Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
December 2009
Vision Statement
“Located near the confluence of the north and south forks of the Pit River, Modoc National
Wildlife Refuge will conserve, restore, protect, and manage a mosaic of seasonal wetlands, semi-permanent
wetlands, wet meadows, riparian, and sagebrush-steppe habitats. These habitats will
provide important resting, feeding, and nesting areas for ducks, geese, and other migratory birds.
Modoc Refuge’s high- quality habitat will play a key role in the long-term recovery of Central
Valley greater sandhill cranes.
As an integral part of the surrounding community, Modoc Refuge will provide high quality
wildlife-dependent recreation including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, and
interpretation. The Refuge will continue to be known for its high-quality environmental education
program offered to generations of students. Visitors will develop a greater understanding and
appreciation for the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and refuge management
programs and for the importance of protecting lands for wildlife conservation.”
Disclaimer
CCPs provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives,
and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate
of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially
above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning
and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing
increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Prepared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Region 8
2800 Cottage Way, W-1832
Sacramento, CA 95825
Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
PO Box 1610
Alturas, CA 96101
December 2009
--
egional Director, Pacific Southwest Region
Date: J ~ -/ S--o ?
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.)
- i -
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ............................................................................. 1
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
2. Purpose of and Need for Plan .................................................................................... 3
3. Legal and Policy Guidance ......................................................................................... 3
3.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act ..................................... 3
3.2 Appropriate Use Policy ..................................................................................... 4
3.3 Compatibility Policy ........................................................................................... 5
3.4 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy .............. 6
4. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................... 6
5. The National Wildlife Refuge System ...................................................................... 7
6. Modoc Refuge .............................................................................................................. 9
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 9
6.2 Refuge History ................................................................................................... 9
7. Refuge Purposes........................................................................................................ 10
8. The Refuge Vision ..................................................................................................... 11
9. Existing and New Partnerships .............................................................................. 11
10. Wilderness Review .................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 2. The Planning Process .......................................................................................... 13
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 13
2. The Planning Process ............................................................................................... 13
3. Planning Hierarchy ................................................................................................... 14
4. The Planning Team ................................................................................................... 15
5. Pre-Planning .............................................................................................................. 16
6. Public Involvement in Planning ............................................................................... 17
7. Public Outreach ......................................................................................................... 18
8. Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ...................................................................... 18
9. Development of the Refuge Vision .......................................................................... 19
10. Determining the Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ................................. 19
10.1 Goals .................................................................................................................. 19
10.2 Refuge Management Goals ............................................................................. 19
10.3 Objectives, Rationale, and Strategies ............................................................ 20
- ii -
11. Development of the Refuge Management Alternatives ........................................ 20
11.1 Alternative A: No Action ................................................................................. 21
11.2 Alternative B: Habitat Emphasis ................................................................... 21
11.3 Alternative C: Proposed Action ...................................................................... 21
11.4 Alternative D: Visitor Services Emphasis ..................................................... 22
12. Selection of the Refuge Proposed Action ............................................................... 22
13. Plan Implementation................................................................................................. 22
Chapter 3. The Refuge Environment ..................................................................................... 23
1. Refuge Description ................................................................................................... 23
2. Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ............................................................................... 23
3. Physical Environment............................................................................................... 28
3.1 Climate and Air Quality ................................................................................... 28
3.2 Water Supply and Water Quality ................................................................... 30
3.3 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................. 33
4. Habitat ........................................................................................................................ 33
4.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................ 36
4.1.1 Seasonal wetlands ................................................................................. 37
4.1.2 Semi-permanent wetlands .................................................................... 37
4.1.3 Wet meadows ......................................................................................... 37
4.2 Riverine ............................................................................................................. 38
4.3 Reservoir ........................................................................................................... 38
4.4 Riparian ............................................................................................................. 39
4.5 Sagebrush-steppe ............................................................................................. 40
4.6 Croplands .......................................................................................................... 40
5. Habitat Management ................................................................................................ 41
5.1 Water Management ......................................................................................... 41
5.1.1 Seasonal wetlands ................................................................................. 41
5.1.2 Semi-permanent wetlands .................................................................... 41
5.1.3 Wet Meadows ........................................................................................ 41
5.2 Vegetation Management ................................................................................. 42
5.2.1 Sagebrush-steppe .................................................................................. 42
5.2.2 Croplands ............................................................................................... 42
5.2.3 Haying .................................................................................................... 42
5.2.4 Grazing ................................................................................................... 43
5.2.5 Prescribed Burning ............................................................................... 43
5.2.6 Control of Invasive/Non-native Species ............................................. 45
5.2.7 Wildlife Sanctuary ................................................................................. 46
6. Fish and Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 46
- iii -
6.1 Waterfowl .......................................................................................................... 47
6.2 Shorebirds ......................................................................................................... 50
6.3 Waterbirds ........................................................................................................ 50
6.4 Gulls and Terns ................................................................................................ 50
6.5 Birds of Prey ..................................................................................................... 50
6.6 Game Birds ....................................................................................................... 51
6.7 Other Landbirds ............................................................................................... 51
6.8 Mammals ........................................................................................................... 51
6.9 Amphibians and Reptiles ................................................................................ 51
6.10 Fish .................................................................................................................... 52
6.11 Invertebrates .................................................................................................... 52
6.12 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................ 53
6.12.1 Greater Sandhill Crane ........................................................................ 53
6.12.2 Western Snowy Plover ......................................................................... 56
6.12.3 American Peregrine Falcon ................................................................. 57
6.12.4 American Bald Eagle ............................................................................ 58
6.12.5 Swainson’s Hawk ................................................................................... 58
6.12.6 Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo ............................................................. 59
6.12.7 Willow Flycatcher ................................................................................. 59
6.12.8 Bank Swallow ......................................................................................... 60
6.12.9 Modoc Sucker ........................................................................................ 61
6.12.10 Oregon Spotted Frog ....................................................................... 61
7. Fish and Wildlife Management ................................................................................ 62
7.1 Migratory Bird Management ......................................................................... 62
7.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Management .................................... 62
7.3 Game Management .......................................................................................... 63
7.4 Monitoring, Research, and Investigations .................................................... 63
7.5 Wildlife Disease Monitoring and Treatment ................................................ 64
8. Visitor Services .......................................................................................................... 64
8.1 Visitor Services and Management Policy ...................................................... 64
8.2 Trends................................................................................................................ 64
8.3 Hunting ............................................................................................................. 67
8.4 Fishing ............................................................................................................... 69
8.5 Wildlife Observation and Photography ......................................................... 69
8.6 Environmental Education ............................................................................... 70
8.7 Interpretation and Outreach .......................................................................... 70
8.8 Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation .............................................................. 71
8.9 Youth Program ................................................................................................. 72
8.10 Volunteer Program .......................................................................................... 72
9. Partnerships ............................................................................................................... 73
- iv -
10. Cooperation with Adjacent Landowners ................................................................ 73
11. Fire Prevention and Hazard Reduction ................................................................. 74
12. Law Enforcement and Resource Protection .......................................................... 74
13. Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 75
14. Safety .......................................................................................................................... 76
15. Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... 76
16. Social and Economic Environment ......................................................................... 77
16.1 Transportation .................................................................................................. 77
16.2 Employment ..................................................................................................... 77
16.3 Local Economy ................................................................................................. 78
16.4 Land Use and Zoning ...................................................................................... 79
16.5 Demographics ................................................................................................... 80
Chapter 4. Planned Refuge Management and Programs ................................................. 81
1. Overview of Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ....................................................... 81
2. Organization ............................................................................................................... 81
3. Refuge Management Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ....................................... 82
Chapter 5. Management Plan Implementation ................................................................ 107
1. Implementation ....................................................................................................... 107
2. Funding and Staffing .............................................................................................. 107
3. Step-Down Management Plan Summaries .......................................................... 110
3.1 Hunting Plan ................................................................................................... 110
3.2 Fishing Plan .................................................................................................... 110
3.3 Visitor Services Plan ...................................................................................... 112
3.4 Habitat Management Plan ............................................................................ 112
3.5 Integrated Pest Management Plan .............................................................. 112
3.6 Cultural Resources Overview ....................................................................... 112
4. Appropriate Use Requirements ............................................................................ 113
5. Compatibility Determinations ............................................................................... 113
6. Compliance Requirements ..................................................................................... 114
7. Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................... 114
8. Adaptive Management ............................................................................................ 115
9. CCP Plan Amendment and Revision .................................................................... 115
- v -
Glossary .................................................................................................................................... 117
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 134
Figures
Figure 1. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ......................................................................... 2
Figure 2. The CCP process ................................................................................................ 14
Figure 3. Hierarchical relationship of refuge goals and objectives to other aspects of
the planning process ........................................................................................... 15
Figure 4. Relationships between Service, System, and other planning efforts ........... 16
Figure 5. Modoc Plateau Region ....................................................................................... 25
Figure 6. Upper Pit River Watershed .............................................................................. 26
Figure 7. Watershed Ecosystem Map ............................................................................... 27
Figure 8. Water Management Map of Modoc Refuge ..................................................... 32
Figure 10. Habitat Unit Map of Modoc Refuge ................................................................. 35
Figure 11. Waterfowl production 1972-2001 ....................................................................... 48
Figure 12. Canada goose production 1961-2003 ................................................................. 48
Figure 13. Migration routes of Central Valley population of greater sandhill cranes .. 55
Figure 14. Greater sandhill crane production at Modoc Refuge, 1979-2003 ................. 56
Figure 15. Visitor services and habitat restoration map .................................................. 83
Figure 16. Modoc Refuge staffing organization chart..................................................... 111
Tables
Table 1. Refuge issues identified through public comment .......................................... 17
Table 2. Refuge Habitat Classifications .......................................................................... 33
Table 3. Periodic wildlife survey Modoc Refuge, 2004 .................................................. 49
Table 4. Federal and State listed wildlife species occurring at or near Modoc
National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................... 54
Table 5. Ranks of three wildlife dependent activities.................................................... 66
Table 6. Hunting summary for Modoc Refuge, 1981-2007* ......................................... 68
Table 7. Estimated initial capital outlay to implement the CCP ............................... 108
Table 8. Estimated annual cost to implement the CCP .............................................. 109
- vi -
Appendices
Appendix A Environmental Assessment
Appendix B Compatibility Determinations
Appendix C Hunting Plan
Appendix D Fishing Plan
Appendix E Visitor Services Plan
Appendix F Annual Habitat Management Plan
Appendix G Integrated Pest Management Plan
Appendix H Species List
Appendix I Applicable Laws and Executive Orders and Relationships to Federal, State,
and Local Policies and Plans
Appendix J List of Planning Team Members and Persons Responsible for Preparing
This Document
Appendix K Response to Comments
Appendix L Section 7
- vii -
Acronyms
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AHMP Annual Habitat Management Plan
AHPA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
APCD Air Pollution Control District
ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act
ATV all terrain vehicle
BIDEH biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health
BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management
BMP Best Management Practice
BOR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Cal Fire California Fire (also, California Department of Forestry, CDF)
CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan
CD Compatibility Determination
CDF California Department of Forestry (also, Cal Fire)
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
cfs Cubic feet per second
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWA California Waterfowl Association
DMBM Division of Migratory Bird Management
DOI Department of the Interior
DWR Department of Water Resources
EA Environmental Assessment
EE Environmental Education
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FR Federal Register
FTE Full-time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Global Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
IPM Integrated Pest Management
IWJV Intermountain West Joint Venture
- viii -
MAPS Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOI Notice of Intent
NOA Notice of Availability
NRCS U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWR National Wildlife Refuge (also, Refuge)
NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System (also, Refuge System)
PRBO Point Reyes Bird Observatory, PRBO Conservation Science
PUP Pesticide Use Permit
RCD Resource Conservation District
Refuge Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (also, Modoc NWR)
Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System (also, NWRS)
Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, USFWS)
Service Manual Fish and Wildlife Service Manual
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SUP Special Use Permit
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
T&E Threatened and Endangered Species
TNC The Nature Conservancy
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, Service)
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
YCC Youth Conservation Corps
WUI Wildland Urban Interface
Introduction and Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
Chapter 1.
Introduction and Background
1. Introduction
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) manages
the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) located
southeast of the town of Alturas in northeastern
California (Figure 1). The Refuge contains critically
important habitats for a great diversity of wildlife,
particularly migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway.
This document is a Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan (CCP) designed to guide management of the
Refuge for the next fifteen years. The CCP provides a
description of the desired future conditions and long-range
guidance to accomplish the purposes for which
the Refuge was established. The CCP and
accompanying Environmental Assessment (EA)
address Service legal mandates, policies, goals, and
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
compliance. The EA (Appendix A) presents a range of
administrative, habitat management, and visitor
services alternatives that consider issues and
opportunities on the Refuge. The Service’s initial
proposal for future management of the Refuge is presented in the
EA. Chapter 4 of the CCP describes the goals, objectives, and
strategies for the Service’s preferred alternative (Alternative C). The
Final CCP will be developed through modifications made during the
internal and public review processes.
The CCP is accompanied by six new plans: a Hunting Plan (Appendix
C), Fishing Plan (Appendix D), Visitor Services Plan (Appendix E),
Annual Habitat Management Plan (Appendix F), and Integrated Pest
Management Plan (Appendix G). Other existing plans that will
remain in place include a Fire Management Plan, Emergency Action
Plan for Dorris Reservoir, Standard Operating Procedures for Dorris
Reservoir, Disease Control Plan, Pest Control Plan, and Safety Plan.
The CCP is divided into five chapters: Chapter 1, Introduction and
Background; Chapter 2, Planning Process; Chapter 3, Refuge
Environment; Chapter 4, Planned Refuge Management and
Programs; and Chapter 5, Management Plan Implementation.
Sandhill Crane and Colt
Photo by Share The Road Productions
Chapter 1
2 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Introduction and Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
2. Purpose of and Need for Plan
Currently, the Refuge is guided by a Master Plan (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1963). 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 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 as well as the Refuge System
mission. The planning process helps the Service achieve the refuge
purposes and the Refuge System mission by identifying specific
goals, objectives, and strategies to implement on each refuge.
The purposes of this CCP are to
 provide a clear statement of direction for the future management
of the Refuge;
 provide long-term continuity in Refuge management;
 communicate the Service’s management priorities for the Refuge
to their partners, neighbors, visitors, and the general public;
 provide an opportunity for the public to help shape the future
management of the Refuge;
 ensure that management programs on the Refuge are consistent
with the mandates of the Refuge System and the purposes for
which the Refuge was established;
 ensure that the management of the Refuge is consistent with
Federal, State, and local plans; and
 provide a basis for budget requests to support the Refuge’s needs
for staffing, operations, maintenance, and capital improvements.
3. Legal and Policy Guidance
National wildlife refuges are guided by the purposes of the individual
refuge, mission and goals of the Refuge System, Service policy, laws,
and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by
the Improvement Act, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected
portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife
Service Manual (Service Manual).
Refuges are also governed by a variety of other laws, treaties, and
executive orders pertaining to the conservation and protection of
natural and cultural resources (refer to Appendix I for additional
information about these laws and executive orders).
3.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
The Improvement Act, which amends the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966, provides comprehensive
Chapter 1
4 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
legislation on how the Refuge System should be managed and used
by the public. The Improvement Act:
 identified a new mission statement for the Refuge System.
 established six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, environmental education and
interpretation);
 emphasized conservation and enhancement of the quality and
diversity of fish and wildlife habitat;
 stressed the importance of partnerships with Federal and State
agencies, Tribes, non-governmental organizations, industry, and
the general public;
 mandated public involvement in decisions on the acquisition and
management of refuges; and
 required, prior to acquisition of new refuge lands, identification of
existing compatible wildlife-dependent uses that would be
permitted to continue on an interim basis pending completion of
comprehensive conservation planning.
The Improvement Act establishes the responsibilities of the
Secretary of the Interior for managing and protecting the Refuge
System; requires a CCP for each refuge by the year 2012; and
provides guidelines and directives for the administration and
management of all areas in the Refuge System, including wildlife
refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife
threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife
management areas, and waterfowl production areas.
3.2 Appropriate Use Policy
This policy describes the initial decision process the refuge manager
follows when first considering whether to allow a proposed use on a
refuge. The refuge manager must find a use appropriate before
undertaking a compatibility review of the use. An appropriate use as
Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Photo by USFWS
Introduction and Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
defined by the Appropriate Use Policy (603 FW 1 of the Service
Manual) is a proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least
one of the following four conditions:
 The use is a wildlife-dependant recreational use as identified in
the Improvement Act.
 The use contributes to the fulfilling of the refuge purpose(s), the
Refuge System mission, or goals or objectives described in a
refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date
the Improvement Act was signed into law.
 The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State
regulations.
��� The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in Section
1.11 (603 FW 1 of the Service Manual).
If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will
eliminate or modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new
use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will deny the use without
determining compatibility. If a use is determined to be an appropriate
refuge use, the refuge manager will then determine if the use is
compatible (see Compatibility Policy section below). Although a use
may be both appropriate and compatible, the refuge manager retains
the authority to not allow the use or modify the use. Uses that have
been administratively determined to be appropriate are the six
wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, environmental education, and
interpretation) and take of fish and wildlife under State regulations.
Chapter 5 of this CCP includes a review of appropriateness of
existing Refuge uses and planned future uses.
3.3 Compatibility Policy
Lands within the Refuge System are different from other multiple
use public lands in that they are closed to all public uses unless
specifically and legally opened. The Improvement Act states, “... the
Secretary shall not initiate or permit a new use of a Refuge or
expand, renew, or extend an existing use of a Refuge, unless the
Secretary has determined that the use is a compatible use and that
the use is not inconsistent with public safety.”
In accordance with the Improvement Act, the Service has adopted a
Compatibility Policy (603 FW 2 of the Service Manual) that includes
guidelines for determining if a use proposed on a national wildlife
refuge is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was
established. A compatible use is defined in the policy as a proposed or
existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a
national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional judgment,
will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the
Refuge System mission or the purposes of the Refuge. Sound
professional judgment is defined as a finding, determination, or
Chapter 1
6 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
decision that is consistent with the principles of sound fish and
wildlife management and administration, available science and
resources (funding, personnel, facilities, and other infrastructure),
and applicable laws. The Service strives to provide priority public
uses when they are compatible. If financial resources are not
available to design, operate, and maintain a priority use, the refuge
manager will take reasonable steps to obtain outside assistance from
the State and other conservation interests.
When a determination is made as to whether a proposed use is
compatible or not, this determination is provided in writing and is
referred to as a compatibility determination (CD). An opportunity for
public review and comment is required for all CDs. For compatibility
determinations prepared concurrently with a CCP or step-down
management plan, the opportunity for public review and comment is
provided during the public review period for the draft plan and
associated NEPA document. The CDs prepared in association with
this CCP are provided in Appendix B.
3.4 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental
Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to “ensure that the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge
System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans...” To implement this directive, the Service
has issued the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental
Health Policy (601 FW 3 of the Service Manual), which provides
policy for maintaining and restoring, where appropriate, the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge
System. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to
follow while achieving the refuge purpose(s) and Refuge System
mission. It provides for the consideration and protection of the broad
spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuge and
associated ecosystems. Further, it provides refuge managers with an
evaluation process to analyze their refuge and recommend the best
management direction to prevent further degradation of
environmental conditions and restore lost or severely degraded
components where appropriate and in concert with refuge purposes
and the Refuge System mission. When evaluating the appropriate
management direction for refuges, refuge managers will use sound
professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple
landscape scales.
4. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for
conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Although
the Service shares this responsibility with other Federal, State,
Introduction and Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific
responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered
species, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and certain marine
mammals. These are referred to as Federal trust species. The
Service also manages the Refuge System and National Fish
Hatcheries; enforces Federal wildlife laws and international treaties
on importing and exporting wildlife; assists State fish and wildlife
programs; and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation
programs.
The mission of the Service is:
“Working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish,
wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing
benefit of the American people.”
5. The National Wildlife Refuge System
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and
waters set aside specifically for the conservation of wildlife and
ecosystem protection. The Refuge System consists of 548 national
wildlife refuges that provide important habitat for native plants and
many species of mammals, birds, fish, and threatened and
endangered species.
The mission of the Refuge System, as stated in the Improvement Act,
is:
“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and where appropriate,
restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their
habitats within the United States for the benefit of present
and future generations of Americans” (16 USC 668dd et seq.).
Mule Deer
Photo by USFWS
Chapter 1
8 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt named Florida’s Pelican
Island the nation’s first bird sanctuary, which, along with other
sanctuaries and preserves, evolved into the National Wildlife Refuge
System. Since that time, the Refuge System has grown to more than
97 million acres. It includes 548 refuges, at least one in every state
and many U.S. territories, and over 3,000 Waterfowl Production
Areas. The needs of wildlife and their habitats come first on refuges,
in contrast to other public lands managed for multiple uses.
The goals of the Refuge System, as defined in the Refuge System
Mission and Goals and Refuge Purposes Policy (601 FW 1 of the
Service Manual) are to
 conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats,
including species that are endangered or threatened with
becoming endangered;
 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;
 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;
 provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible
wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation); and
 foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and
interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
Collectively, these goals articulate the foundation for our stewardship
of the Refuge System and define the unique and important niche it
occupies among the various Federal land systems. These goals will
help guide development of specific management priorities during
development of CCPs.
In addition, the guiding principles of the Refuge System are as
follows:
 We are land stewards, guided by Aldo Leopold's teachings that
land is a community of life and that love and respect for the land
is an extension of ethics. We seek to reflect that land ethic in our
stewardship and to instill it in others.
 Wild lands and the perpetuation of diverse and abundant wildlife
are essential to the quality of the American life.
 We are public servants. We owe our employers, the American
people, hard work, integrity, fairness, and a voice in the
protection of their trust resources.
Introduction and Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
 Management, ranging from preservation to active manipulation of
habitats and populations, is necessary to achieve Refuge System
and Service missions.
 Wildlife-dependent uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, interpretation, and education, when
compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses of the Refuge
System.
 Partnerships with those who want to help us meet our mission are
welcome and indeed essential.
 Employees are our most valuable resource. They are respected
and deserve an empowering, mentoring, and caring work
environment.
 We respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of our neighbors.
6. Modoc Refuge
6.1 Introduction
The 7,021-acre Modoc Refuge is located along the South Fork of the
Pit River in Modoc County, southeast of the town of Alturas, in
extreme northeastern California (Figure 1). The Refuge is located on
the western edge of the Great Basin, a high elevation, cold desert
environment. The Refuge consists of wetland, reservoir, riparian,
sagebrush-steppe, and cropland habitats.
The Refuge is part of a larger complex of mid-elevation
wetlands and lakes of northeastern
California and is strategically situated to meet
the needs of waterfowl and other migratory
birds of the Pacific Flyway. Modoc Refuge acts
as a migration and staging area for ducks, geese,
and other wetland birds on the southward
migration funnel into this region. After feeding
and resting on the Refuge, they continue to the
Central and Imperial Valleys of California and
other wintering areas. This pattern is reversed
in the spring. The Refuge’s wetlands and
adjacent uplands are also an important nesting
area for ducks, geese, greater sandhill cranes,
and several other species of marsh birds.
6.2 Refuge History
In 1870, Presley A. Dorris, Henry Fitzhugh, and several other Dorris
family members drove cattle and horses into the area. With lands
granted under the U.S. Homestead Act, the Dorris family established
a livestock ranch, which they operated for ninety years. In the 1930s,
the Dorris family created Dorris Reservoir to provide water storage
for their ranch.
Entrance to the Modoc National Wildlife
Refuge
Photo by USFWS
Chapter 1
10 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Acquisition of lands for establishing Modoc Refuge was authorized by
the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission on April 8, 1959. In
1960, the Refuge was established to manage, protect, and produce
migratory waterfowl.
In November 1960, 5,360 acres (Tracts 4, 5, 6, and 7) were purchased
from the Dorris family. In 1967, 187-acre Tract 16 was purchased
from Tad Fender. In 1972, the State conveyed 487 acres to the
Refuge. In 1973, 40 acres of Tract 1 were acquired and in 1975, the
208-acre Tract 17 was acquired from Barre Stephens. Tract 19 (103
acres) was purchased from Edward Clark in 1992. In 1995, 310-acre
Tract 20 was purchased from the J.K. Hamilton Family Trust. In
1998, the 325-acre Tract 21 was purchased from Adair Brown and
The American Land Conservancy. Currently, the Refuge is 7,021
acres.
7. Refuge Purposes
The Service acquires Refuge System lands under a variety of
legislative acts and administrative orders. The official purpose or
purposes for a refuge are specified in or derived from the law,
proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation
document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing,
or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. The Service
defines the purpose of a refuge when it is established or when new
land is added to an existing refuge. These purposes, along with the
Refuge System mission, are the driving force in developing refuge
vision statements, goals, objectives, and strategies in the CCP. The
purposes also form the standard for determining if proposed refuge
uses are compatible.
The refuge purposes for Modoc Refuge 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 of 1929).
“... 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 “... 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 U.S.C. 460k-2 (Refuge
Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended).
“... for the development, advancement, management,
conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources ...”
16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) “... for the benefit of the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and
services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any
Introduction and Background
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude
...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).
8. The Refuge Vision
A vision statement is developed or revised for each individual refuge
unit as part of the CCP process. Vision statements are grounded in
the unifying mission of the Refuge System. They describe the desired
future conditions of the refuge unit in the long term (15 years) and
are based on the refuge’s specific purposes, the resources present on
the refuge, and any other relevant mandates. This CCP incorporates
the following vision statement for the Modoc Refuge.
“Located near the confluence of the north and south forks of
the Pit River, Modoc National Wildlife Refuge will conserve,
restore, protect, and manage a mosaic of seasonal wetlands,
semi-permanent wetlands, wet meadows, riparian, and
sagebrush-steppe habitats. These habitats will provide
important resting, feeding, and nesting areas for ducks,
geese, and other migratory birds. Modoc Refuge’s high-quality
habitat will play a key role in the long-term recovery
of Central Valley greater sandhill cranes.
As an integral part of the surrounding community, Modoc
Refuge will provide high quality wildlife-dependent recreation
including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography,
and interpretation. The Refuge will continue to be known for
its high-quality environmental education program offered to
generations of students. Visitors will develop a greater
understanding and appreciation for the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System and refuge management
programs and for the importance of protecting lands for
wildlife conservation.”
9. Existing and New Partnerships
In Fulfilling the Promise (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999), the
Service identified the need to forge new and non-traditional alliances
and strengthen existing partnerships with States, Tribes, non-profit
organizations, and academia to broaden citizen and community
understanding of and support for the Refuge System. The Service
recognizes that strong citizen support benefits the Refuge System.
Involving citizen groups in refuge resource and management issues
and decisions helps managers gain an understanding of public
concerns. Partners yield support for refuge activities and programs,
raise funds for projects, are activists on behalf of wildlife and the
Refuge System, and provide support for important wildlife and
natural resource issues.
A variety of people including, but not limited to, scientists, birders,
anglers, hunters, farmers, outdoor enthusiasts, and students are
keenly interested in the management of Modoc Refuge, its fish and
Chapter 1
12 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
wildlife species, and its plants and habitats. This interest is
demonstrated by the number of visitors the Refuge receives and the
partnerships that have already developed.
Refuge partners include: California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG), National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S.
Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
Central Modoc Resource Conservation District (RCD), Pit RCD,
Goose Lake RCD, North CAL/NEVA Resource Conservation and
Development, California Department of Transportation, U.C.
Cooperative Extension, Modoc County Department of Agriculture,
Friends of Modoc Refuge, The River Center, California Department
of Water Resources, Ducks Unlimited, California Waterfowl
Association (CWA), Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Wild
Turkey Federation, National Rifle Association, Alturas Chamber of
Commerce, Modoc County Office of Education, and Modoc Joint
Unified School District. We will continue to form new partnerships
with interested organizations, local civic groups, community schools,
Federal, State, and County governments, Tribes, other civic
organizations, and private landowners.
10. Wilderness Review
As part of the CCP process, lands within the
boundaries of the Modoc Refuge were reviewed for
wilderness suitability. No lands were found suitable for
designation as Wilderness as defined in the Wilderness
Act of 1964.
Modoc Refuge does not contain 5,000 contiguous
roadless acres, nor does the Refuge have any units of
sufficient size to make their preservation practicable
as Wilderness. The lands of the Refuge have been
substantially affected by humans. As a result of the
extensive modification of natural habitats and ongoing
manipulation of natural processes, adopting a
wilderness management approach at the Refuge would
not facilitate the restoration of a pristine or pre-settlement
condition, which is a goal of wilderness
designation.
White-faced Ibis
Photo by Steve Emmons
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Chapter 2.
The Planning Process
1. Introduction
This CCP for the Modoc Refuge is intended to comply with the
requirements of the Improvement Act and NEPA. Refuge planning
policy also guided the process and development of the CCP, as
outlined in Part 602, Chapters 1, 3, and 4 of the Service Manual.
Service policy, the Improvement Act, and NEPA provide specific
guidance for the planning process, such as seeking public involvement
in the preparation of the EA. The development and analysis of
“reasonable” management alternatives within the EA include a “no
action” alternative that reflects current conditions and management
strategies on the Refuge. Management alternatives were developed
as part of this planning process and can be found in Appendix A
Environmental Assessment.
The planning process for this CCP began in October 2006 with pre-planning
meetings and coordination. The CCP team (Appendix J) was
also formed. Initially, members of the refuge staff and planning team
identified a preliminary list of issues, concerns, and opportunities that
were derived from wildlife and habitat monitoring and field
experience from the past management and history of the Refuge.
Early in the process, visitor services, especially hunting and fishing,
were identified as primary issues. This preliminary list was expanded
during public scoping and then refined and finalized through the
planning process to generate the vision, goals, objectives, and
strategies for the Refuge. Throughout this process, close coordination
with CDFG was emphasized.
2. 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 the following:
 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)
Chapter 2
14 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2 shows the overall CCP planning steps and process in a
linear cycle. The following sections provide additional detail on
individual steps in the planning process.
Figure 2. The CCP process
3. Planning Hierarchy
The Service planning hierarchy that determines the direction of the
goals, objectives, and strategies is a natural progression from the
general to the specific (Figure 3). Described as a linear process, the
planning hierarchy is, in reality, a multi-dimensional flow that is
linked by the refuge purposes, missions, laws, mandates, and other
statutory requirements (Figure 4).
In practice, the process of developing the vision statement, goals, and
objectives is repetitive and dynamic. During the planning process, or
as new information becomes available, the plan continues to develop.
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Figure 3. Hierarchical relationship of refuge goals and
objectives to other aspects of the planning process
4. The Planning Team
The CCP process requires close teamwork with staff, planners, and
other partners to accomplish the necessary planning steps, tasks, and
work to generate the CCP document and associated EA.
The core team is the working/production entity of the CCP. The
members are responsible for researching and generating the
contents of the CCP document and participate in the entire planning
process. The core team, refuge staff facilitated by the refuge planner,
meets regularly to discuss and work on the various steps and sections
Fish and Wildlife Service Mission

Refuge System Mission

Refuge Purpose(s)*

National and Regional Goals and Priorities

Ecosystem Goals and Objectives

Refuge Vision

Goals

Objectives

Strategies

Monitoring and Feedback
(Adaptive Management)
*When in conflict, we give priority to the refuge
purpose(s) over the Refuge System mission.
Chapter 2
16 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
of the CCP. The team members also work independently in producing
their respective CCP sections, based on their area of expertise. Multi-tasking
by team members is a standard requirement since work on
the CCP occurs in addition to their regular workload (Appendix J).
Figure 4. Relationships between Service, System, and other
planning efforts
5. Pre-Planning
Pre-planning involved formation of the planning team, development
of the CCP schedule, and gathering data. The team determined
procedures, work allocations, and outreach strategies. The team also
created a preliminary mailing list.
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
6. Public Involvement in Planning
Public involvement is an important and necessary component of the
CCP and NEPA process. Public scoping meetings allow the Service
to provide updated information about the Refuge System and the
Refuge. Most important, these meetings allow the refuge staff to hear
public comments, concerns, and opportunities. These public meetings
provide valuable discussions and identify important issues regarding
the Refuge and the surrounding region.
The Refuge hosted a public meeting in Alturas, California in August
2007. Sixteen people attended the meeting held at the Refuge. The
meeting began with a presentation introducing the Refuge and staff,
provided an open forum for public comment, and ended with a
breakout session to allow for individual questions and conversations.
In addition to comments made by participants and noted on flip
charts at the meeting, comments were also received by written
comment cards, email, and letters. These comments were analyzed
and used to further identify Refuge issues and develop CCP goals,
objectives, and strategies (Table 1).
Table 1. Refuge issues identified through public comment
Refuge Issue Category
Number of Comments
Received1
Visitor Services 11
Hunting 3
Fishing 1
Bike Trail 2
Other 5
Refuge Management 12
Wildlife & Habitat 10
Invasive Species Control 3
Habitat Management 5
Wildlife 2
Partnerships 4
Other Comments 4
Total Comments (Total Number of
People/ Organizations Commenting)
41 (12)
1Total number of comments received is greater than the total number of
people commenting since each letter, email, fax, comments card, and
flipchart comment received may contain more than one comment.
Chapter 2
18 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
7. Public Outreach
During the planning process, refuge staff continued to actively
participate in the various working groups and agency teams
concerning the Modoc Refuge. The staff also met with several special
interest and local groups to explain the planning process and to listen
to their concerns.
An information letter called “Planning Update” was also mailed to
over 80 individuals, agencies, and organizations. These periodic
publications were created to provide the public with up-to-date
Refuge information and progress on the CCP process. The Planning
Updates were also made available at the Refuge, on the Refuge’s
webpage, and at various outreach meetings/events. The EA
(Appendix A) contains a list of individuals and organizations that
were notified or were sent a copy of the Draft CCP, were sent
planning updates, or attended scoping meetings.
8. Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Through the scoping process and team discussions, the planning team
identified issues, concerns, and opportunities. Sixteen people
attended the public scoping meeting held in Alturas, California on
August 21, 2007. Twelve people/organizations provided forty-one
comments (Table 1) for consideration in identifying issues and
opportunities for the CCP. The team
categorized the comments into five
main areas of interest: visitor
services, wildlife and habitat, refuge
management, partnerships, and
other comments. Refuge
management received the most
comments (12) followed by visitor
services (11), wildlife and habitat
(10), partnerships (4), and other
comments (4).
Comments regarding refuge
management included wanting more
prescribed burning on the Refuge;
opening the Godfrey Tract to public
use, maintaining the wildlife first
philosophy; and analyzing the impact
of human activities and non-wildlife
dependant activities.
Visitor services comments included expanding hunting on the Refuge,
prohibiting hunting on the Refuge, adding a bike trail, adding a picnic
area, and expanding fishing opportunities.
Comments regarding wildlife and habitat included wanting to see the
Refuge continue its invasive species control program, questions
Students Enjoy Field Trips to the Refuge
Photo by USFWS
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
regarding habitat management in specific Refuge units, and
suggesting additional wildlife inventories.
Partnership comments included a request to use the Refuge to
provide grazing opportunities for permittees temporarily displaced
by the Modoc National Forest and Alturas Office of Bureau of Land
Management Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy (Modoc
National Forest and Alturas Field Office Bureau of Land
Management 2007).
9. Development of the Refuge Vision
A vision statement is developed or reviewed for each individual
refuge unit as part of the CCP process. Vision statements are
grounded in the unifying mission of the Refuge System and describe
the desired future conditions of the refuge unit in the long term
(more than 15 years). They are based on the refuge’s specific
purposes, the resources present on the refuge, and any other relevant
mandates. Please refer to Chapter 1 for Modoc Refuge’s vision
statement.
10. Determining the Refuge Goals, Objectives, and
Strategies
The purpose for creating the refuge is established by law (Chapter 1).
The Improvement Act directs that the planning effort develop and
revise the management focus of the refuge within the Service’s
planning framework, which includes the Service mission, the Refuge
System mission, ecosystem guidelines, and refuge purposes. This is
accomplished during the CCP process through the development of
goals, objectives, and strategies.
10.1 Goals
Goals describe the desired future conditions of a refuge in succinct
statements. Each one translates to one or more objectives that define
these conditions in measurable terms. A well-written goal directs
work toward achieving a refuge’s vision and ultimately the purpose(s)
of a refuge. Collectively, a set of goals is a framework within which to
make decisions.
10.2 Refuge Management Goals
The interim management goals for Modoc Refuge (2003) are to
 protect, restore, and maintain high quality habitats for the benefit
of migratory birds;
 protect existing water rights and enhance water quality to ensure
that the water of the Pit River and its tributaries will continue to
provide a reliable source of high quality water for the Refuge and
associated wetlands;
Chapter 2
20 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
 protect, restore, and enhance habitats for and otherwise support
recovery of endangered, threatened, and candidate species of
wildlife;
 protect and enhance habitats, and associated populations of fish
and wildlife, representative of the native biological diversity of
the Modoc plateau; and
 provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent recreation,
education, and research which is compatible and consistent with
other Refuge purposes.
Through the CCP process, these interim goals were evaluated and
revised. Modoc Refuge’s goals are detailed in Chapter 4.
10.3 Objectives, Rationale, and Strategies
Once the refuge goals are reviewed and revised, the various
objectives, rationale, and strategies are determined to accomplish
each of the goals. Modoc Refuge’s objectives, rationales, and
strategies are detailed in Chapter 4.
Objectives: The Service defines objectives as “a concise statement of
what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, when and
where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work”
(602 FW 1 of the Service Manual). Objectives are incremental steps
we take to achieve a goal. They are derived from goals and provide a
foundation for determining strategies, monitoring refuge
accomplishments, and evaluating success. The number of objectives
per goal will vary. Where there are many, an implementation
schedule may be developed. All objectives must be specific,
measurable, achievable, results-oriented, and time-fixed.
Rationale: Each objective should document the rationale for forming
the objective. The degree of documentation will vary, but at a
minimum, it should include logic, assumptions, and sources of
information. This promotes informed debate on the objective’s
merits, provides continuity of management in the event of staff
turnover, and allows reevaluation of the objective as new information
becomes available.
Strategy: The Service defines a strategy as “a specific action, tool,
technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to
meet unit objectives” (602 FW 1 of the Service Manual). Multiple
strategies can be used to support an objective.
11. Development of the Refuge Management Alternatives
Alternatives are “different sets of objectives and strategies or means
of achieving refuge purposes and goals, helping to fulfill the Refuge
System mission, and resolving issues” (602 FW 1 of the Service
Manual). The development of alternatives, assessment of their
environmental effects, and the identification of the preferred
The Planning Process
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
management alternative are fully described in the EA (Appendix A).
Alternatives were developed to represent reasonable options that
address specific Refuge issues and challenges. A “no action” or
continuation of current management alternative is required by
NEPA. A range of other alternatives were studied and are described
in the EA (Appendix A).
11.1 Alternative A: No Action
Under Alternative A: No Action, Modoc Refuge would continue to be
managed as it has in the recent past. Recent management has
followed existing step-down management plans as follows:
 Annual Habitat Management Plan
 Fire Management Plan
 Safety Plan
 Emergency Action Plan for Dorris Reservoir
 Standard Operation Procedures for Dorris Reservoir
 Disease Control Plan
 Pest Control Plan
The focus of the Refuge would remain the same: to provide habitat
and maintain current active management practices; and continue to
manage and provide habitat for migratory and resident birds,
threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife. The Refuge
would continue to provide wildlife-dependant recreation opportunities
including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography,
environmental education, and interpretation. Current staffing and
funding levels would remain the same.
11.2 Alternative B: Habitat Emphasis
Under this alternative, the Refuge would emphasize management for
biological resources. Biological opportunities would be maximized to
allow optimum wildlife and habitat management throughout the
majority of the Refuge. Visitor service opportunities would be
reduced. In addition, staffing and funding levels would need to be
redirected and increased to fully implement this alternative. A
wildlife biologist, park ranger, and wage grade position would be
hired to accomplish this alternative.
11.3 Alternative C: Proposed Action
Alternative C would achieve an optimal balance of biological resource
objectives and visitor services opportunities. Habitat management
and associated biological resource monitoring would be improved.
Visitor service opportunities would focus on quality wildlife-dependant
recreation distributed throughout the Refuge. Staffing
and funding levels would need to be increased to fully implement this
alternative. An interpretive specialist, wildlife biologist, park ranger,
Chapter 2
22 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
and wage grade position would be hired to accomplish this
alternative.
11.4 Alternative D: Visitor Services Emphasis
Under Alternative D, the Refuge would emphasize management for
visitor services. Wildlife-dependant recreational opportunities would
be expanded on the Refuge. However, wildlife and habitat
management would remain as described in Alternative A. Staffing
and funding levels would need to be redirected and increased
substantially to implement this alternative. An outdoor recreation
planner, interpretive specialist, park ranger, and wage grade position
would be hired to accomplish this alternative.
12. Selection of the Refuge Proposed Action
The alternatives were analyzed in the EA (Appendix A) to determine
their effects on the Refuge environment. Based on this analysis, we
have selected Alternative C as the proposed action because it best
achieves the Refuge goals and purposes, as well as the Refuge
System and Service missions.
Alternative C is founded upon the existing cooperative management
programs, with enhancements in habitat and monitoring programs
and an integration of a cooperative visitor services program that
includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
interpretation, and environmental education. Cooperative
management refers to the current practice of working closely with
State and other partners to provide protected and enhanced habitat
along with visitor service opportunities and adjacent land uses on
publicly owned properties. Please refer to Chapter 4, which describes
this proposed management plan.
13. Plan Implementation
This Draft CCP and EA will be provided for public review and
comment. Comments received by the Service will be incorporated
where appropriate and perhaps result in modifications to the
preferred alternative or selection of one of the other alternatives. The
alternative that is ultimately selected will become the basis of the
ensuing Final CCP. This document then becomes the basis for
guiding management over the coming 15-year period. It will guide the
development of more detailed step-down management plans for
specific resource areas and will underpin the annual budgeting
process for Refuge operations and maintenance (Chapter 5). Most
importantly, it lays out the general approach to managing habitat,
wildlife, and people at the Modoc Refuge that will direct day-to-day
decision-making and actions.
A review of the CCP will take place approximately every five years,
and the CCP will be updated every fifteen years.
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Chapter 3.
The Refuge Environment
1. Refuge Description
This chapter provides a detailed description of the Refuge, its
habitats, the species upon which it depends, and the recreational
opportunities it offers. Located just south of the town of Alturas in
Modoc County, California, the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge has
7,021 acres of wetlands, reservoir, riparian, cropland, and sagebrush-steppe
habitats. These habitats provide important resting, nesting,
and feeding areas for ducks,
geese, and other migratory
birds including greater
sandhill cranes. Located in
the Pacific Flyway, the
Refuge is used by migratory
birds on their southern and
northern migrations. The
Refuge also provides
hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography,
environmental education,
and interpretation as well as
non-wildlife dependent
recreational opportunities,
such as boating, waterskiing,
bicycling, horseback riding,
and swimming.
2. Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
The Modoc Plateau historically has supported high desert plant
communities and ecosystems similar to that region—shrub-steppe,
perennial grasslands, sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, mountain
mahogany, and juniper woodlands. Sagebrush plant communities are
characteristic of the region, providing important habitat for
sagebrush-dependent wildlife. Conifer forests dominate the higher
elevations of the Warner Mountains and the smaller volcanic
mountain ranges and hills that shape the region. Wetland, spring,
meadow, vernal pool, riparian, and aspen communities scattered
across the rugged and otherwise dry desert landscape support
diverse wildlife. The region has varied aquatic habitats, from high
mountain streams to the alkaline waters of Goose and Eagle lakes to
the clear spring waters of Fall River and Ash Creek.
Northeastern California is an outstanding region for wildlife,
providing habitat for mountain lion, mule deer, pronghorn antelope,
Modoc Refuge is West of the Warner Mountains
Photo by North State Resources, Inc.
Chapter 3
24 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Rocky Mountain elk, greater sage-grouse, and waterfowl of the
Pacific Flyway. Golden eagles, peregrine and prairie falcons,
northern goshawks, greater sandhill cranes, and American white
pelicans nest and hunt or forage in the region. The varied aquatic
habitats and natural barriers along the Pit River and its tributaries
have allowed the evolution of several unique aquatic communities that
include endemic fish and invertebrates.
Sixty percent of the Modoc Plateau is Federally managed (Figure 5);
the USFS manages 30 percent, BLM manages 26 percent, and the
Service and Department of Defense each manage about 2 percent of
the lands (California Department of Fish and Game 2005a). CDFG
manages 1 percent of the region as wildlife areas, and about 37
percent of the lands are privately owned or belong to municipalities
(California Department of Fish and Game 2005a). Only nine percent
of the forests and rangelands of the Modoc region are designated as
reserves, such as wilderness areas, less than is protected in any other
region of the state except the Central Valley (California Department
of Fish and Game 2005a). The combined total of lands managed by
State Parks and the National Park Service is about 2,500 acres
(California Department of Fish and Game 2005a).
Many of the region’s plant communities and ecosystems have been
substantially altered or degraded over the last 120 years by a
combination of stressors. Despite being in one of the least-developed
regions of the state, habitats of the Modoc Plateau are among the
most threatened ecosystems of North America (The Nature
Conservancy 2001). Many of the meadow and riparian areas are
overgrazed, channelized, or are suffering from encroachment by
juniper, pine, fir, and invasive plants (USDA Forest Service 1991;
Loft 1998; USDA Forest Service 2001).
The major stressors negatively affecting terrestrial wildlife on the
Modoc Plateau ecosystem are a combination of livestock and feral
horse grazing, invasive annual grasses, the expansion of native
western juniper, and altered frequencies of fire (California
Department of Fish and Game 2005a). Together, these stressors have
combined to alter the region’s sagebrush and forest habitats and
ecosystems (Miller et al. 1994; Schaefer et al. 2003). Aquatic
ecosystems throughout the region are affected by water diversions,
erosion, poor grazing practices, and introductions of non-native
species (California Department of Fish and Game 2005a).
Private land owners, State and Federal land management agencies,
resource conservation districts, watershed groups, and fishing and
hunting organizations working through various partnerships, are
involved in stream, riparian, wetland, and upland restoration and
conservation projects across the region (California Department of
Fish and Game 2005a).
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Source: California Wildlife Action Plan (California Department of Fish and Game 2005a)
Figure 5. Modoc Plateau Region
Chapter 3
26 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Modoc Refuge is located in the eastern part of Modoc County on the
west side of the Warner Mountains, lying in a valley surrounded by
lava plateaus and mountains. The area surrounding the Refuge is
primarily agricultural, planted with irrigated crops such as wild rice,
alfalfa, and meadow hay. Raising livestock is the main farm
enterprise and nearly all the livestock are cattle (USDA Soil
Conservation Service 1980).
At an elevation of approximately 4,365 feet, the Refuge is located
immediately upstream of the confluence of the north and south forks
of the Pit River in the Upper Pit River Watershed (Figure 6). The
Upper Pit River Watershed is located in northeastern California and
covers approximately 2,620 square miles (Environmental Statistics
Group 2003). The north fork of the Pit River originates near the
southern end of Goose Lake. The south fork of the Pit River
originates from several tributaries in the southern Warner
Mountains. Both forks join in the town of Alturas, and then flow in a
southwesterly direction to Shasta Lake in Shasta County, and
eventually into the Sacramento River and the San Francisco Bay and
Delta. Modoc Refuge is part of the Service’s Central Valley-San
Francisco Bay Ecoregion (Figure 7).
Figure 6. Upper Pit River Watershed
Source: Upper Pit River Watershed Alliance (VESTRA 2004)
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Figure 7. Watershed Ecosystem Map
Chapter 3
28 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
3. Physical Environment
3.1 Climate and Air Quality
The Refuge has a semi-arid climate with hot, dry summers and cold
winters. Summer temperatures can reach 100 degrees Fahrenheit
(ºF), but generally cools rapidly during the evening and nighttime
hours. January is the coldest month of the year, with temperatures
occasionally dropping below -30 ºF. Strong winds are common, with
prevailing winds typically from the south and west. Precipitation
generally occurs during the winter and spring months, with the
Refuge receiving approximately 7-11 inches of rainfall annually.
Relative humidity ranges from 10-20 percent during summer months
and averages 75 percent during the winter months.
The Pit River Basin climate includes periodic drought cycles that
usually follow 10-year patterns. During the driest years, annual
precipitation can be as low as 30 percent of average.
Climate change is already affecting wildlife throughout California
(Parmesan and Galbraith 2004), and its effects will continue to
increase. Climate change has particular significance for this region’s
major river systems. Depending on the model and assumptions,
scientists project the average annual temperature in California to rise
between 4 and 10.5 degrees above the current average temperature
by the end of the century (Schneider and Kuntz-Suriseti 2002;
Turman 2002; Hayhoe et al. 2004). Within 50 years, average
wintertime temperatures are expected to rise between 2 and 2.5
degrees. A rise in this range would substantially reduce annual
snowpack and increase fire frequency and intensity. By mid-century,
the Sierra snowpack could be reduced by 25 to 40 percent and by as
much as 70 percent at the end of the century (duVair 2003). The snow
season would be shortened, starting later and melting sooner, while
the fire season would be longer and hotter. The reduction of
snowpack and more extreme fire conditions would have cascading
effects on water resources, plant communities, and wildlife. Hotter
temperatures, combined with lower river flows, would dramatically
increase the water needs of both people and wildlife. This is likely to
translate into less water for wildlife, especially fish and wetland
species (California Department of Fish and Game 2005a).
The Service’s Draft Climate Change Strategic Plan (USFWS 2009)
will follow six guiding principles in responding to climate change:
 We will be a leader in national and international efforts to address
climate change.
 We will commit to a new spirit of coordination, collaboration and
interdependence with others.
 We will leverage our resources by building coalitions that
emphasize the shared conservation of habitats and species within
sustainable landscapes.
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
 We will continually evaluate our priorities and approaches, make
difficult choices, take calculated risks and adapt to climate
change.
 We will assemble and use state of-the-art technical capacity to
meet the climate change challenge.
 We will reflect scientific excellence, professionalism, and integrity
in all our work.
The Draft Climate Change Strategic Plan (USFWS 2009b) employs
three key strategies to address climate change: adaptation,
mitigation, and engagement. The Service will adaptively manage
Modoc Refuge in response to climate change. Changes and responses
will continually be assessed through monitoring and the Refuge will
modify actions accordingly.
The Federal and State governments have each established ambient
air quality standards for several pollutants. Most standards have
been set to protect public health. However, standards for some
pollutants are based on other values, such as protecting crops and
materials and avoiding nuisance conditions.
The Refuge is located in California’s Northeast Plateau Air Basin.
The Northeast Plateau Air Basin is the fourth largest basin in
California, encompassing an area of 15,900 square miles. It includes
all of Modoc, Lassen, and Siskiyou counties. The Modoc County Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) is the agency responsible for
ensuring compliance with Federal and State air quality standards in
the basin where the Refuge is located.
Currently, the Modoc County APCD is designated as attainment for
ozone standards and non-attainment for the State particulate matter
(PM10) standards (California Air Resources Board 2006). When an
area is a non-attainment area, the State must develop an
implementation plan to outline methods for reaching identified air
quality standards. Permitting, scheduling, and restrictions on some
activities may be required. Federal and State PM10 standards are
designed to prevent respiratory disease and protect visibility.
PM10 is produced by stationary point sources (e.g., fuel combustion
and industrial processes), fugitive sources, (e.g., roadway dust from
paved and unpaved roads), wind erosion from open land, and
transportation sources. PM10 levels in Modoc County are highest
during December (California Air Resources Board 2005). Colder,
more stagnant conditions during this time of the year are conducive
to the buildup of PM10, including the formation of secondary
ammonium nitrate. In addition, increased activity from residential
wood combustion may also occur. The Modoc County APCD requires
smoke management plans and limits the acreage of prescribed burns
conducted by the Refuge.
Chapter 3
30 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Certain land uses are more sensitive to air pollution than other uses.
Locations such as schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are
sensitive receptors because their occupants (the young, old, and
infirm) are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air
quality-related health problems than the public. Residential areas are
also considered sensitive receptors because residents tend to be home
for extended periods, resulting in sustained exposure to any
pollutants present.
3.2 Water Supply and Water Quality
In 1960, the Service purchased the land comprising the Refuge and
the accompanying water rights. The water rights held by the Service
fall into four categories:
 direct diversion rights from the North Fork Pit River
 riparian rights from the South Fork Pit River
 direct diversion rights from Pine Creek
 storage rights to divert water from Parker Creek, Pine Creek,
and Stockdill Slough to Dorris Reservoir
The Service’s direct diversion rights to water during the irrigation
season are based upon judicial decrees and legal agreements that are
not subject to the permitting and licensing process administered by
the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), pursuant to
Water Code Section 1200 et seq. The Service’s rights to divert water
to storage from Parker Creek, Pine Creek, and Stockdill Slough are
held under appropriative Water Right Licenses 465, 466, and 4822
and Permit 854.
The Refuge receives water from the South Fork of the Pit River,
Pine Creek direct diversion, and Pine Creek and Parker Creek
storage into Dorris Reservoir. Delivery ditches on the Refuge include
Pine Creek Ditch, Pine Creek Canal, Parker Creek Diversion Canal,
Dorris Canal, High Line Canal, East Side Canal, and Pine Creek
Overflow (Figure 8). The South Fork of the Pit River flows through
the Refuge and provides riparian flood water to the wetlands and
riparian areas on the west side of the Refuge, including Sharkey
Field, North and South Grain Fields, Matney Fields, Pit Marsh,
Matney Marsh, 395 Ponds, and the South Dam Pond. Pine Creek
direct diversion provides water to the Hamilton Tract and Pine Creek
Field.
Storage water in Dorris Reservoir provides water to the remaining
wetlands, meadows, and ponds in the Refuge. During the irrigation
season (April 1-September 30), water is withdrawn from Dorris
Reservoir to maintain wetland habitats. Dorris Reservoir may be
drawn down to minimum pool by the end of the irrigation season. The
Refuge also has five irrigation wells.
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Dorris Reservoir—Downstream
Photo by USFWS
The Refuge monitors the quantity of water diverted to storage and at
primary points of diversion for irrigation. This information fulfills
monitoring requirements under appropriative licenses. The Modoc
County Water Master sets the diversions to deliver water in
accordance with Refuge water rights.
Modoc Refuge lies within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board, which established beneficial
uses and water quality objectives for surface water and groundwater
in the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the region
(California Regional Water Quality Control Board 1998).
The Pit River is an impaired water body under the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d). The pollutants/stressors include nutrients, organic
enrichment/low-dissolved oxygen, and temperature. The potential
sources of pollution include municipal and agricultural. The Refuge is
a member of the Northeastern California Water Association, which
was formed to meet the water quality monitoring requirements under
the California’s Irrigated Lands Program.
Chapter 3
32 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 8. Water Management Map of Modoc Refuge
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
3.3 Geology and Soils
Virtually the entire Upper Pit River Watershed from the headwaters
to the historical confluence with Fall River is within the Modoc
Plateau Geomorphic Province. The Refuge lies just beyond the
western edge of the Great Basin with the Warner Mountain range on
the east and the Adin Mountain range on the west. The Modoc
Plateau is a flat-topped upland area built up of irregular masses of a
variety of volcanic materials, although it consists predominately of
basalt (Oakeshott 1971). This area is characterized by attenuation, or
stretching and thinning of the earth’s crust, which results in the high-angle
normal faults found throughout the region.
Three main soil types formed from alluvial parent material derived
from basic igneous rocks predominantly underlie the Refuge:
 Pit-Buntingville-Goose Lake – nearly level to moderately sloping,
very deep, somewhat poorly drained and poorly drained silt
loams, clay loams, silty clay loams, and clays in basins and on
floodplains
 Tulana-Pasquetti – nearly level, very deep, poorly drained mucky
loams and silty clay loams in basins
 Bieber-Barnard-Modoc – nearly level to strongly sloping, shallow
and moderately deep, well-drained gravelly loams, cobbly loams,
clay loams, and sandy loams on alluvial fans and terraces
4. Habitat
The Refuge currently consists of 7,011 acres of wetlands, reservoir,
riparian, sagebrush-steppe, and cropland habitats (Figure 9, Table 2).
An additional 10 acres of the Refuge are comprised of administration
sites (e.g., roads, buildings, and ditches). Figure 9 shows the locations
and names of the units on the Refuge.
Table 2. Refuge Habitat Classifications
Habitat Type Acres
Seasonal wetlands 1,062
Semi-permanent wetlands 553
Wet meadows 2,183
Reservoir 547
Riparian* 64
Sagebrush-steppe 2,053
Croplands 549
Administrative 10
TOTAL 7,021
* These acres include woody riparian habitat only.
There are also 282 acres of degraded herbaceous
riparian on the Pit River system which is included
in wet meadows and seasonal wetlands habitat
types.
Chapter 3
34 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 9. Vegetation map of Modoc Refuge
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Figure 10. Habitat Unit Map of Modoc Refuge
Chapter 3
36 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Modoc Refuge Wetlands
Photo by USFWS
Most of the habitats on the Refuge have been altered from historic
conditions due to man’s activities. Vegetation has responded to
modified hydrology within the landscape, non-native/invasive plant
infestations, altered fire regimes, and agricultural practices. The
most evident changes have occurred in the sagebrush-steppe uplands,
which have been subject to non-native grass infestation and western
juniper encroachment.
4.1 Wetlands
At the time of European settlement in the early 1600s, the area that
was to become the conterminous United States had approximately
221 million acres of wetlands (Dahl and Allord 1996). About 103
million acres remained as of the mid-1980s (Dahl and Johnson 1991).
California lost greater than 85 percent of its original wetland acreage
(Dahl 1990).
Because of these historic losses of wetlands, the Refuge’s wetlands
are intensively managed. Modoc Refuge is part of a large complex of
mid-altitude wetlands and lakes in northeastern California. These
wetlands freeze up in mid-winter and burst into life in summer. They
occur in a mosaic with extensive grassland, sagebrush flats, and large
tracts of coniferous forest in this wild and virtually unpopulated
corner of the State. Modoc Refuge acts as a migration hub and
staging area for ducks, geese, and other wetland birds during their
spring and fall migrations.
The wetlands of the Modoc Plateau boast the highest diversity of
breeding waterfowl in the State (National Audubon Society 2008).
Wetlands also provide feeding and nesting grounds for great egrets,
snowy egrets, black-crowned night-herons, American bitterns, great
blue herons, white-faced ibis, marsh wrens, and red-winged and
yellow-headed blackbirds. Shorebirds, such as sandpipers, Wilson’s
phalaropes, willets, long-billed curlews, killdeer, black-necked stilts,
and American avocets, also nest at the Refuge.
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
The Refuge contains three main types of wetlands, seasonal, semi-permanent,
and wet meadows.
4.1.1
Seasonal wetlands (approximately 1,062 acres) support the greatest
abundance and diversity of wildlife species and are highly productive
sources of food for wildlife. They contain abundant seeds and other
vegetative food items, such as leaves, stems, and tubers, as well as
invertebrates (e.g., insects, spiders, and crustaceans). Seasonal
wetlands provide a diverse amount and distribution of emergent
vegetation (e.g., bulrushes and cattails) and contain bare islands,
levees, and open shorelines that provide excellent waterfowl loafing
sites.
Seasonal wetlands
These wetlands are intensively managed, with the timing and depths
of water and vegetation manipulated to meet resource management
objectives. In general, they are wet from fall through spring and dry
during the summer. The cover in this habitat, including cattails and
bulrush, can range from mostly open water to almost 100 percent
cover (Figure 9).
4.1.2
Semi-permanent wetlands provide important breeding habitat for
waterfowl and many other wetland-dependent species during all or
part of the summer, as well as most of the rest of the year.
Semi-permanent wetlands
Semi-permanent wetlands (approximately 553 acres) are
characterized by surface water present throughout the year and
emergent vegetation including cattails and bulrush. They are
normally drawn down on a five-year rotation. Semi-permanent
wetlands include Goose, Teal, Little Goose, Wigeon, Flournoy, Duck,
Sloss, and South Dam ponds (Figure 9).
4.1.3
Wet meadows typically exhibit
shallow surface water or
saturated soil conditions. Wet
meadows occur over most of
the Refuge (approximately
2,183 acres) and areas
associated with its developed
irrigation system. Herbaceous
plants, including rushes, a
variety of sedges, and reed
canary grass, dominate these
habitats (Figure 9).
Wet meadows
Wet Meadows
Photo by USFWS
Chapter 3
38 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
4.2 Riverine
Aquatic ecosystems throughout the Modoc Plateau are affected by
water diversions, erosion from logging roads, grazing activities, and
introductions of non-native fish and invertebrates (California
Department of Fish and Game 2005a). These stressors have degraded
the main stem and tributaries of the Pit River.
There are five miles of riverine habitat on the Refuge, comprised of
two miles of the main stem of the Pit River and three miles of the
south fork of the Pit River (Figure 9).
4.3 Reservoir
In the 1930s, the Dorris family created Dorris Reservoir to provide
water storage for their ranch. Dorris Reservoir is a 1,100 surface-acre
(only 547 acres of which are owned by the Refuge) storage
facility used to supply water to the Refuge (Figure 9). The Refuge
stores 11,500-acre feet of water within Dorris Reservoir. At spillway
elevation, depths average 11.4 feet with a maximum depth of 22 feet.
Nearly 40 percent of the Reservoir is less than 10 feet deep.
Approximately 11 miles of shoreline exist at spillway elevation.
Emergent vegetation is scarce except in the upper arms and shallow
bays.
The primary purpose of Dorris Reservoir is to provide water for
habitat management purposes on other areas of the Refuge.
Withdrawals of water to meet the irrigation needs of the Refuge
cause large seasonal fluctuations in water levels. Therefore, Dorris
Reservoir is not specifically managed as habitat for wildlife.
However, through seasonal closures, the wildlife that uses the
Reservoir is protected.
Pit River
Photo by USFWS
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Dorris Reservoir provides habitat for fish eating birds, including
American white pelicans, double-crested cormorants, ring-billed
gulls, Forster’s terns, Caspian terns, western grebes, and eared
grebes.
4.4 Riparian
Riparian communities are among the most important habitats for
wildlife because of their high floristic and structural diversity, high
biomass (and therefore high food abundance), and high water
availability. In addition to providing breeding, foraging, and roosting
habitat for a diverse array of animals, riparian communities provide
movement corridors for some species, connecting a variety of habitats
throughout a region.
Riparian habitat (approximately 64 acres) on the Refuge is associated
with creeks, river edges, and ditches and is found along the South
Fork Pit River, Pit River, Pine Creek Ditch, Hamilton Tract, and
Sub-headquarters Areas (Figures 9 and 10). Dominant woody species
present include willows and cottonwoods with a
native and non-native grass understory. An aspen
stand is also included in this habitat type.
The Pit River provides habitat for the scarce
cottonwood-willow forest and riparian scrub
communities and consequently areas of high
species richness (Davis et al. 1998). Small but
important riparian areas on the Refuge provide
excellent nesting and foraging areas for the red-tailed
hawk, Swainson’s hawk, great horned owl,
barn owl, downy woodpecker, hairy woodpecker,
and Neotropical migrants, such as the yellow
warbler, Bullock’s oriole, Wilson’s warbler, tree
swallow, and willow flycatcher.
Dorris Reservoir
Photo by USFWS
Riparian Habitat
Photo by USFWS
Chapter 3
40 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
4.5 Sagebrush-steppe
Sagebrush habitat on the Refuge (approximately 2,053 acres) occurs
in the uplands (areas not subject to flooding) and includes basin big
sagebrush, western juniper, rabbitbrush, and perennial grasses such
as Great Basin wild rye interspersed with bunchgrasses. Sagebrush-steppe
habitat is dispersed throughout the Refuge, but the majority
is located around Dorris Reservoir and in the Godfrey Tract. Small
upland areas are located around the Refuge Headquarters,
interspersed among wetland habitats and on the margins of the South
Fork Pit River (Figures 9 and 10).
Sagebrush-steppe habitat at the Refuge has undergone significant
modification since settlement, including the invasion of cheat grass, a
non-native annual that prefers frequently burned areas. Further, the
recent history of fire suppression has allowed unimpeded juniper
encroachment. These changes in the plant community structure and
composition have altered the fire regime and subsequently changed
wildlife utilization of the habitat.
Sagebrush-steppe areas on the Refuge provide forage and nesting
sites for northern harriers, short-eared owls, California quail,
western kingbirds, western meadowlarks, sage thrashers, and other
passerine species.
4.6 Croplands
Croplands (approximately 549 acres) are composed of those areas
planted to crops of high value for wildlife. Approximately 200 acres of
barley and winter wheat are planted annually. Farm fields include
Ebbe, Matney, North Grain, Grandma Tract, and Town Grain
(Figures 9 and 10).
Sagebrush-steppe Habitat
Photo by USFWS
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
5. Habitat Management
Refuge management is guided and tracked
by an annual habitat management planning
process. Appendix F contains an example of
the annual habitat management work plan
from 2006.
5.1 Water Management
Refuge wetlands are maintained by a
complex and extensive irrigation system to
allow for flooding and draining of various
areas. Water is diverted through a system
consisting of the 11,500-acre-foot Dorris
Reservoir, twenty miles of major canals, fifty
miles of minor ditches, the South Fork Pit
River, and several pond and marsh areas.
5.1.1
During the fall and winter months, water levels in most seasonal
wetland units are kept relatively shallow (<12 inches), with portions
of some units up to 36 inches deep. Beginning in June, water levels in
individual seasonal wetlands are slowly drawn down to mostly
mudflat, typically over a period of 10-20 days. Seed-producing plants
germinate and grow to maturity on the moist pond bottoms during
the summer. In the fall, individual units are flooded on a staggered
schedule between August and October, making appropriate amounts
of habitat available to fall migrating birds and other wildlife as their
numbers increase.
Seasonal wetlands
5.1.2
Water depth in semi-permanent wetlands ranges from 12 to 72
inches. Water levels are maintained at consistent levels, to the extent
possible, to minimize negative impacts to overwater nesting birds and
growth of undesirable vegetation. Semi-permanent wetlands are
maintained by a flow-through of water.
Semi-permanent wetlands
Semi-permanent wetlands are typically managed by flooding and
maintaining the water throughout the year (i.e., permanent wetland).
Permanent wetlands may be maintained for up to five years or more,
but without periodic drawdown, productivity decreases over time. In
addition, emergent vegetation grows relatively fast and its density
can become a problem. As a result, these units are typically drawn
down every three to five years to recycle nutrients and conduct any
required maintenance or vegetation control.
5.1.3
Approximately 2,183 acres are irrigated and managed as wet, short-grass
meadows for the benefit of waterfowl and greater sandhill
cranes (see Section 6 Fish and Wildlife). Wet meadows are irrigated
Wet Meadows
Pine Creek Structure
Photo by USFWS
Chapter 3
42 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
beginning April 1. A continual flow of shallow water (2-4 inches) is
maintained across these units until July 15. Beginning on July 15, wet
meadows are allowed to dry naturally. During the month of August,
wet meadows are hayed (see Section 5.2.3 Haying). Beginning
September 1, water is reapplied to the wet meadows as in the spring
until the end of the irrigation season on September 30.
5.2 Vegetation Management
5.2.1
The sagebrush-steppe habitat on the Refuge is not actively managed
other than juniper removal and very limited prescribed fire to
remove the decadent stands of grasses and stimulate growth of native
grasses and forbs.
Sagebrush-steppe
5.2.2
Croplands are composed of those areas planted to crops of high value
for wildlife, including barley and winter wheat. Farming helps to
alleviate waterfowl and sandhill crane depredation of neighboring
private crops by attracting them onto the Refuge.
Croplands
A rotational system of cropping and flood/fallowing is currently used
in six of the Matney fields. Three of these fields are flooded during
the fall, winter, and spring and are then drawn down gradually
beginning June 1. This process is followed for three years. Then the
fields are put into a winter wheat/spring barley rotation. The
remaining three fields, which were in a winter wheat/spring barley
rotation, are then put into flood/fallow.
Remaining croplands are planted to winter wheat/spring barley
rotation. Planted in the fall, winter wheat matures the following
spring and summer, and is left standing through the fall and winter.
The field is then planted to spring barley. Spring barley matures in
the summer, is left standing through the following summer, and is
planted with winter wheat.
5.2.3
A late-season haying program is conducted on 2,079 acres of wet
meadows to provide foraging and nesting habitat for greater sandhill
cranes. All haying is conducted by permittees beginning August 1 and
ending August 31. The start of haying can be delayed if sandhill crane
colts less than three weeks of age are present.
Haying
Haying is conducted through the Special Use Permit (SUP) process.
All SUPs are allotted through a bid process. Every three years the
Refuge conducts a rate survey to determine the base rate for a ton of
hay. This base rate provides the minimum bid used during the
bidding process. Individual haying units are awarded to the highest
bidder. The previous year’s permittee has the right to match the high
Juniper Removal in
Sagebrush-Steppe Habitat
Photo by USFWS
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
bid. The Refuge has one “grandfathered” haying permittee who pays
the base rate annually.
5.2.4
Grazing can occur on approximately 935 acres of wet meadow habitat.
This includes two unhayed units that are grazed only. Grazing is done
by permittees and is conducted from September 1 through November
30. Grazing provides short green browse for geese.
Grazing
Grazing is conducted through the SUP
process. All SUPs are allotted through
a bid process. Every three years the
Refuge conducts a rate survey to
determine the base rate for an animal
unit month (AUM). This base rate
provides the minimum bid used during
the bidding process. Individual grazing
units are awarded to the highest bidder.
The previous year’s permittee has the
right to match the high bid. The Refuge
has two “grandfathered” grazing
permittees who pay the base rate
annually.
5.2.5
Prescribed burning is used in both wetland and upland habitats to
remove hazardous fuel loads, control non-native invasive species, and
enhance and maintain habitat values. Burning in wetland areas
reduces perennial vegetation that has expanded to the point where
decreased wildlife use and overall productivity has resulted.
Perennial vegetation includes hard-stemmed bulrush, cattail, and
reed canary grass. Typically, prescribed burns are applied to
managed wetlands during winter and early spring. Depending on
conditions and habitat objectives, both dry and overwater burning
can be successful.
Prescribed Burning
The frequency of burning wetland units depends on the habitat type,
vegetation species composition, tendency for growth, and soil type. In
some cases, this may be as often as once every five years and in
others, it may be once every 20 to 30 years.
Fire replenishes depleted growth elements to soils and helps clear
fields of vegetative debris. Resource benefits include maintaining
biodiversity (especially native plant communities and the wildlife they
support), providing browse and nesting cover for waterfowl, and
general maintenance of habitat for short grass wildlife species.
These burns also reduce the risk of large unwanted wildfires by
reducing the accumulation of hazardous fuels and establishing a
Male Gadwall
Photo by Steve Emmons
Chapter 3
44 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
mosaic of fuel loads. Burns may occur at any time of year, depending
on specific objectives and condition of the habitat.
The Refuge is within the Klamath fire management zone. The fire
management staff of the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge
Complex has annually conducted prescribed fire activities at the
Modoc Refuge.
Prescribed burns are conducted in accordance with both Department
of the Interior and Service Fire Management Policy (621 FW 1-3 of
the Service Manual). Use of prescribed burns for habitat
management and hazardous fuel reduction is consistent with both the
approved habitat and fire management plans for the Refuge. A Fire
Management Plan and EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003) were
completed in 2003. Individual prescribed burn plans are written,
reviewed, and approved for each unit as outlined in the Interagency
Prescribed Fire Guide. They include a variety
of information detailing how the burn will be
conducted, considerations for safety, and
measures to minimize impacts to sensitive
species and air quality. All prescribed burns
are conducted in compliance with the Clean
Air Act and associated permitting
requirements.
Prescribed burning eliminates fuel build-up,
prepares land for new growth, creates
diversity needed by wildlife, and helps certain
plants and trees germinate. Prescribed burns
were conducted on the Refuge from 1985 to
2001. During this period the annual
prescribed burned area ranged from 50 to 275
acres, with a total of 1,554 acres burned on the
Refuge. Most of the acres burned were in wet
meadow and agricultural habitats. Additional prescribed burns were
conducted in 2004 and 2005. The goals of the prescribed fire program
are to
 restore/perpetuate native grasses, forbs, and shrubs,
 reduce non-native plant species,
 periodically reduce dense cattail and bulrush growth in wetlands
to improve the ratio of open water to cover,
 maintain/rejuvenate nesting cover for waterfowl and other native
birds,
 maintain water delivery systems, and
 protect riparian habitats from catastrophic wildland fire events
through the establishment of firebreaks.
Prescribed Burning
Photo by USFWS
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
5.2.6
The Refuge actively controls a number of invasive and/or non-native
plants. Invasive plant species compete with desirable plants for
space, sunlight, nutrients, and water. They have detrimental effects
on the distribution and abundance of plants that are important to
wildlife as food, shelter, and nesting areas. In some cases, certain
plants may be desirable in modest proportions, but can be
detrimental to diversity and productivity if they become dominant.
Currently, approximately 5,210 acres of the Refuge are infested with
non-native species. The Refuge treats approximately 1,000 acres
annually.
Control of Invasive/Non-native Species
There are five primary invasive/non-native weed species on the
Refuge: perennial pepperweed, Scotch thistle, Canada thistle, bull
thistle, and Mediterranean sage. Other non-native or nuisance
invasive species include common teasel, cheat grass, reed canary
grass, and poison hemlock. Perennial pepperweed and scotch thistle
are the most invasive and damaging of the non-native species on the
Refuge. However, the most widespread is Canada thistle, which
occurs along wetland margins, wet meadows, irrigation canals, and
roadsides.
The Refuge actively participates in the Modoc County Noxious
Weed Management Group, which includes the CDFG,
California Department of Food and Agriculture, NRCS,
USFS, BLM, Central Modoc Resource Conservation District
(RCD), Pit RCD, Goose Lake RCD, North CAL/NEVA
Resource Conservation and Development, California
Department of Transportation, U.C. Cooperative Extension,
and Modoc County Department of Agriculture. The Group was
brought together by the common goals of noxious weed
exclusion, early detection, and control within Modoc County.
The Service pest management policy goal (30 AM 12.1 of the
Administrative Manual) is to eliminate the unnecessary use
of pesticides through the use of Integrated Pest
Management (IPM). IPM uses a combination of biological,
physical, cultural, and chemical control methods (30 AM
12.5 of the Administrative Manual). This approach notes
environmental hazards, efficacy, costs, and vulnerability of the pest.
An IPM Plan (Appendix G) has been developed for the Refuge.
Mechanical, physical, biological, and chemical applications are the
primary mechanisms used to control non-native/invasive species.
Prescribed fire is also an effective means of reducing weed
infestations, particularly in native communities that evolved with fire.
When plants or animals are considered a pest, they are subject to
control on national wildlife refuges if the pest organism represents a
threat to human health, well-being, or private property; the
acceptable level of damage by the pest has been exceeded; State or
Controlling Invasive Plant
Species
Photo by USFWS
Chapter 3
46 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
local governments have designated the pest as noxious; the pest
organism is detrimental to primary refuge objectives; and the
planned control program will not conflict with the attainment of
Refuge objectives or the purposes for which the Refuge is managed
(7 RM 14.2 of the Refuge Manual).
5.2.7
Sanctuaries are areas on the Refuge that are closed to public use
(approximately 4,265 acres or 61 percent of the Refuge). They
provide places where human-caused disturbances are reduced,
thereby reducing the interruption of wildlife activities, such as
foraging, resting, breeding, feeding nestlings, and other maintenance
activities. They are also important for wildlife to avoid predation by
other wild animals, as they can devote less energy to avoiding
humans and more to avoiding predators. Sanctuaries are areas where
wildlife concentrate and reproduce, resulting in increased numbers of
wildlife, which can lead to more wildlife-dependent public use in areas
near the sanctuary.
Wildlife Sanctuary
Short-term sanctuaries occur on Dorris Reservoir during the
wintering and nesting seasons. Dorris Reservoir is closed to public
access from October 1 through January 31 to provide sanctuary for
migratory waterfowl. From February 1 through May 31, shorelines,
islands, and peninsulas are closed to public access to reduce
disturbance of nesting waterfowl. In addition, the 2,130-acre hunt
area is closed to public access, outside of the waterfowl hunting
season.
6. Fish and Wildlife
Situated along the Pacific Flyway, the Refuge is an important
resting, nesting, and feeding area for migratory birds, and it has been
recognized as an Important Bird Area (IBA). The IBA program is a
global effort to identify and conserve areas that are vital to birds and
other biodiversity. By working with Audubon chapters, landowners,
public agencies, community groups, and other non-profits, Audubon
endeavors to interest and activate a broad network of supporters to
ensure that all IBAs are properly managed and conserved.
To qualify as an IBA, sites must satisfy a variety of criteria. In the
U.S., the IBA program has become a key component of many bird
conservation efforts, including Partners in Flight, North American
Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation
Plan.
The Upper Klamath Lake IBA was selected and approved as an IBA
because it supports greater than 10 percent of the California
breeding population of greater sandhill cranes, 12 sensitive species,
and greater than 5,000 waterfowl (Cooper 2004).
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47
Depending upon the season, bird populations on the Refuge vary
greatly in abundance and diversity, with over 240 bird species
recorded, including 40 accidentals (species not normally found in the
region). Seventy-seven of these species nest on the Refuge. In
addition to the numerous species of birds, 53 species of mammal and
19 species of reptiles and amphibians are known to inhabit the
Refuge, as well as both native and non-native fish and invertebrate
species. Appendix H contains a complete list of fish and wildlife
species that occur or potentially could occur on the Refuge. An
overview of wildlife use of the Refuge follows.
6.1 Waterfowl
The Refuge is an important northern California waterfowl production
area, providing nesting habitat for 11 species. Duck production (to
fledging) averages approximately 3,600 birds/year and is dominated
by mallards, gadwalls, cinnamon teals, northern shovelers, and
redheads (Figure 11). In addition, approximately 2,000 Canada geese
are produced on the Refuge each year (Figure 12).
Fall migrating waterfowl begin to arrive on the Refuge in September
and stage there until hard freezes drive the majority of the birds into
the Central Valley. These birds return in the spring as they migrate
back to their northern breeding grounds. Up to 25,000 ducks stop and
rest on the Refuge (Table 3). The number of geese using the area
averages between 4,000 and 5,000 birds (Table 3). Approximately
1,000 tundra swans also use the Refuge each year during migration.
Canada Geese with Goslings
Photo by USFWS
Chapter 3
48 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 11. Waterfowl production 1972-2001
Figure 12. Canada goose production 1961-2003
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Pairs Production Nesting Pairs Trendline Production Trendline
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Production Breeding Pairs Linear (Production) Linear (Breeding Pairs)
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49
Table 3. Periodic wildlife survey Modoc Refuge, 2004
Species September October November
Tundra swan 0 0 153
Trumpeter swan 0 0 0
TOTAL SWANS 0 0 153
White-front goose 0 83 10
Snow goose 0 0 0
Canada goose 1,008 2,795 1,443
TOTAL GEESE 1,008 2,878 1,453
Mallard 2,393 9,145 1,983
Gadwall 1,454 7,130 1,877
Green-winged teal 0 2,150 588
American wigeon 117 3,650 977
Northern pintail 75 6,370 266
Northern shoveler 162 1,500 627
Blue-winged teal 0 0 0
Cinnamon teal 26 850 0
Canvasback 0 0 0
Redhead 223 250 14
Ring-necked duck 0 40 420
Lesser scaup 225 0 0
Common goldeneye 0 0 286
Bufflehead 0 10 748
Common merganser 0 0 0
Hooded merganser 3 0 0
Ruddy duck 0 0 0
TOTAL DUCKS 4,678 31,095 7,786
GRAND TOTAL 5,686 33,973 9,392
Chapter 3
50 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Waterfowl use of the Refuge’s habitat varies by species as well as
factors such as water depth, ratio of open water to emergent
vegetation, food availability, access to loafing sites, and level of
human disturbance. Most of the waterfowl that
occur on the Refuge are dabbling ducks and geese,
which all prefer relatively shallow water. Species
such as northern pintails, American wigeons, and
northern shovelers prefer more open water,
whereas mallards and gadwalls will use wetlands
with denser cover.
6.2 Shorebirds
Numerous shorebirds nest on the Refuge and
forage in its shallow ponds and mudflats. Nesting
has been recorded for the Wilson’s phalarope,
willet, long-billed curlew, killdeer, black-necked
stilt, American avocet, and spotted sandpiper.
6.3 Waterbirds
Wetlands on the Refuge provide feeding and nesting grounds for a
variety of wading birds including the greater sandhill crane (State
listed threatened species), great egret, snowy egret, black-crowned
night-heron, American bittern, great blue heron, and white-faced ibis.
Areas of open and usually deep water, such as at Dorris Reservoir,
attract fish-eating birds, including the American white pelican and
double-crested cormorant. Other year-round species include Virginia
rails, soras, and grebes (e.g., pied-billed, eared, Clark’s, and western).
6.4 Gulls and Terns
Ring-billed and California gulls are the most common gulls on the
Refuge, occurring primarily during the summer. Forster’s, Caspian,
and black terns are common to abundant during the summer.
Forster’s and black terns nest on the Refuge.
6.5 Birds of Prey
The small but important riparian habitats on the Refuge provide
nesting and foraging areas for the red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk,
American kestrel, great horned owl, and barn owl. Upland and
wetland habitats provide foraging and nesting for the northern
harrier and short-eared owl. In addition, bald eagles, golden eagles,
prairie falcons, and rough-legged hawks are common winter visitors.
Greater Yellowlegs
Photo by Steve Emmons
American Kestrel
Photo by Steve Emmons
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51
6.6 Game Birds
Game birds use a variety of habitats on the Refuge. Ring-necked
pheasant can be found foraging in the agricultural areas and nesting
in nearby shrubs. Mourning doves and California quail can also be
found on the Refuge. Mourning doves and Wilson’s snipe (a
shorebird) are technically “migratory birds,” but are also
classified as upland game birds in the California hunting
regulations. Mourning doves occur year-round. They are a
common nester during the spring and summer and a less common
winter resident. Wilson’s snipe are abundant during the summer
and nest in shallow wetlands. Wilson’s snipe and ring-necked
pheasant (Junior Hunt only) are the only game birds hunted on
the Refuge.
6.7 Other Landbirds
The riparian habitat on the Refuge is occupied by species such as
the downy and hairy woodpecker. This habitat also provides
nesting and foraging areas for Neotropical migrants such as the
yellow warbler, Bullock’s oriole, Wilson’s warbler, tree swallow,
and willow flycatcher.
Upland habitat on the Refuge provides nesting and foraging
areas for passerines such as the western kingbird, western
meadowlark, black-billed magpie, song sparrow, and sage
thrasher. Non-native European starlings and house sparrows
are common and often out-compete native species for nesting
sites.
6.8 Mammals
Most of the mammals found on the Refuge are year-round residents.
The most abundant species include the deer mouse, Great Basin
pocket mouse, Ord’s kangaroo rat, western harvest mouse, northern
grasshopper mouse, and Belding’s ground squirrel. Nuttall’s
cottontails and black-tailed jackrabbits are common in
the sagebrush habitat. Bats, including the Brazilian
free-tailed bat, little brown bat, California myotis, and
Yuma myotis, are also present on the Refuge.
Large mammals commonly found in the Refuge
include mule deer, badger, striped skunk, bobcat, and
coyote. In addition, muskrat, beaver, and river otter
are found in the Refuge’s aquatic habitats.
6.9 Amphibians and Reptiles
Common amphibians and reptiles occurring on the
Refuge include the western toad, Pacific treefrog,
western fence lizard, sagebrush lizard, western
skink, gopher snake, common garter snake, and
western pond turtle.
Wilson’s Snipe
Photo by Steve Emmons
Western Pond Turtle
Photo by Steve Emmons
Chapter 3
52 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
6.10 Fish
Native fish species expected to occur in the Reservoir and/or riverine
habitats on the Refuge include the Pit-Klamath brook lamprey, Goose
Lake redband trout, Sacramento sucker, hardhead, pit roach,
Sacramento pike minnow, speckled dace, tui chub, and Pit sculpin.
Non-native species include the bluegill, green sunfish, largemouth
bass, brown trout, rainbow trout, brown bullhead, crappie, and
channel catfish.
In July 1989, a gill net survey was conducted on Dorris Reservoir.
The survey included 113 fish (54 percent tui chub, 20 percent brown
bullhead, 16 percent largemouth bass, 5 percent rainbow trout, 4
percent bluegill sunfish, and 1 percent channel catfish).
Within the Refuge, fish are primarily found in the Pit River and
Dorris Reservoir. However, they can also be found in canals and
ponds. The CDFG stocks Dorris Reservoir with rainbow trout and is
the primary source of existing fish species. The Reservoir was
treated with Rotenone in 1947 and then annually stocked with
rainbow trout until 1968. As a result of public pressure, annual
stocking of catchable sized trout by CDFG resumed in 1980. Because
of annual summer drawdowns and associated warm temperatures,
this is not a self-sustaining population. The State also planted
largemouth bass in 1949, bluegill in 1955, channel catfish in 1972, and
brown bullhead (date unknown). In 2007, CDFG planted 2,450 Eagle
Lake rainbow trout into Dorris Reservoir.
Fish barriers have been installed in Parker Creek and Pine Creek
delivery canals to prevent fish migration during high precipitation
years. Fish habitat enhancement projects on Dorris Reservoir are
conducted annually. Juniper stumps and recycled Christmas trees
are used to create brush piles that provide escape cover for fish.
6.11 Invertebrates
Invertebrate populations are greatest and most diverse in aquatic
habitats, and provide an important food base for many fish and
wildlife species both aquatic and terrestrial. Invertebrates present on
the Refuge are an important resource based on their contribution to
biotic diversity and their vital function in the food chain for many fish
and wildlife species. They occur in all habitat types, both aquatic and
terrestrial. Some are abundant such as many species of midges, while
others are quite rare.
In combination with seeds and other vegetation, aquatic
invertebrates are an essential part of many waterbird diets at various
times of the year, as they provide a balance of amino and fatty acids
to facilitate fat and protein storage (Euliss and Harris 1987; Miller
1987; Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). Invertebrates provide energy
for migration, protein to replace molted feathers, and calcium for the
production of eggs. Wetlands support a wide variety of aquatic
The Refuge Environment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53
invertebrates including water fleas, snails, clams, dragonflies,
damselflies, water boatmen, backswimmers, beetles, midges,
mosquitoes, worms, mussels, crayfish, and various species of
zooplankton. While many of these species’ larvae occur in the water
column or sediment in wetlands, the adult stages are aerial and an
important food source for landbirds as well as mammals (i.e.,
swallows, flycatchers, and bats).
Terrestrial invertebrates are also an important food base for many
migratory and resident bird species, and include numerous species of
grasshoppers, beetles, butterflies, moths, ants, spiders, and other
insects. In addition, many of these invertebrates play key roles in
plant pollination.
6.12 Threatened and Endangered Species
The Refuge provides breeding, rearing, migratory, and wintering
habitat for Federal and State threatened and endangered species and
species of special status. Federally and State listed species are
presented in Table 4 and are discussed in more detail below. Other
special-status species are presented in Appendix H. No Federal or
State listed plant species are known to occur on the Refuge.
6.12.1
The greater sandhill crane (State listed as threatened) is
one of six subspecies of sandhill cranes found in North
America. The greater sandhill cranes are divided into five
distinct migratory populations, which return to the same
breeding and wintering sites every year (Littlefield and
Ivey 2000). These five populations are the Eastern, Prairie,
Rocky Mountain, Lower Colorado River Valley, and
California Central Valley (Littlefield and Ivey 2000, 2002).
Greater sandhill cranes that occur on the Modoc Refuge
belong to the California Central Valley population.
Greater Sandhill Crane
In 2000, there were an estimated 62,600 greater sandhill
cranes in existence (Littlefield and Ivey 2000). In 2005,
the estimate for greater sandhill cranes within their
Pacific Flyway range was between 5,000 and 6,000
individuals (California Department of Fish and Game
2005c). Estimates of breeding crane pairs were made in
these northern California counties: Modoc (252), Lassen (122),
Siskiyou (51), Plumas (20), Shasta (10), and Sierra (10). Breeding
population estimates have ranged from a low of 112 breeding pairs in
1971 (in 3 of the above 6 counties) to a high of 465 pairs in 2000
(California Department of Fish and Game 2005c).
This species continues to experience threats on both wintering and
breeding grounds due to agricultural and urban conversion of habitat,
predation, human disturbance, and collisions with power lines.
Greater Sandhill Crane Colt
Photo by USFWS
Chapter 3
54 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Table 4. Federal and State listed wildlife species occurring at or near Modoc National
Wildlife Refuge
Common Name
Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat Description Comments
Greater sandhill crane
Grus canadensis
tabida
CT, CFP Wetlands required for breeding;
forage in nearby pastures, fields,
and meadows.
Common spring, summer, and
fall resident; known to breed on
the Refuge.
Western snowy plover
Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus
FT, CSC Inland, breeds on barren to
sparsely vegetated ground at
alkaline or saline lakes,
reservoirs, and ponds.
Rare summer resident;
suspected of nesting on the
Refuge.
Swainson’s hawk
Buteo swainsoni
CT Breeds in stands with few trees
in juniper-sage flats, riparian
areas, and oak savannah; forages
in adjacent livestock pasture,
grassland, or grain fields.
Summer resident; known to nest
on the Refuge.
American peregrine
falcon
Falco peregrinus
anatum
FD, CE,
CFP
Forages in many habitats;
requires cliffs for nesting.
Rare migrant.
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
FD, CE,
CFP
Riverine and open wetland
habitats. Perches high in large,
stoutly limbed trees, on snags or
broken-topped trees or on rocks
near water.
Winter resident and occasional
migrant.
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FC, CE Nesting habitat is
cottonwood/willow riparian
forest.
Rare migrant and summer
resident; suspected of nesting on
the Refuge.
Willow flycatcher
Empidonax traillii
CE Wet meadow and montane
riparian habitats.
Uncommon summer resident;
known to nest on the Refuge.
Bank swallow
Riparia riparia
CT Colonial nester on vertical banks
or cliffs with fine-textured soils
near water.
Common migrant and
uncommon summer resident;
known to nest on the Refuge.
Oregon spotted frog
Rana pretiosa
FC, CSC Wet areas in mountainous
woodlands and wet meadows.
Suitable habitat occurs on the
Refuge. Has been recorded
historically in Pine Creek and
the south fork of the Pit River
near Alturas (California Herps
2007).
Modoc sucker
Catostomus microps
FE, CE Small streams Known to occur in Turner and
Rush Creeks in Modoc County,
not known to occur on the
Refuge
1Status Key: Federal: FE = Endangered, FT = Threatened, FC = Candidate Species; FD = Delisted
State of California: CE = Endangered, CT=Threatened, CSC = Species of Special Concern, CFP =
Fully Protected
The