Appendix A. Citations
Comprehensive Conservation Plan A-1

APPENDIX A

Citations

Beck, W. A. and Y. D. Haase. 1974. Historical atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press. Norman,

Oklahoma.

Big Sur Land Trust. 1992. The Monterey Bay State Seashore: a study for the preservation of the Monterey Bay

dunes. October. Carmel, CA.

Breschini, G. S., T. Haversat, and K. Seavey. 1996. Identification and evaluation of World War II foundations at the

proposed Moss Landing Marine Laboratory, Moss Landing, Monterey County, California.

Breschini, G. S., T. Haversat, and R. P. Hampson. 1983. A cultural resources overview of the coast and coast-valley

study areas. Salinas, California. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Buising, A. V. and J. P. Walker. 1995. Preliminary palinspastic paleogeographic reconstructions for the greater San

Francisco Bay area, 15 Ma–5 Ma. Pages 141–159 in Sanginés, E. M., D. W. Andersen, and A. V. Buising, eds., 1995.

Recent geologic studies in the San Francisco Bay area. (Volume 26.) Pacific Section SEPM. Fullerton, California. 

Burgmann, R., R. Arrowsmith, T. Dumitru, and R. McLaughlin. 1994. Rise and fall of the southern Santa Cruz

Mountains, California, from fission-tracks, geomorphology, and geodesy. Journal of Geophysical Research

99:20,181–20,202.

California Department of Conservation. 1992. RMC Lonestar Lapis Sand Plant reclamation plan. Final

environmental impact report. (State Clearinghouse #89030165.) State Mining and Geology Board. Sacramento,

CA. (Also available from the City of Marina Planning Department, Marina, CA).

California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Sensitive species. Habitat Conservation Planning Branch. Available

at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/species.shtml. Accessed: August 2002.

California Native Plant Society. 1992. Plant list from field survey, dated 2/17/92. On file at San Francisco Bay

National Wildlife Refuge Complex Headquarters, Fremont, CA.

California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (sixth

edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. Available at: 

http://www.northcoast.com/~cnps/cgi-bin/cnps/sensinv.cgi)

California Native Plant Society. 2001. Plant list from field survey, June. On file at San Francisco Bay National

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Fremont, CA.

California Natural Diversity Database. 2000. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division.

Sacramento, California.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1998. Case closure summary, Salinas River National Wildlife

Refuge. Letter report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Central Coast Region, San Luis Obispo, California. 

California State Parks, Monterey, California. May 10, 2000. Facsimile and telephone conversation – Office

Technician Maureen Hicks. 

Cull, R. 1991. Habitat and land use changes at the Salinas River Wildlife Area 1854–1986. Unpublished manuscript. 

Geography and Environmental Studies Department, San Jose State University. 
APPENDIX A – Citations

A-2 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Dietz, S. A., W. Hildebrandt, and T. Jones. 1988. Archaeological investigations at Elkhorn Slough: CA-MNT-229, a

middle period site on the central California coast. (Papers in Northern California Anthropology.) Northern

California Anthropological Group. Berkeley, California. 

Dondero, S. B. 1984. Preliminary report on archaeological testing, CA-MNT-229, Elkhorn Slough, Monterey County,

California. California Department of Transportation. Sacramento, California.

Ellsworth, W. L., 1990, Earthquake history, 1769–1989. Pages 153–187) in R. E. Wallace, (ed.), The San Andreas

fault system. (Professional Paper 1515.) U.S. Geological Survey. Menlo Park, California.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1991. Flood insurance rate map, unincorporated Monterey County –

Community Panel 60195 0045. Washington, DC.

Federal Geographic Data Committee. 1997. National vegetation classification standard. (FGDC-STD-005.) June.

Vegetation Subcommittee. Available at http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/documents/standards/

vegetation/tables19–41.pdf.

Fink, A. 1978. Monterey County: the dramatic story of its past. Fresno Valley Publishers. Fresno, California.

Greenlee, J. M., and J. H. Langenheim. 1990. Historic fire regimes and their relation to vegetation patterns in the

Monterey Bay Area of California. American Midland Naturalist, 124:239–253.

Hart, J. D. 1978. A companion to California. Oxford University Press. New York, New York.

Hart, E.W., and W. A. Bryant. 1997 (rev., supplements 1 and 2 added 1999). Fault-rupture hazard zones in

California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with index to earthquake fault zones maps. (Special

Publication 42.) California Division of Mines and Geology. Sacramento, California.

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. California

Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California.

Hoover, M. B., et al. 1990. (Revised by Douglas E. Kyle.) Historic spots in California. Stanford University Press.

Stanford, California.

Jennings, C. W., and R. G. Strand. 1959. Geologic map of California – Santa Cruz sheet. Scale 1:250,000. California

Division of Mines and Geology. Sacramento, California.

John Gilchrist & Associates, The Habitat Restoration Group, Philip Williams & Associates, Wetlands Research

Associates, and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. 1997. Salinas River Lagoon management and

enhancement plan. Prepared for the Salinas River Lagoon Task Force and the Monterey County Water Resources

Agency. Monterey, California.

Jones, T. L., and K. Hylkema. 1988. Two proposed projectile point types for the Monterey Bay Area: the Año Nuevo

longstem and the Rossi stemmed. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology. No. 3. Berkeley, California.

Jones, T. L., and D. A. Jones. 1992. Elkhorn Slough revisited: reassessing the chronology of CA-MNT-229. Journal

of California and Great Basin Anthropology 14(2):159–179.

Kroeber, A. L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. (Bulletin 78). Bureau of American Ethnology.

Washington, DC.

Levy, R. 1978. Costanoans. Pages 485–495 in R. L. Heizer (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8.

Smithsonian Institution. Washington, DC.

Margolin, M. 1978. The Ohlone way. Heyday Books. Berkeley, California.
APPENDIX A – Citations

Comprehensive Conservation Plan A-3

Mattinson, J. M., and E. W. James. 1985. Salinian block U-Pb age and isotopic variations: implications for origin and

emplacement of the Salinian terrane. Pages 215–226 in Howell, D. G. (ed.), Tectonostratigraphic terranes of the

circum-Pacific region. (Earth Science Series, No. 1.) Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Mineral Resources.

Houston, Texas.

Milliken, R. 1988. Ethnographic context. Chapter 4 in Dietz, S. A., W. Hildebrandt, and T. Jones. 1988.

Archaeological investigations at Elkhorn Slough: CA-MNT-229, a middle period site on the central California

coast. (Papers in Northern California Anthropology). Northern California Anthropological Group. Berkeley,

California.

Milliken, R., J. Nelson, W. Hildebrandt, and P. Mikkelsen. 1999. The Moss Landing Hill site, technical report on

archaeological Studies at CA-MNT-234. Manuscript submitted to California State University. Seal Beach,

California.

Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. 1999. Agricultural crop report 1998. Salinas, California.

Moratto, M. J. 1984. California archaeology. Academic Press. San Diego, California.

Page, G. W., and W. D. Shuford. 2000. Southern Pacific coast regional shorebird plan. Point Reyes Bird Observatory,

Stinson Beach, CA.

Pickart, A. J., and J. O. Sawyer. 1998. Ecology and restoration of Northern California Coastal Dunes. California

Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

Point Reyes Bird Observatory. July 2000. Personal communication - Director of Coastal and Estuarine Research

Gary Page.

Riparian Habitat Joint Venture. 2000. Version 1.0. The riparian bird conservation plan: a strategy for reversing the

decline of riparian associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. Available at:

http://www.prbo.org/CPIF/Riparian/Riparian.html.

Roberson, D. and C. Tenney, eds. 1993. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Monterey County, California. Monterey

Peninsula Audubon Society, Monterey, CA.

Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge. July 2000. Personal communication – Refuge Biologist Ivette Loredo.

Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge. April 12, 2000. Telephone conversation – Refuge Manager Chris Barr.

Sawyer, J. O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A manual of California vegetation. California Native Plant Society. 

Sacramento, CA.

Sedlock, R. L. Tectonic framework, origin, and evolution of the San Francisco Bay region. Pages 1–17 in Sanginés,

E. M., D. W. Andersen, and A. V. Buising, eds., 1995. Recent geologic studies in the San Francisco Bay area.

(Volume 26.) Pacific Section SEPM. Fullerton, California. 

Shuford, W. D., G. W. Page, J. G. Evans, and L. E. Stenzel. 1989. Seasonal abundance of waterbirds at Point Reyes:

a coastal California perspective. Western Birds 20:137–265.

Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Soil survey of Monterey County, California. U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Washington, DC.

State of California, Department of Transportation. 1999. 1998 traffic volumes on California state highways.

Sacramento, California.
APPENDIX A – Citations

A-4 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

State of California, Employment Development Department. 2000. Salinas MSA labor market information 1999–2000.

Sacramento, California.

Swernoff, M. 1981. A reconnaissance cultural resources survey of Fort Ord, California. Prepared under the direction

of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. Professional Analysts. Eugene, Oregon.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Flora and fauna baseline study of Fort Ord, California. Prepared with technical

assistance from Jones & Stokes. Sacramento, California.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1992. 1990 census of population and housing. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Defense. 1997. Real property contaminated with ammunition, explosives or chemical agents. 

Chapter 12 in Ammunition and Explosive Safety Standards. (Standard 6055.9-STD.) Office of the

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. Washington, DC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. California brown pelican recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region

1. Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Smith’s blue butterfly recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.

Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993a. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge predator management plan and final

environmental assessment. Newark, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened

status for the Pacific coast populations of the western snowy plover. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1,

Sacramento Field Office. Sacramento, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Seven coastal plants and the Myrtle’s silverspot butterfly recovery plan. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Ventura and Sacramento Field Offices. Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Refuge planning policy pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act as Amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Final Notice.

Federal Register 65:33892–33919.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment.

Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Newark, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Draft recovery plan for the western snowy plover. U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Ecological Services Office. Sacramento, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Biological Opinion for the Salinas River national Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (1-8-01-FW-66). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Office.

Ventura, California.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990. California Wildlife, Volume III:

Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.
Appendix B. Glossary of Terms
Blank page
Comprehensive Conservation Plan B-1

APPENDIX B

Glossary of Terms

Adaptive Management The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring to gain

information and experience necessary to assess and modify management

activities. A process that uses feedback from refuge research and

monitoring and evaluation of management actions to support or modify

objectives and strategies at all planning levels.

Alternatives Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge

purposes and goals, helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and

resolving issues.

Biological Diversity The variety of life, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic

differences among them, and the communities in which they occur.

Biological Integrity Biotic composition, structure, and function at the genetic, organism, and

community levels consistent with natural conditions, including the natural

biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities.

CFR Code of Federal Regulations.

Compatible Use A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, in

the sound professional judgment of the Director, will not materially

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge

System or the purposes of the refuge unit (Service Manual 603 FW 3.6).

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(CCP)

A document that: (1) describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or

planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management direction

to achieve the purposes of the refuge; (2) helps fulfill the mission of the

Refuge System; (3) maintains and, where appropriate, restores the

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; (4) helps

achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and (5)

meets other mandates. 

Concern See Issue.

Coordination Area A wildlife management area made available to a State, by “(A) cooperative

agreement between the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the

State fish and game agency pursuant to Section 4 of the Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 664); or (B) long-term leases or agreements

pursuant to the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525; 7 U.S.C.

1010 et seq.).” States manage Coordination Areas, but they are part of the

Refuge System. CCPs are not required for Coordination Areas.

Cultural Resource Overview A comprehensive document prepared for a field office that discusses,

among other things, an area’s prehistory and cultural history, the nature

and extent of known cultural resources in the area, relevant previous

research, management objectives, and resource management conflicts or

issues, and provides a general statement on how program objectives

should be met and conflicts resolved. An overview should reference or

incorporate information from a field offices background or literature

search as described in Section VIII of the Cultural Resource Management

Handbook (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7).
APPENDIX B – Glossary of Terms

B-2 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Cultural Resource Inventory A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate evidence

of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. There are

various levels of cultural resources inventories, including background

literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all exposed

physical manifestations of cultural resources, and sample inventory to

project site distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of

identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for the National

Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service Manual 614

FW 1.7).

Designated Wilderness Area An area designated by the United States Congress for management as

part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (Service Manual 610

FW 1.5).

Ecological Integrity The integration of biological integrity, natural biological diversity, and

environmental health; replication of natural ecological conditions.

Ecosystem A biological community together with its environment, functioning as a

unit. For administrative purposes, we have designated 53 ecosystems

covering the United States and its possessions. These ecosystems

generally correspond with watershed boundaries, and their sizes and

ecological complexity vary.

Ecosystem Approach An approach to conservation and restoration that focuses on protecting or

restoring the natural function, structure, and species composition of an

ecosystem, recognizing that all components are interrelated. 

Environmental Health Abiotic composition, structure, and function of the environment consistent

with natural conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape

the environment.

Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)

A detailed written statement, required by section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act, that analyzes the environmental impacts of a

proposed action, including unavoidable adverse effects of the project,

alternative courses of action, short-term uses of the environment versus

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 1508.11).

Environmental Assessment (EA) A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose of and need

for an action and the reasonable alternatives to the action, and analyzes

the action’s potential impacts in sufficient detail to determine whether to

prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of no significant

impact (40 CFR 1508.9).

Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI)

A document prepared in compliance with the National Environmental

Policy Act and supported by an environmental assessment that briefly

explains why a Federal action will have no significant effect on the natural

or human environment (40 CFR 1508.13).

Goal Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future

conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units.

Issue Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, such as an

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the

resources of the unit, conflict between uses, public concern, or the

presence of an undesirable resource condition.
APPENDIX B – Glossary of Terms

Comprehensive Conservation Plan B-3

Management Alternative See Alternative.

Management Concern See Issue.

Management Opportunity See Issue.

Mission Statement Succinct statement of the unit’s purpose and reason for being (Region 7

Planning Staff).

National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) A designated area of land or water, or an interest in land or water, within

the Refuge System (excluding Coordination Areas). Find a complete

listing of all units of the Refuge System in the current Annual Report of

Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

National Wildlife Refuge System

Mission (mission)

“The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands

and waters for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate,

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats

within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations

of Americans.”

National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969 (NEPA).

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the environmental

impacts of their actions and to incorporate environmental information and

public participation into the planning and implementation of all actions.

Federal agencies must integrate NEPA compliance with other planning

requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate

better environmental decision making (40 CFR 1500).

National Wildlife Refuge System,

Refuge System, or System

Various categories of lands, waters, and interests therein that are

administered by the Secretary of the Interior for the protection,

conservation, and where appropriate, restoration of fish and wildlife,

including species that are threatened with extinction; includes wildlife

ranges, game ranges, and wildlife management or waterfowl production

areas. 

No Action Alternative An alternative under which existing management would be continued. 

Non-Priority Public Uses Any use other than a compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use. 

Notice of Intent (NOI) A notice that an environmental impact statement will be prepared and

considered (40 CFR 1508.22). Published in the Federal Register.

Objective A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to

achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for

the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide the basis for

determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and

evaluating the success of strategies. Objectives should be attainable,

time-specific, and measurable.

Opportunities Potential solutions to issues. 

Planning Area The area upon which a planning effort will focus. A planning area may

include lands outside existing planning unit boundaries currently under

study for future inclusion in the Refuge System and/or partnership

planning efforts. It also may include watersheds or ecosystems that are

outside our jurisdiction but affect the planning unit. At a minimum, the

planning area includes all lands within the approved boundary of a refuge.
APPENDIX B – Glossary of Terms

B-4 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Planning Team Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and function. Teams

generally consist of a Planning Team Leader, the Refuge Manager and

staff biologists, a state natural resource agency representative, and other

appropriate program specialists (e.g., social scientist, ecologist, recreation

specialist). We also will ask other Federal and Tribal natural resource

agencies to provide team members, as appropriate. The planning team

prepares the CCP and appropriate NEPA documentation.

Planning Unit A single refuge, an ecologically or administratively related refuge

complex, or a distinct unit of a refuge. The planning unit also may include

lands currently outside refuge boundaries.

Preferred Alternative The Service’s selected alternative at the draft CCP stage. 

Prescribed Fire The application of fire to wildland fuels to achieve identified land use

objectives (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). May be ignited naturally or

intentionally.

Priority Public Uses Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation and photography, and environmental education and

interpretation) are the priority general public uses of the System and shall

receive priority consideration in refuge planning and management. 

Proposed Action The Service’s proposed action for Comprehensive Conservation Plans is to

prepare the CCP and implement the preferred alternative it outlines.

Public Involvement The process by which interested and affected individuals, organizations,

agencies, and governmental entities participate in the planning and

decision-making process. 

Public Involvement Plan Broad long-term guidance for involving the public in the comprehensive

planning process. 

Public Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, State, and local

government agencies; Native American tribes; and foreign nations. It may

include anyone outside the core planning team. It includes those who may

or may not have indicated an interest in Service issues and those who do

or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

Purposes of the Refuge “The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation,

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or

administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a

refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit.” For refuges that encompass

wilderness designated by Congress, the purposes of the Wilderness Act

are additional purposes of the refuge. 

Refuge Operating Needs System

(RONS)

The Refuge Operating Needs System is a national database that lists the

unfunded operational needs of each refuge. We include projects required

to implement approved plans and meet goals, objectives, and legal

mandates. 

Refuge Purposes The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive

order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative

memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, a refuge

unit, or refuge subunit (Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Refuge Goal See Goal.
APPENDIX B – Glossary of Terms

Comprehensive Conservation Plan B-5

Step-Down Management Plan A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects (e.g.,

habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It describes

strategies and implementation schedules for meeting CCP goals and

objectives.

Stakeholders The people who have a direct interest or involvement in something

(usually open space or urban lands or a plan for the management of such

lands). Stakeholders in a CCP usually include Service staff and members

of the local community. 

Strategy A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and

techniques used to meet unit objectives.

Tiering The practice of covering general matters in broader (“programmatic”)

environmental impact statements with subsequent narrower (“focused”)

statements addressing specific issues; focused documents incorporate by

reference the general discussions in the broader document (40 CFR

1508.28).

Trust Describes a resource that is committed to the stewardship of a legally

responsible agency (trustee agency) to be cared for or preserved in the

public interest. E.g., trust species.

Undertaking A project or plan initiated or overseen by a Federal agency; roughly

equivalent to the NEPA usage of action.

Unit Objective See Objective. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Mission

Our mission is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish,

wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the

American people.

Vision Statement A concise statement of the desired future condition of the planning unit,

based primarily upon the Refuge System mission, specific refuge purposes,

and other relevant mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Wilderness See Designated Wilderness.

Wilderness Review The process we use to determine whether we should recommend Refuge

System lands and waters to Congress for wilderness designation. The

wilderness review process consists of three phases: inventory, study, and

recommendation. The inventory is a broad look at the refuge to identify

lands and waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness. The

study evaluates all values (ecological, recreational, cultural), resources

(e.g., wildlife, water, vegetation, minerals, soils), and uses (management

and public) within the Wilderness Study Area. The findings of the study

determine whether we will recommend the area for designation as

wilderness.

Wildfire A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response; all fire other than

prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7).

Wildland Fire Every wildland fire is either a wildfire or a prescribed fire (Service Manual

621 FW 1.3). 
APPENDIX B – Glossary of Terms

B-6 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational

Use

“A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, or environmental education and interpretation.” These are

the six priority public uses of the Refuge System as established in the

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended.

Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other than the six priority public

uses, are those that depend on the presence of wildlife. We consider these

other uses in the preparation of refuge CCPs; however, the six priority

public uses will always take precedence.

Vision Statement A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we hope

to do, based primarily upon the Refuge System mission, specific refuge

purposes, and other mandates. We will tie the vision statement for the

refuge to the mission of the Refuge System, the purpose(s) of the refuge,

the maintenance or restoration of the ecological integrity of each refuge

and the Refuge System, and other mandates.
Appendix C. Refuge Plant List and SpecialStatus Species on the Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan C-1

APPENDIX C

Refuge Plant List and SpecialStatus Species on the Refuge

Table C-1. Refuge Plant List.

This list of plant species was generated by California Native Plant Society during a partial survey of the Refuge in

1992, with a few later additions by Refuge staff. It is not intended to be a definitive list.

ABRONIA LATIFOLIA - YELLOW SAND VERBENA

ABRONIA UMBELLATA - PINK SAND VERBINA/BEACH

VERBENA

ACER NEGUNDO - BOX ELDER

ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM VAR. ARENICOLA - (=A. BOREALIS

SSP. A.) COAST YARROW/SAND MILFOIL

AGOSERIS APARGIOIDES VAR. EASTWOODAE - AGOSERIS

ALNUS RHOMBIFOLIA - ALDER

AMBROSIA CHAMISSONIS - (=FRANSERIA C./F. C. SSP.

BIPINNATISECTA) BEACH BUR

AMMOPHILA ARENARIA - BEACH GRASS

AMSINCKIA SPECTABILIS - FIDDLENECK/SEASIDE AMSINCKIA

ANAGALLIS ARVENSIS - SCARLET PIMPERNEL

ARMERIA MARITIMA SSP. CALIFORNICA - THRIFT

ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA - CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH

ARTEMISIA DOUGLASIANA - MUGWORT

ARTEMISIA PYCNOCEPHALA - BEACH SAGEWORT

ASTER SUBSPICATUS - DOUGLAS’ ASTER

ATRIPLEX CALIFORNICA - SALTBUSH

ATRIPLEX LENTIFORMIS - QUAIL BRUSH

ATRIPLEX LEUCOPHYLLA - WHITELEAF SALTBUSH

ATRIPLEX PATULA SSP. HASTATA - ORACHE/FAT HEN

BACCHARIS DOUGLASII - DOUGLAS’ BACCHARIS

BACCHARIS GLUTINOSA - (=B. VIMINEA) WATER-WALLY/MULE 

FAT/SEEP-WILLOW

BACCHARIS PILULARIS VAR. CONSANGUINEA - COYOTE

BRUSH

BRASSICA RAPA SSP. OLIFERA - (=B. CAMPESTRIS) FIELD

MUSTARD

BROMUS CARINATUS- BROME

CAKILE MARITIMA - SEA ROCKET

CALYSTEGIA SOLDANELLA - BEACH MORNING-GLORY

CAMISSONIA CHEIRANTHIFOLIA - BEACH PRIMROSE

CARDIONEMA RAMOSISSIMUM - SANDMAT

CAREX OBNUPTA - SEDGE

CARPOBOTUS AEQUILATERUS - (=MESEMBRYANTHEMUM

CHILENSIS) SEA FIG

CASTILLEJA LATIFOLIA - INDIAN PAINT BRUSH/SEASIDE

PAINTED CUP

CENTAUREA MELITENSIS - TOCALOTE

CHENOPODIUM ALBUM - LAMB’S QUARTERS

CHENOPODIUM AMBROSIOIDES - (=C. A. VAR.

SUFFRUTICOSUM) MEXICAN TEA

CHENOPODIUM CALIFORNICUM - GOOSEFOOT/SOAP PLANT

CHLOROGALUM POMERIDIANUM VAR. DIVARICATUM - SOAP

ROOT/AMOLE

CHORIZANTHE CUSPIDATA VAR. MARGINATA - SAN

FRANCISCO SPINE-FLOWER

CHORIZANTHE PUNGENS - MONTEREY SPINE-FLOWER

CIRSIUM VULGARE - BULL THISTLE

CLAYTONIA PERFOLIATA - (=MONTIA P./ C. P. VAR.

NUBIGENA) MINERS LETTUCE

CORETHROGYNE CALIFORNICA - BEACH ASTER

MARAH FABACEUS - MANROOT/WILD CUCUMBER

MEDICAGO POLYMORPHA - (=M. HISPIDA/V.CONFINIS/V.

BREVISPINA) BUR-CLOVER

MELILOTUS ALBA - WHITE SWEET-CLOVER

MELILOTUS INDICA - SWEET-CLOVER

CORETHROGYNE LEUCOPHYLLA - BRANCHING BEACH

ASTER

CORNUS SERICEA - CREEKSIDE DOGWOOD 

COTULA CORONOPIFOLIA - BRASS BUTTONS

CRASSULA ERECTA - (=TILLAEA E.) SAND PIGMYWEED

CRYPTANTHA LEIOCARPA - COAST CRYPTANTHA

CUSCUTA SALINA - ALKALI DODDER

CUSCUTA SP. - DODDER

DESCHAMPSIA CAESPITOSA - HAIR GRASS

DISTICHLIS SPICATA - (=D. S. V. STOLONIFERA) SALT GRASS

DUDLEYA CAESPITOSA - SEA LETTUCE

DUDLEYA FARINOSA - LIVE FOREVER/BLUFF LETTUCE

ELYMUS GLAUCUS - BLUE WILD RYE

ELYMUS MOLLIS - DUNE RYE GRASS

ELYMUS PACIFICUS - GOULD’S RYE GRASS

EPILOBIUM CILIATHUM SSP. GLANDULOSUM - (=E.

 ADENOCAULON V. OCCIDENTALE) NORTHERN WILLOW

HERB

EPILOBIUM CILIATUM SSP. WATSONII - (=E. W./E. W. V.

FRANCISCANUM COAST COTTONWEED ERICAMERIA

ERICOIDES - (=HAPLOPAPPUS E.& SSP. BLAKEI)

MOCK HEATHER

ERIOGONUM LATIFOLIUM - BEACH BUCKWHEAT

ERIOGONUM PARVIFOLIUM - (=E. P. SSP. LUCIDUM) DUNE

BUCKWHEAT

ERIOPHYLLUM STAECHADIFOLIUM - (=E. S. VAR.

ARTEMISIIFOLIUM) LIZARD TAIL/GOLDEN YARROW

ERODIUM CICUTARIUM - RED-STEMMED FILAREE

ERYSIMUM AMMOPHILUM - DUNE WALLFLOWER

ESCHSCHOLZIA CALIFORNICA VAR. MARITIMA - 

CALIFORNIA/BEACH POPPY

FRANKENIA GRANDIFOLIA - ALKALI HEATH

GALIUM SP. - BEDSTRAW

GILIA TENUIFLORA - SLENDER-FLOWERED GILIA

GNAPHALIUM CALIFORNICUM - CALIFORNIA EVERLASTING

GNAPHALIUM CHILENSE - COTTON-BATTING PLANT

GNAPHALIUM PALUSTRE - EVERLASTING

GRINDELIA LATIFOLIA - COAST GUM PLANT

HELIOTROPIUM CURASSAVICUM VAR. OCULATUM - SEASIDE

HELIOTROPE

HORDEUM BRACHYANTHERUM - BARLEY 

JAUMEA CARNOSA - FLESHY MARSH-HERB/FLESHY JAUMEA

JUNCUS BUFONIOS - TOAD RUSH

JUNCUS LESEURII - SALT RUSH

LATHYRUS LITTORALIS - BEACH PEA

LINARIA TEXANA - (=L. CANADENSIS VAR. TEXANA) TOADFLAX

LOTUS HEERMANNII VAR. ERIOPHORUS - WOOLLY LOTUS

LOTUS SCOPARIUS - DEERWEED

LUPINUS ALBIFRONS - SILVER LUPINE

LUPINUS CHAMISSONIS - BLUE BUSH LUPINE

MALVA NICAEENSIS - BULL MALLOW

MALVA PARVIFLORA - CHEESEWEED
APPENDIX C – Refuge Plant List and

Special-Status Species

on the Refuge

C-2 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

OENANTHE SARMENTOSA - AMERICAN WATER-LOVAGE

OROBANCHE CALIFORNICA - (=O. GRAYANA VAR. NELSONII &

VIOLACEA)CALIFORNIA BROOMRAPE

ORTHOCARPUS FAUCIBARBATUS VAR. ALBIDUS - SMOOTH

ORTHOCARPUS

PARAPHOLIS INCURVA - SICKLE GRASS

PHACELIA DISTANS - WILD HELIOTROPE

PHACELIA RAMOSISSIMA - (=P. R. VAR. MONTEREYENSIS)

BRANCHING PHACELIA

PHALARIS AQUATICA - HARDING GRASS

PHRAGMITES AUSTRALIS - (=P. COMMUNIS) COMMON REED

PLAGIOBOTHRYS SP. - POPCORN FLOWER

PLANTAGO CORONOPUS - CUT-LEAVED PLANTAIN

PLATANUS RACEMOSA - SYCAMORE

POA DOUGLASII - DOUGLAS’ BLUE GRASS

POLYGONUM AMPHIBIUM - (=P. COCCINEUM) SWAMP

KNOTWEED

POLYGONUM AVICULARE - KNOTWEED

POLYGONUM PARONYCHIA - BEACH KNOTWEED

POLYPOGON MONSPELIENSIS - RABBITS-FOOT GRASS

POPULUS FREMONTII - COTTONWOOD

POTETILLA EGEDEI - (=P. E. VAR. GRANDIS) PACIFIC

SILVERWEED

PSORALEA ORBICULARIS - ROUNDLEAF PSORALEA

ROSA CALIFORNICA - CALIFORNIA WILD ROSE

RUBUS URSINUS - (=R. VITIFOLIUS) PACIFIC BLACKBERRY

RUMEX CONGLOMERATUS - GREEN OR CLUSTERED DOCK

RUMEX CRASSUS - DOCK

RUMEX CRISPUS - CURLY DOCK

RUMEX MARITIMUS VAR. PERSICARIOIDES - (=R. P.) PERSIAN

DOCK

RUMEX OCCIDENTALIS VAR. FENESTRATUS - (=R. F.) MARSH

DOCK

SALIX HINDSIANA - SAND BAR WILLOW

SALIX LASIOLEPIS - ARROYO WILLOW

SARCOCORNIA PACIFICA - (=SALICORNIA P.) PICKLEWEED/

SAMPHIRE

SCIRPUS SP. - TULE

SIDA HEDERACEA - (=S. LEPROSA VAR. H.) ALKALI MALLOW

SILENE SP. - CATCHFLY

SOLIDAGO OCCIDENTALIS - (=EUTHAMIA O.) WESTERN

GOLDENROD

SONCHUS OLERACEUS - COMMON SOW THISTLE

SORGHUM HALEPENSE - JOHNSON GRASS

SPERGULARIA BOCCONII - BOCCONE’S SAND SPURREY

SPERGULARIA RUBRA - PURPLE SAND SPURRY

STACHYS CHAMISSONIS - HEDGE NETTLE

STACHYS SP. - HEDGE NETTLE

STELLARIA LITTORALIS - CHICKWEED

TETRAGONIA TETRAGONIOIDES - (=T. EXPANSA) NEW

ZEALAND SPINACH

TOXICODENDRON DIVERSILOBUM - (=RHUS D.) POISON OAK

TYPHA LATIFOLA - BROAD-LEAVED CAT-TAIL/SOFT FLAG

VERONICA ANAGALLIS-AQUATICA - WATER SPEEDWELL

VULPIA OCTOFLORA - (=FESTUCA O.) SIX WEEKS FESCUE

XANTHIUM STRUMARIUM VAR. CANADENSE - COCKLEBUR

 
APPENDIX C – Refuge Plant List and

Special-Status Species

on the Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan C-3

Table C-2. Special-status species on the Refuge.

Legal Statusa

Common and Scientific Name Federal/BCC/State/CNPS Occurrence at Salinas River NWR

Plants

Sandmat manzanita

Arctostaphylos pumila

–/–/1B Not reported to occur at the Refuge but suitable habitat present.

Monterey spineflower

Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens

T/–/1B Occurs on the Refuge; suitable habitat abundant on dunes and species

also occurs nearby. 

Robust spineflower

Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta

E/–/1B No populations known to occur at the Refuge; occurs in dunes

immediately north and south of Refuge.

Seaside bird’s-beak

Cordylanthus rigidus ssp. littoralis

–/E/1B Not reported to occur at the Refuge; suitable habitat present.

Eastwood’s goldenbush

Ericameria fasciculata

–/–/1B Not reported to occur at the Refuge; suitable habitat present.

Coast wallflower

Erysimum ammophilum

–/–/1B Not reported to occur at the Refuge; suitable habitat present.

Menzies’ wallflower

Erysimum menziesii ssp. menziesii

E/E/1B Probably occurred historically at the Refuge; no populations

currently known from the site. 

Yadon’s wallflower

Erysimum menziesii ssp. yadonii

E/E/1B A population of this species was located on the Refuge in the 1970s,

but was likely extirpated in 1980 by natural disturbance of the central

foredune community.

Monterey gilia

Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria

E/T/1B Occurs on the Refuge and at Salinas River State Beach north of the

Refuge.

Tidestrom’s lupine

Lupinus tidestromii

E/E/1B Not reported to occur at the Refuge; suitable habitat present.

Wildlife

Smith’s blue butterfly

Euphilotes (=Shijimaeoides) enoptes

smithi

E/– Occurs at the Refuge.

Steelhead

Oncorhynchus mykiss

T/– Collected in Salinas River Lagoon in 1963 and 1991. Small numbers

likely occur at the Refuge. 

Southwestern pond turtle

Clemmys marmorata pallida

–/SSC No known occurrences at the Refuge; occurrences have been

reported in the vicinity.

Black legless lizard

Anniella pulchra nigra

–/SSC Occurs at the Refuge in the central foredune and central dune scrub

communities.

Common loon

Gavia immer

–/SSC Often forages in the Salinas River Lagoon during winter migration.

American white pelican

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

–/SSC A small flock often forages and roosts in the Salinas River Lagoon

from July through March.

California brown pelican

Pelecanus occidentalis

E/E Occurs year-round at the Refuge; most common between April and

December. 

Double-crested cormorant

Phalacrocorax auritus

–/SSC Roosts and forages around the Salinas River Lagoon.

White-faced ibis

Plegadis chihi

--/SSC Has been observed at the Refuge during fall and winter migrations.

Osprey

Pandion haliaetus

–/SSC Often forages at the Refuge during fall and spring migrations.

White-tailed kite

Elanus leucurus

–/FP Often forages at the Refuge during winter; known to nest in the

vicinity.

Bald eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

T/E May forage occasionally at the Salinas River Lagoon during fall,

winter, and spring.

Northern harrier

Circus cyaneus

–/SSC Commonly forages at the Refuge; may nest onsite.

Sharp-shinned hawk

Accipiter striatus

–/SSC Uncommon winter visitor to the area; forages at the Refuge.
APPENDIX C – Refuge Plant List and

Special-Status Species

on the Refuge

Table C-2. Special-status species on the Refuge.

Legal Statusa

Common and Scientific Name Federal/BCC/State/CNPS Occurrence at Salinas River NWR

C-4 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Cooper’s hawk

Accipiter cooperii

–/SSC Uncommon winter visitor to the area; forages at the Refuge.

Golden eagle

Aquila chrysaetos

PR/SSC, FP May forage occasionally at the Refuge.

Prairie falcon

Falco mexicanus

–/R,C/SSC Uncommon winter visitor to the area; forages at the Refuge.

Merlin

Falco columbarius

–/SSC Uncommon winter visitor to the area; forages at the Refuge.

American peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus anatum

–/R,C/E Uncommon winter visitor to the area; forages at the Refuge.

Whimbrel

Numenius phaeopus

–/R,C/– Common in the Salinas River Lagoon and in coastal brackish marsh

and northern coastal salt marsh communities at the Refuge.

California clapper rail

Rallus longirostris obsoletus

E/E/FP Reported once from the Refuge; no suitable nesting habitat is found

onsite.

Greater sandhill crane

Grus canadensis tabida

–/T Very rare spring and fall migrant at the Refuge and in the vicinity.

Western snowy plover

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus

T/SSC

(coastal)

Year-round resident at the Refuge. The beach provides one of the

most important breeding areas for this species in the Monterey Bay

area.

Mountain plover

Charadrius montanus

C/R,C/SSC Rare winter visitor to the Refuge.

Long-billed curlew

Numenius americanus

–/R,C/SSC Common in the Salinas River Lagoon and in coastal brackish marsh

and northern coastal salt marsh communities at the Refuge.

Red knot

Calidris canutus

–/R,C/– Common in the Salinas River Lagoon and in coastal brackish marsh

and northern coastal salt marsh communities at the Refuge.

Marbled godwit

Limosa fedoa

–/R,C/– Common in the Salinas River Lagoon and in coastal brackish marsh

and northern coastal salt marsh communities at the Refuge.

Short-billed dowitcher

Limnodromus griseus

–/R,C/– Common in the Salinas River Lagoon and in coastal brackish marsh

and northern coastal salt marsh communities at the Refuge.

California gull

Larus californicus

–/SSC Very common visitor to the Refuge.

California least tern

Sterna antillarum (=albifrons) browni

E/E Historically nested onsite; now an occasional spring migrant.

Elegant tern

Sterna elegans

--/R,C/SSC A large local population roosts and forages at the Refuge.

Black skimmer

Rynchops niger

–/R,C/SSC Occasionally forages in the Salinas River Lagoon. Potential nesting

habitat is present.

Short-eared owl

Asio flammeus

–/SSC Suitable nesting and foraging habitat occurs in tall grassland habitat

at the Refuge.

Western burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia hypugea

--/SSC Rare fall migrant and occasional wintering birds in the vicinity of the

Refuge.

Willow flycatcher

Empidonax traillii

--/E Rare winter and spring migrant in central coast arroyo willow

riparian forest near the Refuge.

Black swift

Cypseloides niger

–/R,C/SSC Rare spring and fall migrant through the Refuge.

Loggerhead shrike

Lanius ludovicianus

–/R,C/SSC Common resident at the Refuge.

California yellow warbler

Dendroica petechia brewsteri

–/SSC May nest in central coast arroyo willow riparian forest near the

Refuge.

Purple martin

Progne subis

–/SSC Rare spring and late-summer migrant through the Refuge.
APPENDIX C – Refuge Plant List and

Special-Status Species

on the Refuge

Table C-2. Special-status species on the Refuge.

Legal Statusa

Common and Scientific Name Federal/BCC/State/CNPS Occurrence at Salinas River NWR

Comprehensive Conservation Plan C-5

Common yellowthroat

Geothlypis trichas sinuosa

–/C/SSC May nest in central coast arroyo willow riparian forest near the

Refuge.

Song sparrow

Melospiza melodia

–/C/– Common resident at the Refuge.

Bank swallow

Riparia riparia

–/T Rare spring and summer migrant through the Refuge.

Yellow-breasted chat

Icteria virens

–/SSC Rare spring and fall migrant in riparian scrub at the Refuge.

Tricolored blackbird

Agelaius tricolor

–/R,C/SSC Occasionally forages at the Refuge.

Southern sea otter

Enhydra lutris nereis

T/FP Occasionally observed in offshore areas of the Refuge

a

Status explanations:

Federal

E = listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

T = listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

PE = proposed for listing as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

PR = protected under the Golden Eagle Protection Act.

PT = proposed for listing as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

C = species for which the Service has sufficient information on file regarding biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support

issuance of a proposed rule to list.

– = no listing.

 Birds of Conservation Concern(BCC)

Species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become

candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This is a congressionally mandated list, compiled by USFWS as mandated

by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (1988 amendment).

R = Regional.

C = South Pacific Coast California.

State

E = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act.

T = listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act.

R = listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act. (This category is no longer used for newly listed plants, but some

plants previously listed as rare retain this designation.) 

C = species is a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act.

SSC = California State species of special concern.

FP = species is fully protected in California under California Fish and Game Code Section 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), or 5050

(reptiles and amphibians).

– = no listing.

 California Native Plant Society

1A = List 1A (species presumed extinct in California).

1B = List 1B (species rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere).

2 = List 2 (species rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere).

3 = List 3 (species about which more information is needed to determine their status). 

4 = List 4 (species of limited distribution).

– = no listing.

Sources: California Native Plant Society 2001, California Department of Fish and Game 2002.
APPENDIX C – Refuge Plant List and

Special-Status Species

on the Refuge

C-6 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Appendix D. Relationship between Vegetation

Types Used in this CCP and National

Vegetation Classification System
Blank page
Comprehensive Conservation Plan D-1

APPENDIX D

Matrix Showing Relationship

between Vegetation Types

Used in this CCP and

National Vegetation

Classification System

CCP Vegetation Type

(Holland 1986)

National Vegetation Classification System 

(Federal Geographic Data Committee 1997)

Alliance Formation Class – Subclass – Group

Northern coastal salt

marsh

Salicornia (bigelovii,

virginica) tidal

herbaceous alliance

Tidal temperate

perennial forb vegetation

V.B.2. Herbaceous –

Perennial forb –

Temperate or subpolar

perennial forb

Coast brackish marsh n/a Tidal temperate or

subpolar grassland

V.A.5. Herbaceous –

Perennial graminoid

vegetation – Temperate

or subpolar grassland

Central coast riparian

scrub

Salix lasiolepis

temporarily flooded

shrubland alliance

Temporarily flooded

cold-deciduous shrubland

III.B.2. Shrubland –

Deciduous shrubland –

Cold deciduous

shrubland

Central foredunes n/a Dunes with sparse

herbaceous vegetation

VII.C.1. Sparse

vegetation –

Unconsolidated material

sparse vegetation –

Sparsely vegetated sand

dunes

Central dune scrub Lupinus arboreus

shrubland alliance

Temperate broad-leaved

evergreen shrubland

III.A.2. Shrubland –

Evergreen shrubland –

Temperate broad-leaved

evergreen shrubland

Coyote brush scrub Baccharis pilularis

shrubland alliance

Microphyllous evergreen

shrubland

III.A.4. Shrubland –

Evergreen shrubland –

Microphyllous evergreen

shrubland
APPENDIX D – Vegetation Types Used in this

CCP and National Vegetation

Classification System

D-2 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Appendix E. Planning Team Members and

Persons Responsible for Preparing this

Document
Blank page
Comprehensive Conservation Plan E-1

APPENDIX E 

List of Planning Team

Members and Persons

Responsible for Preparing 

this Document

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Christopher Barr*

Don DeLong*

Mark Pelz*

Ivette Loredo*

Matt Gay*

Sandy Spakoff

Margaret Kolar*

Marc Webber*

Diane Kodama

Leslie Lew

Loretta McCorkle

Joelle Buffa

Charles Houghten

Rachel Hurt

Refuge Manager, Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes NWR

(Former Refuge Manager, Salinas River NWR)

Former Team Leader, CA/NV Refuge Planning Office

Refuge Planner, GIS Analyst, CA/NV Refuge Planning Office 

Refuge Manager, Salinas River NWR 

Former Chief of Public Use, San Francisco Bay NWR Complex 

Chief of Public Use, San Francisco Bay NWR Complex

Program Manager, San Francisco Bay NWR Complex

Former Assistant Program Manager, San Francisco Bay NWR Complex

Refuge Biologist, Salinas River NWR

Landscape Architect, CA/NV Refuge Planning Office

Technical Editor, CA/NV Refuge Planning Office

Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, San Francisco Bay NWR Complex

Chief, Refuge Planning Division, Region 1

Wildlife Biologist, San Francisco Bay NWR Complex

Jones & Stokes

Daniel Airola

David Zippin, Ph.D.*

Selene Jacobs*

Trevor Burwell, Ph.D.

Keith Casey

Jennifer Housley

Debby Jew

Simon Page

Ray Weiss

Bill Norton

Wendy Young

Shannon George

Tom Engels, Ph.D.

Anna Buising, Ph.D.

Christy Anderson

Tim Messick

Jody Job

Principal-in-Charge

Project Manager

Project Coordinator

Biological Resources

Biological Resources 

Planning Updates, Mailing List

Mailing List 

Hydrology, Soils

Socioeconomics

Cultural Resources

NEPA Compliance

NEPA Compliance

NEPA Compliance

Managing Technical Writer/Editor

Graphic Artist

Graphic Artist

Communications Specialist

* Member of CCP Planning Team
APPENDIX E – List of Planning Team Members

and Persons Responsible for

Preparing this Document

E-2 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
Appendix F. Wilderness Review
Blank page
Comprehensive Conservation Plan F-1

APPENDIX F

Wilderness Review

A wilderness review is the process used by the Service to determine

whether or not to recommend lands or waters in the National Wildlife

Refuge System to Congress for designation as wilderness. The Service is

required to conduct a wilderness review for each refuge as part of the CCP

process. Lands or waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness

are identified in a CCP and further evaluated to determine whether they

merit recommendation for inclusion in the Wilderness System.

According to Section 13 of the Service’s Director’s Order No. 125 (12 July

2000), in order for a refuge to be considered for wilderness designation, all

or part of the refuge must:

O Be affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the human imprint

substantially unnoticeable;

O Have outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and

unconfined type of recreation;

O Have at least 5,000 contiguous acres (2,000 ha) or be sufficient in size to

make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, or

be capable of restoration to wilderness character through appropriate

management, at the time of review; or

O Be a roadless island.

The Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) comprises 366 acres,

which is much smaller than the area required for designation as

wilderness. Moreover, the Refuge contains much evidence of past human

use, including roads, an abandoned bomb shelter, and an early successional

plant community that began to develop following the cessation of

agriculture on the site. For these reasons, the Refuge does not meet the

criteria for wilderness designation.

Appendix G. Compatibility Determinations

G-1

Compatibility Determination

Use: Waterfowl Hunting 

Refuge Name: Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Monterey County, California

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for

Wildlife, or other purposes (16 U.S.C. 667b). 

Refuge Purpose(s): “Particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird

management program” (16 U.S.C. 667b).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge

System is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,

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

their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of

Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use(s): The Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) proposes to

continue to provide limited opportunities for hunting that are compatible with the Refuge

purpose. Hunting is identified as a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System

under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Hunting of waterfowl,

including Canada geese (Branta canadensis), mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), American coots

(Fulica americana), and common moorhens (Gallinula chloropus), would be permitted in the

designated hunting area along the south bank of the Salinas River. The Refuge would remain

closed to all other forms of hunting and target shooting. 

The Refuge proposes to allow waterfowl hunting along the Salinas River, on approximately 38

acres of the Refuge or approximately 10% of the entire Refuge. This proposed hunt area

represents a 15% reduction from the existing 45 acre hunt area (see Figures 5 and 6 in the Draft

CCP). The existing hunt area along the northern 800 linear feet of the Salinas River would be

eliminated to minimize disturbance to brown pelicans roosting along the Salinas River lagoon, 

the area closest to the rivermouth. The hunting area is delineated by signs; only pedestrian

access is permitted. During the hunting season, hunting dogs are allowed off leash and under

voice control for the purpose of retrieving waterfowl from the river. All firearms must remain

unloaded until hunters are within the designated hunt area. 

The size of the existing hunting area currently limits hunting use to approximately 15 hunters per

day or 250 hunter visits annually; a maximum count of 16 hunters per day was recorded on
G-2

opening day in October 1999. Refuge staff estimate 4-6 hunters per day on the Refuge during

the waterfowl hunt season, typically from October through January. Hunting use has been, and

would be expected to continue to be, heaviest on the weekends and on Wednesdays. The

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments predicts that Monterey County’s population

will increase by 27% between 2000 and 2015 (www.ambag.org, accessed 5/24/01). Overall use

of the Refuge will likely increase proportionally, but hunting use is expected to increase less

rapidly than nonconsumptive uses, and may decrease because of the proposed decrease in the

size of the hunting area. For additional details about this proposed use, please see the Salinas

River National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2002) as well

as the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and

Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2001), which are herein incorporated by reference.

Availability of Resources: Adequate funding and staff exist to manage the waterfowl hunting

program at the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge. It is estimated that 10% of a full-time

employee would be necessary to provide law enforcement support, maintain the trail, and

monitor hunting use. This would be accomplished concurrently with enforcing and monitoring

the other priority public uses. Without additional staff time, existing staff could provide periodic

law enforcement. Law enforcement support would also be provided by California Department of

Fish and Game wardens under a cooperative agreement with the Refuge. Additional staff time

would be needed to adequately monitor hunting use on the Refuge. Additional funding would

also be needed for the interpretive signs and materials. Those costs are incorporated into the

Compatibility Determination for environmental education and interpretation. The Refuge would

pursue a variety of funding sources in order to fully support this use, including agreements with

other agencies, and grant funding and volunteer assistance for monitoring.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Impacts are also discussed in Chapter 5 of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2001).

Endangered and Threatened Species: Human activity, including hunting, can have adverse

impacts on rare species that utilize the Refuge for nesting, roosting, or foraging. 

The endangered California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) utilizes the

lagoon at the mouth of the Salinas River, islands near the river mouth, and portions of the beach

strand as roosting sites, particularly from April through December. Disturbance to roosting

pelicans can occur in the northern 15% of the existing hunting area, where hunters are in close

proximity to the mouth of the river and the northernmost, largest island. Disturbance from

hunting dogs and from firearm discharge in close proximity to the roosting area can cause the

birds to flush, resulting in stress to roosting birds. Reoccurring disturbance could ultimately

cause the birds to abandon this roost site.

The Refuge’s dune habitats are known to support several special-status species, including: two

federally listed plants, the Monterey gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria) and the Monterey
G-3

spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens); Smith’s blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes

smithi) (federally listed as endangered); and the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus

nivosus) (federally listed as threatened). Dune habitats on the Refuge are closed to the public,

and hunters do not need to walk through dune or beach habitat to access the hunt area. The most

direct route to the hunt area is along a trail through the grassland habitat on the Refuge (see

Figures 2 and 3 in the CCP). Therefore, negative impacts on these species are not expected. 

An Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation was conducted on the entire draft CCP. The resulting

Biological Opinion (BO) (USFWS 2002b) concluded that adoption of the preferred alternative is

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the listed species on the Refuge nor

adversely modify critical habitat. With regard to hunting, the BO states that the proposed 7-acre

reduction of the hunt area would remove hunting activities from within 650 yards of brown

pelican roosting sites and should reduce the frequency at which, or eliminate entirely, the

potential adverse effects to listed species.

Riparian and Grassland Habitats: The Refuge is actively involved in the restoration of the

riparian and grassland habitats near the hunting area. Human activity (hunters accessing the

hunt area) has the potential to adversely affect the restoration of these habitats. 

Migratory Birds: Human activity may disturb nontarget migratory birds in upland, riparian, and

aquatic habitats on the Refuge. Hunters may accidentally take nontarget migratory birds as a

result of misidentification. Select numbers of waterfowl belonging to target species would be

taken by hunters each season, but this is not expected to result in a significant adverse effect on

their populations because of the small number of hunters expected to use the Refuge. Flyway

hunting limits are set annually.

Other Biological Resources: Litter discarded by hunters can entangle wildlife or be ingested,

resulting in injury or death. Because of the limited number of visitors to the Refuge, this would

not pose a significant problem and could be handled with existing staff.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comment was conducted concurrent with the

public review and comment period for the CCP and associated Environmental Assessment. 

Please refer to Appendix K in the Final CCP (USFWS 2002) for a review of public comments

and Refuge responses.

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
G-4

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

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 disturbance and decreasing the

possibility of target misidentification. Hunters will also be required to use approved non-toxic

shot while on the Refuge.

As discussed in Description of Use(s) above, hunting use is expected to increase less rapidly than

nonconsumptive uses, and may decrease because of the proposed decrease in the size of the

hunting area. Annual monitoring of hunter use and impacts will be implemented. The

information gathered will be used to review and possibly revise hunting regulations to enhance

the quality and safety of the Refuge’s hunting program, and ensure hunting would continue to be

compatible with the Refuge purpose and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System

(System).

The Refuge will maintain a walking 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 walking trail

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. Additional interpretive materials will be installed in the orientation kiosk

to interpret Refuge regulations and the laws governing take of migratory waterfowl and to reduce

likelihood of take of nontarget species.

The Refuge will maintain an active law enforcement presence, by using Refuge officers and

through a cooperative agreement with California Department of Fish and Game, to ensure public

compliance with hunting regulations and the stipulations presented herein. The Refuge will

increase law enforcement patrols, especially during the opening weeks of the season, to

document hunter use and ensure compliance with Refuge regulations. 

Justification: The Refuge is one of two sites in the local area open for public waterfowl hunting

during the hunting season and offers the only local waterfowl hunting area that can be accessed

on foot. The nearest alternative location for public waterfowl hunting is the state-owned Moss

Landing Wildlife Area, approximately 10 miles to the north, which can only be accessed by boat. 

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. The Refuge is thus a key resource for local

waterfowl hunters.

Hunting is identified as a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System)

under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, along with fishing,

environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography. As an expressed

priority use of the Refuge system, this use takes precedence over other potential public uses in

Refuge planning and management. The Service strives to provide priority public uses when

compatible with the purpose of the Refuge and the mission of the System. Approximately 80
G-5

acres of Refuge land along the Salinas River is conducive to hunting; hunting would be

permitted in an area of approximately 38 acres (2,800 linear feet of riverbank). With the

reduction of the hunting area and management conducted in accordance with the stipulations

herein, waterfowl hunting would not be expected to result in adverse impacts to Refuge

resources and would be compatible with the Refuge purpose and System mission. 

Mandatory Reevaluation Date (provide month and year):

Dec. 2017 Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date (for priority public uses)

________ Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date (for all uses other than priority

public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

Conducted with Comprehensive Conservation Plan

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, December 2002. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002b. Biological Opinion for the Salinas

River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (1-8-01-FW-66). U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, August 2001. U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

G-7

Compatibility Determination

Use: Surf Fishing

Refuge Name: Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Monterey County, California

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for

Wildlife, or other purposes (16 U.S.C. 667b).

Refuge Purpose(s): “Particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird

management program” (16 U.S.C. 667b)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge

System is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,

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

their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of

Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use(s): The Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is currently open

to the public for access to surf fishing every day. The State Lands Commission has reserved all

lands below mean high water (surf zone) for public access; thus, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) does not own these tidal lands and does not have the authority to regulate surf

fishing or to close the beach to the public. However, the Refuge does provide access to surf

fishing opportunities that are adjacent to our boundary. Because the Refuge boundary is the

mean high water line, visitors who surf fish along the Refuge boundary also likely use Refuge

lands while fishing (for example, to set up lines, place their gear, or rest). Access to the surf

zone through the Refuge is by foot only along the 1-mile beach trail. Fishing is not allowed in

other parts of the Refuge, such as the Salinas River and the saline pond. The Refuge proposes to

continue to allow this public access to surf fishing. The National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997 identifies fishing as a priority public use for national wildlife refuges,

along with hunting, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and

photography.

Species of ocean fish caught in waters off the Refuge include surfperch (Amphistichis spp.) and

striped bass (Morone saxatilis). Surf fishing is a year-round use, with an estimated maximum of

6–10 individuals utilizing the Refuge to access the surf zone every day. Peak periods include

weekends and times when striped bass are foraging close to shore. For additional details about

this proposed use, please see the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive

Conservation Plan (USFWS 2002) as well as the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge Draft
G-8

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2001), which are

herein incorporated by reference.

Availability of Resources: Adequate funding and staff exist to manage for surf fishing access

via the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge. It is estimated that 10% of a full-time employee

would be necessary to provide law enforcement support and maintenance. This would be

accomplished concurrently with enforcing and monitoring the other priority public uses. 

Without additional staff time, existing staff can provide periodic law enforcement. Law

enforcement support would also be provided by California Department of Fish and Game

wardens under a cooperative agreement with the Refuge. Additional funding would also be

needed for the interpretive signs, interpretive materials, and kiosk. Those costs are incorporated

into the Compatibility Determination for environmental education and interpretation. The

Refuge would pursue a variety of funding sources in order to fully support this use, including

agreements with other agencies, and grant funding and volunteer assistance for monitoring.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Impacts are also discussed in Chapter 5 of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2001).

Endangered and Threatened Species: Human activity can have adverse impacts on rare

shore-nesting birds, especially during nesting and foraging activities. The western snowy plover

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), federally listed as threatened, is of primary concern to the

Refuge. The Service strives to provide optimum breeding conditions for the western snowy

plover, whose breeding habitat has become increasingly scarce due to development and heavy

public use of beaches throughout its range. However, in recent years, the number of breeding

snowy plovers on the Refuge, and throughout the species’ range, has decreased as a result of

adverse weather conditions on their wintering grounds and heavy predation by native and

nonnative wildlife. Although current levels of public use are low, human activity in the dunes

and beaches during the snowy plover breeding season has the potential to adversely affect plover

reproductive success. Western snowy plovers utilize the entire beach profile, from the foredune

through the coastal strand into the intertidal zone (between mean low tide and mean high tide

lines) for breeding and foraging. Pedestrians entering the foredune and coastal strand habitats

during the breeding season have the potential to trample well-camouflaged western snowy plover

eggs and/or chicks or to disturb adults, keeping them away from the nest for extended periods of

time, leaving the eggs or chicks vulnerable to predators, wind, and/or extreme temperatures.

Other federally listed species at the Refuge include: Smith’s blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes

smithi) and the Monterey gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria), federally listed as endangered;

and the Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens), federally listed as

threatened. Visitors walking over the dunes have the potential to damage endangered and

threatened dune plants and to introduce invasive species through inadvertent transfer of seeds or

other propagules. They may also disturb Smith’s blue butterfly or its host plants. The potential

for illegal collection of rare plants, animals, and insects at the Refuge is an additional concern.
G-9

An Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation was conducted on the entire draft CCP. The resulting

Biological Opinion (BO) (USFWS 2002b) concluded that adoption of the preferred alternative is

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the listed species on the Refuge nor

adversely modify critical habitat. With regard to general public access, the BO states that the

proposed installation of interpretive signs and symbolic fencing would reduce effects of human

disturbance to listed species, and that public use activities would not reduce the ability of the

listed species to survive and recover.

Coastal Dunes and Wetlands: The potential for visitors to trample and destroy native dune and

wetland vegetation is of concern. 

Riparian and Grassland Habitats: The Refuge is actively involved in the restoration of riparian

and grassland habitats. Off-trail human activity in these habitats can slow restoration efforts.

Migratory Birds: Human activity may disturb migratory birds utilizing the Refuge’s habitats for

foraging or nesting. Human activities near the wetland habitats could disturb foraging and

nesting migratory birds, including black-necked stilts (Himantopus mexicanus), American

avocets (Recurvirostra americana), and black skimmers (Rynchops niger), known to nest along

the banks of the saline pond.

Other Biological Resources: Litter discarded by hunters can entangle wildlife or be ingested,

resulting in injury or death. Because of the limited number of visitors to the Refuge, this would

not pose a significant problem and could be handled with existing staff.

Surf fishing is allowed on State Beaches immediately north and a few miles south of the Refuge

boundary. Some of the public access the Refuge from the north or south, along the beach. The

ability to limit use of the tidal zone is regulated by the State Lands Commission. Therefore,

should the Refuge close access through the Refuge for surf fishing, the public would still be able

to access the tidal zone adjacent to the Refuge by walking along the beach from neighboring

properties. However, concern about protecting rare native plants and animals and the overall

integrity of the dune system requires that public use be monitored to avoid adverse impacts. 

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comment was conducted concurrent with the

public review and comment period for the CCP and associated Environmental Assessment. 

Please refer to Appendix K in the Final CCP (USFWS 2002) for a review of public comments

and Refuge responses.

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
G-10

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: To continue to allow public access to the

Refuge, the following measurers would be taken.

Western snowy plover breeding activities on the Refuge and throughout the Monterey Bay area

have been closely monitored by Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) since 1984. The Refuge

will continue to partner with PRBO to monitor and document western snowy plover use of the

Refuge and document causes of disturbance and mortality, including human disturbance. Other

threatened and endangered species and Refuge resources will also be monitored by Refuge staff

as well as public compliance with Refuge regulations. 

Clearer “Closed Area” signs would be installed at the boundary of the sensitive dune habitat by

2003.

In coordination with other agencies, such as State Parks and California Department of Fish and

Game, the Refuge will develop and implement a docent program by 2006, to educate members

of the public who use the Refuge during the snowy plover breeding season on the ecology of the

plover and the sensitivity of the species’ habitat and nests to disturbance. The docent program

will also collect data on public use and disturbance to nesting shorebirds. 

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 kiosk at the entrance will clearly state that dogs and horses are not allowed

on the Refuge (except hunting dogs during the waterfowl season), and will include three signs:

(1) a sign providing a trail map, trail information, and regulations;

(2) a sign that describes the National Wildlife Refuge System; and

(3) an interchangeable sign for hunting season and snowy plover nesting season.

The trail from the parking lot to the beach will be well-marked. Symbolic fencing will be

installed to guide public access through the dunes to the beach at the end of the trail. This will

minimize trespass through closed areas, which has been a problem in the past, and will reduce

disturbance to nesting birds and endangered and threatened plants within the dune habitat. If

trespass continues to be a problem in the foredunes, symbolic fencing will also be installed along

the foredune-beach boundary.

The Refuge will maintain an active law enforcement presence, by using Refuge officers and

through a cooperative agreement with California Department of Fish and Game and California

Department of Parks and Recreation, to ensure public compliance with all Refuge rules and

regulations. Refuge law enforcement and other Refuge staff presence will be increased to ensure

compliance with Refuge regulations.

Access to the Refuge will be allowed only between sunrise and sunset, unless a permit for

alternative hours is acquired from the Refuge Manager in advance. Although the Refuge

manager has the authority to close certain areas to public access, the State Lands Commission
G-11

has reserved all lands below mean high water for public access. Thus, complete closure of the

beach profile by the Service is not possible. However, public access to the Refuge will be

restricted to areas where access will put minimal stress on endangered and threatened animal and

plant populations. Visitors will be directed to remain a safe distance from snowy plover nesting

areas with signs and barriers, and by Refuge personnel and trained volunteers. Visitors will be

directed away from areas where native plant restoration projects are under way, to prevent

damage to fragile plants by trampling or by the introduction of nonnative plant species.

Justification: Currently, the Refuge’s visitor use is relatively low; an estimated average of 6–10

visitors per day use the Refuge for access to surf fishing. Total visitor use of surrounding State

Beaches averages 250,000 visitors per year, compared to the estimated annual use of

4,000–6,000 visitors per year on the Refuge. The Refuge does not anticipate a substantial

increase in overall visitor use over the next 15 years, for the following reasons: no public use

facilities, such as plumbed restrooms or picnic tables, are available, nor will they be constructed;

inland access to the Refuge is via an unpaved road; and beach access is along a walking trail that

is approximately 1 mile long. In addition, many nearby State Beaches will continue to be

available that have easier access, offer many public use facilities, and support a wider variety of

uses. At present, the Refuge primarily attracts visitors looking for a quality wildlife-oriented

experience, and this is not expected to change in the future.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identifies fishing as a priority

public use for national wildlife refuges, along with hunting, environmental education,

interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography. As expressed priority uses of the Refuge

system, these uses take precedence over other potential public uses in Refuge planning and

management. The Service strives to provide priority public uses when compatible with the

purpose of the Refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System). The

Refuge provides access to the surf zone between sunrise and sunset, while surrounding State

Parks open at 8:00 a.m. and close at 6:00 p.m. The Refuge, therefore, provides fishing

opportunities at times when the local fishing population prefers to be out, in the early morning

hours and at sunset. The state-owned beach adjacent to the Refuge is a popular fishing spot for

many local residents. 

Access to surf fishing as proposed would not be expected to result in adverse impacts to Refuge

resources. With management conducted in accordance with the stipulations herein, access to

surf fishing would be compatible with the Refuge purpose and the System mission. 

Mandatory Reevaluation Date (provide month and year):

Dec. 2017 Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date (for priority public uses)

________ Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date (for all uses other than priority

public uses)
G-12

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

Conducted with the Comprehensive Conservation Plan

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, December 2002. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002b. Biological Opinion for the Salinas

River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (1-8-01-FW-66). U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, August 2001. U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

G-14
G-15

Compatibility Determination

Use: Wildlife Observation & Photography

Refuge Name: Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Monterey County, California

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for

Wildlife, or other purposes (16 U.S.C. 667b). 

Refuge Purpose(s): “Particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird

management program” (16 U.S.C. 667b)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge

System is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,

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

their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of

Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use(s):

Wildlife Observation: The Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is currently open to

the public for wildlife observation every day from sunrise to sunset. Access is by foot only. 

There are currently no orientation kiosks or interpretive signs. Areas closed to public access are

delineated by signs, and include the dunes and saline pond. The beach access trail on the Refuge

begins in grassland habitat, skirts the shore of the saline pond and salt marsh habitat, and

traverses the dunes, providing quality wildlife observation opportunities in all of these habitats. 

A trail also exists through the grasslands to the riparian habitat on the south bank of the Salinas

River.

Wildlife Photography: Photography, including other image-capturing activities such as

videography, has occurred on the Refuge. There are no developed photography blinds or

platforms on the Refuge and none are proposed at this time. However, ample opportunities exist

for photography on the Refuge. This Compatibility Determination applies to personal

photography only. Commercial photography or videography, if allowed, would require a Special

Use Permit by the Refuge with specific restrictions.

Wildlife observation and photography have been identified as priority public uses for national

wildlife refuges by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. For

additional details about this proposed use, please see the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
G-16

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2002) as well as the Salinas River National

Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

(USFWS 2001), which are herein incorporated by reference.

Availability of Resources:

Adequate funding and staff exist to manage for wildlife observation and photography at the

Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge. Approximately 10% of a full-time employee would be

required to provide law enforcement support, maintenance, and monitoring. This would be

accomplished concurrently with enforcing and monitoring the other priority public uses. 

Improved signage, interpretive panels, and kiosk would require additional funding. Those costs

are incorporated into the Compatibility Determination for environmental education and

interpretation.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Impacts are also discussed in Chapter 5 of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2001).

Endangered and Threatened Species: Human activity can have adverse impacts on rare

shore-nesting birds, especially during nesting and foraging activities. The western snowy plover

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), federally listed as threatened, is of primary concern to the

Refuge. The Service strives to provide optimum breeding conditions for the western snowy

plover, whose breeding habitat has become increasingly scarce due to development and heavy

public use of beaches throughout its range. However, in recent years, the number of breeding

snowy plovers on the Refuge, and throughout the species’ range, has decreased as a result of

adverse weather conditions on their wintering grounds and heavy predation by native and

nonnative wildlife. Although current levels of public use are low, human activity in the dunes

and beaches during the snowy plover breeding season has the potential to adversely affect plover

reproductive success. Western snowy plovers utilize the entire beach profile, from the foredune

through the coastal strand into the intertidal zone (between mean low tide and mean high tide

lines) for breeding and foraging. Pedestrians entering the foredune and coastal strand habitats

during the breeding season have the potential to trample well-camouflaged western snowy plover

eggs and/or chicks or to disturb adults, keeping them away from the nest for extended periods of

time, leaving the eggs or chicks vulnerable to predators, wind, and/or extreme temperatures.

Other federally listed species at the Refuge include: Smith’s blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes

smithi) and the Monterey gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria), federally listed as endangered;

and the Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens), federally listed as

threatened. Visitors walking over the dunes have the potential to damage endangered and

threatened dune plants and to introduce invasive species through inadvertent transfer of seeds or

other propagules. They may also disturb Smith’s blue butterfly or its host plants. The potential

for illegal collection of rare plants, animals, and insects at the Refuge is an additional concern.
G-17

An Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation was conducted on the entire draft CCP. The resulting

Biological Opinion (BO) (USFWS 2002b) concluded that adoption of the preferred alternative is

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the listed species on the Refuge nor

adversely modify critical habitat. With regard to general public access, the BO states that the

proposed installation of interpretive signs and symbolic fencing would reduce effects of human

disturbance to listed species, and that public use activities would not reduce the ability of the

listed species to survive and recover.

Coastal Dunes and Wetlands: The potential for visitors to trample and destroy native dune and

wetland vegetation is of concern. 

Riparian and Grassland Habitats: The Refuge is actively involved in the restoration of the

riparian and grassland habitats. Off-trail human activity in these habitats can slow restoration

efforts.

Migratory Birds: Human activity may disturb migratory birds utilizing the Refuge’s habitats for

feeding or nesting activities. Human activities near the wetland habitats could disturb feeding

and nesting migratory birds, including black-necked stilts (Himantopus mexicanus), American

avocets (Recurvirostra americana), and black skimmers (Rynchops niger), known to nest along

the banks of the saline pond.

Other Biological Resources: Litter discarded by hunters can entangle wildlife or be ingested,

resulting in injury or death. Because of the limited number of visitors to the Refuge, this would

not pose a significant problem and could be handled with existing staff.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comment was conducted concurrent with the

public review and comment period for the CCP and associated Environmental Assessment. 

Please refer to Appendix K in the Final CCP (USFWS 2002) for a review of public comments

and Refuge responses.

Determination (check one below): 

_____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: To continue to allow public access to the

Refuge for wildlife observation and photography, the following measurers would be taken.

Western snowy plover breeding activities on the Refuge and throughout the Monterey Bay area

have been closely monitored by Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) since 1984. The Refuge

will continue to partner with PRBO to monitor and document western snowy plover use of the

Refuge and document causes of disturbance and mortality, including human disturbance. Other
G-18

threatened and endangered species and Refuge resources will also be monitored by Refuge staff

as well as public compliance with Refuge regulations. 

Clearer “Closed Area” signs would be installed at the boundary of the sensitive dune habitat by

2003.

In coordination with other agencies, such as State Parks and California Department of Fish and

Game, the Refuge will develop and implement a docent program by 2006, to educate members

of the public who use the Refuge during the snowy plover breeding season on the ecology of the

plover and the sensitivity of the species’ habitat and nests to disturbance. The docent program

will also collect data on public use and disturbance to nesting shorebirds. 

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 kiosk at the entrance will clearly state that dogs and horses are not allowed

on the Refuge (except hunting dogs during the waterfowl season), and will include three signs:

(1) a sign providing a trail map, trail information, and regulations;

(2) a sign that describes the National Wildlife Refuge System; and

(3) a interchangeable sign for hunting season and snowy plover nesting season.

The trail from the parking lot to the beach will be well-marked. Symbolic fencing will be

installed to guide public access through the dunes to the beach at the end of the trail. This will

minimize trespass through closed areas, which has been a problem in the past, and will reduce

disturbance to nesting birds and endangered and threatened plants within the dune habitat. If

trespass continues to be a problem in the foredunes, symbolic fencing will also be installed along

the foredune-beach boundary.

The Refuge will maintain an active law enforcement presence, by using Refuge officers and

through a cooperative agreement with California Department of Fish and Game and California

Department of Parks and Recreation, to ensure public compliance with all Refuge rules and

regulations. Refuge law enforcement and other Refuge staff presence will be increased to ensure

compliance with Refuge regulations.

Access to the Refuge will be allowed only between sunrise and sunset, unless a permit for

alternative hours is acquired from the Refuge Manager in advance. Because the State Lands

Commission controls lands below the mean high tide line, complete closure of the beach profile

by the Service is not possible. However, public access to the Refuge will be restricted to areas

where access will put minimal stress on endangered and threatened animal and plant populations. 

Visitors will be directed to remain a safe distance from snowy plover nesting areas with signs

and barriers, and by Refuge personnel and trained volunteers. Visitors will be directed away

from areas where native plant restoration projects are under way, to prevent damage to fragile

plants by trampling or by the introduction of nonnative plant species.
G-19

Justification: Currently, the Refuge’s visitor use is relatively low; an estimated average of 4–6

visitors per day use the Refuge for wildlife observation and photography. Total visitor use of

surrounding State Beaches averages 250,000 visitors per year compared to the estimated annual

use of 4,000–6,000 visitors per year on the Refuge. The Refuge does not anticipate a substantial

increase in overall visitor use over the next 15 years, for the following reasons: no public use

facilities, such as plumbed restrooms or picnic tables, are available nor will they be constructed;

inland access to the Refuge is via an unpaved road; and beach access is along a walking trail that

is approximately 1 mile long. In addition, many nearby State Beaches will continue to be

available that have easier access, offer many public use facilities, and support a wider variety of

uses. At present, the Refuge primarily attracts visitors looking for a quality wildlife-oriented

experience, and this is not expected to change in the future.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identifies wildlife observation

and wildlife photography as priority public uses for national wildlife refuges, along with hunting,

fishing, environmental education, and interpretation. As expressed priority uses of the Refuge

system, these uses take precedence over other potential public uses in Refuge planning and

management. The Service strives to provide priority public uses when compatible with the

purpose of the Refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System). 

Maintaining the existing level of wildlife observation and photography opportunities would

allow the visiting public to continue to experience, enjoy, and learn about native wildlife species

in their natural habitats. There are few coastal public lands available in the Monterey Bay area

where the public can view and enjoy wildlife in a relatively undisturbed setting. Many of the

State Beaches are relatively crowded and allow dogs, horses, and various types of non-wildlife

oriented recreation. These uses can detract from the relatively “natural” environment that the

Refuge visitor is typically looking for. However, the Refuge’s concern about protecting rare

native plants and animals and the overall integrity of the dune system requires that public use be

monitored to avoid adverse impacts. With management conducted in accordance with the

stipulations herein, wildlife observation and photography would be compatible with the Refuge

purpose and the System mission. 

Mandatory Reevaluation Date (provide month and year):

Dec. 2017 Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date (for priority public uses)

________ Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date (for all uses other than priority

public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

Conducted with the Comprehensive Conservation Plan

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement
G-20

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, December 2002. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002b. Biological Opinion for the Salinas

River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (1-8-01-FW-66). U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, August 2001. U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

G-22
G-23

Compatibility Determination

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Refuge Name: Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Monterey County, California

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for

Wildlife, or other purposes (16 U.S.C. 667b). 

Refuge Purpose(s): “Particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird 

 management program” (16 U.S.C. 667b)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge

System is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,

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

their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of

Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use(s): The Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) has the

opportunity to interpret coastal resources and increase public awareness of the importance of

protecting wildlife habitat and threatened and endangered species. Environmental education and

interpretation have been identified as priority public uses for national wildlife refuges by the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Refuge supports regionally

important populations of special-status species, including western snowy plover (Charadrius

alexandrinus nivosus) and Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens) (both

federally listed as threatened), and Smith’s blue butterfly and Monterey gilia (Gilia tenuiflora

ssp. arenaria) (both federally listed as endangered). Environmental education and interpretation

at the Refuge would focus on endangered species and habitat management. In addition, the

Refuge would educate the public about the National Wildlife Refuge System and the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (Service) mission.

The Refuge is currently open to the public for environmental education and interpretation

opportunities on foot. However, no interpretive or educational displays or materials exist at the

Refuge. Some educational institutions or non-profit groups (such as local Audubon chapters)

may currently utilize the Refuge for education; however, the Refuge does not have estimates of

this type of use. 

The Refuge proposes to enhance existing environmental education partnerships and develop new

partnerships with local schools, universities, and organizations. The Refuge would develop
G-24

environmental education and interpretive materials, including: a general Refuge brochure, fact

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

These materials and programs would serve to interpret the valuable coastal resources of the

Refuge and surrounding region, as well as the purpose of the Refuge and the mission of the

National Wildlife Refuge System (System). 

In coordination with other agencies, such as State Parks and California Department of Fish and

Game, the Refuge would develop and implement a docent program by 2006, to educate members

of the public who use the Refuge during the snowy plover breeding season on the ecology of the

plover and the sensitivity of the species’ habitat and nests to disturbance. Docents would also

have information on management activities and resource issues.

By 2007, an orientation kiosk at the Refuge entrance and interpretive signs along the hiking

trails would be installed. The orientation kiosk at the entrance would include three signs:

(1) a sign providing a trail map, trail information, and regulations,

(2) a sign that describes the National Wildlife Refuge System, and

(3) an interchangeable sign for hunting season and snowy plover nesting season.

The kiosk and interpretive signs would provide visitors with information on the various habitat

types on the Refuge, including coastal dunes, coastal grassland, riparian, and salt marsh; the

species that can be found in these habitats, including threatened and endangered species; and

ways of avoiding adverse effects on these resources. For additional details about this proposed

use, please see the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation

Plan (USFWS 2002) as well as the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2001), which are herein

incorporated by reference.

Availability of Resources: Approximately $85,000 would be needed for interpretive materials,

interpretive panels, kiosk, and signs. Additionally, managing the uses, implementing the docent

program, providing law enforcement, and monitoring the use would require an additional 60%

full-time employee (FTE) (park ranger) in addition to the 5-10% FTE that could be devoted by

redirecting current staff time. Upon receiving the increased funding and staff proposed in the

CCP, the Refuge would be able to provide interpretation and education opportunities at the

Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge, as well as educational materials. The Refuge would

pursue a variety of funding sources in order to support this use, including agreements with other

agencies, grant funding, and volunteer assistance. Until this increased funding is received, the

Refuge does not have any resources for environmental education and interpretation.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Impacts are also discussed in Chapter 5 of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2001).
G-25

Endangered and Threatened Species: Human activity can have adverse impacts on rare

shore-nesting birds, especially during nesting and foraging activities. The western snowy plover

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), federally listed as threatened, is of primary concern to the

Refuge. The Service strives to provide optimum breeding conditions for the western snowy

plover, whose breeding habitat has become increasingly scarce due to development and heavy

public use of beaches throughout its range. However, in recent years, the number of breeding

snowy plovers on the Refuge, and throughout the species’ range, has decreased as a result of

adverse weather conditions on their wintering grounds and heavy predation by native and

nonnative wildlife. Although current levels of public use are low, human activity in the dunes

and beaches during the snowy plover breeding season has the potential to adversely affect plover

reproductive success. Western snowy plovers utilize the entire beach profile, from the foredune

through the coastal strand into the intertidal zone (between mean low tide and mean high tide

lines) for breeding and foraging. Pedestrians entering the foredune and coastal strand habitats

during the breeding season have the potential to trample well-camouflaged western snowy plover

eggs and/or chicks or to disturb adults, keeping them away from the nest for extended periods of

time, leaving the eggs or chicks vulnerable to predators, wind, and/or extreme temperatures.

Other federally listed species at the Refuge include: Smith’s blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes

smithi) and the Monterey gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria), federally listed as endangered;

and the Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens), federally listed as

threatened. Visitors walking over the dunes have the potential to damage endangered and

threatened dune plants and to introduce invasive species through inadvertent transfer of seeds or

other propagules. They may also disturb Smith’s blue butterfly or its host plants. The potential

for illegal collection of rare plants, animals, and insects at the Refuge is an additional concern.

An Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation was conducted on the entire draft CCP. The resulting

Biological Opinion (BO) (USFWS 2002b) concluded that adoption of the preferred alternative is

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the listed species on the Refuge nor

adversely modify critical habitat. With regard to public access, the BO states that the proposed

installation of interpretive signs and symbolic fencing would reduce effects of human

disturbance to listed species, and that public use activities would not reduce the ability of the

listed species to survive and recover. In addition, it states that the use of well-trained volunteer

docents would benefit listed species at the Refuge.

Coastal Dunes and Wetlands: The potential for visitors to trample and destroy native dune and

wetland vegetation is of concern. 

Riparian and Grassland Habitats: The Refuge is actively involved in the restoration of the

riparian and upland habitats. Off-trail human activity in these habitats can slow restoration

efforts. 

Migratory Birds: Human activity may disturb migratory birds utilizing the Refuge’s habitats for

feeding or nesting activities. Human activities near the wetland habitats could disturb feeding

and nesting migratory birds, including black-necked stilts (Himantopus mexicanus), American
G-26

avocets (Recurvirostra americana), and black skimmers (Rynchops niger), known to nest along

the banks of the saline pond.

Other Biological Resources: Litter discarded by hunters can entangle wildlife or be ingested,

resulting in injury or death. Because of the limited number of visitors to the Refuge, this would

not pose a significant problem and could be handled with existing staff.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comment was conducted concurrent with

the public review and comment period for the CCP and associated Environmental Assessment. 

Please refer to Appendix K in the Final CCP (USFWS 2002) for a review of public comments

and Refuge responses.

Determination (check one below):

_____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: In order to allow public access to the Refuge

for environmental education and interpretation, the following measurers will be taken.

Educators or groups who wish to visit or learn about the Refuge would receive interpretive

materials from the Refuge staff. These materials would emphasize endangered species

management and would include a general Refuge brochure, a fact sheet on particular species and

habitats, and an endangered species guide.

Western snowy plover breeding activities on the Refuge and throughout the Monterey Bay area

have been closely monitored by Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) since 1984. The Refuge

will continue to partner with PRBO to monitor and document western snowy plover use of the

Refuge and document causes of disturbance and mortality. Other threatened and endangered

species and Refuge resources will also be monitored by Refuge staff. 

Clearer “Closed Area” signs would be installed at the boundary of the sensitive dune habitat by

2003.

In coordination with other agencies, such as State Parks and California Department of Fish and

Game, the Refuge will develop and implement a docent program by 2006, to educate members

of the public who use the Refuge during the snowy plover breeding season on the ecology of the

plover and the sensitivity of the species’ habitat and nests to disturbance. The docent program

will also collect data on public use and disturbance to nesting shorebirds. 

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. 
G-27

The trail from the parking lot to the beach will be well-marked. Symbolic fencing will be

installed to guide public access through the dunes to the beach at the end of the trail. This will

minimize trespass through closed areas and reduce disturbance to nesting birds and threatened

and endangered plants and butterflies within the dune habitat. 

The Refuge will maintain an active law enforcement presence, by using Refuge officers and

through a cooperative agreement with California Department of Fish and Game and California

Department of Parks and Recreation, to ensure public compliance with all Refuge rules and

regulations. Refuge law enforcement and other Refuge staff presence will be increased to ensure

compliance with Refuge regulations.

Access to the Refuge will be allowed only between sunrise and sunset unless a permit for

alternative hours is acquired from the Refuge Manager in advance. The Refuge manager will

have the authority to close certain areas to interpretive programs, or to cancel activities as he or

she deems necessary to fulfill the Refuge purpose. Public access will be restricted to areas

where access will put minimal stress on endangered and threatened animal and plant populations. 

Visitors will be directed to remain a safe distance from snowy plover nesting areas with signs

and barriers, and by Refuge personnel and trained volunteers. Visitors will be directed away

from areas where native plant restoration projects are under way, to prevent damage to fragile

plants by being crushed underfoot or by the introduction of nonnative plant species.

Concerns about protecting rare native plants and animals, and the overall integrity of the dune

ecosystem, require that public use be monitored, and that Refuge staff be closely involved in the

development of environmental educational programs.

Justification: The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) include providing an

understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology and the human role in the

environment, and providing Refuge visitors with high-quality, safe, wholesome, and enjoyable

recreational experiences oriented toward wildlife, to the extent these activities are compatible

with the purpose for which a refuge was established and the mission of the System. In addition,

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identifies environmental

education and interpretation as priority public uses for National Wildlife Refuges, along with

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography. As expressed priority uses of the Refuge

system, these uses take precedence over other potential public uses in Refuge planning and

management. The Service strives to provide priority public uses when compatible with the

purpose of the Refuge and the mission of the System. 

Environmental education and interpretive programs provide opportunities for the visiting public

to learn about and experience native plants, fish, and wildlife in their natural habitat. The

Refuge can also educate the public about its role within the agency and the National Wildlife

Refuge System, developing better community awareness, volunteer involvement, and advocacy. 

The Refuge also has the opportunity to provide meaningful educational information on habitat

restoration and on endangered species and their management. This use, when conducted in

accordance with the stipulations, would not be expected to result in adverse impacts to Refuge
G-28

resources, and may benefit resources by educating the public to resource issues. Proposed

environmental education and interpretation conducted in accordance with the stipulations herein

would be compatible with the Refuge purpose and System mission.

Mandatory Reevaluation Date (provide month and year):

Dec. 2017 Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date (for priority public uses)

________ Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date (for all uses other than priority

public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

Conducted with Comprehensive Conservation Plan

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, December 2002. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002b. Biological Opinion for the Salinas

River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (1-8-01-FW-66). U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, August 2001. U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

G-30
G-31

Compatibility Determination

Use: Research

Refuge Name: Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Monterey County, California

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for

Wildlife, or other purposes (16 U.S.C. 667b).

Refuge Purpose(s): “Particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird 

 management program” (16 U.S.C. 667b)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge

System (System) is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,

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

their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of

Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use(s): The Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) receives periodic

requests to conduct scientific research. Although research is not identified as a priority public

use by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, scientific research can

benefit Refuge resources and support the purpose of the Refuge and mission of the System. The

Refuge proposes to give priority to studies that contribute to the enhancement, protection, use,

preservation, and management of native Refuge wildlife populations and their habitats. 

Research applicants would be required to submit a proposal summarizing: 

(1) objectives of the study; 

(2) justification for the study; 

(3) detailed study methodology and schedule;

(4) potential impacts on Refuge wildlife and/or habitats, including short- and long-term

disturbance, injury, and mortality; 

(5) research personnel required and their qualifications/experience; 

(6) status of necessary permits (i.e., scientific collecting permits, endangered species permit);
G-32

(7) costs to Refuge and Refuge staff time requested, if any; and 

(8) anticipated end products (i.e., reports, publications).

Research proposals would be reviewed by Refuge staff or others, as appropriate. The following

criteria, and others as necessary, would be used to assess research proposals:

(1) Research that would contribute to Refuge management would have higher priority than other

requests.

(2) Research that would conflict with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management

programs would not be approved.

(3) Research projects that can be carried out elsewhere (off-Refuge) would be less likely to be

approved.

(4) Research that causes undue disturbance or is intrusive would likely not be approved. The

degree and type of disturbance would be carefully weighed when evaluating a research request;

many shorebird species are very sensitive to disturbance, and habitats, particularly the dunes that

support several threatened and endangered plants and the endangered Smith’s blue butterfly

(Euphilotes enoptes smithi), are prone to destruction by foot traffic.

(5) Evaluation of research requests would determine whether any effort has been made to

minimize disturbance through study design (for example, by considering adjustments in the

location, timing, or scope of the study, the number of participants, study methods, the number of

study sites, etc.).

(6) If it would be impossible for the Refuge to monitor researcher activities because of staffing

or logistical constraints, requests for research may be denied, depending on the circumstances. 

(7) The duration of the project would be considered and agreed upon before approval. Openended projects would not be approved. All projects would be reviewed annually to assess

whether they continue to meet these criteria (and others as necessary), continue to operate as

originally proposed, and are contributing to the objectives of the study.

Approved research projects would be conducted under a Refuge-issued Special Use Permit with

case-specific stipulations. For additional details about this proposed use, please see the Salinas

River National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2002) as well

as the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and

Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2001), which are herein incorporated by reference.

Availability of Resources: Adequate funding and staff exist to manage for research at the

Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge. As always, discretionary use of staff time would be

weighed through a cost-benefit analysis.
G-33

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Impacts are also discussed in Chapter 5 of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2001).

Endangered and Threatened Species: Human activity can have adverse impacts on rare

shore-nesting birds, especially during nesting and foraging activities. The western snowy plover

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), federally listed as threatened, is of primary concern to the

Refuge. The Service strives to provide optimum breeding conditions for the western snowy

plover, whose breeding habitat has become increasingly scarce due to development and heavy

public use of beaches throughout its range. However, in recent years, the number of breeding

snowy plovers on the Refuge, and throughout the species’ range, has decreased as a result of

adverse weather conditions on their wintering grounds and heavy predation by native and

nonnative wildlife. Although current levels of public use are low, human activity in the dunes

and beaches during the snowy plover breeding season has the potential to adversely affect plover

reproductive success. Western snowy plovers utilize the entire beach profile, from the foredune

through the coastal strand into the intertidal zone (between mean low tide and mean high tide

lines) for breeding and foraging. Pedestrians entering the foredune and coastal strand habitats

during the breeding season have the potential to trample well-camouflaged western snowy plover

eggs and/or chicks or to disturb adults, keeping them away from the nest for extended periods of

time, leaving the eggs or chicks vulnerable to predators, wind, and/or extreme temperatures.

Other federally listed species at the Refuge include: Smith’s blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes

smithi) and the Monterey gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria), federally listed as endangered;

and the Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens), federally listed as

threatened. Researchers walking over the dunes have the potential to damage endangered and

threatened dune plants and to introduce invasive species through inadvertent transfer of seeds or

other propagules. They may also disturb Smith’s blue butterfly or its host plants.

An Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation was conducted on the entire draft CCP. The resulting

Biological Opinion (BO) (USFWS 2002b) concluded that adoption of the preferred alternative is

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the listed species on the Refuge nor

adversely modify critical habitat. With regard to research, the BO states that the evaluation

criteria for research proposals contain several criteria that would ensure that research activities

are not causing undue adverse effects to listed species.

Coastal Dunes and Wetlands: The potential for researchers to trample and destroy native dune

and wetland vegetation is of concern. 

Upland and Riparian Habitats: The Refuge is actively involved in the restoration of the riparian

and upland habitats. Off-trail human activity in these habitats can slow restoration efforts. 

Migratory Birds: Human activity may disturb migratory birds utilizing the Refuge’s habitats for

feeding or nesting activities. Human activities near the wetland habitats could disturb feeding
G-34

and nesting migratory birds, including black-necked stilts (Himantopus mexicanus), American

avocets (Recurvirostra americana), and black skimmers (Rynchops niger), known to nest along

the banks of the saline pond.

Minimal impact on Refuge wildlife and habitats is expected with research studies. Some level of

disturbance is expected with all research activities, because most researchers would be entering

areas that are normally closed to the public and may be collecting samples or handling plants or

wildlife. Special Use Permits would include conditions to ensure that impacts on wildlife and

habitats are reduced as much as possible.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comment was conducted concurrent with the

public review and comment period for the CCP and associated Environmental Assessment. 

Please refer to Appendix K in the Final CCP (USFWS 2002) for a review of public comments

and Refuge responses.

Determination (check one below):

_____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Concerns about protecting rare native plants

and animals and the overall integrity of the dune ecosystem require that Refuge staff closely

review proposed research projects and that research activities and impacts be monitored. To

continue to allow research on the Refuge, the following measurers would be taken.

Western snowy plover breeding activities on the Refuge and throughout the Monterey Bay area

have been closely monitored by Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) since 1984. The Refuge

will continue to partner with PRBO to monitor and document western snowy plover use of the

Refuge and document causes of mortality and disturbance. Other threatened and endangered

species and Refuge resources will also be monitored by Refuge staff, and the locations of

extremely sensitive wildlife habitat areas will be considered when evaluating requests for

research.

If proposed research methods would adversely affect, or would have the potential to adversely

affect, Refuge resources (habitat or wildlife), the researcher will be required to demonstrate the

need for the research and to identify potential impacts in advance of their occurrence. The

researcher will also be required to develop mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts;

mitigation measures will be listed as conditions on the Special Use Permit. Refuge staff may

accompany researchers at any time to assess potential impacts, and may determine that

previously approved research and Special Use Permits should be terminated because of impacts. 

All Refuge rules and regulations must be followed unless otherwise excepted by Refuge

management. 
G-35

Justification: Research projects would contribute to the enhancement, protection, use,

preservation, and management of native Refuge wildlife populations and their habitats, or they

would not be approved. The anticipated level of research to be conducted on the Refuge at any

given time would be compatible because the Refuge would ensure that research proposals

support the purpose of the Refuge and mission of the System. In view of the impacts research

activities may have on the Service’s ability to achieve the Refuge purpose, sufficient restrictions

will be placed on the researcher to ensure that disturbance is kept to a minimum. 

Mandatory Reevaluation Date (provide month and year):

Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date (for priority public uses)

Dec. 2012 Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date (for all uses other than priority

 public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

Conducted with Comprehensive Conservation Plan

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, December 2002. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002b. Biological Opinion for the Salinas

River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (1-8-01-FW-66). U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, August 2001. U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

G-37

Compatibility Determination

Use: Mosquito Control

Refuge Name: Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Monterey County, California

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for

Wildlife, or other purposes (16 U.S.C. 667b).

Refuge Purpose(s): “Particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird 

 management program” (16 U.S.C. 667b)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge

System (System) is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,

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

their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of

Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]).

Description of Use(s): Three mosquito species are typically found at the Salinas River National

Wildlife Refuge (Refuge):Ochlerotatus washinoi, Culiseta inornata, and Culex tarsalis. The

Northern Salinas Valley Mosquito Abatement District (NSVMAD) has been conducting

mosquito control at this site for over forty years, beginning while this land was still owned by the

military. In 1994, the Refuge completed a compatibility determination for this activity which

stipulated a stepped approach for mosquito control at the Refuge. NSVMAD proposes to

continue this approach. The first two steps utilize biorationals: either the bacterium Bacillus

thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) or the juvenile hormone analog methoprene. Although there is no

official definition of “biorational,” they are generally described as pest control materials of a

natural origin that have limited or no adverse effects on the environment or beneficial organisms

(Ware 1989). However, depending on timing and conditions (weather, water temperature, etc.),

application of biorationals is not always effective. As a last resort, Golden Bear 1111 oil

(Golden Bear), a petroleum distillate, is applied. Material selection is based on efficacy, stage

of mosquito development, water temperature, and species of mosquito. NSVMAD prefers to

use Bti because it is the most effective treatment; it is also the most selective of the available

treatments (i.e. has the fewest nontarget effects). NSVMAD has only used Golden Bear four

times in the past 22 years. Bti would typically be applied in a liquid formulation known as

Teknar HP-D, at a rate of 0.5 - 1.0 pints per acre as specified on the label. The Refuge proposes

to allow the NSVMAD to continue these activities under an annual Special Use Permit (SUP)

and the stipulations presented herein. Mosquito abatement is not identified as a priority public

use by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
G-38

The Refuge is located in the Monterey Bay area. Located less than 3 miles from the Refuge are

the City of Marina and the City of Castroville. Additionally, approximately half a mile north of

the Refuge is the Monterey Dunes Colony housing development of 120 residences. Finally, the

artichoke farms immediately adjacent to the Refuge are worked year-round by approximately 10-

100 field workers per day. Residents have expressed their concerns to the NSVMAD about

mosquito nuisance as well as the potential for the transmission of mosquito-borne diseases such

as West Nile virus and western equine encephalitis (NSVMAD 2002). 

Mosquito control applications could occur any time between November and June, depending on

environmental conditions. Mosquito control would more typically occur from December

through April in the saline pond and adjacent salt marsh habitat on the Refuge (See Fig. 1). This

area is closed to the public. The saline pond and marsh are flooded during winter rains and

winter high tides, resulting in a potential mosquito breeding site with an area of approximately

80 acres (range 25-130 acres). In most years, the pond dries in the summer. NSVMAD would

monitor the pond weekly during the winter and spring to detect presence of mosquito larvae and

identify to species. This would involve a monitor walking along the pond and sampling the

invertebrates with a 16 ounce dipper. 

Treatment would be conducted almost exclusively by aerial application, but on rare occasions,

when the treatment area is small, spraying would be done by hand. Aerial applications would be

made using a helicopter flown at an altitude of 5–8 feet at an airspeed of 55 mph. Flight altitude

would be low in order to minimize drift and thus increase efficiency. Swath width would be 66

feet, so several passes would be made. Treatment duration would be 10–25 minutes, depending

on the size of the treatment area. An onboard GPS system would be used by the pilot to guide

transects and minimize overlap and skips (R&B Helicopters 2002). Treatments would usually be

conducted in the early morning. Helicopter application would be utilized because it is more

effective and efficient than other methods; it also prevents surface disturbance to sensitive marsh

habitat.

In the past, the presence of any Culex tarsalis pupae or larvae on the Refuge triggered control by

NSVMAD because this species is a known vector of human disease, including West Nile virus,

St. Louis encephalitis, and western equine encephalitis, as well as a moderately aggressive biter

with a flight range of 10-15 miles. Presence of Ochlerotatus washinoi has also triggered control

in the past because of its flight range of several miles, its aggressive nature as a daytime biter,

and its ability to produce large numbers. However, the Refuge now proposes to institute a

threshold of 0.5 larvae per dip for control of these species. This new threshold is likely to result

in fewer treatments each season, limiting control to occasions when larger numbers of mosquitos

would be produced. In contrast to the previous two species, presence of the less aggressive

Culiseta inornata did not necessarily trigger control in the past. NSVMAD considered

environmental conditions including water temperature, density of mosquito larvae, and presence

of mosquito predators in deciding whether the mosquitos could become a problem and therefore

whether to treat. In the last twenty-two years, Culiseta has only been treated four times. The

Refuge proposes a minimum threshold of at least 1.0 larvae per dip for control of this species. 

Even when this threshold is met, NSVMAD may decide not to treat Culiseta based on other .
G-39
G-40

environmental conditions. Treatment for general control of mosquitos would be limited to Bti

and methoprene

The use of Golden Bear or monomolecular films is strongly discouraged and would only be

allowed in cases when other larvicides have failed and a human health concern exists. This

would be determined by the Refuge in conjunction with NSVMAD and the appropriate health

authorities. Notification and concurrence by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) would

be required for use of larvacides other than methoprene or Bti. Frequent monitoring should

preclude the use of oils/films in most cases.

In the event that mosquitos from the Refuge pose a human-health emergency, the most

appropriate control technique would be utilized and stipulations herein would be implemented. 

The threshold for treatment could be as low as any presence of mosquito larvae, depending on

human health risk. The most appropriate pesticide for effective mosquito control would be

utilized, including adulticides. Notification and concurrence by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) would be required for use of adulticides, to treat for human health

emergencies. For the purpose of this compatibility determination, in order to allow use of

adulticides, a human-health emergency is defined by the presence of human disease viruspositive mosquitos or virus-positive birds in Monterey County or adjacent counties. West Nile

virus was first detected in California in 2002, and Culex tarsalis is a known vector for the

disease. This disease has quickly spread across the country since first detected on the East Coast

in 1999. Its rapid spread has necessitated the development of increased disease monitoring and

mosquito abatement by mosquito abatement districts nationwide. The Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention advocates that mosquito abatement districts conduct surveillance for the

virus (including the use of sentinel bird flocks), monitor mosquito populations, and implement

control measures prior to the occurrence of West Nile virus infections in humans or domestic

animals (CDC 1999). They note that the “most effective and economical way to control

mosquitos is by larval source reduction” (CDC 1999). In addition to the threat of West Nile

virus, Culex tarsalis in Monterey County can also transmit St. Louis encephalitis, and western

equine encephalitis. Mosquito-borne human disease viruses were last recorded in sentinel flocks

in Monterey County in 1994 (St. Louis encephalitis), but they have been documented more

recently in San Luis Obispo County, immediately south (NSVMAD 2002). 

Mosquito populations are related to precipitation amounts. In years when rainfall is below

normal, mosquito populations are low and control has been reduced or nonexistent. Conversely,

when rainfall is above normal, mosquito populations are larger and mosquito control has been

increased. For example, between 1988 and 1991, rainfall was below normal and no mosquito

control was conducted at the Refuge these years. Typically, there have been 2-4 treatments in a

season. In the last twenty-two years, mosquito control applications occurred 2.3 times per

season on average. All mosquito control activities would be conducted by the Northern Salinas

Valley Mosquito Abatement District under an annual Refuge-issued Special Use Permit with

necessary stipulations.
G-41

For additional details about this proposed use, please see the Salinas River National Wildlife

Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2002) as well as the Salinas River

National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Assessment (USFWS 2001), which are herein incorporated by reference.

Availability of Resources: Adequate funding and staff exist to manage for mosquito control at

the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge. It is estimated that approximately 5% of a full-time

employee (FTE) would be needed to monitor treatment of the pond and potential effects to

wildlife, to survey the pond for nesting birds, and to develop and administer the required permits

and documentation. This can be accomplished with existing staff and Point Reyes Bird

Observatory cooperators. Additional funding would be necessary to conduct detailed research

on potential effects of mosquito control on Refuge resources. The Refuge would attempt to

secure additional funds through a variety of grants as well as cooperative research with

universities, United States Geological Survey, and/or the mosquito abatement districts.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Impacts are also discussed in Chapter 5 of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2001).

Toxicity and Effects to Nontarget Organisms: Bti is used almost exclusively by the NSVMAD

when treating the Refuge. The bacterium Bti is a microbial insecticide that, when ingested, is

toxic to mosquitos, black flies and several other members of the nematocera suborder within the

order diptera. The intact toxin is not active against vertebrates (Boisvert and Boisvert 2000). 

The greatest degrees of susceptibility are within a few families: the culicidae (mosquitos), the

simuliidae (black flies) and the chironomidae (midges); with mosquitos and black flies being the

most susceptible (Boisvert and Boisvert 2000).

Bti is used widely because of its high specificity for target species and environmental safety (Ali

1981; Merritt et a. 1989). Laboratory and field studies have shown that Bti is toxic to some

larval chironomids, but many factors, such as temperature, water depth, aquatic vegetation, and

suspended organic matter, reduce its toxicity to chironomids in the environment (Charbonneau et

al. 1993; Merritt et al. 1989).

Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of Bti on nontarget organisms (anything

other than mosquitos or black flies). A recent comprehensive review of 75 of these studies

(Boisvert and Boisvert 2000) found that 37 had documented that some nontarget organisms can

be effected to a certain extent after a Bti treatment. The other 38 studies showed no effects to

nontarget organisms studied. Some members of the diptera suborder nematocera have been

shown to be the most common species susceptible to Bti. The susceptibility of chironomid

larvae to Bti could be between 15 to 75 times less than mosquito or black fly larvae, but the

studies indicated that a high dosage of Bti will affect chironomid populations. Although most of

the studies were done either at overdosage or under laboratory conditions, 9 of the 23 studies

reporting an effect on chironomid populations were done using actual operating conditions (in
G-42

the field at operational doses). Apart from chironomidae, seven other dipteran families were

affected by Bti. During many experiments or trials using overdosages some of these families

showed significant mortalities. All these families are dipteran and may possess in “overdosage”

conditions the capacity to capture, ingest and digest toxic crystals. In sufficient quantity, this

can produce enough toxic proteins to induce cellular damage that could lead to death. A highdosage treatment is not necessary to obtain a complete control of mosquitos and black flies, but

in “overdosage” conditions, secondary effects can be expected on nontarget organisms. At the

level of treatment proposed for the Refuge (0.5-1.0 pints per acre), overdosages would not be

used, so adverse impacts to nontarget species is expected to be negligible or nonexistent.

A study in saline habitats of the San Francisco Bay (Lawler et al. 2000) looked at the effects of

methoprene and duplex (Bti and methoprene combined) on nontarget invertebrates. In these

saline habitats, which more closely resembles the Refuge pond, corixids (water boatmen) were

the most common invertebrate (corixids are not in the nematocera suborder of diptera whose

members were affected by Bti; they are in the order hemiptera). Lawler et al. (2000) found no

evidence that duplex or methoprene affected corixid survival or maturation or on abundances of

other invertebrates they studied.

A long-term study on the effects of repeated Bti treatments on nontarget organisms in freshwater

wetlands was performed by Hershey et al. (1998) over 4 years in Minnesota. Bti was applied for

3 consecutive years using 6 applications each year between mid-April and mid-July at

recommended label rates. Boisvert & Boisvert (2000) consider this frequency of applications as

“intensive” and “higher than normal.” Highly significant reductions were observed in several

insect groups in the second year and eventually the intensive treatments resulted in wetland

communities that were depleted of most insects during the third year. Since Bti was likely to be

directly toxic to only nematoceran diptera, the effects of Bti on other insect groups may have

resulted from disruption of the invertebrate food web (Hershey et al. 1998). Because the

application was repeated 6 times per season at 3-week or shorter intervals, nontarget insects were

much more likely to have been exposed to the direct or indirect effects of Bti. Boisvert &

Boisvert (2000) believe that the recent study by Su and Mulla (1999) provides some explanation

for these Hershey et al. (1998) results. Su and Mulla (1999) found that shortly after a single Bti

treatment the growth of two species of green algae was inhibited for nearly three weeks. 

Considering the type of habitat treated and the frequency of Bti applications by Hershey et al.

(1998), it is likely that primary production of algae was almost totally inhibited for three years

resulting in the dramatic changes in diversity indices that they observed. No such food web

effects have been documented during “normal” use of these materials or in saline environments

(Lawler et al. 1999). Conditions at the Refuge differ from those of the Hershey study in that the

Refuge pond is saline and the frequency of proposed treatments is much lower (currently

approximately 0-4 treatments spaced over 6 months; may be fewer with new threshold).

In conclusion, although Bti is the most selective of mosquito control treatments, there may be

some effects to chironomids under normal operating conditions. However, repeating treatments

at longer intervals give the nontarget community time to recover in case there are any effects

(Mulla et al. 1979). Although Hershey et al. (1998) provides some evidence that intensive,
G-43

frequent, repeated Bti applications can result in a disruption to the invertebrate food web, less

frequent applications with longer intervals between them may not show the same results. In

addition, chironomids were the most abundant group in the freshwater wetlands of that study

(Hershey et al. 1998). Thus the results of that study do not necessarily apply to the saline

conditions at the Refuge, where applications are fewer and spaced out further. Therefore, at the

level of treatment proposed, adverse impacts to nontargets are expected to be negligible or

nonexistent. However, Hershey’s study does demonstrate the need for long-term research to

better understand the consequences of Bti application on the invertebrate food web.

NSVMAD has not used methoprene on the Refuge in the past, but certain environmental

conditions may warrant its use. Methoprene, a juvenile hormone analog, is thought to be among

the most target-specific of mosquito control agents, but it is also used effectively for control of

pest chironomidae (Miura and Takahashi 1974; Mulla et al. 1979; Norland and Mulla 1975). 

Methoprene kills larvae during emergence, and thus should not be expected to directly affect

larval abundance in short-term studies. Methoprene is not as specific as Bti (Breaud et al. 1977).

 Studies have shown deleterious effects of methoprene for predatory dytiscids (aquatic beetles)

(Norland and Mulla 1975), and for notonectids (backswimmers) (Miura and Takahashi 1974),

but low toxicity to other organisms such as zooplankton (Niemi et al. 1999; Miura and Takahashi

1973). Reduction of predators on methoprene-treated sites, including both dipteran and

nondipteran predators, may have been due to a combination of direct and indirect effects from

methoprene (Hershey 1998). Because Bti is more selective, it is the Refuge’s preferred

biorational treatment. 

Oils or monomolecular films exhibit pesticide properties by forming a coating on top of water

drowning larvae, pupae, and emerging adult mosquitos. They are derived from petroleum

distillates. Golden Bear 1111, a trade name oil, has been applied on the Refuge by NSVMAD

four times since 1981, the last application in 1993. Field studies on salt marshes in South San

Francisco Bay indicated that GB-1111 had an initial significant impact on potential prey (water

boatmen, brine flies, and mosquitos) of aquatic birds that dissipated rapidly 3-days post spray

(USGS 2001). Another study found that GB-1111 application was harmless to bottom dwelling

macroinvertebrates, including mayflies, dragonflies, and damselflies; however, surface breathing

organisms, including diving beetles, notonectids and corixids, were markedly affected, with

mortality observed soon after treatment (Mulla and Darwazeh 1981). In birds exposed to

operational levels of Golden Bear, matting of feathers and mild hypothermia may result (USGS

2001). Clearly, Golden Bear is the least desirable of the larval treatment methods considered

herein in terms of effects on nontarget organisms. Golden Bear would only be allowed in cases

when other larvacides have failed and a human health concern exists.

The NSVMAD has never used adulticides at the Refuge. Mosquito adulticides are commonly

synthetic chemicals with lethal effects on a broad spectrum of insect species. Use of adulticides

should not be necessary if monitoring of mosquito populations is conducted properly because

mosquitos would be controlled earlier, at the larval stage.
G-44

Although the Refuge’s saline pond has not been quantitatively surveyed for aquatic

invertebrates, staff from the Moss Landing Marine Lab have surveyed for presence of

amphipods. John Oliver of the Marine Lab describes the invertebrates of the saline pond as

similar to those of the Salinas River lagoon area (Moss Landing Marine Lab 2002). The two

most abundant species are both amphipods (Eogammarus and Corophium); isopods

(Gnorimosphaeroma) and worms (including polychaetes and oligochaetes) are also common;

chironomid and other fly larvae are also present, though not dominant. 

Endangered and Threatened Species: The following impacts are those that could potentially

occur in the absence of stipulations, which are detailed later in this document.

Human activity can have adverse impacts on rare shore-nesting birds, especially during nesting

and foraging activities. The western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), federally

listed as threatened, is of primary concern to the Refuge. The Service strives to provide

optimum breeding conditions for the western snowy plover, whose breeding habitat has become

increasingly scarce due to development and heavy public use of beaches throughout its range. 

However, in recent years, the number of breeding snowy plovers on the Refuge, and throughout

the species’ range, has decreased as a result of adverse weather conditions on their wintering

grounds and heavy predation by native and nonnative wildlife. Human activity in the dunes and

beaches during the snowy plover breeding season has the potential to adversely affect plover

reproductive success. Western snowy plovers utilize the entire beach profile, from the foredune

through the coastal strand into the intertidal zone (between mean low tide and mean high tide

lines) for breeding and foraging. In addition, Point Reyes Bird Observatory has documented

adult snowy plovers bringing chicks to the saline pond area to brood from May through

September, as this area provides excellent cover and a good food source. The most commonly

used brooding site in the area is also located on the Refuge, at the mouth of the Salinas River. 

The endangered California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) also utilizes the

lagoon at the mouth of the Salinas River, as well as islands near the rivermouth, and portions of

the beach strand as roosting sites, particularly from April through December. 

A NSVMAD monitor would walk along the saline pond edge and sample for mosquito larvae

with a 16 ounce dipper. At least ten samples would be taken at different parts of the pond or

marsh. Disturbance to plovers, and other birds, is expected to be minimal because monitoring

would be done by one person, the monitor would not walk through the dunes, and the monitor

would keep moving, limiting the duration of the disturbance to any particular area. In addition,

monitoring would be more frequent prior to the breeding season when water levels are higher. 

As the pond dries down, monitoring frequency would be reduced to once every two weeks. Both 

plovers and pelicans may be disturbed by treatment activities. These effects as well as potential

effects to plover food resources are discussed further under the migratory birds heading below. 

Other federally listed species at the Refuge include: Smith’s blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes

smithi) and the Monterey gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria) (federally listed as endangered);

and the Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens) (federally listed as
G-45

threatened). NSVMAD personnel do not enter dune areas, so impacts on these species are not

expected.

An Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation was conducted on the entire draft CCP, including the

proposed mosquito abatement activities. The resulting Biological Opinion (BO) (USFWS

2002b) concluded that adoption of the preferred alternative is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of any of the listed species on the Refuge nor adversely modify critical

habitat.

Wetlands and Migratory Birds: The following impacts are those that could potentially occur in

the absence of stipulations, which are detailed later in this document. 

The saline pond and salt marsh habitats support a variety of migratory birds including

shorebirds, raptors, terns, and waterfowl. The lagoon at the mouth of the Salinas River supports

pelicans, waterfowl, terns, gulls, and wading birds.

Shorebirds utilize the saline pond and rivermouth throughout the year. Peak shorebird numbers

occur during the spring (April–May) and fall (September–October) migration periods when

hundreds of shorebirds are present at the saline pond and on the mudflats adjacent to the river. A

variety of wintering shorebirds utilize the pond area, including western sandpipers, American

avocets, black-necked stilts, dowitchers, sanderlings, and plovers. In addition several species are

known to nest in the pond area including the American avocet, black-necked stilt, Caspian tern,

and black skimmers.

The rivermouth lagoon provides important habitat for migrating, wintering, and a few breeding

waterfowl as well as a variety of waterbirds including gulls, herons, egrets, cormorants, and

pelicans. The Salinas River and rivermouth lagoon support a wintering waterfowl population of

approximately 500–3,000. The high salinity and comparatively shallow depths of the saline

pond attract fewer waterfowl and waterbirds than the rivermouth lagoon (John Gilchrist and

Associates et al. 1997). The Refuge pond is used by dabbling ducks during spring migration as a

stopover foraging and roosting site. Daily winter waterfowl populations in the pond range from

10 to 100, depending on available water. 

Helicopter application of mosquito pesticides may result in direct short-term disturbance of birds

utilizing the saline pond and salt marsh. PRBO has observed flushing of nesting plovers and

other shorebirds during helicopter treatment, although no nest or chick loss has been documented

to this cause. However, disturbance during the breeding season does have the potential to

decrease breeding success. Shorebirds tend to leave the pond area during applications,

potentially resulting in separation of chicks from adults if applications are made after March,

when shorebirds are nesting. Helicopter applications during the nesting season may also result

in eggs or chicks being blown from nests by rotor wash. 

Pelicans, terns, and gulls roosting on the rivermouth flush when disturbed and then attempt to

return to the roost. Repeated passes by the helicopter near the rivermouth may result in a
G-46

majority of these birds leaving the area. Herons and egrets will also flush from the rivermouth

areas when disturbed, moving upstream to undisturbed areas. These undisturbed areas are

adjacent stretches of the Salinas River, both within and outside the Refuge. Waterfowl species

react differently to the disturbance. Dabblers such as pintails and mallards flush and leave the

area. Diving ducks such as ruddy ducks, buffleheads, and scaups will dive or move to avoid the

disturbance but generally do not leave the Refuge. Birds along the rivermouth can be flushed as

the helicopter is entering or exiting the area as well as during treatment if the treatment area is

large, approximately 100 acres or more (R&B Helicopters 2002). When the treatment area is

smaller, the area of marsh near the river mouth is not flooded (see Fig. 1), thus the helicopter

does not fly close enough to the river during treatment to flush birds there. In the past twentytwo years, treatment size has been 100 acres or more only 5 times. Therefore, birds using the

rivermouth lagoon area have been primarily flushed as the helicopter enters and exits the area,

not during treatment.

In contrast to helicopter application, hand-treatment of the pond would require several persons

walking through the entire marsh over a few days, and treatment by motor-vehicle would require

its use throughout the marsh and would damage habitat. Both hand and motor-vehicle

application would prolong the period of treatment and would result in trampling of native

vegetation and potentially wildlife. 

In addition, there may be secondary impacts on birds utilizing the treated pond. Birds feed on a

wide variety of insects and other invertebrates. In particular, waterfowl and shorebirds utilize

aquatic invertebrates as a source of protein during spring migration. The food source available

in the pond may be reduced for birds and other native wildlife. However, indirect food-chain

effects to vertebrates have not been documented thus far. Hanowski et al. (1997) collected data

2 years before treatment and 3 years after treatments of either Bti or methoprene were applied. 

They found no effect of Bti or methoprene treatments on the bird community or on 19 individual

bird species. The authors believe that other factors, such as predation and weather, were more

important influences. Despite large decreases in insect density and biomass 2 and 3 years after

treatment in the Hershey et al. study (1998), a related study at the same study site observed no

direct or indirect negative effects of treatment with Bti or methoprene over a 3-year period on

zooplankton or breeding birds (Niemi et al. 1999). There have been numerous studies that have

found no effects of Bti treatment on fish, amphibians, crustaceans, molluscs, worms, beetles,

dragonflies, damselflies, and many other aquatic invertebrates (see Boisvert and Boisvert 2000

for a review; also Lawler et al. 1999; USFWS 1998; Merritt et al. 1989). 

The Refuge’s saline pond attracts large numbers of shorebirds including terns (Caspian, Forsters,

elegant), snowy plovers, American avocets, and black-necked stilts as well as phalaropes and

waterfowl. Terns primarily eat small fish and crustaceans. The Refuge’s saline pond fills

through direct rainfall and runoff as well as periodic wave overwash during winter extreme high

tides; it typically dries in the summer. In addition, salt is concentrated by evaporative loss and

can vary extremely from 1 part per thousand (ppt) to 150 ppt (Gilchrist and Associates 1997). 

Therefore, although some fish may be washed into the pond from the tides, the pond is not

expected to support large numbers fish. Fish eating species that use the pond, such as terns,
G-47

forage along the river and ocean shore. Other shorebirds are usually considered opportunistic

feeders, eating what is available. Their diets can consist of small fish, small crustaceans

(including copepods, amphipods, ostracods), crabs, snails, worms, beetles, mollusks, water bugs

including corixids, lepidopterans, as well as flies and other aquatic insects, and seeds. Because

of varied shorebird diets and limited number of mosquito control treatments anticipated, the

Refuge does not expect impacts to shorebirds based on food availability. Diets of ducks are also

varied and consist of seeds, other plant material including roots, tubers, and leaves, crustaceans,

snails, and aquatic insects including mosquitos, damselflies, mayflies, and midges. In general

duck diets in the winter consist primarily of plant material while breeding-season diets are higher

in aquatic invertebrates which provide needed protein (Baldassarre et al. 1994). Goose diets, on

the other hand, consist primarily of plant material. Most of the waterfowl using the Refuge are

migratory and use the Refuge as wintering habitat. In addition, most mosquito control

treatments occur prior to April. Therefore effects to waterfowl are expected to be negligible.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comment was conducted concurrent with the

public review and comment period for the CCP and associated Environmental Assessment. 

Please refer to Appendix K in the Final CCP (USFWS 2002) for a review of public comments

and Refuge responses.

Determination (check one below):

_____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: To continue to allow the NSVMAD to

access the Refuge for mosquito control, the following measures would be taken:

A threshold level of 0.5-1.0 larvae per dip will be utilized for mosquito control. This should

decrease frequency of applications.

Bti will be utilized over methoprene due to its higher target-specificity. 

Golden Bear or other oils/films will only be allowed in cases when larvicides have failed and a

human health concern exists, following a specific request to the Refuge and verbal concurrence. 

Prior to any application of Golden Bear, birds will be flushed from the pond by a helicopter

flyover immediately before treatment. Treatment may be allowed only when entomological

surveys determine the presence of mosquitos on the Refuge.

Other pesticides, such as more toxic organophospates or mosquito adulticides, will only be

allowed in cases of a human health emergency, following a specific request to the Refuge and

verbal concurrence. A human-health emergency is defined by the presence of human disease

virus-positive mosquitos or virus-positive birds in Monterey County or adjacent counties. 
G-48

Treatment may be allowed only when entomological surveys determine the presence of

mosquitos on the Refuge.

As of the date this compatibility determination is signed, the Service has not finalized a

contingency plan for dealing with mosquitos in a human, fish, or wildlife health emergency. 

However, this is expected to be finalized in 2003. At that time, it will be attached as an appendix

to this determination and will be incorporated into the Refuge’s mosquito control program. If

this determination needs to be reassessed once the contingency plan is finalized, it will occur at

that time.

Mosquito control will not be allowed during the shorebird nesting season (March 15–August 31)

if shorebirds are known to be nesting or if snowy plovers are utilizing the pond, except in cases

of a human health emergency. 

The helicopter pilot will avoid flying low over the river to access or exit the Refuge, thus

minimizing bird flush. Either the helicopter will access the Refuge without crossing the river or

will fly high enough over the river to avoid bird flush. R&B Helicopters (2002) has confirmed

that this is possible. The helicopter will not be allowed to land on the Refuge. 

NSVMAD will need to notify the Refuge prior to monitoring or treating the pond. After March

15th, Refuge staff and cooperators will regularly survey the pond area for nesting birds and will

let NSVMAD know if treatment will be allowed. 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. Therefore, the permittee 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. 

Western snowy plover breeding activities on the Refuge and throughout the Monterey Bay area

will continue to be monitored by Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO). PRBO will monitor

and document western snowy plover use of the Refuge and document causes of individual bird

mortality as well as disturbance. If PRBO or Refuge staff observe disturbance to plovers caused

by NSVMAD activities, the magnitude and frequency of such disturbance will be documented.

Other threatened and endangered species and Refuge resources will also be monitored by Refuge

staff. Terms and conditions of the Special Use Permit will be subject to annual modification if

disturbance is considered to interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the purpose of the

Refuge or System mission. For example, if bird surveys determine that an unacceptable level of

flushing or disturbance occurs during helicopter treatment, the Refuge may require modifications

to treatment activities. 

Mosquito control will be authorized annually by Special Use Permit. Permit conditions will

stipulate that all control work will be carried out in conformance with pre-approved Pesticide

Use Proposals and Section 7 Endangered Species consultations.
G-49

Justification:

After assessing the potential impacts from mosquito abatement activities, the Refuge has found

that allowing these uses would not materially interfere with or detract from the purpose for

which the Refuge was established or the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The Refuge is within a few miles of two communities, Castroville and Marina. In addition, a

120-unit housing complex is located approximately half a mile north of the Refuge, and

approximately 6,000 visitors come to the Refuge each year. To protect Refuge visitors and be a

good neighbor to the surrounding communities, mosquito control will continue to be allowed

subject to the stipulations herein. These communities have been essentially mosquito-free since

the NSVMAD began operations and any mosquitos encountered result in a large number of

complaints to the district. However, the Refuge has determined that a threshold limit for

mosquito control is appropriate and has thus incorporated that threshold into the stipulations

herein. Mosquito control for human health emergencies does not necessitate thresholds. The

most appropriate and effective control technique will be utilized.

Because frequency of treatment is expected to remain low and intervals between treatments long,

overall effects to nontarget organisms are not expected to be significant. Two to three treatments

per year spaced about 7 weeks apart have been the norm for the last seven years, and treatments

may further decrease with the new threshold limits. 

Treatment by helicopter is preferred because the short duration of the flight (10-25 minutes)

minimizes disturbance to wildlife and no effects to vegetation are expected. Because pilots will

no longer be able to fly low over the river to enter or exit the Refuge, disturbance to birds using

the river and rivermouth lagoon will be minimized. In contrast, hand-treatment would require

several persons walking through the entire marsh over a few days and motor-vehicle use through

the marsh would damage habitat. Both hand and motor-vehicle application would prolong the

period of treatment and would result in trampling of native vegetation and potentially wildlife. 

Shorebird diets are varied, opportunistic, and do not rely heavily on dipterans, therefore,

occasional reductions of mosquito larvae and potentially chironomids are not expected to impact

their populations. Waterfowl diets are similarly varied, with invertebrates forming a large part of

their diet only during the breeding season; thus they are also not expected to be impacted.

Mosquito abatement practices cause some temporary disturbances to wildlife. However, the

number of treatment days per year is low, and if the applicator follows the stipulations herein

and in the SUP, mosquito abatement practices should not materially interfere with or detract

from the refuge purpose or System mission. Should further biological monitoring of this activity

document a substantial prolonged reduction of bird use, direct destruction of shorebird nests, or

other deleterious effects, this determination would be reanalyzed on the basis of the new data. 

As mentioned in the Stipulations section, the Service is currently developing new national policy

regarding mosquito control on refuges. This compatibility determination will be reviewed once

the new policy is finalized.
G-50

Mandatory Reevaluation Date (provide month and year):

Mandatory 15-Year Reevaluation Date (for priority public uses)

Dec. 2012 Mandatory 10-Year Reevaluation Date (for all uses other than priority

public uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

Conducted with Comprehensive Conservation Plan

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision
G-51

References Cited:

Ali, A. 1981. Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis (ABG-6108) against chironomids

and some nontarget aquatic invertebrates. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 38:264-272.

Baldassarre, G.A. and E.G. Bolen. 1994. Waterfowl Ecology and Management. John

Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. pp. 165-197.

Boisvert, M. and J. Boisvert. 2000. Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis on

target and nontarget organisms: a review of laboratory and field experiments. Biocontrol

Science and Technology 10:517-561.

Breaud, T.P., J.E. Farlow, C.D. Steelman, and P.E. Schilling. 1977. Effects of the insect

growth regulator methoprene on natural populations of aquatic organisms in Louisiana

intermediate marsh habitats. Mosquito News 37:704-712.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1999. Epidemic/Epizootic West Nile virus

in the United States: Guidelines for Surveillance, Prevention, and Control. From a workshop

cosponsored by Department of Health and Human Services, CDC and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture. Held in Fort Collins, Colorado, Nov. 8-9, 1999.

Charbonneau, C.S., R.D. Drobney, and C.F. Rabeni. 1994. Effects of Bacillus

thuringiensis var. israelensis on nontarget benthic organisms in a lentic habitat and factors

affecting the efficacy of the larvicide. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13 Vol. 2:267-

279.

Hanowski, J. M., G.J. Niemi, A.R. Lima, and R.R. Regal. 1997. Response of breeding

birds to mosquito control treatments of wetlands. Wetlands 17:485-492.

Hershey, A. E., A.R. Lima, G.J. Niemi, and R.R. Regal. 1998. Effects of Bacillus

thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) and methoprene on nontarget macroinvertebrates in Minnesota

wetlands. Ecological Applications 8:41-60.

John Gilchrist & Associates, The Habitat Restoration Group, Philip Williams &

Associates, Wetlands Research Associates, and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency.

1997. Salinas River Lagoon management and enhancement plan. Prepared for the Salinas River

Lagoon Task Force and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. Monterey, California.

Lawler, S.P., D. A. Dritz, and T. Jensen. 2000. Effects of Sustained-Release

Methoprene and a Combined Formulation of Liquid Methoprene and Bacillus thuringiensis

israelensis on Insects in Salt Marshes. Archives of Environmental Contamination and

Toxicology 39:177-182.

Lawler, S.P., T. Jensen, D.A. Dritz, and G. Wichterman. 1999. Field efficacy and

nontarget effects of the mosquito larvicides temephos, methoprene, and Bacillus thuringiensis
G-52

var. israelensis in Florida mangrove swamps. Journal of the American Mosquito Control

Association 15:446-452.

Merritt, R. W., E.D. Walker, M.A. Wilzbach, K.W. Cummins, and W.T. Morgan. 1989. 

A broad evaluation of Bti for black fly (Diptera:Simuliidae) control in a Michigan River:

efficacy, carry and nontarget effects on invertebrates and fish. Journal of the American

Mosquito Control Association 5:397-415.

Miura, T. and R.M. Takahashi. 1974. Insect developmental inhibitors. Effects of

candidate mosquito control agents on nontarget aquatic organisms. Environmental Entomology

3:631-636.

Miura, T. and R.M. Takahashi. 1973. Insect developmental inhibitors. Effects on

nontarget organisms. Journal of Economic Entomology 66:917-922.

Moss Landing Marine Lab. September 2002. Personal communication - Researcher

John Oliver.

 Mulla, M. S. and H. A. Darwzeh. 1981. Efficacy of Petroleum Larvididal Oils and Their

Impact on Some Aquatic Nontarget Organisms. Proceedings of the California Mosquito and

Vector Control Association 49:84-87

Mulla, M.S., G. Majori, and A.A. Arata. 1979. Impact of biological and chemical

mosquito control agents on nontarget biota in aquatic ecosystems. Residue Reviews 71:121-173.

Niemi, G.J., A.E. Hershey, L. Shannon, J.M. Hanowski, A. Lima, R.P. Axler, and R.R.

Regal. 1999. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18:549-559.

Norland, R.L. and M.S. Mulla. 1975. Impact of Altosid on selected members of an

aquatic ecosystem. Environmental Entomology 4:145-152.

Northern Salinas Valley Mosquito Abatement District. September 2002. Personal

communication - Manager/Zoologist Peter Ghormley.

R & B Helicopters. September 2002. Personal communication - Pilot Shelton Brown.

Su, T. and Mulla, M.S. 1999. Microbial agents Bacillus thuringiensis ssp. israelensis

and Bacillus sphaericus suppress eutrophication, enhance water quality, and control mosquitos

in microcosms. Environmental Entomology 28:761-767.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, December 2002. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Portland, Oregon.
G-53

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002b. Biological Opinion for the Salinas

River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (1-8-01-FW-66). U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, August 2001. U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998. Nontarget effects of the mosquito larvicides,

temephos and methoprene, at Bombay Hook and Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuges. 

Unpublished Manuscript. Annapolis, Maryland.

U.S. Geological Survey 2001. Experimental Assessment of the toxicity of the mosquito

larvicide Golden Bear Oil (GB-1111). Unpublished Report. Davis, California.

Ware, G.W. 1989. The pesticide book, 3rd edition. Thomas Publications, Fresno, Calif.

Appendix H. Salinas River NWR

Avian Predator Management Plan
Blank page
H-1

SALINAS RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

AVIAN PREDATOR MANAGEMENT PLAN 

I. OVERVIEW

In conjunction with its existing mammalian predator management program and other

wildlife and habitat management programs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to

implement an avian predator management program at the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge

(hereafter, Refuge). The goal of the program is to increase the production of the Refuge’s

population of western snowy plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus, federally listed as

threatened) by selectively removing problem avian predators that pose a threat to western snowy

plover adults, chicks, or eggs. Removal will be accomplished by live trapping and translocation

or, in rare cases, lethal control. Likely target predators include northern harriers (Circus

cyaneus), American kestrels (Falco sparverius), loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus),

common ravens (Corvus corax) and American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos).

II. PURPOSE

The avian predator management program is intended to accomplish the following.

• Maintain a 5-year average population of 35–40 breeding western snowy plover adults

on the Refuge.

• Maintain a 5-year average productivity of at least 1.0 fledged chick per male. 

• Reduce the number of problem avian predators in localized areas. Problem predators

are defined as individuals that belong to species known to prey on western snowy

plovers and are exhibiting hunting behavior in western snowy plover nesting areas. 

The program was developed to support the Refuge’s management objective of recovering

and maintaining a stable snowy plover population; the numerical targets reflect the best available

data on the numbers of individuals necessary for a self-sustaining western snowy plover

population. The avian predator management program was designed to operate in concert with

existing management efforts, including the Monterey Integrated Predator Management Program.

III. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM

The Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover (hereafter, snowy plover)

breeds primarily on coastal beaches over a range that extends from southern Washington to

southern Baja California. In 1993, the species was listed as threatened under the federal

Endangered Species Act throughout this range. Threats to the snowy plover include increasing

habitat loss, predation, and human disturbance of nesting grounds.
1

California Department of Parks and Recreation has management responsibility for the area’s State

Beaches.

2

California Department of Fish and Game manages the Moss Landing Wildlife Area.

H-2

Significant loss of breeding habitat in southern California has made the state’s remaining

breeding areas crucial to maintaining a stable snowy plover population. The Monterey Bay

region of California’s central coast is particularly important, and the Refuge currently supports

one of the state’s most productive breeding populations of snowy plovers. 

IV. EXISTING PREDATOR MANAGEMENT EFFORTS IN THE MONTEREY BAY

AREA

The Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) has monitored the breeding success of snowy

plovers throughout the Monterey Bay area since 1984. PRBO bands chicks and conducts a

monitoring program that results in yearly estimates of 

• breeding population size,

• number of nesting attempts, 

• nesting success rate, and 

• fledging success rate. 

These studies make it possible to assess the status of the population, quantify impacts

such as predation, and evaluate the success of various management programs. Information

gathered by PRBO has been instrumental in the development of cooperative snowy plover

management strategies involving various land management agencies in the Monterey Bay area,

including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the California Department of Parks and

Recreation1

 (CDPR), and the California Department of Fish and Game2 (CDFG).

The Monterey Integrated Predator Management Program was initiated in 1993 by the

Service, CDPR, and CDFG, in response to low snowy plover reproductive success rates. It

integrates a variety of techniques, including:

• removal of mammalian predators, primarily non-native red foxes (Vulpes vulpes),

feral cats (Felis catus), and skunks (Mephitis mephitis);

• installation of nest exclosures and symbolic fencing (cable and post structures used to

keep humans out of nesting areas);

• temporary closure of sensitive beach areas; and 

• posting of informational signs. 

The program has been very successful in increasing snowy plover hatch rates. Snowy
H-3

plover hatch rates were high in 1999, 2000, and 2001; the 2000 hatch rate of 86% was the

highest recorded since monitoring began in 1984. In addition, it was possible to use fewer

exclosures around snowy plover nests in the Monterey Bay area in 2000 and 2001 than in the

previous eight years because of the success of the mammalian predator management program. It

is desirable to minimize the use of nest exclosures because avian predators learn to recognize

them and use them as perches from which to prey on snowy plover chicks and adults; fledge

rates decrease and adult loss increases when nests are exclosed.

Although recent hatch rates have been high and mammalian predation of snowy plovers

appears to have decreased, in the late 1990's PRBO observed an increase in avian predation of

snowy plover chicks in the Monterey Bay area, resulting in decreased fledge rates. In 1998,

PRBO staff found 12 plover chick bands in a kestrel nest box adjacent to the Moss Landing

Wildlife Area; PRBO has documented shrike, harrier, and kestrel predation on snowy plover

chicks. Several incidents of avian predation on adult snowy plovers have also been recorded. 

Finally, PRBO has documented a positive correlation between sightings of avian predators and

chick loss at study sites.

Although there have not yet been documented instances of crow or raven (corvids)

predation of snowy plover nests on the Refuge, in the last few years PRBO has observed that the

range of the raven in Monterey Bay has expanded to include coastal beach areas. Ravens have

been documented preying on snowy plover nests in northern Santa Cruz County, Point Reyes

National Seashore, San Francisco Bay, coastal Sonoma County, San Diego County, Mono Lake,

Humboldt County and Coos Bay Oregon (CDFG 2001; USFWS 2001). Crows have been

documented preying on snowy plover nests at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Atascadero Beach in

San Luis Obispo County, and along the Oregon Coast (CDFG 2001; USFWS 2001). Therefore,

there is a strong possibility that ravens and/or crows could become problem predators at the

Refuge sometime in the future. 

V. RELEVANCE TO REFUGE PURPOSE AND GOALS

The Refuge was established in 1974 for its “particular value in carrying out the national

migratory bird management program,” and one of the Refuge’s three stated goals is to protect 

and enhance endangered species populations and their habitats. Snowy plovers have benefitted

by management of mammalian predators since 1993, but monitoring results suggest that

management of selected avian predators is also necessary to protect and maintain the snowy

plover breeding population. Thus, the new plan has direct bearing on the Refuge’s ability to

fulfill its purpose and goals.

VI. COOPERATORS

This plan will be implemented in cooperation with the following agencies and

organizations.
H-4

• Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO)

• Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group (SCPBRG)

• California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)

• California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR)

• U.S. Department of Agriculture – Wildlife Services (USDA – WS)

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Field Office (USFWS)

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay NWR Complex (USFWS)

VII. EXPERIMENTAL AVIAN PREDATOR MANAGEMENT STUDY

Because of decreased snowy plover fledge rates and continued adult loss believed to be

primarily the result of avian predation, the Service and the Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research

Group, in cooperation with CDFG, CDPR, and PRBO, implemented a small-scale 3-year

experimental avian predator relocation study at the Refuge and the Moss Landing Wildlife Area

in 1999. The purpose of the study was to document the effects of avian predators on snowy

plovers and to assess the efficacy of translocating avian predators.

The pilot year of the study (1999) provided initial data on the effects of avian predators

on snowy plover reproductive success. A pair of northern harriers was removed from the Moss

Landing Wildlife Area early in the 1999 breeding season, and plover fledging success during the

first portion of the breeding season was 72%. However, a second pair of harriers nesting on

private property approximately 3 miles away was not trapped, and fledge rates of plovers at the

Wildlife Area decreased to 32% after heavy visitation by the second pair of harriers. A pair of

harriers is also believed to have contributed significantly to the reproductive failure of snowy

plovers at the Refuge in 1999. Though hatch rates were high, not a single chick fledged at the

Refuge in 1999. During the period when the harrier pair were seen hunting at the Refuge,

significant snowy plover chick loss was documented. The harrier pair could not be trapped in

time to prevent chick losses.

The second year of the study (2000) saw improved protocols and increased funding,

contributing to quicker and more efficient predator translocation and an overall increase in

effectiveness. In addition, during the second study year, Zmudowski State Beach was included

in the experiment based on evidence that shrikes were contributing to the low snowy plover

fledge rates documented at this site (14% in 1999). Fledge rates were relatively high at all three

Monterey Bay area study sites in 2000. At the Refuge, where three female harriers were

translocated, the fledge rate increased from a 1997–1999 average of 14% to a value of 28% in

2000. A male harrier remained at the Refuge the entire season and could not be trapped, but

removal of the females prevented harrier nesting and the consequent increase in food demands. 

At Zmudowski State Beach, where three shrikes were translocated, the fledge rate increased

from a 1997–1999 average of 29% to a value of 57% in 2000, the highest fledge rate recorded

there since 1984. At the Moss Landing Wildlife Area, where five harriers were translocated, the

2000 fledge rate was 42%. This is similar to the 1997–1999 average of 49%. Fledge rates at the

Wildlife Area probably would have been higher, but two harriers arrived in the area in July. 

Because it was late in the season, cooperators initially felt that trapping was unnecessary. 

However, at least one of the late-arriving harriers was documented preying on snowy plover
H-5

chicks, and fledge rates decreased. Both late-arriving harriers were eventually trapped and

relocated. 

In 2001, one male harrier was trapped at the Refuge in May. Intermittent female harriers

were sighted in April and throughout July but they either left or were not determined to be

problem birds. This was the first year at the Refuge that problem predator(s) were able to be

captured immediately, and the fledge rate was the highest recorded at 57%. At the Moss

Landing Wildlife Area, an early female harrier left on her own. A nesting pair of harriers were

allowed to remain because they were not determined to be problem predators. A second nesting

pair was later found; the female was trapped and translocated but the male evaded trapping

attempts and subsequently left the area. With no problem harriers remaining at the Wildlife

Area, overall fledge success was also very high at 59%. Finally, at Zmudowski no shrikes

nested and no birds had to be removed. Fledging success was an all-time record of 70%. At all

three sites, snowy plover productivity reached record levels in the 2001 season and avian

predator management was successful and timely. 

During the three year study, cooperators learned a lot about the behavior of avian

predators and the effectiveness of trapping devices and techniques. The experimental study also

provided information on the effectiveness of translocation. Two harriers were equipped with

radio transmitters in 1999 and were periodically checked for several months after their release. 

They survived and stayed in the general area of release. In addition, all translocated birds were

banded in the three study years, so it was possible to determine that no birds returned to the

capture area within the same season. And only one bird of the 14 total captures in 1999 and

2000 returned on subsequent years. This male harrier was originally trapped near the Moss

Landing Wildlife Area and translocated in 1999. It was recaptured in 2000 in the same area.,

fitted with a radio transmitter and translocated again in 2000 to the Sutter Buttes, north of

Sacramento. Once again, it returned to the same area near the Moss Landing Wildlife Area in

2001. Although this is the only bird that has returned from its translocation site, it may become

necessary to adjust translocation distances in the future.

Based on analysis of the results of the 3-year experimental study, the Service and its

cooperators concluded that avian predation is adversely affecting snowy plover reproductive

success at the three study sites, and that trapping and translocation of problem avian predators is

an effective strategy for reducing predation-related mortality and increasing fledge rates. 

VIII. MANAGEMENT PLAN

Avian predator management may occur year-round but will be concentrated immediately 

prior to and during the snowy plover breeding season (March–September). Management

strategies included in this plan will be implemented within the Refuge, or, with the consent of

the appropriate agency or landowner, on adjacent public or private properties.

Under the avian predator management plan, the Refuge and its cooperators will continue

to monitor snowy plovers to determine hatch and fledge rates as well as adult survivorship and

population size. In addition, avian predators on the Refuge and adjacent lands will be
H-6

monitored; information recorded will include species observed and their behavior and habits. If

an individual noncorvid predator is evaluated as posing a threat to snowy plovers at the Refuge,

it will be trapped, banded, and relocated. The determination that relocation is necessary will be

made by Refuge staff in consultation with PRBO biologists and monitors; CDFG and CDPR

staff will be responsible for monitoring and managing avian predators on their respective lands,

in cooperation with PRBO. 

Trapped birds will be removed from the wild and held in a licensed and permitted

rehabilitation/holding facility until they can be relocated and released in the wild. All

translocated birds will be released in an area with suitable habitat at a distance from which they

would not be expected to return (generally, more than 150 miles away). Release distances may

be adjusted in the future based on documented return rates of translocated birds. All releases

will be carried out with the permission of the landowner or land management agency.

Only licensed and authorized agencies or individuals will implement predator

management actions; all activities will be conducted in a humane manner, under the direction of

the Refuge manager and in close coordination with PRBO. Management actions will be carried

out by the Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group, USDA Wildlife Services, or other such

qualified agencies or individuals. Refuge personnel and their cooperators may assist with

capture efforts. 

Non-lethal techniques will be used whenever possible for noncorvids. A combination of

live-trapping techniques will be used, including bal-chatri traps, dho gaza nets, bow nets, net

launchers with bait, and lures. Knowledge of the avian predator’s habits will determine which

trapping technique to employ. 

Hazing or lethal control will only be used on extremely rare occasions when it is

demonstrably necessary, for example, when repeated trapping attempts have failed and there is

an immediate threat to snowy plover chicks. The decision to lethally remove an avian predator

will be determined on a case-by-case basis, and will be based on the degree of threat, the

breeding phase of the snowy plovers, professional judgment of the situation, and knowledge

regarding the species involved. Lethal methods may include euthanasia and shooting, and will

be implemented as humanely and selectively as possible. Shooting will be conducted only by

government personnel trained and certified in firearm safety. In order to avoid human safety

hazards, shooting will take place only when members of the public are not in the area.

If a problem raven or crow is found on the Refuge, it would likely be controlled lethally. 

The ability of crows and ravens to adapt and thrive in human-altered landscapes, both rural and

urban/suburban, has led to dramatic increases in range and population sizes in western North

America, including California (CDFG 2001; Johnston, 2001; Marzluff et al, 2001; USFWS

2001). Because they are effective predators on the nests and young of some threatened and

endangered species, including snowy plovers, there is concern among management agencies that

increases in corvid populations are having a negative impact on populations of some listed

species (CDFG 2001). Translocation of corvids to other areas may negatively impact wildlife or

agriculture in those areas. In some areas, ravens have been termed a “pest” and are causing

economic damage as well as harming native wildlife (CDFG 2001). Farmers and ranchers are
H-7

able to obtain depredation permits to kill corvids that are feeding on crops or cattle feed (CDFG

2001). In addition, the small number of individual corvids that would potentially be taken by

this project each year would not impact their overall populations.

Selective control of problem mammalian predators will continue as described in the

Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge Predator Management Plan and Final Environmental

Assessment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). 

The Refuge and its cooperators will continue to explore avian predator management

alternatives that will protect the snowy plover while minimizing disturbance to avian predators. 

There is particular interest in developing management techniques that would permit problem

predators to remain on the Refuge but would prevent them from hunting in snowy plover nesting

areas. For example, cooperators have expressed interest in conducting research to develop new

types of radio collars and transmitters that would send a loud sound and/or vibration to the

predator when it enters plover nesting habitat. 

Additional measures to discourage avian predator use of snowy plover breeding areas

will include continuing to attach metal spikes to signs on the refuge and removing two

abandoned posts on the Refuge which serve as perching sites.

IX. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

In addition to the management strategy described above, the Refuge and its cooperators

considered several alternatives for avian predator management, including: 

1) no action, 

2) visual/auditory repellents,

3) lethal control only, and 

4) use of physical barriers. 

Cooperators agreed that the proposed management plan represents the most effective,

most humane, and least disruptive alternative. If no action is taken, snowy plover fledge rates

are expected to be too low to sustain the Refuge population; ultimately, snowy plovers may stop

breeding on the Refuge, or the Refuge may act as a population “sink.” Repellents, either visual

repellents such as kites, flagging and streamers or auditory repellents such as cannons, shotguns,

or other sonic devices were determined to be too disruptive to non-target wildlife. In addition,

they are often effective for only short time periods until animals become accustomed to them

(CDFG 2001). Lethal control only, while efficient and effective, was rejected for non-corvids

because of its impact on the individual avian predators; cooperators judged it to be a less

desirable option. For problem corvids, however, lethal control would likely be used. Raven and

crow populations have increased substantially in the past 50 years along with agriculture and

human habitation (CDFG 2001), and impacts to their overall population would be negligible. 

Finally, physical barriers (such as exclosures around snowy plover nests) have been used for a

number of years at the Refuge and elsewhere throughout the snowy plover breeding range. 

While they are effective at reducing mammalian and corvid predation on eggs, they are
H-8

ineffective against chick and adult predators. Once chicks leave the exclosure, they are

vulnerable to avian predation. In addition, adult snowy plovers in exclosed nests have been

shown to be more vulnerable to loss than adults in unexclosed nests. Avian predators in the

Refuge area as well as other parts of California have learned to target exclosures and wait until

an adult or chick emerges (CDFG 2001). 

X. JUSTIFICATION

The predator management program will result in small, localized reductions in

populations of some native avian predator species around the Refuge. In most years, an

estimated 2–6 birds or fewer will be affected, and impacts on individual birds will be minimized

by the use of humane and selective techniques. Nonlethal methods will be used almost

exclusively. Avian predators will be trapped and released into suitable habitat elsewhere. 

Populations of avian predators using grassland and riparian habitats will not be affected. The

program proposes to remove only avian predators using the beach or salt pan areas, where snowy

plovers nest. 

Without effective predator management, large losses of chicks and adults of the western

snowy plover will continue to threaten the recovery of this listed species. With predator

management, including avian predator management, the Refuge snowy plover population is

expected, at a minimum, to sustain its current size of approximately 35 breeding adults, and

ideally, to increase to 40 breeding adults. Snowy plover reproductive success is expected to

increase to 1.0 fledglings per male per year.
H-9

REFERENCES

California Department of Fish and Game. 2001. Draft Summary of Predation by Corvids on

Threatened and Endangered Species in California and Management Recommendations to

Reduce Corvid Predation. Sacramento, California. 103 pp.

Johnston, R. F. 2001. Synanthropic birds of North America, p. 49-67. In J. M. Marzluff, R.

Bowman, and R. Donnelly [eds.], Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing

world. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA.

Marzluff, J. M., K. J. McGowan, R. Donnelly, and R. L. Knight. 2001. Causes and

consequences of expanding American Crow populations, p. 331-363. In J. M. Marzluff,

R. Bowman, and R. Donnelly [eds.], Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing

world. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Western Snowy Plover (Chardrius alexandrinus nivosus)

Pacific Coast Population Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. 630 pp.

Appendix I. Salinas River NWR Wildland

Fire Management Plan

SALINAS RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN

2002



I-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

COMPLIANCE WITH USFWS POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

FIRE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

DESCRIPTION OF REFUGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Fish and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Structures and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT SITUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Historic Role of Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Pre-settlement Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Post-settlement Fire History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Prescribed Fire History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Agency Administrator/ Project Leader (PL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Deputy Project Leader (DPL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Refuge Manager (RM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Biologist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Zone Fire Management Officer (FMO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Prescribed Fire Specialist (PFS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Fire Management/Suppression Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Incident Commander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Initial Attack Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Interagency Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Protection of Sensitive Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

WILDLAND FIRE ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

Fire Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

Historical Weather Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

Fire Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

Staffing Priority Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

Supplies and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23
I-ii

Pre-Attack Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

Fire Management Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

Vegetation Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

Fuel Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

Suppression Tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

Suppression Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-25

Wildland Fire Situation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-25

Aircraft Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-25

Rehabilitation and Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-25

Required Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

Fire Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

PRESCRIBED FIRE ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

Prescribed Burn Program Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

Fire Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

Prescribed Fire Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-28

Annual Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-28

Prescribed Burn Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-28

Strategies and Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-29

Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-30

Required Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-31

Prescribed Burn Critique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-31

AIR QUALITY / SMOKE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-32

FIRE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-32

PUBLIC SAFETY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-33

PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-34

FIRE CRITIQUES AND ANNUAL PLAN REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-35

Fire Critiques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-35

Annual Fire Summary Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-35

Annual Fire Management Plan Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-35

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-36

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-37

Appendix A: References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-37

Appendix B: Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-38

Appendix C: Special Status Species on the Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-41

Appendix D: Fire Dispatch Plan/ Contact List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-45

Appendix E: Delegation of Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-47

Appendix F: Notification List for Prescribed Burning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-49
I-iii

Appendix G: Cultural Resource Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-50

Appendix H: Sample WFSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-51

Appendix I: Sample Burn Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-57

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Figure 2: Heavy equipment use areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18
I-iv
I-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

When approved, this document will become the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge fire management

plan. Major components include:

B updated policy for prescribed fires at Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge,

B reference to and inclusion within the Refuge’s 2001 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

B format changes under the direction of Fire Management Handbook (Release Date 6/1/00), and

B establishes a Prescribed Fire Program for management of sensitive habitat and reduction of hazardous

fuels.

This plan is written to provide guidelines for appropriate suppression and prescribed fire programs at

Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge. Prescribed fires may be used to reduce hazard fuels, restore the

natural processes and vitality of ecosystems, improve wildlife habitat, remove or reduce non-native

species, and/or conduct ecological research.
I-2
I-3

INTRODUCTION

Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is a valuable natural resource supporting a diversity of

habitats and a great variety of aquatic and terrestrial biological resources. The Refuge provides important

habitat to many endangered and threatened species as well as species that are candidates for federal

listing. Historically, many factors have contributed to the decline of endangered, threatened and rare

species present in the Refuge, including historic loss of habitat, human disturbance, exotic vegetation

encroachment, and increased predation. The history of fire at the Refuge including fire regimes is not

documented or well known.

The primary purpose for which the 367-acre Refuge was established in 1973 was for its "particular value

in carrying out the national migratory bird management program." It was acquired by the Service through

a transfer of surplus military land from the U.S. Army and U.S. Coast Guard. From 1974 through 1991,

the area was operated as a Wildlife Management Area under a cooperative agreement with the California

Department of Fish and Game. By the mid-1980’s, the growing importance of the Refuge to sensitive

species prompted the need for more active management and protection of its resources. In 1991, the Fish

and Wildlife Service began managing the area as a National Wildlife Refuge under the National Wildlife

Refuge System Administration Act and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962. Management emphasis is on

threatened and endangered species and sensitive migratory birds. 

The Fire Management Plan (FMP) for the Refuge is written as an operational guide for managing the

Refuge's wildland fire and prescribed fire programs. It defines levels of protection needed to ensure

safety, protect facilities and resources, and restore and perpetuate natural processes, given the current

understanding of the complex relationships in natural ecosystems. It is written to comply with a servicewide requirement that refuges with burnable vegetation develop a fire management plan (620 DM 1).

The FMP will be used to help achieve resource objectives of managing unplanned fire and using

prescribed fire to control non-native vegetation and restore native upland grassland habitat. The

Department of the Interior policy requires that all refuges with vegetation that can sustain fire must have a

Fire Management Plan that details fire management policies, the use of prescribed fire for attaining

resource management objectives, and fire program operational procedures. This plan is evaluated under

NEPA in chapter five of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment.

The FMP outlines procedures for wildland suppression and prescribed fires. The fire plan furthers the

mission of the Refuge by providing increased protection for Refuge resources and by establishing the

framework for a prescribed fire program designed to enhance and maintain native grassland habitat on the

Refuge. Increasing coordination and preparedness will help ensure quick response for suppression of

fires which have the potential to be devastating to Refuge resources. 

There is no dedicated fire staff at Salinas River NWR or San Francisco Bay NWRC. All wildland fires

will be suppressed by local cooperating agencies with the oversight of the Project Leader and Zone Fire

Management Officer (FMO). All prescribed fires will be coordinated through the Zone FMO.
I-4

COMPLIANCE WITH USFWS POLICY

The Refuge was established in 1973 by authority of 16 U.S.C. subsection 667b (An Act Authorizing the

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife, or other purposes, 16 U.S.C. subsection 667b-667d, as

amended) for wildlife conservation purposes and, in particular, for “carrying out the national migratory

bird management program.” 

Values to be considered in the FMP include: protection of Refuge property and historical sites, protection

of neighboring private properties, protection of endangered/threatened/and rare species, and enhancement

and protection of Refuge habitats. There are currently 40 special status species known or believed to use

habitat at the Refuge (Appendix C). Endangered species include the Smith’s blue butterfly (Euphilotes

enoptes smithi), California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), and the Monterey gilia (Gilia

tenuiflora ssp. arenaria); threatened species include the Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus

nivosus) and Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens).

This Fire Management Plan has been completed in conjunction with the Refuge’s 2001 Comprehensive

Conservation Plan (CCP). The following goals for Salinas River NWR were developed by Refuge staff

and are outlined in the CCP. These goals further define the purpose and direction of the Refuge. 

• Protect, restore, and enhance populations of migratory birds and other native species and their

habitats.

• Protect and enhance populations of endangered, threatened, and rare species, and promote their

recovery by restoring and enhancing their natural habitats.

• Provide opportunities for safe, unique, wildlife-dependent recreation when compatible with

other Refuge goals.

Several operational plans are used by the Refuge to meet these objectives. These include the CCP,

recovery plan for the endangered Smith’s blue butterfly, recovery plan for coastal plants which includes

the Monterey spineflower and Monterey (sand) gilia, predator management plan, hunt plan, and internal

Section 7 endangered species consultations. 

The FMP is a detailed program of action to implement fire management policies and objectives, and

addresses policy on prescribed burning to control non-native vegetation and restore native grassland

habitat. The FMP meets the objectives of the Refuge’s operational plans by supporting strategies which

rely upon fire as a management tool and by identifying where and when fire should be applied. 

The Department Manual, DM 910 (USDI 1997) states the following regarding wildland fires:

“Wildfires may result in loss of life, have detrimental impacts upon natural resources, and

damage to or destruction of man-made developments. However, the use of fire under carefully

defined conditions is to be a valuable tool in wildland management. Therefore, all wildfires

within the Department will be classified either as wildfire or as prescribed fires.

Wildfires, whether on lands administered by the Department or adjacent thereto, which threaten

life, man-made structures, or are determined to be a threat to the natural resources or the facilities

under the Department's jurisdiction, will be considered emergencies and their suppression given

priority over normal Departmental programs. 
I-5

Bureaus will give the highest priority to preventing the disaster fire - the situation in which a

wildfire causes damage of such magnitude as to impact management objectives and/or socioeconomic conditions of an area. However, no wildfire situation, with the possible exception of

threat to human survival, requires the exposure of firefighters to life threatening situations.

Within the framework of management objective and plans, overall wildfire damage will be held

to the minimum possible giving full consideration to (1) an aggressive fire prevention program;

(2) the least expenditure of public funds for effective suppression; (3) the methods of suppression

least damaging to resources and the environment; and (4) the integration of cooperative

suppression actions by agencies of the Department among themselves or with other qualified

suppression organizations.

Prescribed fires...may be used to achieve agency land or resource management objectives as

defined in the fire management plans....Prescribed fires will be conducted only when the

following conditions are met:

a. Conducted by qualified personnel under written prescriptions.

b. Monitored to assure they remain within prescription.

Prescribed fires that exceed the limits of an approved prescribed fire plan will be reclassified as a

wildfire. Once classified a wildfire, the fire will be suppressed and will not be returned to

prescribed fire status.”

The authority for funding (normal fire year programming) and all emergency fire accounts is found in the

following authorities:

Section 102 of the General Provisions of the Department of Interior's annual Appropriations Bill

provides the authority under which appropriated monies can be expended or transferred to fund

expenditures arising from the emergency prevention and suppression of wildland fire.

P.L. 101-121, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1990,

established the funding mechanism for normal year expenditures of funds for fire management

purposes.

31 US Code 665(E)(1)(B) provides the authority to exceed appropriations due to wildland fire

management activities involving the safety of human life and protection of property.

Authorities for procurement and administrative activities necessary to support wildland fire suppression

missions are contained in the Interagency Fire Business Management Handbook. The Reciprocal Fire

Protection Act of May 27, 1955 (42 USC 815a; 69Stat 66) provides Authorities to enter into agreements

with other Federal bureaus and agencies; with state, county, and municipal governments; and with private

companies, groups, corporations, and individuals regarding fire activities. Authority for interagency

agreements is found in AInteragency Agreement between the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of

Indian Affairs, National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service of the United States Department of

the Interior and the Forest Service of the United States Department of Agriculture@ (1996). 
I-6

FIRE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

General Fire Management Objectives for this Refuge are:

1. Protect life and resources/property.

2. Use prescribed fire as a tool to accomplish Refuge habitat management objectives.

Specific Refuge Fire Management Objectives include:

1. Safely suppress all wildland fires using strategies and tactics appropriate to safety

considerations and values at risk.

2. Minimize the impact and cost of fire suppression actions.

3. Prevent human-caused wildland fires.

4. Educate the public regarding the role of fire within the Refuge.

5. Use prescribed fire to reduce abundance and limit the spread of non-native plant

species and enhance habitats for other species.

DESCRIPTION OF REFUGE

Salinas River NWR is located 11 miles northeast of the City of Monterey at the confluence of the Salinas

River and Monterey Bay. The entire Refuge is located within Monterey County. The area is composed

of one unit totaling 367 acres (Figure 1). The western boundary ends at the mean high water line of

Monterey Bay, with the tidal lands reserved by the State Lands Commission. The northeast boundary lies

in the Salinas River channel. The Refuge is bordered to the east and south by private lands, comprised of

agricultural fields and coastal sand dunes. The Salinas River and Salinas River State Beach border the

Refuge to the north.

The Monterey Bay area has a moderate maritime climate, with warm to hot, dry summers and moist, mild

winters. July and August are virtually without rainfall while January and February are usually the wettest

months. The amount of rainfall varies not only year to year but also on opposite ends of the Bay. 

Monterey averages about 15 inches (38 cm) annually while Santa Cruz receives an average of 28 inches

(69 cm) (Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Draft EIS, 1990).

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Under Federal ownership, archaeological and historical resources within the Refuge receive protection

under Federal laws mandating the management of cultural resources, including, but not limited to, the

Archaeological Resources Protection Act; the Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act; the Native

American Graves and Repatriation Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. To date,

there are WWII concrete remnants from the foundation of three buildings of the “old U.S. Coast Guard

LORAN structure” and a one room above ground concrete bomb shelter (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

1999). The Refuge’s CCP includes an in depth review of the cultural setting, as well as a strategy to

conduct a formal Refuge-wide cultural resource survey.

FISH AND WILDLIFE

Despite its small size, the Refuge is an important wildlife area in central coastal California (Habitat

Restoration Group 1991). This is due to the lack of available wetland habitat elsewhere on the central 
I-7

Figure 1: Vegetation
I-8

coast as well as the unique wildlife, diversity of habitats, and many significant biological resources the

Refuge supports. The diverse habitats within the Refuge include: ocean beach, saline pond, riparian, sand

dunes (includes foredunes and coastal scrub dunes), salt marsh, grassland, coastal river lagoon, and

formerly farmed upland. 

Wildlife of dune and beach habitats are able to live under harsh conditions. They survive with little or no

fresh water, limited cover and forage. Three federally listed species are reported to occur in these areas of

the Refuge: Smith’s blue butterfly, western snowy plover, and California brown pelican. Other specialstatus species found in this habitat include globuse dune beetle (Coelus globosus), black legless lizard

(Anniella pulcha nigra), American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), merlin (Falco

columbarius), peregrine falcon, long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), California gull (Larus

californicus), elegant tern (Sterna elegans), and Caspian tern (Sterna elegans) (Appendix C). There are

also a variety of non-status species present including: western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis),

gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatis), gray fox (Urocyon

cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes fulva), and longtail weasel (Mustela frenata).

The Salinas River Lagoon contains both fresh and salt water aquatic species. Native freshwater fish

include: Sacramento blackfish (Orthodon microlepidotus), Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis),

Sacramento squawfish (Ptychocheilus grandis), California roach (Lavinia exilicauda), threespine

stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and the federally threatened steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus

mykiss). Introduced freshwater fish include: carp (Cyprinus carpo), white bass (Morone chrysops),

bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), mosquitofish (Gambosia affinis), and

threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense). Saltwater fish found year round at the Refuge include: starry

flounder (Platichthyes stellatus) and staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus). Some of the saltwater fish

that can be found in the Lagoon include: Pacific herring (Clupia harengus), topsmelt (Atherinops affinis),

northern anchovy (Engralis mordax), and at least 5 species of surfperch. (Refer to Chapter 4, Salinas

River NWR CCP for a more complete list of species).

The upland areas contain grassland, coyote brush scrub, and previously farmed habitats and are used by a

variety of wildlife. Reptiles present in these habitats include the western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus),

racer (Coluber constrictor), gopher snake, common king snake (Lampropeltis getulus), and western

terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans). Typical upland mammals include gray and red fox,

longtail weasel, western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus

californicus), deer mouse, and California ground squirrel (Spermophylis beecheyi). Songbirds and raptors

forage in this habitat. Special status species include: white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), northern harrier

(Circus cyanus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), merlin, short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), Monterey

ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus salarius), and Salinas harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis: Appendix

C). 

Wetland habitat found at the Refuge provide shelter, forage, and cover for a wide variety of herpetofauna,

birds, crustaceans, insects, and mammals, including many special status species. The Refuge’s federally

listed species include the western snowy plover and the California brown pelican. Other special status

species include: California brackish water snail (Tryonia imitator), Southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys

marmorata pallida), steelhead, American white pelican, double-breasted cormorant (Phalacrocorax

auritus), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), osprey, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, sharp-shinned hawk

(Accipiter striatus), Cooper’s hawk, merlin, long-billed curlew, California gull, elegant tern, Caspian tern,

Forster’s tern (Sterna forsteri), short-eared owl, willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), California yellow
I-9

warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri), salt marsh wandering shrew (Sorex vagrans halicoetes),

Monterey ornate shrew, and Salinas harvest mouse (Appendix C). Some non-status herpetofauna include

the western fence lizard, common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), sharp-tailed snake (Contia tenuis),

California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus), and western toad (Bufo boreas). Some

mammals include muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), red and gray fox, Virginia opossum (Didelphis

virginiana), vagrant shrew (Sorex vagrans), and coyote (Refer to Salinas River CCP for a more complete

list of species). The many bird species present are listed below.

This unique diversity of habitats supports an enormous variety of wildlife, including many species of

migratory birds. The Refuge provides breeding, wintering, foraging, and roosting habitat for shorebirds,

waterfowl, raptors, neotropical migrants, terns, gulls, and seabirds. 

Shorebirds occur at the Refuge year round. The ocean beach and exposed mud flats found along the

pond, river and island edges, provide excellent feeding and roosting habitat. Numbers peak during the

spring and fall migration periods when thousands of shorebirds use the Refuge. Large wintering

populations consist of a variety of species including western snowy plover , western sandpipers (Calidris

mauri), American avocets (Recurvirostra americana), black-necked stilts (Himantopus mexicanus),

dunlin (C. alpina), other small sandpipers (Calidris sp.), sanderlings (C. alba), dowitchers (Limnodromus

sp.), and phalaropes (Phalaropus sp.). 

Three species of shorebirds are known to nest on the Refuge. They include the Federally threatened

western snowy plover, American avocet, and black-necked stilt. All three species have been documented

nesting on Refuge islands occurring in the Salinas River. They also nest on saline flats that form as the

saline pond evaporates throughout the summer. In addition, snowy plover nests within the foredune

habitat. 

The Refuge has been one of the most productive snowy plover breeding areas in central coastal California

(SFNWRC 1998) and traditionally has supported a significant proportion of the remaining breeding

population in Monterey Bay. Breeding plovers were once abundant on beaches in San Diego, Los

Angeles, Orange, Ventura, and Santa Barbara Counties; however, loss of habitat and increased human

disturbance have eliminated the birds from some or all of these areas. This loss of breeding habitat (and

plovers) in southern California has made remaining breeding areas, particularly the Monterey Bay area,

crucial to maintaining a stable plover population. 

Since the mid-1980's, increased human disturbance and predation by non-native red fox (Vulpes fulva)

have greatly reduced the nesting success of plovers in the Monterey Bay area and at the Refuge

(SFNWRC 1998). Major threats to the snowy plover include human disturbance, loss of habitat, exotic

vegetation encroachment, and increased predation (SFNWRC 1998). Presently, exotic vegetation control

and predator management (avian and mammalian) are being conducted at the Refuge and at other lands

throughout the Monterey Bay area to alleviate some of the pressures affecting snowy plovers. 

A variety of waterbirds use the Refuge for foraging, roosting, and bathing. It provides one of the last

freshwater roost sites in central California for as many as 1,400 endangered California brown pelicans. 

This freshwater roost is especially significant as it may aid the pelicans in ridding their pouches of

saltwater lice (SFNWRC 1998). Also, the roost site allows the pelicans to successfully winter, building

resources in preparation for the breeding season. Loss of the Moss Landing roost site, due to prolonged

disturbance from restoration activities, has likely increased the importance of this Refuge roost site. One

of the objectives of the California brown pelican Recovery Plan (USFWS 1983) is to ensure the long-term
I-10

protection of important roosting locations. Historically, the Federally endangered California least tern

(Sterna antillarum browni) and Caspian tern nested at the Refuge. Caspian terns nested on the Refuge in

1996 after a failed attempt at Moss Landing Ecological and Estuarine Research Reserve. This breeding

attempt on the Refuge was unsuccessful. Some of the eggs were abandoned while others were incubated

to hatching. Indications are that the hatched chicks had been predated by avian predators. Prior to this

attempt in 1996, the last nesting attempt by Caspian terns occurred in 1986 but that attempt also failed,

probably due to human disturbance (SFNWRC 1998). In 1992, five California least terns were seen on

the Refuge and may have been nesting in the vicinity. The Refuge also provides roosting and foraging

habitat for elegant terns, Forster's terns (S. Forsteri), double-crested cormorants, ring-billed gulls (Larus

delawarensis), California gulls (L. californicus), Bonaparte's gulls (L. philadelphia), western gulls (L.

occidentalis), great blue herons (Ardea herodias), green-backed herons (Butorides striatus), blackcrowned night-herons (Nycticorax nycticorax), snowy egrets (Egretta thula), and great egrets

(Casmerodius albus).

The Refuge provides important wintering and breeding habitat for waterfowl in the Monterey Bay area. 

Wintering waterfowl populations vary from 500 to 3,000 on the Refuge depending on water availability. 

Primary species include ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), green-winged

teal (A. crecca), American wigeon (A. americana), northern shoveler (A. clypeata), cinnamon teal (A.

cyanoptera), gadwall (A. strepera), northern pintail (A. acuta), scaup (Aythya sp.), bufflehead, common

goldeneye (B. clangula), scoters (Melanitta sp.), and canvasback (A. valisineria). Wintering waterfowl

use the Salinas River as well as the saline pond. This 15-acre pond and associated salt marsh is unique as

there is no other pond of this type in central coastal California. It receives heavy use by dabbling ducks

during spring migration, with as many as 500 ducks foraging and roosting there. Mallards, cinnamon

teal, and gadwall have been documented nesting at the Refuge in recent years. These species nest

throughout the Refuge in upland and wetland habitats. In addition, American coots (Fulica americana)

are seasonally abundant, with as many as 600 present during winter months. Coots also nest at the

Refuge in emergent wetland vegetation along the Salinas River. 

Numerous species of raptors are supported by the Refuge. Northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), American

kestrels (Falco sparverius), white-tailed kites (Elanus leucurus), and short-eared owls (Asio flammeus)

have been known to nest on the Refuge. Peregrine falcons , barn owls (Tyto alba), red-tailed hawks

(Buteo jamaicensis), golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), ospreys (Pandion haliaetus), and merlins have

also been observed on the Refuge.

VEGETATION

The biological environment of the Salinas River and surrounding areas (including the Refuge) has been

altered drastically from pristine conditions. Historical accounts describe the area as supporting shallow

lakes, sloughs, vernal pools, marsh vegetation, expanses of grassland, and riparian corridors. The Salinas

River was a part of an enormous wetland ecosystem that included Elkhorn Slough and the Pajaro River. 

This wetland ecosystem was highly productive as wildlife habitat, especially as wintering habitat for a

magnificent number and diversity of waterbird. This area also supported California grizzly bear (Ursus

californicus) and tule elk (Cervus elaphus nannodes).

Since the time of early European settlement in California, extensive areas have been converted for

agricultural purposes. By the early 1900's, much of the land within the lower Salinas Valley had been

converted to agricultural production. For example, a series of large finger lakes and associated wetlands

had been drained, vernal pools were converted, riparian habitat was removed, and the Salinas and Pajaro

rivers were channelized and associated wetlands drained. The mouth of the Salinas River was redirected
I-11

to its present location. The highly productive Salinas Valley wetland ecosystem that included the Salinas

River, Elkhorn Slough and the Pajaro River had been fragmented and greatly reduced in size. As a result

of agricultural conversion, the area's wildlife has been severely impacted (SFNWRC1998). 

The extensive conversion of wetlands resulted in a significant reduction of birds (particularly waterbirds

and neotropical migrants), the elimination of tule elk from the region and the probable loss of many

vernal pool species. Over 90 percent of the Salinas Valley wetlands have been lost to agricultural

conversion (SFNWRC 1998). A portion of the Refuge once contained an artichoke field. It has now

returned to shrub and grassland habitat, through restoration efforts. As such, the Refuge provides

important habitat as it is one of just a few places where remnant wetland and riparian habitats remain

from the original Salinas Valley wetland ecosystem. This area was spared from being totally converted

for agricultural purposes due to its close proximity to the ocean, susceptibility to flooding, and its former

military ownership. 

There is also a fragile sand dune system on the Refuge that supports a number of sensitive plant species. 

These dunes include foredunes and coastal scrub dunes. The foredunes are just above the high tide line

and have stabilized to some degree, while the dune scrub just beyond the foredunes are more established. 

Plant species diversity in the foredunes is low. Species commonly found in the foredunes include yellow

and pink sand verbena (Abronia latifolia and A. umbellata), silky beach pea (Lathyrus litoralis), beach

primrose (Casmissonia cheiranthifolia), sea rocket (Cakile maritima), beach morning glory (Calystegia

sordanella), and beach bur (Franseria chamissonis ssp. bipinnatisecta and F. c. ssp. chamissonis)

(Appendix C). 

Dune scrub occurs in the more stabilized areas. The most common species include beach bur, mock

heather (Ericameria ericoides ssp. ericoides), branching phacelia (Phacelia ramisissima), blue beach

lupine (Lupinus chamisonis), coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium), and dune buckwheat (Eriogonum

parvifolium). While neither species of buckwheat is rare or endangered they are hosts to the endangered

Smith's blue butterfly. This habitat also supports federally listed plants, Monterey gilia (endangered) and

Monterey spineflower (threatened), as well as, sensitive species like the coast wallflower (Erysimum

ammophilum), Monterey paintbrush, (Castlleja latifolia var. latifolia), and branching beach aster

(Corethrogne leucophlla: Appendix C). 

Central coast riparian scrub occurs along the Salinas River and on islands within the River. Dominant

plant species include willows such as arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), red willow (S. laevigata), sandbar

willow (S. hindsiana), and yellow willow (S. lasiandra). Understory is typically dense and consists of

young trees and shrubs, such as coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), poison oak (Toxicodendron

diversilobum), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and California rose (Rosa californica). The

Watershed Institute of California State University have been conducting intensive restoration activities in

this habitat to reestablish native riparian scrub vegetation and to slow bank erosion. Species planted

include willows, box elder (Acer negundo), creekside dogwood (Cornus serica ssp. occidentalis), red

alder (Alnus rubra), and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa).

Coyote brush scrub represents a successional community that has developed following the abandonment

of agriculture fields that were in operation prior to Service occuaption. The dominant species is coyote

brush (Baccharis pilularis), which forms dense stands in some places. Grassland, with native and

nonnative species, is interspersed throughout this habitat. The Watershed Institute has recently restored a

large portion of the grassland to native grasses. In 1996, they drill-seeded 80 lbs. of a native grass mix

composed of wild rye (Elymus glaucus), California barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), annual hair grass
I-12

(Deschamsia caespitosa), and California brome (Bromus carinatus). These native grasses have been

maintained by intensive weed pulling, weed wacking, and mowing.

STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES

The only structure on the Refuge is a World War II era concrete bunker near the parking lot. Because the

structure is made entirely of concrete, it is of little concern in a fire situation. No buildings exist offsite in

the vicinity of the Refuge. A wooden fence is located on the eastern boundary along the artichoke field. 

A disced line is maintained on the Refuge adjacent to the fence. 

Most of the Refuge is closed to the public due to the sensitivity of the habitat. However, there are two

trails, the River Trail and the Ocean Beach Trail, open to the public (Figure 1). These trails enable

visitors to see a variety of habitats and the wildlife that inhabit them. 

The River Trail begins at the parking lot, runs north through upland habitat and leads to the south bank of

the Salinas River. It continues northwest along the south bank of the River for approximately 1/4 mile

where it loops back to the southwest through upland habitat to the Beach Trail. This trail is open for

walking, hiking, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. It is also used by hunters to gain access

to the hunt area.

The Ocean Beach Trail begins in the parking lot, winds through upland habitat, skirts the saline pond, and

cuts through the coastal dunes to end at the ocean beach. This trail is open for hiking, wildlife

observation, wildlife photography, and access to the ocean and ocean beach. The upper beach habitat,

except on the designated trail, is closed along the foredune boundary to protect the western snowy plover. 

In addition, the saline pond, salt marsh, and coastal dunes are closed to visitor use due to the extreme

sensitivity of these habitats.

Since parts of the Refuge are open to the public, public use may be impacted for a short duration during

fire activities. During prescribed fire activities, certain parts of the Refuge (i.e., trails and area to be

burned) would be closed to the public to ensure their safety. Wildland fire suppression and the use of

prescribed fire could affect neighboring landowners by altering adjacent habitats and/or potentially

escaping onto their properties. However, the escape risk is minimal due to the nature of the adjoining

properties. Dune areas along the northern and southern boundaries are sparsely vegetated and would not

carry fire under most circumstances. Prescribed fires will be conducted in the grassland habitats of the

Refuge. This area is separated from the eastern property by a 15' disced line. In addition, the artichoke

plants on the adjacent property are succulent and would not burn. Within the Refuge itself, the judicious,

conservative use of prescribed fire will greatly increase the efficiency and effectiveness of

grassland/upland management. 
I-13

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT SITUATION

HISTORIC ROLE OF FIRE

Pre-settlement Fires

Historical information on natural or anthropogenic fire is not readily available. Fire history does not

generally apply directly to wetlands or riparian areas due to the nature of the wetlands.

Post-settlement Fire History

There is no record of wildland fires to date. When contacted, the MCFD said they had not responded to a

call at the Refuge in the past 10 years (I. Larkin, pers. comm.). The period of high fire danger is from

June 1 through October 31, determined by CDF Monterey-San Benito County Unit. Damage from any

small fires that might occur include the potential effects on resident or nesting wildlife depending on the

time of year. Generally, damaged areas return to their original condition after one or two years.

Prescribed Fire History

The prescribed fire season at the Refuge is from May to June (I. Loredo, pers. comm). Fires during this

period allow non-native weeds to sprout but prevent them from going to seed. Two small prescribed fires

were conducted in the Refuge when the property was managed by CA Department of Fish and Game (B.

Elliott, pers. comm.). To date, prescribed fire management has not been used on the Refuge by USFWS

personnel. 

RESPONSIBILITIES

Salinas River NWR does not have on-site fire management staff or any on-site fire suppression

equipment. There is a Service fire crew stationed part-time (late spring to early fall) at San Luis NWRC

and a limited number of fire qualified personnel stationed at San Francisco Bay NWRC. Both of these

sites are approximately 100 miles from the Refuge. Because the unit is an un-staffed satellite Refuge,

Refuge personnel presence is limited to periodic surveys. Wildland fires in this area are generally

reported by the public and suppressed by firefighters from the Monterey Bay Fire Department before

Service staff can respond.

Responsibilities for fire management at Salinas River are shared by: the Salinas River Refuge Manager,

Refuge Biologist, SFBNWR Complex Project Leader, and the SLNWR Complex Fire Management

Officer (Appendix D). Primary wildland fire management responsibilities are to:

C provide overall management of the Refuge including the fire program,

C ensure collateral duty fire personnel are meeting Service standards,

C conduct prescribed fire activities in support of Refuge habitat management programs,

• establish and maintain appropriate fire-related agreements/contracts,

• monitor results of wildland and prescribed fires,

• update fire management and associated plans (dispatch, training, etc.), call-out lists, and

mobilization guidelines, and

• maintain the Refuge fire cache and fire equipment in a ready state.

Agency Administrator/ Project Leader (PL)

C Is the primary line officer responsible for implementation of all Fire Management

activities within the Complex and will ensure compliance with Department, Service and

Refuge policies.
I-14

C Selects the appropriate management responses to wildland fire.

Deputy Project Leader (DPL)

C Coordinates Complex programs to ensure personnel and equipment are made available

and used for fire management activities including fire suppression, prescribed burning

and fire effects monitoring.

C Ensures that the fire management program has access to Refuge and Complex resources

when needed.

C Ensures that Refuge Managers and Complex Staff consider the fire management program

during Refuge related planning and implementation.

Refuge Manager (RM)

C Identifies prescribed burn units and biological objectives to Fire Management Officer

(FMO) and Prescribed Fire Specialist (PFS), notifies FMO of prescribed fire project

constraints, and ensures that Refuge resources are available to accomplish prescribed fire

and fire suppression objectives. 

C Acts as the primary Refuge Resource Management Specialist during fire management

planning and operations. 

C Prepares an annual report detailing fire occurrences and prescribed fire activities

undertaken in each calendar year. This report will serve as a post-year's fire management

activities review, as well as provide documentation for development of a comprehensive

fire history record for the Refuge.

C Is responsible for planning, coordinating, and directing preparedness activities including

fire training, physical fitness testing and Interagency Fire Qualification System (IFQS)

data entry, fire cache and equipment inventory accountability, maintenance, and

operation, cooperation with cooperative agencies. 

Biologist

C Coordinates through Refuge Managers and Deputy Project Leader to provide biological

input for the fire program with the FMO and PFS. 

C Ensures fire effects monitoring is being implemented and drafts wildland fire

Rehabilitation Plans for Deputy Project Leader.

C Assists in design and implementation of fire effects monitoring, with FMO and PFS. 

C Participates, as requested, in prescribed burning and wildland fire suppression.

Zone Fire Management Officer (FMO)

C Responsible for all fire related planning and implementation for the Refuge. 

C Integrates biological Refuge objectives into all fire management planning and

implementation. 

C Solicits program input from the RM and Biologist. 

C Supervises prescribed fire planning. 

C Coordinates fire related training. 

C Coordinates with cooperators to ensure adequate resources are available for fire

operational needs. 

C Decides when to request overhead or additional firefighting personnel and equipment. 
I-15

C Is responsible for implementation of this Plan. This responsibility includes coordination

and supervision of all prevention, pre-suppression, detection, wildland fire, prescribed

fire, suppression, monitoring, and post-fire activities involving Refuge lands. 

C Is responsible for preparation of fire reports following the suppression of wildfires and

for operations undertaken while conducting prescribed fires. 

C Submits budget requests and monitors FIREBASE funds. 

C Maintains records for all personnel involved in suppression and prescribed fire activities,

detailing the individual's qualifications and certifications for such activities. 

C Updates all fire qualifications for entry into the Fire Management Information System. 

C Nominates personnel to receive fire-related training, as appropriate. 

C Designates the person to serve as Incident Commander (IC) for initial attack purposes. 

The FMO may assume the position of IC at his/her discretion or designate other

personnel to take over that position at his/her discretion. 

Prescribed Fire Specialist (PFS)

C Responsible for the planning and implementation of a program, which collects

information for the documentation, analysis, and prediction of fire behavior and effects.

C Develops and recommends, plans, and schedules management ignited fire activities for

the Refuge. 

C Implements and directs burns. 

C Plans and develops a program to collect information on the effects and behavior of

prescribed fire. 

C Plans and directs studies to monitor and analyze fire behavior parameters, then uses these

data to support the development of fire plans. 

C Plans and directs surveys for the collection, analysis and documentation of data relating

to fire effects on biotic and abiotic resources. 

C Organizes and performs studies to develop fire management prescriptions for prescribed

burns. 

C Is responsible for ensuring a cadre of qualified prescribed fire overhead by

recommending personnel for training, through both formal in-house and field training

assignments. 

C Is responsible for record keeping associated with burn planning, fire occurrence reporting

and fire weather. 

C Identifies areas of fire management requiring research and works with research scientists

in the development of project statements to accomplish this research.

Fire Management/Suppression Personnel 

C Consist of all Refuge personnel, whether permanent or seasonal, who meet the minimum

standard set by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) for firefighters. 

C Are fully equipped with proper personal protective equipment, have taken and passed the

minimum classroom training, and meet physical fitness standards required. 

C Undertake fire management duties as assigned by the Prescribed Fire Burn Boss on each

prescribed fire project. 

C Are responsible for their personal protective equipment and physical conditioning,

qualifying annually with the work capacity test before May 31.
I-16

Incident Commander

Incident Commanders (of any level) use strategies and tactics as directed by the Refuge Manager and

WFSA where applicable to implement selected objectives on a particular incident. A specific Limited

Delegation of Authority (Appendix E) will be provided to each Incident Commander prior to assuming

responsibility for an incident. Major duties of the Incident Commander are given in NWCG Fireline

Handbook, including:

C Brief subordinates, direct their actions and provide work tools.

C Ensure that safety standards identified in the Fire Orders, the Watch Out Situations, and

agency policies are followed at all times.

C Personally scout and communicate with others to be knowledgeable of fire conditions,

fire weather, tactical progress, safety concerns and hazards, condition of personnel, and

needs for additional resources.

C Order resources to implement the management objectives for the fire.

C Inform appropriate dispatch of current situation and expected needs.

C Coordinate mobilization and demobilization with dispatch and the Collateral FMO.

C Perform administrative duties; i.e., approving work hours, completing fire reports for

command period, maintaining property accountability, providing or obtaining medical

treatment, and evaluating performance of subordinates.

C Assure aviation safety is maintained to the highest standards. 

Initial Attack Teams

Initial attack teams will consist of fully-qualified firefighters and leaders. Teams will be prepared and

equipped with hand and power tools as needed and will be dispatched with a day's supply of food and

water, so they can continue work for 24 hours without additional support. 

Employees participating in any wildland fire activities on Fish and Wildlife Service or cooperator=s lands

will meet fitness requirements established in PMS 310-1, except where Service-specific fitness

requirements apply.

Exceptions to fitness requirements on Initial attack activity are available from the Regional Fire

Management Coordinator per guidelines in Chapter 1.5 of the Fire Management Handbook (USFWS

2000a).

INTERAGENCY OPERATIONS

There are no formal cooperative fire agreements in place at this time, however a Memorandum of

Understanding is currently being established between the Refuge and the Monterey County Fire

Department (MCFD). The MCFD has traditionally responded to wildland fires at the Refuge because of

their legal fire protection responsibility to the property surrounding the Refuge. Thus, any wildland fire

originating on Refuge lands is considered a threat to their property. 

 

Salinas River NWR will use the Incident Command System (ICS) as a guide for fireline organization. 

Qualifications for individuals is per DOI Wildland Fire Qualifications and Certification System, part of

NIIMS and the National Wildland Fire Coordination Group (NWCG) Prescribed Fire Qualification

Guide. Depending on fire complexity, some positions may be filled by the same person.

The County of Monterey Fire Department has the responsibility for preventing, controlling, and

extinguishing fire throughout unincorporated portions of the County. The County responds to fires near
I-17

the Refuge border because of their protection responsibilities for County property. Any fire starting on

Refuge lands would be suppressed by County resources because of their interest in preventing fires from

spreading onto their Local Responsibility Area. While no formal agreement is currently in place, the

County has expressed a willingness to respond to emergency suppression activities (Appendix F).

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) is responsible for all non-point and

point source air degradation within their designated area of responsibility. Burn permits and smoke

management concerns from prescribed burning on the Refuge must be coordinated through them. Like all

air polluction control districts, MBUAPCD has regulatory authority and enforces all District, state and

federal laws relating to the emissions of air pollutants (Appendix F).

A listing of key interagency contacts can be found in the Fire Dispatch Plan. The plan is an annual

assembly of information required to facilitate a rapid response to a fire report and to coordinate the initial

attack. (Appendix D).

There are no formal fire related agreements in place at this time. All agreements at this time are informal. 

PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE RESOURCES

Aggressive attack of all unplanned ignitions with minimum acreage burned is the suppression goal. 

Heavy equipment shall not be used due to the sensitivity of the habitat, except in cases where life or firefighter safety is threatened or when the Refuge Manager determines necessary. Dozer lines should only

be constructed, when necessary, in Coyote Scrub/Grassland Habitat, preferably along highlighted

established trail lines, but also allowed within the shaded area on map (Figure 2).

The Regional Archaeologist and/or his/her staff will work with fire staff, project leaders, and incident

commanders to ensure that cultural resources are protected from fire and fire management activities. The

“Request For Cultural Resource Compliance” form (Appendix G) will be used to inform the Regional

Archaeologist of impending activities, thereby meeting the regulations and directions governing the

protection of cultural resources as outlined in Departmental Manual Part 519, National Historic

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, Code of Federal Regulations (36CFR800), the Archaeological

Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended, and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of

1974. The NHPA Section 106 clearance will be followed for any fire management activity that may

affect historic properties (cultural resources eligible to the National Register of Historic Places).

Impacts to archaeological resources by fire and suppression resources vary. The four basic sources of

damage are (1) fire intensity, (2) duration of heat, (3) heat penetration into soil, and (4) suppression

actions. Of the four, the most significant threat is from equipment during line construction for prescribed

fires or wildfire holding actions.
I-18

Figure 2: Heavy equipment use areas
I-19

The following actions will be taken to protect archaeological and cultural resources:

Wildland Fires

C Minimum impact fire suppression tactics will be used to the fullest extent possible.

C Resource Advisors will inform Fire Suppression personnel of any areas with cultural resources.

C The Resource Advisor should contact the Regional Archaeologist and /or his/her staff for more

detailed information.

C Foam use will be minimized in areas known to harbor surface artifacts.

C Mechanized equipment should not be used in areas of known cultural significance.

C The location of any sites discovered as the result of fire management activities will be reported to

the Regional Archaeologist using the RCRC.

Prescribed Fires

C The Refuge Fire staff will submit a completed RCRC to the Regional Archaeologist and/or

his/her staff as soon as the burn area is identified (i.e., as soon as feasible).

C Upon receipt of the RCRC, the Regional Archaeologist and/or his/her staff will be responsible for

consulting with the FMO and evaluating the potential for adverse impacts to cultural resources.

C When necessary, the Regional Archaeologist and/or his/her staff will coordinate with the State

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The SHPO has 30 days to respond. The Refuge will

consider all SHPO recommendations.

C Mechanized equipment should not be used in areas of known cultural significance.

C The location of any sites discovered as the result of fire management activities will be reported to

the Regional Archaeologist

.
I-20

WILDLAND FIRE ACTIVITIES

Fire program management describes the operational procedures necessary to implement fire management

at Salinas River NWR. Program management includes: fire prevention, preparedness, emergency

preparedness, fire detection, communication, step-up staffing plan, pre-attack plan, fire behavior

predictions, fire suppression, minimum impact suppression, minimum impact rehabilitation,

documentation, and fire investigation.

 

All fires not classified as prescribed fires are wildland fires and will be appropriately suppressed. 

Suppression operations will generally be conducted by the Monterey County Fire Department (MCFD).

Records show that fire season is typically from June 1 to October 31. Depending on the specific weather

of any particular year, the seasons may be shorter or longer and, therefore, may start earlier or last longer. 

FIRE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

All unplanned wildland fires will be suppressed in a prompt, safe, aggressive, and cost-effective manner

to produce fast, efficient action with minimum damage to resources using appropriate management

strategies. Wildland fires will not be used as a resource management tool.

The following strategies will be employed to meet fire management objectives:

• Suppress all unplanned ignitions in a safe and cost-effective manner consistent with

resources and values at risk. Minimum impact strategies and tactics will be used when

possible, particularly in areas with high densities of endangered species. However, use

of heavy equipment remains an option for control of high intensity fires and fires

threatening critical values such as endangered species and private lands. 

C Maintain formal and informal cooperative relationships with local fire agencies to

provide immediate response to wildfires.

C Conduct all fire-management programs in a manner consistent with applicable laws,

policies and regulations.

C Initiate cost-effective fire monitoring which will ascertain if objectives are being met. 

Monitoring information will also be used to refine burn prescriptions to better achieve

objectives.

C Use prescribed fire as a management tool for achieving hazard fuel reductions and

resource management objectives. To the extent possible, hazard fuel prescribed fire

will be used to accomplish specific objectives established for individual land units. 

Prescribed fires are fires which are deliberately set to burn under prescribed conditions

in order to achieve pre-determined resource management objectives.

C Integrate fire ecology and management themes into future information programs.

Although resource impacts of suppression alternatives must always be considered in selecting a fire

management strategy, resource benefits will not be the primary consideration. Appropriate suppression

action will be taken to ensure firefighter safety, public safety, and protection of the resources.

Critical protection areas, such as dune and marsh habitat, will receive priority consideration in fire control

planning efforts. In all cases, the primary concern of fire suppression personnel shall be safety, and if

needed, all individuals not involved in the suppression effort may be evacuated.
I-21

Suppression strategies should be applied so that the equipment and tools used to meet the desired

objectives are those that inflict the least impacts upon the natural and cultural resources. Minimum

impact suppression strategies will be employed to protect all resources. Natural and artificial barriers will

be used as much as possible for containment. When necessary, fire line construction will be conducted in

such a way as to minimize long-term impacts to resources. 

Vehicle access to normally closed areas of the Refuge, except dune and beach habitat, will be made using

existing roads when possible. When off-road travel is determined to be necessary, vehicle access will be

allowed in designated areas of the Refuge with approval of the Project Leader or Delegate (Figure 2). 

Heavy equipment such as crawlers, tractors, dozers, or graders will not be used within the Refuge

boundaries unless their use is necessary to prevent a fire from destroying privately-owned and/or

government buildings and historic resources. Heavy equipment will only be used in designated areas

(Figure 2). The use of any heavy equipment requires approval from the Refuge Manager or Delegate. 

Sites impacted by fire suppression activities or by the fire will be rehabilitated as necessary, based on an

approved course of action for each incident.

PREPAREDNESS

Preparedness is the work accomplished prior to fire occurrence to ensure that the appropriate response, as

directed by the Fire Management Plan, can be carried out. Preparedness activities include: budget

planning, equipment acquisition, equipment maintenance, dispatch (i.e. initial attack, extended, and

expanded), equipment inventory, personnel qualifications, and training. The preparedness objective is to

have a well trained and equipped fire management organization to manage all fire situations within the

Refuge. Preparedness efforts are to be accomplished in the time frames outside the normal fire season

dates. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has minimum training requirements for all fire positions. The Service is a

member to the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) and accepts its standards for interagency

operations. There is a required refresher training for all personnel that are involved with wildland fire

activities. These requirements are found in the USFWS Fire Management Preparedness and Planning

Handbook, Section 1.5; Training, Qualification, and Certification (USFWS 2000b).

The traditional approach to a step-up plan does not work in this situation. Due to the availability of a large

number of local fire department resources, it would be a rare situation if Service fire crews were deployed

to the Refuge during a step-up situation. 

Historical weather analysis

The fire season generally begins with the curing of annual grasses in early June and extends until the first

rains in late-October. In general, fire does not apply directly to wetlands or riparian habitats due to the

hydrology.

Salinas River NWR does not operate a weather station and does not monitor the weather at the Refuge.

Monterey County Fire Department does not have any weather data that reflects the conditions at the

Refuge. The closest weather information can be obtained from a hotline provided by the Monterey

Peninsula Airport but mentions no specifics for the weather conditions at the Refuge. 
I-22

Fire Prevention

An active fire prevention program may be conducted in conjunction with other agencies to protect human

life and property, and prevent damage to cultural resources or physical facilities. 

Firelines are disked by adjacent farm personnel along the eastern one-third of the southern boundary of

the Refuge. The Salinas River forms the northeast boundary of the Refuge, and the Pacific Ocean forms

the western boundary. The southern boundary abuts agricultural fields of artichokes and other gardentype produce.

A program of internal and external education regarding potential fire danger may be implemented. 

Visitor contacts, bulletin board materials, and interpretive programs may be used to increase visitor and

neighbor awareness of fire hazards. Employees need to relate to the public the beneficial effects of

prescribed fires as opposed to unwanted human-caused fires, with emphasis on information, essential to

understanding the potential severity of human-caused wildland fires and how to prevent them. 

During periods of extreme or prolonged fire danger (Red Flag Warnings), emergency restrictions

regarding Refuge operations may become necessary. No heavy machinery, ATV’s, lawnmowers, etc. will

be permitted in the coyote brush scrub/grassland at these times. Such restrictions, when imposed, will

usually be consistent with those implemented by cooperators. The Refuge Manager or FMO will

recommend when such restrictions are necessary.

Staffing Priority Levels

There are no fire-funded staff stationed at the Refuge. Fire suppression response is provided by MCFD,

therefore MCFD will adjust staffing levels based on current fire danger. Because the Refuge headquarters

is located 100 miles from the Refuge, MCFD will be first responders. The Refuge has no facilities located

within the boundaries and will not require any closures (except to machinery previously mentioned)

during Red Flag Warnings.

Training

Departmental policy requires that all personnel engaged in suppression and prescribed fire duties meet the

standards set by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). Salinas River NWR will conform

strictly to the requirements of the wildland fire management qualification and certification system and

USFWS guidelines.

Basic wildland fire training refreshers are offered annually for red-carded firefighters and records kept in

a centralized database. Additional training is available from surrounding agencies in pump and engine

operation, power saws, firefighter safety, fire weather and fire behavior, helicopter safety and prescribed

fire objectives and activities. On-the job training is encouraged and will be conducted at the field level. 

Whenever appropriate, the use of fire qualification task books will be used to document fire experience of

trainees. The FMO will coordinate fire training needs with those of other nearby refuges, cooperating

agencies, and the RO.

The Refuge supports the development of individual Incident Command System (ICS) overhead personnel

from among qualified and experienced Refuge staff for assignment to overhead teams at the local,

regional, and national level. 
I-23

Fire suppression is an arduous duty. On prescribed fires, personnel may be required to shift from

implementation/monitoring activities to suppression. Poor physical condition of crew members can

endanger safety and lives during critical situations. Therefore, personnel performing fire management

duties will maintain a high level of physical fitness. This requires successful completion of a fitness pack

test. Personnel must complete a three mile hike with a 45 pound pack in less than 45 minutes. 

Supplies and Equipment

A small, 10-person cache for the Refuge is located at the Complex headquarters in Fremont, two hours

from the Refuge. The cache is maintained by the Complex staff and is accessible 24 hours a day. The

cache consists of personal protective equipment (e.g. clothing and boots) and fire tools (e.g. shovel and

rake).

Additional equipment and supplies are available through cooperators and the interagency cache system. 

Requests for additional personnel and equipment are made through the Mendocino NF Dispatch. The

contact list can be found in the Dispatch plan (Appendix D).

Annual fire readiness requires an inventory of existing cache items. The cache should be capable of

outfitting six personnel for wildfire activities and will be inventoried as ready by June 1 of each year. 

DETECTION

Most wildland fires are reported by the public to the emergency telephone number 9-1-1. The 9-1-1

dispatchers contact MCFD for suppression response. The Refuge is contacted by MCFD with a report of

all wildland fire activities.

The Fire Management Plan does not discriminate between human-caused and lightning caused fire. All

wildland fires will be suppressed. Any human-caused fires of suspicious origin (as determined by the

Refuge Manager or FMO) will require an investigation and report by law enforcement personnel. For

serious human-caused fires, including those involving loss of life, a qualified arson investigator will be

requested. 

COMMUNICATIONS

There is no open radio communication frequency for Refuge personnel. Instead, staff use a direct connect

cellular phone system.

Prescribed fire activities performed by Service personnel use the various NIFC Tactical channels as

needed. Normally NIFC Tactical channels 2 (168.200 mhz) and 3 (168.600 mhz) are used depending

upon the number of frequencies needed during prescribed burns.

There is currently no common communication link between Service personnel and MCFD.

PRE-ATTACK PLAN

Maps showing locations of water sources, roads, sensitive plant communities, private property, etc will be

kept at Refuge headquarters and distributed to Cooperators to facilitate actions that effectively suppress

fires while protecting values at risk. The Refuge will use Del Monte Boulevard as the primary firebreak

and other arterial crossroads as holding line (Figure 2).
I-24

FIRE MANAGEMENT UNITS

The Refuge will be managed as one unit. Although there are four vegetation communities, the overall

objective is to restore and maintain the area with native vegetation. Consistent with Service policy, all

fires will be managed as either wildland fires or prescribed fires. Suppression strategies, management

restrictions, fuels, fire environment and values at risk are similar throughout the Refuge. Thus all lands

will be managed as one single fire management unit. 

Due to staff limitations, relatively small land management parcels, long response times, valuable

resources, and values at risk on neighboring lands, this plan does not recommend wildland fire managed

for resource benefit as an option for the unit. Wildland fires will be suppressed using the appropriate

suppression response. Prescribed fires will be used to reduce hazardous fuels and to meet resource

management objectives.

Vegetation Type

The majority of the vegetation on the Refuge is marsh or grass species which have high rate of fire spread

when dry. Small expanses of riparian habitat with grass in the understory have high rates of fire spread in

strong winds.

The proposed prescribed fire burn area is within coyote scrub brush/ grassland habitat (Figure 1). There

have been no observed federally listed plant species within this habitat. There are native plants that

include wild rye, California barley, annual hair grass, and California brome, which were planted by the

Watershed Institute for restoration. Currently, intensive hand weeding, weed wacking, and mowing are

used to maintain native grassland. Late spring fires, in May and June, will benefit native grasses by

reducing nonnative weed seed banks, which have later seed production.

Fuel Types and Fire Behavior

Fuel types at the Refuge are predominately upland grass, seasonal marsh, and riparian woodlanddominated fuel types, Fire Behavior Fuel Models (FBFM)1, 3, and 9. Fuel Model 1 and 3 encompasses

approximately 195 acres of the Refuge and have high rates of spread. FBFM 1 has a rate of spread of 275

chains/hr (3.5 mph) and a flame length of 7.7 ft. FBFM has a rate of spread of 259 chains/hr (3.0mph) and

a flame length of 20.4 ft. Fuel Model 9 encompasses approximately 20 acres and has a rate of spread of

22 chains/hr and a flame length of 4.8 ft. This small portion of riparian habitat with grass understory

would exhibit smoldering and creeping rates due to the mosaic site characteristics unless strong winds are

present. Fire behavior in these model types can be simulated with the model BEHAVE.

SUPPRESSION TACTICS

Wildland fires will be suppressed in a prompt, safe, aggressive, and cost-effective manner to produce fast,

efficient action with minimum damage to resources. Suppression involves a range of possible actions

from initial attack to final suppression. All wildland fires will be suppressed. 

Personnel and equipment must be efficiently organized to suppress fire effectively and safely. To this

end, the FMO assumes the command function on major or multiple fire situations, setting priorities for the

use of available resources, and establishing a suppression organization. 

There will be only one Incident Commander responsible through the FMO, Refuge Manager or Delegate. 

The Incident Commander will designate all overhead positions on fires requiring extended attack.
I-25

Suppression Conditions

The typical fire suppression response to a fire at SRNWR would consist of an IC provided by the MCFD

and two engines. Water is the primary method for extinguishing fires. Handline is not usually needed for

suppression efforts. Foam and/or retardents have not yet been determined to be compatible with Refuge

resources.

Aggressive attack of all unplanned ignitions with minimum acreage burned is the goal. Heavy equipment

shall not be used due to the sensitivity of the habitat, except in cases where life or fire-fighter safety is

threatened or when the Refuge Manager deems it necessary. Safety of personnel and sensitive habitat at

risk will determine its use. This decision will be made by the incident commander, in concert with a

Refuge Biologist or Manager. Suppression guidelines will be outlined in the MOU with MCFD. 

Wildland Fire Situation Analysis

For fires that cannot be contained in one burning period, a WFSA must be prepared (Appendix H). In the

case of a wildland fire, the Incident Commander, in conjunction with the FMO, will prepare the WFSA. 

Approval of the WFSA resides with the Refuge Project Leader. 

The purpose of the WFSA is to allow for a consideration of alternatives by which a fire may be

controlled. Damages from the fire, suppression costs, safety, and the probable character of suppression

actions are all important considerations. 

Public safety will require coordination between all Refuge staff and the IC. Notices should be posted to

warn visitors, trails may be closed, traffic control will be necessary where smoke crosses roads, etc. 

Where wildland fires cross roads, the burned area adjacent to the road should be mopped up and

dangerous snags felled. Every attempt will be made to use natural and constructed barriers, including

changing fuel complexes, in the control of wildland fire. Rehabilitation efforts will concentrate on the

damages done by suppression activities rather than on the burned area itself. 

Aircraft Operations

Aircraft may be used in all phases of fire management operations. All aircraft must be Office of Aircraft

Services (OAS) or Forest Service approved. An OAS Aviation Policy Department Manual will be

provided by OAS. 

Helicopters may be used for reconnaissance, bucket drops and transportation of personnel and equipment. 

Natural helispots and parking lots are readily available in most cases. Clearing for new helispots should

be avoided where possible. Improved helispots will be rehabilitated following the fire. 

As in all fire management activities, safety is a primary consideration. Qualified aviation personnel will

be assigned to all flight operations. 

REHABILITATION AND RESTORATION

When suppression action is taken, rehabilitation is appropriate. The most effective rehabilitation measure

is prevention of impacts through careful planning and the use of minimum impact suppression techniques. 
I-26

Fire rehabilitation will be as prompt as possible to prevent erosion and spread of non-native plants. This

will be developed by the Refuge staff and submitted to the Regional Fire Management Coordinator for

review within 90 days of the unplanned ignition being declared out.

Rehabilitation will be initiated by the Incident Commander, FMO, or Refuge Manager. Rehabilitation

will be directed toward minimizing or eliminating the effects of the suppression effort and reducing the

potential hazards caused by the fire. These actions may include:

1. Backfill control lines, scarify, and seed. 

2. Install water bars and construct drain dips on control lines to prevent erosion. 

3. Install check dams to reduce erosion potential in drainages. 

4. Restore natural ground contours. 

5. Remove all flagging, equipment and litter. 

6. Consider and plan more extensive rehabilitation or revegetation to restore sensitive impacted

areas. 

If revegetation or seeding is necessary, only native plant species will be used.

If emergency rehabilitation measures are needed or if rehabilitation is needed to reduce the effects of a

wildland fire then the Refuge can request appropriate funding through the Burned Area Emergency

Rehabilitation (BAER) fund.

Rehabilitation plans for each fire will be reviewed by the Refuge Manager. A final plan will be

submitted to Region for establishing an account. Rehabilitation should be initiated prior to complete

demobilization or early the following season. 

REQUIRED REPORTING

A DI-1202, fire report, will be filled out and submitted to the Regional Fire Management Officer for input

into the Fire Management Information System (FMIS) within 20 days of the fire being declared out. 

Copies of reports from the Monterey County Fire Department will be obtained and report will be written

to summarize the specifics of the fire, actions taken and outcomes from those actions. A formal review

will be conducted on all serious injuries and losses of significant resources.

FIRE INVESTIGATION

Fire management personnel will attempt to locate and protect the probable point of origin and record

pertinent information required to determine fire cause. They will be alert for possible evidence, protect

the scene and report findings to the fireline supervisor.

The Refuge Manager, FMO, or IC may request a fire investigator through the MCFD. Prompt and

efficient investigation of all suspicious fires will be carried out. However, fire management personnel

should not question suspects or pursue the fire investigation unless they are currently law enforcement

commission qualified. 

Personnel and services of other agencies may be used to investigate wildland fire arson or fire incidents

involving structures. All fire investigations should follow the guidelines outlined in 4.1-2 of the Fire

Management Handbook (2000a). 
I-27

PRESCRIBED FIRE ACTIVITIES

PRESCRIBED BURN PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

Prescribed fire can be a useful tool for restoring and maintaining natural conditions and processes at

Salinas River NWR.

The goal of prescribed fire at the Refuge is to 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 within 15 years,

within the mosaic of grassland and coastal scrub habitat (Objective 2.2 of Salinas River NWR CCP).

The objectives of prescribed fire are to:

1. Maintain and enhance native grassland with prescribed fire in addition to mowing and herbicide

use.

2. Limit extent of nonnative species [e.g. wild radish (Raphanus sativus), hemlock (Conium

maculatum), and mustard (Brassica rapa ssp.olifera)]

Prescribed fires involve the use of fire as a tool to achieve management objectives. Research burning

may also be conducted when determined to be necessary for accomplishment of research project

objectives. To meet the goals and objectives of prescribed fires on the Refuge, it is important to monitor

the grasslands and choose the most appropriate areas and timing to conduct the burns. That is, burns

should be conducted in areas that currently support native species, and should be conducted after native

grasses have set seed and cured, but before nonnatives have seeded. Follow up is necessary to determine

frequency of burning and spot treating. Actions included in the prescribed burn program include: the

selection and prioritization of prescribed burns to be carried out during the year, prescribed burn plans,

burn prescriptions, burn operations, documentation and reporting, and burn critiques. Measures to ensure

the successful implementation of the prescribed fire program are to: 

1. Conduct a vigorous prescribed fire program with the highest professional and technological

standards; 

2. Identify the prescribed burn parameters that are most appropriate for meeting resource

management objectives;

3. Efficiently accomplish resource management objectives through the application of prescribed

fire;

4. Continually evaluate the prescribed fire program to better meet program goals by refining

prescriptions treatments and monitoring methods, and by integrating applicable technical and

scientific advancements; 

5. Prepare prescribed burn plans with a review by a qualified Prescribed Fire

Manager/Prescribed Burn Boss, and approval by the Refuge Manager; and 

6. Conduct prescribed burns with an adequate number of qualified personnel to conduct the

burn as well as to mop-up. 

The Refuge reserves the option to use an interagency team approach for complex burns carried out on the

boundaries and close to developed areas or burns of large acreage. The most highly qualified and

experienced personnel in the regional interagency community would be requested to serve on this team. 

FIRE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Prescribed fire will be used to reduce hazard fuel accumulation, restore fire to fire-dependent ecological

communities, improve wildlife habitat, and to maintain cultural/ historic scenes where appropriate. All
I-28

prescribed fire activity will comply with applicable Federal, state, and local air quality laws and

regulations. 

All prescribed fire projects will have a burn plan approved by the Project Leader. Each burn plan will be

prepared using a systematic decision-making process, and contain measurable objectives, predetermined

prescriptions, and using an approved environmental compliance document. Appropriate NEPA

documentation exists for this Fire Management Plan in the Draft CCP/Environmental Assessment. 

Therefore, additional NEPA documentation will be necessary only for prescribed fire projects not meeting

the criteria outlined in this Plan. 

Prescribed Fire Burn Plans must include components such as a Go/No/Go Checklist, contingency actions

to be taken in the event the prescription is exceeded, and the need for alerting neighbors and appropriate

public officials to the timing and the planing of the burn. A burn plan format meeting all required needs

is located in Appendix I.

Fire monitoring will be used to evaluate the degree to which burn objectives are accomplished. 

Monitoring can assist managers in documenting success in achieving overall programmatic objectives and

limiting occurrence of undesired effects. 

PRESCRIBED FIRE PLANNING

Annual Activities

The FMO will be responsible for completing an annual fire summary report. The report will contain the

number of fires by type, acres burned by fuel type, cost summary, personnel employed, and fire effects. 

The Refuge Manager, Biologist, and FMO will determine burn unit priorities, timing, and burn plan

development schedule by January of each year. Burn Plans will be prepared and submitted for Project

Leader review and approval by March. The Burn Plan will be submitted to the Air Quality District by

March 30 for smoke management review and authorizing letter.

Prescribed Fire activities will be reviewed annually. Necessary updates or changes to the Fire

Management Plan will be accomplished prior to the next fire season. Any additions, deletions, or changes

will be reviewed by the Refuge Manager to determine if such alterations warrant a re-approval of the

plan.

Prescribed Burn Plan

The Prescribed Burn Boss will conduct a field reconnaissance of the proposed burn location with the

FMO, Biologist, and/or Refuge Manager to discuss objectives, special concerns, and gather all necessary

information to write the burn plan. After completing the reconnaissance, a qualified Burn Boss will write

the prescribed burn plan.

All prescribed fires will have prescribed burn plans. The prescribed burn plan is a site specific action

plan describing the purpose, objectives, prescription, and operational procedures needed to prepare and

safely conduct the burn. The treatment area, objectives, constraints, and alternatives will be clearly

outlined. No burn will be ignited unless all prescriptions of the plan are met. Fires not within those

parameters will be suppressed. Prescribed Burn Plans will follow the format contained in Appendix I. 

Each burn plan will be reviewed by the Refuge Manager, Biologist, FMO, and Burn Boss. The Project
I-29

Leader has the authority to approve the burn plan. The term “burn unit” refers to a specific tract of land to

which a prescribed burn plan applies.

Strategies and Personnel

Execution of prescribed burns will only be executed by qualified personnel. The Prescribed Burn Boss

will fill all required positions to conduct the burn with qualified personnel. All personnel listed in the

burn plan must be available for the duration of the burn or the burn will not be initiated. Personnel will

meet minimum USFWS fitness and qualifications standards for prescribed burning. 

Weather and fuel moisture conditions must be monitored closely in planned burn units to determine when

the prescription criteria are met. A belt weather kit may also be utilized to augment monitoring. Fuel

moisture samples of 10-, 100-, and 1000-hour down and dead logs (where applicable) and of live plants

may be monitored each week and percent moisture contents figured to help determine when the

prescription criteria are met. 

When all prescription criteria are within the acceptable range, the Prescribed Burn Boss will select an

ignition date based on current and predicted weather forecasts. A thorough briefing will be given by the

Prescribed Burn Boss and specific assignments and placement of personnel will be discussed. An

updated spot weather forecast will be obtained on the day of ignition and all prescription elements will be

rechecked to determine if all elements are still within the approved ranges. If all prescription elements are

met, a test fire will be ignited to determine on-site fire behavior conditions as affected by current weather. 

If conditions are not satisfactory, the test fire will be suppressed and the burn will be rescheduled. If

conditions are satisfactory the burn will continue as planned.

Specific management needs for the Refuge as a whole and for specific areas will be determined annually. 

Specific burn objectives, fire frequency rotation, firing methodology, and prescriptions will vary from

year to year. Burn plans will be updated to reflect any variations. Project Leader will approve prescribed

fire plans.

Based on resource needs, 10 to 40 acres per year will be targeted for burning in coyote brush

scrub/grassland habitat only. The burn would occur in May or June, allowing native grasses to drop seed,

but prior to nonnatives going to seed. Additional planting of native grasses may be necessary to achieve

final objectives. No threatened or endangered species are known to exist in this habitat, but ground

nesting birds, such as mallards, have been found in the area. Prescribed burns will initially be used to

restore and enhance the native grassland, controlling non-native weeds by burning for several consecutive

years. Once non-natives are reduced to a controllable level in an area, fire will then be used for

maintenance of the grasslands, requiring only periodic burns.

 

Depending upon the complexity of the burn, two or more fire crews (3 crew members per crew) from the

Central Valley Refuges Zone and 3-4 collateral fire duty personnel from SFBNWRC may be needed to

ignite, hold, and mop-up the burn. In addition, personnel and equipment from MCFD shall be available

in the event that fire spreads outside Refuge property and into their local responsibility area. A qualified

Prescribed Burn Boss Type III or higher will be required to write the Burn Plan and serve as Burn Boss

during any planned ignitions

One person with botanical/sampling design expertise will also be needed to conduct pre and post burn

monitoring. One person with biological/botanical expertise will be needed to assist in developing site

specific prescribed burn plans.
I-30

Only qualified personnel will be used to conduct burns on the Refuge. Pre- and post-fire briefings will be

conducted on all planned ignitions. 

Coordination needed with the following entities:

C Monterey Bay Unified Pollution Control District: Written approval required; Burn Plan

needs to be submitted 30 days in advance of planned ignition; day of fire approval required.

C Monterey County Police Department: Needs to be contacted the day of the burn to notify

them of potential smoke across roads.

C Monterey County Fire Department: Needs to receive copy of Prescribed Burn Plan 1 month

in advance.

C California State Parks, Martin Jefferson & Sons, Robert Scattini, City of Marina, and other

adjacent landowners: Adjacent or nearby landowners need to be contacted at least 1 week

prior to the burn so that vehicles are moved and employees are aware of the burn.

C Volunteers and personnel from other agencies or organizations that conduct research on the

Refuge need to be contacted at least 1 week prior to the burn (Appendix F). 

The Refuge will procure burn permits and follow procedures in them. In addition, the Zone Fire

Management Officer or an individual qualified at the Prescribed Burn Boss Type III level will write a

Burn Plan to be approved by the Project Leader. The guidance and format for writing Burn Plans is

found in the Service’s Prescribed Fire Management Handbook, Section 2.2. All ignitions require a DI1202 form to completed and returned to the responsible fire management officer for input into the Fire

Management Information System (FMIS) within 20 days after the fire is declared out. 

If the prescribed burn escapes the predetermined burn area, all further ignition will be halted except as

needed for suppression efforts. Suppression efforts will be initiated, as discussed in the preburn briefing. 

The FMO will be notified immediately of any control actions on a prescribed burn. If the burn exceeds

the initial suppression efforts, the burn will be declared a wildland fire and suppressed using guidelines

established in this plan. If a prescribed burn is declared a wildland fire, all personnel must meet NWCG

qualifications and fitness levels for wildland fire activities. A WFSA will be completed and additional

personnel and resources ordered as determined by the Incident Commander. If the fire continues to burn

out of control, additional resources will be called from the local cooperating agencies via the servicing

dispatch. A management overhead team may be requested to assume command of the fire. 

Recommendations of the Monterey Bay Unified Pollution Control District will be followed which will

satisfy the District's criteria for use of the "72-Hour Outlook/48-Hour Decision" forecasting procedure. 

These may include restrictions on igniting under certain wind speeds/directions, humidity, or other

conditions that would cause local air quality to be degraded. Other conditions under which fires will not

be ignited include: east wind conditions, Red Flag Warnings /Watches, situations where local fire

department resources are over committed to wildland fires in the Bay Area (i.e., Oakland Hills Fire 1991

or Vision -Pt. Reyes Fire 1995). The prescribed fire plan will also identify other "go-no-go" or

suppression criteria. Prior to any planned ignitions, Burn Boss will contact MCFD Emergency

Communications Center to determine resource availability in case of an escaped burn.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring of prescribed fires is intended to provide information for quantifying and predicting fire

behavior and its ecological effects on refuge resources while building a historical record. Monitoring

measures the parameters common to all fires: fuels, topography, weather and fire behavior. In addition,
I-31

ecological changes such as species composition and structural changes will be monitored after a fire. 

This information will be very useful in fine-tuning the prescribed burn program. 

All wildland fires will be appropriately suppressed. However, monitoring wildland fires may be

appropriate and potentially valuable in mapping and documenting the growth of the fire, measuring onsite weather and fuel loading to provide the fire staff with present and expected fire behavior and effects. 

During prescribed burns, monitoring can serve as a precursor to invoking suppression action by

determining if the fire is in prescription, assessing its overall potential, and determining the effects of the

prescribed burn. 

During prescribed burning, monitoring should include mapping, weather, site and fuel measurements and

direct observation of fire characteristics such as flame length, rate of spread and fire intensity. 

Operational monitoring provides a check to insure that the fire remains in prescription and serves as a

basis for evaluation and comparison of management actions in response to measured, changing fire

conditions, and changes such as fuel conditions and species composition. 

All fires may be monitored regardless of size. The FMO will establish specific fire information

guidelines for each fire to update intelligence about the fire. Highest priority for monitoring will be

assigned to large fires or fires which threaten to leave the Refuge. 

Short term: BEHAVE predictions will be used to model fire behavior, and a belt weather kit will be used

to monitor actual burn day conditions. The Service presently has no fire effects results for the Refuge.

Long term: The response of native and non-native vegetation to the prescribed fire will be monitored. 

Plant species composition and percent cover will be measured pre and post burn for certain native and

weed species of concern. 

Monitoring must be done to document and verify that the stated objectives have been met. Plots, photo

points, or other methods will be developed to document the results of the burn. These data will be stored

for future refinement of prescriptions and to determine the success of the program.

Required Reports

All prescribed burn forms will be completed as outlined by the Prescribed Burn Boss. A monitor will be

assigned to collect all predetermined information and complete all necessary forms prior to, during, and

after the burn. All records will be archived in the refuge's fire records for future use and reference. 

The Prescribed Burn Boss will prepare a final report on the prescribed burn for the Fire Analysis

Committee. Information will include a narrative of the burn operation, a determination of whether

objectives were met, weather and fire behavior data, map of the burn area, photographs of the burn,

number of work hours, and final cost of the burn. 

Prescribed Burn Critique

A report detailing the actual burn will accompany any recommendations or changes deemed necessary in

the program. This report will be submitted to the Refuge Project Leader. A post-season critique of the

fire management program, including the prescribed burn program, will be held each year at the

conclusion of the fall fire season. 
I-32

AIR QUALITY / SMOKE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

Air quality is managed by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution District (MBUAPD). Burn permits

must be issued to conduct a prescribed burn. The Refuge would obtain a Prescribed Burn Permit each

year prescribed burning is conducted. The Refuge would follow all conditions of the permits. MBUAPD

is currently in the process of revising fee structure. There has been no determination, yet direction is

forthcoming.

The Refuge is located in an area that is classified by EPA and the California State Air Resources Board as

"Non-Attainment" for Particulate Matter -10 (PM-10). Close coordination between the Refuge and the

MBUAPD is required to meet PM-10 emission requirements if prescribed burning is done .

Specific aspects of a Smoke Management Plan (wind, weather, visibility hazard, and residual smoke

problems) would be addressed on project Prescribed Burn Plans prepared for each burn, as required per

Title 17 of the State Air Resources Board.

FIRE RESEARCH

The Refuge would collect data and monitor the success or failure of burning under certain conditions

required to accomplish objectives of controlling non-native vegetation and restoring riverine and upland

sand dune habitat. Weather conditions would be recorded to establish future successful/ideal burning

results.

Additional research may be conducted as funds become available.
I-33

PUBLIC SAFETY

Salinas River NWR is dedicated to ensuring the safety of each visitor and to all residents and property

adjacent to the Refuge's boundary. Therefore, during prescribed burns and wildland fires, the Refuge will

be closed to the public. 

Firefighter and public safety will always take precedence over property and resource protection during

any fire management activity. For public safety, the fire scene and areas determined by the Refuge

Manager or Project Leader, will remain clear of unauthorized people. The responsibility for managing

public safety lies with the Incident Commander (IC) or Burn Boss for wildland or prescribed fire. Public

safety considerations will be included as part of the burn prescription.

Where possible, areas of fire activity will be signed at visitor centers and bulletin boards. Residents

adjacent to the Refuge may be notified of any prescribed burn and if any fire poses a threat to burn onto

their lands (Appendix F).

During prescribed burns at least one burn team member will have first aid training. A first aid kit will be

on-site for prescribed burns as well as wildland fires. The local police, fire, and emergency medical

services will be notified prior to the ignition of any prescribed burn. They will also be notified of the

location of any wildland fires. 
I-34

PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION

Informing the public is an important part of the fire management program. During a wildfire, the IC is

responsible for providing information to the public. Prescribed fire public information would be

addressed in the Prescribed Fire Plan and the Environmental Assessment when developed.

Educating the public on the value of fire as a natural process is important to increasing public

understanding and support for the fire management program. The Refuge will use the most appropriate

and effective means to explain the overall fire and smoke management program. This may include

signing, personal contacts, interpretive panels, or media releases. When deemed necessary, interpretive

presentations will address the fire management program and explain the role of fire in the environment.

The public information program will be developed as follows: 

1. Concepts of the prescribed burn program will be incorporated, as appropriate, in future

interpretive panels, and in local publications.

2. During periods when prescribed burns are ignited, handouts will be prepared, posted, and

distributed to all visitors.

3. The fire management program may be incorporated into visitor contacts. Particular attention

will be given when fires are conspicuous from roads or visitor use areas. 

4. News releases will be distributed to the media as appropriate. 

5. The public information outlets of neighboring and cooperating agencies and the regional

office will be provided with all fire management information. 

6. The fire management program will be discussed in informal talks with all employees ,

volunteers, residents, and neighbors. 

Prior to the lighting of any planned ignition, information should be made available to visitors, local

residents, and/or the press about what is scheduled to happen and why. On-site information will be

provided to alleviate visitor concern about the apparent destruction of resources by fire or the impairment

of views due to temporary smoke. This information will include prescribed burn objectives and control

techniques, current fire location and behavior, effects caused by the fire, impacts on private and public

facilities and services, and restrictions and closures.

As outlined in the prevention section, restrictions may become necessary during Red Flag Warnings, but

public use should not be affected.
I-35

FIRE CRITIQUES AND ANNUAL PLAN REVIEW

FIRE CRITIQUES

Fire reviews will be documented and filed with the final fire report. The FMO will retain a copy for the

Refuge files.

ANNUAL FIRE SUMMARY REPORT

The FMO will be responsible for completing an annual fire summary report. The report will contain the

number of fires by type, acres burned by fuel type, cost summary (prescribed burns and wildland fires),

personnel utilized, and fire effects. 

ANNUAL FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW

The Fire Management Plan will be reviewed annually. Necessary updates or changes will be

accomplished prior to the next fire season. Any additions, deletions, or changes will be reviewed by the

Refuge Manager to determine if such alterations warrant a re-approval of the plan. 

The fire management plan will be updated as major policy decisions are made. At a minimum, this plan

will be reviewed once a year by the individual on the Refuge with fire responsibility to maintain the

integrity of the plan. Amendments to the fire management plan itself will be made as needed by sending

them to the Regional Fire Management Coordinator for concurrence and to be approved by the Regional

Director in Portland. Minor changes to the appendices, such as phone number corrections and personnel

changes, can be made at the Refuge level and attached to the plan during this yearly review process

without involvement of the Regional Office.
I-36

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The following agencies, organizations and/or individuals were consulted in preparing this plan.

Roddy Baumann, Prescribed Fire Specialist, Pacific Region, USFWS, Portland, OR

Richard Hadley, Assistant Refuge Supervisor (NV/So. CA), USFWS, Sacramento, CA

Rachel Hurt, Wildlife Biologist, San Francisco Bay NWRC, USFWS, Fremont, CA

Diane Kodama, Wildlife Biologist, Salinas River NWR, USFWS, Fremont, CA

Ivette Loredo, Refuge Manager, Salinas River NWR, USFWS, Fremont, CA

Amanda McAdams, Fire Planner, Pacific Region, USFWS, Portland, OR

Dave Paullin, Klamath/Central Valley Refuge Supervisor,USFWS, Sacramento, CA

Tom Romanello, Assistant Fire Management Officer, Sheldon-Hart NWR, Lakeview, OR.
I-37

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: REFERENCES CITED

Habitat Restoration Group, Inc. 1991. Salinas River Lagoon Management and Enhancement Plan. 

Administrative Draft. Prepared for Salinas River Lagoon Task Force.

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Drafts EIS, 1990.

San Francisco National Wildlife Refuge Complex (SFNWRC). 1998. Draft Public Use Management

Plan and Environmental Assessment.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. Inventory Project Report Castroville Amphibious Training Base.

Supplemental.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a. Fire Management Handbook.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Fire Management Preparedness and Planning Handbook.

Personal Communication:

Larkin, Ian, ECC Captain, MCFD, 8 June 2001.

Loredo, Ivette, Refuge Manager SRNWR, USFWS, 11 June 2001.

Valentine, Nicholas, Archeologist, Museum Specialist, USFWS Region 1, 2000.
I-38

APPENDIX B: DEFINITIONS

Agency Administrator. The appropriate level manager having organizational responsibility for

management of an administrative unit. May include Director, State Director, District Manager or Field

Manager (BLM); Director, Regional Director, Complex Manager or Project Leader (FWS); Director,

Regional Director, Park Superintendent, or Unit Manager (NPS), or Director, Office of Trust

Responsibility, Area Director, or Superintendent (BIA). 

Appropriate Management Action. Specific actions taken to implement a management strategy. 

Appropriate Management Response. Specific actions taken in response to a wildland fire to implement

protection and fire use objectives. 

Appropriate Management Strategy. A plan or direction selected by an agency administrator which guide

wildland fire management actions intended to meet protection and fire use objectives. 

Appropriate Suppression. Selecting and implementing a prudent suppression option to avoid

unacceptable impacts and provide for cost-effective action.

Bureau. Bureaus, offices or services of the Department. 

Class of Fire (as to size of wildland fires):

Class A - 3 acre or less.

Class B - more than 3 but less than 10 acres.

Class C - 10 acres to 100 acres.

Class D - 100 to 300 acres.

Class E - 300 to 1,000 acres.

Class F - 1,000 to 5,000 acres.

Class G - 5,000 acres or more.

Emergency Fire Rehabilitation/Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (EFR/BAER). Emergency actions

taken during or after wildland fire to stabilize and prevent unacceptable resource degradation or to

minimize threats to life or property resulting from the fire. The scope of EFR/BAER projects are

unplanned and unpredictable requiring funding on short notice. 

Energy Release Component (ERC) A number related to the available energy (BTU) per unit area (square

foot) within the flaming front at the head of a fire. It is generated by the National Fire Danger Rating

System, a computer model of fire weather and its effect on fuels. The ERC incorporates thousand hour

dead fuel moistures and live fuel moistures; day to day variations are caused by changes in the moisture

content of the various fuel classes. The ERC is derived from predictions of (1) the rate of heat release per

unit area during flaming combustion and (2) the duration of flaming.

Extended attack. A fire on which initial attack forces are reinforced by additional forces.

Fire Suppression Activity Damage. The damage to lands, resources and facilities directly attributable to

the fire suppression effort or activities, including: dozer lines, camps and staging areas, facilities (fences,

buildings, bridges, etc.), handlines, and roads. 
I-39

Fire effects. Any consequences to the vegetation or the environment resulting from fire, whether neutral,

detrimental, or beneficial.

Fire intensity. The amount of heat produced by a fire. Usually compared by reference to the length of the

flames.

Fire management. All activities related to the prudent management of people and equipment to prevent or

suppress wildland fire and to use fire under prescribed conditions to achieve land and resource

management objectives.

Fire Management Plan. A strategic plan that defines a program to manage wildland and prescribed fires

and documents the Fire Management Program in the approved land use plan. The plan is supplemented by

operational procedures such as preparedness plans, preplanned dispatch plans, prescribed fire plans and

prevention plans. 

Fire prescription. A written direction for the use of fire to treat a specific piece of land, including limits

and conditions of temperature, humidity, wind direction and speed, fuel moisture, soil moisture, etc.,

under which a fire will be allowed to burn, generally expressed as acceptable range of the various firerelated indices, and the limit of the area to be burned. 

Fuels. Materials that are burned in a fire; primarily grass, surface litter, duff, logs, stumps, brush, foliage,

and live trees.

Fuel loadings. Amount of burnable fuel on a site, usually given as tons/acre.

Hazard fuels. Those vegetative fuels which, when ignited, threaten public safety, structures and facilities,

cultural resources, natural resources, natural processes, or to permit the spread of wildland fires across

administrative boundaries except as authorized by agreement.

Initial Attack. An aggressive suppression action consistent with firefighter and public safety and values to

be protected.

Maintenance burn. A fire set by agency personnel to remove debris; i.e., leaves from drainage ditches or

cuttings from tree pruning. Such a fire does not have a resource management objective.

Natural fire. A fire of natural origin, caused by lightning or volcanic activity.

NFDRS Fuel Model. One of 20 mathematical models used by the National Fire Danger Rating System to

predict fire danger. The models were developed by the US Forest Service and are general in nature

rather than site specific. 

NFFL Fuel Model. One of 13 mathematical models used to predict fire behavior within the conditions of

their validity. The models were developed by US Forest Service personnel at the Northern Forest Fire

Laboratory, Missoula, Montana. 
I-40

Prescription. Measurable criteria which guide selection of appropriate management response and actions.

Prescription criteria may include safety, public health, environmental, geographic, administrative, social,

or legal considerations. 

Prescribed Fire. A fire ignited by agency personnel in accord with an approved plan and under prescribed

conditions, designed to achieve measurable resource management objectives. Such a fire is designed to

produce the intensities and rates of spread needed to achieve one or more planned benefits to natural

resources as defined in objectives. Its purpose is to employ fire scientifically to realize maximize net

benefits at minimum impact and acceptable cost. A written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist and

NEPA requirements must be met prior to ignition. NEPA requirements can be met at the land use or fire

management planning level. 

Preparedness. Actions taken seasonally in preparation to suppress wildland fires, consisting of hiring and

training personnel, making ready vehicles, equipment, and facilities, acquiring supplies, and updating

agreements and contracts.

Prevention Activities directed at reducing the number or the intensity of fires that occur, primarily by

reducing the risk of human-caused fires.

Rehabilitation (1) Actions to limit the adverse effects of suppression on soils, watershed, or other values,

or (2) actions to mitigate adverse effects of a wildland fire on the vegetation-soil complex, watershed,

and other damages.

Suppression. A management action intended to protect identified values from a fire, extinguish a fire, or

alter a fire's direction of spread. 

Unplanned ignition. A natural fire that is permitted to burn under specific conditions, in certain locations,

to achieve defined resource objectives.

Wildfire. An unwanted wildland fire. 

Wildland Fire. Any non-structure fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland. 

Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA). A decision-making process that evaluates alternative

management strategies against selected safety, environmental, social, economical, political, and resource

management objectives as selection criteria. 

Wildland/urban interface fire A wildland fire that threatens or involves structures.
I-41

APPENDIX C: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ON THE REFUGE

Legal Statusa

Common and Scientific Name Federal/BCC/State/CNPS Occurrence at Salinas River NWR

Plants

Sandmat manzanita

Arctostaphylos pumila

–/–/1B Not reported to occur at the Refuge but suitable habitat present.

Monterey spineflower

Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens

T/–/1B Occurs on the Refuge; suitable habitat abundant on dunes and species

also occurs nearby. 

Robust spineflower

Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta

E/–/1B No populations known to occur at the Refuge; occurs in dunes

immediately north and south of Refuge.

Seaside bird’s-beak

Cordylanthus rigidus ssp. littoralis

–/E/1B Not reported to occur at the Refuge; suitable habitat present.

Eastwood’s goldenbush

Ericameria fasciculata

–/–/1B Not reported to occur at the Refuge; suitable habitat present.

Coast wallflower

Erysimum ammophilum

–/–/1B Not reported to occur at the Refuge; suitable habitat present.

Menzies’ wallflower

Erysimum menziesii ssp. menziesii

E/E/1B Probably occurred historically at the Refuge; no populations

currently known from the site. 

Yadon’s wallflower

Erysimum menziesii ssp. yadonii

E/E/1B A population of this species was located on the Refuge in the 1970s,

but was likely extirpated in 1980 by natural disturbance of the central

foredune community.

Monterey gilia

Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria

E/T/1B Occurs on the Refuge and at Salinas River State Beach north of the

Refuge.

Tidestrom’s lupine

Lupinus tidestromii

E/E/1B Not reported to occur at the Refuge; suitable habitat present.

Wildlife

Smith’s blue butterfly

Euphilotes (=Shijimaeoides) enoptes

smithi

E/– Occurs at the Refuge.

Steelhead

Oncorhynchus mykiss

T/– Collected in Salinas River Lagoon in 1963 and 1991. Small numbers

likely occur at the Refuge. 

Southwestern pond turtle

Clemmys marmorata pallida

–/SSC No known occurrences at the Refuge; occurrences have been

reported in the vicinity.

Black legless lizard

Anniella pulchra nigra

–/SSC Occurs at the Refuge in the central foredune and central dune scrub

communities.

Common loon

Gavia immer

–/SSC Often forages in the Salinas River Lagoon during winter migration.

American white pelican

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

–/SSC A small flock often forages and roosts in the Salinas River Lagoon

from July through March.

California brown pelican

Pelecanus occidentalis

E/E Occurs year-round at the Refuge; most common between April and

December. 

Double-crested cormorant

Phalacrocorax auritus

–/SSC Roosts and forages around the Salinas River Lagoon.

White-faced ibis

Plegadis chihi

-/SSC Has been observed at the Refuge during fall and winter migrations.

Osprey

Pandion haliaetus

–/SSC Often forages at the Refuge during fall and spring migrations.
APPENDIX C: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ON THE REFUGE

Legal Statusa

Common and Scientific Name Federal/BCC/State/CNPS Occurrence at Salinas River NWR

I-42

White-tailed kite

Elanus leucurus

–/FP Often forages at the Refuge during winter; known to nest in the

vicinity.

Bald eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

T/E May forage occasionally at the Salinas River Lagoon during fall,

winter, and spring.

Northern harrier

Circus cyaneus

–/SSC Commonly forages at the Refuge; may nest onsite.

Sharp-shinned hawk

Accipiter striatus

–/SSC Uncommon winter visitor to the area; forages at the Refuge.

Cooper’s hawk

Accipiter cooperii

–/SSC Uncommon winter visitor to the area; forages at the Refuge.

Golden eagle

Aquila chrysaetos

PR/SSC, FP May forage occasionally at the Refuge.

Prairie falcon

Falco mexicanus

–/R,C/SSC Uncommon winter visitor to the area; forages at the Refuge.

Merlin

Falco columbarius

–/SSC Uncommon winter visitor to the area; forages at the Refuge.

American peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus anatum

–/R,C/E Uncommon winter visitor to the area; forages at the Refuge.

Whimbrel

Numenius phaeopus

–/R,C/– Common in the Salinas River Lagoon and in coastal brackish marsh

and northern coastal salt marsh communities at the Refuge.

California clapper rail

Rallus longirostris obsoletus

E/E/FP Reported once from the Refuge; no suitable nesting habitat is found

onsite.

Greater sandhill crane

Grus canadensis tabida

–/T Very rare spring and fall migrant at the Refuge and in the vicinity.

Western snowy plover

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus

T/SSC

(coastal)

Year-round resident at the Refuge. The beach provides one of the

most important breeding areas for this species in the Monterey Bay

area.

Mountain plover

Charadrius montanus

C/R,C/SSC Rare winter visitor to the Refuge.

Long-billed curlew

Numenius americanus

–/R,C/SSC Common in the Salinas River Lagoon and in coastal brackish marsh

and northern coastal salt marsh communities at the Refuge.

Red knot

Calidris canutus

–/R,C/– Common in the Salinas River Lagoon and in coastal brackish marsh

and northern coastal salt marsh communities at the Refuge.

Marbled godwit

Limosa fedoa

–/R,C/– Common in the Salinas River Lagoon and in coastal brackish marsh

and northern coastal salt marsh communities at the Refuge.

Short-billed dowitcher

Limnodromus griseus

–/R,C/– Common in the Salinas River Lagoon and in coastal brackish marsh

and northern coastal salt marsh communities at the Refuge.

California gull

Larus californicus

–/SSC Very common visitor to the Refuge.

California least tern

Sterna antillarum (=albifrons) browni

E/E Historically nested onsite; now an occasional spring migrant.

Elegant tern

Sterna elegans

--/R,C/SSC A large local population roosts and forages at the Refuge.

Black skimmer

Rynchops niger

–/R,C/SSC Occasionally forages in the Salinas River Lagoon. Potential nesting

habitat is present.
APPENDIX C: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ON THE REFUGE

Legal Statusa

Common and Scientific Name Federal/BCC/State/CNPS Occurrence at Salinas River NWR

I-43

Short-eared owl

Asio flammeus

–/SSC Suitable nesting and foraging habitat occurs in tall grassland habitat

at the Refuge.

Western burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia hypugea

--/SSC Rare fall migrant and occasional wintering birds in the vicinity of the

Refuge.

Willow flycatcher

Empidonax traillii

--/E Rare winter and spring migrant in central coast arroyo willow

riparian forest near the Refuge.

Black swift

Cypseloides niger

–/R,C/SSC Rare spring and fall migrant through the Refuge.

Loggerhead shrike

Lanius ludovicianus

–/R,C/SSC Common resident at the Refuge.

California yellow warbler

Dendroica petechia brewsteri

–/SSC May nest in central coast arroyo willow riparian forest near the

Refuge.

Purple martin

Progne subis

–/SSC Rare spring and late-summer migrant through the Refuge.

Common yellowthroat

Geothlypis trichas sinuosa

–/C/SSC May nest in central coast arroyo willow riparian forest near the

Refuge.

Song sparrow

Melospiza melodia

–/C/– Common resident at the Refuge.

Bank swallow

Riparia riparia

–/T Rare spring and summer migrant through the Refuge.

Yellow-breasted chat

Icteria virens

–/SSC Rare spring and fall migrant in riparian scrub at the Refuge.

Tricolored blackbird

Agelaius tricolor

–/R,C/SSC Occasionally forages at the Refuge.

Southern sea otter

Enhydra lutris nereis

T/FP Occasionally observed in offshore areas of the Refuge
APPENDIX C: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ON THE REFUGE

Legal Statusa

Common and Scientific Name Federal/BCC/State/CNPS Occurrence at Salinas River NWR

I-44

a

Status explanations:

Federal

E = listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

T = listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

PE = proposed for listing as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

PR = protected under the Golden Eagle Protection Act.

PT = proposed for listing as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

C = species for which the Service has sufficient information on file regarding biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support

issuance of a proposed rule to list.

– = no listing.

 Birds of Conservation Concern(BCC)

Species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become

candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This is a congressionally mandated list, compiled by USFWS as mandated

by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (1988 amendment).

R = Regional.

C = South Pacific Coast California.

State

E = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act.

T = listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act.

R = listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act. (This category is no longer used for newly listed plants, but some

plants previously listed as rare retain this designation.) 

C = species is a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act.

SSC = California State species of special concern.

FP = species is fully protected in California under California Fish and Game Code Section 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), or 5050

(reptiles and amphibians).

– = no listing.

 California Native Plant Society

1A = List 1A (species presumed extinct in California).

1B = List 1B (species rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere).

2 = List 2 (species rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere).

3 = List 3 (species about which more information is needed to determine their status). 

4 = List 4 (species of limited distribution).

– = no listing.

Sources: California Native Plant Society 2001, California Department of Fish and Game 2002.
I-45

APPENDIX D: FIRE DISPATCH PLAN/ CONTACT LIST

When a report of smoke or fire on the Refuge is received, get as much information from the 

caller or messenger as possible:

Location of smoke or fire?

Location of caller?

Name and telephone number or contact point of the caller or messenger?

Color of smoke?

Size of fire?

Type of fuel (What is burning?)

Character of the fire (active, smoldering, etc.)?

Is anyone fighting the fire? How many personnel? Equipment?

Did they see anyone in the vicinity or vehicles leaving the area?

Is the fire site accessible by a slip-on unit?

What are the weather conditions at the fire?

1. Report to:

Monterey County Fire Department (408) 647-6208

2. Due to the distance of Salinas River NWR from the Fremont Headquarters, the fire will likely have already been

extinguished before Refuge personnel arrive. However, a Refuge law enforcement officer and Refuge

firefighter unit should be dispatched for mop-up, fire investigation, and report purposes.

3. If discovered while on the Refuge, call 911 or the County Department at (408) 647-6208 or Refuge

Headquarters (510) 792-0222 for assistance. 

4. Dispatch Refuge firefighters if the fire is on the Refuge or threatens Refuge property.

5. Notify Refuge Manager Ivette Loredo, Project Leader, on-duty Police Office, and Zone Fire Management

Officer (RW Parris - (209) 826-3508).

6. For fires occurring at night or on weekends, the following individuals should be notified in order:

a. On-call Police Officer: Call Park Police Dispatch (415) 561-5510

Barry Tarbet (510) 247-3357

Jon Adamson (510) 782-1154

b. Refuge Manager

Ivette Loredo (510) 792-0222 (Cell) 377-5956 

c. Project Leader

Marge Kolar (510) 792-0222 (Cell) 377-9450

d. Wildlife Biologist

Diane Kodama (510) 792-0222 (Cell)377-5695 

e. Zone Fire Management Officer (Acting)
I-46

RW Parris (209) 826-3508 (Cell) 209-704-4521

f. Refuge Fire Crew:

Ivette Loredo 510-377-5956

Clyde Morris 510-377-2781

Carmen Leong 510-377-9229

Joelle Buffa 510-377-5958

Joy Albertson 510-377-5693

Art Chan 510-377-3119

Juan Flores 510-377-5891

Mike Parker 510-928-0497

Chris Bandy 510-377-5928

g. Other personnel to be involved if necessary:

Andy Anderson, Regional Fire Management Officer

(503) 231-6175 business or residence (360) 666-5031

Amanda McAdams, Fire Planner, Pacific Region

Regional Office: (503) 872-2756

Pam Ensley, Regional Fire Management Coordinator,

Regional Office: (503) 231-6174 or residence (360) 835-7004 

Roddy Baumann, Regional Prescribed Fire Specialist

Regional Office: (503) 231-2075 or (360) 573-9444 residence

Mendicino NF Dispatch

Willows, CA

(888) 663-3479
I-47

APPENDIX E: DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

Salinas River NWR

Delegation of Authority

for

___________________ Incident

_______________________ is assigned as Incident Commander. You have full authority and

responsibility for managing the fire suppression activities within the framework of laws, Agency policy,

and direction provided in the Wildland Fire Situation Analysis and the Agency Administrator Briefing.

Your primary responsibility is to organize and direct your assigned resources for efficient and effective

suppression of the fire. You are accountable to the Agency Administrator or the representatives

designated below.

Specific direction for this incident covering management and environmental concerns are:

1. Protection of life and private property is your highest priority task.

2. Give special consideration to firefighter safety, especially with respect to aviation operations,

working around dozers, snags, and entrapments. Avoid sensitive environmental areas. When in

doubt, sacrifice acres not people in your strategic and tactical decisions. 

3. You are authorized to utilize helicopters, chainsaws, portable pumps, fireline explosives, and

retardant at Salinas River NWR. You are not authorized to use equipment within the

_________________________________________. 

4. Manage human resources assigned to the fire in a manner that promotes mutual respect and is

consistent with the enclosed U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service “Harassment-Free Workplace” policy.

5. Be cost effective; final costs should be no more than 120% of the preferred WFSA alternative.

6. Manage equipment and supplies to ensure losses are within Acceptable Fire Loss/Use Rates.

You should takeover management of the incident on or before _________, __________________. 

_________________________________ ________________

Marge Kolar, Project Leader, Salinas River NWR Date

Delegation of Authority - Guidelines for Mitigating the Effects of Fire Suppression

LINE BUILDING

1. Do not fall snags on the outside of the line unless they are an obvious safety hazard.

2. On the inside of the line, fall only those snags that would reach the fire line should they burn and

fall over, or if they are an obvious safety hazard.

3. Don’t cut live trees over 12" d.b.h. unless deemed absolutely necessary by the Refuge Manager. 

Limbing of these trees, as necessary, should be the first choice.
I-48

4. Cut brush or small trees flush with the ground if the area is visible from roads.

5. Lop and scatter cut limbs so the depth will not exceed 15 inches.

MOP-UP

1. Extinguish fire in living trees or snags within 200 feet of the fires perimeter with water or dirt. 

Fell those trees as a last resort.

2. If felling occurs in the vicinity of service roads/trails, cut the stumps flush with the ground.

3. Buck fallen trees across service roads/trails only to the extent necessary to facilitate road/trail

passage.

AIR OPERATIONS

1. Consider fixed wing delivery of water vs. standard colored retardant.

2. When possible, use long line slings instead of cutting helispots.
I-49

APPENDIX F: NOTIFICATION LIST FOR PRESCRIBED BURNING

County Fire Department

Reno DiTullio, Chief

Monterey County Fire Department

2221 Garden Road

Monterey, CA 93940

(408)647-6208

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD)

Amy Taketomo, Senior Air Quality Planner

24580 Silver Cloud Ct.

Monterey, CA 93940

(831)647-9411

Gary Page, Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Snowy Plover Monitoring

(415) 868-1221 x23

John and Ricky Warriner, Snowy Plover Monitoring

(831) 722-5589

Martin Jefferson & Sons, Adjacent Landowner 

(831) 384-2049

Robert Scattini, Adjacent Landowner

(831) 633-3509 x13

City of Marina

(831) 384-3715

David Dixon, Cal. Dept. of Parks and Recreation

(831) 384-6932

Nikki Nedeff, Big Sur Land Trust

(831) 625-5523

Terry Palmisano, Cal. Dept. of Fish and Game

(831) 649-2890
I-50

APPENDIX G: CULTURAL RESOURCE COMPLIANCE

Project

Name:

Program:

(Partners, Refuges, JITW,

WSECP, etc.)

State: CA,

ID, HI, NV, OR,

WA

EcoRegion:

CBE, IPE,KCE, NCE

FWS Unit:

Org Code:

Project

Location:

County Township Range Section FWS Contact:

Name, 

Tel#, 

Address

USGS

Quad:

Date of Request:

Total

project

acres/line

ar ft/m:

APE Acres /

linear ft/m

(if different)

Proposed Project

Start Date:

MAPS Attached Check below

Copy of portion of USGS

Quad with project area

marked clearly (required)

Project (sketch) map showing Area of Potential Effect with

locations of specific ground altering activities (required)

Photocopy of aerial photo

showing location (if

available)

Any other project plans, photographs, or drawings that may help

CRT in making determination (if available)

Direction

s to

Project:

(if not obvious)

Descripti

on of

Undertaki

ng:

Describe proposed project and means to facilitate (e.g., provide funds to revegetate 1 mile of riparian habitat, restore 250

acres of seasonal wetlands, and construct a 5-acre permanent pond). How is the project designed (e.g., install 2 miles of fence

and create approximately 25' of 3' high check dam)?
I-51

Area of

Potenti

al

Effects

(APE):

Describe where disturbance of the ground will occur. What are the dimensions of the area to be disturbed? How deep will

you excavate? How far apart are fenceposts? What method are you using to plant vegetation? Where will fill be obtained?

Where will soil be dumped? What tools or equipment will be used? Are you replacing or repairing a structure? Will you be

moving dirt in a relatively undisturbed area? Will the project reach below or beyond the limits of prior land disturbance?

Differentiate between areas slated for earth movement vs. areas to be inundated only. Is the area to be inundated different

from the area inundated today, in the recent past, or under natural conditions? Provide acres and/or linear ft/m for all

elements of the project.

Environ

mental

and

Cultura

l

Setting

:

Briefly describe the environmental setting of the APE. A) What was the natural habitat prior to modifications, reclamation,

agriculture, settlement? B) What is land-use history? When was it first settled, modified? How deep has it been cultivated,

grazed, etc.? C) What is land use and habitat today? What natural agents (e.g., sedimentation, vegetation, inundation) or

cultural agents (e.g., cultivation) might affect the ability to discover cultural resources? D) Do you (or does anybody else)

know of cultural resources in or near the project area?
I-52

Appendix H: Sample WFSA

WILDLAND FIRE SITUATION ANALYSIS

3. Jurisdiction: 

US Fish and Wildlife Service

4. Geographic Area: 

Northwest Coordination Center

5. Unit: 

National Wildlife Refuge

6. WFSA Number of .

7. Fire Name: 8. Incident Number:

9. Accounting Code:

10. Date/Time prepared / / @ : .

11. Attachments

-Complexity Analysis X 

-Risk Assessment/Analysis X 

 Probability of success 

 Consequences of Failure 

-Maps 

-Decision Tree 

-Fire Behavior Projections X 

-Calculations of Resource Requirements 

-Other 

OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS

•Objectives (Must be specific and measurable) These objectives must be considered in the development of

alternatives in III, below. Suppression objectives must relate to the Unit resource management objectives. 

•Safety (These must receive the highest priority)

-Public

-Firefighter

•Economic (May include closure, which could impact the public through transportation, communication

and resource values)

•Environmental (e.g. management objectives for wildlife habitat, water quality, etc.)

•Social (May include local attitudes towards fire that might affect decisions on the fire)

•Other (e.g. legal or administrative constraints needing consideration such as fire encroaching onto other

jurisdictions)

•Constraints (e.g. environmentally and culturally sensitive areas, irreparable damage to resources, and economic

constrants)
I-53

ALTERNATIVES

A. B. C.

Wildland Fire Strategy e.g. Allow fire to play a

natural role

e.g. Aggressive attack

Narrative

Resources Needed

Hand Crews

Engines

Dozers

Air Tankers

Helicopters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Size

Est. Contain/ Control

Date

Costs

Risk Assessment

 -Probability of success

 -Consequence of failure

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complexity

Attach maps for each alternative
I-54

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

A. B. C.

Evaluation Process

Safety

 Firefighter

 Aviation

 Public

Sum of safety values

Economic

 Forage

 Improvements

 Recreation

 Water

 Wildlife

 Other

Sum of economic values

Environmental

 Air

 Visual

 Fuels

 T&E Species

 Other 

Sum of environmental

values

Social

 Employment

 Public Concern

 Cultural

 Other

Sum of social values

Other
I-55

Sum of other values

TOTAL

ANALYSIS SUMMARY

A. B. C.

Compliance with

Objectives 

 Safety

 Economic

 Environmental

 Social 

 Other

Pertinent Data

 Final fire size

 Complexity

 Suppression cost 

 Resource values

 Probability of success

External/Internal Influences

VI. DECISION

The Selected Alternative is: .

Rationale:

 

Agency Administrator’s Signature Date/Time
I-56

VII. DAILY REVIEW

PREPAREDNESS LEVELINCIDENT PRIORITYRESOURCE AVAI LABILITYWEATHER FORECASTFIRE BEHAVIOR PREDICTIONSWFSA VALID

Date Time By

VIII. FINAL REVIEW

The elements of the selective alternative were met on: 

 Date Time:

By: 

 Agency Administrator
I-57

APPENDIX I: SAMPLE BURN PLAN

Prescribed Fire Plan

Refuge or Station 

Unit 

Prepared By: Date: 

Reviewed By: Date: 

 Refuge Manager

Reviewed By: Date: 

 Prescribed Fire Burn Boss

Reviewed By: Date: 

Regional Fire Management Coordinator

Reviewed By: Date: 

 (Others)

The approved Prescribed Fire Plan constitutes the authority to burn, pending approval of Section 7

Consultations, Environmental Assessments, or other required documents. No one has the authority to

burn without an approved plan or in a manner not in compliance with the approved plan. Prescribed

burning conditions established in the plan are firm limits. Actions taken in compliance with the approved

Prescribed Fire Plan will be fully supported, but personnel will be held accountable for actions taken

which are not in compliance with the approved plan.

Approved By: Date: 
I-58

PRESCRIBED FIRE PLAN

Refuge: Refuge Burn Number: 

Sub Station: Fire Number: 

Name of Area: Unit No. 

Acres To Be Burned: Perimeter Of Burn: 

Legal Description: Lat. Long. T R S 

County: 

Is a Section 7 Consultation being forwarded to Fish and Wildlife Enhancement for review? Yes No

(circle).

(Page 2 of this PFP should be a refuge base map showing the location of the burn on Fish and Wildlife

Service land.)

The Prescribed Fire Burn Boss/Specialist must participate in the development of this plan.

I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF BURN UNIT

Physical Features and Vegetation Cover Types (Species, height, density, etc.):

Primary Resource Objectives of Unit (Be specific. These are management goals):

Objectives of Fire (Be specific. These are different than management goals):

Acceptable Range of Results (Area burned vs. unburned, scorch height, percent kill of a species, range of

litter removed, 
I-59

II. PRE-BURN MONITORING

Vegetation Type Acres % FBPS Fuel Model

 

 

 

 

 Total 

Habitat Conditions (Identify with transect numbers if more than one in burn unit.):

Type of Transects:

Photo Documentation (Add enough spaces here to put a pre-burn photo showing the habitat condition or

problem you are using fire to change/correct. A photo along your transect may reflect your transect

data.):

Other:
I-60

III. PLANNING AND ACTIONS

Complexity Analysis Results:

Site preparation (What, when, who & how. Should be done with Burn Boss):

Weather information required (who, what, when, where, how, and how much):

Safety considerations and protection of sensitive features (Adjacent lands, visitors, facilities, terrain, etc.,

and needed actions. Include buffer and safety zones. Be specific, indicate on a burn unit map. Map

should be a USGS quadrangle if possible, so ridges, washes, water, trails, etc. can be identified.)

Special Safety Precautions Needing Attention (Aerial ignition, aircraft, ignition from boat, etc.):

Media Contacts (Radio stations, newspaper, etc., list with 

telephone numbers):

Special Constraints and Considerations (Should be discussed with Burn Boss):

Communication and Coordination on the Burn (Who will have radios, frequencies to be used, who will

coordinate various activities.):
I-61

IV. IGNITION, BURNING AND CONTROL

Planned or Proposed Actual

Scheduling: Approx. Date(s) 

Time of Day 

 Acceptable Range

FBPS Fuel Model Low High Actual

Temperature

Relative Humidity

Wind Speed (20' forecast)

Wind Speed (mid-flame)

Cloud Cover (%)

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

Soil Moisture 

1 hr. Fuel Moisture

10 hr. FM

100 hr. FM

Woody Live Fuel Moisture

Herb. Live Fuel Moisture

Litter/Duff Moisture

FIRE BEHAVIOR

Type of Fire (H,B,F)

Rate of Spread

Fireline Intensity
I-62

Flame Length

Energy Release Component

NFDRS Fuel Model _______

Cumulative effects of weather and drought on fire behavior:

Ignition Technique (Explain and include on map of burn unit. Use of aerial ignition must be identified in

this plan. Last minute changes to use aircraft will not be allowed and will be considered a major change

to the plan. This will require a resubmission):

Prescribed Fire Organization (See Section VII, Crew and Equipment Assignments. All personnel and

their assignments must be listed. All personnel must be qualified for the positions they will fill.)

Other (If portions of the burn unit must be burned under conditions slightly different than stated above,

i.e., a different wind direction to keep smoke off of a highway or off of the neighbors wash, detail here.)

Prescription monitoring (Discuss monitoring procedure and frequency to determine if conditions for the

burn are within prescription):
I-63

V. SMOKE MANAGEMENT

Make any Smoke Management Plan an attachment.

Permits required (who, when):

Distance and Direction from Smoke Sensitive Area(s):

Necessary Transport Wind Direction, Speed and Mixing Height (Explain how this information will be

obtained and used): 

Visibility Hazard(s) (Roads, airports, etc.):

Actions to Reduce Visibility Hazard(s):

Residual Smoke Problems (Measures to reduce problem, i.e., rapid and complete mop-up, mop-up of

certain fuels, specific fuel moistures, time of day, etc.):

Particulate emissions in Tons/Acre and how calculated (This should be filled in after the burn so more

precise acreage figures can be used):
I-64

VI. FUNDING AND PERSONNEL

Activity Code: 

Costs

Equipment

& Supplies

Labor Overtime

Staff 

Days

Total

 Cost

Admin.

(planning, permits,

etc.)

Site Preparation

Ignition & Control

Travel/Per Diem

Total
I-65

VII. BURN-DAY ACTIVITIES

Public/Media Contacts on Burn Day (List with telephone numbers):

Crew & Equipment Assignments (List all personnel, equipment needed, and assignments. The following

is not an all-inclusive list for what you may need.)

Burn Boss/Manager -

Ignition Specialist -

Ignition Crew -

Holding Specialist -

Holding Crew -

Aircraft Manager -

FWBS -

DispatcherOther - 

Crew Briefing Points (Communications, hazards, equipment, water sources, escape fire actions, etc., to be

done by Burn Boss. Refer to Safety Considerations in Planning Actions and points listed below):

Ignition Technique (Methods, how, where, who, and sequence. Go over what was submitted in Section

IV and any changes needed for the present conditions.) Attach ignition sequencing map if necessary:

Personnel Escape Plan

Special Safety Requirements:

Go-No-Go Checklist:
I-66

Holding and Control:

Critical Control Problems:

Water Refill Points:

Other:

Contingency Plan for Escaped Fire (Are there crews standing by to initial attack or will people doing

other jobs be called upon to do initial attack, who must be called in case of an escape, what radio

frequencies will be used, etc.)

Mop Up and Patrol:

Rehabilitation Needs:

DI 1202 Submission Date:________________________________________

Special Problems:
I-67

VIII. CRITIQUE OF BURN

Were burn objectives within acceptable range of results? (Refer to Section I):

What would be done differently to obtain results or get better results?

Was there any deviation from plan? If so, why?

Problems and general comments:

IX. POST-BURN MONITORING

Date: Refuge Burn Number: 

Length of Time after Burn: 

Vegetative Transects:

Comments on Habitat Conditions, etc.:

Photo Documentation:

Other:

X. FOLLOW-UP EVALUATION

Date: Refuge Burn Number: 

Length of Time after Burn: 

Vegetative Transects: 

Comments on Habitat Conditions, etc.:

Photo Documentation:

Other:

Appendix J. Salinas River NWR Hunting Plan

J-1

REFUGE HUNTING PLAN 

for

SALINAS RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

I. INTRODUCTION

 Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is located 11 miles north of Monterey,

California where the Salinas River empties into Monterey Bay (Figure 1). The 367-acre Refuge

consists of several habitat types and supports large numbers of shorebirds, wading birds,

waterfowl, pelicans, gulls, and terns. Several Federally listed threatened or endangered species

have been documented on the refuge including the endangered California brown pelican, Smith’s

blue butterfly, and Monterey gilia as well as the threatened western snowy plover and Monterey

spineflower.

 Major habitat types include: 1) a 15-acre saline pond with surrounding coastal salt marsh

vegetation; 2) grassland and coyote brush scrub, including restored grasslands that were formerly

in agricultural production; 3) beach and foredunes which provide feeding, resting, and nesting

areas for shorebirds, including the western snowy plover; 4) back dunes, which are

characterized by a diversity of native vegetation including coastal buckwheat, yellow bush

lupine, lizard tail, and mock heather; 5) and riparian/riverine habitat along an approximately one

mile stretch of the Salinas River.

The Refuge was acquired in 1973 when surplus military (U.S. Army and the Coast

Guard) property was transferred to the Service. From 1974 to 1991, the Refuge was managed as

a Wildlife Management Area under a cooperative agreement with the California Department of

Fish and Game (CDFG). In 1991, the Service began managing the area as a National Wildlife

Refuge. Salinas River NWR is open to the public. Public uses include wildlife observation and

photography, access to surf fishing, and waterfowl hunting. These activities were previously

administered by CDFG. Public use facilities on Salinas River NWR are minimal, consisting of a

parking area, two maintained trails, and some signs. Improvements to the Refuge’s wildlife

interpretation are proposed in the 2001 Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP); these include

interpretive signs and materials, and a docent program.

This area has historically been used for hunting; the majority of the area was hunted for

waterfowl and upland game under CDFG management, and military officers hunted the area

prior to Service acquisition. The Refuge is now one of only two locations in the local area open

for public waterfowl hunting during the season, typically from October through January. 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. The

Refuge, however, is the only local hunting area available to hunters on foot rather than by boat. 

Other public hunting areas such as the San Luis NWR near the community of Los Banos are

located 80 miles or more away. Annual 
J-2

hunter visitation is estimated to be 140 hunter visits for an average of 6 hours each, totaling 840

activity hours.

II. CONFORMANCE WITH STATUTORY AUTHORITIES

 Salinas River NWR was established in 1973 because of its “particular value in carrying

out the national migratory bird management program (U.S.C. Sec. 6676). Specific Refuge goals,

detailed in the CCP, are to:

1. Protect, restore and enhance populations of migratory birds and other native species 

 and their habitats.

2. Protect and enhance populations of endangered, threatened, and rare species and 

promote their recovery by restoring and enhancing their natural habitats.

3. Provide opportunities for safe, unique, wildlife-dependent recreation when compatible 

 with other Refuge purposes and goals.

 Hunting provides a wildlife-oriented public recreational opportunity, and has been

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority public use. 

Other priority public uses are fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental

education, and environmental interpretation. As expressed priorities of the refuge system, these

uses take precedence over other potential uses in refuge planning and management. The Service

strives to provide for the six priority public uses when they are compatible with the purpose of

the Refuge. 

Migratory bird hunting (waterfowl, coot, and moorhen) will be permitted in accordance

with State and Federal regulations and seasons to ensure that it will not interfere with the

conservation of wildlife and their habitat. 

 

III. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES

A goal of the National Wildlife Refuge System is: To provide an understanding and

appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology and man’s role in his 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.

Hunting has been identified as a priority public use for the National Wildlife Refuge

System.
J-3

IV. ASSESSMENT OF RESOURCE

 Pacific Flyway waterbirds migrating along the coast feed and rest on Salinas River as

well as the saline pond when it is flooded. Refuge waterfowl populations vary from

approximately 500 to 2,000 birds depending on water availability throughout the fall and winter

months. Primary species include ruddy, mallard, gadwall, green-wing teal, wigeon, shoveler,

and pintail in typical order of abundance. Coots are seasonally abundant with as many as 600

present during the winter months. Common moorhen have been documented, but are not

regularly seen. 

Waterfowl that use Salinas River NWR are presumably part of a wintering population

that also uses Elkhorn Slough and other nearby wetlands. The population of waterfowl using

this general area is much larger than the individuals observed using the Refuge at any particular

time. This “mobile population” always seems to provide a diverse abundance of waterfowl for

other public users to enjoy, especially in the proposed sanctuary area.

V. DESCRIPTION OF HUNTING PROGRAM

A. AREAS OF REFUGE SUPPORTING TARGET SPECIES

 

All hunted species are present on Salinas River, and when high surf or rains flood the

saline pond, many of the hunted species are present there, sometimes in very high numbers.

B. AREAS OPENED

 

Approximately 80 acres of the Refuge along the Salinas River would be conducive to

hunting; hunting will be permitted in an area of approximately 38 acres (2,800 linear feet of

riverbank). This is approximately 10% of the 367-acre Refuge. The area available for waterfowl

hunting has been reduced to eliminate disturbance to brown pelicans roosting along the Salinas

River lagoon by eliminating the hunt area along the northern 800 linear feet of the Salinas River

(see figs. 4 and 5 in the CCP). This is the area closest to the river mouth. 

C. REGULATIONS

 

The designated Refuge hunting area is open during established State waterfowl seasons

and all applicable State and Federal regulations will be enforced. Species hunted are geese,

ducks, coots, and common moorhen. Hunting on the Refuge will be permitted every day

throughout the waterfowl season. Hunters will be limited to having no more than 25 shells in

their possession while on the Refuge. This will discourage hunters from taking long-shots,

thereby reducing disturbance and decreasing the possibility of target misidentification. Hunters

may only possess approved nontoxic shot while on the Refuge. Access to the hunting area is
J-4

delineated by hunting signs and is accessed by foot only. Hunting dogs are allowed off leash and

under voice control for the purpose of retrieving waterfowl from the river. All firearms must

remain unloaded until hunters are within the designated hunt area. The Refuge will remain

closed to all other forms of hunting or target shooting. Hunting access will not be regulated due

to the relatively low demand. 

 This area will be closely monitored to assess if further regulation may be warranted in the

future.

D. PROCEDURES FOR COORDINATION WITH STATE

 

Hunting will be permitted within the framework of applicable State and Federal

regulations. A joint meeting of these two agencies occurs annually to review these regulations. 

The CDFG will be consulted if any changes are planned in the refuge hunting program.

E. METHODS OF ENFORCEMENT

 

The Refuge will maintain an active law enforcement presence by Refuge officers and

through an agreement with CDFG to ensure public compliance with hunting regulations. The

Refuge will increase law enforcement patrols especially during the opening weeks of the season

to document hunter use and ensure compliance with Refuge regulations.

F. FUNDING AND MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS

 

Approximately 35 staff days will be required to monitor and conduct the hunt program at

Salinas NWR. This work will include law enforcement patrols during waterfowl season, sign

posting and replacement, and responding to public inquiries. The total cost of the program is

expected to be approximately $5,000 per year.

VI. MEASURES TAKEN TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH OTHER OBJECTIVES

 

A. BIOLOGICAL CONFLICTS

 

A Comprehensive Section 7 consultation has been conducted in conjunction with the

CCP. The hunt area has been reduced in size to provide better protection for brown pelicans in

addition to creating sanctuary areas for waterfowl. 

 

Hunters, and other visitors, are not allowed on the dunes where the Smith’s blue

butterfly, western snowy plover, and threatened and endangered plants occur. In addition, the

waterfowl hunting season, which typically opens in October and closes in January, occurs
J-5

outside the breeding season for the Smith’s blue butterfly and western snowy plover. The lower

end of the river, including the sand spits where brown pelicans roost, will be closed to hunting to

minimize hunter disturbance to this species. This river portion also will serve as a sanctuary for

migratory waterfowl, as will the saline pond when it is flooded.

B. PUBLIC USE CONFLICTS

 

The majority of non-hunting public use occurs on the beach and saline pond habitats, but

there is occasional use of the river bank by birders. However, hunt use on the refuge is relatively

low and public use conflicts are expected to be minimal. In addition, numbers of non-hunters

visiting the Refuge appear to be higher in the spring and summer. The Refuge will monitor

public use and will consider changing to a limited day hunt season in the future if warranted.

C. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFLICTS

 

Potential conflicts could arise from hunters not familiar with new regulations. 

Informational signs will be placed at the parking area and along the river, and signs will be

posted on both sides of the hunting boundary showing “closed” and “open” areas. A simple one

page hunting regulation leaflet with map will be published and dispersed through the mail and

on-site. Law enforcement officers may need to spend additional time explaining changes in

regulations and management.

VII. CONDUCT OF THE HUNT

A. FEDERAL REGISTER SPECIAL REGULATIONS

 

The following special regulations are proposed. They will be in place by the 2003-2004

hunt season.

50 CFR 32.24 California (Refuge-specific regulations; migratory game birds.)

 

Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge. 

A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. Hunting of geese, ducks, coots, and moorhens is

permitted on a hunt area along the Salinas River on the Southeast portion of the Refuge, as

designated by signs. Hunting is permitted in accordance with State regulations, subject to the

following conditions: 

A.1. You may possess no more than 25 approved nontoxic shells while on the Refuge.

A.2. Access to the hunt area is by foot traffic only. We do not allow bicycles and other

conveyances. Mobility-impaired hunters should consult with the Refuge Manager for

allowed conveyances.

A.3. You must keep firearms unloaded until you are within the designated hunt area. 
J-6

A.4. We allow only dogs engaged in hunting activities on the Refuge and only during the

waterfowl season. No other domesticated animals or pets are allowed.

A.5. We do not allow target practice on the Refuge.

B. ANTICIPATED PUBLIC REACTION

 

The size of the hunt area has been reduced from what was previously allowed, so hunters

may object to this restriction. Law enforcement officers, refuge personnel, the news media, and

other public information systems will be used to explain the reasons for these restrictions. Antihunting individuals and organizations can be expected to voice their concerns regarding hunting

of any kind.

C. HUNTER REQUIREMENTS

 

Hunters must comply with all State and Federal regulations, including a regulation

change requiring “approved” non-toxic shot to be used for waterfowl hunting on Salinas River

NWR as well as throughout the state. 

 

 
Appendix K. Response to Comments

		












1. Comment noted.2. We agree that the proposed plan has the potential to affectcoastal resources and uses. As required by the CZMA and itsimplementing regulations, we have prepared a consistency determination and forwarded it to the California Coastal Commissionfor concurrence. At a hearing held on April 9, 2002, the Commission concurred with our consistency determination and found theCCP to be fully consistent with the Californai Costal ManagementProgram.
		








	


3. Comment noted.4. We concur that impervious surfaces should be kept to a minimum. The final CCP states that the parking lot will be coveredwith gravel or another nonpaved surface.5. Our desire is to continue public access in areas of the refugewhere it is compatible with resource protection mandates. In ourinformal dialog with the State Lands Commission, they haveindicated their desire that the public continue to be allowed towalk along the beach. We plan to work with the State LandsCommission to find a solution which balances public access withwildlife and habitat protection.6. We feel it is premature to commit to a specific routing for theCalifornia Coastal Trail through the refuge. However, we wouldbe happy to work with the California Coastal Commission, theService’s Endangered Species Division, and other partners tocome up with a routing that preserves existing wildlife and habitatvalues. A new strategy (3.2.5) was included in the final CCP whichexpresses our desire to work with the Coastal Commission todevelop a routing for the trail.7. See response to comment 6.8. We believe that the reduced hunt area proposed in the draftCCP will provide an adequate buffer between the hunters and theCalifornia brown pelicans roosting on the island in the SalinasRiver lagoon. Regarding the safety of visitors using the trailsduring hunt season, we believe that the existing signs delimitingthe hunt area are effective at preventing conflicts withnonhunters. In addition, hunting typically occurs from sunrise tomidmorning, before most other refuge users arrive. The majorityof hunting occurs at the river bank and the river trail is set backfrom the bank about 250 feet. Furthermore, the CCP proposes anew orientation kiosk which will also warn refuge visitors aboutwalking in the hunt area.
		












9. The staging area for, and the actual breaching of, the SalinasRiver mouth occurs on State lands north of the river. MontereyCounty closely coordinates the breach with the Service and theCalifornia Department of Parks and Recreation.10. Comment noted.
		












1. Comment noted.2. We agree the proposed plan has the potential to affect coastalresources and uses. As required by the CZMA and its implementing regulations, we have prepared a consistency determination andforwarded it to the California Coastal Commission for concurrence. At a hearing held on April 9, 2002, the Commission concurred with our consistency determination and found the CCP tobe fully consistent with the Californai Costal Management Program.
		








No comments to respond to on this page.
		








	


1. Comment noted.2. Comment noted.3. We recognize that reducing the hunt area may adversely affectthe quantity or quality of the hunting opportunities on the Refuge.However, we must ensure that all public uses of the Refuge arecompatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was establish(migratory bird management). Salinas Refuge is an importantroosting area for the endangered California brown pelican. Inwinter, this species roosts on portions of the beach strand, islandsin the Salinas River, and the lagoon side of the lagoon-mouthsandspit. Researchers at nearby Moss Landing Wildlife Management Area have found that gunshots closer than 650 yards canflush pelicans from roost sites. The northern end of the currenthunt are is 300 yards from the nearest pelican roost site. Thenorthern most seven acres of the hunt area are being eliminated toavoid this disturbance and ensure that the hunt program iscompatible with the Refuge purpose.4. See response to comment 3.5. We concur that Salinas River Refuge is a unique and importantresource to hunters in the Monterey Bay and are committed tomaintaining opportunities for hunting that are compatible withRefuge purposes.6. Comment noted.7. Comment noted.8. Comment noted.
		






	



1. In the final CCP, strategy 2.2.4 includes placement of clearerclosed area signs at the entrance and the northern and southernbeach access points. Interpretive signs are not practical atlocations other than the entrance.2. We disagree, and believe that hunting is compatible with otherrecreational uses of the Refuge. For a detailed discussion of ourrational for reaching this conclusion, see the Compatibility Determination for hunting in Appendix G.3. We concur that the level of funding proposed in the draft CCPfor ongoing monitoring of nesting snowy plovers was low. Thelevel of funding was increased in the final CCP to $12,800 per year(average annual cost) from $2,600 per year in the draft CCP.
		










1. We concur that the level of funding proposed in the draft CCPfor ongoing monitoring of nesting snowy plovers was inadequate.The level of funding was increased in the final CCP to $12,800 peryear (average annual cost) from $2,600 per year in the draft CCP.2. The final CCP and Avian Predator Management Plan havebeen revised to include crows and ravens as potential target avianpredators.3. The Avian Predator Management Plan has been revised to read,“The program has been very successful in increasing snowy ploverhatch rates.”
		












4. The Avian Predator Management Plan has been revised toreflect the fact that PRBO has documented kestrel predation onSnowy Plover.5. In the final Avian Predator Management Plan, this sentencewas revised to allow “ . . . other such qualified agencies or individuals” to conduct management actions under the direction of theRefuge Manager.6. Page numbering has been included in all the appendices to thefinal CCP.
		










1. We agree that the proposed parking lot improvement mayincrease visitor use of the Refuge. However, we believe anyincrease resulting from parking lot improvements will be small, ifany. Several other continuing factors are far more important inlimiting the number of visitors to the Refuge, including: the lack ofvisibility of the Refuge; the frequently poor condition of theunpaved easement access road into the Refuge; the presence ofother more accessible coastal access areas within a short distance(Salinas and Marina State Beaches); the relatively long distancebetween the parking lot and the beach; and the lack of facilities(restrooms, camping, etc).2. We agree that current visitor use data on the Refuge is inadequate. Several strategies in final CCP will help us gather moreaccurate visitor use data in the future (2.2.5 - docent program,3.1.2 - hunting program monitoring, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 increase lawenforcement patrols).3. The final CCP and Avian Predator Management Plan havebeen revised to include crows and ravens as potential target avianpredators.4. We concur that the level of funding proposed in the draft CCPfor ongoing monitoring of nesting snowy plovers was inadequate.The level of funding was increased in the final CCP to $12,800 peryear (average annual cost) from $2,600 per year in the draft CCP.
		








Michael Parachini <MPARACHINI@Transfresh.com>11/21/01 03:21 PM

To: "'FW1PlanningComments@fws.gov'" 

<FW1PlanningComments@fws.gov>

cc:

Subject: Salinas River NWR

Dear Sirs,I have read the summary of the three proposals for the Salinas River NWR. Iam very much in favor of protecting this asset as California can ill affordto loose what little of this type of marsh habitat we have left. Whileproposal number three sounds very nice It always amazes me how what we thinkof as improvements very often do not necessarily make things better for theanimals that live in the area. My first reaction would be to continue tomanage the area as it is currently being done, proposal number one. Theexisting "limited improvements" may help to naturally control public usewhich helps the wildlife. If the current use level is damaging the areabecause of the lack of these improvements then that is something else toconsider. However, I do not believe this happening to any great extent. Alsowith regard to proposal three, I do not like the idea of reducing thehunting area/opportunities by fifteen percent. Historically monies spent anddonated by hunters have gone a long way towards habitat preservation.I am not in favor of proposal number two since I feel that it is torestrictive with regard to public use of the area. The public need to beable to experience these places with their seven senses to fully appreciatethem. The more people are able to enjoy these refuges the more they willsupport them. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments on thismatter.Sincerely,Michael James ParachiniPresident, Monterey Bay ChapterSafari Club International.



1. Comment noted.2. Some current uses are damaging to the Refuge. For example,though most visitors stay on designated trails, some visitors(especially on the beach trail) ignore signs and walk on the dunes.As detailed in Chapter 5, Biological Resources section, thisunauthorized use can damage dune habitat and disturb sensitivewildlife. Under the selected plan (Alternative 3), the Servicewould install new symbolic fencing and interpretive signs alongportions of the beach trail in an effort to reduce this unauthorizeduse.3. Comment noted.4. Comment noted.
		








No comments to respond to on this page.
		










1. The final CCP and compatibility determination for mosquitocontrol have been revised to show helicopter treatment as thepreferred method of control because it minimizes disturbance towildlife and avoids physical disturbance of sensitive saltmarshhabitat. However, the Service reserves the right to determinewhether alternative treatment methods should be used.2. We recognize that a five-day notification prior to treatment maynot be feasible and may result in the need to use materials(pupicides and adultides) which have greater impacts on nontargetspecies. In light of this, the final CCP and compatibility determination for mosquito control have been revised as follows: (1)Northern Salinas Valley Mosquito Abatement District will berequired to notify the Service prior to monitoring/sampling effortsso Refuge staff will be aware that treatment is imminent; (2)Northern Salinas Valley Mosquito Abatement District will berequired to give the Service a minimum 24 hour notice prior totreating the Refuge.
		








No comments to respond to on this page.