refuge habitat,
it is necessary to consider the general health of the
bay as a whole, including the condition of lands and
waters outside, as well as inside, the refuge.
The bay area contains many species of native and
introduced plants and animals. These species and
their habitats have complex interrelationships;
significant changes in any one habitat type can
directly or indirectly affect other habitats and
species that use that habitat. Most fish and wildlife
species found on Humboldt Bay NWR use areas
both inside and outside of refuge boundaries.
Humboldt Bay NWR is important to the overall
Refuge System primarily due to the concentrations
of migratory waterbirds, conservation of species
listed under the Federal ESA that use refuge
habitats, and conservation of globally endangered
dune habitats.
Migratory birds largely depend upon the bay and
surrounding wetland habitats, including the refuge,
in the fall, winter, and spring. This is especially true
of the Pacific brant (Branta bernicla nigricans).
Humboldt Bay NWR is currently the southernmost
in a chain of National Wildlife Refuges that provide
habitat for most of the world’s population of Pacific
brant.
Humboldt Bay is an area of international
significance to many species of migratory birds,
which largely depend upon the bay and surrounding
wetland habitats, including the refuge, in the fall,
winter, and spring. Chief among these are waterfowl,
shorebirds, gulls, and terns. Total use-days for all
of the bird species have been estimated at 4 million
annually for South Bay alone (Nelson 1989). Most
of the birds using the bay frequent areas within the
existing refuge boundaries on a daily basis.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 5
Figure 1. Watershed ecosystem map.
Sacramento
San Francisco
Humboldt Bay
National Wildlife
Refuge Redding
Modesto
Eureka
Arcata
Castle Rock
National Wildlife
Refuge
£¤101
¬«99
§¨¦5
§¨¦80
§¨¦580
O r e g o n
SACRAMENTO
RIVER NWR
STONE
LAKES
NWR
SAN PABLO
BAY NWR
DON EDWARDS SAN
FRANCISCO BAY NWR
SACRAMENTO
NWR
MODOC
NWR
SUTTER
NWR
MARIN
ISLANDS
NWR
ANTIOCH
DUNES
NWR
SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER NWR
COLUSA
NWR
BUTTE SINK
WMA
DELEVAN
NWR
WILLOW CREEK -
LURLINE WMA
OREGON
ISLANDS
NWR
BANDON
MARSH
NWR
LOWER
KLAMATH
NWR
CLEAR
LAKE
NWR
KLAMATH
MARSH
UPPER NWR
KLAMATH
NWR
TULE
LAKE
NWR
Figure 1. Watershed / Ecosystem Map
Region 8 Refuge Planning - July 2008 I
50 25 0 50
Miles
Pacific
Flyway
Area
Enlarged
Northern California Coastal Watershed Klamath/Central Pacific Coast Ecoregion
6 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CHAPTER 1
Over 260 species of birds, including 39 species of
shorebirds and 26 species of raptors, have been seen
in the vicinity of Humboldt Bay (Yocom and Harris
1975, Ralph et al. 1998). In recognition of the species
richness found in the bay, it has been identified as
an Important Bird Area by the National Audubon
Society. The majority of birds use the Humboldt Bay
NWR as a stop-over to rest and replenish energy
reserves. Others spend the winter on the refuge and
some use it for nesting. The wetlands in and around
Humboldt Bay are critical to tens of thousands of
shorebirds. As a result, the bay has been designated
as a site of International Importance by the Western
Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. This is
the northernmost area on the Pacific coast where
species such as American avocets (Recurvirostra
americana), long-billed curlews (Numenius
americanus), marbled godwits (Limosa fedoa), and
willets (Tringa semipalmata) spend the winter in
large numbers. They can be seen feeding on the
mudflats or skimming over the bay in large eye-catching
flocks from late July through April.
Humboldt Bay is a key area for Pacific brant.
Humboldt Bay NWR is currently the southernmost
in a chain of National Wildlife Refuges that provide
habitat for most of the world’s population of Pacific
brant. These small geese require eelgrass-filled bays
during their travels between Arctic wetlands where
they nest and coastal lagoons of Baja California
and mainland Mexico where they overwinter. In
November, most Pacific brant fly nonstop from
Izembek Lagoon in Alaska to Mexico in 48 to 60
hours. On their return trip from January through
April, as much as 60 percent of the flyway population
stops in Humboldt Bay, with as many as 10,000 to
20,000 Pacific brant on Humboldt Bay at one time.
The Humboldt Bay area has also recently (as of
2002) become the focal area during late winter and
spring for the bulk of the Aleutian cackling goose
population.
In addition to birds, Humboldt Bay is also a
regionally important spawning and nursery ground
for commercial and sport finfish and shellfish,
especially oysters. The bay provides habitat for at
least 111 species of fish (Barnhart et al. 1992), many
of which contribute to sport or commercial fisheries.
Both Jacoby Creek and Salmon Creek provide
habitat for anadromous salmonids.
Four species listed as endangered under the Federal
ESA utilize habitat within the refuge boundary: the
Humboldt Bay wallflower (Erysimum menziesii
ssp. eurekense), beach layia (Layia carnosa),
tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), and
brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). Three
species listed as threatened under the Federal
ESA use habitat within the refuge boundary:
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), and Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Three recovered
species, the Aleutian cackling goose, bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and peregrine falcon
(Falco peregrinus), also use refuge habitat. In
addition, the Humboldt Bay NWR provides habitat
for rare plants, globally declined species, and marine
mammals.
1.5.2. Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge
Castle Rock is one of only two islands on the outer
coast of California included in the National Wildlife
Refuge System. These two islands, Southeast
Farallon Island (SEFI) and Castle Rock, are
the largest, most important seabird colonies in
the state. SEFI has a long continuous history of
human occupation. Research and monitoring takes
place year round on the island primarily through
a cooperative agreement with Point Reyes Bird
Observatory (PRBO) Conservation Science. Until
recently, Castle Rock had no management plan
or long-term monitoring program, so seabird
monitoring was accomplished through short-term
projects and large-scale cooperative monitoring
efforts aimed at selected species.
Like many other “seabird islands” within the
Refuge System, Castle Rock is so rich with
sensitive wildlife species and fragile habitat that it
cannot accommodate direct public access and still
fulfill the purposes for which it was established.
Only very limited access is allowed for research,
monitoring, and management. The original concept
for management of the island was to leave it alone
with the caveat that direct management may be
needed in the future. The dilemma is that some
of the island’s most sensitive resources cannot
be monitored without some level of presence on
the island, and without monitoring species status
cannot be determined, nor if management might be
warranted.
1.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Complex
Location
1.6.1. Flyway Setting
The refuge is located within the Pacific Flyway.
The Pacific Flyway is used by millions of birds for
migration to wintering and breeding grounds. This
refuge provides important habitat is a key migratory
stopover and/or wintering area for several species
of waterfowl and shorebirds including Pacific
brant, Aleutian cackling geese, western sandpipers
(Calidris mauri), dunlin (Calidris alpina), marbled
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 7
godwits, and long-billed curlews. The north coast
of California is one of richest areas in the country
in terms of avian diversity. Between 300 and 350
species of birds can be found from just offshore to
the first inland ridgeline (Harris 1996, Ralph et al.
1998).
1.6.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Setting
The Humboldt Bay region is composed of diverse
ecosystems. The bay area’s topography, wetlands,
riparian and coastal areas provide a variety of
habitats for wildlife and migratory birds.
Humboldt Bay is 14 miles long and from 0.5 to
3.5 miles wide. It comprises three sub-bays, each
situated at the end of one or several stream valleys.
It is bounded on the east by mountain ridges of the
coast range. Humboldt Bay is California’s second
largest coastal estuarine system.
Humboldt Bay has been drastically changed
since the turn of the 19th century (Figure 2). Vast
expanses of wetlands around both North and
South Bays have been altered by diking, filling,
dredging, sedimentation, and mariculture, as
well as residential, industrial, and recreational
development. Originally, Humboldt Bay and its
natural wetlands encompassed more than 27,000
acres, but by 1980 this area had been reduced by 30
percent to ~17,000 acres (Shapiro and Associates
1980). Consequently, there has been a dramatic
change in both the quantity and composition of
wetlands.
In 1870, when some minor salt marsh conversion
had already occurred, there was an estimated 9,500
acres of salt marsh. After completion of the railroad
around the margin of the bay, salt marsh was
reduced by 90 percent. The current estimate of the
area of salt marsh remaining around the Bay is 970
acres.
1.6.3. Historic Conditions of Humboldt Bay NWR
The pre-European settlement Humboldt Bay
watershed was covered mostly by old-growth
redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) forest in the
uplands. The coastal forests reached from the
ocean to 35 miles inland. Pre-1850 it was common
to see herds of 40 to 50 elk (Loud 1918). Waterfowl,
salmon, deer, and bear were abundant. Forest
soils and vegetation diminished rainfall runoff and
prevented significant changes in water quality. The
bay margins were heavily forested from Arcata
south to the Elk River (Coy 1982). The coastline,
bay margins, and riparian area forests were
dominated by Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and
red alder (Alnus rubra), and contained Douglas-fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii), coast hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla), red cedar (Thuja plicata), and tanoak
(Lithocarpus densiflorus) (Loud 1918). Lowland and
marsh areas around the bay were restricted due to
surrounding mountain ridges.
In 1850 there were extensive intertidal flats and salt
marshes in Humboldt Bay. The largest salt marshes
were along Mad River Slough, McDaniel Slough,
Eureka Slough, Hookton Slough, and Salmon
Creek (Loud 1918). The lower Elk River and lower
Salmon Creek deltas were tidally influenced alluvial
plains. The north spit of Humboldt Bay was a mix
of unvegetated, herbaceous, and forested dunes.
The South Spit was primarily non-vegetated dune.
The mouth of the bay was both shallow and narrow
(Lewis 1943).
Landscapes found by early explorers and settlers
were shaped and regularly renewed in part by the
land management practices of Native American
people (Anderson 2005).
Before EuroAmerican influence, there were an
estimated 1,000 Wiyot people in the Humboldt Bay
region. They occupied ~465 square miles, including
the entire Humboldt Bay area. At the time of contact
with EuroAmericans, the Wiyot were divided into
three main groups: the Potawót, the Wigki, and
the Wiyot. The Potawót settlements were on the
lower Mad River, while the Wigki and the Wiyot
settlements were near the Eel River (Seidner 1999).
In 1850 there were 32 principal population centers
and many smaller villages (Loud 1918). Population
decreases were due to a number of factors (all
attributable to the coming of the Europeans), and
included reduction in the available resource base
for subsistence, EuroAmerican-induced epidemics,
displacement, and killings. By 1851 the Wiyot
population of Humboldt Bay and north to Mad River
was estimated at about 300 to 500. By 1910, due to
conflicts with settlers, the Wiyot population had
decreased to ~100 (Loud 1918).
The Humboldt Bay area provided a cornucopia of
plant and wildlife resources to sustain the Wiyot
people. The ancestral Wiyot territory extended
from Little River to the north, Bear River Ridge
to the south, and from the Pacific coast out to as
far as Berry Summit in the northeast and Chalk
Mountain in the southeast (Wiyot Constitution and
Bylaws 1978). The Wiyot people lived along the
rivers, bay, and estuarine environments. The land
provided redwood for house planks and canoes,
iris leaves for nets and ropes, grey pines (Pinus
sabiniana), California hazelnut (Corylus cornuta
var. californica), huckleberry (Vaccineum ovatum
8 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CHAPTER 1
Figure 2. Historic and current tidal marsh surrounding Humboldt Bay.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 9
and V. parvifolium), strawberry (Fragaria spp.),
grass seeds, clover roots and bulbs, ferns, nettles,
sea otter (Enhydra lutris), Roosevelt elk (Cervus
canadensis roosevelti), Pacific harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina richardii), Steller Sea-lion (Eumetopias
jubatus), and black-tailed deer (Odocoileus
hemionus) for food and household materials. It was
said that the salmon ran so thick in the Mad River
and Arcata sloughs you could catch them with a
pitchfork (Loud 1918).
The Wiyot people were intricately involved with
their environment. They, as many Pacific North
Coast peoples, manipulated the tidal flats to harness
the productivity of the salt marshes, one of the
world’s most biologically productive environments
(Deur 2005). The tribe modified estuarine soils,
plants, and hydrology for the production of root
crops. Silverweed (Potentilla anserina ssp. pacifica)
and coast clover (Trifolium wormskioldii) were
important food sources, which were cultivated in
family plots. Root cultivation methods demonstrated
a detailed understanding of environmental systems.
With EuroAmerican settlement of the region during
the 19th century, estuarine cultivation practices
were rapidly swept away.
In 1806, the first EuroAmerican explorers arrived
at the bay. However, no settlement took place until
the 1850s when Humboldt Bay became a place
of departure and supply for the gold mines of
Trinity and Siskiyou counties. Most of the current
agricultural lands around Arcata and the Mad River
bottoms were occupied by settlers by 1853.
In the 1850s the Humboldt timber industry began,
which greatly impacted the biological functioning of
the bay. The timber industry became successful in
part by the passage of the Morril Land Act of 1862,
which allowed large areas of timber to be purchased
for commercial use. Timber exportation prompted
the start of the shipping industry for timber and
agricultural exports. Early land use changes in the
bay were primarily a result of the shipping industry.
Docks were built in Eureka and Fields Landing.
Fish companies became established at the mouth
of the Mad and Eel rivers by 1854. Clams, sharks,
Dungeness crab (Cancer magister), oysters, shrimp
sole, rockfish, and tuna were all harvested for export.
The completion of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad
along the eastern margins of Humboldt Bay in
1901 caused major wetland changes. The railroad
functioned as a dike, and tidegates were placed
at most slough crossings. Many of the wetlands
were converted to agricultural lands with seasonal
wetlands used for grazing. By 1927, with the
construction of Highway 101, most of the marshes
east of Humboldt Bay had been diked and drained.
Exotic invasive species have greatly altered the
pre-1850 salt marshes (Figure 3). Dense-flowered
cordgrass (Spartina densiflora), introduced in
the late-1800s, is currently the dominant species
in many of the bay’s salt marshes. The burrowing
exotic isopod, Sphaeroma quoyanum, is also
currently degrading the salt marsh. Within the
bay itself there are 95 species of exotic organisms
ranging across a variety of taxonomic groups (Boyd
et al. 2002).
1.6.4. History of Humboldt Bay NWR
Establishment and Acquisitions
In recognition of the area’s unique fish and wildlife
resource values, and especially the bay’s importance
to Pacific brant, parts of Humboldt Bay were
initially proposed for refuge status in the early
1960s. However, it was not until September 1971
that refuge boundaries were set and acquisition
began, officially establishing the Humboldt Bay
NWR. An environmental assessment for proposed
land acquisitions was originally written in 1974, and
updated in both 1980 and 1988. The original refuge
boundary included 7,814 acres, which was increased
by 1,122 acres in 1989. With this addition, the refuge
totaled 8,936 acres.
Approximately 1,081 acres of the Salmon Creek Unit
were purchased by the Service in 1989 following
expansion of the refuge boundary (1988) to include
all of the former McBride Ranch.
In 1998, the 474-acre Lanphere Dunes Unit was
donated to the refuge by The Nature Conservancy
(TNC).
Ma-le’l Dunes officially became a unit of Humboldt
Bay National Wildlife Refuge on August 12, 2005,
the culmination of years of cooperative effort.
The acquisition of this property and its transfer
to the refuge was jointly funded by the Service
and State Coastal Conservancy (SCC), and made
possible through the collaborative efforts of many,
including the SCC, BLM, Center for Natural
Lands Management, Friends of the Dunes, the
Humboldt Coastal Coalition, Wiyot Tribe-Table
Bluff Reservation, and many individual members
of the local community. The 160-acre parcel is
managed together with the southern 120 acres of
the Lanphere Dunes Unit as the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit.
The unit bears the Wiyot name for the locale, which
was used for thousands of years by the ancestral
Wiyot people for fishing, gathering, and implement-making.
Today, the approved refuge boundary consists of a
total of 9,502 acres, of which 3,379 acres are owned
in fee title.
10 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CHAPTER 1
Figure 3. Historic and current tidal marsh surrounding Humboldt Bay, including density of non-native
dense-flowered cordgrass populations.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 11
1.6.5. Current Management of Humboldt Bay
NWR
The primary focus of Humboldt Bay NWR is
the enhancement, restoration, and management
of a diversity of wetland and upland habitats for
the benefit of all the natural resources that those
habitats ultimately help sustain. These habitats
include a continuum of estuarine, freshwater,
riparian and seasonal wetlands; agricultural
grasslands; and a large dune-dominated landscape.
Another focus of the refuge is its public use, or
visitor services, program. This program is geared
toward providing quality opportunities for the
public to engage in the six priority public uses which
were established by Congress: wildlife observation
and photography, environmental education and
interpretation, hunting and fishing.
Providing support for the habitat and visitor
services programs is the primary role of all
refuge staff as well as contractors, volunteers,
and the Friends of Humboldt Bay NWR. Support
includes a wide range of duties including: facilities
maintenance, heavy equipment use, habitat
management and administrative assistance.
Habitat Management Program
All of the refuge units in South Bay were historically
salt and brackish marsh that was diked off by
previous landowners more than 100 years ago.
These dikes allowed development and changes
in land use, and have resulted in alterations in
hydrology, sedimentation, and topography. In some
locations these dikes have been actively breached
(Table Bluff Unit), while at others (Teal Island)
nature has/is taking its course. The dikes on the
Salmon Creek and Hookton Slough Units have been,
and are currently, maintained where there is risk
of flooding to adjacent private lands and/or public
facilities and infrastructure.
Wetland Management. The Salmon Creek,
Hookton Slough, and White Slough Units are all
in the floodplain, and flood seasonally every year,
generally from November through March. Prior to
refuge acquisition, these lands were managed for
grazing. Water was drained off the land as quickly
as possible through a system of ditches, culverts,
and tidegates. Because the refuge has different
objectives, the drainage system has been modified
with dozens of water control structures to hold
freshwater seasonally, creating hundreds of acres of
seasonal wetlands in an area historically occupied by
salt and brackish marsh. These seasonal wetlands
provide migration and wintering habitat for
thousands of waterbirds annually.
Estuarine Restoration. In 1989, the Fish and
Wildlife Service purchased what is now the Salmon
Creek Unit of Humboldt Bay NWR. The previous
landowners had rerouted and channelized Salmon
Creek and cleared vegetation from the creek/ditch
every few years. One of the refuge’s initial goals was
to restore the channelized portion of Salmon Creek
on the refuge. In addition, the upper portions of the
watershed had been extensively impacted through
timber harvest, livestock management, and rural
development, impacts that carried downstream
in the form of sediment buildup and aggradation
of the stream and slough channels. Currently, the
upper Salmon Creek watershed is the BLM-owned
Headwaters Conservation Area, which is dedicated
to habitat restoration that is expected to reduce
sediment input to the watershed.
In 1993, refuge staff and others were able to reroute
approximately half of the creek on the refuge into a
meandering channel located as close as possible to
the historic channel alignment. This creek channel
now includes some large woody debris and riparian
overstory that provides shade and structure to the
creek habitat. The restoration resulted in increased
riparian habitat, increased juvenile fish habitat,
and improved water quality, however problems and
concerns still exist. An aggraded channel bottom
(up to 3-5 feet) reduces stream depth and increases
water temperatures and sediment deposition. In
addition, in 1997, all salmonids that use Salmon
Creek (Coho, Chinook, steelhead, coastal cutthroat)
were listed as threatened under the Federal ESA.
The tidewater goby had already been listed as
endangered in 1994.
Salmon Creek Restoration Project Phase I. In
2001, an effort was initiated to significantly modify
the tidegates on lower Salmon Creek and on
Hookton Slough to improve fish passage, sediment
routing, and water quality. It was a collaborative
effort that included the refuge, the Pacific Coast
Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Association
(PCFWWRA), California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG), Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, the
Coastal Program managed from the Arcata Fish and
Wildlife Office (AFWO), and many local contractors
who have contributed and volunteered significant
amounts of time and effort to the project. The work
was completed in 2008.
Salmon Creek Restoration Project Phase II.
Phase II is in the planning stages and will require
excavation of approximately one half mile of former
creek channel and construction of a small fish
screen or other measures to protect fish and to allow
seasonal water diversions to flood refuge wetlands.
Phase II is needed to complete all the objectives
12 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CHAPTER 1
of Phase I and the restoration of that portion of
Salmon Creek on the refuge. It is also expected to
significantly improve habitat conditions of the creek
up to a mile upstream of the refuge.
Agricultural Grassland Management. The
refuge currently manages grazing and haying on
the refuge through a cooperative land management
agreement with local ranchers, which is based on
grazing and haying rates established by the UC
Agricultural Extension Office. Grazing and haying
provide short grass habitat (2 to 6 inches) primarily
used by Aleutian cackling geese, but also wigeon,
swans, shorebirds, and other species. Grazing and
haying generally occur from late spring (late April
to early May) through September or October. The
pH of pasture soils is monitored every 3 to 5 years
and lime is periodically added as needed to maintain
soil conditions favorable to growing pasture grasses.
In addition, refuge staff conducts mowing (outside
of nesting season) along edges where agricultural
grasslands merge into wetland plant communities.
This is done throughout the Salmon Creek Unit in
places where haying is not feasible to maintain short
grass habitat and to control non-native invasive
weeds, such as thistle (Cirsium spp.).
Dune Restoration. Restoration at the Lanphere
Dunes Unit has been ongoing, beginning under
ownership by the Lanpheres through 1997 by The
Nature Conservancy. In 1998, when TNC donated
its holdings at Lanphere Dunes to the refuge,
restoration focused on invasive species eradication
with associated research on ecosystem function and
restoration techniques. Management objectives and
associated monitoring plans have been completed
for the Lanphere Dunes Unit, and work is ongoing
to meet these objectives. In 2003 the refuge created
a restoration, management, and monitoring plan
for beach pine/Sitka spruce and red alder riparian
forest on the Lanphere Dunes Unit (USFWS 2003b)
to prioritize forest management tasks. The goal is to
restore and maintain the ecological integrity of the
native beach pine/Sitka spruce and riparian forest
communities. The plan also includes objectives
related to monitoring, research, and coordination
with tribal entities.
The Ma-le’l Dunes Unit is being restored
consistent with a restoration plan prepared as
part of a mitigation program funded by California
Department of Corrections. This plan includes
elements on invasives control, as well as habitat
manipulation and revegetation.
The refuge does not currently have a regionally
approved Habitat Management Plan. However,
the Service expects that an HMP will be developed
within 4 years of completion of the CCP.
Invasive Species Management. Invasive plant
species are regularly surveyed by staff, volunteers,
and partners. The refuge does not currently have
an approved Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
plan. However, once documented and mapped,
an attempt is made to either eradicate or control
priority invasive plants throughout the Humboldt
Bay NWR using a variety of IPM techniques,
including mechanical, cultural, and chemical control
methods. Plants controlled in the South Bay units
include blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), thistles
(Cirsium vulgare and C. arvense), bristly ox-tongue
(Picrus echioides), reed canarygrass (Phalaris
arundinacea), white morning glory (Calystegia
silvatica), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor),
and others. Two key invasives that have been
found in the area (and could do profound damage
to existing habitats), but have not yet reached the
refuge are Japanese eelgrass (Zostera japonica) and
purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria).
Restoration of salt marsh at the Lanphere and Ma-le’l
Units has begun, through collaboration with the
State Coastal Conservancy and others, to remove
dense-flowered cordgrass (Spartina densiflora) and
revegetate with native salt marsh species. Successful
techniques will be adapted for use at other refuge
units and likely at other locations around the bay.
Major invasive plant removal initiatives at the
Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes have included
European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria),
yellow bush lupine (Lupinus arboreus), ice plant
(Carpobrotus edulis x C. chilense hybrids), English
ivy (Hedera helix), a suite of invasive annual
grasses, and dense-flowered cordgrass. Management
of the first three species is in a maintenance stage,
where minor work is needed to prevent new starts
or complete eradication of any small persisting
populations. English ivy management is nearing a
maintenance stage, but requires some additional
work. Annual grass management work is still in
progress. However, while major progress has been
made, control is hampered by off-refuge sources.
The cordgrass management initiative has resulted in
the restoration of 10 to 15 acres of salt marsh in the
Lanphere and Ma-le’l units. All of these initiatives
have been carried out using manual or mechanical
methods of control.
Herbicides that are periodically used to control
invasive plants on the Humboldt Bay NWR include
Rodeo, Roundup pro, and Roundup pro concentrate.
Prior to any herbicide use on Humboldt Bay NWR,
a Pesticide Use Permit is filed in the regional and
national office for each herbicide. All pesticide usage
is in compliance with labeling instructions and under
the direction of a certified applicator. The refuge
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 13
does not currently have an approved IPM Plan, but
will be developing one within 4 years of completion
of the CCP.
Biological Program
Monitoring and Surveys of Fish, Wildlife, and
Plants. Monitoring and survey efforts are meant to
complement and inform refuge management, and
often vary in degree of intensity and/or regularity
based on a combination of refuge staffing, funding,
and competing priorities. Habitat management is
dependent upon biological information collected
through monitoring and research, without
which managers have little basis for prescribing
management actions.
The refuge participates in ongoing partnerships
with AFWO and CDFG to monitor lower Salmon
Creek and Hookton Slough for salmonids, tidewater
goby, and amphibians.
Other wildlife species monitored or surveyed
on the refuge or by refuge staff, contractors, or
partners include Aleutian cackling geese, western
Canada geese (Branta canadensis moffitti), Pacific
brant, tundra swans (Cygnus columbianus),
ducks, shorebirds, snowy plover (Charadrius
alexandrinus), seabirds, passerine birds, deer,
otter, and frogs. In addition, birds on the refuge are
monitored annually for avian influenza and avian
cholera.
In keeping with the management goals and
objectives formulated for the Lanphere and Ma-le’l
Dune Units, there is ongoing monitoring of the
following target plants and plant communities:
■ Humboldt Bay wallflower
(Erysimum menziesii ssp.
eurekense)
■ Beach layia (Layia carnosa)
■ Pink sand verbena (Abronia
umbellata ssp. breviflora)
■ Humboldt Bay Owl’s-clover
(Castilleja ambigua ssp.
humboldtiensis)
■ Point Reyes bird’s-beak
(Cordylanthus maritimus ssp.
palustris)
■ Dune mat plant community
■ Salt marsh plant community
■ Forest mycoheterotrophs (orchids
and other species that are
mutualists with mycorrhizal fungi
associated with woody plants) and
culturally significant geophytes
(bulb plants)
Vegetation surveys were conducted for the wetland
and dune vegetation of the refuge from 2005-2007.
A vegetation classification based on quantitative
sampling is still being finalized.
Visitor Services Program
Visitor Services are managed primarily from the
Richard J. Guadagno Office and Visitor Center,
located on the Salmon Creek Unit of the refuge. It
was opened in spring 2002, and accommodates most
of the refuge staff. The Center has several high
quality interpretive dioramas and a large room for
refuge-designed public events and wildlife viewing
of the surrounding seasonal wetlands. The refuge
hosts a very informative website that provides
detailed information about all refuge programs,
especially visitor services opportunities (www.fws.
gov/humboldtbay). The proposed Visitor Services
Plan is included in Appendix B.
Wildland and Wildlife Observation and
Photography. Currently, the refuge maintains
the 1.75-mile Shorebird Loop Trail on the Salmon
Creek Unit, the 1.5-mile Hookton Slough Trail on
the Hookton Slough Unit, and ~2 miles of trails on
the Lanphere Dunes Unit. All of these trails offer
great opportunities for wildlife observation and
photography. There is also a photoblind for use at
the Salmon Creek Unit.
Refuge staff coordinates with two Friends groups,
(Friends of the Humboldt Bay NWR and Friends
of the Dunes), and Audubon volunteers who offer
guided walks on the refuge units several times per
month.
Birdwatching walk. Photo: Shannon Smith
14 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CHAPTER 1
The refuge maintains a non-motorized boat dock
at the Hookton Slough Unit as a way to encourage
wildlife observation from the bay. The refuge
is currently working with the State Coastal
Conservancy (SCC), the Humboldt Bay Harbor
Recreation and Conservation District, the Redwood
Community Action Agency, and Explore Northwest
to develop safe, sustainable options for boating
access on the bay that minimize impacts to natural
resources.
The refuge is also working with the SCC, BLM, and
Friends of the Dunes on development of the Ma-le’l
Dunes Cooperative Management Area Access
Plan. This plan will ultimately provide increased
opportunities for the public to enjoy this magnificent
dune and slough area south of the Lanphere Dunes
Unit. The most recent draft of this plan can be found
on the refuge website.
Environmental Education and Interpretation.
Currently, the refuge accommodates pre-scheduled
classroom visits, drop-in classroom visits, and also
on-site visits where volunteers and/or staff go into
schools and provide programs. The Friends groups
are instrumental in providing these opportunities.
The refuge currently offers and/or participates in
seven annual special events: the Aleutian Goose
Fly-off and Family Fun Weekend the first weekend
in March, the Aleutian Goose Festival, Godwit
Days, Migratory Bird Day, and the Lupine Bash
each spring, Outdoor Youth Days in August, and a
celebration for National Refuge Week in October.
Hunting. Hunting on Humboldt Bay NWR
is managed in compliance with the 1990 Sport
Hunting Management Plan. Waterfowl, coot (Fulica
americana), and snipe (Gallinago spp.) hunting
is permitted in accordance with State regulations
on most areas of the refuge, including the Eureka
Slough, Jacoby Creek, and Table Bluff Units. On the
Salmon Creek Unit during the regular waterfowl
season a lottery draw hunt is held from shoot time
until 3:00 p.m. on Tuesdays and Saturdays. The
waters and islands of Hookton and White Slough are
open concurrently with over-water shoot days on the
bay. The proposed Sport Hunting Plan is included in
Appendix C.
Fishing. Fishing on the Humboldt Bay NWR
is managed in compliance with the 1992 Fishery
Management Plan. Fishing is permitted in
Humboldt Bay and in tidal sloughs year round in
accordance with State regulations. The Hookton
Slough Trail and boat dock are open to fishing;
access to other areas is by boat. Limited fishing does
occur for sharks and rays, and shellfish on Humboldt
Bay NWR. The proposed Sport Fishing Plan is
included in Appendix D.
1.6.6. Castle Rock NWR Setting
Castle Rock is a 14-acre island located in Del Norte
County, less than a mile northwest of Crescent City.
Castle Rock in located on California’s northwest
coast between Arcata and the Oregon border. Castle
Rock remains largely in its natural state, as a rocky
nearshore island with little disturbance by people.
1.6.7. Historic Conditions of Castle Rock NWR
The first historic accounts of seabird populations
on Castle Rock came from the field notes of Clay,
an egg-collector in the early 1900s (Clay 1901-1953
MS). Clay first visited the island in 1916, spent
two weeks there in late July 1917, and returned in
1934 and 1935. He reported that Leach’s storm-petrels
(Oceanodroma leucorhoa) were nesting by
the “tens of thousands” on the island. Fork-tailed
storm-petrels (Oeanodroma furcata) and tufted
puffins (Fratercula cirrhata) were also present
and breeding. Another egg-collector, T. Fraser,
visited the island around the same time. Altogether,
nine seabird species were observed, including
common murre (Uria aalge), Brandt’s cormorant
(Phalacrocorax penicillatus), western gull (Larus
occidentalis), and Cassin’s auklet (Ptychoramphus
aleuticus). Ornithologist Robert Talmage (in
Osborne 1972) visited the island in the mid-1930s
and observed a few double-crested cormorants
(Phalacrocorax auritus) describing their breeding
status as sporadic. He looked for rhinoceros
auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata) without success.
Osborne observed breeding rhinoceros auklets on
Castle Rock in 1969-1970. Black oystercatchers
(Haematopus bachmani) have bred in small
numbers on the island since at least the 1930s
(Osborne 1972). All of the contemporary seabird
species breeding on Castle Rock were present
during the early 1900s, as recorded in the notes of
early ornithologists.
Over the last century, distinct changes to the
vegetation has occurred, as have the populations
of seabirds. Unfortunately, the cause and effects
of these changes are primarily unknown. Meadow
areas once covered with Pacific reedgrass
(Calamagrostis nutkaensis) have receded and been
replaced with goldfields (Lasthenia maritima) and
sand spurrey (Spergularia macrotheca) (Castle
Rock NWR plant communities are discussed in
detail in Section 3.7.3). Photographs taken in 1935
show reedgrass growing over most of the meadow,
covering an estimated 3 acres (Osborne 1972). By
1961 the area covered in reedgrass was reduced by
about 50 percent. In 1970, reedgrass covered only 1
acre and was largely replaced by bluegrass (Poa sp.)
(Osborne 1972). By 1984 the hummocks of reedgrass
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 15
were mostly dead. “Rhizomes and roots were all that
was left of the once extensive populations” (Sawyer
1984). In 1989 only a few tussocks remained on the
east end of the island (Carter et al. 1992). By 2000
there was no evidence of this species as viewed from
shore or boat (D. Jaques unpublished). Aleutian
geese have been known to use Castle Rock since at
least pre-European times as they are known from
Tolowa verbal history. In 1974, there were fewer
than 1000 geese using the island and today there
are ~20-25,000 which use the island for roosting
each winter and spring. The effects of that many
geese include impacts on vegetation and substrate,
biological contribution of their droppings, and
possible exclusion of area to other species due to
their large numbers and interspecific behavior.
1.6.8. History of Castle Rock NWR
Establishment and Acquisitions
The Service proposed to purchase Castle Rock
in 1978 to protect critical habitat for the then-endangered
Aleutian Canada goose (now called
Aleutian cackling goose) (USFWS 1978). The geese
were first detected at Castle Rock in spring of
1975. It was later found that the island and nearby
mainland agricultural grasslands were the spring
staging ground for virtually the entire population of
Aleutian Canada geese (Woolington et al. 1979). The
island was recommended for critical habitat status
in 1977 (USFWS 1991), and a negative declaration
for purchase of the island was completed in 1978
(USFWS 1978). The original proposal included
lease acquisition, a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU), and Cooperative Agreements to also
preserve nearly 800 acres of grazing habitat on
Point St. George.
In 1979, TNC purchased Castle Rock from the
G. E. Kibbe Estate. The Service purchased the
island from TNC by fee acquisition in 1980 for
$41,250, using funds from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. A letter from the Service to
TNC on July 5, 1980 stated, “We plan to manage
Castle Rock primarily for its values to endangered
species (mainly the Aleutian Canada goose) and
nesting marine birds (murres, auklets, petrels,
etc.)…Like the Farallon Island NWR, Castle Rock
would be managed by the FWS as a sanctuary.
Human disturbance is the main factor that must be
controlled…We would expect to permit a limited
amount of research but only that which would have
high potential to increase management knowledge of
these avian resources.”
1.6.9. Current Management of Castle Rock
NWR
Castle Rock NWR is so rich with sensitive wildlife
species, and the habitat so fragile, that only very
limited access for research, monitoring, and
management has been allowed. Currently, refuge
staff collaborates with San Francisco Bay National
Wildlife Refuge Complex (SFBNWRC) and
partners such as Humboldt State University (HSU),
the Service’s Coastal Program at Humboldt Bay, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to
conduct photo surveys of birds and marine mammals
utilizing Castle Rock NWR and associated habitat.
Associates from HSU and SFBNWRC maintain
remote automatic cameras on Castle Rock NWR
used to assess the ecology and populations of
nesting seabirds, and are working with the refuge
to develop a long-term monitoring plan. Live video
from these cameras can be viewed seasonally by the
public at the National Park Service (NPS) Visitor
Center in Crescent City or over the internet. In
addition, the refuge is looking into using this footage
to develop short educational/interpretive films
appropriate for different grade levels. Interpretive
panels highlighting Castle Rock NWR wildlife are
located on Pebble Beach Drive, adjacent to the shore
overlooking Castle Rock NWR.
1.7. Related Projects and Studies in the
Area
1.7.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA,
and Pacific Flyway Projects and Studies
Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population
of the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus)
The Pacific coast population of the western snowy
plover is listed as threatened under the Federal ESA
(USFWS 2007). The Pacific western snowy plover
is a small bird that winters mainly in coastal areas
from southern Washington to Central America.
The Pacific coast population breeds primarily above
the high tide line on coastal beaches, sand spits,
dune-backed beaches, sparsely-vegetated dunes,
beaches at creek and river mouths, and salt pannes
at lagoons and estuaries. Habitat degradation,
caused by human disturbance, urban development,
introduced beachgrass, and expanding predator
populations, has resulted in a decline in nesting
areas and in the size of the populations (USFWS
2007).
16 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CHAPTER 1
Recovery Plan For the Tidewater Goby
(Eucyclogobius newberryi)
The tidewater goby is listed as endangered under
the Federal ESA (USFWS 2006a). This small
fish inhabits coastal brackish water habitats
entirely within California, including portions of the
Humboldt Bay NWR, which are identified in the
plan as critical habitat.
The tidewater goby is uniquely adapted to coastal
lagoons and the uppermost brackish zone of larger
estuaries, rarely invading marine or freshwater
habitats. Principal threats include loss and
modification of habitat, water diversions, predatory
and competitive introduced fish species, habitat
channelization, and degraded water quality.
Recovery Plan for Seven Coastal Plants and
the Myrtle’s Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria
zerene myrtleae)
Seven plants and one invertebrate native to the
coastal dunes of northern and central California are
covered in this recovery plan (USFWS 1998).
Two species, Humboldt Bay wallflower and beach
layia, are present on the Humboldt Bay NWR. The
recovery plan calls for seven primary actions to be
taken to recover the two species:
1. Protect existing populations and habitats.
2. Minimize the threats to the plants.
3. Develop management strategies incorporating
ecological and land use strategies.
4. Manage populations and habitats to achieve
delisting.
5. Monitor population trends to evaluate recovery
success.
6. Coordinate recovery actions to protect other
listed and sensitive species.
7. Develop and implement an outreach program.
Final Revised Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan
Current Species Status: The Steller sea-lion was
listed as a threatened species under the ESA on
April 5, 1990 (55 FR 12645) due to substantial
declines in the western portion of the range.
At the time of listing, the overall abundance of
sea-lions in the eastern portion of the range (in
southeastern Alaska and Canada) was increasing at
approximately 3 percent per year. Critical habitat
was designated on August 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269)
based on the location of terrestrial rookery and
haulout sites, spatial extent of foraging trips, and
availability of prey. In 1997, based on demographic
and genetic dissimilarities, NOAA Fisheries Service
designated two distinct population segments
(DPSs) of Steller sea-lions under the ESA: a
western distinct population segment (DPS) and an
eastern DPS (62 FR 24345, 62 FR 30772). Due to
persistent decline, the western DPS was reclassified
as endangered, while the increasing eastern DPS
remained classified as threatened. The eastern
DPS was estimated to number between 46,000 and
58,000 animals in 2002, and has been increasing
at approximately 3 percent per year since the late
1970s (Pitcher et al. 2007). Castle Rock NWR is
within the range of and used by a portion of the
eastern population segment. The Final Revised
Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan can be viewed at
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov.
The primary objective of all recovery plans is to
manage the threats to and improve the population
status of the species sufficiently to warrant
reclassification (from endangered to threatened
status) or delisting.
Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the
Pacific Population of Brant
The goal of the Pacific Flyway Management Plan
for the Pacific Population of Brant is to identify
the requirements and responsibilities necessary to
cooperatively manage the population on a sustained
basis (PFC 2002). An essential part of this goal is
the continued availability and health of Pacific brant
habitats throughout their range, including eelgrass
beds and associated habitat in Humboldt Bay and on
the refuge.
Pacific brant are found in the United States, Canada,
Mexico, Russia, and Japan. As such, a cooperative
effort has been, and will continue to be, required for
sound management. The winter population objective
of Pacific brant for Humboldt Bay is 5,000 (PFC
2002). The overall population objective for Pacific
brant is 150,000.
Pacific Flyway Management Plan for Pacific
Population of Aleutian Cackling Geese
The goal of the Pacific Flyway Management
Plan for Aleutian Cackling Geese is to identify
the requirements and responsibilities necessary
Tidewater goby.  Photo: © Greg Goldsmith
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 17
to cooperatively manage the Aleutian cackling
goose population on a sustained basis (PFC 2006).
Essential components of this goal are to reduce
the goose population to 60,000, and manage goose
habitat on public lands in northern California to
the maximum extent practicable in order to reduce
depredation impacts on private landowners.
Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the
Western Population of Tundra Swans
The purpose of the Pacific Flyway Management
Plan for the Western Population of Tundra Swans
is to establish guidelines for the cooperative
management of the Western Population of tundra
swans (PFC 2001).
The goal of the Pacific Flyway Management Plan
for the Western Population of Tundra Swans is to
ensure the maintenance of the Western Population
of tundra swans at a size and distribution that
will provide for all their benefits to society. The
objectives are to:
■ Maintain a population of at least 60,000 swans to
provide suitable public benefits.
■ Maintain current patterns of distribution
throughout the Western Population tundra swan
range.
■ Provide breeding, migration, and wintering
habitats of sufficient quantity and quality to
maintain the desired numbers and distribution of
swans.
■ Provide for aesthetic, educational, and scientific
uses of swans.
■ Provide for sustainable sport and subsistence
harvests of western population tundra swans.
Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region
The Seabird Conservation Plan identifies the
Service’s priorities for seabird management,
monitoring, research, outreach, planning, and
coordination (USFWS 2005). The Seabird
Conservation Plan prioritizes all species at a
regional scale (California, Oregon, Washington,
Hawaii, and U.S. Pacific Island commonwealths,
territories, and possessions), and identifies
prioritized recommendations for conservation
actions.
Objectives and strategies with implications for
Castle Rock NWR include:
■ 7.g.(i). Count archived common murre and
cormorant aerial photographs from 1980 through
the present from California and Oregon colonies.
Highest priority to photographs taken 1995
through the present.
■ 10.a. Develop K-12 curricula on seabirds with
specific chapters on the California Current
System and tropical/subtropical island systems.
Southern Pacific Shorebird Conservation Plan
The Southern Pacific Shorebird Conservation Plan
(Hickey et al. 2003) identifies priority shorebird
species, habitats, sites and conservation actions
within coastal California and the Central Valley. It
specifically identifies Humboldt Bay as one of 25
Coastal Wetlands of Importance to shorebirds in the
region. Specific conservation actions for Humboldt
Bay include:
■ Prohibit further alteration of tidal flats for oyster
culture.
■ Eliminate the introduced salt-water cordgrass
from the tidal flats of Humboldt Bay.
■ Protect seasonal wetlands and pastures important
to shorebirds from development.
Lower Salmon Creek Delta Salmonid Habitat
Enhancement Opportunities: Humboldt Bay
NWR
In 2003, the Lower Salmon Creek Delta Salmonid
Habitat Enhancement Opportunities document
(Salmon Creek Restoration Plan) was funded
through the CDFG’s Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
(PCFWWRA 2003). The Salmon Creek Restoration
Plan identifies opportunities for salmonid habitat
restoration and improved salmonid access on
Humboldt Bay NWR’s Salmon Creek Unit and is
the template for ongoing restoration work there.
1.7.2. California Department of Fish and Game
Projects and Studies
California Wildlife Action Plan
In compliance with the Congressionally enacted
State Wildlife Grants Program, CDFG created the
California Wildlife Action Plan (comprehensive
wildlife conservation strategy) (CDFG 2007). A
Tundra swans at the Salmon Creek Unit.
Photo: USFWS
18 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CHAPTER 1
major component of the Wildlife Action Plan is to
identify and compile information on wildlife species,
including low and declining populations that are
indicative of the diversity and health of the State’s
wildlife populations.
The CDFG uses a Special Animals List, which
is maintained and updated within the California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). This list is
commonly referred to as the list of special status
species. Many of the special status species have been
identified as Species of Special Concern due to their
low or declining numbers. In addition, the Wildlife
Action Plan regional chapters describe major
problems and threats that may adversely affect
wildlife and their habitats within each region.
Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon
The CDFG, with the assistance of recovery teams
representing diverse interests and perspectives,
created the Recovery Strategy for California Coho
Salmon as a guide for recovering Coho salmon on
the north and central coasts of California (CDFG
2004a).
Five primary goals have been identified to recover
Coho salmon on the north coast of California:
1. Maintain and improve the number of key
populations and increase the number of
populations and cohorts of Coho salmon.
2. Maintain and increase the number of spawning
adults.
3. Maintain the range, and maintain and increase
distribution of Coho salmon.
4. Maintain existing habitat essential for Coho
salmon.
5. Enhance and restore habitat within the range of
Coho salmon.
1.7.3. Other Pertinent Projects, Programs, and
Documents
Wiyot Tribe Restoration Project on Indian
Island
Indian Island, the largest contiguous salt marsh
area left in Humboldt Bay, provides food and
shelter for hundreds of species of native plants, fish,
shellfish, and birds.
Around 1870, a shipyard repair facility was built on
the property now owned by the Tribe. This shipyard
operated until the 1980s. Creosote, solvents, and
other chemicals used to maintain ships remain.
Dilapidated buildings and tons of scattered metal
and wood debris still litter the area. Remains of
dikes and drains built by settlers to control tidal flow
across the island still impact the land, and continue
to degrade valuable habitat.
The Table Bluff Reservation/Wiyot Tribe plans to
clean up the debris and pollutants left on the village
site. The Tribe is exploring ways to restore the
natural waterways of the area to allow the bay to
interact more naturally with the tidal marsh area,
increasing native plant and fish populations. The
result will be a cleaner place for people, surrounded
by more productive and diverse habitats for wildlife.
The Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management manages lands
that directly impact both refuges of the Complex.
They manage the Headwaters Reserve, which
includes the headwaters of both Elk River and
Salmon Creek. These terminate in Mid and South
Bay respectively. BLM also manages South Spit,
which is owned by CDFG. On the North Spit, BLM
manages additional lands, including part of the Ma-le’l
Dunes Cooperative Management Area. The Ma-le’l
Dunes Cooperative Management Area consists
of the BLM’s Manila Dunes and the refuge’s Ma-le’l
Dunes Units. This 444-acre stretch of dune
and wetland habitats is managed cooperatively by
USFWS and BLM. Partners in this project include
the State Coastal Conservancy; the Wiyot Tribe,
Blue Lake Rancheria, and Bear River Band of
Rohnerville Rancheria; Friends of the Dunes; and
the Redwood Gun Club.
In addition, BLM manages the California Coastal
National Monument, which includes all the rocks,
reefs, and islands of the California coast not owned
by the Service, National Park Service, or other
entities.
Pacific Coast Joint Venture Northern
California Component
The Pacific Coast Joint Venture (PCJV) was
established in 1991 to implement the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan of 1986 to
restore waterfowl populations of the Pacific Coast in
Canada, the United States, and Mexico to the levels
recorded during the 1970s (PCJV 2004). The PCJV
partners have acquired and restored important
wetlands, including portions of the Humboldt Bay
NWR.
State Coastal Conservancy
The State Coastal Conservancy is involved in
multiple projects and planning efforts on the north
coast, including the Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative
Management Area, Aleutian Cackling Goose
Management, Spartina Control Research and
Implementation, and Humboldt BayTrails Projects
(both water-based and land-based).
The Humboldt County Dunes Cooperative
This cooperative consists of Federal, State, Tribal,
local, and private entities that work together to
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 19
research, evaluate, prioritize, and implement
dune conservation and restoration in Humboldt
County. One of their first projects was the Coastal
Dune Mapping Project, which will result in the
classification and mapping of all dune vegetation in
Humboldt County.
Friends of the Dunes
Plans are currently underway to transform the
ocean and bay view property formerly known as
the Stamps House into a “gateway to the dunes.”
Featuring an interpretive nature center, restrooms,
ample parking, and a marked trail system, the
Humboldt Coastal Nature Center will provide
the community with an easy point of entry to the
coastlands and dune trails that will connect to the
Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area to
the north, and Manila Community Services District
to the south. The linked trail system will provide
visitors with access to ~1,000 acres of coastal dune
habitats, and the nature center and an adjacent loop
trail will be wheelchair accessible. In addition, the
facility will serve as a home base for the Friends
of the Dunes ongoing education and restoration
activities.
Humboldt/Del Norte County Weed Management
Area
This group’s purpose is to effectively manage,
coordinate, and implement the invasive plant species
programs among the BLM, U.S. Forest Service,
NPS, US Fish and Wildlife Service, California
State Parks, CDFG, California Department of
Transportation, Humboldt County, Del Norte
County, Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS), Humboldt County Resource Conservation
District, California Cattlemen’s Association,
California Department of Food and Agriculture,
UC Cooperative Extension, City of Eureka, City
of Arcata, Friends of the Dunes, Center for Land
Management, Manila Community Services District,
and the North Coast Chapter of the California
Native Plant Society. The groups have mutually
agreed to:
1. Participate and/or cooperate in the development
of a Weed Management Plan, which will be
created for the Humboldt-Del Norte County
Weed Management Area (WMA).
2. Share information among cooperators and
provide assistance and expertise regarding alien
species management (e.g., control methods,
introduction prevention measures, restoration
tools) activities on their units.
3. Provide opportunities to outside interest
groups, private landowners, and the public
for involvement in carrying out the Weed
Management Plan on lands within the Humboldt-
Del Norte County WMA.
The Humboldt Bay Management Plan
In order to balance port-related commercial and
industrial uses, expanding recreational uses, and
environmental protection, a planning document
for Humboldt Bay was deemed necessary by
the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and
Conservation District (HBHRCD 2007). The HBMP
is the region’s first ecosystem-based management
approach intended to improve the management of
Humboldt Bay. The Humboldt Bay Management
Plan (HBMP) is a large cooperative project
funded by Federal, State, and local agencies. Many
Conservation Element Policies from the HBMP are
relevant to Service cooperation with other regional
organizations and management of Humboldt Bay
NWR. The Humboldt Bay Management Plan
contains a tremendous amount of information on the
history of development and the natural ecology of
Humboldt Bay (www.humboldtbay.org).
Humboldt Bay Ecosystem Program
The Humboldt Bay Ecosystem Program (HBEP)
is a relatively new ecosystem-based management
program coordinated by the Eureka Sea Grant
Office (UCANRP 2007). The mission of the HBEP
is to increase the scientific understanding of
the Humboldt Bay ecosystem and to create an
integrated framework for resource management and
collaboration that links the needs of people, habitats
and species to ensure a healthy future for Humboldt
Bay’s natural and human communities.
The HBEP defines ecosystem-based management
as a comprehensive process of integrated resource
management that considers the entire ecosystem,
including humans. It integrates the best available
scientific, traditional and local knowledge, is
geographically specific, defines management based
on ecological boundaries, addresses complexities
of natural processes and social systems, considers
multiple simultaneous factors influencing
management, and is collaborative, integrating
social and environmental goals. The purpose of this
project is to develop practical implementation of an
ecosystem approach.
The foundation for this program is two community
based plans, the Humboldt Bay Management Plan
and the Humboldt Bay Watershed Salmon and
Steelhead Conservation Plan. Issues, priorities
and recommendations in these plans were used to
develop ecosystem-based management approaches
to sediment dynamics, governance, ecosystem and
socio-economic indicators concept proposals. These
proposals will be further developed and explored in
2009.
20 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CHAPTER 1
The Humboldt Bay Watershed Salmon and
Steelhead Conservation Plan
The Humboldt Bay Watershed Salmon and
Steelhead Conservation Plan compiles and evaluates
watershed information, with a list of high priority
goals and objectives aimed at protecting and/
or restoring watershed processes to preserve
and enhance salmon and steelhead habitat
(HBWAC, RCAA 2005). The Salmon and Steelhead
Conservation Plan was developed by the Humboldt
Bay Watershed Advisory Committee (HBWAC),
a diverse group of watershed stakeholders, “to
improve the Humboldt Bay watershed’s anadromous
salmonid populations and related resources while
considering regional ecological and socioeconomic
needs.”
Other Wetland Habitat Restoration Projects
Other wetland habitat restoration projects in
the Humboldt Bay/Eel River area include the
City of Arcata’s McDaniel Slough and Baylands
Restorations, and collaborative efforts involving the
Service, CDFG, the Redwood Community Action
Agency (RCAA), and other parties on Jacoby Creek,
Gannon Slough, Rocky Gulch, Washington Gulch,
Cochrane Creek, Fay Slough, Freshwater Slough
and Wood Creek, Martin Slough, Elk River, and
Salmon Creek on Humboldt Bay, and the Salt River
(tributary on the lower Eel River). Service staff of
the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and the
Coastal Program at Humboldt Bay have provided
funds and technical assistance to many of these
projects.
Humboldt Bay Initiative
The Humboldt Bay Initiative seeks to bring people
together to help envision the desired future state of
the Humboldt Bay ecosystems, to help understand
past, current and future conditions, and to move
forward in the spirit of collaboration towards a
sustainable and dynamic future. In order to address
priority stresses to the ecosystems due to human
activities, climate change, excessive sediment,
and invasive species, the Humboldt Bay Initiative
proposes a set of strategies that help create the
conditions necessary for a shared vision of the
future. Through an ecosystem-based management
approach, the Humboldt Bay Initiative enhances
integrated management to address these stresses
with strategies to adapt to climate and coastal
change, coordinate a response to invasive species,
study and control sediment sources, promote
sustainable community development, and ultimately
support integrated forest management. The project
team includes Federal, state and local agencies, and
other partners. The USFWS Coastal Program and
USFWS Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge
have been actively involved. A final report was
released in May 2009 (Schlosser et al. 2009).
Marine Mammal Monitoring Surrounding
Castle Rock NWR
The NOAA Fisheries Service monitors pinnipeds on
and surrounding Castle Rock NWR. The Southwest
Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) conducts a
Pinniped Aerial Surveys Project, which includes
censuses at the refuge. Surveys are flown for
breeding elephant seals in February, harbor seals in
May to July, and Steller’s and California sea-lions
in July. Surveys are conducted at an altitude of
either 750 to 800 feet, or 1400 feet, depending on the
camera equipment used and sensitivity of marine
mammals at a particular location. Stock assessment
reports are produced and are available online
(swfsc.noaa.gov). The reports generally do not
provide specific information for Castle Rock NWR
populations, but can be used to assess regional
trends.
Steller sea-lion.  Photo: © Ron LeValley
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 21
2.1. Planning Process Policies
Service policy, the Improvement Act, and NEPA
provide specific guidance for the planning
process, such as seeking public involvement in the
preparation of the Environmental Assessment
document. The development and analysis of a
reasonable range of management alternatives
within the EA include a no action alternative
(Alternative A) that reflects current conditions
and management strategies for both refuges in the
Complex. Management alternatives were developed
as part of this planning process (see Appendix E:
Environmental Assessment).
2.1.1. The Planning Process
Part of comprehensive conservation planning
includes preparation of a NEPA document. Key
steps in the CCP planning process and the parallel
NEPA process include (Figure 4):
■ Preplanning and Team formation
■ Public Scoping
■ Identifying issues, opportunities, and concerns
■ Defining and revising vision statement and refuge
goals
■ Developing and assessing alternatives
■ Identifying the preferred alternative plan
■ Draft CCP and EA
■ Revising draft documents and releasing final
CCP
■ Implementing the CCP
■ Monitoring / Feedback (Adaptive Management)
2.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Complex CCP
Process
Preliminary CCP planning began with information
gathering in the fall of 2006. The official process
began on January 29, 2007, when a Notice of
Intent to prepare a CCP and EA published in the
Federal Register (Vol. 72, No. 18, p. 4020). The
Notice of Intent requested that the public submit
comments on the scope of issues to be considered
in the CCP and EA by March 15, 2007. A core
planning team was established to prepare the
CCP and EA. Planners, biologists, and managers
from the Service formed the core planning team.
The extended planning team included members of
tribal governments, Service archaeologists, and
specialists from various relevant disciplines. Elected
officials and State resource agencies were offered
briefings on the CCP/NEPA process and were
invited to provide input on Complex management.
CCP briefings were provided to representatives of
interested County, State, Congressional, and Tribal
governments. Meetings were held with the planning
teams throughout the process to discuss various
planning issues and develop vision statements, goals,
alternatives, objectives, and strategies, as well as to
share information about the Complex.
2.2.1. Public Involvement During Public
Scoping Meetings and Initiation of CCP/NEPA
Process
Prior to public scoping meetings, the Complex
issued a press release to many local media outlets
such as local radio stations including KHSU,
KHUM, KSLUG, and KEKA; local newspapers
including the Eureka Times Standard, Eureka
Reporter, Humboldt Beacon, EcoNews, and the
North Coast Journal; and local television stations
including FOX, ABC, NBC, and PBS (community
2. The Planning Process
Figure 4. The CCP planning process.
22 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CHAPTER 2
calendar). Flyers advertising the public meetings
were posted on community bulletin boards by
members of the Service in January of 2007. Service
staff provided an interview to a local television
news show and to a radio station prior to the public
meetings. A planning update was distributed in
January 2007 to interested stakeholders that had
been identified through prior planning processes. An
issues workbook was also distributed to the mailing
list and at public meetings to help focus public input
on issues relevant to the CCP.
2.2.2. Public Scoping Meetings
Three Public Scoping Meetings were held in Del
Norte and Humboldt counties to receive public input
on the scope of the Complex’s CCP and associated
NEPA document. Each public scoping meeting
consisted of a presentation by Service staff on the
CCP/NEPA process, a presentation on the history of
the Complex’s refuges, questions and answers, and
documentation of public comments. The majority of
each public meeting was spent documenting public
comments.
The first meeting was held on February 13, 2007,
at the Del Norte Family Resource Center from
6:00 p.m.–8:30 p.m. in Crescent City, CA. Five
members of the public attended the meeting. The
second meeting was held on February 15, 2007, at
the College of the Redwoods from 5:30 p.m.–8:00
p.m. in Eureka, CA and 23 members of the public
attended and signed in. The third meeting was
held on February 17, 2007 at the Humboldt Area
Foundation from 2:30 p.m.–5:00 p.m. in Bayside, CA
and 14 members of the public attended and signed
in. Members of the public attending the meetings
were encouraged to also submit written comments
by March 15, 2007. Copies of the Issues Workbook
were distributed to interested stakeholders at the
meetings.
2.2.3. Supplemental Request for Comments on
Castle Rock NWR
Due to Castle Rock NWR’s seasonal popularity,
primarily related to birding events, the Service
attempted to obtain additional public input on
the CCP by distributing an additional planning
update to members of the public attending the
annual Aleutian Cackling Goose Festival during the
week of April 2, 2007. The second planning update
encouraged the public to provide comments on the
future management of Castle Rock NWR by May
17, 2007.
2.2.4. Comments Received During Scoping
A complete list of public comments received orally
and in writing during the public scoping process
are contained in Appendix M: Public Involvement
Process. Hundreds of comments were received
during the public scoping meetings on a wide
variety of Complex management topics. In total, 14
completed issues workbooks were returned during
the public scoping period. In total, 13 letters or
e-mails were received during the open comment
period. In addition, three sets of written comments
were turned in during public meetings.
2.2.5. Public Involvement During the Public
Comment Period for the Draft CCP/EA
Appendix R presents a detailed summary
of all comments received in response to the
Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA)
during the 45-day public comment period. Public
comments on the Draft CCP/EA were accepted
from February 6, 2009, through March 23, 2009.
Also included in the Appendix are the Service’s
responses to comments and a summary of the
changes made between the draft and the final
versions of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 23
3.1. Overview of Humboldt Bay NWR
California’s north coast ecoregion is a unique area
where the southern extension of the temperate
coastal rain forests of the Pacific Northwest meet
the relatively drier coastal forests of California. The
north coast region is characterized by mountain
ranges that parallel the coast, ranging in elevation
from sea level to over 4,000 feet. Ocean currents
and plate tectonics combine to produce long narrow
valleys and large rivers that produce rich estuaries
as they drain into the Pacific Ocean. Foggy forested
mountain ranges descend into remnants of once
vast coastal marshes. A variety of habitat types still
exist along the coast supporting a wide diversity
of flora, fauna, recreational uses, and resource
economies. Northern California’s coastal habitats
include grasslands, terrace prairies, dunes, marshes,
eelgrass beds, mudflats, and diverse forest types.
Lowland areas near the north coast are dominated
by coastal redwood, Sitka spruce, and Douglas-fir
forest. Inland ecosystems include Douglas-fir/tanoak
forest, Oregon oak woodland, annual grasslands, and
mixed broadleaf/coniferous evergreen forests.
3.1.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Physical
Environment Geography and Climate
The Humboldt County coast has a Mediterranean
climate characterized by moderate temper