U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Salinas River National

Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive

Conservation Plan
CCPs provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to 

accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program 

planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for 

Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for 

staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. 
Salinas River

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Vision Statement

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

“The Refuge will be managed for the

conservation and enhancement of populations

of native species of plants, wildlife, fish, and

their habitats. Endangered or threatened

species will receive management priority,

with special emphasis placed on the

conservation and recovery of the western

snowy plover. Whenever possible, habitats and

populations will be managed in partnership

with local landowners, local and regional

organizations, and local, State, and other

Federal agencies to achieve regional

conservation goals.”

December 2002 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

California/Nevada Refuge Planning Office 

2800 Cottage Way, Room W-1916 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

I

Salinas River

National Wildlife Refuge Table of Contents

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1. Introduction and Background ________________________________________ 1

Content and Purpose of This Document ____________________________________ 1

Need for This CCP _____________________________________________________ 2

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NWR System _____________________ 2

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Responsibilities _______________________ 2

The National Wildlife Refuge System _______________________________ 2

The Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge ________________________________ 4

Introduction to the Salinas River NWR ______________________________ 4

Establishment and History of the Salinas River NWR _________________ 4

Salinas River NWR Vision Statement _______________________________ 5

Management Goals for the Salinas River NWR _______________________ 6

Existing Partnerships for Management of the Salinas River NWR _______ 6

Adaptive Management ____________________________________________ 7

Document Organization _________________________________________________ 7

2. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process ___________________ 9

The Planning Process – How This CCP Was Developed _________________________ 9

The Planning Team ________________________________________________ 9

Public Involvement in Planning _____________________________________ 10

Public Comments on Refuge Planning ______________________________________ 11

Recreation and Public Use _________________________________________ 11

Habitat and Wildlife Management ___________________________________ 11

Administration and Management ____________________________________ 12

Planning Process _________________________________________________ 12

Development of Refuge Goals _____________________________________________ 12

Development of Alternatives ______________________________________________ 13

Plan Implementation ___________________________________________________ 13

3. Current and Future Refuge Management ____________________________ 15

Current Management __________________________________________________ 15

Management Alternatives ______________________________________________ 16

Refuge Management Direction: Objectives and Strategies ___________________ 17

Organization ____________________________________________________ 18

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies __________________________________ 18

Mitigation Measures ___________________________________________________ 29

Water Quality/Contaminants ______________________________________ 29

Hazardous Materials and Safety Issues _____________________________ 30

Biological Resources _____________________________________________ 30

Cultural Resources _____________________________________________ 33

4. Existing Conditions ____________________________________________ 35

Physical Resources ____________________________________________________ 35

Climate ________________________________________________________ 35

Surface Hydrology ______________________________________________ 35

Geology ________________________________________________________ 38

Soils ___________________________________________________________ 39

Air Quality _____________________________________________________ 41

Hazardous Materials and Contaminants ____________________________ 42

Biological Resources at the Refuge _______________________________________ 44

Historic and Regional Context ____________________________________ 44

Vegetation _____________________________________________________ 45

Wildlife ________________________________________________________ 48

Federally Listed Species at the Refuge _____________________________ 52

Cultural Resources ____________________________________________________ 58

Cultural Setting _________________________________________________ 58

Social Environment ____________________________________________________ 61

Land Use ______________________________________________________ 61
II

Traffic and Public Access _________________________________________ 61

Recreation _____________________________________________________ 62

5. Plan Implementation ___________________________________________ 65

Funding and Personnel _________________________________________________ 65

Step-Down Management Plans __________________________________________ 68

Compliance Requirements ______________________________________________ 68

Partnership Opportunities ______________________________________________ 68

Adaptive Management _________________________________________________ 68

Plan Amendment and Revision __________________________________________ 69
III

Appendices

APPENDIX A. Citations

APPENDIX B. Glossary of Terms

APPENDIX C. Refuge Plant List and Special-Status Species on the Refuge

APPENDIX D. Relationship between Vegetation Types Used in this CCP and

National Vegetation Classification System 

APPENDIX E. Planning Team Members and Persons Responsible

for Preparing this Document

APPENDIX F. Wilderness Review

APPENDIX G. Compatibility Determinations

APPENDIX H. Salinas River NWR Avian Predator Management Plan

APPENDIX I. Salinas River NWR Wildland Fire Management Plan

APPENDIX J. Salinas River NWR Hunting Plan

APPENDIX K. Response to Comments
IV

Figures

Figure 1. Location map __________________________________________________________________________________ follows 4

Figure 2. Refuge map ___________________________________________________________________________________ follows 4

Figure 3. Comprehensive conservation planning process ___________________________________________________________ 10

Figure 4. Hierarchy of Refuge planning levels in the National Wildlife Refuge System __________________________________ 13

Figure 5. Public Use Plan ________________________________________________________________________________ follows 18

Figure 6. Coastal dunes and land ownership along southern Monterey Bay ______________________________________ follows 26

Figure 7. Vegetation map ________________________________________________________________________________ follows 46

Tables

Table 1. 15-year vision for the primary habitats and for recreation on the Refuge _______________________________________ 6

Table 2. Current partnerships on the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge ___________________________________________ 7

Table 3. Organization of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ______________________________________________________ 8

Table 4. Soils of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge _________________________________________________________ 40

Table 5. Estimates of annual recreation use at the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge _______________________________ 64

Table 6. Recreation use at public parks along the coast near the Refuge ______________________________________________ 64

Table 7. Budget proposal for Salinas River NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan ___________________________________ 66
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

Sand verbena (Verbena sp.)

USFWS Photo

Chapter 1. Introduction and

Background

Content and Purpose of This Document

This document is a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) designed to

guide the management of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge in

Monterey County, California for the next 15 years. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service’s (Service) management planning process for National

Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) involves two phases: (1) the development of a

broad Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) that articulates a vision

and specific goals for the refuge, and (2) the formulation of more detailed

“step-down” management plans that enable the implementation of the

CCP’s vision.

The purposes of this CCP are:

O To provide a clear statement of direction for the management of the

Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) over the next 15 years;

O To provide long-term continuity in Refuge management;

O To communicate the Service’s management priorities for the Salinas

River NWR to its neighbors and visitors and to the public;

O To provide an opportunity for the public to help shape the future

management of the Salinas River NWR;

O To ensure that management programs on the Salinas River NWR are

consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System

(Refuge System) and the purpose of the Refuge as stated in establishing

legislation;

O To ensure that the management of the Salinas River NWR is consistent

with Federal, State, and local plans; and

O To provide a basis for budget requests to support the Salinas River

NWR’s needs for staffing, operations, maintenance, and capital

improvements.
Chapter 1

2 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

This document incorporates a CCP and three new step-down plans: an

Avian Predator Management Plan, Wildland Fire Management Plan, and

Hunt Plan. In addition, the existing Predator Management Plan (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1993a) will remain in place as a step-down plan.

When it is implemented, this CCP will further the purposes and goals of

the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge, contribute to the overall

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (see page 3), and address

other relevant mandates, such as recovery of endangered species.

Chapter 2 describes the CCP planning process. Chapter 3 presents the

management program proposed in this CCP.

Need for This CCP

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public

Law 105-57) (Improvement Act) requires that all Federal refuges be

managed in accordance with an approved CCP by 2012. Moreover, the

Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge currently has no integrated plan

that guides the management of all of its resources and uses. In order to

meet the dual needs of complying with the Improvement Act and providing

long-term integrated management guidance for the Refuge, the Service

proposes this CCP.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge

System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Responsibilities

The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for conserving and

enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats.

Although the Service shares this responsibility with other Federal, State,

Tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific responsibilities

for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish,

and certain marine mammals. The Service has similar responsibilities for

the lands and waters it administers to support the conservation and

enhancement of fish and wildlife.

The National Wildlife Refuge System

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of

lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife conservation. Operated and

managed by the Service, it comprises more than 500 national wildlife

refuges with a combined area of more than 92 million acres. The majority

of refuge lands (approximately 77 million acres) are located in Alaska. The

remaining 15 million acres are spread across the other 49 states and

several island territories.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals. The mission of the

National Wildlife Refuge System, as stated in the Improvement Act, is “to

administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and

plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit

of present and future generations of Americans” (16 USC 668dd et seq.).
Introduction and Background

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System are:

O To preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when

practicable) all species of animals and plants that are endangered or

threatened with becoming endangered;

O To perpetuate the migratory bird resource;

O To preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on

refuge lands; and

O To provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife

ecology and the human role in the environment and to provide refuge

visitors with high-quality, safe, wholesome, and enjoyable recreational

experiences oriented toward wildlife to the extent these activities are

compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established.

The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to resource management

and has identified 52 ecosystem units within the United States. The Salinas

River National Wildlife Refuge is situated in the Service’s Southern

California Ecoregion. The Draft Conceptual Management Approach for

Southern California Ecoregion Goals can be obtained from the Service by

request. Specific ecoregion goals relevant to the Salinas River National

Wildlife Refuge are discussed in Chapter 3 of this CCP.

Legal and Policy Guidance for Management of National Wildlife Refuges.

Individual refuges (refuge units) are guided by the mission and goals of the

National Wildlife Refuge System (see preceding section) and by the

designated purpose of the refuge unit as described in establishing

legislation or executive orders, Service laws and policy, and international

treaties. Key concepts guiding the System are contained in the Refuge

Recreation Act of 1962, the National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, and, most recently, the

Improvement Act.

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the only network of Federal lands

administered first for the protection of wildlife. No use of a refuge may be

allowed unless it is determined to be compatible with the refuge’s purpose.

A compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the

refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from the

fulfillment of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the

purposes of the individual refuge unit. Sound professional judgment is

further defined as a decision that is consistent with principles of fish and

wildlife management and administration, available science and resources,

and adherence with law. In this context, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, hatcheries,

and other conservation areas for recreational use when such uses do not

interfere with the area’s primary purpose.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 provides

guidelines and directives for administration and management of all areas

in the System, including wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and

conservation of fish and wildlife threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges,

game ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl production areas.

This Act was amended in 1997 by passage of the Improvement Act, which

includes a unifying mission statement for the National Wildlife Refuge

System (see page 3), establishes new guidelines for determining

compatible uses on refuges, and requires that each refuge be managed

under a CCP developed in an open public process. Under the Improvement

Act, all refuge units are required to have a CCP in place by the year 2012.

The Improvement Act further states that wildlife conservation is the
Chapter 1

4 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

priority of National Wildlife Refuge System lands and that the Secretary

of the Interior shall ensure that the biological integrity and diversity and

the environmental health of refuge lands are maintained. In addition, the

Improvement Act encourages partnerships with Federal and State

agencies, Tribes, organizations, industry, and the general public.

The Improvement Act identifies six wildlife-dependent recreational uses as

priorities: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,

environmental education, and environmental interpretation. As expressed

priorities of the National Wildlife Refuge System, these public uses take

precedence over other potential uses in refuge planning and management.

However, the Improvement Act also requires identification of existing

compatible wildlife-dependent uses that will be permitted to continue on an

interim basis pending completion of the CCP development process.

Refuge Vision. A vision statement is developed or revised for each

individual refuge unit as part of the CCP process. Vision statements are

grounded in the unifying mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System,

and describe the desired future conditions of the refuge unit in the long

term (more than 15 years), based on the refuge’s specific purposes, the

resources present on the refuge, and any other relevant mandates.

The Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Introduction to the Salinas River NWR

The Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (hereafter, Refuge)

encompasses 367 acres located 11 miles north of Monterey, California,

where the Salinas River empties into Monterey Bay (Figures 1 and 2). The

Refuge is part of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge

Complex, which has its headquarters in Fremont, California. 

Refuge lands include a range of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, including

coastal dunes and beach, grasslands, wetlands, and riparian scrub. Because

of its location within the Pacific Flyway, the Refuge is used by a variety of

migratory birds during breeding, wintering, and migration periods. It also

provides habitat for several threatened and endangered species, including

western snowy plover, California brown pelican, Smith’s blue butterfly,

Monterey gilia, and Monterey spineflower. Approximately 40 species that

occur or are suspected to occur on the Refuge are considered sensitive by

Federal or State agencies (see Appendix C). Current recreational uses on

the Refuge include wildlife observation and photography and access to surf

fishing and waterfowl hunting. Chapter 4 presents a detailed description of

natural resources on the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge.

Establishment and History of the Salinas River NWR

The Refuge was established in 1973 because of its “particular value in

carrying out the national migratory bird management program” (16 USC

Sec. 667b). The land was acquired by the Service through a transfer of

surplus military land from the U.S. Army and the U.S. Coast Guard. From

1974 through 1991, what is now the Refuge was operated as a Wildlife

Management Area under a cooperative agreement with the California

Department of Fish and Game. By the mid-1980s, growing awareness of

the Refuge’s importance as habitat for sensitive species prompted a shift

toward more active management and protection of its resources. In 1991,

the Service began managing the area as a National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)

under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, the

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and the Improvement Act of 1997. 

Refuge Purpose: The Refuge

was established in 1973 because

of its “particular value in

carrying out the national

migratory bird management

program” (16 USC Sec. 667b).
Salinas River

National Wildlife Refuge

Salinas

San Jose

Hollister

Santa Cruz

San Francisco

Monterey

|ÿ1

tu101

|}ÿ68

tu101

§ ̈¦5

|156 }ÿ

|}ÿ1

|152 }ÿ

Mon

|129 }ÿ

terey

B

ay

Santa Cruz Co. Santa Cruz Co.

San Mateo Co. San Mateo Co.

Alameda Co. Alameda Co.

Santa Clara Co. Santa Clara Co.

San Benito Co. San Benito Co.

Stanislaus Co. Stanislaus Co.

Merced Co. Merced Co.

Monterey Co. Monterey Co.

Figure 1. Location Map

CA/NV Refuge Planning Office - July 2001 I

CALIFORNIA

Area

Enlarged

10 0 10 20 30 5

Miles

Introduction and Background

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

Since 1991, Refuge management efforts have focused on sensitive species

protection, habitat enhancement (including riparian restoration along the

Salinas River), and public use management. Limited recreational

opportunities have also been available to the public, including waterfowl

hunting, access to surf fishing, and wildlife observation and photography.

Much of the management and monitoring on the Refuge has been

accomplished in cooperation with various partner organizations (see

Existing Partnerships below). The Service’s approach to managing the

Refuge has been regional in perspective, and has emphasized balancing

appropriate uses among the various public lands in the Monterey Bay area.

Additional detailed information on past and current Refuge management is

provided in Chapters 3 and 4.

Salinas River NWR Vision Statement 

This CCP incorporates the following vision statement for the Salinas River

National Wildlife Refuge.

The Refuge will be managed for the conservation and enhancement

of populations of native species of plants, wildlife, fish, and their

habitats. Endangered or threatened species will receive management

priority, with special emphasis placed on the conservation and

recovery of the western snowy plover. Whenever possible, habitats

and populations will be managed in partnership with local

landowners, local and regional organizations, and local, State, and

other Federal agencies to achieve regional conservation goals. 

The vision for the Refuge reflects the regional approach that the Service

has taken since it began active management of the Refuge in 1991. Under

this approach, the Refuge is viewed as part of a mosaic of different types of

open spaces (State beaches, private lands, the Refuge, etc.) in the

Monterey coastal region. Each type of open space may support different

recreational uses that reflect the particular mission of the agency or entity

with stewardship responsibility for those lands. 

In keeping with this approach and with the mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System, the Refuge will continue to offer limited but unique

wildlife-oriented recreational opportunities; however, significant increases

in public use will not be encouraged. State and local beaches will continue

to provide the primary recreational opportunities for the Monterey Bay

area shoreline. State beaches in Monterey Bay typically offer opportunities

for recreational activities—such as hang-gliding, camping, and horseback

riding—that the Refuge does not allow. These uses, as well as unrestricted

public use in general, are incompatible with the Refuge’s purpose. The

Refuge vision statement reflects the Service’s view that, within the wider

context of public lands along the Monterey Bay, the Refuge should support

relatively undisturbed habitat for threatened and endangered species and

other wildlife, where public uses are subordinate to the primary purpose of

wildlife conservation.
Chapter 1

6 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Table 1 presents the 15-year vision for the Refuge’s four primary habitats

and for recreation.

Table 1. 15-year vision for the primary habitats and for recreation on the Refuge.

Coastal Dunes and

Beach

The natural processes of dune formation will be restored.

Native vegetation in the dune complex of the Refuge will be

protected and enhanced. Populations of endangered and

threatened species such as Smith’s blue butterfly, Monterey

gilia, Monterey spineflower, brown pelican, and western

snowy plover will be protected and enhanced. 

Grassland The native coastal prairie will be restored by mimicking

natural processes through active management. The

restored coastal prairie will provide excellent foraging

habitat for native grassland birds.

Wetlands The saline pond will be maintained for migratory bird use.

The salt marsh habitat will be enhanced for use by

migratory and resident birds. Historic wetlands on the

Refuge will be identified and restored.

Riparian/Riverine

Habitats

Riparian scrub will be restored along the Salinas River to

provide habitat for migratory and resident birds while

allowing for natural migration of the river channel. Riverine

habitat will be enhanced for use by native waterfowl and

fish.

Recreation Limited wildlife-dependent recreation will occur on the

Refuge, when compatible with the purpose of the Refuge

and the conservation and recovery of endangered species. 

Management Goals for the Salinas River NWR

Three goals have been identified to realize the vision proposed for the

Refuge.

Goal 1. Protect, restore, and enhance populations of migratory birds

and other native species and their habitats.

Goal 2. Protect and enhance populations of endangered, threatened,

and rare species and promote their recovery by restoring and

enhancing their natural habitats.

Goal 3. Provide opportunities for safe, unique, wildlife-dependent

recreation when compatible with the Refuge purpose and

with other Refuge goals.

These goals represent broad statements of the priorities for ongoing

Refuge management.

Existing Partnerships for Management of the Salinas River NWR

Partnerships are integral to the success of many refuges, and the Service

encourages partnerships with local organizations who share the Service’s

mission to conserve and enhance natural resources. The Refuge currently

maintains partnerships with many organizations to help achieve its goals

and those of the partner organizations. Table 2 summarizes current

partnerships on the Refuge.
Introduction and Background

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

Table 2. Current partnerships on the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge.

Organization Nature of Partnership

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Wildlife Services

Assists with the Refuge’s predator management

program

California Department of Fish and

Game

Coordinates programs for managing special-status

species, such as western snowy plover, on nearby

State lands.

California Department of Parks and

Recreation

Assists the Service with public use monitoring,

habitat management, and snowy plover

management

Watershed Institute of California

State University, Monterey Bay 

Conducts restoration of native grassland and

riparian habitats, erosion monitoring, and scientific

research

Point Reyes Bird Observatory Conducts monitoring of western snowy plover

populations

Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research

Group

Assists with the Refuge’s experimental avian

predator management program

Neighboring landowners Control nonnative plants on dune habitat

Source: Christopher Barr and Ivette Loredo, USFWS

Adaptive Management 

The Service acknowledges that much remains to be learned about the

species, habitats, and physical processes that occur on the Refuge, and

about the ecological interactions between species. When faced with

uncertainty resulting from complex ecological interactions or gaps in

available data, the most effective approach to resource management over

the long term is an adaptive one. Adaptive management refers to a

management style in which the effectiveness of management actions is

monitored and evaluated, and future management is modified as needed,

based on the results of this evaluation or other relevant information that

becomes available. The Service has been practicing adaptive management

on the Refuge since 1991 and plans to continue this practice. Accordingly,

the management scenario proposed in this CCP provides for ongoing

adaptive management of the Refuge; its adaptive management component

is described more fully in Chapter 6, Plan Implementation.

Document Organization

This document is organized into six chapters and eleven appendices. Table

3 summarizes their contents. 
Chapter 1

8 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Table 3. Organization of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Document

Section Content

Chapter 1 Description of CCP development process. Overview of mission and responsibilities of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and goals

of National Wildlife Refuge System. Summary of history and vision of Salinas River NWR.

Chapter 2 Summary of process for development of this CCP, including specific public concerns identified and addressed during CCP

development.

Chapter 3 Descriptions of current and future management of the Salinas River NWR. 

Chapter 4 Description of existing resources on the Salinas River NWR. 

Chapter 5 Overview of process for implementing this CCP.

Appendix A List of references cited.

Appendix B Glossary of technical terms. 

Appendix C List of special-status plant and animal species with the potential to occur on the Salinas River NWR or in the surrounding

area.

Appendix D Matrix showing relationship between vegetation classification system used in this document and National Vegetation

Classification System. 

Appendix E List of members of the Salinas River NWR CCP planning team and members of the team that prepared this document.

Appendix F Overview of wilderness review process (process that establishes whether lands should be recommended to Congress for

designation as wilderness and inclusion in the National Wilderness System) and results of wilderness review for Salinas River

NWR.

Appendix G Compatibility determinations (results of formal review of compatibility of proposed public uses with stated refuge purpose) for

Salinas River NWR.

Appendix H Salinas River NWR Avian Predator Management Plan (step-down plan).

Appendix I Salinas River NWR Wildland Fire Management Plan (step-down plan).

Appendix J Salinas River NWR Hunt Plan (step-down plan).

Appendix K Response to Comments
1

See discussion in Chapter 1.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

Chapter 2. The Comprehensive

Conservation Planning

Process

This CCP for the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge is intended to

meet the requirements of compliance with the Improvement Act1

. The

development of this CCP was also guided by the refuge planning policy

outlined in Part 602, Chapters 1, 3, and 4 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service Manual (May 2000).

Service policy, the Improvement Act, and the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) provide specific guidance for the planning process. For

example, Service policy and NEPA require the Service to actively seek

public involvement in the preparation of environmental documents such as

Environmental Assessments (EAs). NEPA also requires the Service to

give serious consideration to all reasonable alternatives, including the “no

action” alternative, which represents continuation of current conditions

and management practices. Alternative management scenarios were

developed as part of the planning process described in this chapter.

The Planning Process – How This CCP Was Developed

Key steps in the Service’s CCP planning process include:

1. Forming the planning team and conducting preplanning;

2. Initiating public involvement and scoping;

3. Identifying issues and developing or revising vision and goal

statements;

4. Developing alternatives and assessing their environmental

effects;

5. Identifying the proposed action (i.e., the preferred alternative);

6. Publishing the draft plan and NEPA document;

7. Revising the draft plan and publishing a final plan; and

8. Implementing the plan.

Figure 3 diagrams the CCP planning process; the following sections

provide additional detail on individual steps in the process. 

The Planning Team

The planning team responsible for leading the CCP effort included Service

biologists, planners, and public use specialists from the San Francisco Bay

NWR Complex and the California/Nevada Refuge Planning Office.

Biologists and planners from Jones & Stokes, an environmental consulting

firm, also participated in the planning team effort. This document was

prepared by a technical team from Jones & Stokes, under the direction and

with the assistance of the Service. Appendix E lists the members of the

planning and technical teams.
Chapter 2

10 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Figure 3. Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

Coordination and cooperation among participating stakeholders was a

fundamental element of the CCP development process. The Planning

Team considered the interests and expertise of many agencies and

organizations, including:

O U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

O California Department of Fish and Game,

O California Department of Parks and Recreation,

O Point Reyes Bird Observatory,

O Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group, 

O California State University, Monterey Bay Watershed Institute, and

O U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services.

Project planning meetings attended by representatives of these entities

were held regularly throughout the planning process, from November 1999

through July 2000. Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified

through discussions with planning team members and key contacts and

through public involvement.

Public Involvement in Planning

Public involvement is an essential component of the CCP process. The

Service announced the initiation of the Refuge planning effort to the public

on May 19, 2000, through a planning update newsletter, followed by a

formal notice in the Federal Register published on May 23, 2000. A press

release was also issued prior to the public meeting.
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

Public scoping meeting, Monterey, CA

Jones & Stokes Photo

There were several avenues for public involvement in Refuge planning. A

public workshop was held on June 1, 2000, in Monterey, California, to

inform the public of the planning process, and written public comments

were solicited until the public comment period ended on June 22, 2000. 

Public Comments on Refuge Planning

The following sections present issues, concerns, and opportunities

summarized from all public input received during the scoping process.

(The public workshop and written comment period are collectively referred

to as the scoping process.)

Recreation and Public Use

Public comments included concerns over recreation use, including both

access issues and issues related to impacts. Some respondents felt that

access to the portion of the Salinas River mouth below high tide should be

prohibited. Concern was also expressed regarding the effects of human

population density and recreational use on native plants and wildlife.

Commentors suggested that snowy plover signage should be posted in

English, Spanish, Chinese, and Tagalog. Some commentors suggested that

signage prohibiting dogs should be clarified and increased. Others

suggested that the Service issue a map showing areas in the Monterey

region where dogs are allowed. Commentors recommended enhanced

signage to identify areas of the Salinas River (both within and beyond the

Refuge boundaries) where fishing is permitted. A desire for bilingual

Spanish and English signage was expressed. Investigation into the impacts

of hunting and other recreational activities on wildlife, such as disturbance

of non-target species, was requested. The Service was also asked to

consider the incompatibility of recreational hunting on the Refuge.

Habitat and Wildlife Management

Many people were concerned about the loss of wildlife habitat and felt that

protecting, restoring, and enhancing wildlife populations and habitats

should be a Refuge priority. Development of a database of pertinent

scientific information regarding habitats and wildlife on the Refuge was
Chapter 2

12 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

suggested. Some commentors recommended a rigorous biological

assessment and inventory of all plant, fish, and wildlife species present on

the Refuge, including birds and invertebrates. Respondents suggested that

the Service consider the use of prescribed burning to restore grassland.

Control of invasive species was also identified as a concern, and

respondents recommended that additional approaches to avian predator

management be considered, such as creating foraging habitat by mowing

grassland. People stressed the need for long-term, effective, humane, and

socially acceptable predator-management strategies. In addition,

commentors expressed concern for the maintenance of good water quality

on the Refuge.

Administration and Management

The Service received a variety of comments related to Refuge

administration and management. Some comments suggest that the Refuge

requires improved and additional publicity; many members of the public

had not heard of the Refuge or the CCP process. Commentors

recommended that the Service determine the CCP’s consistency with other

relevant programs and existing watershed and ecosystem efforts and

ensure partnership with the California Department of Fish and Game.

They also pointed out the need to comply with each requirement of the

Refuge Administration Act, and to prioritize activities proposed in the

CCP. Adoption of monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management

strategies was also suggested. Other commentors indicated a need for

additional refuse receptacles at the Refuge, recommended that the access

road be maintained as unpaved, suggested that the Refuge entrance and

parking lot be moved to a location directly adjacent to the highway, and

requested that areas in the Salinas River where fishing is allowed be

clearly defined. Improved communication with local airports was also

recommended, because low-flying airplanes and hang gliders have been

spotted over the Refuge; commentors expressed concern about

disturbance to wildlife. Participants expressed interest in identification of

additional research opportunities. One respondent suggested that

additional funding sources to support expanding the Refuge should be

identified.

Planning Process 

Some meeting participants recommended that mechanisms for providing a

response to public comments be established.

Development of Refuge Goals

The purpose of the Refuge is established by law; however, before this CCP

effort, the Refuge had no vision statement. Under the Improvement Act,

the task of the planning team was to revise and further develop the

management focus of the Refuge within the Service’s planning framework

(Figures 3 and 4). Developing the new vision statement was given high

priority because its description of desired future conditions on the Refuge

helped guide the remainder of the planning process. The vision statement

was based, in part, on the public comments received during the scoping

period. Once the vision statement was articulated, the planning team used

it to examine and clarify the Refuge’s three interim goals. The revised

Refuge goals that resulted are presented in Chapter 1.
The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

Figure 4. Hierarchy of Refuge Planning Levels in the National Wildlife Refuge

System

Development of Alternatives

The remaining steps in the CCP process, including development of

alternatives, assessment of their environmental effects, and identification

of the preferred management alternative (proposed action) were

addressed in the EA (published as a CCP/EA).

Plan Implementation

Chapter 5 describes the process for implementing the management plan

proposed in this CCP.
Chapter 2

14 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

Wildlife monitoring

USFWS Photo

Chapter 3. Current and

Future Refuge Management 

Current Management

The Refuge currently has no integrated plan to guide the management of

all of its resources and uses. Current management efforts on the Refuge

focus on the protection of sensitive species, the enhancement of their

habitats, and the management of public access to and use of Refuge lands.

A major emphasis of current management is the protection of the western

snowy plovers by a variety of means, including: “Sensitive Wildlife Habitat

– Closed Area” signs; nest exclosures; symbolic fencing (low cable fence

used to keep humans from approaching nests); and law enforcement

patrols. Western snowy plovers are monitored each breeding season for

reproductive success and all chicks are banded for further monitoring. In

addition, mammalian predators (including nonnative red foxes, feral cats,

and skunks) are managed to selectively remove problem predators during

the snowy plover breeding season. Black legless lizards are surveyed

monthly using a standardized protocol. Coastal sand dune habitat on the

Refuge is maintained by intensive hand-weeding and chemical control of

invasive nonnative vegetation. Native grassland has been restored and is

maintained by regular mechanical mowing and weed-whacking, and

riparian restoration is an ongoing effort along the Salinas River.

Wildlife and habitat protection has been a clear management priority for

the Refuge because of the National Wildlife Refuge System’s conservation

responsibility. Unrestricted or uncontrolled public use is not compatible

with this mission nor with the purpose for which the Refuge was created.

However, limited recreational opportunities have been available for the

public on the Refuge, including waterfowl hunting, surf fishing access, and

wildlife observation and photography. Because the State Lands

Commission owns the land below mean high water, the Service cannot,

under any alternative, prohibit public access to these tidal lands adjacent

to the Refuge.
Chapter 3

16 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Beach access trail

Jones & Stokes Photo

Management Alternatives

In compliance with NEPA, four management alternatives were developed:

O Alternative 1: No Action,

O Alternative 2: Reduce Public Use and Improve and Expand Resource

Management,

O Alternative 3: Improve Public Use and Resource Management, and

O Alternative 4: Expand and Improve Public Use and Resource

Management.

See the Draft CCP/EA for a summary and description of these

alternatives.

Following comprehensive review and analysis, the Service selected

Alternative 3 as its proposed action for the Refuge because it is the

alternative that the Service believes best meets the following criteria.

O Achieves the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

O Is consistent with the Service's ecoregion goals.

O Achieves the purpose of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge.

O Will be able to achieve the 15-year vision and goals for the Refuge.

O Maintains and restores the ecological integrity of the habitats and

populations on the Refuge.

O Addresses the important issues identified during the scoping process.

O Addresses the legal mandates of the Service and the Refuge.

O Addresses the legal mandates of the Service and the Refuge.

O Is consistent with the scientific principles of sound fish and wildlife

management and endangered species recovery.

Under Alternative 3, Improve Public Use and Resource Management,

public use of the Refuge will be improved but not substantially expanded. 

For example, informational signs and interpretive exhibits will be installed

on the Refuge. In addition, the existing parking lot will be improved (e.g.,

graded and covered with gravel or another pervious material). The area in

which seasonal waterfowl hunting is permitted will be reduced by

approximately 15% to protect roosting California brown pelicans

(Figure 5).
Current and Future Refuge Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

Coastal sand dunes

USFWS Photo

All of the current management activities will continue. Some activities,

such as special-status species inventories, will be substantially expanded.

New management tools and techniques will include: use of prescribed fire

to augment mowing and herbicide use in the grassland/shrubland habitat;

inventories of all habitats on the Refuge; translocation of problem avian

predators of the western snowy plover; and creation of a GIS database to

track vegetation and population trends. In addition, the Service will pursue

a long-term lease with the State Lands Commission so it can manage the

beach and tidelands below mean high water. The selected management

scenario is described in detail in the next section.

Refuge Management Direction: Objectives and Strategies

Under the Improvement Act, specific management direction for NWRs is

expressed in terms of objectives and strategies. As discussed in Chapter 1,

refuge goals are broad, open-ended statements of refuge emphasis and

direction. Refuge goals may or may not be feasible within the 15-year time

frame of the CCP. In contrast, refuge objectives are concise statements of

what will be achieved to help meet a particular refuge goal. When possible,

refuge objectives should be measurable, clear, and specific, and should be

feasible within the 15-year lifespan of the CCP. Refuge strategies describe

specific actions or combinations of actions that can be used to meet an

objective. In some cases, strategies describe specific projects in enough

detail to assess funding and staffing needs. In other cases, further

site-specific detail is required to implement a strategy; this usually takes

the form of a step-down management plan (see Figure 4). 

The three Refuge management goals stated in Chapter 1 are repeated

below to provide the context for the proposed management direction. The

objectives and strategies of this CCP are listed below as they apply to each

of the three Refuge goals. 
Chapter 3

18 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Organization

Each objective and each strategy is given a unique numeric code for easy

reference. Objectives have a two-digit code (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2). The first

digit corresponds to the goal to which the objective applies. The second

digit is sequential and corresponds approximately to the priority given to

that objective relative to others under the same goal. Similarly, each

strategy has a three-digit code (e.g., 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.1.2). The first and

second digits refer to the appropriate goal and objective, respectively. The

third digit is sequential; it indicates priority only for actions with deadlines.

Strategies are sometimes also grouped by subtopic.

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Goal 1.0. Protect, restore, and enhance populations of migratory

birds and other native species and their habitats

Objective 1.1:

By 2017, the Refuge will restore native riparian vegetation along

at least 1,500 feet of the south bank of the Salinas River to

increase the density and diversity of migratory and resident

songbirds on the Refuge.

Rationale: Protection and enhancement of riparian habitat, coastal

lagoons, and estuaries is a major ecoregional goal. The Salinas

River is specifically identified as a priority site in The Riparian

Bird Conservation Plan (RHJV 2000), and recommendations

therein will guide habitat restoration efforts along the river.

Promoting structural diversity and volume of the understory and

to restoring the width of the riparian corridor will be of primary

importance. In addition to enhancing productivity of ripariandependent birds, riparian restoration efforts will improve

conditions for native fish by shading and cooling the water’s edge.

Restoration should also help slow erosion of the river bank.

Special consideration will be given to habitat needs of USFWS

Birds of Conservation Concern that are included on the Pacific

Region and Coastal California Bird Conservation lists (hereafter,

Birds of Conservation Concern) (see Table C-2 in Appendix C).

Objective 1.1 – Restore Native Riparian Vegetation

Code Strategy

Restore Native Riparian Vegetation

1.1.1 Continue to plant and maintain riparian trees and shrubs native to the lower Salinas River along the

riverbank using cuttings from upstream populations; focus on improving structural diversity and corridor

width and maintaining dense shrub and herbaceous layer vegetation. Continue to provide support to

partners such as the Watershed Institute of CSU Monterey Bay to implement this strategy.

1.1.2 Work with restoration partners to develop by 2005 a long-term monitoring strategy to evaluate the survival

and density of riparian revegetation.

1.1.3 Evaluate the erosion of the south bank of the Salinas River and the effectiveness of riparian restoration in

stabilizing this erosion by monitoring its location using Global Positioning System equipment. These data

will be entered into the Refuge GIS database.

1.1.4 By 2010, establish a program to monitor the response of migratory and resident bird populations to riparian

restoration on the Refuge. Work with staff from the Service’s Migratory Bird and Habitat Programs to

develop the monitoring strategy, and foster partnerships with nonprofit groups such as the Ventana

Wilderness Society to help implement this strategy.

Current and Future Refuge Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

Objective 1.2:

Within the mosaic of grassland and northern coastal scrub

habitat, the Refuge will maintain between 50% and 75% cover of

native grassland composed of at least 90% (by plant cover) grasses

and herbs native to the local area.

Rationale: Although extensive in the past, native grassland is now

a rare plant community and wildlife habitat in California.

Historically, native grasslands were naturally maintained by

recurring fires that prevented conversion to shrub-dominated

habitats. Since the end of agricultural operations on the Refuge in

the 1980s, shrubs have been slowly invading the grassland in the

absence of fire to suppress them. By maintaining a majority of the

shrubland/grassland mosaic in native grassland habitat, the

Refuge will likely retain this important habitat in sufficient

quantity to maintain the diversity of wildlife that now inhabits the

Refuge, and perhaps attract additional grassland- or shrubdependent species. Special consideration will be given to habitat

needs of Birds of Conservation Concern. Prescribed burns will

initially be used to restore and enhance the native grassland;

burning to control nonnative weeds will be conducted for several

consecutive years. Once nonnative species are reduced to

controllable levels in a given area, fire will then be used for

maintenance of the grasslands, requiring only periodic burns. 

Objective 1.2 – Maintain Native Grassland and Coastal Scrub

Code Strategy

Enhance Native Grassland

1.2.1 Continue to mow the grassland annually and apply herbicide to control invasive plants such as poison

hemlock and wild radish.

1.2.2 By 2004, initiate a prescribed burn program on the Refuge as an additional management tool (to augment

mowing and herbicide use) for the enhancement and maintenance of native grassland. See Appendix I for

the Draft Wildland Fire Management Plan.

1.2.3 By 2005, inventory and quantify the composition of the grassland on the Refuge. This inventory will include

documenting historical land use of the grassland and the methodology and results of past restoration

efforts.

Objective 1.3:

The Refuge will maintain and enhance its wetland and aquatic

habitat.

Rationale: Protection and enhancement of wetlands is a major

ecoregional goal. The saline pond is a unique resource on the

Refuge that is important habitat for shorebirds such as American

avocet, black-necked stilt, and other water birds. Increasing

breeding populations of snowy plover, black-necked stilt, and

American avocet by enhancing, restoring, or creating nesting

habitat is a conservation priority identified in the National and

Southern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Plans. The aquatic

habitat of the Salinas River Lagoon is a unique regional resource

that provides cover and food for a diverse assemblage of fish,

insects, invertebrates, and waterfowl, as well as terns, osprey, and

muskrat. The lagoon supports several special-status species,

including steelhead (federally listed as threatened). The Salinas

River is also the only habitat in which hunting is now permitted on

the Refuge. Special consideration will be given to the habitat

needs of Birds of Conservation Concern.
Chapter 3

20 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

After a prescribed burn on a national wildlife

refuge

J&K Hollingsworth Photo

Objective 1.3 – Maintain and Enhance Wetland and Aquatic Habitats

Code Strategy

Enhance Wetland and Aquatic Habitats

1.3.1 By 2005, conduct a hydrologic study of the Refuge that includes quantifying the water balance of the

saline pond, conducting water quality testing of the pond, and determining the possible sources of any

contaminants in the pond.

1.3.2 By 2005, determine the historic extent of wetlands on the Refuge and the potential to restore degraded

wetlands.

1.3.3 By 2010, complete a 2-year inventory of the species present in the Salinas River Lagoon.

1.3.4 Manage the saline pond for black-necked stilts, American avocets, and other shorebirds, as well as

waterfowl, other water birds, and other species that depend on this habitat.

1.3.5 Continue to coordinate with the California Coastal Commission (CCC), National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS), and the Service’s Endangered Species Division regarding breaching of the Salinas River mouth

by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. If, in the future, this activity is proposed for lands

owned or leased by the Service, a special use permit from the Service and continued consultation with the

CCC would be required.

Objective 1.4:

The Refuge will enhance the coastal dune habitat for a diversity of

native species.

Rationale: Enhancement of coastal dune habitats is a major

ecoregional goal. A majority of the Refuge’s listed and

special-status species occur in or near coastal dune scrub.

Enhancing this habitat will benefit these species, including Smith’s

blue butterfly, black legless lizard, Monterey gilia, and Monterey

spineflower. Special consideration will be given to the habitat

needs of Birds of Conservation Concern. Removing and controlling

invasive plants is critical to enhancement efforts because of their

ability to spread rapidly and quickly displace native plants and

wildlife (Pickart and Sawyer 1998).
Current and Future Refuge Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

Objective 1.4 – Enhance Coastal Dune Habitat

Code Strategy

Enhance Coastal Dune Scrub

1.4.1 Maintain and enhance partnerships with State Parks to share information and coordinate monitoring to

cooperatively and consistently manage coastal dune habitat.

1.4.2 Implement techniques to control invasive plants, using a combination of chemical and mechanical means.

Chemical control may be conducted only during the non-breeding season (October through March). Handpulling may be conducted year-round in the backdunes, but only during October–March in the foredunes,

where plovers nest. The method to be used will be determined by weed infestation size, potential for

habitat disturbance, effects on non-target species, and efficiency.

Note: Strategies 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.7, 2.1.8, 2.1.9, 2.3.1, and 2.3.2 also help to achieve this objective.

Goal 2.0. Protect and enhance populations of endangered,

threatened, and rare species, and promote their recovery by

restoring and enhancing their natural habitats

Objective 2.1:

The Salinas River NWR will implement management actions to

protect, conserve, and enhance populations of special-status

species on the Refuge. Priority will be given to species that are

state- or federally listed, are proposed for listing, or are

candidates for listing.

Rationale: The Service manages endangered and threatened

species as trust species. Thus, the Service is responsible for

assisting in the recovery of endangered and threatened species

that occur within the refuge system. In order to implement

effective active management for the protection and recovery of

endangered and threatened species, a major goal of the refuge

system overall and within the southern California ecoregion is to

develop priorities for refuge management among species.

Prioritization is important because limitations in funding and staff

time prevent targeting all special-status species for management.

Limited resources are allocated, in part, through inventories of

special-status species and prioritization of management needs. 
Chapter 3

22 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Objective 2.1 – Protect Populations of Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species

Code Strategy

Mapping, Species Inventories, and Monitoring

2.1.1 By 2004, develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) database for the Refuge and overlay vegetation

and wildlife habitat types. This database will be used to record locations of special-status species and to

track habitat management actions, restoration projects, and maintenance actions.

2.1.2 By 2005, complete a 2-year inventory of the special-status species that occur on the Refuge. This inventory

will include mapping the distribution and estimating the size of all populations of special-status species.

Inventories will consist of field surveys and literature searches for historical records of special-status

species. Locations of special-status species will be entered in the GIS database.

2.1.3 After completion of the 2-year baseline inventory of species on the Refuge, develop and implement a longterm monitoring program that tracks the effects of management actions and public use on special-status

species. Monitoring data will be stored in the Refuge’s GIS database.

2.1.4 By 2008, evaluate and prioritize the special-status species that occur on the Refuge to determine which

species require active management and the level and type of management needed. Criteria for prioritization

will include: listing status, implementation of actions identified in Recovery Plans, status in the Monterey

Bay area, taxonomic distinctiveness, population size on the Refuge, threats to survival, sensitivity to

disturbance, and the ability of the Refuge to contribute to recovery or conservation of the species. 

Management and Research

2.1.5 Encourage research on each priority special-status species on the Refuge to determine its ecology relevant

to conservation. Research could be conducted by local universities or other organizations with assistance

from the Refuge in the form of funding, supplies, volunteers, or technical assistance.

2.1.6 By 2006 (assuming additional lands are acquired), establish a satellite Refuge office in Monterey or Santa

Cruz County to permit more efficient management of the two Monterey Bay area National Wildlife

Refuges. Currently, Refuge staff are headquartered 80 miles away in Fremont, and a significant amount of

time is spent commuting to and from the Refuge. This strategy will assist the Refuge in achieving all of the

goals and objectives in this CCP.

2.1.7 By 2010, develop habitat management strategies to preserve and enhance populations of high-priority

special-status species on the Refuge. These strategies will include detailed prescriptions for habitat

management, protocols to monitor the status of these species, and methods to evaluate the effectiveness of

management actions. The impacts of public use on special-status species will also be monitored. The

strategies will cover federally listed species such as the California brown pelican, Smith’s blue butterfly,

Monterey gilia, and Monterey spineflower, and high-priority special-status species such as the black legless

lizard.

Note: Strategies 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.7, and 2.2.8 also help to achieve this Objective.

Objective 2.2:

The Salinas River NWR will enhance the population of the

western snowy plover on the foredunes of the Refuge so that by

2017 the snowy plover produces at least 1.0 fledged chick per male

and there is at least 35 acres of high-quality breeding habitat for

the plover.

Rationale: The western snowy plover relies heavily on coastal

beaches from southern Washington to Baja California for food,

shelter, and raising its young. The Pacific coast populations of this

species have been declining dramatically over the past decade

because of substantial habitat loss related to industrial, urban, and

recreational development, human disturbance, and encroachment

of exotic vegetation. The coastal population of western snowy

plover was listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service in 1993 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993b).
Current and Future Refuge Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

Western snowy plover chick (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) on the Salinas River

NWR

USFWS Photo

Historically, the Monterey Bay area has supported one of the most

productive populations of western snowy plovers on the central

California coast (Page pers. comm.). Populations of snowy plovers

in the Monterey Bay area have been dramatically reduced as a

result of habitat loss and disturbance by thousands of beach

visitors in summer. Since 1986, there has been a dramatic decline

in plover nest success at the Refuge and on adjacent lands (see

Chapter 4). Nonetheless, the plover breeding colony on and near

the Refuge is one of California’s most important, and protection of

this resource is considered essential to the continued success of

the species.

The strategies outlined to achieve this objective are consistent

with the goals of the Draft Recovery Plan for the snowy plover

recently released by the Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2001). Achieving a fledge rate of at least 1.0 chick per male will

provide a modest regional growth rate for plovers. This figure is

based on the best available scientific information. During

1996–2000, the nest hatch rate on the Refuge was 67% and the

chick fledge rate was 22%, with an average of 23.6 nests recorded

per year. There is currently approximately 20 acres of high-quality

nesting habitat for the plover on the Refuge. Maintaining at least

35 acres of suitable habitat for the plover on the Refuge would also

ensure modest growth of the plover population on the Refuge. The

population of plovers on the Refuge could become a “source”

population (a population growing at a rate that is more than selfsupporting) for plovers in the Monterey Bay area (Monterey Bay

Area Snowy Plover Working Group 1999). Adult plovers on the

Refuge have the potential to produce juveniles that could colonize

new sites in the area or supplement existing populations elsewhere

that are not self-supporting. Achieving this objective would help

meet recovery goals for the western snowy plover (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 2001). Strategies that will implement specific

recovery plan tasks are noted. Strategies for controlling invasive

plans and minimizing disturbance to plovers should also benefit

other nesting or winter shorebirds on the Refuge.
Chapter 3

24 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Objective 2.2 – Enhance Western Snowy Plover Population

Code Strategy

Facilitate Regional Management

2.2.1 Continue to facilitate regular meetings of the Monterey Bay Area Snowy Plover Working Group to share

information and develop successful management strategies to increase the population and geographic

extent of snowy plovers throughout the Monterey Bay area. (Recover Plan task 3.1.1.)

2.2.2 Continue partnership with Point Reyes Bird Observatory to monitor snowy plover reproductive success

on the Refuge. Each nest will be closely monitored and data will be collected on adult breeding population

size, hatch rates, and fledge rates. All snowy plover chicks will be banded in order to collect information

on survival and movement patterns. (Recovery Plan task 1.1.)

Control Invasive Plants

2.2.3 Remove all European beach grass, iceplant, and other invasive plants from the foredunes of the Refuge

by 2017. Control invasive plants in fall and winter (outside the plover breeding season) using chemical and

mechanical means such as herbicide spraying, hand pulling, or heavy equipment. Techniques will be

chosen based on their likelihood of success, their financial and labor costs, and their low potential for

adverse environmental effects. (Recovery Plan task 1.2.5.1.)

Minimize Human Disturbance in Nesting Habitat

2.2.4 Install clearer ‘closed area’ signs at the boundary of sensitive dune habitat by 2003. These signs should be

similar to signs used at other plover nesting sites in the region. Install entrance signs, both at the parking

lot and at the northern and southern beach access points, that clearly state that dogs and horses are not

allowed on the Refuge (except dogs when hunting). (Recovery Plan tasks 1.3.1, 1.3.3, and 2.2.2.)

2.2.5 Develop and implement a docent program on the Refuge by 2006, in coordination with other agencies, to

educate Refuge users during the sensitive breeding season on the ecology of western snowy plovers and

the sensitivity of their habitat and nests to disturbance. (Recovery Plan tasks 5.4 and 5.5.)

2.2.6 Design and install interpretive signs at the entrance to and along the coastal dune trail by 2007 that

explain to visitors the ecology of the western snowy plover and the plover’s sensitivity to disturbance.

Coordinate with other agencies to design interpretive signs with a message that is consistent with

interpretive signs for snowy plovers at other sites in the Monterey Bay area. (Recovery Plan tasks 5.1,

5.3, and 5.4.)

2.2.7 By 2005, install symbolic fencing along beach trail around plover nests likely to be disturbed by the public;

if trespass into closed areas continues, install symbolic fencing along the edge of foredune habitat to

delineate sensitive areas and restrict human access. (Recovery Plan tasks 1.3.1 and 2.2.2.)

2.2.8 Increase enforcement of the closed dune habitat by increasing the presence of Service staff and law

enforcement officers on the Refuge to at least one day per week each (two person-days per week) during

the plover breeding season. (Recovery Plan tasks under 1.3 as well as 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.2.4.)

2.2.9 Negotiate a long-term lease with the State Lands Commission to manage the beach, foredunes, and

tidelands immediately west of the current boundary. (Recovery Plan tasks 1.3.1 and 2.2.2.)

Control Predators on Eggs and Chicks

2.2.10 Continue to implement the Monterey Predator Management Program* on the Refuge to control

predation on western snowy plovers by mammals. This program uses humane and target species–specific

methods to control problem mammalian predators, primarily red foxes, feral cats, and skunks. Nonlethal

methods (e.g., box-type traps, soft-catch padded leghold traps, hazing, bow nets, lures) will be used

whenever possible. Lethal methods, including shooting and euthanasia, will be used when necessary. The

Service will continue to coordinate this effort with other agencies such as the California Departments of

Parks and Recreation and Fish and Game, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services.

(Recovery Plan tasks 1.4.3. and 1.4.4.)

2.2.11 Revise the Goals in the Refuge’s Predator Management Plan to the following: “Maintain a 5-year

productivity of at least 1.0 fledged chick per male and 40 breeding adults to reflect best available scientific

information on requirements for achieving a self-sustaining population.”
Current and Future Refuge Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

The endangered Smith’s blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi)

Objective 2.2 – Enhance Western Snowy Plover Population (continued)

Facilitate Regional Management

2.2.12 Implement the Avian Predator Management Plan to provide for removal and relocation of individual

American kestrels, northern harriers, loggerhead shrikes, crows, ravens, and other problem avian

predators that threaten nesting western snowy plovers on the Refuge and adjacent lands (see Appendix

H for details of this proposed new project). (Recovery Plan tasks 1.4.2. and 1.4.4.)

* The details of the current Predator Management Program have been described and the environmental effects of

this program evaluated in a previous plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993a). This plan and the associated

NEPA document are available from the Service upon request.

Objective 2.3:

The Refuge will protect and will encourage protection of as much

of the coastal sand dune ecosystem in the Monterey Bay area as

possible.

Rationale: Protection and enhancement of coastal dune habitats is

a major ecoregional goal and an important recovery action for the

federally listed species that inhabit them. The coastal dune

ecosystem is a rare habitat in California and is under increasing

threats from development, off-highway vehicle use, and invasive

plants. The dune system in the Monterey Bay area is among those

in the State threatened by these factors (Big Sur Land Trust

1992). Coastal dunes north of the Refuge are largely protected by

State parks and an ecological reserve (Figure 6). However, dunes

south of the Refuge are largely unprotected; most dunes are

privately owned within the cities of Marina, Sand City, Seaside, or

Monterey. A 67% undivided interest in the Martin Dunes site,

immediately south of the Refuge, was purchased in 2000 by the

Big Sur Land Trust; several large private parcels between the

Martin Dunes property and Marina State Beach support sand

mining operations (California Department of Conservation 1992). 

The majority of these parcels remain undeveloped and encompass

important coastal dune habitat that supports many listed species

(California Department of Conservation 1992; Big Sur Land Trust

1992).
Chapter 3

26 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

California brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis)

USFWS Photo

Objective 2.3 – Protect Coastal Sand Dune Ecosystem

Code Strategy

Protect Coastal Sand Dune Ecosystem

2.3.1 Establish partnerships with other landowners of coastal dune habitat to manage this habitat for

conservation (e.g., controlling invasive plants on coastal dunes) through cooperative agreements,

conservation easements, or financial incentives such as funding through the Partners for Wildlife

program. The Service could also provide technical assistance, volunteer labor, financial assistance, or

supplies to landowner partners.

2.3.2 Explore expansion of the current Refuge boundary by initiating the Service’s planning process for

expanding refuges, which culminates with a Land Protection Plan, Conceptual Management Plan, and

NEPA document.

Goal 3.0. Provide opportunities for safe, unique, wildlife-dependent

recreation when compatible with the purpose and goals of

the Refuge

Objective 3.1:

The Refuge will provide limited opportunities for hunting and

access to fishing when they are compatible with the purpose of the

Refuge and refuge goals. 

Rationale: Hunting and fishing were identified in the

Improvement Act as priority uses for refuges when they are

compatible with refuge purposes. As a result, the Service

encourages hunting and fishing on many NWRs. Because

waterfowl hunting opportunities are limited in the Monterey Bay

area (see Chapter 4), the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

provides an important regional recreational opportunity for

waterfowl hunters, and is unique in the area in providing

opportunities for walk-in hunting (see Chapter 4). Hunting must

be limited on the Refuge because of its importance to specialstatus species that are sensitive to disturbance. For example, the

California brown pelican roosts near the current hunt area (see

Chapter 4).

Current and Future Refuge Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Objective 3.1 – Provide Fishing and Waterfowl Hunting Access or Opportunities

Code Strategy

Hunting Opportunities

3.1.1 Reduce the hunting area on the Refuge from approximately 45 acres to approximately 38 acres (Figures 2

and 5) to reduce disturbance to pelicans roosting on the Refuge’s island in the Salinas River. Clearly

delineate hunt area with signs.

3.1.2 Annually monitor hunting use of the Refuge beginning in 2004. The information gathered will be used to

review and possibly revise Refuge hunting regulations to enhance the quality and safety of the Refuge’s

hunting program.

Surf Fishing Opportunities

3.1.3 Continue to provide access to opportunities for surf fishing between the high tide and surf zones.

Objective 3.2:

The Refuge will provide opportunities for wildlife observation and

photography that will enable visitors to experience and enjoy the

wildlife of the Refuge and develop an appreciation for wildlife

species and their unique habitats.

Rationale: The Improvement Act identified wildlife observation

and wildlife photography as priority public uses for NWRs.

Because these public uses are often compatible with wildlife

management goals, the Service encourages wildlife watching and

photography on almost all NWRs. 

Objective 3.2 – Provide Wildlife Observation and Photography Opportunities

Code Strategy

Wildlife Observation and Photography

3.2.1 By 2005, design and install an orientation kiosk at the Refuge entrance that includes three signs: a sign

providing a trail map, trail information, and trail regulations; a sign that describes the National Wildlife

Refuge System and allowed uses on the Refuge; and interchangeable signs for hunting and snowy plover

nesting seasons.

3.2.2 By 2007, construct and maintain a 1,500-foot trail accessible to persons with disabilities from the parking

lot of the Refuge to the Salinas River. This trail would improve access to the river and to minimize the

impacts of public use through these sensitive habitats (Figure 5).

3.2.3 By 2007, improve the parking lot with a gravel or other unpaved surface to provide visitors with better

all-season parking at the Refuge.

3.2.4 Maintain trails on the Refuge and clearly delineate trail portion along the Salinas River.

3.2.5 Coordinate with the CCC and the Service’s Endangered Species Division on the prospect of routing the

proposed pedestrian Coastal Trail through the Refuge. Siting, design, and use of the trail would consider

potential effects on sensitive resources and would need to be compatible with the Refuge’s purpose.

Objective 3.3:

The Refuge will expand opportunities for interpretation and

environmental education that will foster visitors’ appreciation,

understanding, and stewardship of the Refuge’s habitats and

protected species.

Rationale: The Improvement Act identifies environmental

interpretation and environmental education as priority uses on

NWRs. Because these uses are often compatible with other refuge

management goals, the Service actively encourages environmental

education and interpretation on many refuges. The mission of the

National Wildlife Refuge System encourages study sites, facilities,

and active support for educational programs that focus on fish and
Chapter 3

28 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Salinas River NWR CCP Planning Team on field visit

USFWS Photo

wildlife resources and environmental problems. High-quality

interpretive and educational opportunities will greatly enhance

visitors’ experience of the Refuge. Increased knowledge of Refuge

resources will ensure a more comprehensive understanding of

NWRs and their significance.

In addition, formal cultural resource surveys are highly

recommended for the Refuge to complement ongoing and proposed

biological and hydrologic studies; little information now exists on

the Refuge’s cultural resources, but activities included under all of

the management alternatives have the potential to affect cultural

resources. At a minimum, cultural resources inventories will be

required in areas where ground-disturbing activities are proposed,

including the use of prescribed fire and construction of trails or

other facilities. In addition, the World War II bomb shelter should

be formally recorded by a qualified cultural resources specialist. 

Inventories, evaluation, or data recovery on cultural resources on

the Refuge could help address important academic questions for

the region. Any information gathered during cultural resource

surveys will be incorporated into interpretive and educational

material.
Current and Future Refuge Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

Objective 3.3 – Provide Interpretation and Education

Code Strategy

Interpretation and Education

3.3.1 By 2007, design and install interpretive signs along existing trails to explain the ecology of native habitats

on the Refuge and the species within them.

3.3.2 Maintain and enhance existing environmental education partnerships with the California State University

and develop new partnerships with other local agencies, schools, universities, and organizations.

3.3.3 Develop environmental education and interpretive materials including a Refuge brochure, fact sheets on

specific species and habitats, and a guide for educators on endangered species issues.

3.3.4 Conduct a sitewide inventory of potential archaeological and historic resources on the Refuge; incorporate

information about these resources into interpretive and educational material (Strategies 3.3.1 and 3.3.3).

Note: Strategies 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 also help to achieve this Objective.

Objective 3.4: 

The Refuge will take measures to ensure the safety of resources,

property, and visitors.

Rationale: Increased safety measures would enable the Refuge to

better fulfill its conservation mission, and would ensure improved

experiences for Refuge visitors.

Objective 3.4 – Ensure Safety of Resources, Property, and Visitors

Code Strategy

Increase Safety Measures

3.4.1 Increase law enforcement patrols.

3.4.2 Develop cooperative agreements with State and local agencies to support increased law enforcement

patrols.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures developed during the planning and environmental

review processes have been incorporated into this CCP. Moreover,

measures set forth in the Biological Opinion for the Salinas River

National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Monterey

County, California (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) have also been

incorporated. These measures are listed below by resource area. For

additional information regarding the impacts addressed by these

measures, the reader is directed to the draft CCP/EA (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 2001.)

Water Quality/Contaminants

Herbicides will be applied at label rates and all label recommendations will

be followed. In addition, the following specific precautions will be taken to

avoid and minimize impacts related to use of herbicides.

O Herbicides will be selected based on the characteristics of each

treatment site, including its location relative to aquatic and wetland

habitats. (Existing management practice is to use RoundupTM at sites

>100 feet from open water or wetlands and RodeoTM at sites within 100

feet of open water or wetlands.)

O No spraying will take place when wind velocities exceed 5 mph, when

vegetation is wet, or when precipitation is occurring or is forecast in the

following 24–36 hours. Wind meters and smoke devices will be used to

assess wind direction and wind speed; smoke from existing burning 
Chapter 3

30 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

activity or smokestacks (such as those at Moss Landing) may be used to

check for the presence of inversion conditions, if the source of smoke is

near the application site and is similar in elevation to the application

site.

O Nozzles with orifice diameters >1/16 inch, or low-drift flat spray

nozzles, will be used. When appropriate, the lowest possible pressure

within the nozzle’s ideal range will be used.

O No spraying will occur if western snowy plovers are within 75 meters of

the application site. No spraying will occur until all western snowy

plover activity within 75 meters of the area to be treated has ceased for

7 days. Refuge staff will consult with Point Reyes Bird Observatory

who are monitoring plovers on the Refuge to ensure that the species is

absent from the work area.

O No spraying will occur in areas where endangered plants or host plants

for Smith’s blue butterfly may be affected by drift. Invasive non-natives

in these areas will be mechanically removed.

Hazardous Materials and Safety Issues

Closed area signs posted in the northwest corner of the Refuge will

incorporate a warning about the low risk of encountering unexploded

ordnance from past military activities.

Biological Resources

Vegetation. The Service will maintain a trail through the grassland to the

hunt area and will install and maintain signs marking the hunt area

boundary. In addition, by 2007, interpretive signs and an orientation kiosk

will be installed on the Refuge to inform visitors about the Refuge’s

habitats and wildlife and ways of avoiding adverse impacts, including

staying on trails. The trails and interpretive signs will minimize

disturbance to grassland and riparian habitats by providing easy access to

the hunt area and by interpreting the importance and sensitivity of Refuge

habitats and restoration efforts. Similarly, the trail to the beach will have

symbolic cable fencing and interpretive signs. If necessary, cable fence will

be installed along the foredune boundary (along the beach) as well.

Wildlife. The Service will maintain a trail through the grassland to the hunt

area and will install and maintain signs marking the hunt area boundary.

In addition, by 2007, interpretive signs and an orientation kiosk will be

installed on the Refuge to inform visitors about the Refuge’s habitats and

wildlife and ways of avoiding adverse impacts, including staying on trails.

The trails and interpretive signs will minimize disturbance to wildlife in

upland, riparian, and aquatic habitats by providing easy access to the hunt

area and by interpreting the importance and sensitivity of Refuge habitats

and restoration efforts.

Interpretive signage, including the kiosk, will stress the need to avoid

littering on the Refuge.

Hunters will be permitted to have no more than 25 shells in their

possession while on the Refuge. This will discourage hunters from taking

long shots, reducing noise-related disturbance of wildlife and decreasing

the possibility of target misidentification and take of non-target species.

Waterfowl hunters will be required to use only approved nontoxic shots

while on the Refuge.

The Biological Opinion imposes a series of measures for addressing

impacts, including take, that could affect western snowy plover, brown

pelican, and Smith’s blue butterfly.
Current and Future Refuge Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

Incidental Take. The Refuge will contact the Service whenever a dead

western snowy plover or abandoned nest, a dead brown pelican, or a

dead Smith’s blue butterfly is found and the cause of death or injury is

unknown or may be due to the Refuge’s activities. Provided that

protective measures proposed by the Refuge and the terms and

conditions of the BO are being fully implemented, operations need not

cease while the cause of mortality is being determined. Once the cause

of death or injury has been determined, the Service shall decide, in

cooperation with the Refuge, whether any additional protective

measures are required to address the cause of the loss of the western

snowy plover or nest, brown pelican, or Smith’s blue butterfly.

Reasonable and Prudent Measures. 

1. Only qualified biologists shall monitor the status of the

western snowy plover, brown pelican, and Smith’s blue

butterfly on the Refuge or monitor the installation or

maintenance of symbolic fencing within western snowy plover

nesting habitat during the breeding season.

2. The Refuge shall use well-defined operational procedures,

education programs, and qualified personnel to minimize the

incidental take of western snowy plovers, brown pelicans, and

Smith’s blue butterflies during resource management and

public use actions at the Refuge.

3. The Refuge shall ensure that fencing or signs do not promote

avian predator presence on the Refuge.

Terms and Conditions.

1. The following term and condition implements reasonable and

prudent measure 1:

a. Only qualified biologists covered under a section 10(a)(1)(A)

recovery permit or approved by the Ventura Fish and

Wildlife Office shall monitor the status of the western snowy

plover, brown pelican, and Smith’s blue butterfly on the

Refuge or monitor the installation and maintenance of

symbolic fencing within western snowy plover nesting

habitat during the breeding season. The Refuge shall

submit the credentials of individuals it wishes to conduct

these activities to the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office for

review and approval at least 15 days prior to the onset of

these activities. Once the Service has approved an

individual to conduct these activities, this person may direct

nonapproved individuals in these activities while on site.

2. The following terms and conditions implement reasonable and

prudent measure 2:

a. The Refuge shall instruct Refuge personnel and contractors

on how best to conduct activities and reduce impacts on the

listed species present on the Refuge before carrying out

resource management and public use actions.
Chapter 3

32 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

b. The Refuge shall train volunteer docents to identify all the

listed species and their habitat on the Refuge, including

western snowy plover nests, chicks, and eggs, to minimize

the risk of crushing any that may be outside of exclosures. 

In addition, volunteer docents shall not be allowed to enter

nesting areas unless properly trained and permitted to do

so.

3. The following terms and conditions implement reasonable and

prudent measure 3:

a. The Refuge shall modify signs and fencing with antiperching material to discourage perching if avian predators

are determined to be frequenting them.

Disposition of Dead or Injured Specimens. Upon locating a dead

or injured brown pelican, western snowy plover, or Smith’s blue

butterfly, initial notification must be made in writing to the

Service’s Division of Law Enforcement in Torrance, California

(370 Amapola Avenue, Suite 114, Torrance, CA 90501) and by

telephone and writing to the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office in

Ventura, California (2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA

93003, [805] 644-1766) within 3 working days of the finding. The

report shall include the date, time, location of the carcass, a

photograph, cause of death, if known, and any other pertinent

information.

Care shall be taken in handling dead specimens to preserve

biological material in the best possible state for later analysis.

Should any injured birds survive, the Service should be contacted

regarding their final disposition. The remains of intact brown

pelicans, western snowy plovers, and Smith’s blue butterflies shall

be placed with the California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate

Park, San Francisco, California; or the Museum of Vertebrate

Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California.

In the case of take or suspected take of listed species not

exempted in the BO, the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office shall be

notified within 24 hours.

Reporting Requirement. The Refuge shall provide a written

annual report to the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office within 90

days following the end of each year that this BO is in effect. The

report shall document the number of western snowy plovers,

brown pelicans, and Smith’s blue butterflies killed or injured by

the proposed activities. The report shall also include a

quantification of dune habitat (including numbers of Monterey

gilia, Monterey spineflower, and Smith’s blue butterfly host

plants) disturbed or degraded by human disturbance or the spread

of invasive nonnative vegetation. The report shall also contain a

discussion of activities that resulted in disturbance to nesting

western snowy plovers and brown pelicans; the results of

biological surveys and sighting records; the results of

management activities carried out on the Refuge; and any other

pertinent information. This document will assist the Ventura Fish

and Wildlife Office and the Refuge in evaluating future measures

for the conservation of the species during ongoing activities and

for future projects.
Current and Future Refuge Management

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

Cultural Resources

All undertakings, including but not limited to ground-disturbing activities

and prescribed burns, will be coordinated with the Service’s Regional

Archaeologist, in order to preserve the Refuge’s archaeologic and historic

resources of the Refuge. Following are specific guidelines that may apply,

depending on site-specific conditions.

O A cultural resources survey by a qualified archaeologist may be

required in areas where a ground-disturbing activity or prescribed

burning is proposed. If burning is proposed entirely within a flood zone

or in a previously disked or plowed area, or if burning has been an

ongoing practice on the site, a cultural resources survey may not be

required. However, cultural resources surveys will likely be necessary

for all burns on upland sites, and for burns that require excavation

(scraping, plowing, or disking) to establish a fireline. In some cases, it

may be appropriate to conduct cultural resources survey work after a

prescribed burn has been completed, because (1) visibility of artifacts or

other resources may be increased after burning, and (2) artifacts may

be more vulnerable to vandalism or theft when exposed by burning.

O As required by the Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (25 USC 3001 et seq. or 43 CFR 10), any

construction or ground-disturbing activity on the Refuge with the

potential to disturb human remains, burial objects, sacred objects, or

objects of cultural patrimony will be planned and implemented in

consultation with affected Tribes.

O If potentially significant artifacts are found during any activity on the

Refuge, work will cease within 100 feet of the find and access will be

restricted until a qualified archaeologist and members of local Tribes

can assess the significance of the find and propose appropriate methods

of treatment, as required by NAGPRA.

O If human remains are found during any activity on the Refuge, work

will cease within 100 feet of the find and access will be restricted, and

the Monterey County Coroner will been informed of the discovery,

under Public Resources Code Section 5050.5. If no investigation of the

cause of death is required, remains will be treated in accordance with

the requirements of NAGPRA.
Chapter 3

34 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

Saline pond on Salinas River NWR

USFWS Photo

Chapter 4. Existing

Conditions

This chapter describes the characteristics and resources of the Refuge. It

specifically addresses physical resources, biological resources, cultural

resources, socioeconomic resources, and recreational opportunities.

Physical Resources

Climate

Like the rest of the California coast, northwestern Monterey County

enjoys a Mediterranean climate, with dry, warm summers and moderately

wet, mild winters. Precipitation in the Refuge area averages approximately

16 inches per year, 90% of which falls between November and April (Soil

Conservation Service 1978). Prevailing winds throughout most of the year

are northwesterly. During the late summer and fall, prevailing winds are

southeasterly.

Surface Hydrology

The Refuge is located at the western (downstream) end of the Salinas

River watershed. This watershed, between the Santa Lucia and Diablo

ranges, is approximately 150 miles long and averages 20–40 miles wide. It

is one of the larger watersheds in California, draining an area of 4,231

square miles.

Surface drainage in the vicinity of the Refuge is dominated by the

gradients associated with the Salinas River and the Pacific Ocean. Much of

the surface runoff in the project area drains in a general northward

direction into the Salinas River. Some runoff may also drain west, directly

into the Pacific Ocean, via overland flow or via subsurface flow under the

dune lands. In addition to natural runoff, off-site drainage from

agricultural lands south of the project site is conveyed northward into the

Refuge. Agricultural runoff apparently flows into the Refuge’s large saline

pond; if the capacity of the saline pond is exceeded, runoff overflows

northward into the Salinas River.
Chapter 4

36 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

The Refuge’s saline pond is likely a remnant of an abandoned meander of

the Salinas River. Based on analysis of historic U.S. Coast and Geodetic

Survey maps, the pond has existed since at least 1857 (John Gilchrist &

Associates et al. 1997) and was connected to the Salinas River until 1913.

Since its formation, the pond has gradually shrunk in size and depth,

probably in part because of gradual infiltration and in part because of

encroachment by the Refuge’s eastward- migrating dunes. Nonetheless,

this 15-acre pond and associated salt marsh are noteworthy, as there are

few other saline ponds of this type on the central California coast. 

In addition to agricultural runoff, the Refuge’s saline pond also receives

input from rainfall, from seawater that washes over the dunes, from

groundwater, and, during major floods, from the Salinas River. The depth

of the pond varies in response to the balance among these factors. Between

1989 and 1991, the depth of the pond ranged from 0.5 foot to 2.0 feet; the

pond was nearly dry in November 1990. As water levels drop, salt from

seawater input concentrates in the pond. Water salinity in the pond ranges

from 1 part per thousand (ppt) immediately after heavy rains to 150 ppt

during prolonged droughts; for comparison, the salinity of seawater is

about 35 ppt. 

The Salinas River. Like all rivers, the Salinas River is a dynamic system.

Under natural conditions, its course changes because of gradual, ongoing

processes of erosion and sediment deposition. During major floods, these

processes may be accelerated, resulting in rapid shifts in the location of the

active river channel. 

Historic maps of the Salinas area show that the course of the Salinas River

has altered significantly over the past two centuries (John Gilchrist &

Associates et al. 1997). In 1857, the river entered what is now the Refuge

from the northeast rather than the southeast. By 1933 the river occupied a

channel similar in location and configuration to its present course, which

describes a gentle northwestward curve across the Refuge. Since at least

the 1930s, the south bank of the river (the outside of the curve) has slowly

eroded, while the north bank (the inside of the curve) has built southward

through the steady accumulation of sediment. Thus, the Salinas River

channel has shifted to the southwest, farther onto the Refuge site; the net

result has been to reduce the amount of land and increase the amount of

open water within the Refuge boundary. This natural process of channel

migration is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

In an attempt to slow the rate of erosion along the Salinas River’s south

bank, erosion-control structures were installed along the river near the

Highway 1 bridge immediately upstream from the Refuge. Some of the

structures have failed and been washed away; others have succeeded in

slowing erosion locally. The width of the stabilized reach of the channel has

decreased from ~600 feet in 1933 to ~150 feet today, in part because the

stabilized south bank is prevented from migrating laterally while sediment

deposition continues on the north bank (John Gilchrist & Associates et al.

1997). Flow diversions may also have contributed to the decrease in

channel width. 

On the Refuge, the Salinas River’s south bank is unprotected and

experiences significant erosion. One goal of riparian restoration work along

the south bank of the river in the Refuge is to slow the rate of bank

erosion. The Biological Resources section of this chapter contains

additional information on riparian restoration on the Refuge.
Existing Conditions

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Riparian restoration along Salinas River

Jones & Stokes Photo

Flooding:

The central California coast, including the Refuge, experiences annual

flooding related to winter storms originating over the Pacific Ocean.

Extended periods of heavy rainfall produce floods characterized by a rapid

rise in streamflow. The subsequent decrease in streamflow may be almost

as rapid; however, a series of storms, or a single stalled stormfront, can

produce large, catastrophic riverine floods. Flooding in the coastal areas of

Monterey County is also associated with simultaneous occurrence of very

high tides and large waves. Property damage results from erosion,

flotation, and inundation, and from the deposition of debris on downstream

properties.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate

Maps indicate that, except for the coastal dunes and the upper terrace

deposits along the site’s southern boundary, much of the Refuge is within

the 100-year floodplain of the Salinas River. This means that under natural

conditions much of the Refuge should be inundated every 100 years on the

average. The 100-year water surface elevation ranges from 8.8 feet above

mean sea level near the mouth of the Salinas River to 10.6 feet above mean

sea level at the eastern boundary of the Refuge (Federal Emergency

Management Agency 1991).

Lagoon Breaching:

The mouth of the Salinas River experiences intermittent partial blockage

as a result of natural sandbar development. This causes water levels in the

Salinas River Lagoon behind the bar to rise; agricultural lands to the north

of the Salinas River begin to flood when the stage in the lagoon exceeds

approximately 5.5 feet. To prevent flooding, the Monterey County Water

Resources Agency (MCWRA) periodically breaches the sandbar in the

winter from the north side of the Salinas River Lagoon through adjacent

State property according to the Salinas River Lagoon Management and

Enhancement Plan. (John Gilchrist & Associates et al. 1997.) Though this

activity occurs on State-owned lands, the Refuge does coordinate with the

MCWRA and is a member of the Salinas River Lagoon Task Force. 
Chapter 4

38 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

MCWRA breaches the rivermouth under the following conditions:

O When flows of approximately 500 cfs or greater are forecast at the U.S.

Geological Survey gage at Spreckles;

O When forecast extended flows might cause flooding on nearby farmland

if the Salinas River mouth is not breached;

O When the water level in the Salinas River Lagoon is high, and

continuous or imminent river flow into the lagoon is forecast; or

O When a forecast by the MCWRA’s ALERT flood warning system

indicates that flow into the Salinas River Lagoon will result in flooding if

the rivermouth is not breached.

It takes approximately 24–48 hours to mobilize and clear a channel

through the sandbar with a bulldozer (John Gilchrist & Associates et al.

1997). The timing of breaching affects both water level and water salinity

in the lagoon.

Water Quality. Water quality in the Salinas River has been altered by a

number of practices, including:

O Surface-water diversion, 

O Groundwater pumping, 

O Diking and drainage of wetlands, 

O Agriculture, and

O Contamination from industrial point sources and from urban runoff. 

Alteration of flows alters the salt balance in the Salinas River Lagoon and

adjacent marshes, but the greatest threats to water quality in the lagoon

and the saline pond on the Refuge are nutrients and pesticides from

adjacent and upstream agricultural lands. At present, it is unknown

whether the Refuge receives these contaminants from agricultural runoff.

Excess nutrients may cause eutrophication, or over-enrichment in

nutrients, producing excess growth of algae and mortality of other

organisms; this in turn decreases concentrations of dissolved oxygen and

contributes to noxious odors. Persistent pesticides in the area may include

DDT, toxaphene, dieldrin, endrin, aldrin, and endosulfan, all of which have

been used extensively in the Salinas Valley. The use of these pesticides has

been banned in California, but they were used for many years, and are

known to have been used extensively in the Salinas Valley (John Gilchrist

& Associates et al. 1997). These pesticides have been linked to various

problems in local wildlife, including widespread mortality resulting from

spills, reproductive failure caused by bioaccumulation, behavioral and

physiological problems, decreased food consumption, and increased

susceptibility to predation and cold. 

Geology

Geologic Setting. The Refuge is located in a portion of the California Coast

Ranges referred to as Salinia or the Salinian block. Basement rocks in the

Coast Ranges are as old as Mesozoic (65–245 million years old) (e.g.,

Jennings and Strand 1959), and record the long and complex history of the

California continental margin. However, the Coast Range itself is a

relatively recent feature. Uplift of the Coast Range probably began no

earlier than about 5–8 million years ago (Buising and Walker 1995,

Atwater and Stock 1998), and uplift of some parts of the range has

continued into the past 2 million years (Burgmann et al. 1994, Sedlock

1995). The region is also currently experiencing active strike-slip tectonics

related to the San Andreas fault system.
Existing Conditions

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

The Salinian block, bounded on the landward side by the San Andreas

fault, and on the oceanward side by the offshore San Gregorio-Hosgri fault

system, is a geologic orphan, sliced off of rocks to the south and slid into its

current location by large-scale translation along the San Andreas fault

(Mattinson and James 1985). Unlike adjacent portions of the Coast

Ranges, which are largely underlain by basement rocks belonging to the

Franciscan complex, Salinia is characterized by a basement assemblage of

plutonic (granitic-granodioritic) and metamorphic rock (e.g., Mattinson and

James 1985). In the vicinity of the Refuge, this crystalline basement is

overlain by terrestrial and marine sedimentary strata that range from

Miocene to Pliocene (approximately 23 million years to 1.6 million years) in

age. The Refuge itself is situated primarily on inactive dune deposits of

Pleistocene age (1.6 million to approximately 10,000 years old), on active

coastal deposits (including active dunes) and on active alluvium of the

Salinas River floodplain (see Jennings and Strand 1959).

Seismic Activity. The Refuge is located in a seismically active region. 

Although the Refuge does not encompass any active faults (defined by the

California Division of Mines and Geology as faults that have experienced

motion in the last 11,000 years) (Hart and Bryant 1997), the San Andreas

fault zone is located less than 15 miles northeast of the Refuge. Several

strong earthquakes have occurred within a 50-mile radius of the Refuge. 

The closest recorded strong earthquake occurred in 1910, approximately 8

miles north of the Refuge; it measured 5.3 on the Richter scale (Ellsworth

1990). The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, with a Richter magnitude of 6.9,

was epicentered approximately 20 miles northwest of the Refuge

(http://www.quake.usgs.gov/prepare/ index.html, accessed June 16, 2001).

Because of its proximity to active fault strands, the Refuge can be expected

to experience ongoing earthquake activity in the future. 

Soils

Overview of Soils on the Refuge. Soils in the Refuge area include the

following mapped units: Alviso silty clay loam, coastal beaches, Metz fine

sandy loam, Mocho silty loam, Mocho silty clay loam, and Pico fine sandy

loam (Soil Conservation Service 1978). Table 4 summarizes the

characteristics of the Refuge’s soil units. 

Soils of the Refuge include floodplain and tidal basin soils, as well as a

substantial area of coastal dunes. The Refuge’s dune lands represent the

northern tip of a dune system that extends more than 12 miles south of the

Refuge, reflecting the combined influences of the Salinas River, coastal

waves and tides, and prevailing winds. Sand is supplied primarily by

longshore transport of sediment delivered by rivers to the north (including

the Salinas River) and is reworked and sculpted into dune forms largely by

onshore winds. High storm tides subject the dunes to intermittent wave

erosion.

The Refuge’s dune system is highly dynamic, shifting its position and form

in response to changes in the balance between sand supply, wind transport,

and wave erosion. Analysis of historic maps shows that between 1937 and

1987, the beach and dunes on the Refuge migrated landward

approximately 300–400 feet to cover approximately 13 acres of the salt

marsh and the saline pond. This change is equivalent to an average of 6–10

feet of landward migration per year. This rate of movement is not unique

to the Refuge; similar rates have been measured in the dunes and beaches

in nearby Marina, Seaside, and Monterey (John Gilchrist & Associates et

al. 1997).
Chapter 4

40 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Central dune scrub habitat on Salinas River NWR

Jones & Stokes Photo

Table 4. Soils of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge.

Soil Unit Description Permeability/Runoff Erosion Hazard Depth to Water Table 

Alviso silty

clay loam

Typically <20 inches thick; occurs in basins

and on tidal flats.

Low/Very Slow

(Very poorly drained

under natural conditions.)

Low 6–12 inches

Coastal

beaches

Characterized by a narrow sandy strand and

adjacent sand dunes; partly inundated

during high tide and exposed during low

tide. May consist of sand, gravel, and

cobbles, in any combination.

Very Rapid/Very Slow Very High

Dune lands Gently sloping to steep landforms composed

of loose, wind-deposited quartz and feldspar

sands.

Very Rapid/Very Slow Very High (subject

to wind erosion)

Metz fine

sandy loam

Nearly level floodplain deposit. Moderate/Slow Slight, but subject

to effects of wind

Typically > 60 inches

Mocho silty

loam

Formed on floodplains in alluvium derived

primarily from sedimentary rocks.

Moderate/Slow Slight Typically > 60 inches

Mocho silty

clay loam

Formed on floodplains in alluvium derived

primarily from sedimentary rocks.

Slow/Slow Slight Typically > 60 inches

Pico fine

sandy loam

Formed on floodplains in alluvium derived

primarily from sedimentary rocks.

Moderately Rapid/Slow Slight, but subject

to effects of wind

Typically > 60 inches

Source: Soil Conservation Service 1978

Soils-Related Hazards on the Refuge. The following paragraphs briefly

discuss soils-related hazards that may affect land use decisions on the

Refuge.

Expansive soils contain clay minerals (the so-called “swelling clays”) that

take on water and expand when wetted and contract again as they dry.

Structures built on expansive soils—for example, buildings, pavements,

and embankments—may be damaged by the movement and settlement

that accompany this shrink-swell behavior. At the Refuge, the Alviso, 
Existing Conditions

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

Mocho, and Pico soils exhibit moderate to high shrink-swell potential; the

area’s other soils have low shrink-swell potential (Soil Conservation

Service 1978).

Erosive soils are soils that are particularly vulnerable to erosion by water,

typically because of loose textures (low clay content) and/or steep slopes.

Excessive erosion generally occurs when human intervention accelerates

the natural erosion process. Removal of vegetation and decrease in

permeable surface area, both of which are common corollaries of

development, can increase surface runoff, which may in turn increase

erosion rates. Increased erosion generally causes increased sediment

loading in area creeks and rivers, and may result in gullying that

undermines remaining vegetation. Some of the Refuge’s soils occur on

steep slopes or have loose textures, and as a result exhibit moderate to

high erosion potential. In addition, the Refuge’s coastal beaches, dune

lands, and sandy soils are subject to wind erosion.

Corrosive soils are soils whose chemistry is such that they may react with

and damage a variety of construction materials when wet. Corrosivity of

soils to steel is related to soil moisture, total acidity, and electrical

conductivity of the soil; corrosivity of soils to concrete is related to the

sulfate content and acidity of the soil. Unless precautions are taken,

corrosive soils can eventually cause foundation and structural damage. In

the Refuge area, Alviso soils are typically highly corrosive to uncoated

steel and concrete and Metz, Mocho, and Pico soils are corrosive to

uncoated steel (Soil Conservation Service 1978).

Air Quality

The Refuge is located in California’s North-Central Coast Air Basin

(NCCAB). The NCCAB is subject to State and Federal air quality

standards. Areas that do not meet the standards are designated as

nonattainment areas, and those that do comply are designated as

attainment areas.

The primary types of pollutants regulated by State and Federal law

include:

O Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10),

O Ozone,

O Carbon monoxide (CO),

O Oxides of nitrogen (NOx),

O Sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 

O Lead.

The NCCAB is an attainment area for both State and Federal CO, NOx,

SO2, and lead ambient standards, and for Federal PM10 and ozone

standards. It is a nonattainment area for State PM10 and ozone ambient

standards.

The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (Air District) is

the local agency responsible for ensuring compliance with State and

Federal air quality standards in the Refuge area (see California Air

Resources Board website, http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm). It is

unlikely that Refuge operations would affect ozone levels. However,

Refuge management activities that alter the area’s hydrology or vegetative

cover may expose soil to blowing wind, possibly increasing PM10

emissions.
Chapter 4

42 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Hazardous Materials and Contaminants

Because of both past and current land uses, hazardous materials or

contaminants may be present on the Refuge. Potential sources of

hazardous materials or contaminants include the Refuge’s past military

use, past and current agricultural operations, and current mosquito control

operations.

Military Use. Between 1942 and 1973, the U.S. military operated several

facilities on what are now Refuge lands (see United States Military at the

Refuge in Cultural Resources below for a summary of the Refuge’s

military history). As discussed below, the exact nature of these operations

is unknown. However, when lands that now make up the Refuge were

transferred from the Army to the Service, the Army removed several small

facilities built in 1945 during the Navy’s tenure, including a power

substation, a garage, a bomb shelter, and aboveground features associated

with two water wells (185 and 196 feet deep, respectively). Records of the

removal of these structures provide some indication of the site’s former

land uses and give some suggestion of the types of contaminants or

hazardous materials that may remain on the Refuge as a result of former

military operations. Additionally, the Department of Defense recently

assessed the potential for contamination on the Refuge under the Defense

Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) (U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers 1999). Their assessment consisted of a review of the site’s

history, interviews with individuals familiar with the site and its history,

and a site visit to perform random visual search and a metal detector

survey.

Records show that the Army had an officers’ hunting club at the Refuge

site. This may have resulted in some level of lead contamination, but the

current concentration of lead in the site’s soils and in the sediments of the

Salinas River Lagoon is unknown. 

Part of what is now the Refuge was used by the Navy for aerial bombing

practice. The target was a 550-foot long and 65-foot wide silhouette of a

cruiser located behind the active dunes in the northwestern corner of the

Refuge. Records indicate that the bombs used contained small spotting

charges rather than explosives. In addition, other sites in the vicinity of the

Refuge were used for shore bombardment practice by Navy ships;

however, the Refuge lands were not used for that purpose. Since the

establishment of the Refuge, there has been only one incident of anyone

finding live ordnance. This occurred in late 1997 when a visitor found a live

5-inch Navy projectile on the beach. The explosive was detonated on-site

by an expert from Moffett Field. Because the Refuge was not used for

shore bombardment, the projectile likely washed ashore in the past and

was uncovered by the tides. The random visual and metal detector survey

conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1998 did not detect any

further ordnance, spent or live, on the Refuge (U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers 1999). A second site visit was conducted by the Corps on June

6, 2001 to investigate the potential for unexploded ordnance or other

hazardous material on the Refuge; none was found.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers uses two measures to prioritize further

investigation and remediation of former defense sites: hazard severity and

hazard probability. Based on their historic investigation, interviews, and 
Existing Conditions

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

site visit, the Corps gave the Refuge a hazard severity value of 6 on a scale

of 0 (lowest severity) to 60 (highest severity), which represents “marginal

severity.” The site was given a hazard probability value of 13 on a scale of

0 (lowest probability) to 30 (highest probability). Overall, the site was given

a risk assessment code of 4, which is the lowest code that corresponds to a

recommendation for action by the Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

1999). The June 2001 site visit confirmed the very low probability of

hazards on the Refuge. The Refuge may be investigated further by the

Corps, but in view of the low risk rating and resulting low priority, it may

be many years before this investigation is conducted. The former target

range is already closed to the public to protect sensitive habitats.

In 1992, a 3,000-gallon underground storage tank was discovered in the

southeast corner of the Refuge, approximately 500 feet from the Salinas

River and less than one mile from the Pacific Ocean. The tank contained a

mixture of diesel fuel and water that had leaked in over time. The tank, an

associated pipeline, and the surrounding soil were subsequently removed

from the site in June 1997. As part of this remediation, 250 cubic yards of

soil were cleaned and spread on the site and 13,300 gallons of groundwater

were pumped out of the area and taken to an off-site disposal facility

(Regional Water Quality Control Board 1998, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers 1999). The excavation site was backfilled with clean soil. The

Monterey County Department of Health confirmed the completion of site

remediation and site closure in a letter dated February 12, 1999.

Agriculture. Past and current agricultural use in the area is also a potential

source of contamination on the Refuge. Prior to 1973, part of the Refuge

was in agricultural production. The Refuge receives runoff from

agricultural areas to the south and across the Salinas River to the north.

As a result, the saline pond and Salinas Lagoon are probably

intermittently contaminated by pesticides and nutrients from upstream

agricultural lands. In addition, because the Refuge is located at the

downstream end of the highly agricultural Salinas River Valley, the

finer-textured soils on the Refuge may contain persistent pesticides such

as DDT, toxaphene, dieldrin, endrin, aldrin, and endosulfan (now banned in

California).

After heavy flooding in 1995, an area along the Salinas River was exposed

and found to contain debris and waste that may have been a former small

landfill (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1999). The origins of this site are

unknown but it may have been established during agricultural operations

on the Refuge prior to 1973. There are no records of an active landfill in

the records of military use of the Refuge. The possible landfill site has not

been observed in the years since 1995, possibly because the debris has

washed into the Salinas Lagoon.

Mosquito Control. The Northern Salinas Valley Mosquito Abatement

District (NSVMAD) has been conducting mosquito control at the Refuge

for many years. Chemical spraying is conducted almost exclusively by

helicopter. On rare occasions, when the treatment area is small, spraying is

done by hand. Aerial applications are made from an altitude of 5–10 feet at

an airspeed of 55 mph. Swath width is 66 feet, so several passes are made.

Treatment duration is approximately 15–20 minutes.
Chapter 4

44 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Mosquito populations are related to precipitation amounts. In years when

rainfall is below normal, mosquito populations are low and control is

reduced or nonexistent. Conversely, when rainfall is above normal,

mosquito populations are larger and mosquito control is increased. In the

last six years, mosquito control applications occurred approximately 2–4

times per year. Spraying typically occurs from December through April in

the saline pond and salt marsh habitat on the Refuge. 

Since 1996, NSVMAD has used either VectoBac© G or 12AS to treat all or

most of the Refuge. BothVectoBac© G and 12AS are aqueous suspensions

of Bacillus thuringiensis, an insecticidal bacterium. The strain used by

NSVMAD specifically targets mosquitoes, black flies, and fungus gnats

and is non-toxic to humans, wildlife, and plants (National Integrated Pest

Management Network, http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/IPM/, accessed

June 2001). Two other chemicals could be used by NSVMAD to increase

effectiveness: Golden Bear 1111, a petroleum distillate, and Altosid ALL,

otherwise known as S-methoprene. Material selection is based on efficacy,

mosquito instar present, water temperature, and species of mosquito.

Currently, NSVMAD does not have a Special Use Permit from the Service.

Typically, they notify the Refuge 1–2 days before spraying. In the future,

the Service will require a Special Use Permit each year that NSVMAD

conducts spraying. This permit will stipulate that all control work will be

carried out in conformance with pre-approved Pesticide Use Proposals and

Section 7 Endangered Species consultations.

NSVMAD will notify the Refuge prior to monitoring or treating so that

Refuge staff can determine whether treatment will be allowed based on the

presence of nesting birds. The Refuge recognizes that a notification period

of several days prior to treatment may allow larval development of

mosquitos and precipitate the use of more harmful treatment materials

(e.g., Golden Bear, a pupicidal oil). Therefore, NSVMAD will be required

to notify the Refuge prior to monitoring/sampling efforts so Refuge staff

will be aware that treatment may be imminent. In all cases, the permittee

will give as much notice to the Refuge as is possible, and at least 24 hours

notice. Spraying is not allowed during the shorebird nesting season (March

15–August 31) if avocets or stilts are known to be incubating or if snowy

plovers with chicks are utilizing the pond. Terms and conditions of the

Special Use Permit will be subject to annual modification if helicopter

disturbance is considered to interfere with or detract from the fulfillment

of the purpose of the Refuge. For more information on this activity, see

Appendix G (Compatibility Determinations).

Biological Resources at the Refuge

Historic and Regional Context

Historic accounts describe the Salinas Valley area as a rich patchwork of

shallow lakes, sloughs, vernal pools, marsh vegetation, expanses of

grassland, and riparian corridors. The Salinas River was part of a large

wetland ecosystem that included Elkhorn Slough and the Pajaro River.

This wetland once supported California grizzly bear, tule elk, and a great

number and diversity of waterbirds. 

Beginning with early European settlement in California, extensive areas

were converted for agricultural purposes. By the early 1900s, much of the

land in the lower Salinas Valley was under agricultural cultivation. A series

of large finger lakes and associated wetlands had been drained, vernal

pools were converted to cropland, and riparian habitat was removed. The

Salinas and Pajaro Rivers were channelized and their wetlands drained,
Existing Conditions

1

The vegetation classification used in this CCP is based on Holland (1986). 

A matrix correlating the Refuge’s vegetation types with the National Vegetation

Classification System (Federal Geographic Data Committee 1997) is presented in

Appendix D.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

fragmenting the wetland ecosystem and reducing its size. The conversion

of valuable wildlife habitat to cropland and pastures resulted in substantial

adverse effects on the area’s wildlife. The reduction in wetland area led to a

significant drop in the numbers and diversity of the area’s bird population

(particularly waterbirds and neotropical migrant species), the extirpation

of bear and tule elk from the region, and the probable loss of many vernal

pool species.

More than 90% of the Salinas Valley’s original wetlands have been

converted to agricultural production. Lands that now make up the Refuge

were spared from conversion because of their close proximity to the ocean,

their susceptibility to flooding, and their former military ownership. The

Refuge is now one of only a few places in the area where a significant

expanse of wetland and riparian habitat remains. 

Today, despite its small size, the Refuge supports some of the most

important habitat for wildlife on the central California coast (John Gilchrist

& Associates et al. 1997). Its importance reflects its unique wildlife and

diversity of habitats, as well as the lack of remaining wetland habitat

elsewhere on the central coast. The Refuge now plays a key role in

protecting and sustaining wildlife resources, including the many migratory

birds that follow the Pacific Flyway. The Riparian Bird Conservation

Plan (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture 2000) recognizes the Salines River

as a Portfolio Site, important because it contains the largest remaining

riparian habitat in the central coast region of the state and historically

supported least Bell’s vireo, a species listed as endangered under the ESA. 

Moreover, the Southern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Plan (Page and

Shuford 2000) identifies the Salinas River mouth as a wetland of

importance to shorebirds, accommodating up to 1,000 shorebirds in fall and

spring.

Vegetation

The Refuge supports seven different types of natural plant communities

that are typical of coastal dune, salt marsh, riparian, and disturbed

environments on the central California coast (Figure 7).1

 The diversity of

plant communities on the Refuge reflects variations in the site’s soils,

topography, and hydrology. Wetland plant communities are found along

the Salinas River, Salinas River Lagoon, saline pond, and in low-lying

areas in the central portion of the Refuge. Wetland communities include

northern coastal salt marsh, coastal brackish marsh, and central coast

riparian scrub. Upland plant communities are found at higher elevations in

the Refuge. The Refuge’s sand dune complex, which includes both active

and stabilized dunes and consists of sands deposited by the Salinas River

and redistributed by wind and wave action, provides the major topographic

relief in the Refuge. The plant communities of the active dune and beach

areas include central foredunes and central dune scrub. The dominant

plant community in the Refuge is coyote brush scrub, which occupies

stabilized dune uplands over most of the southern portion of the Refuge.

Some of the plant species found on the Refuge are listed in Table C-1 in

Appendix C.
Chapter 4

46 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Vegetation in Wetland Areas. Vegetation in the Refuge’s wetland areas

includes northern coastal salt marsh and coast brackish marsh, as well as

freshwater riparian vegetation such as central coast arroyo willow riparian

forest and central coast riparian scrub.

Northern Coastal Salt Marsh:

Northern coastal salt marsh is limited to areas with saturated soils and a

narrow range of water salinities and water depths. This plant community

is typically found at elevations between 0.75 and 2 m above mean sea level

(msl) on the Refuge (John Gilchrist & Associates et al. 1997). Much of the

central portion of the Refuge immediately inland from the sand dunes (as

far north as the Salinas River Lagoon) supports northern coastal salt

marsh vegetation. This community also occurs in small depressions within

the coastal sand dune complex. Along the Salinas River, salt marsh habitat

is replaced by coastal brackish marsh because of decreasing salinity.

The northern coastal salt marsh community is dominated by low-growing

(<1 m high) perennial subshrubs that are tolerant of saturation,

inundation, and high levels of salinity. The dominant species of northern

coastal salt marsh are pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), alkali heath

(Frankenia grandiflora), and fleshy jaumea (Jaumea carnosa). At slightly

higher elevations mixed halophytes become dominant, including coastal

gumplant (Grindelia latifolia), salt grass (Distichlis spicata) and alkali

heath. The margins (typically the highest elevations) of the salt marshes

support a grassland community dominated by salt grass, wet-meadow wild

rye (Leymus triticoides), and Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) (John Gilchrist

& Associates et al. 1997).

Coast Brackish Marsh:

Coast brackish marsh occurs in areas lower in elevation and more subject

to regular flooding than those that support northern coastal salt marsh. On

the Refuge, coast brackish marsh is most widespread at elevations of less

than 0.75 m above msl along the Salinas River (John Gilchrist & Associates

et al. 1997). Coast brackish marsh is dominated by perennial or annual

herbaceous plants such as rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis),

threesquare (Scirpus pungens), alkali bulrush (S. robustus), California

bulrush (S. californicus), and cattail (Typha spp.). 

Central Coast Riparian Scrub:

Central coast riparian scrub typically forms a narrow band adjacent to an

active stream channel. In some places it may represent an early

successional stage that may, if left undisturbed over time, develop into a

riparian forest. At the Refuge, central coast riparian scrub occurs along

the Salinas River and on islands within the river. Dominant species in this

plant community include willows such as arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis),

red willow (S. laevigata), sandbar willow (S. hindsiana), and yellow willow

(S. lasiandra). The understory is typically dense and consists of young

trees and shrubs such as poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum),

Himalayan blackberry (Rubus ursinus), flowering currant (Ribes

sanguineum), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), mulefat (Baccharis

salicifolia), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), mugwort (Artemisia

douglasiana), and California rose (Rosa californica), as well as herbaceous

plants such as fleshy jaumea, salt grass, and coastal gumplant (John

Gilchrist & Associates et al. 1997).

Existing Conditions

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

Researchers and students from the Watershed Institute of California State

University, Monterey Bay are conducting intensive restoration activities

along the banks of the Salinas River in an effort to reestablish native

riparian scrub vegetation and to slow bank erosion. Species that have been

planted along the bank include willows, box elder (Acer negundo),

creekside dogwood (Cornus sericea ssp. occidentalis), red alder (Alnus

rubra), and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa).

Vegetation in Upland Areas. Upland areas on the Refuge support three

distinct types of plant communities. Central foredunes and central dune

scrub communities are found on the Refuge’s active dunes. Coyote brush

scrub occurs on the upland areas inland from the active dune system, and

is the dominant upland plant community of the Refuge. 

Central Foredunes:

The central foredune plant community is typical of dunes in the early

stages of colonization and stabilization by plants. Protected somewhat from

the wind and from storm surges, the foredunes are commonly stable

enough to support a community of low-growing herbaceous and woody

perennial plant species. On the Refuge, the northern foredune community

occurs on recently stabilized sand dunes above the high tide line. Common

species of the northern foredune community include yellow and pink sand

verbena (Abronia latifolia and A. umbellata), silky beach pea (Lathyrus

littoralis), beach primrose (Camissonia cheiranthifolia), sea rocket

(Cakile maritima), beach morning glory (Calystegia sordanella), and

beach bur (Franseria chamissonis ssp. bipinnatisecta, F. chamissonis

ssp. chamissonis). In addition, some seaside buckwheat (Eriogonum

latifolium) and seacliff buckwheat (E. parvifolium) plants occur in the

northern portion of the Refuge (John Gilchrist & Associates et al. 1997)

(see related discussion in the Smith’s Blue Butterfly section in Federally

Listed Species at the Refuge below).

Central Dune Scrub:

Central dune scrub forms on stabilized dunes and coastal bluffs and

consists of a dense cover of low, perennial, woody subshrubs and herbs.

Dominant plant species of this community include yellow bush lupine

(Lupinus arboreus ssp. arboreus), lizard tail (Eriophyllum

staechadifolium), sea lettuce (Dudleya farinosa), beach bur, mock heather

(Ericameria ericoides ssp. ericoides), seaside buckwheat, and seacliff

buckwheat. Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens),

which is federally listed, also occurs in the Refuge’s central dune scrub.

Other special-status plants reported to occur in this community include

Monterey paintbrush (Castilleja latifolia var. latifolia), branching beach

aster (Coreothogyne leucophylla), and coast wallflower (Erysimum

ammophilum) (John Gilchrist & Associates et al. 1997). At the Refuge,

central dune scrub occurs on the southwestern border of the Refuge.

Central dune scrub on the Refuge is the northern tip of a large contiguous

patch of this plant community that extends south on the dune system for

more than two miles across private land and onto Marina State Beach.

Coyote Brush Scrub/Grassland:

In the vicinity of the Refuge, coyote brush scrub represents a successional

community that has developed following the abandonment of agricultural

operations. Although the Refuge land was transferred from U.S. Coast 
Chapter 4

48 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Guard possession in 1974, upland portions of the reserve were leased for

cultivation; later, local farmers were contracted to till the soil and plant

barley for wintering waterfowl. Both these practices have ceased since the

onset of state budget limitations and drought; the portions of the Refuge

where these practices were conducted are in early successional stages.

(Cull 1991.) Coyote brush scrub is widespread in the upland areas inland

from the Refuge’s dunes. The dominant species in this habitat is coyote

brush, which forms pure stands in some places. Interspersed within the

scrub habitat are large and small patches of grassland dominated by native

and nonnative grasses and herbs. Immediately after agriculture ceased,

the grassland was dominated by nonnative ruderal species such as poison

hemlock (Conium maculatum), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), field

mustard (Brassica campestris) and white sweet clover (Melilotus alba).

However, intensive restoration efforts by the Watershed Institute in the

late 1990s greatly reduced the abundance of nonnative species, replacing

them with native annual and perennial grasses such as wild rye (Elymus

glaucus), California barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), annual hairgrass

(Deschampsia caespitosa), and California brome (Bromus carinatus). The

native grassland is now maintained through a combination of intensive

hand weeding and weed-whacking of exotic species and regular mechanical

mowing three to four times each year. Unless burning or other disturbance

occurs, the coyote brush is expected to encroach on grassland patches.

Under natural conditions, fire plays an important role in shaping the plant

communities of upland habitats in the Monterey Bay area such as coyote

brush scrub and grassland. Repeated fires prevent woody species such as

coyote brush from colonizing and eventually dominating grasslands.

Historic documents suggest that aboriginal populations deliberately set

fires annually in coastal prairie habitats around Monterey Bay; fires may

also have been inadvertently caused (e.g., Greenlee and Langenheim 1990).

Prior to aboriginal settlement, the average interval between fires caused

by lightning strikes was probably 2–15 years. 

Wildlife

The Refuge provides valuable habitat for a diversity of wildlife species, in

part because of its location adjacent to other highly productive wetland and

marine habitats. Approximately 279 vertebrate species are known or

expected to occur in and around the Refuge, including 116 species of

waterbirds. More than 50 special-status wildlife species are known or

believed to use habitats on the Refuge. Table C-2 (Appendix C) lists all

species federally listed as threatened or endangered as well as Birds of

Conservation Concern that are known or believed to occur on the Refuge.

Birds of Conservation Concern are species identified by the Service that

are in need of conservation action to prevent future listings. Under

Executive Order 13186, these species represent conservation priorities for

the Service and are to be specifically considered during planning.

Wetland Wildlife. The quality of amphibian and reptile habitat offered by

the Refuge’s wetlands is highly variable. The Salinas River Lagoon is

generally too saline to support many amphibians and reptiles. In upstream

areas of the Refuge, which have a stronger freshwater influence and more

riparian vegetation cover, the following species are reported to occur: 
Existing Conditions

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus)

Dr. Antonio J. Ferreira Photo

Pacific coast aquatic garter snake (Thamnophis atratus), common garter

snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), western terrestrial garter snake

(Thamnophis elegans), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis),

southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), sharp-tailed snake

(Contia tenuis), ringneck snake (Diadophus punctatus), common king

snake (Lampropeltis getulus), California slender salamander

(Batrachoseps attenuatus), Pacific treefrog (Pseudacris regilla), bullfrog

(Rana catesbeiana), and western toad (Bufo boreas).

The Refuge’s wetlands provide habitat for numerous resident and

migratory bird species. The sandbar at the mouth of the Salinas River

Lagoon, the lagoon shoreline, and islands in the lagoon provide important

roosting sites for California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis

californicus) and roosting and nesting sites for western snowy plover

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), both of which are federally listed.

Black skimmer (Rynchops niger), a Bird of Conservation Concern,

attempted nesting here in 2000; this site might attract additional pairs of

the species in the future.

The wetlands also support stilts, avocets, herons, kingfishers, egrets,

terns, gulls, ducks and several other species of waterfowl and shorebirds.

During periods of low water, such as late summer, exposed mud and sand

provide important foraging habitat for shorebirds. Larger shorebirds,

dabbling ducks, herons, and egrets forage in shallow nearshore waters of

the lagoon. Areas of deeper water provide foraging for grebes, cormorants,

diving ducks, terns and osprey. Areas of northern coastal salt marsh on the

Refuge are frequented by a range of species similar to that found in the

lagoon, especially those favoring shallow and more saline water. Wintering

waterfowl populations on the Refuge vary from 500 to 3,000 depending on

the availability of water. Use is also heavy during the spring migration,

when as many as 500 dabbling ducks roost and forage in the area.

Waterfowl use both the Salinas River and the saline pond. The central

coast arroyo willow riparian forest and scrub communities are frequented

by insectivorous birds; the larger trees are used as perches by raptors

such as northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), white-tailed kite (Elanus

caeruleus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and barn owl (Tyto alba) (John

Gilchrist & Associates et al. 1997). 
Chapter 4

50 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

California gull 

(Larus californicus)

USFWS Photo

A variety of mammals use the Refuge’s wetland habitats. They include:

muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), beaver (Castor canadensis), gray fox

(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), striped skunk

(Mephitis mephitis), longtail weasel (Mustela frenata), Virginia opossum

(Didelphis virginiana), vagrant shrew (Sorex vagrans), broad-footed mole

(Scapanus latimanus), brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani), raccoon

(Procyon lotor), dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes), deer mouse

(Peromyscus maniculatus), and coyote (Canis latrans). Foxes and coyotes

contribute substantially to predation on ground-nesting birds. 

A number of special-status wildlife species may occur in the wetland

habitats of the Refuge (see Table C-2 in Appendix C). The Refuge’s

federally listed species include western snowy plover and California brown

pelican; they are discussed further in the Federally Listed Species section

below. Other special-status species that occur on the Refuge include

California brackish water snail (Tryonia imitator), Southwestern pond

turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss),

American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), double-crested

cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola),

osprey, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter

striatus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii),

merlin (Falco columbarius), American

peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum),

whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), long-billed

curlew (Numenius americanus), marbled

godwit (Limosa fedoa), short-billed dowitcher

(Limnodromus griseus), California gull (Larus

californicus), elegant tern (Sterna elegans),

black skimmer, short-eared owl (Asio

flammeus), willow flycatcher (Empidonax

traillii), California yellow warbler (Dendroica

petechia brewsteri)), salt marsh wandering

shrew (Sorex vagrans halicoetes), Monterey

ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus salarius), and

Salinas harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys

megalotis distichlis).

Upland Wildlife. The coyote brush scrub habitat of the Refuge’s uplands is

used by reptiles, birds, and mammals. Common reptiles that occur in

coyote brush scrub and the grassland patches that intergrade with it

include the western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), racer (Coluber

constrictor), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucas), common king snake,

and western terrestrial garter snake. Many birds forage in this habitat,

including raptors such as northern harrier, red-tailed hawk (Buteo

jamaicensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), white-tailed kite, osprey,

and barn owl. Typical upland mammals include gray and red foxes, longtail

weasel, California ground squirrel (Spermophylis beecheyi), black-tailed

jackrabbit, Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), deer mouse, and

western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) (John Gilchrist &

Associates et al. 1997). 

No federally listed species are known to make significant use of the coyote

brush scrub on the Refuge. However, several other special-status wildlife

species are reported to use this community, including white-tailed kite,

northern harrier, Cooper’s hawk, merlin, short-eared owl, Monterey 
Existing Conditions

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

Black legless lizard (Anniella pulchra nigra)

John H. Tashjian Photo

ornate shrew, and Salinas harvest mouse (Appendix C). Grassland

restoration efforts on the former cropland site and elsewhere on the

Refuge might provide nesting habitat for grasshopper sparrow (a Bird of

Conservation Concern) and western meadowlark (a focal species in the

Grassland Bird Conservation Plan).

Wildlife of Dunes and Beaches. Because dune and beach habitats are

unstable and typically lack fresh water, cover, and forage, they generally

support a limited range of wildlife. Birds are the most commonly observed

wildlife in these communities. Several bird species use the beaches and

dunes of the Refuge for foraging, roosting, and nesting; they include

shorebirds, passerines, gulls, and raptors. Other wildlife species observed

or expected in the dune and beach habitats of the Refuge are western fence

lizard, gopher snake, deer mouse, gray fox, red fox, and longtail weasel.

Three federally listed species are reported to occur in the dune and beach

areas of the Refuge: Smith’s blue butterfly, western snowy plover, and

California brown pelican (Appendix C). They are discussed further in

Federally Listed Species below. In addition, the northern foredune and

central dune scrub communities provide suitable habitat for other

special-status species, including the globose dune beetle (Coelus globosus),

black legless lizard (Anniella pulchra nigra), American white pelican,

merlin, peregrine falcon, long-billed curlew, whimbrel, marbled godwit,

short-billed dowitcher, California gull, and elegant tern. 

Wildlife in the Salinas River Lagoon. The composition of the fish

population in the Salinas River Lagoon is typical of that found in

lagoon/rivermouth habitats elsewhere on the central California coast.

Native freshwater fish found in the occasionally brackish water of the

lagoon include: Sacramento blackfish (Orthodon microlepidotus),

Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis), Sacramento squawfish

(Ptychocheilus grandis), California roach (Lavinia exilicauda), threespine

stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and steelhead/rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss). These species have varying tolerances for saline

water; migrating steelhead may use the lagoon to acclimatize themselves

to changes in salinity between ocean and river. 
Chapter 4

52 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Introduced freshwater species that can occur in the Salinas River Lagoon

include: carp (Cyprinus carpo), white bass (Morone chrysops), bluegill

(Lepomis macrochirus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), mosquitofish

(Gambusia affinis) and threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense).

Saltwater fish are also found in the Salinas River Lagoon. Some saltwater

species are found year-round; others are typical of periods when the

sandbar at the mouth of the lagoon is breached, creating an open

connection with Pacific waters. Year-round users of the lagoon include

small numbers of starry flounders (Platichthyes stellatus) and staghorn

sculpin (Leptocottus armatus). Adults of these species spawn in the ocean

but juveniles often use the lagoon to rear for as much as a year. During

periods of saltwater connectivity, saltwater species commonly found in the

lagoon include: Pacific herring (Clupea harengus), topsmelt (Atherinops

affinis), shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aggregata), walleye surfperch

(Hyperprosopon argenteum), silver surfperch (H. ellipticum), spotfin

surfperch (H. anale), white surfperch (Phanerodon furcatus), surf smelt

(Hypomesus pretiosus), northern anchovy (Engralis mordax), jacksmelt

(Atherinopsis californiensis), English sole (Parophrys vetulus), and

striped bass (Morone saxatilis). Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris)

are also thought to occur occasionally.

Invertebrates. Invertebrate surveys have not been conducted for the

Refuge. However, based on surveys of nearby sites with habitats similar to

those on the Refuge, it is likely that invertebrates are abundant at the

Refuge. Tube-dwelling amphipods (Corophium spp.), water boatmen

(Corixidae), and the amphipods of the algal mats and pondweed

(Eogammarus spp.) are all known to be abundant in the Salinas River

Lagoon.

Federally Listed Species at the Refuge

The following sections provide more information on selected special-status

species that are known to occur or that may occur at the Refuge. Because

the Refuge is charged with the mission of management for the benefit of

federally listed species, this section focuses on federally listed species.

Appendix C provides an overview of all special-status species known or

expected to occur on the Refuge, including State-listed species and State

species of special concern.

Monterey Gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria). Monterey gilia is an

annual herb in the phlox family (Polemoniaceae), and is federally listed as

endangered. It is known from about 15 locations in coastal Monterey

County, including Marina State Beach, Sunset State Beach, Salinas River

State Beach, Fort Ord, the Refuge, and some private properties south of

the Refuge (California Department of Fish and Game 2000). The

occurrence at the Refuge represents the northernmost documented

population of the species. Monterey gilia is thought by some botanists to

intergrade with the greater yellowthroat gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp.

tenuiflora) where the two subspecies co-occur near the mouth of the

Salinas River. Monterey gilia is found on sandy soils in openings within

maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal sand dunes, and coastal

scrub communities. Within the Refuge, Monterey gilia is expected to be

found in open patches within dune scrub, preferring relatively stable sites

that have some leaf litter accumulation and soil development, that offer

protection from high winds and salt spray, and `that experience no wave or

storm-surge activity. It was documented on the
Existing Conditions

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

Menzies’ wallflower (Erysimum menziesii)

Brother Alfred Brousseau Photo

Refuge in 1992 by the California Native Plant Society (California Native

Plant Society 1992); however, more surveys are needed to map its locations

and estimate its population size. Threats to the species include small

mammal herbivory, loss of habitat because of development and sand

mining, and invasion by nonnative plants (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1998).

Menzies’ Wallflower (Erysimum menziesii). Menzies’ wallflower is a

perennial or biennial herb of the mustard family (Brassicaceae) and is

federally listed as endangered. Since the original listing of Menzies’

wallflower in 1992, several new subspecies have been recognized. The

Service considers the following subspecies as included in the original

listing of Menzies’ wallflower: Erysimum menziesii ssp. menziesii, E. m.

ssp. yadonii, and E. m. ssp. eurekense (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1998). Populations of Menzies’ wallflower in the vicinity of the Refuge

include those at Marina State Beach and on several private properties near

Marina (California Department of Fish and Game 2000). Several

populations of the subspecies E. m. ssp. yadonii, Yadon’s wallflower, are

known from coastal dunes and coastal strands along Monterey Bay in the

vicinity of the Refuge; they bloom between May and September. Threats

to the wallflower include natural disturbances such as storm surges,

changes in the course of the Salinas River, habitat loss because of

development and sand mining, off-road vehicle traffic, trampling, and

invasion of nonnative species such as common ice plant (Carpobrotus

edulis, C. chilense).

Menzies’ wallflower is not known to occur on the Refuge but suitable

habitat exists. Further surveys are needed to confirm its absence from the

Refuge. A historic occurrence of Yadon’s wallflower within the Refuge may

have been extirpated by storm surges and changes in the Salinas River

mouth, as a recent field survey failed to locate any individuals on the

Refuge (John Gilchrist & Associates et al. 1997). The beach strand and

foredunes on the Refuge offer suitable habitat for both wallflower

subpecies, in locations that are above the high-tide line and protected from

wave action (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).
Chapter 4

54 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens)

Brother Alfred Brousseau Photo

Monterey Spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens). The Monterey

spineflower is an annual herb in the buckwheat family (Polygonaceae), and

is federally listed as threatened. The spineflower occurs near the coast in

northern Monterey County and southern Santa Cruz County. It is found in

a wide range of habitats but prefers openings on sandy soils in maritime

chaparral, oak woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and grassland

communities (California Department of Fish and Game 2000). In

grasslands, the species occurs along road margins, in fuel breaks, and on

other disturbed sites (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1992). The normal

blooming period for the spineflower is mid- to late spring (April–June).

Threats to the Monterey spineflower include loss of habitat as a result of

development, and invasion by nonnative plants, especially common ice

plant (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).

Monterey spineflower was observed on the Refuge in 1992 and again in

2001 (California Native Plant Society 1992, 2001). Systematic surveys for

the species on the Refuge are still needed because the extent of this

population is unknown. The Refuge supports suitable habitat for the

Monterey spineflower on open, sandy patches on active dunes and in dune

scrub communities. Several populations are also known from the vicinity of

the Refuge. Most of the known extant populations are found on the

undeveloped western portions of the U.S. Army’s Fort Ord (U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers 1992). Other known occurrences near the Refuge

include those at Marina State Beach, Sunset State Beach, Manresa State

Beach, Asilomar State Beach, Fort Ord Dunes State Park, Manzanita

County Park, and various locations along U.S. 101 (California Department

of Fish and Game 2000).

Smith’s Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi). Smith’s blue butterfly

is federally listed as endangered. It is found in coastal dune scrub and

coastal sage scrub plant communities at several Monterey County

localities; the Refuge represents the northern limit of the species’ range.

Both the larval and adult stages of Smith’s blue butterfly rely on seaside

buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium) and seacliff buckwheat (E.

parvifolium) host plants for food. After hatching, the larvae feed for

several weeks and then molt to a pupal stage that lasts ten months. Adults

emerge in late summer and early autumn to mate and lay eggs on 
Existing Conditions

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

buckwheat flowers. At the Refuge, seaside buckwheat and seacliff

buckwheat occur in the central dune scrub and northern foredune

vegetation communities, and the Refuge supports a population of Smith’s

blue butterfly of unknown size. Threats to the species in the vicinity of the

Refuge include habitat loss because of land development, and damage to

remaining habitat as a result of offroad vehicle use and invasion by

nonnative plants such as common ice plant and European beach grass

(Ammophila arenaria). The Service has identified securing the coastal

sand dunes at the Refuge as essential to the recovery of the Smith’s blue

butterfly (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984).

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The steelhead is federally listed as

threatened. Steelhead may be present in small numbers in the Salinas

River and the Salinas River Lagoon; they were collected in the Salinas

River Lagoon during intensive sampling in 1963 and again in 1991 (John

Gilchrist & Associates et al. 1997). Additional surveys for steelhead should

be carried out on the Refuge. Steelhead in the Salinas River are part of the

South-Central California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)

listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which has

designated the Salinas River Basin as critical habitat for this ESU of

steelhead.

Suitable habitat for steelhead is greatly limited in the Salinas River

system, in part because yearly flows in the lower reaches of the river are

extremely variable and water temperatures are inhospitably high during

low-flow periods, and also because the migration required to reach

upstream spawning and rearing habitats is excessively long. Steelhead are

known to use Arroyo Seco and the Nacimiento and San Antonio Rivers

when access is possible. However, these tributaries join the Salinas River

40, 80, and 80 miles upstream from its mouth, respectively.

Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). The western

snowy plover is a small, pale-colored shorebird that ranges from southern

Washington to Baja California del Sur, Mexico. It is also known from

inland lakes in the western U.S., although the birds that breed at interior

lakes are considered mostly disjunct from the coastal population (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1993b). The Pacific coast population of the western

snowy plover is federally listed as threatened.

The plover inhabits open beaches in marine, estuarine, and lacustrine

settings. It nests in sandy or gravelly substrates such as sand dunes and

forages for invertebrates on wet, sandy shorelines and receding lake or

estuary margins. Its breeding season extends from mid-March though

mid-September.

The Refuge is home to an important breeding population of western snowy

plovers. This population consists of a combination of year-round residents

and migratory birds that are present only during the breeding season.

Migratory plovers may winter in southern California or in coastal Mexico.

The birds typically return to the same nest locations each year, although

individual nests are generally not reused because of the unstable and

shifting nature of coastal dunes. At the Refuge, foraging and nesting areas

include the beach strand and foredunes, the unvegetated margins of

northern coastal salt marsh habitat, saline pond, and sandy islands within

the Salinas River and Salinas River Lagoon.
Chapter 4

56 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

The primary predators of snowy plover adults, chicks, and eggs at the

Refuge include nonnative red foxes, free-roaming cats, skunks, northern

harriers, kestrels, and gulls. Other potential threats to nesting success

include high winds, storm surges, domestic dogs, and crushing by vehicles

or pedestrians (John Gilchrist & Associates et al. 1997). 

In 1984, Point Reyes Bird Observatory began monitoring and collecting

data on breeding plovers on the Refuge. Data from successive years

revealed a drastic decline in plover nest success. Nesting attempts

decreased from 40 in 1986 to 24 in 1990. In addition, from 1988 to 1990,

mammalian predation accounted for a loss of 47% of all nests found on the

Refuge (Point Reyes Bird Observatory file data).

During the 1991 breeding season, Refuge personnel began protecting

individual plover nests with fencing (exclosures) in an attempt to decrease

predation and human impacts. As a result, nest success increased from

10% in 1987 to approximately 83% in 1994. However, as the use of

exclosures continued through the 1992 and 1993 breeding seasons, it

became apparent that while exclosures increased nest success they also

caused increased adult mortality and possibly decreased chick survival.

Between 1991 and 1993, the percentage of chicks fledged per successful

hatch (chick fledging rate) decreased below that of the pre-exclosure

period; it is believed that predators learned to recognize and target nest

exclosures. In addition, both adult and juvenile plovers were at risk from

mammalian predators, in particular the nonnative red fox, when they left

the nest exclosure. 

In an effort to increase fledging success and reduce adult mortality, the

Refuge implemented an integrated predator management program in

1994. The plan combined the use of exclosures in high-risk areas with the

removal of problem mammalian predators. Nest success and fledging rates

both increased in 1994. In addition, adult mortality decreased from 3 in

1992 and 7 in 1993 to zero in 1994. As a result, the Refuge continued the

predator management plan in subsequent breeding years. 

Nest success has continued to increase from 45% in 1995 to 70% in 1999.

However, after an initial increase, the fledging rate again began to

decrease by 1999, primarily because of predation by northern harrier; the

1996–2000 fledge rate was 22%. After reviewing the data, the Refuge

implemented a three-year avian predator management experiment in 1999.

The goal of this experiment was to increase snowy plover fledge rates by

capturing and relocating problem avian predators, including northern

harrier, kestrel, and loggerhead shrike individuals. Following the 2000

breeding season, the results were evaluated and used to develop an avian

predator management program (see Appendix H). This program will be

added to the existing predator management plan. 

California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus). The brown

pelican ranges from Central California to Chile; California populations are

federally listed as endangered. The brown pelican is the smallest of the

pelican species. Nonetheless, it weighs as much as 10 pounds, has a 71⁄2-foot

wingspan, and can hold up to 3 gallons of water and fish in its bill pouch.

Pelicans forage by flying above shallow, coastal marine waters, finding fish

with their keen eyesight, and then diving. They rarely venture far out to

sea or far inland. Typically social birds, they nest and roost communally in

most years.
Existing Conditions

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

Sea otter (Enhydra lutris)

Dr. Lloyd Glenn Ingles Photo

The breeding range of the California brown pelican extends from the

Channel Islands in southern California south to the state of Nayarit,

Mexico. After the breeding season, California brown pelicans disperse

along the Pacific coast, ranging as far north as southern British Columbia

and as far south as Colima, Mexico. Pelicans are most abundant along the

central California coast between July and November (Shuford et al. 1989). 

During the nonbreeding season, the central California coast, including the

Refuge, becomes important for communal roosting. At the Refuge,

California brown pelicans use portions of the beach strand, islands in the

Salinas River Lagoon, and the lagoon side of the lagoon-mouth sandspit for

day roost areas (John Gilchrist & Associates et al. 1997). Roosting flocks

are common at the mouth of the Salinas River and on the islands near the

river mouth from April through December. As many as 1,400 pelicans have

been observed roosting at the river mouth. 

Historic threats to the California brown pelican include loss of nesting

habitat, disturbance of nesting and roosting sites, egg harvesting, and the

use of DDT, which reduced eggshell strength; pelicans were also killed by

fishermen. While these threats have largely been removed and Atlantic

coast populations have been delisted by the Service, there are still only

about 5,000 breeding pairs of brown pelicans in California, and California

populations remain endangered.

California Least Tern (Sterna antillarum browni). The California least

tern is federally listed as endangered. The species ranges from Baja

California northward through the San Francisco Bay area, but nesting is

currently restricted to a few sites from San Francisco Bay south to San

Diego County. Least terns prefer sparsely vegetated, open, sandy areas.

Their nesting habitat is similar to that of the western snowy plover and

they are known to nest in close proximity to snowy plovers. Least terns

occur on the Refuge as occasional spring migrants and likely forage in the

surf adjacent to the Refuge. Although the Refuge provides suitable nesting

habitat, there have been no records of nesting terns on the Refuge since

1937 (Roberson and Tenney 1993). 

Southern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris nereis). The southern sea otter is

federally listed as threatened. The species ranges from Pigeon Point in

southern San Mateo County to Purisima Point in Santa Barbara County,

but is occasionally observed north and south of its typical range (Zeiner et

al. 1990). Southern sea

otters generally remain

within about 1 mile of the

shoreline. They rest and

groom in kelp forests, and

dive to forage for sea

urchins, crabs, clams,

mussels, abalone, and other

shellfish. Southern sea

otters can be observed in

the offshore areas in the

vicinity of the Refuge

(outside the Refuge’s mean

high water boundary), but

they are more likely to be

seen in areas where kelp

beds are more abundant,

such as the northern and
Chapter 4

58 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

southern portions of Monterey Bay, which have a rocky substrate.

Historically, the southern sea otter was threatened by overhunting for its

fur, and the population was reduced to about 50 animals along the Big Sur

coast in the early twentieth century. There are approximately 2000 sea

otters in California today. The population appears to be recovering, but the

sea otter is still at risk from oil spills, collisions with power boats, drowning

in fishing nets, and disease.

Cultural Resources

Cultural Setting

Prehistoric Context. Based on certain characteristic artifacts,

archaeologists working in the Monterey Bay region commonly divide the

area’s prehistoric record into five time periods (Breschini and Haversat

1980 in Moratto 1984, Jones and Hylkema 1988, Dietz et al. 1988, Milliken

et al. 1999). These are:

O The Millingstone Period (8,500–5000 years ago),

O The Early Period (~5,000–2,600 years ago),

O The Middle Period (~2,600–1,250 years ago), 

O The Middle/Late Transition (1,250–850 years ago), and

O The Late Period (<850 years ago).

The Millingstone Period (8,500–5000 years ago) is named for the flat stones

widely used as grinding surfaces, with a fist-sized handstone as the

grinding implement; millingstones are a characteristic artifact in deposits

of this age. The Millingstone Period is best represented on the southern

California coast, where sites of this age typically contain dense shell

middens and large numbers of millingstones and handstones. The

Millingstone Period appears to be sparsely represented in the Monterey

Bay area, and Milliken et al. (1999) hypothesize that the Refuge area may

have been inundated by the sea level rise resulting from melting of

Wisconsinan glacial ice at the end of the Pleistocene Epoch (~10,000 years

ago). However, Jones and Jones (1992) have identified a component dating

to this period at a site near Moss Landing. 

Deposits of the Early Period (~5,000–2,600 years ago) are characterized

by the presence of large square-stemmed and side-notched projectile

points, mortars and pestles, and millingstones and handstones. During the

Early Period, the Monterey Bay area was inhabited by people whose

archeological signature has been identified as the Sur Pattern (Breschini

and Haversat 1980, Moratto 1984, Milliken et al. 1999). 

The Middle Period (~2,600–1,250 years ago) is the most commonly

represented period in the Monterey Bay region. It is typically associated

with smaller projectile points, mortars and pestles, saucer-shaped shell

beads, and a variety of bone artifacts. This archeological signature has

been identified as the Monterey Pattern (Breschini and Haversat 1984,

Moratto 1984, Milliken et al. 1999).

The period from about 1,250 to 850 years ago is referred to as the

Middle/Late Transition. During this time, the Monterey Bay area appears

to have been used as a coastal collector destination. Sedentary village sites

were located in the interior. 

The Late Period (<850 years ago) is poorly represented in the Monterey

Bay region. It appears to be typified by small side-notched and serrated

projectile points, mortars and pestles, and split-punched shell beads. After

400 years ago, clam shell disk beads are also represented. Following
Existing Conditions

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

European contact, glass trade beads appear in the record (Milliken et al.

1999).

Ethnographic Context. The peoples who inhabited northern Monterey

County prior to the European influx have been called the Costanoans. The

term Costanoan is derived from the Spanish Costaños, meaning Coast

People (Kroeber 1925). The Costanoans are a linguistically defined group

composed of several autonomous groups speaking eight different but

related languages; anthropologists have referred to these groups as

tribelets (Levy 1978). The area that is now the Refuge may have been

inhabited by the Calendarruc tribelet (Milliken 1988). 

Many Native American descendants of the original peoples of the

Monterey Bay area refer to themselves as Ohlone; the term Ohlonean has

been used as a synonym for Costanoan (Milliken 1988). The origin of the

root Ohlone is uncertain. Margolin (1978) has suggested that it is derived

from a Miwok word meaning western people, or from the name of a village

along the San Mateo coast. 

The territory of the Costanoan or Ohlone people extended along the coast

from San Francisco Bay in the north to a point immediately south of

Carmel, and stretched about 60 miles inland. This area encompasses a

significant length of coastline as well as several inland valleys (Breschini et

al. 1983). The Costanoans were gatherer-hunters, relying heavily on a wide

range of foods, including acorns, sea foods, seeds, berries, roots, land and

sea mammals, waterfowl, reptiles, and insects (Levy 1978). 

Historic Setting.

Spanish Period:

In 1542, Spanish explorer Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo sailed up the California

coast in search of the Northwest Passage. Although Cabrillo may have

sighted the headland of Monterey Bay, the first European known to have

seen the bay was Sebastián Rodríguez Cermeño, who sailed along its

shores while searching for an appropriate location for the establishment of

a northern Spanish port on the California coast in 1595. In 1602, Sebastian

Vizcaíno became the second European to enter Monterey Bay and the first

to make a landing there. Vizcaíno’s enthusiastic descriptions of the bay

gave impetus for the overland expeditions of Gaspar de Portolá (1769–70),

who along with Fathers Crespí and Serra founded Mission San Carlos

Borroméo, which was moved to its present Carmel site in 1771, and the

Presidio of Monterey (Fink 1978, Hart 1978, Hoover 1990).

Eager to establish pueblo settlements and consolidate its political claim to

Alta California, the Spanish government authorized the distribution of

lands surrounding the mission and presidio to Spanish settlers who would

devote themselves to farming and stock raising. By 1793, several pueblo

lots and land grants of as much as three leagues (approximately 13,200

acres) had been authorized around Mission San Carlos Borroméo and

along the Salinas River. They were awarded both to civilians and to

retired soldiers. Some of these lots may have included lands now within

the Refuge. The principal economic activities in the region included cattle

ranching, agriculture, and various mission-based industries, such as

weaving, blacksmithing, masonry, carpentry, hide curing, and tallow

rendering. The bulk of the labor was provided by local Native Americans.

Agriculture was confined mainly to the mission lands where irrigation

systems had been constructed (Fink 1978, Hoover et al. 1990, Swernoff

1981).
Chapter 4

60 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Mexican Period:

The fertile lands in the vicinity of the Salinas River mouth attracted a

succession of Mexican ranchers and farmers. Located near the mouth of

the Salinas River near the present town of Castroville, Rancho Rincón de

las Salinas extended from just east of Twin Bridges to the Pacific Ocean.

This 2,220-acre tract, which contained the current Refuge, was granted to

Cristina Delgado by Governor Figueroa in 1833. Rafael Estrada acquired

the property in 1853 (Beck and Haase 1974, Hoover et al. 1990).

United States Acquisition and Settlement:

The American acquisition of California brought many changes to the

Monterey Bay area. The port town of Monterey had been visited by

American and other foreign traders during the Spanish and Mexican

periods, and had been home to the only United States consul to Alta

California, Thomas Larkin. Since Monterey had served as the territorial

capital during both Spanish and Mexican periods, the town was pivotal in

the transition to American governance. In 1849, the Constitutional

Convention met at Colton Hall in Monterey to establish the State

government. Over the ensuing decades, a thriving commercial fishing and

whaling industry emerged in the coastal regions of Monterey County

(established 1850) alongside the growing agricultural economy of the

Salinas River valley. 

United States Military at the Refuge:

Lands that now make up the Refuge have a significant history of use by

the United States military. The U.S. Navy acquired the property in 1942,

and established coastal defense fortifications there during World War II.

In 1952, the Navy transferred the property to the U.S. Coast Guard. In

1967, approximately 270 acres of the Refuge (all land north of the current

trail system) was again transferred, this time to the U.S. Army, who used

the site to create the Castroville Amphibious Training Area. The southern

portion of the Refuge (approximately 94 acres) remained under U.S. Coast

Guard jurisdiction as their Castroville Radio Direction Finder Station. The

Coast Guard site was actively farmed in artichokes until operations ceased

in 1973. The entire property was then transferred to the Department of

the Interior on July 10, 1973. It was managed by the California

Department of Fish and Game as a wildlife management area until 1991,

when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began managing the site as part of

the National Wildlife Refuge System. All surface structures except a

WWII bomb shelter were removed from the site prior to transfer to the

Department of the Interior.

The 54th Coast Artillery Regiment, an African-American unit, was

transferred to the west coast in 1942 (Breschini et al. 1996). A battery of

the 54th Regiment was stationed in the Moss Landing area. Remains of the

unit’s camp have been recorded approximately 4 miles north of the Refuge

(Breschini et al. 1996). It is unknown whether this unit operated on the

Refuge or whether evidence of their use of the site is found on the Refuge.

Cultural Resource Sites on the Refuge. Very little formal cultural

resources survey work has been conducted on the Refuge. One structure

on the Refuge may be eligible for listing on the National Register of

Historic Places (National Register): the World War II–era bomb shelter

located near the parking lot. Another feature of possible interest is a

barge marked Sauce Bros that grounded offshore of the northwest corner

of the Refuge after a storm in December 1983. Neither the barge nor the 
Existing Conditions

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

bomb shelter has been formally evaluated or recorded; additional

evaluation is necessary. In addition, because there has been no survey of

historic resources on the Refuge, it is unknown whether other sites on the

Refuge are eligible for listing in the National Register.

Archaeological Sites in the Vicinity. Several archaeological sites have been

recorded and excavated in the general vicinity of the Refuge. Perhaps the

two most thoroughly documented are prehistoric archaeological sites

(Dondero 1984, Dietz et al. 1988, Jones and Jones 1992, Milliken et al.

1999). Information from these sites has added to a regional understanding

of burial practices, subsistence practices, and inter-regional trade (Milliken

et al. 1999). Of note is that archaeological evidence from one of these sites

indicates that fur seals were probably hunted in rookeries; this is

significant because fur seal rookeries are historically known to occur only

in more northern latitudes (Milliken et al. 1999). 

Social Environment

Land Use

Overview. The Refuge is surrounded almost entirely by rural and

open-space land uses, but the Refuge is near several important population

centers, including the City of Castroville (about 2.5 miles to the east) and

the City of Monterey (about 11 miles to the south) (Figure 1). Land uses

adjacent to the Refuge include Salinas River State Beach to the north;

private lands, including agricultural fields (artichokes) and coastal sand

dunes, to the east and south; and, to the west, the open ocean of Monterey

Bay.

Agricultural Activities. Agriculture has historically been the mainstay of

Monterey County’s economy, and it remains one of the County’s largest

economic sectors. The total market value of agricultural production in

Monterey County was almost $2.3 billion in 1998 (Monterey County

Agricultural Commissioner’s Office 1999). Major crops grown in the

County include artichokes, grapes, lettuce, strawberries, and a variety of

nursery crops (Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office

1999).

Traffic and Public Access

The entrance to the Refuge is located approximately 0.5 mile west of Del

Monte Boulevard, which exits off of State Highway 1. Access to the Refuge

is provided by a private, unimproved agricultural road. An easement allows

visitors to access the Refuge via the roadway, but road conditions can be

challenging, and during the winter rainy season the road is typically usable

only by 4-wheel-drive vehicles. Agricultural equipment and farmworkers’

vehicles use the roadway all year; however, agricultural use is heaviest

during the peak growing and harvesting season (October–May) (Barr pers.

comm.). The Refuge can also be accessed from the north or south along the

beach.
Chapter 4

62 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Entrance signs at Salinas River NWR

Jones & Stokes Photo

The quality of service provided by a roadway is described by its level of

service (LOS), using a letter rating system to describe peak-period driving

conditions. The letters A through F represent progressively worse driving

conditions. Generally, LOS A indicates free-flow operation with little or no

delay, and LOS F denotes jammed flow with substantial delay. 

Traffic volumes along State Highway 1 near the Refuge average

approximately 43,000 vehicles per day and the roadway operates at LOS B

(California Department of Transportation 1999). Traffic counts along the

portion of Del Monte Boulevard near the Refuge are not available.

However, it is estimated that this segment of Del Monte Boulevard

currently operates at a similar level of service.

Recreation

Recreational Activities at the Refuge. Waterfowl hunting, access to fishing,

and nonconsumptive uses such as wildlife viewing and photography are the

primary activities currently occurring at the Refuge. While some

nonmotorized boating (canoeing and kayaking) currently takes place along

the Salinas River, the Refuge has no developed boat launching facilities

and most boating originates from upstream areas (Barr pers. comm.).

The Refuge provides access to the beach where surf fishing and hiking

occur. Fishing in the Salinas River is prohibited. Wildlife viewing and

photography is allowed on the Refuge only from designated trails (Figure

2). Dogs and horses are prohibited from the Refuge. Most of the Refuge is

closed to public use in an effort to protect rare and endangered species. 

The Refuge is one of two sites in the local area open for seasonal public

waterfowl hunting typically from October through January, and is the only

local site offering walk-in hunting opportunities. The Refuge encompasses

approximately 120 acres along the Salinas River that would be conducive

to hunting; hunting is currently permitted in an area of approximately 45

acres (3,600 linear feet of riverbank; Figure 2).
Existing Conditions

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

Waterfowl hunting on a national wildlife refuge

USFWS Photo

Species hunted include geese, ducks, coots, and common moorhen. The

Refuge is a key resource for local waterfowl hunters. The nearest

alternative location for public waterfowl hunting is the Moss Landing

Wildlife Area, approximately 10 miles to the north, which can only be

accessed by boat, and other public hunting areas such as the San Luis

National Wildlife Refuge near the community of Los Banos are located 80

miles or more away.

Facilities at the Refuge. Because no overnight parking or camping is

allowed at the Refuge, existing facilities are limited to an isolated, unpaved

parking area and several walking trails (Figure 2). The parking area is

small and can only accommodate an estimated 14–18 vehicles during the

summer months. During the winter months, when the parking area is wet,

capacity falls to an estimated 5–6 parking spaces (Barr pers. comm.). The

Refuge has no restroom or picnic facilities and recreationists must carry

their own trash off the Refuge. Interpretive signs at the Refuge are limited

to one informational sign listing allowed uses, which is located at the

entrance to the Refuge. The Refuge has no telephone available for public

use.

There are several safety concerns related to existing facilities at the

Refuge. The Refuge entrance is gated to prevent unauthorized vehicle

entry, but the gate does not prevent pedestrian trespassers from entering

illegally after the Refuge is closed for the day (Barr pers. comm.). Cars

parked in the isolated parking lot are occasionally vandalized or

burglarized. In addition, an abandoned concrete bomb shelter is used as a

camping area by the homeless and also serves as an illegal firearms target

practice area (Barr pers. comm.).

Recreational Use. Table 5 shows an estimated breakdown of recreational

use at the Refuge by activity, based on observations by Refuge staff (no

formal use surveys have been conducted on the Refuge to date). Based on

these estimates of use, recreational use at the Refuge averages between

4,010 and 6,380 visitors per year, which is considered low by comparison

with use at other nearby parks and recreation sites. Weekday use at the

Refuge in particular is low; weekend use is higher. Overall use at the

Refuge peaks at the start of the winter hunting season. Permits for
Chapter 4

64 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

hunting access are not issued for the Refuge. However, hunting use is

effectively limited to an estimated 15 hunters per day, as hunting is only

permitted on a small portion of the Refuge (Figure 2) (Barr pers. comm.).

The Service estimates that approximately 250 hunter-visits take place

annually. Visits are estimated to last an average of six hours each, for a

total of 1,500 hunting activity hours annually. In the 1995–1996 and

1997–1998 hunting seasons, as many as 8–10 hunters were present on the

Refuge at any one time. Hunting use is greatest on the weekends and on

Wednesdays.

Table 5. Estimates of annual recreation use at the Salinas River National Wildlife

Refuge.

Activity Peak Use Period

Estimates of Use

(visitors per day)

waterfowl hunting October–January 4–6*

surf fishing year-round 6–10

nonconsumptive use year-round (heavier during waterfowl

migration periods)

4–6

* Up to approximately 15 hunters/day use the Refuge at the beginning of the hunt season.

Source: Barr (pers. comm.)

As shown in Table 6, visitation at the Refuge is fairly low compared to that

at other local recreation areas. This may reflect the different management

priorities in operation on State parklands and Refuge lands. The mission

of the State Parks is recreation-oriented, so nearby State parks offer a

wider range of nonconsumptive uses (e.g., equestrian uses, windsurfing,

hang-gliding, and camping) than the Refuge. In addition, in keeping with

their recreational mission, nearby State Beaches are more easily accessed

than the Refuge, particularly during the winter rainy season, and offer

more public use facilities such as restrooms and picnic tables. Recreation

opportunities on the Refuge reflect the wildlife-oriented mission of the

Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System. As a result, while the

range of uses available on the Refuge is narrower than in nearby State

parks, the Refuge provides opportunities for various types of recreation,

including waterfowl hunting, that are not available at other nearby sites.

Table 6. Recreation use at public parks along the coast near the Refuge.

Facility

Size

(acres)

Estimated Annual

Visitor Use

Consumptive

Activities

Non-Consumptive

Activities

Salinas River

NWR

367 4,370-6,900 Access to fishing,

waterfowl hunting

Wildlife viewing and

photography

Marina State

Beach

131 843,100 None Hang-gliding, kiting,

picnicking

Moss Landing

State Beach

55 73,030 Fishing Wildlife viewing,

equestrian uses,

surfing, windsurfing,

picnicking, camping

Salinas River

State Beach

246 71,635 Fishing Wildlife viewing

Zmudowski

State Beach

177 35,635 Fishing wildlife viewing and

equestrian uses

Source: California State Parks, Monterey, California (2000).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

Chapter 5. Plan

Implementation

Once the preferred management alternative has been finalized, the CCP

has been approved, and the Service has notified the public of its decision,

the implementation phase of the CCP process will begin. During the next

15 years, the objectives and strategies presented in this CCP will be

realized; the CCP will serve as the primary reference document for all

Refuge planning, operations, and management until it is formally revised

at the end of this period. The Service will implement the final CCP with

assistance from existing and new partner agencies and organizations and

from the public. 

Activities needed to realize the management strategies discussed in this

CCP are referred to as projects. Every effort will be made to implement

these projects by the deadlines established here. However, the timing of

implementation of the management activities proposed in this document is

contingent upon a variety of factors, including:

O Funding,

O Staffing,

O Compliance with other Federal regulations,

O Partnerships, and

O The results of monitoring and evaluation.

Each of these factors is described briefly below as it applies to the

Service’s proposed action.

Funding and Personnel

To implement the proposed action and to achieve the objectives and goals

of this CCP, the Service will need additional funding and staff. Table 11

describes the budget proposals and staffing needs for the Refuge for each

project proposed in this CCP. Projects include: upgrades of existing

facilities (e.g., covering the parking lot with a gravel surface), construction

of new facilities or amenities (orientation kiosk and interpretive signs),

species and habitat monitoring, and management actions such as grassland

mowing, prescribed burning, and avian predator translocation. Full

implementation of all of the projects proposed in this CCP would require

that the Refuge increase its current annual budget by 156% to

approximately $320,000.

If the proposed action is implemented, full staffing for both the Salinas

River NWR and the nearby Ellicott Slough NWR would include the

following.

O Full-time Refuge Manager

O Full-time Refuge Biologist 

O Full-time Biological Science Technician 

O Full-time Park Ranger

O Part-time Maintenance Worker

In addition, an intern may be hired to help conduct habitat and species

inventories and monitoring and to coordinate the new docent program.
Chapter 5

66 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Table 7. Budget proposal for Salinas River NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Project Title Priority1

Start

Year

Completion

Year

Duration

(years)

Operational

Cost for

Startup

(thousands)

Average 

Annual Cost

(thousands)

15-Year

Total Cost

(thousands)

Staffing

(FTE/

Grade2

) RONS3

Control nonnative plants on

foredunes.

H 2002 2017 15 5.0 14.5 222.5 0.1/GS-9

0.1/GS-11

97704

Develop partnerships with

neighboring landowners to

control nonnative vegetation

on their coastal dunes.

M 2002 2017 15 - 3.2 48.0 0.05/GS-11 n/a

Install “Closed Area” signs at

the boundary of sensitive

dune habitat.

H 2002 2017 15 8.0 3.6 62.0 0.05/GS-7 00701

97702

Develop and implement a

docent program.

H 2002 2017 15 45.0 17.0 300.0 0.3/GS-7

0.05/GS-9

00701

Install symbolic fencing

through the foredune habitat.

H 2005 2017 12 15.0 6.0 81.0 0.05/GS-5

0.05/GS-7

97703

Increase the presence of

enforcement officers during

plover breeding season.

M 2002 2017 15 - 8.5 127.5 0.2/GS-7 00701

Continue to implement the

Monterey Integrated

Predator Management

Program on the Refuge.

H 2002 2017 15 - 40.0 600.0 0.1/GS-11 97701

Implement the Refuge’s

Avian Predator Management

Plan to include relocation of

selected birds that prey

heavily on plover chicks.

H 2002 2017 15 7.0 22.0 337.0 0.1/GS-11 97701

Complete a 2-year inventory

of the special-status species

that occur on the Refuge. 

M 2003 2005 2 20.0 30.0 80.0 0.2/GS-5

0.1/GS-11

0.3/GS-9

97705

Evaluate and prioritize the

special-status species that

occur on the Refuge.

H 2008 2008 1 5.2 - 5.2 0.1/GS-9 97705

Encourage research on each

priority special-status species

on the Refuge.

M 2002 2017 15 - 3.2 48.0 0.05/GS-11 97705

Explore expansion of the

current Refuge boundary.

M 2002 2017 15 - 3.2 48.0 0.05/GS-11 n/a

Continue to plant and

maintain riparian trees and

shrubs and support

restoration partners.

H 2002 2017 15 - 15.0 225.0 0.1/GS-5 n/a

Develop and implement a

long-term monitoring

strategy to evaluate the

survival and density of

riparian revegetation.

M 2002 2017 15 6.2 5.5 88.7 0.1/GS-5

0.05/GS-9

97705

Continue to mow the

grassland annually and apply

herbicide to control invasive

nonnative plants.

H 2002 2017 15 - 12.0 180.0 0.05/GS-9

0.05/WG-8

97707

97704

00702

Conduct prescribed burning. M 2004 2017 13 10.0 10.0 160.0 0.05/GS-11 00702

Maintain efforts to monitor

plover nesting success and

band all chicks.

H 2002 2017 15 - 12.8 192 0.3/GS-5 n/a

Construct and maintain 1,500

feet of wheelchair- accessible

trail to the river.

M 2005 2007 2 66.0 3.0 105.0 - n/a
Plan Implementation

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

Table 7. Budget proposal for Salinas River NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (continued).

Project Title Priority1

Start

Year

Completion

Year

Duration

(years)

Operational

Cost for

Startup

(thousands)

Average 

Annual Cost

(thousands)

15-Year

Total Cost

(thousands)

Staffing

(FTE/

Grade2

) RONS3

Develop and implement

management and monitoring

strategies for special-status

species, including monitoring

impacts of public use.

H 2003 2017 14 - 6.4 89.6 0.05/GS-5

0.05/GS-7

0.05/GS-9

n/a

Inventory and quantify the

composition of the grassland

on the Refuge.

M 2002 2017 15 8.6 1.0 23.6 0.1/GS-5

0.1/GS-9

97707

97705

Conduct a hydrologic study of

the Refuge.

L 2005 2005 1 75.0 - 75.0 - 01702

Complete a two-year

inventory of the species

present in the Salinas River

Lagoon.

M 2007 2009 2 20.0 25.0 70.0 0.2/GS-5

0.3/GS-9

n/a

Develop and maintain GIS

database.

M 2002 2017 15 40.0 10.0 190.0 0.05/GS-11

0.05/GS-9

0.05/GS-5

01701

Maintain and enhance

partnerships with State

Parks to share information

and coordinate monitoring.

H 2002 2017 15 - 3.2 48.0 0.05/GS-11 n/a

Conduct sitewide inventory of

potential archaeologic and

historic resources and

incorporate into interpretive

materials.

H 2003 2003 1 10.0 - 10.0 - n/a

Annually monitor hunting use

of the Refuge.

M 2004 2017 13 - 4.2 63.0 0.1/GS-7 00701

Design and install an

orientation kiosk at the

Refuge entrance.

M 2004 2005 1 35.0 - 35.0 0.05/GS-11

0.05/GS-9

0.1/GS-7

97702

00701

00702

Improve and maintain the

parking lot surface.

H 2002 2017 15 30.0 3.0 75.0 0.05/WG-8 00702

Design and install

interpretive signs along trails.

M 2006 2007 1 32.0 - 32.0 0.05/GS-9

0.05/GS-11

0.1/GS-7

97702

00701

00702

Enhance existing

environmental education

partnerships.

L 2002 2017 15.0 - 2.1 31.5 0.05/GS-7 00701

Develop environmental

education and interpretive

materials.

L 2002 2017 15 15.0 9.0 150.0 0.1/GS-7

0.05/GS-11

(EE Supv)

0.3

Conduct routine maintenance. H 2002 2017 15 50.0 20.0 350.0 0.1/WG-8 n/a

Establish a satellite office in

the Monterey Bay area as the

Refuge expands.

M 2005 2017 12 120.0 40.0 600.0 - n/a

Establish and implement

program to monitor

migratory bird response to

riparian restoration.

M 2002 2017 15 10.0 10.0 160.0 0.1/GS-9

0.1/GS-5

97705

1 Projects are prioritized as high (H), medium (M), or low (L). 2 Salary grades are expressed as GS levels 1–15. 3 The Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) is a national database that lists the unfunded operational needs of each refuge. RONS project

codes are included in order to update this database with the projects in this CCP.

FTE = full-time equivalent (decimal percentage of the hours worked by a full-time staff member).
Chapter 5

68 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Step-Down Management Plans

Some projects or types of projects require more in-depth planning than the

CCP process is designed to provide; for these projects, the Service

prepares step-down management plans. In essence, step-down

management plans provide the additional planning details necessary to

implement management strategies identified in a CCP. Three step-down

plans—the Avian Predator Management Plan, Wildland Fire Management

Plan, and Hunting Plan for the Refuge—are included in this CCP as

Appendices H, I, and J, respectively.

Compliance Requirements

This CCP was developed to comply with all Federal laws, executive orders,

and legislative acts to the extent possible. Some activities (particularly

those that involve revision of an existing step-down management plan, or

preparation of a new one) will need to comply with additional laws or

regulations besides NEPA and the Improvement Act. In addition to

NEPA and the Improvement Act, full implementation of all components of

this CCP will require compliance with: 

O Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management); 

O Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal

Programs);

O Executive Order 11593 (Protection of Historical, Archaeological, and

Scientific Properties);

O Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands); 

O Executive Order 12996 (Management and General Public Use of the

National Wildlife Refuge System); 

O Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice in Minority Populations

and Low-Income Populations); 

O Secretarial Order 3127 (Hazardous Substances Determinations); 

O Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; 

O Refuge Recreation Act, as amended; 

O National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; and 

O Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.

Partnership Opportunities

As described in Chapter 1, a number of landowners, State agencies, and

educational and scientific organizations conduct research, monitoring, and

management activities on or near the Refuge. These partners play an

important role in helping the Service achieve its mission and the Refuge’s

goals. The Service will continue to rely on these and other partners in the

future to help implement this CCP and to provide input for future CCP

updates. This CCP identifies many projects that provide new opportunities

for existing or new partners. There is great potential for more public

participation and assistance in the management and interpretation of the

Refuge given its proximity to important population centers such as

Monterey, Salinas, and Santa Cruz. The Service welcomes and encourages

more public participation in the Refuge.

Adaptive Management

This CCP provides for adaptive management of the Refuge. Adaptive

management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic

resources that is directed by the results of ongoing monitoring activities

and new data. Management techniques, objectives, and strategies are

regularly evaluated in light of monitoring results, new scientific

understanding, and other new information. These periodic evaluations are

used over time to adapt both management objectives and techniques to

better achieve the Refuge’s goals. 
Plan Implementation

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

Monitoring is an essential component of adaptive management in general,

and of this CCP; specific monitoring strategies have been integrated into

the goals and objectives described in this CCP whenever possible. All

habitat management activities will be monitored to assess whether the

desired effect on wildlife and habitat components has been achieved. In

order to conduct an effective monitoring program, it is important to

establish the baseline, or starting condition. It will also be important to

begin studies to monitor the response of wildlife to increased public use of

the Refuge in the form of observation and environmental education. 

Plan Amendment and Revision

CCPs are meant to evolve with each individual refuge unit, and the

Improvement Act specifically requires that CCPs be formally revised and

updated at least every 15 years. The formal revision process will follow the

same steps as the CCP creation process (see Figure 3). In the meantime,

however, the Service will be reviewing and updating this CCP periodically

(at least as often as every 5 years) based on the results of the adaptive

management program. This CCP will also be informally reviewed by

Refuge staff while preparing annual work plans and updating the Refuge

database. It may also be reviewed during routine inspections or

programmatic evaluations. Results of any or all of these reviews may

indicate a need to modify the plan. The goals described in this CCP will not

change until they are re-evaluated as part of the formal CCP revision

process. However, the objectives and strategies may be revised to better

address changing circumstances or to take advantage of increased

knowledge of the resources on the Refuge. If changes are required, the

level of public involvement and associated NEPA documentation will be

determined by the Refuge Manager.
Chapter 5

70 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge