Humboldt Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Final Environmental Assessment

Prepared By:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Pacific Southwest Region 

Refuge Planning

2800 Cottage Way, W-1832

Sacramento, CA 95825-1846

and

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

1020 Ranch Road

Loleta, California 95551-9633 

September 2009

Approved: ___________________________________________________ Date: __________________________

 Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region

Implementation of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan and alternative management actions/programs have been assessed 

consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq.)

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 iii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

AFWO Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office

AQMD Air Quality Management District

Bay Humboldt Bay

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern

BCR Bird Conservation Regions

BIDEH Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health (601 FW3)

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMC Birds of Management Concern

BMP Best Management Practices

CCC California Conservation Corps

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan

CCS California Current System

CDF California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (also, CAL FIRE)

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

CDPH California Department of Public Health

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CESA California Endangered Species Act

CLMA Cooperative Land Management Agreement

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database

CNLM Center for Natural Lands Management

CNPS California Native Plant Society

CWA California Waterfowl Association

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

DPS Distinct Population Segment

DU Ducks Unlimited

EA Environmental Assessment

EDPA Eureka Dunes Protected Area

EE/I Environmental Education/Interpretation

EO Executive Order

ES Endangered Species 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit (applied to ESA listed fish)

FBM Freshwater and Brackish Marsh

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

FOD Friends of the Dunes

FHBNWR Friends of the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge

FTE Full Time Employee

GIS Geographic Information System

HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan

HBEP Humboldt Bay Ecosystem Program

HBHRCD Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District

HBMP Humboldt Bay Management Plan

HBWAC Humboldt Bay Watershed Advisory Committee

HFAC Humboldt Fish Action Council 

IFA Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986

HSU Humboldt State University

IIU Indian Island Unit
iv September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

IPM Integrated Pest Management

LPP Land Protection Planning

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MCSD Manila Community Services District

MDCMA Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Agreement

MLPA Marine Life Protected Area

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet

NCIC North Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources 

Information System 

NCRWQCB North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries Service)

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NWI National Wetland Inventory 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System

PCFWWRA Pacific Coast Fish Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Association

PCJV Pacific Coast Joint Venture

PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation

PIF Partners in Flight

Porter-Cologne State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act

PRBO Point Reyes Bird Observatory

PVA Population Viability Assessment

RCAA Redwood Community Action Agency

Refuge System The National Wildlife Refuge System

RNA Research Natural Area

ROW Right of way 

SCC State Coastal Conservancy

SCEP Student Career Employment Program

SEFI Southeast Farallon Island 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, USFWS

SFBNWRC San Francisco Bay NWR Complex

SHC Strategic Habitat Conservation

SHPO (California) State Historic Preservation Office

SIU Sand Island Unit

SLAMM Sea Level Affecting Marsh Management) 

SSC Species of Special Concern

SWFSC Southwest Fisheries Science Center

TNC The Nature Conservancy

TS Threatened Species

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, Service)

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WMA Weed Management Area

WNV West Nile Virus

WSHRN Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network

YCC Youth Conservation Corps
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 v

Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms....................................................................................................................................iii

Contents...........................................................................................................................................................v

Lists of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................... x

Lists of Tables............................................................................................................................................................. xi

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................1

1.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan............................................................ 1

1.3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Wildlife Refuge System................................................ 1

 1.3.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Responsibilities ........................................................................... 1

 1.3.2. The National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................................... 1

 1.3.3. Refuge Purposes............................................................................................................................... 2

 1.3.4. Refuge Vision Statements ............................................................................................................... 3

1.4. Legal and Policy Guidance......................................................................................................................... 3

1.5. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex................................................................................ 4

 1.5.1. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge ...................................................................................... 4

 1.5.2. Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................... 6

1.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Complex Location................................................................................................. 6

 1.6.1. Flyway Setting.................................................................................................................................. 6

 1.6.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Setting.......................................................................................................... 7

 1.6.3. Historic Conditions of Humboldt Bay NWR ................................................................................ 7

 1.6.4. History of Humboldt Bay NWR Establishment and Acquisitions ............................................ 9

 1.6.5. Current Management of Humboldt Bay NWR.......................................................................... 11

 1.6.6. Castle Rock NWR Setting............................................................................................................. 14

 1.6.7. Historic Conditions of Castle Rock NWR................................................................................... 14

 1.6.8. History of Castle Rock NWR Establishment and Acquisitions............................................... 15

 1.6.9. Current Management of Castle Rock NWR............................................................................... 15

1.7. Related Projects and Studies in the Area ............................................................................................. 15

 1.7.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, and Pacific Flyway Projects and Studies ................ 15

 1.7.2. California Department of Fish and Game Projects and Studies.............................................. 17

 1.7.3. Other Pertinent Projects, Programs, and Documents............................................................... 18

2. The Planning Process.............................................................................................................................21

2.1. Planning Process Policies ........................................................................................................................ 21

 2.1.1. The Planning Process..................................................................................................................... 21

2.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Complex CCP Process ....................................................................................... 21

 2.2.1. Public Involvement During Public Scoping Meetings and Initiation of CCP/NEPA

 Process ............................................................................................................................................. 21

 2.2.2. Public Scoping Meetings................................................................................................................ 22

 2.2.3. Supplemental Request for Comments on Castle Rock NWR .................................................. 22

 2.2.4. Comments Received During Scoping .......................................................................................... 22

 2.2.5. Public Involvement During the Public Comment Period for the Draft CCP/EA.................. 22

3. Refuge Resources....................................................................................................................................23

3.1. Overview of Humboldt Bay NWR.......................................................................................................... 23

 3.1.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Physical Environment Geography and Climate................................... 23

 3.1.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Global Climate Change and Sea Level Rise.......................................... 23

 3.1.3. Humboldt Bay NWR Hazardous Materials and Contaminants............................................... 26
vi September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 3.1.4. Humboldt Bay NWR Air Quality ................................................................................................. 26

 3.1.5. Humboldt Bay NWR Paleontological Resources ....................................................................... 27

 3.1.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Minerals ..................................................................................................... 28

 3.1.7. Humboldt Bay NWR Geology....................................................................................................... 28

 3.1.8. Humboldt Bay NWR Soils.. .......................................................................................................... 29

 3.1.9. Humboldt Bay NWR Water Resources....................................................................................... 29

3.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 31

 3.2.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Ecoregional Context................................................................................. 31

 3.2.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Units ........................................................................................................... 32

 3.2.3. Humboldt Bay NWR Plant Communities and Habitats ........................................................... 39

 3.2.4. Overview of Humboldt Bay NWR Fish and Wildlife................................................................. 44

 3.2.5. Humboldt Bay NWR Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 44

 3.2.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Special Status Species.............................................................................. 55

3.3. Humboldt Bay NWR Visitor Services ................................................................................................... 57

 3.3.1. Overview of Humboldt Bay NWR Visitor Services ................................................................... 57

 3.3.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Visitor Services ......................................................................................... 58

3.4. Humboldt Bay NWR Cultural Resources............................................................................................. 60

 3.4.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Native American Cultural History......................................................... 60

 3.4.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Ethnographic and Contemporary Native American Setting.............. 62

 3.4.3. Humboldt Bay NWR EuroAmerican Cultural History............................................................. 62

3.5. Humboldt Bay NWR Social and Economic Conditions....................................................................... 63

 3.5.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Social and Economic Regional Overview .............................................. 63

 3.5.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Management Economics.......................................................................... 63

 3.5.3. Humboldt Bay NWR Regional Land Use................................................................................... 64

 3.5.4. Humboldt Bay NWR Land Use.................................................................................................... 65

 3.5.5. Humboldt Bay and Surrounding Area Demographics .............................................................. 65

 3.5.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Local Economy and Employment.......................................................... 65

3.6. Overview of Castle Rock NWR .............................................................................................................. 67

 3.6.1. Castle Rock NWR Geographic/Ecosystem Setting................................................................... 67

 3.6.2. Castle Rock NWR Physical Geography and Climate.. .............................................................. 68

 3.6.3. Castle Rock NWR Climate Change and Sea Level Rise........................................................... 69

 3.6.4. Castle Rock NWR Geology, Hydrology, and Soils...................................................................... 69

 3.6.5. Castle Rock NWR Minerals.......................................................................................................... 69

 3.6.6. Castle Rock NWR Paleontological Resources............................................................................ 70

 3.6.7. Castle Rock NWR Water Resources............................................................................................ 70

 3.6.8. Castle Rock NWR Hazardous Materials..................................................................................... 70

3.7. Castle Rock NWR Biological Resources ............................................................................................... 70

 3.7.1. Castle Rock NWR Ecoregional Context..................................................................................... 70

 3.7.2. Castle Rock NWR Fish and Wildlife ........................................................................................... 70

 3.7.3. Castle Rock NWR Plant Communities........................................................................................ 70

 3.7.4. Castle Rock NWR Seabirds .......................................................................................................... 71

 3.7.5. Castle Rock NWR Nesting Seabirds ........................................................................................... 72

 3.7.6. Castle Rock NWR Other Bird Species ........................................................................................ 77

 3.7.7. Castle Rock NWR and Surrounding Area Use by Marine Mammals..................................... 78

 3.7.8. Castle Rock NWR Mammals ........................................................................................................ 82

 3.7.9. Castle Rock NWR Amphibians and Reptiles ............................................................................. 82

 3.7.10. Castle Rock NWR Invertebrates ............................................................................................... 82

 3.7.11. Castle Rock NWR Special Status Species ................................................................................ 82

 3.7.12. Castle Rock NWR Non-native Wildlife ..................................................................................... 83

3.8. Castle Rock NWR Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 83

 3.8.1. Prehistoric Use of Castle Rock and Surrounding Area ............................................................ 83

 3.8.2. Castle Rock NWR History............................................................................................................ 84

3.9. Castle Rock NWR Social Environment................................................................................................. 85

 3.9.1. Del Norte County Demographics................................................................................................. 85

3.10. Castle Rock NWR Social and Economic Conditions ........................................................................... 85

 3.10.1. Castle Rock NWR Social and Economic Regional Overview................................................. 85
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 vii

 3.10.2. Castle Rock NWR Regional Land Use...................................................................................... 86

 3.10.3. Castle Rock NWR Local Land Use ........................................................................................... 86

 3.10.4. Castle Rock NWR Local Economy and Employment............................................................. 86

 3.10.5. Castle Rock NWR Management Economics ............................................................................ 86

 3.10.6. Castle Rock NWR Environmental Justice................................................................................ 86

3.11. Castle Rock NWR Public Access and Recreation................................................................................ 87

 3.11.1. Castle Rock NWR Traffic, Public Access, and Recreation ..................................................... 87

 3.11.2. Aesthetics of Castle Rock NWR................................................................................................. 87

3.12. Castle Rock NWR Public Use ................................................................................................................ 87

 3.12.1. Castle Rock NWR Environmental Education and Interpretation ........................................ 87

 3.12.2. Castle Rock NWR Trends.. ......................................................................................................... 87

 3.12.3. Castle Rock NWR Management and Monitoring .................................................................... 87

 

4. Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities................................................................................................89

4.1. Issues and Challenges Identified by the Public and the Service ....................................................... 89

 4.1.1. Potential Impacts of Global Climate Change on the Complex................................................. .89

 4.1.2. Staffing Needs for the Complex.................................................................................................... 89

 4.1.3. Aleutian Cackling Goose Habitat Management ......................................................................... 89

 4.1.4. Estuarine Habitat Restoration on Humboldt Bay NWR.......................................................... 90

 4.1.5. Replacement of Eucalyptus Trees with Native Vegetation....................................................... 90

 4.1.6. Potential Water Quality Concerns with Increased Public Use in Mad River Slough............ 91

 4.1.7. Invasive Plant Species on Humboldt Bay and Adjacent Lands ............................................... 92

 4.1.8. Flooding of Highway 101 ............................................................................................................... 92

 4.1.9. Legal Jurisdiction of Tidelands ................................................................................................... 92

 4.1.10. Hunting Regulations on Humboldt Bay NWR......................................................................... 92

 4.1.11. Sport Fishing Regulations on Humboldt Bay NWR ............................................................... 93

 4.1.12. Non-Wildlife Dependent Visitor Services on Humboldt Bay NWR ...................................... 93

 4.1.13. Traditional Tribal Uses on Humboldt Bay NWR..................................................................... 93

 4.1.14. Mosquito Integrated Pest Management on Humboldt Bay NWR ........................................ 94

 4.1.15. Management of Older Buildings on Humboldt Bay NWR ..................................................... 94

 4.1.16. Potential Humboldt Bay NWR Acquisitions............................................................................. 94

 4.1.17. Potential Management Options for the Hookton Slough Unit ............................................... 94

 4.1.18. Dioxin and Pentachlorophenol Contamination ........................................................................ 95

 4.1.19. Habitat Management on Castle Rock NWR............................................................................. 95

 4.1.20. Protection of Castle Rock NWR from Disturbance................................................................. 96

 4.1.21. Educational Outreach Regarding Castle Rock NWR ............................................................. 96

 4.1.22. Seabird Monitoring on Castle Rock NWR................................................................................ 96

5. Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .........................................................................97

Humboldt Bay NWR Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................. 97

Goal 1. Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance estuarine and palustrine wetland habitats

representative of the Humboldt Bay area ..................................................................................................... 97

 Objective 1.1. Salmon Creek Delta Restoration................................................................................... 97

 Objective 1.2. Salt Marsh Habitat .......................................................................................................... 99

 Objective 1.3. Freshwater and Brackish Marsh (FBM) .................................................................... 100

 Objective 1.4. Riparian Swamp Habitat .............................................................................................. 102

 Objective 1.5. Eelgrass and Mudflat Habitat...................................................................................... 102

 Objective 1.6. Floodplain Management ............................................................................................... 103

Goal 2. Conserve and restore globally rare dune and dune forest habitats, and support recovery of 

threatened, endangered species..................................................................................................................... 104

 Objective 2.1. Dune Mat/Foredune Grassland.................................................................................... 104

 Objective 2.2. Dune Swale ..................................................................................................................... 105

 Objective 2.3. Dune Riparian/Swamp .................................................................................................. 106

 Objective 2.4. Coniferous Dune Forest................................................................................................ 107
viii September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Goal 3. Conserve and restore all refuge habitats through the prevention and control of invasive 

plants and animals............................................................................................................................................ 108

 Objective 3.1. Prevention and Early Detection .................................................................................. 108

 Objective 3.2. Control and Reduce the Spread of Established Invasive Species Populations in 

 Refuge Habitats...................................................................................................................................... 109

 Objective 3.3. Control of Spartina densiflora..................................................................................... 110

Goal 4. Promote long-term viability of the Humboldt Bay estuarine and dune ecosystems ................. 111

 Objective 4.1. Ecosystem Management............................................................................................... 111

Goal 5. Provide accessible, safe, high-quality wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities.................. 113

 Objective 5.1. Visitor Services—Wildlife Observation and Photography....................................... 113

 Objective 5.2. Visitor Services—Environmental Education and Interpretation ........................... 114

 Objective 5.3. Visitor Services—Outreach/Friends and Partners.................................................... 116

 Objective 5.4. Visitor Services—Hunting............................................................................................ 116

 Objective 5.5. Visitor Services—Fishing ............................................................................................. 118

Goal 6. Identify and protect tribal cultural resources on the Humboldt Bay NWR............................... 118

 Objective 6.1. Cultural Resource Management.................................................................................. 118

 Objective 6.2. Cultural Resource Management—Education............................................................ 119

 Objective 6.3. Cultural Resource Management—Coordination....................................................... 120

Castle Rock NWR Goals ................................................................................................................................. 121

Goal 1. Protect and maintain habitats for migratory birds and marine mammals ................................. 121

 Objective 1.1. Castle Rock Research and Monitoring ....................................................................... 121

 Objective 1.2. Castle Rock NWR Wilderness Designation............................................................... 122

Goal 2. Provide high quality environmental education, interpretive information, and outreach.......... 122

 Objective 2.1. Environmental Education, Interpretive Information, and Outreach ..................... 122

 

6. Management Plan Implementation....................................................................................................125

7. References..............................................................................................................................................135

Appendices.................................................................................................................................................149

Appendix A: Glossary......................................................................................................................................A-1

Appendix B: Visitor Services Plan.................................................................................................................B-1

Appendix C: Waterfowl Hunt Plan ................................................................................................................C-1

Appendix D: Sport Fishing Plan....................................................................................................................D-1

Appendix E: Final Environmental Assessment...........................................................................................E-1

Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations ................................................................................................. F-1

 Compatibility Determination for Environmental Education and Interpretation for 

 Humboldt Bay NWR.............................................................................................................................. F-1

 Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation and Photography for Humboldt Bay 

 NWR......................................................................................................................................................... F-7

 Compatibility Determination for Recreational Boating for Humboldt Bay NWR...................... F-15

 Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting for Humboldt Bay NWR......................... F-21

 Compatibility Determination for Fishing for Humboldt Bay NWR ............................................. F-31

 Compatibility Determination for Grazing and Haying for Humboldt Bay NWR ....................... F-35

 Compatibility Determination for Mosquito Control for Humboldt Bay NWR............................ F-39

 Compatibility Determination for Plant Gathering for Humboldt Bay NWR............................... F-45

 Compatibility Determination for Research for Humboldt Bay NWR .......................................... F-49

 Compatibility Determination for Research for Castle Rock NWR............................................... F-55

Appendix G: Wilderness Review for Humboldt Bay NWR and Castle Rock NWR...............................G-1

Appendix H: Supplemental Legal and Policy Guidance .............................................................................H-1

Appendix I: Compliance with Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act................................... I-1

Appendix J: Plant Lists...................................................................................................................................J-1

 Humboldt Bay NWR Flora ....................................................................................................................J-1

 Castle Rock NWR Flora.......................................................................................................................J-27
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 ix

Appendix K: Wildlife Lists..............................................................................................................................K-1

 Reptiles and Amphibians.......................................................................................................................K-1

 Mammals..................................................................................................................................................K-3

 Birds. ........................................................................................................................................................K-5

 Fish.. .......................................................................................................................................................K-19

Appendix L: Locally Occurring Special Status Species..............................................................................L-1

Appendix M: Public Involvement Process for the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

 CCP/EA.........................................................................................................................................................M-1

Appendix N: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex History...................................................N-1

Appendix O: List of Preparers .......................................................................................................................O-1

Appendix P: Coastal Flood Hazard Maps......................................................................................................P-1

Appendix Q: Compliance with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act ...........................................Q-1

Appendix R: Responses to Comments on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

 Environmental Assessment...................................................................................................................R-1
x September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER

Lists of Figures

Figure 1. Watershed ecosystem map ..................................................................................................................5

Figure 2. Historic and current tidal marsh surrounding Humboldt Bay ......................................................8 

Figure 3. Historic and current tidal marsh surrounding Humboldt Bay, including density of 

non-native dense-flowered cordgrass populations .........................................................................10

Figure 4. The CCP planning process ................................................................................................................21

Figure 5. Refuge boundary and management units for Humboldt Bay NWR ...........................................33 

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

units ......................................................................................................................................................35 

Figure 7. Terrestrial vegetation of Lanphere Dunes, Ma-le’l Dunes, Jacoby Creek, and Eureka 

Slough units .........................................................................................................................................38

Figure 8. Abundance of Aleutian cackling geese.............................................................................................47

Figure 9. Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) on Salmon Creek restoration area.. 51

Figure 10. Population status of Humboldt Bay wallflower ..............................................................................56

Figure 11. Historic vegetative cover map of Castle Rock................................................................................71

Figure 12. Castle Rock NWR interpretive panels along Pebble Beach Drive, Crescent City....................87

Figure 13. Dune units of Humboldt Bay NWR .................................................................................................91
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 xi

Lists of Tables

Table 1. Monthly and annual precipitation data for Eureka, CA, from 1948 through 2007 ....................24

Table 2. Habitat type and acreage by unit.....................................................................................................34

Table 3. Abundance of Aleutian cackling geese from direct counts............................................................48

Table 4. Value of agricultural commodities produced in Humboldt County for 2005...............................63 

Table 5. Eureka commercial fish harvest through 2005...............................................................................64

Table 6. Non-agricultural sector employment in Humboldt County as of 2006........................................64

Table 7. Current land use in Humboldt Bay area as of 2001 .......................................................................65

Table 8. Monthly and annual precipitation data for Crescent City, CA, from 1948 through 2007..........67

Table 9. Complete seabird breeding population estimates on Castle Rock, 1970 to 1989 .......................72 

Table 10. Population estimates for surface nesting and diurnal cavity nesting species at 

Castle Rock, 1979-1999 ......................................................................................................................73

Table 11. Counts of harbor seals in the Castle Rock vicinity in 2004 ...........................................................79 

Table 12. Counts of California sea-lions at Castle Rock and reef during July 2000-2004 .........................80 

Table 13. Steller sea-lion count data for the St. George Reef and Castle Rock, July 5-17, 2000-2004.....81 

Table 14. Northern elephant seals at Castle Rock and Castle Rock shoals in 1994-1995..........................82

Table 15. Threatened or Endangered species that occur or have occurred at Castle Rock NWR 

or adjacent marine waters.................................................................................................................83 

Table 16. Estimated initial capital outlay to fully implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ...126

Table 17. Esimated annual cost to fully implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan..................129

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(Complex), which includes Humboldt Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Castle Rock NWR, is 

located on the northern coast of California.

Humboldt Bay NWR is located in the vicinity of 

Eureka and Arcata with refuge units distributed 

around Humboldt Bay, the largest bay between 

San Francisco Bay and Coos Bay, Oregon. In 1971, 

Humboldt Bay NWR was established to conserve 

coastal habitats for a great diversity of animals 

and plants, especially migratory birds. Years later 

Humboldt Bay NWR added the Lanphere and Male’l Dunes Units to help conserve the most pristine 

remaining dune ecosystem on the west coast of the 

United States. 

The Humboldt Bay NWR authorized boundary 

consists of 9,502 acres (3,379 acres owned in fee title) 

of freshwater, brackish, and salt marsh; agricultural 

wetlands; intertidal mudflats; eelgrass beds; and 

some of the most pristine dune habitats in the 

western United States. 

Castle Rock NWR is a 14-acre nearshore island 

located in Del Norte County, California, less than 

a mile northwest of Crescent City. The island is 

primarily rock with sparse vegetation. Castle Rock 

NWR hosts one of the largest and most diverse 

assemblages of breeding seabirds on the Pacific 

coast, provides a critical roost for thousands 

of Aleutian cackling geese (Branta hutchinsii 

leucopareia) prior to their transoceanic migration, 

and provides resting sites for seals and sea-lions. 

1.2. Purpose and Need for the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) to guide management of fish, wildlife, plants, 

other natural resources, and visitor uses on the 

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex for the next 15 years. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 (16 United States Code [USC] 668dd668ee) (Improvement Act) requires that all refuges 

be managed in accordance with an approved CCP 

by 2012. Under the 1997 Improvement Act, the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) 

is to be consistently directed and managed to fulfill 

the specific purpose(s) for which each refuge was 

established and the Refuge System mission. The 

CCP planning process helps the Service achieve the 

individual refuge’s purposes and the Refuge System 

mission by identifying specific goals, objectives, and 

strategies to implement on each refuge. 

1.3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Wildlife Refuge System

1.3.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Responsibilities

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary 

Federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s fish, 

wildlife, and plant populations, and their habitats, 

for the continuing benefit of the American people. 

Although the Service shares this responsibility 

with other Federal, tribal, State, local, and private 

entities, the Service has specific responsibilities 

for migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, interjurisdictional fish, and certain marine 

mammals. These groups of species are collectively 

referred to as Federal Trust Species. The Service 

also manages the Refuge System and National 

Fish Hatcheries, enforces Federal wildlife laws 

and international treaties related to importing and 

exporting wildlife, assists State fish and wildlife 

programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife 

conservation programs. 

1.3.2. The National Wildlife Refuge System

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s 

largest collection of lands specifically managed for 

fish and wildlife conservation. Unlike other Federal 

lands that are managed under a multiple-use 

mandate (National Forests and lands administered 

by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management [BLM]), 

the Refuge System is managed primarily for the 

benefit of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats. The Refuge System consists of more than 

545 units that provide nearly 95 million acres of 
2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 1

important habitat for native plants and many species 

of mammals, birds, and fish, including threatened 

and endangered species.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and 

Goals

The mission of the Refuge System is “...to 

administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management and, where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and 

plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans” (1997 Improvement Act).

The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

are to:

a. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats, including species that 

are endangered or threatened with becoming 

endangered.

b. Develop and maintain a network of habitats 

for migratory birds, anadromous and 

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal 

populations that is strategically distributed and 

carefully managed to meet important life history 

needs of these species across their ranges.

c. Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, 

wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes that 

are unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented 

in existing protection efforts. 

d. Provide and enhance opportunities to 

participate in compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation). 

e. Foster understanding and instill appreciation 

of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

1.3.3. Refuge Purposes

Lands within the Refuge System are acquired and 

managed under a variety of legislative acts and 

administrative orders and authorities. The official 

purpose or purposes for a refuge are specified in or 

derived from the law, proclamation, executive order 

(EO), agreement, public land order, funding source, 

donation document, or administrative memorandum 

establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, 

refuge unit, or refuge subunit. The purpose of a 

refuge is defined when it is established or when 

new land is added to an existing refuge. When an 

addition to a refuge is acquired under an authority 

different from the authority used to establish the 

original refuge, the addition takes on the purposes 

of the original refuge, but the original refuge does 

not take on the purposes of the addition. Refuge 

managers must consider all of the purposes. 

However, purposes that deal with the conservation, 

management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats take precedent over other 

purposes in the management and administration of 

a refuge. 

The 1997 Improvement Act directs the Service 

to manage each refuge to fulfill the mission of the 

Refuge System, as well as the specific purposes 

for which that refuge was established. Refuge 

purposes are the driving force in developing refuge 

vision statements, goals, objectives, and strategies 

in the CCP. Refuge purposes are also critical to 

determining the compatibility of all existing and 

proposed refuge uses.

Humboldt Bay NWR was established under the 

authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 

1929, the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Act of 1934, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. 

According to these authorities, Humboldt Bay 

NWR’s purposes are:

“...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other 

management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

U.S.C. §§ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“...as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to...

all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act]...except the inviolate sanctuary 

provisions...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) (Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act)

“...for the development, advancement, management, 

conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(a)(4) and “...for 

the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service, in performing its activities and services. 

Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of 

any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition 

of servitude...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956)

“...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlifeoriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation 

of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 

U.S.C. §§ 460k-1 and “...the Secretary...may accept 

and use...real...property. Such acceptance may 

be accomplished under the terms and conditions 

of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 3

U.S.C. §§ 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. 

§§ 460k-460k-4], as amended)

“...to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as 

endangered species or threatened species ....or (B) 

plants...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended)

Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge was 

established under the authority of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended. 

According to this authority, Castle Rock NWR’s 

purpose is:

“...to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as 

endangered species or threatened species...or (B) 

plants...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species 

Act of 1973)

1.3.4. Refuge Vision Statements

Vision Statement for Humboldt Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge 

The Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

conserves and manages some of the most significant 

historic and restored natural areas in the Humboldt 

Bay area. The refuge sustains varied and important 

habitats ranging from estuarine and freshwater 

wetlands to open grasslands and dynamic dune 

ecosystems. Humboldt Bay NWR also conserves 

important plant and animal populations and 

plays a critical role in preserving biodiversity 

locally, regionally, and within the Refuge System. 

Refuge staff applies sound scientific principles 

and adaptive management strategies to sustain 

the long-term health and ecological integrity of the 

Humboldt Bay NWR and the surrounding area.

Refuge habitats link with other public and private 

lands to support threatened and endangered species 

in addition to hundreds of species of migratory 

wildlife within the Pacific Flyway. The refuge 

provides migration and wintering habitats of 

sufficient size and quality to assist in maintaining 

migrating bird populations on the Pacific Flyway, 

especially Pacific brant, Aleutian cackling geese, 

and shorebirds.

The staff at the Humboldt Bay NWR works with 

a broad cross section of tribal, governmental, 

community, and private partners to promote the 

ecological integrity of the landscape, ecotourism, 

and the historic and cultural attractions of the 

region. The refuge staff, assisted by Friends 

groups, volunteers, and the public, seeks to provide 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities for the public on refuge lands, expand 

community outreach, and stimulate area residents 

and visitors to embrace sustainable stewardship of 

natural resources. 

By pursuing this vision, staff and others at the 

Humboldt Bay NWR seek to ensure healthy fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources for people to enjoy 

today and an enduring legacy for generations to 

come.

Vision Statement for Castle Rock National 

Wildlife Refuge

Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge preserves 

in perpetuity one of the most important seabird 

nesting colonies on the Pacific coastline. This 

14-acre island continues to be preserved in a 

natural condition with minimal human intrusion. 

Management activities focus on research and 

monitoring of refuge wildlife and on protection and 

maintenance of a natural, functioning ecosystem. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service coordinates with 

tribes, other agencies and entities, and the public to 

ensure the long-term health and viability of native 

seabird and marine mammal populations. 

We work with others to provide wildlife viewing and 

interpretation at selected locations on the adjacent 

coastline. Fostering an appreciation for Pacific 

coast wildlife enriches people in a variety of ways 

and ensures that this outstanding legacy of wildlife 

is passed on to future generations.

1.4. Legal and Policy Guidance

Refuges are guided by the purposes of the individual 

refuge, the mission and goals of the Refuge 

System, Service policy, laws, and international 

treaties. Relevant guidance includes the Refuge 

Recreation Act of 1962; the 1997 Improvement Act; 

the Endangered Species Act, as amended; selected 

portions of the Code of Federal Regulations; 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. 

Refuges are also governed by a variety of other 

Federal laws, Executive Orders, treaties, interstate 

compacts, regulations, and policies pertaining to the 

conservation and protection of natural and cultural 

resources (see Service Manual 602 FW 1, 1.3). 

The 1997 Improvement Act’s main components 

include:

■ A strong and singular wildlife conservation 

mission for the Refuge System.

■ A recognition of six priority public uses of 

the Refuge System (hunting, fishing, wildlife 
4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 1

observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation).

■ A requirement that the Secretary of the Interior 

maintain the biological integrity, diversity and 

environmental health of Refuge System lands.

■ A new process for determining compatible uses on 

refuges.

■ A requirement for preparing a comprehensive 

conservation plan for each refuge by 2012.

First and foremost, refuges are managed for fish, 

wildlife, plants, and their habitats. In addition, units 

of the Refuge System are legally closed to all public 

access and use, including economic uses, unless and 

until they are officially opened through an analytical 

public process called the refuge compatibility 

process. All refuge uses are subservient to the 

Refuge System’s primary wildlife management 

responsibility and they must be determined 

compatible to be authorized.

The 1997 Improvement Act established the formal 

process for determining compatibility of uses. 

A compatibility determination is required for a 

wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other 

public use of a refuge. A compatible use is one 

which, in the sound professional judgment of the 

refuge manager, will not materially interfere with 

or detract from the fulfillment of refuge purpose(s) 

or the Refuge System mission. The Service strives 

to provide wildlife-dependent public uses when 

compatible. If financial resources are not available 

to design, operate, and maintain a priority use, 

the refuge manager will take reasonable steps to 

obtain outside assistance from the State and other 

conservation interests.

This CCP contains several compatibility 

determinations for proposed uses on both refuges 

in the Complex (Appendix F). These compatibility 

determinations were open to public comment with 

the draft CCP and finalized along with the CCP.

This document also includes an environmental 

assessment (EA) (attached as Appendix E) as 

required under the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4321). The purpose of 

the EA is to evaluate the environmental effects of 

the CCP on the quality of the human environment. 

The EA includes the components listed below.

■ A description of the alternatives considered for 

the CCP.

■ Identification and analysis of the potential 

environmental effects of the proposed 

management program and the management 

alternatives.

■ Documentation of the involvement of affected 

State and Federal agencies, appropriate Tribal 

governments, nonprofit organizations, and 

members of the public in the CCP process.

The CCP is also accompanied by a revised sport 

hunting plan (Appendix C), a revised sport fishing 

plan (Appendix D), a wilderness review (Appendix 

G), and a visitor services plan (Appendix B).

1.5. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex

1.5.1. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge

The Humboldt Bay NWR boundary (Figure 1) 

contains much of the remaining natural habitats and 

shoreline areas of Humboldt Bay, including areas 

that both conserve key habitats for fish, wildlife, and 

plants, and are aesthetically pleasing landscapes. 

However, to understand the health of refuge habitat, 

it is necessary to consider the general health of the 

bay as a whole, including the condition of lands and 

waters outside, as well as inside, the refuge.

The bay area contains many species of native and 

introduced plants and animals. These species and 

their habitats have complex interrelationships; 

significant changes in any one habitat type can 

directly or indirectly affect other habitats and 

species that use that habitat. Most fish and wildlife 

species found on Humboldt Bay NWR use areas 

both inside and outside of refuge boundaries.

Humboldt Bay NWR is important to the overall 

Refuge System primarily due to the concentrations 

of migratory waterbirds, conservation of species 

listed under the Federal ESA that use refuge 

habitats, and conservation of globally endangered 

dune habitats. 

Migratory birds largely depend upon the bay and 

surrounding wetland habitats, including the refuge, 

in the fall, winter, and spring. This is especially true 

of the Pacific brant (Branta bernicla nigricans). 

Humboldt Bay NWR is currently the southernmost 

in a chain of National Wildlife Refuges that provide 

habitat for most of the world’s population of Pacific 

brant. 

Humboldt Bay is an area of international 

significance to many species of migratory birds, 

which largely depend upon the bay and surrounding 

wetland habitats, including the refuge, in the fall, 

winter, and spring. Chief among these are waterfowl, 

shorebirds, gulls, and terns. Total use-days for all 

of the bird species have been estimated at 4 million 

annually for South Bay alone (Nelson 1989). Most 

of the birds using the bay frequent areas within the 

existing refuge boundaries on a daily basis.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 5

Figure 1. Watershed ecosystem map.

Sacramento

San Francisco

Humboldt Bay

National Wildlife

Refuge Redding

Modesto

Eureka

Arcata

Castle Rock

National Wildlife

Refuge

£¤101

¬«99

§ ̈¦5

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦580

O r e g o n

SACRAMENTO

RIVER NWR

STONE

LAKES

NWR

SAN PABLO

BAY NWR

DON EDWARDS SAN

FRANCISCO BAY NWR

SACRAMENTO

NWR

MODOC

NWR

SUTTER

NWR

MARIN

ISLANDS

NWR

ANTIOCH

DUNES

NWR

SAN JOAQUIN

RIVER NWR

COLUSA

NWR

BUTTE SINK

WMA

DELEVAN

NWR

WILLOW CREEK -

LURLINE WMA

OREGON

ISLANDS

NWR

BANDON

MARSH

NWR

LOWER

KLAMATH

NWR

CLEAR 

LAKE

NWR

KLAMATH

MARSH

NWR UPPER

KLAMATH

NWR

TULE 

LAKE

NWR

Figure 1. Watershed / Ecosystem Map

Region 8 Refuge Planning - July 2008 I 50 25 0 50

Miles

Pacific

Flyway

Area

Enlarged

Northern California Coastal Watershed Klamath/Central Pacific Coast Ecoregion
6 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 1

Over 260 species of birds, including 39 species of 

shorebirds and 26 species of raptors, have been seen 

in the vicinity of Humboldt Bay (Yocom and Harris 

1975, Ralph et al. 1998). In recognition of the species 

richness found in the bay, it has been identified as 

an Important Bird Area by the National Audubon 

Society. The majority of birds use the Humboldt Bay 

NWR as a stop-over to rest and replenish energy 

reserves. Others spend the winter on the refuge and 

some use it for nesting. The wetlands in and around 

Humboldt Bay are critical to tens of thousands of 

shorebirds. As a result, the bay has been designated 

as a site of International Importance by the Western 

Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. This is 

the northernmost area on the Pacific coast where 

species such as American avocets (Recurvirostra 

americana), long-billed curlews (Numenius 

americanus), marbled godwits (Limosa fedoa), and 

willets (Tringa semipalmata) spend the winter in 

large numbers. They can be seen feeding on the 

mudflats or skimming over the bay in large eyecatching flocks from late July through April. 

Humboldt Bay is a key area for Pacific brant. 

Humboldt Bay NWR is currently the southernmost 

in a chain of National Wildlife Refuges that provide 

habitat for most of the world’s population of Pacific 

brant. These small geese require eelgrass-filled bays 

during their travels between Arctic wetlands where 

they nest and coastal lagoons of Baja California 

and mainland Mexico where they overwinter. In 

November, most Pacific brant fly nonstop from 

Izembek Lagoon in Alaska to Mexico in 48 to 60 

hours. On their return trip from January through 

April, as much as 60 percent of the flyway population 

stops in Humboldt Bay, with as many as 10,000 to 

20,000 Pacific brant on Humboldt Bay at one time.

The Humboldt Bay area has also recently (as of 

2002) become the focal area during late winter and 

spring for the bulk of the Aleutian cackling goose 

population.

In addition to birds, Humboldt Bay is also a 

regionally important spawning and nursery ground 

for commercial and sport finfish and shellfish, 

especially oysters. The bay provides habitat for at 

least 111 species of fish (Barnhart et al. 1992), many 

of which contribute to sport or commercial fisheries. 

Both Jacoby Creek and Salmon Creek provide 

habitat for anadromous salmonids.

Four species listed as endangered under the Federal 

ESA utilize habitat within the refuge boundary: the 

Humboldt Bay wallflower (Erysimum menziesii

ssp. eurekense), beach layia (Layia carnosa), 

tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), and 

brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). Three 

species listed as threatened under the Federal 

ESA use habitat within the refuge boundary: 

Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), steelhead 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss), and Chinook salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Three recovered 

species, the Aleutian cackling goose, bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and peregrine falcon 

(Falco peregrinus), also use refuge habitat. In 

addition, the Humboldt Bay NWR provides habitat 

for rare plants, globally declined species, and marine 

mammals.

1.5.2. Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge

Castle Rock is one of only two islands on the outer 

coast of California included in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. These two islands, Southeast 

Farallon Island (SEFI) and Castle Rock, are 

the largest, most important seabird colonies in 

the state. SEFI has a long continuous history of 

human occupation. Research and monitoring takes 

place year round on the island primarily through 

a cooperative agreement with Point Reyes Bird 

Observatory (PRBO) Conservation Science. Until 

recently, Castle Rock had no management plan 

or long-term monitoring program, so seabird 

monitoring was accomplished through short-term 

projects and large-scale cooperative monitoring 

efforts aimed at selected species. 

Like many other “seabird islands” within the 

Refuge System, Castle Rock is so rich with 

sensitive wildlife species and fragile habitat that it 

cannot accommodate direct public access and still 

fulfill the purposes for which it was established. 

Only very limited access is allowed for research, 

monitoring, and management. The original concept 

for management of the island was to leave it alone 

with the caveat that direct management may be 

needed in the future. The dilemma is that some 

of the island’s most sensitive resources cannot 

be monitored without some level of presence on 

the island, and without monitoring species status 

cannot be determined, nor if management might be 

warranted. 

1.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Complex 

Location

1.6.1. Flyway Setting

The refuge is located within the Pacific Flyway. 

The Pacific Flyway is used by millions of birds for 

migration to wintering and breeding grounds. This 

refuge provides important habitat is a key migratory 

stopover and/or wintering area for several species 

of waterfowl and shorebirds including Pacific 

brant, Aleutian cackling geese, western sandpipers 

(Calidris mauri), dunlin (Calidris alpina), marbled 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 7

godwits, and long-billed curlews. The north coast 

of California is one of richest areas in the country 

in terms of avian diversity. Between 300 and 350 

species of birds can be found from just offshore to 

the first inland ridgeline (Harris 1996, Ralph et al. 

1998).

1.6.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Setting

The Humboldt Bay region is composed of diverse 

ecosystems. The bay area’s topography, wetlands, 

riparian and coastal areas provide a variety of 

habitats for wildlife and migratory birds. 

Humboldt Bay is 14 miles long and from 0.5 to 

3.5 miles wide. It comprises three sub-bays, each 

situated at the end of one or several stream valleys. 

It is bounded on the east by mountain ridges of the 

coast range. Humboldt Bay is California’s second 

largest coastal estuarine system. 

Humboldt Bay has been drastically changed 

since the turn of the 19th century (Figure 2). Vast 

expanses of wetlands around both North and 

South Bays have been altered by diking, filling, 

dredging, sedimentation, and mariculture, as 

well as residential, industrial, and recreational 

development. Originally, Humboldt Bay and its 

natural wetlands encompassed more than 27,000 

acres, but by 1980 this area had been reduced by 30 

percent to ~17,000 acres (Shapiro and Associates 

1980). Consequently, there has been a dramatic 

change in both the quantity and composition of 

wetlands.

In 1870, when some minor salt marsh conversion 

had already occurred, there was an estimated 9,500 

acres of salt marsh. After completion of the railroad 

around the margin of the bay, salt marsh was 

reduced by 90 percent. The current estimate of the 

area of salt marsh remaining around the Bay is 970 

acres.

1.6.3. Historic Conditions of Humboldt Bay NWR 

The pre-European settlement Humboldt Bay 

watershed was covered mostly by old-growth 

redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) forest in the 

uplands. The coastal forests reached from the 

ocean to 35 miles inland. Pre-1850 it was common 

to see herds of 40 to 50 elk (Loud 1918). Waterfowl, 

salmon, deer, and bear were abundant. Forest 

soils and vegetation diminished rainfall runoff and 

prevented significant changes in water quality. The 

bay margins were heavily forested from Arcata 

south to the Elk River (Coy 1982). The coastline, 

bay margins, and riparian area forests were 

dominated by Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and 

red alder (Alnus rubra), and contained Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii), coast hemlock (Tsuga 

heterophylla), red cedar (Thuja plicata), and tanoak 

(Lithocarpus densiflorus) (Loud 1918). Lowland and 

marsh areas around the bay were restricted due to 

surrounding mountain ridges. 

In 1850 there were extensive intertidal flats and salt 

marshes in Humboldt Bay. The largest salt marshes 

were along Mad River Slough, McDaniel Slough, 

Eureka Slough, Hookton Slough, and Salmon 

Creek (Loud 1918). The lower Elk River and lower 

Salmon Creek deltas were tidally influenced alluvial 

plains. The north spit of Humboldt Bay was a mix 

of unvegetated, herbaceous, and forested dunes. 

The South Spit was primarily non-vegetated dune. 

The mouth of the bay was both shallow and narrow 

(Lewis 1943). 

Landscapes found by early explorers and settlers 

were shaped and regularly renewed in part by the 

land management practices of Native American 

people (Anderson 2005).

Before EuroAmerican influence, there were an 

estimated 1,000 Wiyot people in the Humboldt Bay 

region. They occupied ~465 square miles, including 

the entire Humboldt Bay area. At the time of contact 

with EuroAmericans, the Wiyot were divided into 

three main groups: the Potawót, the Wigki, and 

the Wiyot. The Potawót settlements were on the 

lower Mad River, while the Wigki and the Wiyot 

settlements were near the Eel River (Seidner 1999). 

In 1850 there were 32 principal population centers 

and many smaller villages (Loud 1918). Population 

decreases were due to a number of factors (all 

attributable to the coming of the Europeans), and 

included reduction in the available resource base 

for subsistence, EuroAmerican-induced epidemics, 

displacement, and killings. By 1851 the Wiyot 

population of Humboldt Bay and north to Mad River 

was estimated at about 300 to 500. By 1910, due to 

conflicts with settlers, the Wiyot population had 

decreased to ~100 (Loud 1918). 

The Humboldt Bay area provided a cornucopia of 

plant and wildlife resources to sustain the Wiyot 

people. The ancestral Wiyot territory extended 

from Little River to the north, Bear River Ridge 

to the south, and from the Pacific coast out to as 

far as Berry Summit in the northeast and Chalk 

Mountain in the southeast (Wiyot Constitution and 

Bylaws 1978). The Wiyot people lived along the 

rivers, bay, and estuarine environments. The land 

provided redwood for house planks and canoes, 

iris leaves for nets and ropes, grey pines (Pinus 

sabiniana), California hazelnut (Corylus cornuta

var. californica), huckleberry (Vaccineum ovatum
8 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 1

Figure 2. Historic and current tidal marsh surrounding Humboldt Bay. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 9

and V. parvifolium), strawberry (Fragaria spp.), 

grass seeds, clover roots and bulbs, ferns, nettles, 

sea otter (Enhydra lutris), Roosevelt elk (Cervus 

canadensis roosevelti), Pacific harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina richardii), Steller Sea-lion (Eumetopias 

jubatus), and black-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

hemionus) for food and household materials. It was 

said that the salmon ran so thick in the Mad River 

and Arcata sloughs you could catch them with a 

pitchfork (Loud 1918).

The Wiyot people were intricately involved with 

their environment. They, as many Pacific North 

Coast peoples, manipulated the tidal flats to harness 

the productivity of the salt marshes, one of the 

world’s most biologically productive environments 

(Deur 2005). The tribe modified estuarine soils, 

plants, and hydrology for the production of root 

crops. Silverweed (Potentilla anserina ssp. pacifica) 

and coast clover (Trifolium wormskioldii) were 

important food sources, which were cultivated in 

family plots. Root cultivation methods demonstrated 

a detailed understanding of environmental systems. 

With EuroAmerican settlement of the region during 

the 19th century, estuarine cultivation practices 

were rapidly swept away.

In 1806, the first EuroAmerican explorers arrived 

at the bay. However, no settlement took place until 

the 1850s when Humboldt Bay became a place 

of departure and supply for the gold mines of 

Trinity and Siskiyou counties. Most of the current 

agricultural lands around Arcata and the Mad River 

bottoms were occupied by settlers by 1853.

In the 1850s the Humboldt timber industry began, 

which greatly impacted the biological functioning of 

the bay. The timber industry became successful in 

part by the passage of the Morril Land Act of 1862, 

which allowed large areas of timber to be purchased 

for commercial use. Timber exportation prompted 

the start of the shipping industry for timber and 

agricultural exports. Early land use changes in the 

bay were primarily a result of the shipping industry. 

Docks were built in Eureka and Fields Landing. 

Fish companies became established at the mouth 

of the Mad and Eel rivers by 1854. Clams, sharks, 

Dungeness crab (Cancer magister), oysters, shrimp 

sole, rockfish, and tuna were all harvested for export.

The completion of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad 

along the eastern margins of Humboldt Bay in 

1901 caused major wetland changes. The railroad 

functioned as a dike, and tidegates were placed 

at most slough crossings. Many of the wetlands 

were converted to agricultural lands with seasonal 

wetlands used for grazing. By 1927, with the 

construction of Highway 101, most of the marshes 

east of Humboldt Bay had been diked and drained.

Exotic invasive species have greatly altered the 

pre-1850 salt marshes (Figure 3). Dense-flowered 

cordgrass (Spartina densiflora), introduced in 

the late-1800s, is currently the dominant species 

in many of the bay’s salt marshes. The burrowing 

exotic isopod, Sphaeroma quoyanum, is also 

currently degrading the salt marsh. Within the 

bay itself there are 95 species of exotic organisms 

ranging across a variety of taxonomic groups (Boyd 

et al. 2002). 

1.6.4. History of Humboldt Bay NWR 

Establishment and Acquisitions

In recognition of the area’s unique fish and wildlife 

resource values, and especially the bay’s importance 

to Pacific brant, parts of Humboldt Bay were 

initially proposed for refuge status in the early 

1960s. However, it was not until September 1971 

that refuge boundaries were set and acquisition 

began, officially establishing the Humboldt Bay 

NWR. An environmental assessment for proposed 

land acquisitions was originally written in 1974, and 

updated in both 1980 and 1988. The original refuge 

boundary included 7,814 acres, which was increased 

by 1,122 acres in 1989. With this addition, the refuge 

totaled 8,936 acres.

Approximately 1,081 acres of the Salmon Creek Unit 

were purchased by the Service in 1989 following 

expansion of the refuge boundary (1988) to include 

all of the former McBride Ranch. 

In 1998, the 474-acre Lanphere Dunes Unit was 

donated to the refuge by The Nature Conservancy 

(TNC).

Ma-le’l Dunes officially became a unit of Humboldt 

Bay National Wildlife Refuge on August 12, 2005, 

the culmination of years of cooperative effort. 

The acquisition of this property and its transfer 

to the refuge was jointly funded by the Service 

and State Coastal Conservancy (SCC), and made 

possible through the collaborative efforts of many, 

including the SCC, BLM, Center for Natural 

Lands Management, Friends of the Dunes, the 

Humboldt Coastal Coalition, Wiyot Tribe-Table 

Bluff Reservation, and many individual members 

of the local community. The 160-acre parcel is 

managed together with the southern 120 acres of 

the Lanphere Dunes Unit as the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit. 

The unit bears the Wiyot name for the locale, which 

was used for thousands of years by the ancestral 

Wiyot people for fishing, gathering, and implementmaking. 

Today, the approved refuge boundary consists of a 

total of 9,502 acres, of which 3,379 acres are owned 

in fee title.
10 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 1

Figure 3. Historic and current tidal marsh surrounding Humboldt Bay, including density of non-native 

dense-flowered cordgrass populations.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 11

1.6.5. Current Management of Humboldt Bay 

NWR 

The primary focus of Humboldt Bay NWR is 

the enhancement, restoration, and management 

of a diversity of wetland and upland habitats for 

the benefit of all the natural resources that those 

habitats ultimately help sustain. These habitats 

include a continuum of estuarine, freshwater, 

riparian and seasonal wetlands; agricultural 

grasslands; and a large dune-dominated landscape. 

Another focus of the refuge is its public use, or 

visitor services, program. This program is geared 

toward providing quality opportunities for the 

public to engage in the six priority public uses which 

were established by Congress: wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental education and 

interpretation, hunting and fishing. 

Providing support for the habitat and visitor 

services programs is the primary role of all 

refuge staff as well as contractors, volunteers, 

and the Friends of Humboldt Bay NWR. Support 

includes a wide range of duties including: facilities 

maintenance, heavy equipment use, habitat 

management and administrative assistance.

Habitat Management Program

All of the refuge units in South Bay were historically 

salt and brackish marsh that was diked off by 

previous landowners more than 100 years ago. 

These dikes allowed development and changes 

in land use, and have resulted in alterations in 

hydrology, sedimentation, and topography. In some 

locations these dikes have been actively breached 

(Table Bluff Unit), while at others (Teal Island) 

nature has/is taking its course. The dikes on the 

Salmon Creek and Hookton Slough Units have been, 

and are currently, maintained where there is risk 

of flooding to adjacent private lands and/or public 

facilities and infrastructure.

Wetland Management. The Salmon Creek, 

Hookton Slough, and White Slough Units are all 

in the floodplain, and flood seasonally every year, 

generally from November through March. Prior to 

refuge acquisition, these lands were managed for 

grazing. Water was drained off the land as quickly 

as possible through a system of ditches, culverts, 

and tidegates. Because the refuge has different 

objectives, the drainage system has been modified 

with dozens of water control structures to hold 

freshwater seasonally, creating hundreds of acres of 

seasonal wetlands in an area historically occupied by 

salt and brackish marsh. These seasonal wetlands 

provide migration and wintering habitat for 

thousands of waterbirds annually.

Estuarine Restoration. In 1989, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service purchased what is now the Salmon 

Creek Unit of Humboldt Bay NWR. The previous 

landowners had rerouted and channelized Salmon 

Creek and cleared vegetation from the creek/ditch 

every few years. One of the refuge’s initial goals was 

to restore the channelized portion of Salmon Creek 

on the refuge. In addition, the upper portions of the 

watershed had been extensively impacted through 

timber harvest, livestock management, and rural 

development, impacts that carried downstream 

in the form of sediment buildup and aggradation 

of the stream and slough channels. Currently, the 

upper Salmon Creek watershed is the BLM-owned 

Headwaters Conservation Area, which is dedicated 

to habitat restoration that is expected to reduce 

sediment input to the watershed. 

In 1993, refuge staff and others were able to reroute 

approximately half of the creek on the refuge into a 

meandering channel located as close as possible to 

the historic channel alignment. This creek channel 

now includes some large woody debris and riparian 

overstory that provides shade and structure to the 

creek habitat. The restoration resulted in increased 

riparian habitat, increased juvenile fish habitat, 

and improved water quality, however problems and 

concerns still exist. An aggraded channel bottom 

(up to 3-5 feet) reduces stream depth and increases 

water temperatures and sediment deposition. In 

addition, in 1997, all salmonids that use Salmon 

Creek (Coho, Chinook, steelhead, coastal cutthroat) 

were listed as threatened under the Federal ESA. 

The tidewater goby had already been listed as 

endangered in 1994.

Salmon Creek Restoration Project Phase I. In 

2001, an effort was initiated to significantly modify 

the tidegates on lower Salmon Creek and on 

Hookton Slough to improve fish passage, sediment 

routing, and water quality. It was a collaborative 

effort that included the refuge, the Pacific Coast 

Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Association 

(PCFWWRA), California Department of Fish and 

Game (CDFG), Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, the 

Coastal Program managed from the Arcata Fish and 

Wildlife Office (AFWO), and many local contractors 

who have contributed and volunteered significant 

amounts of time and effort to the project. The work 

was completed in 2008.

Salmon Creek Restoration Project Phase II.

Phase II is in the planning stages and will require 

excavation of approximately one half mile of former 

creek channel and construction of a small fish 

screen or other measures to protect fish and to allow 

seasonal water diversions to flood refuge wetlands. 

Phase II is needed to complete all the objectives 
12 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 1

of Phase I and the restoration of that portion of 

Salmon Creek on the refuge. It is also expected to 

significantly improve habitat conditions of the creek 

up to a mile upstream of the refuge. 

Agricultural Grassland Management. The 

refuge currently manages grazing and haying on 

the refuge through a cooperative land management 

agreement with local ranchers, which is based on 

grazing and haying rates established by the UC 

Agricultural Extension Office. Grazing and haying 

provide short grass habitat (2 to 6 inches) primarily 

used by Aleutian cackling geese, but also wigeon, 

swans, shorebirds, and other species. Grazing and 

haying generally occur from late spring (late April 

to early May) through September or October. The 

pH of pasture soils is monitored every 3 to 5 years 

and lime is periodically added as needed to maintain 

soil conditions favorable to growing pasture grasses. 

In addition, refuge staff conducts mowing (outside 

of nesting season) along edges where agricultural 

grasslands merge into wetland plant communities. 

This is done throughout the Salmon Creek Unit in 

places where haying is not feasible to maintain short 

grass habitat and to control non-native invasive 

weeds, such as thistle (Cirsium spp.). 

Dune Restoration. Restoration at the Lanphere 

Dunes Unit has been ongoing, beginning under 

ownership by the Lanpheres through 1997 by The 

Nature Conservancy. In 1998, when TNC donated 

its holdings at Lanphere Dunes to the refuge, 

restoration focused on invasive species eradication 

with associated research on ecosystem function and 

restoration techniques. Management objectives and 

associated monitoring plans have been completed 

for the Lanphere Dunes Unit, and work is ongoing 

to meet these objectives. In 2003 the refuge created 

a restoration, management, and monitoring plan 

for beach pine/Sitka spruce and red alder riparian 

forest on the Lanphere Dunes Unit (USFWS 2003b) 

to prioritize forest management tasks. The goal is to 

restore and maintain the ecological integrity of the 

native beach pine/Sitka spruce and riparian forest 

communities. The plan also includes objectives 

related to monitoring, research, and coordination 

with tribal entities.

The Ma-le’l Dunes Unit is being restored 

consistent with a restoration plan prepared as 

part of a mitigation program funded by California 

Department of Corrections. This plan includes 

elements on invasives control, as well as habitat 

manipulation and revegetation. 

The refuge does not currently have a regionally 

approved Habitat Management Plan. However, 

the Service expects that an HMP will be developed 

within 4 years of completion of the CCP.

Invasive Species Management. Invasive plant 

species are regularly surveyed by staff, volunteers, 

and partners. The refuge does not currently have 

an approved Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 

plan. However, once documented and mapped, 

an attempt is made to either eradicate or control 

priority invasive plants throughout the Humboldt 

Bay NWR using a variety of IPM techniques, 

including mechanical, cultural, and chemical control 

methods. Plants controlled in the South Bay units 

include blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), thistles 

(Cirsium vulgare and C. arvense), bristly ox-tongue 

(Picrus echioides), reed canarygrass (Phalaris 

arundinacea), white morning glory (Calystegia 

silvatica), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), 

and others. Two key invasives that have been 

found in the area (and could do profound damage 

to existing habitats), but have not yet reached the 

refuge are Japanese eelgrass (Zostera japonica) and 

purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria).

Restoration of salt marsh at the Lanphere and Male’l Units has begun, through collaboration with the 

State Coastal Conservancy and others, to remove 

dense-flowered cordgrass (Spartina densiflora) and 

revegetate with native salt marsh species. Successful 

techniques will be adapted for use at other refuge 

units and likely at other locations around the bay.

Major invasive plant removal initiatives at the 

Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes have included 

European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria), 

yellow bush lupine (Lupinus arboreus), ice plant 

(Carpobrotus edulis x C. chilense hybrids), English 

ivy (Hedera helix), a suite of invasive annual 

grasses, and dense-flowered cordgrass. Management 

of the first three species is in a maintenance stage, 

where minor work is needed to prevent new starts 

or complete eradication of any small persisting 

populations. English ivy management is nearing a 

maintenance stage, but requires some additional 

work. Annual grass management work is still in 

progress. However, while major progress has been 

made, control is hampered by off-refuge sources. 

The cordgrass management initiative has resulted in 

the restoration of 10 to 15 acres of salt marsh in the 

Lanphere and Ma-le’l units. All of these initiatives 

have been carried out using manual or mechanical 

methods of control.

Herbicides that are periodically used to control 

invasive plants on the Humboldt Bay NWR include 

Rodeo, Roundup pro, and Roundup pro concentrate. 

Prior to any herbicide use on Humboldt Bay NWR, 

a Pesticide Use Permit is filed in the regional and 

national office for each herbicide. All pesticide usage 

is in compliance with labeling instructions and under 

the direction of a certified applicator. The refuge 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 13

does not currently have an approved IPM Plan, but 

will be developing one within 4 years of completion 

of the CCP.

Biological Program

Monitoring and Surveys of Fish, Wildlife, and 

Plants. Monitoring and survey efforts are meant to 

complement and inform refuge management, and 

often vary in degree of intensity and/or regularity 

based on a combination of refuge staffing, funding, 

and competing priorities. Habitat management is 

dependent upon biological information collected 

through monitoring and research, without 

which managers have little basis for prescribing 

management actions. 

The refuge participates in ongoing partnerships 

with AFWO and CDFG to monitor lower Salmon 

Creek and Hookton Slough for salmonids, tidewater 

goby, and amphibians.

Other wildlife species monitored or surveyed 

on the refuge or by refuge staff, contractors, or 

partners include Aleutian cackling geese, western 

Canada geese (Branta canadensis moffitti), Pacific 

brant, tundra swans (Cygnus columbianus), 

ducks, shorebirds, snowy plover (Charadrius 

alexandrinus), seabirds, passerine birds, deer, 

otter, and frogs. In addition, birds on the refuge are 

monitored annually for avian influenza and avian 

cholera. 

In keeping with the management goals and 

objectives formulated for the Lanphere and Male’l Dune Units, there is ongoing monitoring of the 

following target plants and plant communities:

■ Humboldt Bay wallflower 

(Erysimum menziesii ssp. 

eurekense)

■ Beach layia (Layia carnosa)

■ Pink sand verbena (Abronia 

umbellata ssp. breviflora)

■ Humboldt Bay Owl’s-clover 

(Castilleja ambigua ssp. 

humboldtiensis)

■ Point Reyes bird’s-beak 

(Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. 

palustris)

■ Dune mat plant community

■ Salt marsh plant community

■ Forest mycoheterotrophs (orchids 

and other species that are 

mutualists with mycorrhizal fungi 

associated with woody plants) and 

culturally significant geophytes 

(bulb plants)

Vegetation surveys were conducted for the wetland 

and dune vegetation of the refuge from 2005-2007. 

A vegetation classification based on quantitative 

sampling is still being finalized.

Visitor Services Program

Visitor Services are managed primarily from the 

Richard J. Guadagno Office and Visitor Center, 

located on the Salmon Creek Unit of the refuge. It 

was opened in spring 2002, and accommodates most 

of the refuge staff. The Center has several high 

quality interpretive dioramas and a large room for 

refuge-designed public events and wildlife viewing 

of the surrounding seasonal wetlands. The refuge 

hosts a very informative website that provides 

detailed information about all refuge programs, 

especially visitor services opportunities (www.fws.

gov/humboldtbay). The proposed Visitor Services 

Plan is included in Appendix B.

Wildland and Wildlife Observation and 

Photography. Currently, the refuge maintains 

the 1.75-mile Shorebird Loop Trail on the Salmon 

Creek Unit, the 1.5-mile Hookton Slough Trail on 

the Hookton Slough Unit, and ~2 miles of trails on 

the Lanphere Dunes Unit. All of these trails offer 

great opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography. There is also a photoblind for use at 

the Salmon Creek Unit. 

Refuge staff coordinates with two Friends groups, 

(Friends of the Humboldt Bay NWR and Friends 

of the Dunes), and Audubon volunteers who offer 

guided walks on the refuge units several times per 

month. 

Birdwatching walk. Photo: Shannon Smith
14 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 1

The refuge maintains a non-motorized boat dock 

at the Hookton Slough Unit as a way to encourage 

wildlife observation from the bay. The refuge 

is currently working with the State Coastal 

Conservancy (SCC), the Humboldt Bay Harbor 

Recreation and Conservation District, the Redwood 

Community Action Agency, and Explore Northwest 

to develop safe, sustainable options for boating 

access on the bay that minimize impacts to natural 

resources.

The refuge is also working with the SCC, BLM, and 

Friends of the Dunes on development of the Male’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area Access 

Plan. This plan will ultimately provide increased 

opportunities for the public to enjoy this magnificent 

dune and slough area south of the Lanphere Dunes 

Unit. The most recent draft of this plan can be found 

on the refuge website.

Environmental Education and Interpretation. 

Currently, the refuge accommodates pre-scheduled 

classroom visits, drop-in classroom visits, and also 

on-site visits where volunteers and/or staff go into 

schools and provide programs. The Friends groups 

are instrumental in providing these opportunities. 

The refuge currently offers and/or participates in 

seven annual special events: the Aleutian Goose 

Fly-off and Family Fun Weekend the first weekend 

in March, the Aleutian Goose Festival, Godwit 

Days, Migratory Bird Day, and the Lupine Bash 

each spring, Outdoor Youth Days in August, and a 

celebration for National Refuge Week in October. 

Hunting. Hunting on Humboldt Bay NWR 

is managed in compliance with the 1990 Sport 

Hunting Management Plan. Waterfowl, coot (Fulica 

americana), and snipe (Gallinago spp.) hunting 

is permitted in accordance with State regulations 

on most areas of the refuge, including the Eureka 

Slough, Jacoby Creek, and Table Bluff Units. On the 

Salmon Creek Unit during the regular waterfowl 

season a lottery draw hunt is held from shoot time 

until 3:00 p.m. on Tuesdays and Saturdays. The 

waters and islands of Hookton and White Slough are 

open concurrently with over-water shoot days on the 

bay. The proposed Sport Hunting Plan is included in 

Appendix C. 

Fishing. Fishing on the Humboldt Bay NWR 

is managed in compliance with the 1992 Fishery 

Management Plan. Fishing is permitted in 

Humboldt Bay and in tidal sloughs year round in 

accordance with State regulations. The Hookton 

Slough Trail and boat dock are open to fishing; 

access to other areas is by boat. Limited fishing does 

occur for sharks and rays, and shellfish on Humboldt 

Bay NWR. The proposed Sport Fishing Plan is 

included in Appendix D.

1.6.6. Castle Rock NWR Setting

Castle Rock is a 14-acre island located in Del Norte 

County, less than a mile northwest of Crescent City. 

Castle Rock in located on California’s northwest 

coast between Arcata and the Oregon border. Castle 

Rock remains largely in its natural state, as a rocky 

nearshore island with little disturbance by people. 

1.6.7. Historic Conditions of Castle Rock NWR

The first historic accounts of seabird populations 

on Castle Rock came from the field notes of Clay, 

an egg-collector in the early 1900s (Clay 1901-1953 

MS). Clay first visited the island in 1916, spent 

two weeks there in late July 1917, and returned in 

1934 and 1935. He reported that Leach’s stormpetrels (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) were nesting by 

the “tens of thousands” on the island. Fork-tailed 

storm-petrels (Oeanodroma furcata) and tufted 

puffins (Fratercula cirrhata) were also present 

and breeding. Another egg-collector, T. Fraser, 

visited the island around the same time. Altogether, 

nine seabird species were observed, including 

common murre (Uria aalge), Brandt’s cormorant 

(Phalacrocorax penicillatus), western gull (Larus 

occidentalis), and Cassin’s auklet (Ptychoramphus 

aleuticus). Ornithologist Robert Talmage (in 

Osborne 1972) visited the island in the mid-1930s 

and observed a few double-crested cormorants 

(Phalacrocorax auritus) describing their breeding 

status as sporadic. He looked for rhinoceros 

auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata) without success. 

Osborne observed breeding rhinoceros auklets on 

Castle Rock in 1969-1970. Black oystercatchers 

(Haematopus bachmani) have bred in small 

numbers on the island since at least the 1930s 

(Osborne 1972). All of the contemporary seabird 

species breeding on Castle Rock were present 

during the early 1900s, as recorded in the notes of 

early ornithologists. 

Over the last century, distinct changes to the 

vegetation has occurred, as have the populations 

of seabirds. Unfortunately, the cause and effects 

of these changes are primarily unknown. Meadow 

areas once covered with Pacific reedgrass 

(Calamagrostis nutkaensis) have receded and been 

replaced with goldfields (Lasthenia maritima) and 

sand spurrey (Spergularia macrotheca) (Castle 

Rock NWR plant communities are discussed in 

detail in Section 3.7.3). Photographs taken in 1935 

show reedgrass growing over most of the meadow, 

covering an estimated 3 acres (Osborne 1972). By 

1961 the area covered in reedgrass was reduced by 

about 50 percent. In 1970, reedgrass covered only 1 

acre and was largely replaced by bluegrass (Poa sp.) 

(Osborne 1972). By 1984 the hummocks of reedgrass 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 15

were mostly dead. “Rhizomes and roots were all that 

was left of the once extensive populations” (Sawyer 

1984). In 1989 only a few tussocks remained on the 

east end of the island (Carter et al. 1992). By 2000 

there was no evidence of this species as viewed from 

shore or boat (D. Jaques unpublished). Aleutian 

geese have been known to use Castle Rock since at 

least pre-European times as they are known from 

Tolowa verbal history. In 1974, there were fewer 

than 1000 geese using the island and today there 

are ~20-25,000 which use the island for roosting 

each winter and spring. The effects of that many 

geese include impacts on vegetation and substrate, 

biological contribution of their droppings, and 

possible exclusion of area to other species due to 

their large numbers and interspecific behavior.

1.6.8. History of Castle Rock NWR 

Establishment and Acquisitions

The Service proposed to purchase Castle Rock 

in 1978 to protect critical habitat for the thenendangered Aleutian Canada goose (now called 

Aleutian cackling goose) (USFWS 1978). The geese 

were first detected at Castle Rock in spring of 

1975. It was later found that the island and nearby 

mainland agricultural grasslands were the spring 

staging ground for virtually the entire population of 

Aleutian Canada geese (Woolington et al. 1979). The 

island was recommended for critical habitat status 

in 1977 (USFWS 1991), and a negative declaration 

for purchase of the island was completed in 1978 

(USFWS 1978). The original proposal included 

lease acquisition, a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU), and Cooperative Agreements to also 

preserve nearly 800 acres of grazing habitat on 

Point St. George. 

In 1979, TNC purchased Castle Rock from the 

G. E. Kibbe Estate. The Service purchased the 

island from TNC by fee acquisition in 1980 for 

$41,250, using funds from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. A letter from the Service to 

TNC on July 5, 1980 stated, “We plan to manage 

Castle Rock primarily for its values to endangered 

species (mainly the Aleutian Canada goose) and 

nesting marine birds (murres, auklets, petrels, 

etc.)...Like the Farallon Island NWR, Castle Rock 

would be managed by the FWS as a sanctuary. 

Human disturbance is the main factor that must be 

controlled...We would expect to permit a limited 

amount of research but only that which would have 

high potential to increase management knowledge of 

these avian resources.” 

1.6.9. Current Management of Castle Rock 

NWR 

Castle Rock NWR is so rich with sensitive wildlife 

species, and the habitat so fragile, that only very 

limited access for research, monitoring, and 

management has been allowed. Currently, refuge 

staff collaborates with San Francisco Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex (SFBNWRC) and 

partners such as Humboldt State University (HSU), 

the Service’s Coastal Program at Humboldt Bay, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to 

conduct photo surveys of birds and marine mammals 

utilizing Castle Rock NWR and associated habitat. 

Associates from HSU and SFBNWRC maintain 

remote automatic cameras on Castle Rock NWR 

used to assess the ecology and populations of 

nesting seabirds, and are working with the refuge 

to develop a long-term monitoring plan. Live video 

from these cameras can be viewed seasonally by the 

public at the National Park Service (NPS) Visitor 

Center in Crescent City or over the internet. In 

addition, the refuge is looking into using this footage 

to develop short educational/interpretive films 

appropriate for different grade levels. Interpretive 

panels highlighting Castle Rock NWR wildlife are 

located on Pebble Beach Drive, adjacent to the shore 

overlooking Castle Rock NWR. 

1.7. Related Projects and Studies in the 

Area

1.7.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, 

and Pacific Flyway Projects and Studies

Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population 

of the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius 

alexandrinus nivosus)

The Pacific coast population of the western snowy 

plover is listed as threatened under the Federal ESA 

(USFWS 2007). The Pacific western snowy plover 

is a small bird that winters mainly in coastal areas 

from southern Washington to Central America. 

The Pacific coast population breeds primarily above 

the high tide line on coastal beaches, sand spits, 

dune-backed beaches, sparsely-vegetated dunes, 

beaches at creek and river mouths, and salt pannes 

at lagoons and estuaries. Habitat degradation, 

caused by human disturbance, urban development, 

introduced beachgrass, and expanding predator 

populations, has resulted in a decline in nesting 

areas and in the size of the populations (USFWS 

2007). 
16 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 1

Recovery Plan For the Tidewater Goby 

(Eucyclogobius newberryi)

The tidewater goby is listed as endangered under 

the Federal ESA (USFWS 2006a). This small 

fish inhabits coastal brackish water habitats 

entirely within California, including portions of the 

Humboldt Bay NWR, which are identified in the 

plan as critical habitat. 

The tidewater goby is uniquely adapted to coastal 

lagoons and the uppermost brackish zone of larger 

estuaries, rarely invading marine or freshwater 

habitats. Principal threats include loss and 

modification of habitat, water diversions, predatory 

and competitive introduced fish species, habitat 

channelization, and degraded water quality. 

Recovery Plan for Seven Coastal Plants and 

the Myrtle’s Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria 

zerene myrtleae) 

Seven plants and one invertebrate native to the 

coastal dunes of northern and central California are 

covered in this recovery plan (USFWS 1998). 

Two species, Humboldt Bay wallflower and beach 

layia, are present on the Humboldt Bay NWR. The 

recovery plan calls for seven primary actions to be 

taken to recover the two species:

1. Protect existing populations and habitats.

2. Minimize the threats to the plants.

3. Develop management strategies incorporating 

ecological and land use strategies.

4. Manage populations and habitats to achieve 

delisting.

5. Monitor population trends to evaluate recovery 

success.

6. Coordinate recovery actions to protect other 

listed and sensitive species.

7. Develop and implement an outreach program.

Final Revised Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan

Current Species Status: The Steller sea-lion was 

listed as a threatened species under the ESA on 

April 5, 1990 (55 FR 12645) due to substantial 

declines in the western portion of the range. 

At the time of listing, the overall abundance of 

sea-lions in the eastern portion of the range (in 

southeastern Alaska and Canada) was increasing at 

approximately 3 percent per year. Critical habitat 

was designated on August 27, 1993 (58 FR 45269) 

based on the location of terrestrial rookery and 

haulout sites, spatial extent of foraging trips, and 

availability of prey. In 1997, based on demographic 

and genetic dissimilarities, NOAA Fisheries Service 

designated two distinct population segments 

(DPSs) of Steller sea-lions under the ESA: a 

western distinct population segment (DPS) and an 

eastern DPS (62 FR 24345, 62 FR 30772). Due to 

persistent decline, the western DPS was reclassified 

as endangered, while the increasing eastern DPS 

remained classified as threatened. The eastern 

DPS was estimated to number between 46,000 and 

58,000 animals in 2002, and has been increasing 

at approximately 3 percent per year since the late 

1970s (Pitcher et al. 2007). Castle Rock NWR is 

within the range of and used by a portion of the 

eastern population segment. The Final Revised 

Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan can be viewed at 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov.

The primary objective of all recovery plans is to 

manage the threats to and improve the population 

status of the species sufficiently to warrant 

reclassification (from endangered to threatened 

status) or delisting. 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the 

Pacific Population of Brant

The goal of the Pacific Flyway Management Plan 

for the Pacific Population of Brant is to identify 

the requirements and responsibilities necessary to 

cooperatively manage the population on a sustained 

basis (PFC 2002). An essential part of this goal is 

the continued availability and health of Pacific brant 

habitats throughout their range, including eelgrass 

beds and associated habitat in Humboldt Bay and on 

the refuge.

Pacific brant are found in the United States, Canada, 

Mexico, Russia, and Japan. As such, a cooperative 

effort has been, and will continue to be, required for 

sound management. The winter population objective 

of Pacific brant for Humboldt Bay is 5,000 (PFC 

2002). The overall population objective for Pacific 

brant is 150,000.

Pacific Flyway Management Plan for Pacific 

Population of Aleutian Cackling Geese

The goal of the Pacific Flyway Management 

Plan for Aleutian Cackling Geese is to identify 

the requirements and responsibilities necessary 

Tidewater goby. Photo: © Greg Goldsmith
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 17

to cooperatively manage the Aleutian cackling 

goose population on a sustained basis (PFC 2006). 

Essential components of this goal are to reduce 

the goose population to 60,000, and manage goose 

habitat on public lands in northern California to 

the maximum extent practicable in order to reduce 

depredation impacts on private landowners.

Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the 

Western Population of Tundra Swans

The purpose of the Pacific Flyway Management 

Plan for the Western Population of Tundra Swans 

is to establish guidelines for the cooperative 

management of the Western Population of tundra 

swans (PFC 2001). 

The goal of the Pacific Flyway Management Plan 

for the Western Population of Tundra Swans is to 

ensure the maintenance of the Western Population 

of tundra swans at a size and distribution that 

will provide for all their benefits to society. The 

objectives are to: 

■ Maintain a population of at least 60,000 swans to 

provide suitable public benefits.

■ Maintain current patterns of distribution 

throughout the Western Population tundra swan 

range.

■ Provide breeding, migration, and wintering 

habitats of sufficient quantity and quality to 

maintain the desired numbers and distribution of 

swans.

■ Provide for aesthetic, educational, and scientific 

uses of swans.

■ Provide for sustainable sport and subsistence 

harvests of western population tundra swans.

Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region

The Seabird Conservation Plan identifies the 

Service’s priorities for seabird management, 

monitoring, research, outreach, planning, and 

coordination (USFWS 2005). The Seabird 

Conservation Plan prioritizes all species at a 

regional scale (California, Oregon, Washington, 

Hawaii, and U.S. Pacific Island commonwealths, 

territories, and possessions), and identifies 

prioritized recommendations for conservation 

actions. 

Objectives and strategies with implications for 

Castle Rock NWR include:

■ 7.g.(i). Count archived common murre and 

cormorant aerial photographs from 1980 through 

the present from California and Oregon colonies. 

Highest priority to photographs taken 1995 

through the present.

■ 10.a. Develop K-12 curricula on seabirds with 

specific chapters on the California Current 

System and tropical/subtropical island systems.

Southern Pacific Shorebird Conservation Plan

The Southern Pacific Shorebird Conservation Plan 

(Hickey et al. 2003) identifies priority shorebird 

species, habitats, sites and conservation actions 

within coastal California and the Central Valley. It 

specifically identifies Humboldt Bay as one of 25 

Coastal Wetlands of Importance to shorebirds in the 

region. Specific conservation actions for Humboldt 

Bay include:

■ Prohibit further alteration of tidal flats for oyster 

culture.

■ Eliminate the introduced salt-water cordgrass 

from the tidal flats of Humboldt Bay.

■ Protect seasonal wetlands and pastures important 

to shorebirds from development. 

Lower Salmon Creek Delta Salmonid Habitat 

Enhancement Opportunities: Humboldt Bay 

NWR

In 2003, the Lower Salmon Creek Delta Salmonid 

Habitat Enhancement Opportunities document 

(Salmon Creek Restoration Plan) was funded 

through the CDFG’s Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund 

(PCFWWRA 2003). The Salmon Creek Restoration 

Plan identifies opportunities for salmonid habitat 

restoration and improved salmonid access on 

Humboldt Bay NWR’s Salmon Creek Unit and is 

the template for ongoing restoration work there.

1.7.2. California Department of Fish and Game 

Projects and Studies

California Wildlife Action Plan

In compliance with the Congressionally enacted 

State Wildlife Grants Program, CDFG created the 

California Wildlife Action Plan (comprehensive 

wildlife conservation strategy) (CDFG 2007). A 

Tundra swans at the Salmon Creek Unit. 

Photo: USFWS
18 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 1

major component of the Wildlife Action Plan is to 

identify and compile information on wildlife species, 

including low and declining populations that are 

indicative of the diversity and health of the State’s 

wildlife populations. 

The CDFG uses a Special Animals List, which 

is maintained and updated within the California 

Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). This list is 

commonly referred to as the list of special status 

species. Many of the special status species have been 

identified as Species of Special Concern due to their 

low or declining numbers. In addition, the Wildlife 

Action Plan regional chapters describe major 

problems and threats that may adversely affect 

wildlife and their habitats within each region.

Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon

The CDFG, with the assistance of recovery teams 

representing diverse interests and perspectives, 

created the Recovery Strategy for California Coho 

Salmon as a guide for recovering Coho salmon on 

the north and central coasts of California (CDFG 

2004a). 

Five primary goals have been identified to recover 

Coho salmon on the north coast of California:

1. Maintain and improve the number of key 

populations and increase the number of 

populations and cohorts of Coho salmon.

2. Maintain and increase the number of spawning 

adults.

3. Maintain the range, and maintain and increase 

distribution of Coho salmon.

4. Maintain existing habitat essential for Coho 

salmon.

5. Enhance and restore habitat within the range of 

Coho salmon. 

1.7.3. Other Pertinent Projects, Programs, and 

Documents

Wiyot Tribe Restoration Project on Indian 

Island

Indian Island, the largest contiguous salt marsh 

area left in Humboldt Bay, provides food and 

shelter for hundreds of species of native plants, fish, 

shellfish, and birds. 

Around 1870, a shipyard repair facility was built on 

the property now owned by the Tribe. This shipyard 

operated until the 1980s. Creosote, solvents, and 

other chemicals used to maintain ships remain. 

Dilapidated buildings and tons of scattered metal 

and wood debris still litter the area. Remains of 

dikes and drains built by settlers to control tidal flow 

across the island still impact the land, and continue 

to degrade valuable habitat.

The Table Bluff Reservation/Wiyot Tribe plans to 

clean up the debris and pollutants left on the village 

site. The Tribe is exploring ways to restore the 

natural waterways of the area to allow the bay to 

interact more naturally with the tidal marsh area, 

increasing native plant and fish populations. The 

result will be a cleaner place for people, surrounded 

by more productive and diverse habitats for wildlife.

The Bureau of Land Management

The Bureau of Land Management manages lands 

that directly impact both refuges of the Complex. 

They manage the Headwaters Reserve, which 

includes the headwaters of both Elk River and 

Salmon Creek. These terminate in Mid and South 

Bay respectively. BLM also manages South Spit, 

which is owned by CDFG. On the North Spit, BLM 

manages additional lands, including part of the Male’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area. The Male’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area consists 

of the BLM’s Manila Dunes and the refuge’s Male’l Dunes Units. This 444-acre stretch of dune 

and wetland habitats is managed cooperatively by 

USFWS and BLM. Partners in this project include 

the State Coastal Conservancy; the Wiyot Tribe, 

Blue Lake Rancheria, and Bear River Band of 

Rohnerville Rancheria; Friends of the Dunes; and 

the Redwood Gun Club.

In addition, BLM manages the California Coastal 

National Monument, which includes all the rocks, 

reefs, and islands of the California coast not owned 

by the Service, National Park Service, or other 

entities.

Pacific Coast Joint Venture Northern 

California Component 

The Pacific Coast Joint Venture (PCJV) was 

established in 1991 to implement the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan of 1986 to 

restore waterfowl populations of the Pacific Coast in 

Canada, the United States, and Mexico to the levels 

recorded during the 1970s (PCJV 2004). The PCJV 

partners have acquired and restored important 

wetlands, including portions of the Humboldt Bay 

NWR. 

State Coastal Conservancy

The State Coastal Conservancy is involved in 

multiple projects and planning efforts on the north 

coast, including the Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative 

Management Area, Aleutian Cackling Goose 

Management, Spartina Control Research and 

Implementation, and Humboldt BayTrails Projects 

(both water-based and land-based).

The Humboldt County Dunes Cooperative

This cooperative consists of Federal, State, Tribal, 

local, and private entities that work together to 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 19

research, evaluate, prioritize, and implement 

dune conservation and restoration in Humboldt 

County. One of their first projects was the Coastal 

Dune Mapping Project, which will result in the 

classification and mapping of all dune vegetation in 

Humboldt County.

Friends of the Dunes 

Plans are currently underway to transform the 

ocean and bay view property formerly known as 

the Stamps House into a “gateway to the dunes.” 

Featuring an interpretive nature center, restrooms, 

ample parking, and a marked trail system, the 

Humboldt Coastal Nature Center will provide 

the community with an easy point of entry to the 

coastlands and dune trails that will connect to the 

Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area to 

the north, and Manila Community Services District 

to the south. The linked trail system will provide 

visitors with access to ~1,000 acres of coastal dune 

habitats, and the nature center and an adjacent loop 

trail will be wheelchair accessible. In addition, the 

facility will serve as a home base for the Friends 

of the Dunes ongoing education and restoration 

activities.

Humboldt/Del Norte County Weed Management 

Area

This group’s purpose is to effectively manage, 

coordinate, and implement the invasive plant species 

programs among the BLM, U.S. Forest Service, 

NPS, US Fish and Wildlife Service, California 

State Parks, CDFG, California Department of 

Transportation, Humboldt County, Del Norte 

County, Natural Resource Conservation Service 

(NRCS), Humboldt County Resource Conservation 

District, California Cattlemen’s Association, 

California Department of Food and Agriculture, 

UC Cooperative Extension, City of Eureka, City 

of Arcata, Friends of the Dunes, Center for Land 

Management, Manila Community Services District, 

and the North Coast Chapter of the California 

Native Plant Society. The groups have mutually 

agreed to:

1. Participate and/or cooperate in the development 

of a Weed Management Plan, which will be 

created for the Humboldt-Del Norte County 

Weed Management Area (WMA).

2. Share information among cooperators and 

provide assistance and expertise regarding alien 

species management (e.g., control methods, 

introduction prevention measures, restoration 

tools) activities on their units.

3. Provide opportunities to outside interest 

groups, private landowners, and the public 

for involvement in carrying out the Weed 

Management Plan on lands within the HumboldtDel Norte County WMA.

The Humboldt Bay Management Plan

In order to balance port-related commercial and 

industrial uses, expanding recreational uses, and 

environmental protection, a planning document 

for Humboldt Bay was deemed necessary by 

the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and 

Conservation District (HBHRCD 2007). The HBMP 

is the region’s first ecosystem-based management 

approach intended to improve the management of 

Humboldt Bay. The Humboldt Bay Management 

Plan (HBMP) is a large cooperative project 

funded by Federal, State, and local agencies. Many 

Conservation Element Policies from the HBMP are 

relevant to Service cooperation with other regional 

organizations and management of Humboldt Bay 

NWR. The Humboldt Bay Management Plan 

contains a tremendous amount of information on the 

history of development and the natural ecology of 

Humboldt Bay (www.humboldtbay.org).

Humboldt Bay Ecosystem Program

The Humboldt Bay Ecosystem Program (HBEP) 

is a relatively new ecosystem-based management 

program coordinated by the Eureka Sea Grant 

Office (UCANRP 2007). The mission of the HBEP 

is to increase the scientific understanding of 

the Humboldt Bay ecosystem and to create an 

integrated framework for resource management and 

collaboration that links the needs of people, habitats 

and species to ensure a healthy future for Humboldt 

Bay’s natural and human communities.

The HBEP defines ecosystem-based management 

as a comprehensive process of integrated resource 

management that considers the entire ecosystem, 

including humans. It integrates the best available 

scientific, traditional and local knowledge, is 

geographically specific, defines management based 

on ecological boundaries, addresses complexities 

of natural processes and social systems, considers 

multiple simultaneous factors influencing 

management, and is collaborative, integrating 

social and environmental goals. The purpose of this 

project is to develop practical implementation of an 

ecosystem approach.

The foundation for this program is two community 

based plans, the Humboldt Bay Management Plan 

and the Humboldt Bay Watershed Salmon and 

Steelhead Conservation Plan. Issues, priorities 

and recommendations in these plans were used to 

develop ecosystem-based management approaches 

to sediment dynamics, governance, ecosystem and 

socio-economic indicators concept proposals. These 

proposals will be further developed and explored in 

2009.
20 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 1

The Humboldt Bay Watershed Salmon and 

Steelhead Conservation Plan

The Humboldt Bay Watershed Salmon and 

Steelhead Conservation Plan compiles and evaluates 

watershed information, with a list of high priority 

goals and objectives aimed at protecting and/

or restoring watershed processes to preserve 

and enhance salmon and steelhead habitat 

(HBWAC, RCAA 2005). The Salmon and Steelhead 

Conservation Plan was developed by the Humboldt 

Bay Watershed Advisory Committee (HBWAC), 

a diverse group of watershed stakeholders, “to 

improve the Humboldt Bay watershed’s anadromous 

salmonid populations and related resources while 

considering regional ecological and socioeconomic 

needs.” 

Other Wetland Habitat Restoration Projects

Other wetland habitat restoration projects in 

the Humboldt Bay/Eel River area include the 

City of Arcata’s McDaniel Slough and Baylands 

Restorations, and collaborative efforts involving the 

Service, CDFG, the Redwood Community Action 

Agency (RCAA), and other parties on Jacoby Creek, 

Gannon Slough, Rocky Gulch, Washington Gulch, 

Cochrane Creek, Fay Slough, Freshwater Slough 

and Wood Creek, Martin Slough, Elk River, and 

Salmon Creek on Humboldt Bay, and the Salt River 

(tributary on the lower Eel River). Service staff of 

the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and the 

Coastal Program at Humboldt Bay have provided 

funds and technical assistance to many of these 

projects.

Humboldt Bay Initiative

The Humboldt Bay Initiative seeks to bring people 

together to help envision the desired future state of 

the Humboldt Bay ecosystems, to help understand 

past, current and future conditions, and to move 

forward in the spirit of collaboration towards a 

sustainable and dynamic future. In order to address 

priority stresses to the ecosystems due to human 

activities, climate change, excessive sediment, 

and invasive species, the Humboldt Bay Initiative 

proposes a set of strategies that help create the 

conditions necessary for a shared vision of the 

future. Through an ecosystem-based management 

approach, the Humboldt Bay Initiative enhances 

integrated management to address these stresses 

with strategies to adapt to climate and coastal 

change, coordinate a response to invasive species, 

study and control sediment sources, promote 

sustainable community development, and ultimately 

support integrated forest management. The project 

team includes Federal, state and local agencies, and 

other partners. The USFWS Coastal Program and 

USFWS Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

have been actively involved. A final report was 

released in May 2009 (Schlosser et al. 2009).

Marine Mammal Monitoring Surrounding 

Castle Rock NWR

The NOAA Fisheries Service monitors pinnipeds on 

and surrounding Castle Rock NWR. The Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) conducts a 

Pinniped Aerial Surveys Project, which includes 

censuses at the refuge. Surveys are flown for 

breeding elephant seals in February, harbor seals in 

May to July, and Steller’s and California sea-lions 

in July. Surveys are conducted at an altitude of 

either 750 to 800 feet, or 1400 feet, depending on the 

camera equipment used and sensitivity of marine 

mammals at a particular location. Stock assessment 

reports are produced and are available online 

(swfsc.noaa.gov). The reports generally do not 

provide specific information for Castle Rock NWR 

populations, but can be used to assess regional 

trends.

Steller sea-lion. Photo: © Ron LeValley
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 21

2.1. Planning Process Policies

Service policy, the Improvement Act, and NEPA 

provide specific guidance for the planning 

process, such as seeking public involvement in the 

preparation of the Environmental Assessment 

document. The development and analysis of a 

reasonable range of management alternatives 

within the EA include a no action alternative 

(Alternative A) that reflects current conditions 

and management strategies for both refuges in the 

Complex. Management alternatives were developed 

as part of this planning process (see Appendix E: 

Environmental Assessment).

2.1.1. The Planning Process

Part of comprehensive conservation planning 

includes preparation of a NEPA document. Key 

steps in the CCP planning process and the parallel 

NEPA process include (Figure 4):

■ Preplanning and Team formation

■ Public Scoping

■ Identifying issues, opportunities, and concerns

■ Defining and revising vision statement and refuge 

goals

■ Developing and assessing alternatives

■ Identifying the preferred alternative plan

■ Draft CCP and EA

■ Revising draft documents and releasing final 

CCP

■ Implementing the CCP

■ Monitoring / Feedback (Adaptive Management)

2.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Complex CCP 

Process

Preliminary CCP planning began with information 

gathering in the fall of 2006. The official process 

began on January 29, 2007, when a Notice of 

Intent to prepare a CCP and EA published in the 

Federal Register (Vol. 72, No. 18, p. 4020). The 

Notice of Intent requested that the public submit 

comments on the scope of issues to be considered 

in the CCP and EA by March 15, 2007. A core 

planning team was established to prepare the 

CCP and EA. Planners, biologists, and managers 

from the Service formed the core planning team. 

The extended planning team included members of 

tribal governments, Service archaeologists, and 

specialists from various relevant disciplines. Elected 

officials and State resource agencies were offered 

briefings on the CCP/NEPA process and were 

invited to provide input on Complex management. 

CCP briefings were provided to representatives of 

interested County, State, Congressional, and Tribal 

governments. Meetings were held with the planning 

teams throughout the process to discuss various 

planning issues and develop vision statements, goals, 

alternatives, objectives, and strategies, as well as to 

share information about the Complex.

2.2.1. Public Involvement During Public 

Scoping Meetings and Initiation of CCP/NEPA 

Process

Prior to public scoping meetings, the Complex 

issued a press release to many local media outlets 

such as local radio stations including KHSU, 

KHUM, KSLUG, and KEKA; local newspapers 

including the Eureka Times Standard, Eureka 

Reporter, Humboldt Beacon, EcoNews, and the 

North Coast Journal; and local television stations 

including FOX, ABC, NBC, and PBS (community 

2. The Planning Process

Figure 4. The CCP planning process.
22 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 2

calendar). Flyers advertising the public meetings 

were posted on community bulletin boards by 

members of the Service in January of 2007. Service 

staff provided an interview to a local television 

news show and to a radio station prior to the public 

meetings. A planning update was distributed in 

January 2007 to interested stakeholders that had 

been identified through prior planning processes. An 

issues workbook was also distributed to the mailing 

list and at public meetings to help focus public input 

on issues relevant to the CCP.

2.2.2. Public Scoping Meetings

Three Public Scoping Meetings were held in Del 

Norte and Humboldt counties to receive public input 

on the scope of the Complex’s CCP and associated 

NEPA document. Each public scoping meeting 

consisted of a presentation by Service staff on the 

CCP/NEPA process, a presentation on the history of 

the Complex’s refuges, questions and answers, and 

documentation of public comments. The majority of 

each public meeting was spent documenting public 

comments.

The first meeting was held on February 13, 2007, 

at the Del Norte Family Resource Center from 

6:00 p.m.–8:30 p.m. in Crescent City, CA. Five 

members of the public attended the meeting. The 

second meeting was held on February 15, 2007, at 

the College of the Redwoods from 5:30 p.m.–8:00 

p.m. in Eureka, CA and 23 members of the public 

attended and signed in. The third meeting was 

held on February 17, 2007 at the Humboldt Area 

Foundation from 2:30 p.m.–5:00 p.m. in Bayside, CA 

and 14 members of the public attended and signed 

in. Members of the public attending the meetings 

were encouraged to also submit written comments 

by March 15, 2007. Copies of the Issues Workbook 

were distributed to interested stakeholders at the 

meetings.

2.2.3. Supplemental Request for Comments on 

Castle Rock NWR

Due to Castle Rock NWR’s seasonal popularity, 

primarily related to birding events, the Service 

attempted to obtain additional public input on 

the CCP by distributing an additional planning 

update to members of the public attending the 

annual Aleutian Cackling Goose Festival during the 

week of April 2, 2007. The second planning update 

encouraged the public to provide comments on the 

future management of Castle Rock NWR by May 

17, 2007. 

2.2.4. Comments Received During Scoping

A complete list of public comments received orally 

and in writing during the public scoping process 

are contained in Appendix M: Public Involvement 

Process. Hundreds of comments were received 

during the public scoping meetings on a wide 

variety of Complex management topics. In total, 14 

completed issues workbooks were returned during 

the public scoping period. In total, 13 letters or 

e-mails were received during the open comment 

period. In addition, three sets of written comments 

were turned in during public meetings. 

2.2.5. Public Involvement During the Public 

Comment Period for the Draft CCP/EA

Appendix R presents a detailed summary 

of all comments received in response to the 

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) 

during the 45-day public comment period. Public 

comments on the Draft CCP/EA were accepted 

from February 6, 2009, through March 23, 2009. 

Also included in the Appendix are the Service’s 

responses to comments and a summary of the 

changes made between the draft and the final 

versions of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 23

3.1. Overview of Humboldt Bay NWR

California’s north coast ecoregion is a unique area 

where the southern extension of the temperate 

coastal rain forests of the Pacific Northwest meet 

the relatively drier coastal forests of California. The 

north coast region is characterized by mountain 

ranges that parallel the coast, ranging in elevation 

from sea level to over 4,000 feet. Ocean currents 

and plate tectonics combine to produce long narrow 

valleys and large rivers that produce rich estuaries 

as they drain into the Pacific Ocean. Foggy forested 

mountain ranges descend into remnants of once 

vast coastal marshes. A variety of habitat types still 

exist along the coast supporting a wide diversity 

of flora, fauna, recreational uses, and resource 

economies. Northern California’s coastal habitats 

include grasslands, terrace prairies, dunes, marshes, 

eelgrass beds, mudflats, and diverse forest types. 

Lowland areas near the north coast are dominated 

by coastal redwood, Sitka spruce, and Douglas-fir 

forest. Inland ecosystems include Douglas-fir/tanoak 

forest, Oregon oak woodland, annual grasslands, and 

mixed broadleaf/coniferous evergreen forests. 

3.1.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Physical 

Environment Geography and Climate

The Humboldt County coast has a Mediterranean 

climate characterized by moderate temperatures, 

heavy precipitation, with many foggy days 

throughout the year (HC 2001). The average 

annual precipitation for Eureka, California, just 

north of the Complex, is 38.10 inches as recorded 

for the period 1887–2003. Record annual average 

precipitation rates range from a high of just over 

67 inches in 1983 to a low of about 21 inches in 1929. 

In this coastal area the rainy season lasts from 

October through April, accounting for 90 percent of 

its annual precipitation. Table 1 displays the average 

monthly and annual precipitation data for Eureka, 

CA (WRCC 2007). On December 27, 2002, a new 

all-time record was set for maximum daily rainfall 

for any calendar day in Eureka, 6.79 inches of rain, 

breaking the previous record of 5.04 inches set in 

1950. This event also broke the 24-hour rainfall 

record of 6.32 inches set 1996. Prevailing winds 

during spring and summer are from the northwest 

(WRCC 2007). Winter storms can bring winds, 

generally from the south or southwest, sometimes 

exceeding 55 to 69 miles per hour. 

The climate of the Humboldt Bay NWR is 

completely maritime with high humidity prevailing 

throughout the year. The rainy season begins in 

October and continues through April, with the 

refuge receiving ~40 inches of rainfall annually 

(WRCC 2007). The dry season from May through 

September is marked by considerable fog or low 

cloudiness that usually clears by late morning. 

Temperatures are moderate throughout the year. 

The usual yearly range is from lows near 35°F (2 °C) 

to highs near 75 °F (24 °C). Summer temperatures 

are generally between 46 °F (8 °C) and 75 °F (24 °C).

3.1.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Global Climate 

Change and Sea Level Rise

The recent warming trend of the global climate 

is unequivocal, and is confirmed by observations 

of increases in global average air and ocean 

temperatures and rising mean sea level (IPCC 

2007). Global average temperature increased 0.74°C 

in the past 100 years and is expected to increase 

another 0.4°C in the next 20 years (Hazeltine 2008). 

For the next two decades a global warming of about 

0.36 °F (0.2 °C) per decade is expected to occur 

(IPCC 2007). Continued greenhouse gas emissions 

at or above current rate would cause further 

warming and may induce changes beyond those seen 

in the twentieth century (IPCC 2007). 

Since at least the twentieth century, sea levels have 

been rising in correlation with the overall globally 

increasing temperatures. Sea level rise can occur 

from both land-based ice melting and thermal 

expansion of ocean water. As land-based ice melts 

and flows into the oceans, the volume of liquid 

water in the world’s oceans increases. As ocean 

temperatures increase, water expands to a greater 

volume than the same amount of water would at a 

lower temperature. 

Between the period of 1961–2003, sea level rose by 

an average rate of 0.07 inch per year, totaling a 2.94 

inch increase over the period (IPCC 2007). Notably, 

3. Refuge Resources
24 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

the average rate of sea level rise nearly doubled 

over the period of 1993–2003 to ~0.12 inch per year 

(IPCC 2007). 

Globally, approximately 20 to 30 percent of species 

will be at increasingly high risk of extinction by 

2100 if global mean temperatures exceed a warming 

of 2 to 3 °C above pre-industrial levels (medium 

confidence) (IPCC 2007).

Climate Change and Sea Level Rise in the U.S. 

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order 

(Order Number 3226, January 19, 2001) requiring 

Federal agencies under its direction with land 

management responsibilities to consider potential 

climate change effects as part of long-range 

planning endeavors.

Parmesan and Galbraith (2004) discuss the many 

important impacts of global climate change that 

have already been detected in U.S. ecosystems and 

stress that climate change should be a primary 

consideration in the preservation of biodiversity. 

Important conclusions from their analysis of 

the observed impacts of climate change on U.S. 

ecosystems include:

1. The timing of important ecological events, 

including plant flowering and wildlife breeding, 

has shifted in conjunction with changes in U.S. 

climate.

2. Ranges of some plants and animals have 

shifted northward and upward in elevation, or 

contracted.

3. Species composition within communities has 

changed in concert with local temperature rise. 

4. Findings that climate change is affecting U.S. 

ecosystems are consistent across different 

geographic scales and species.

5. Species range contractions are more likely than 

simple northward or upslope range shifts.

6. Reducing adverse effects of climate change on 

ecosystems can be facilitated through a broad 

range of actions, including adaptive management, 

providing transitional habitat between preserved 

areas, and alleviating non-climate change 

stressors.

Climate Change and Sea Level Rise in 

California

During the next few decades, average temperatures 

in California are expected to rise between 1 and 

2.3 °F (CCCC 2006). Major changes to California’s 

precipitation are not predicted to occur over the 

life of this CCP, but are likely to occur over the next 

century (CCCC 2006). 

Smerling et al. (2005) projected localized sea 

level rise for each U.S. state. According to their 

projections, California will experience a sea level rise 

of between 1.26 inches (low, historic extrapolation), to 

2.96 inches (medium, 50 percent probability), to 6.0 

Table 1. Monthly and annual precipitation data for Eureka, CA (near Humboldt Bay NWR), from 1948 through 

2007 (adapted from WRCC 2007).

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Average Max. 

Temperature 

(F)

 54.4 55.5 55.5 56.4 58.7 60.8 62.0 62.9 63.0 61.1 58.0 54.9 58.6

Average Min. 

Temperature 

(F)

 41.4 42.6 43.1 44.6 47.8 50.6 52.4 53.1 51.3 48.1 44.8 41.8 46.8

Average Total 

Precipitation 

(in.)

 6.82 5.43 5.26 3.02 1.67 0.64 0.15 0.33 0.75 2.66 5.70 7.12 39.54

Average Total 

SnowFall (in.) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3

Average Snow 

Depth (in.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Period of Record : 7/1/1948 to 12/31/2007

Percent of possible observations for period of record.

Max. Temp.: 99.8% Min. Temp.: 99.8% Precipitation: 99.8% Snowfall: 99.8% Snow Depth: 99.8% 

Source: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmnca.html
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 25

inches (high, 5 percent probability) sea level rise by 

2020 (Smerling et al. 2005). Their projections predict 

even greater increases over the next 50 to 100 years, 

which is beyond the intended scope of this CCP.

In addition to the relatively steady impacts likely 

to occur from global trends, sea levels along the 

California coast are expected to undergo more 

variability above or below predicted tide levels 

because sea level rise will coincide with decadal 

oscillations (Cayan et al. 2006), such as the ENSO 

and LNSO (see Section 3.6.2). Historically, the 

highest Pacific coastal sea levels have occurred when 

winter storms and Pacific climate disturbances, such 

as El Niño, have coincided with high tides (Cayan 

et al. 2006). More recently, based on a set of climate 

scenarios prepared for the California Energy 

Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research 

(PIER) Climate Change Research Program, Cayan 

et al. (2008) project that, under medium to mediumhigh emissions scenarios, mean sea level along the 

California coast will rise from 1.0 to 1.4 meters by 

the year 2100. It is important to note that most 

climate models fail to include ice-melt contributions 

from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and as 

a result, the potential increase in mean sea level may 

be much higher (Herbreger et al. 2009). 

Climate Change and Sea Level Rise for 

Humboldt Bay NWR

Considering that nearly one third (161 of 548) 

of refuges are coastal, sea-level rise is a highly 

significant factor in Refuge System management 

and planning. Shriner and Street (1998) estimate 

that a rise of ~20 inches (50 centimeters) in sea 

level could lead to the loss of 50 percent of North 

American coastal wetlands. Major effects of sealevel rise on coastal refuges include inundation and 

loss of terrestrial habitats, saltwater intrusion and 

an increase in frequency and severity of flooding 

events. All of these factors have the potential to alter 

ecosystem dynamics. In some cases, wetlands may 

move inland in response to sea-level rise (Shriner 

and Street 1998), but in many cases this possibility is 

compromised by coastal development (Bedoya et al. 

2008). This is very much the case around Humboldt 

Bay.

The south Humboldt Bay NWR units are, in part, 

below mean high water level and are currently 

protected by dikes. This elevation makes many 

of the southern unit habitats vulnerable to dike 

failures, particularly as sea level continues to rise. 

The current elevation of these units below mean 

high water is largely due to land subsidence caused 

by draining lands for agriculture combined with 

anthropogenic modification of streams, which has 

changed sediment recruitment and distribution. 

There are methods being studied by the U.S. 

Geological Survey in the Sacramento Delta to use 

wetland vegetation (cattail and tules) to increase 

soil elevations. At one site on Twitchell Island, soil 

elevations have risen 1 to 2 feet in 15 years. This 

process, as well as better information on current 

sedimentation rates and distribution should be 

studied in the Humboldt Bay area. 

As noted in the previous section, mean sea level 

along the California coast is estimated to rise from 

1.0 to 1.4 meters by the year 2100 (Herbreger et al. 

2009). Hazard maps showing the extent of coastal 

flooding and erosion under one scenario of sea level 

rise for the Humboldt Bay NWR and Castle Rock 

NWR areas are included in Appendix P. These 

hazard maps were prepared by researchers at the 

Pacific Institute, with support from the California 

Energy Commission, California Department of 

Transportation, and the Ocean Protection Council.

While various climate change models differ in 

their predictions, all agree that sea level will 

continue to rise over the 15-year life of the CCP. 

Given the current predictions of sea level rise, it is 

unlikely that most of the Complex habitat would be 

substantially affected by sea level rise over the next 

15 years. However, without further action, likely 

future impacts from global climate change and sea 

level rise on the Humboldt Bay NWR include:

■ Foraging habitat for wintering and migrating 

shorebirds may suffer severe losses as sea level 

rise inundates current intertidal foraging areas 

(Galbraith et al. 2002).

■ Changes in the timing of migration and nesting 

of birds could put some bird species breeding and 

migration cycles out of synchronization with the 

life cycles of their food sources.

■ Changes in ocean currents could put marine 

mammal breeding out of synchronization with the 

migration of primary prey species that provide 

food at critical life stages, such as pup rearing.

■ Changes in precipitation and temperature may 

affect the population dynamics of plants of dune 

and marsh communities (including listed species) 

■ Shifts in ranges of both native and invasive plant 

species may cause extirpations on the refuge, 

increase management needs, and result in 

significant changes to community composition. 

■ Changes in the ecosystem dynamics (precipitation 

and temperature) of headwater forests could 

impact sedimentation, temperature, dissolved 

oxygen, and other habitat parameters on lower 

Salmon and Jacoby Creek on Humboldt Bay 

NWR.

■ Changes in rainfall, storm patterns, 

sedimentation, littoral transport, and wind 

speed could affect dune stability/migration, and 

may affect plant communities on dunes and salt 

marshes.
26 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

■ Continuing changes in sea level, sedimentation, 

turbidity, currents, and wave energy could affect 

estuarine plants including eelgrass and salt 

marsh species.

■ Continuing changes in winter storm frequencies 

and relatively minor increases in tidal heights 

could dramatically increase costs to maintain 

some refuge infrastructure, such as dikes and 

tidegates.

The Service is working with partners to reduce the 

effects of climate change on fish, wildlife, and their 

habitats (plant communities). Much of the land 

within the current approved refuge boundary is 

within the zone of impact for projected sea level rise. 

The Service continues to seek appropriate lands that 

would buffer refuge lands and help mitigate over 

time the effects of sea level rise and climate change 

by providing broader opportunities for migration 

of plants and wildlife. The refuge staff will evaluate 

appropriate opportunities to expand the approved 

boundary to increase the resilience of wildlife and 

their habitats as they adapt to changes in climate. 

For more information on how the Service is working 

with others to conserve the nature of America in a 

changing climate, visit http://www.fws.gov/home/

climatechange/ .

3.1.3. Humboldt Bay NWR Hazardous Materials 

and Contaminants 

An inactive nuclear reactor is located adjacent to 

Humboldt Bay. The reactor operated from 1963 to 

1976 (RCEA 2005). In 1976, the plant was shut down 

for a normal refueling and subsequently a number of 

unresolved seismic issues led Pacific Gas & Electric 

(PG&E) to keep the plant shut down for an extended 

period of time. In 1984, the fuel was removed from 

the reactor vessel and the plant was inactivated, 

with spent nuclear fuel rods stored in water pools on 

site (RCEA 2005). More recently, PG&E announced 

its intent to remove 390 spent (irradiated) fuel rods 

from the pool at the plant, and place them in on-site 

steel containers called dry casks pending permanent 

removal (RCEA 2005). While in the local area, the 

inactive nuclear reactor is not known to pose any 

foreseeable risk to the Humboldt Bay NWR.

In late 2006, the California Water Resources Control 

Board placed Humboldt Bay on its list of water 

bodies impaired by dioxins. Dioxins are a group of 

chemical compounds that share certain chemical 

structures and biologically active characteristics. 

In laboratory animals dioxins are highly toxic, can 

cause cancer, and alter reproductive, developmental, 

and immune system function (NIH 2007). Studies 

have shown that exposure to dioxins at high doses 

can cause a number of adverse health effects 

(USEPA 2006). Although they are at low levels in 

food, some dioxins are very slowly removed from 

the body and accumulate in human fat tissue (NIH 

2007). Chlorine bleaching of pulp and paper, certain 

types of chemical manufacturing and processing, 

and other industrial processes that have occurred 

around Humboldt Bay, can create dioxins (USEPA 

2006). 

No area within the Humboldt Bay NWR is listed as 

a hazardous waste site by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency.

3.1.4. Humboldt Bay NWR Air Quality

Air Pollution Control Agencies 

The Federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7401, as 

amended) mandates the establishment of ambient 

air quality standards and requires areas that violate 

these standards to prepare and implement plans 

to achieve the standards by certain deadlines. The 

deadline for attaining both the ozone and carbon 

monoxide standards was August 31, 1988. Areas that 

do not meet Federal primary air quality standards 

are designated as “nonattainment” areas. Areas 

that comply with Federal air quality standards 

are designated as “attainment” areas. Attainment 

and nonattainment designations are pollutant 

specific. The Federal Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) sets health protection standards for 

8 substances called “criteria pollutants.” Humboldt 

and Del Norte counties are in attainment of Federal 

EPA standards for these criteria pollutants, 

including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, 

sulfur dioxide, sulfates, and lead; however, they 

are nonattainment areas and do not meet State 

standards for particulate matter less than 10 

microns in diameter (PM10). Del Norte County is 

unclassified for hydrogen sulfide; Humboldt County 

is classified as an attainment zone for hydrogen 

sulfide. Both counties are unclassified for visibility 

reducing particles.

In the winter months, the air quality in Humboldt, 

Del Norte and Trinity County does not fully meet 

the State health standards for clean air. The two 

pollutants of greatest concern are ozone and 

particulate matter. The ambient air in portions of 

the air quality management district (AQMD) with 

Humboldt County exceeds the State PM10 standard 

during many of the winter months. Some sources of 

particulates in Humboldt County include automobile 

emissions, saw pulp mills, and residential home 

heaters (wood stoves). Geographic features that 

adversely influence air quality include mountains 

and valleys that trap stagnant air (North Coast 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 27

Unified Air Quality Management District) http://

www.ncuaqmd.org/.

Many agencies are involved in air pollution control, 

including the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA 2006), California Air Resources 

Board (ARB), and air quality management districts 

(AQMDs). 

In California, all agricultural burning is regulated 

jointly by the ARB and local AQMDs. Each day the 

ARB determines, based on recent and anticipated 

weather conditions, whether the following day 

will be a permissible burn day or a no-burn day. 

Each ARB’s primary objective in making this 

determination is to control the amount of smoke 

from agricultural burning that reaches urban areas. 

On permissible burn days few restrictions are 

placed on the amount of land that may be burned in 

the region. On no-burn days fields may be burned 

only if a special permit has been issued by the local 

AQMD. Such burn permits are allocated based on 

an estimated allowable acreage for the entire region, 

or air basin. Air basin boundaries generally follow 

political boundary lines and are defined to include 

both the source area and the receptor area. Both 

refuges in the Complex fall within the North Coast 

Air Quality Management Basin, which includes Del 

Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, and Trinity counties, 

and a portion of Sonoma County (ARB 2005). 

Ambient Air Quality Standards and Quality 

in the North Coast Air Quality Management 

District

Both the State of California and the Federal 

government have established a variety of ambient 

air quality standards. The North Coast Air 

Quality Management District (NCAQMD) collects 

and analyzes ambient air samples to determine 

concentrations of regulated pollutants within the 

North Coast Air Quality Management Basin. There 

are three monitoring sites where samples are 

collected: Crescent City, Eureka, and Weaverville. 

By analyzing the samples, the NCAQMD is able 

to determine the concentration of particulate 

matter less than 10 microns (PM10) and less than 

2.5 microns (PM2.5). Air quality data is reported 

to a Federal database maintained by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. The following 

discussion focuses on the ambient standards and 

existing concentrations for PM10 because the 

ambient air in portions of the NCAQMD exceeds 

the State PM10 standard during many of the winter 

months (NCAQMD 2007). It is the primary pollutant 

that could be affected by Humboldt Bay NWR 

management.

Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns 

Diameter

Both Humboldt and Del Norte counties are 

classified as nonattainment zones for PM10 (ARB 

2007). Atmospheric particulates are the result of 

many types of dust and fume-producing industrial 

and agricultural processes (HC 2001). The 

NCAQMD PM10 emissions are generated primarily 

by entrained road dust, construction and demolition 

activities, farming operations, and agricultural waste 

burning (HC 2001). 

Health concerns associated with suspended particles 

focus on those particles small enough to reach the 

lungs when inhaled. Few particles larger than 10 

microns in diameter reach the lungs. Consequently, 

both the Federal and State air quality standards 

for particulate matter have been recently revised 

to apply only to these small particles, designated 

as PM10. According to ARB (2005), exposure to 

particulate matter aggravates several respiratory 

illnesses and can cause early death in people with 

heart and lung diseases. Both long- and short-term 

exposure to PM10 can have adverse health impacts. 

All PM10 particles are harmful. PM10 also includes 

the subgroup of PM2.5. These finer particles 

pose an even higher health risk because they can 

deposit deeper in the lungs and contain substances 

particularly harmful to human health (ARB 2005).

PM10 particles are a mixture of substances that 

includes elements such as carbon and metals; 

compounds such as nitrates, sulfates, and organic

compounds; and mixtures such as diesel exhaust, 

and soil (ARB 2005). These substances and mixtures 

may occur as solid particles or liquid droplets. Some 

particles are emitted directly into the atmosphere, 

while other secondary particles are the result of 

gases that are transformed into particles through 

various physical and chemical processes in the 

atmosphere (ARB 2005).

Toxic Air Contaminants

A toxic air contaminant is an air pollutant that may 

cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in 

serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human 

health (ARB 2005). No management activities 

carried out on the Complex would be expected to 

produce toxic air contaminant levels that would 

cause negative impacts to human health.

3.1.5. Humboldt Bay NWR Paleontological 

Resources

No known paleo-faunal remains occur within the 

approved refuge boundaries. However, diatoms 

(eukaryotic algae encased in persistent silica) are 
28 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

present and could be used as a tool in interpreting 

paleoecology (Hemphill-Haley 1992).

3.1.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Minerals

There are no known mineral deposits within the 

Humboldt Bay NWR boundaries (USFWS 1985). 

Areas in western Humboldt County, including the 

bay, are underlain by sedimentary rock from the 

Tertiary Age and have some potential for oil and 

natural gas extraction. The only oil production 

recorded was near Petrolia, ~30 miles to the south, 

in 1954. 

There are natural gas deposits in Humboldt 

County, mainly in the Eel River basin (RCEA 2005). 

Currently, there are 38 producing wells and 15 

shut-in (not producing) wells in the county (RCEA 

2005). The active gas wells are concentrated in 

the Tompkins Hill gas field, where there are 31 

producing wells. Net gas production from these 

wells in 2003 was 1,010,605 thousand cubic feet 

(RCEA 2005). 

Due to changes in energy markets, there are now 

multiple active proposals for both wind and wave 

energy development not far from the refuge. 

Any such project(s) would likely have impacts on 

migratory bird and other natural resources, but all 

proposals are still in planning stages.

3.1.7. Humboldt Bay NWR Geology

Humboldt Bay NWR is located within the Coast 

Range of northern California. The Coast Range 

geological province is located along the coastal 

portion of the Klamath ecoregion from Sonoma 

County to the Oregon border. It includes the entire 

watershed of most of the smaller coastal streams, 

as well as portions of the Smith, Klamath, and Eel 

River hydrobasins. It consists of a system of north 

and northwest trending mountain ridges and valleys 

formed by folding and faulting. 

Barnhart et al. (1992) provides a thorough 

description of Humboldt Bay geology. Humboldt 

Bay is ~30 miles northeast of the Gorda-PacificNorth American plates triple junction. The Pacific 

plate is to the south, the Gorda plate to the northwest, and the North American plate to the east. The 

region is tectonically active with many northwestsouthwest faults, as the Gorda plate is subducted 

beneath the North American plate. Uplifting 

and folding, fault lines and erosion have exposed 

a complex pattern of rock formations around 

Humboldt Bay.

Four geologic formations are predominantly 

exposed in the Humboldt Bay region: the Franciscan 

Formation (Late Jurassic to Late Cretaceous in 

age); the Yager Formation; the Wildcat Group 

(Late Cenozoic in age); and the Hookton Formation 

(Pleistocene in age) (Barnhart, et al. 1992). Older 

geologic formations are largely overlain by more 

recent river channel deposits, floodplain deposits, 

beach and dune sands, tidal flat deposits, and 

landslide debris. Most of these deposits, from the 

Mad and Eel rivers, are 16 to 23 feet deep. 

Current sediments in Humboldt Bay are derived 

from runoff, oceanic input, and biological activity. 

Most of the silt and clay in Humboldt Bay probably 

enters the bay during flood tides. A smaller amount 

of sediment is introduced by small rivers and creeks 

that enter the bay. Decaying organic material from 

biological activity probably contributes the least 

amount of sediment to the bay.

Dune Geology

The persistence of the Humboldt Bay dune sheet 

over long periods is the result of a localized 

subsiding basin, which continues to provide 

receptive areas near sea level (Orme and Tchakerian 

1986, Orme 1992). In the Pacific Northwest 

(including Humboldt Bay), episodes of subsidence 

are believed to occur as rapid, co-seismic events 

along the Cascadia subduction zone at intervals 

of between 300–700 years, generating tsunamis 

(Clarke and Carver 1992, Carver et al. 1998). 

California’s Holocene dunes formed up to 7,000 

years BP (middle to late Holocene) during high 

to falling sea levels (Orme 1992, Peterson et al. 

2004). In Humboldt Bay, the dunes represent two 

phases of activity. The most recently accreted 

or re-mobilized Holocene dunes support early 

successional vegetation (foredune grassland and 

dune mat) although wetland conditions favorable to 

later successional (shrub) vegetation may exist in 

low-lying areas. Older, stabilized Holocene dunes 

located on the eastern edge of the dune system are 

stabilized by coniferous and riparian forests (Pickart 

and Barbour 2007).

Because of the location of faults and seismic activity, 

the entirety of the low lying Humboldt Bay area, 

including the entire refuge and all infrastructure, 

is a high-risk zone for tsunamis (tidal waves). The 

county has worked diligently to prepare an action 

plan, post signs, and deploy warning sirens.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 29

3.1.8. Humboldt Bay NWR Soils

Soils of Humboldt Bay NWR are in the process 

of being revised and remapped by the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (Soil Survey 

Staff 2007). Soils of Humboldt Bay NWR include 

the poorly drained Weott and Arlynda Series 

derived from old salt marsh soils. Dune areas 

are characterized by the Samoa, Clambeach, and 

Lanphere Series derived from marine and eolian 

sands and characterized by well to excessively 

drained sand (Soil Survey Staff 2007).

According to the maps available at the time of this 

document, all of the Salmon Creek Unit except 

a small portion of Salmon Creek Overflow is 

classified as the Weott Series, characterized by very 

poorly drained silt loam in the top 12 inches with 

frequent ponding and very high surface runoff. The 

Hookton Slough Unit is classified as the Arlynda 

Series, composed of peat in the top 3 inches and 

underlain by silty clay loam to 14 inches. Hydrologic 

characteristics are similar to Weott soils: very poorly 

drained, subject to frequent ponding, and very high 

surface runoff. Weott soils are described as having 

a salinity of 0–2.0 dS/m and pH of 6.1–7.3 in the top 

0–12 inches. Arlynda soils have a reported salinity of 

0 dS/m and pH of 5.1–6.0 to a depth of 3 inches, with 

higher salinity (0–2.0 S/m) and more acid pH (6.1–7.3 

from 3–14 inches.

Dunes soils are comprised of three series: Samoa, 

Clambeach, and Lanphere. The Samoa Series is 

found on the upland nearshore dunes, and consists 

of very deep, excessively drained, sandy soils with 

slopes ranging from 2 to 50 percent (Soil Survey 

Staff 2007). The A and O horizons are missing in 

areas where dunes have sparse dune mat vegetation 

or European beachgrass. In lower seasonally wet 

areas of the nearshore dunes (dune swales), the 

Clambeach series is present. These are also deep 

and poorly drained, composed of eolian and marine 

sand, but with shallower slopes from 0–2 percent, 

and with redoximorphic features (colors in the soil 

that indicate water is seasonally present at the level 

the features are found) and free water within 80 

inches. The Lanphere Series is found on stabilized 

forested backdunes. They are deep, somewhat 

excessively drained, sandy soils formed in eolian 

sand. Slopes range from 2–75 percent (Soil Survey 

Staff 2007).

3.1.9. Humboldt Bay NWR Water Resources

There are four sizable coastal streams that empty 

into Humboldt Bay. Jacoby Creek and Freshwater 

Creek enter into North Bay, Elk River meets the 

bay near its entrance, and Salmon Creek enters 

the South Bay. These watersheds are all roughly 

12 miles in length and support anadromous fish. 

Salmon Creek and Jacoby Creek have relatively 

small amounts of estuarine habitat, while 

Freshwater Creek and Elk River have somewhat 

larger estuaries. All four systems have been 

significantly altered by logging, development, and 

diking.

The Mad River Slough is one of four major channel 

systems carrying water to and from Arcata Bay 

(Thompson 1971). The slough runs north-south 

for ~3.4 miles from its confluence with the main 

body of Arcata Bay. The current extent of tidal 

influence within Mad River Slough and its tributary, 

Liscom Slough, is 480 acres. Prior to diking, the salt 

marshes of the slough were contiguous with those 

of the rest of Arcata Bay, and the slough was less of 

an isolated feature. Using present day Highway 255 

as a division between the slough and the rest of the 

bay’s historic salt marshes, the historic tidal extent 

of the slough was as much as 1,500 acres. 

Mad River Slough collects runoff from the Arcata 

Bottoms, including periodic overflow from the Mad 

River. Perennial fresh groundwater flows, as well as 

one perennial stream (Iron Creek), enter Mad River 

Slough from the dune side of the slough. The slough 

comprises an interlacing collection of tidal flats, 

channels, and salt marshes. The slough contains a 

total of 150 acres of salt marsh, or 17 percent of the 

bay’s total salt marshes (Pickart 2001). 

Although the Mad River did historically flow directly 

into ancestral Humboldt Bay, the slough does not 

represent a historic channel (Thompson 1971). Much 

of the Arcata Bottoms represent deltaic deposits, 

and the slough is believed to be a natural trough 

formed between the edge of subsiding delta deposits 

and the more recent spit deposits. However, a canal 

was dug to connect the Mad River and Mad River 

Slough in 1854 in order to facilitate log rafting 

from the river to the bay. The higher velocity of the 

river required that a boom be constructed across 

the river, and during the 30 year history of the 

canal it was functional for only a few years due to 

repeated failing of the boom during flood events. 

The canal had a lasting impact on both the river 

and bay, however. Logjams caused alterations in the 

river bed that exacerbated flooding on the Arcata 

Bottoms, and to an unknown extent debris and silt 

were diverted into the slough and bay (Haynes 

2003). 

Jacoby Creek provides a freshwater source for 

thousands of waterbirds and cuts through the north 

end of the refuge’s Jacoby Creek Unit. This unit 

includes one of the largest remaining salt marshes 
30 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

in Humboldt Bay. To the east, across the freeway, 

the City of Arcata has purchased additional lands 

adjacent to and including lower Jacoby Creek and is 

planning restoration work.

In the South Bay, three streams flow into Humboldt 

Bay NWR’s Salmon Creek Unit: Willow Brook, 

Cattail Creek, and Salmon Creek. The former two 

are small (less than 1 mile long) perennial streams 

that drain the Tompkins Hill area and flow onto 

refuge lands. One additional small perennial stream 

flows off north Tompkins Hill through the White 

Slough Unit and into the bay. Two other small 

unnamed perennial creeks flow north off Table Bluff 

and into the Hookton Slough Unit.

Salmon Creek is the only sizeable perennial stream 

that flows into south Humboldt Bay. It is the main 

water course for the drainage which affects most 

south Humboldt Bay lowlands. Peak flows for 

Salmon Creek occur between November and March 

(PCFWWRA 2003), with low to barely perceptible 

flows during the rest of the year.

Salmon Creek historically flowed into the bay 

through a relatively large multi-channeled alluvial 

floodplain (delta) which included a dynamic 

transition of habitats from riparian to salt marsh, 

and from creek channel to tidal slough. Large woody 

debris (trees and/or logs that were washed down the 

creek during flood events) had a significant role in 

the historic delta ecology by jamming and causing 

the re-routing of flows, stabilizing banks, and 

creating and providing habitat diversity (Gregory et 

al. 2003). 

The entire delta area was diked off for development 

in the late 1800s and early 1900s. During that time, 

and in later years, Salmon Creek was channelized 

and diverted to maximize drainage, spread silt, 

sub-irrigate agricultural grassland, and provide 

drinking water for livestock during the dry season 

(A. McBride pers. comm.). Large woody debris was 

also removed to the extent possible. During this 

same time period and later, the upper watershed 

was also heavily logged, roads built, and lands 

toward the bottom of the watershed converted from 

forest to pasture for livestock. These alterations 

significantly changed the natural topography, 

hydrology, and ecological function of the delta by 

reducing fish passage, impeding sediment and flood 

flows, and nearly eliminating tidal exchange and 

large woody debris from the delta. As a result, 

the lower stream channel filled with silt, adjacent 

roads were (and are) flooded multiple times each 

winter, and flows reached the bay only through 

tidegates at different locations. Generally, tidegates 

were constructed to allow freshwater to flow into 

estuaries but prevent the upstream movement of 

estuarine waters (Giannico and Souder 2005).

The Salmon Creek Unit of the refuge includes most 

of the Salmon Creek delta. Since most of this area 

was acquired by the refuge in the 1980s, there have 

been substantial efforts made to restore the natural 

function of the creek to the extent possible. These 

efforts (past, present, and future) are adaptive in 

nature and include installation and modification 

of newly designed tidegates, channel restoration, 

reintroduction of large woody debris, fish screening, 

and monitoring of both the physical and biological 

changes taking place. The objectives are to 

significantly increase tidal exchange, which in turn 

will improve fish passage, movement of sediment 

and flood flows, water quality, and increase the total 

area and natural function of salt marsh and brackish 

marsh habitats. An outline and summary of these 

efforts can be found in the Lower Salmon Creek 

Delta Salmonid Habitat Enhancement Opportunities 

(PCFWWRA 2003)

Humboldt Bay NWR Hydrology and Water 

Management 

The Salmon Creek Unit is composed of a complex 

arrangement of dikes, diversion structures, ditches, 

ponds, water control structures, and tidegates. Each 

plays a role in creating a wide variety of habitat 

types while providing drainage for storm runoff. 

Willow Brook collects water from the northern end 

of Tompkins Hill and then runs under the freeway 

onto the refuge through the north diversion and out 

into the bay through the White Slough tidegates.

Cattail Creek drains the southern Tompkins Hill 

area and also enters the refuge from the east 

after emerging from under Highway 101. It has a 

substantially smaller drainage area than Willow 

Brook. After entering the refuge, Cattail Creek 

currently flows in a ditch through the Middle 

Diversion and then eventually into Long Pond.

Long Pond, a former tidal slough, is now a large 

brackish pond that serves as a collection and 

discharge basin for much of the waters draining 

from the refuge. The pond receives flow from both 

Salmon and Cattail Creek. The water surface 

elevation of the pond is managed through a set 

of tidegates at the west end and a large water 

control structure at the east end (equipped with 

flashboards) that allows captured floodwater to be 

channeled into seasonal wetlands to the north.

Salmon Creek approaches Humboldt Bay from the 

southeast after crossing under bridges located on 

Tompkins Hill Road, Highway 101, Loleta Drive, 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 31

and Hookton Road. Between Eel River Drive 

and the Humboldt Bay NWR the stream flows 

in an aggraded meandering channel flanked by 

agricultural grassland and a former dairy facility. 

Just as it enters the refuge, the stream channel 

makes a 90° turn and becomes linear, flowing west 

in a straight diked channel. At the end of this reach 

the stream passes uninterrupted through the First 

Diversion, which is no longer actively operated. 

Downstream of the First Diversion the stream 

flows through a meandering channel constructed 

by refuge staff and partners in 1993, eventually 

reaching the Salmon Creek tidegate and lower tidal 

estuary. A cooperative project begun in 2003 and 

completed in 2008 replaced and/or reworked all of 

the tidegates of lower Salmon Creek and added a 

new tidegate in the Salmon Creek overflow. The 

goals of the project were to improve fish passage 

and water quality, increase sediment transport and 

estuarine habitat and function, and allow flood flows 

to reach the bay in one tide cycle. Prior to adding 

the new tidegate and enlarging the one on Salmon 

Creek, flood events would overwhelm the drainage 

capacity of the tidegates, causing floodwaters to 

back up and sediment to fill the lower creek channels 

(a situation that worsens with each ensuing flood), 

which then impairs water quality and reduces 

habitat quality. The new structures are larger, which 

allows greater volume to escape each tide cycle, and 

are equipped with sluice gates which remain open to 

allow fish passage and upstream tidal flows during 

high tides, which will passively remove sediment 

built up on the creek bed and help cut the channel 

down to its natural elevation. 

During high flow events, which typically occur 

several times each year, Salmon Creek overtops the 

First Diversion. These flood waters fill the diversion 

ditch that runs north and eventually drains via the 

Long Pond and White Slough tidegates. These flood 

or overbank events provide the water used to flood 

all the seasonal freshwater wetlands that occur on 

this unit of the refuge.

Humboldt Bay NWR Water Quality 

There have been ongoing efforts to assess water 

quality in lower Salmon Creek over the last decade. 

In general, until 2007, the water quality in lower 

Salmon Creek could be characterized as fair to good 

during the winter rainy season and poor during 

the summer and early fall months. However, the 

late summer water quality has improved with the 

installation and replacement of new tidegates which 

have increased the movement of bay water up the 

creek. 

Water quality data is summarized in a report by 

PCFWWRA (2003).

3.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Biological 

Resources

3.2.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Ecoregional Context 

The California North Coast Ecoregion represents 

the southern extension of the temperate rainforests 

of the U.S. Pacific Northwest (TNC et al. 2005). This 

ecoregion is characterized by a series of mountain 

ranges that approximately parallel the coast. 

Elevations range from sea level to over 2,100 meters 

(7,000 feet) on the crest of the Yolla Bolly Mountains 

(TNC et al. 2005). Many small streams originate in 

the coastal mountain ranges, feeding larger rivers 

that flow towards the ocean creating estuaries as 

they merge with the Pacific Ocean. The cool, foggy 

coastal climate supports coastal redwood forests and 

the resident flora and fauna that depend on these 

forests. 

The diverse topography supports a wide variety 

of plant community types. According to TNC et 

al. (2005), the lowland areas near the coast are 

dominated by redwood and Douglas-fir forests. 

Inland, the ecoregion is dominated by Douglasfir/tanoak forest, Oregon oak woodland, annual 

grasslands, and mixed evergreen forests. Higher 

elevations contain montane mixed coniferous 

forests (white fir [Abies concolor], ponderosa 

pine [Pinus ponderosa], and Douglas-fir). The 

interior southeastern portion of the ecoregion is 

characterized by mixed chaparral, gray pine, and 

blue oak (Quercus douglasii) (TNC et al. 2005).

The immediate coast also provides microhabitats 

that favor plant communities not dominated by 

coastal redwood forest. Other important coastal 

systems in the region include grasslands, bald 

hills (prairies), coastal terrace prairies, dune 

communities, coastal estuaries with salt marsh, 

brackish marsh, and eelgrass beds (TNC et al. 

2005). Coastal estuaries are of particular importance 

to bird, fish, wildlife, and plant production and 

diversity. Estuaries are fueled by emergent 

vegetation, algae, and detritus-based food webs 

(Rumrill 2002). Tidal basins accumulate sediments 

and the resident communities contribute to water 

quality in the bay (Rumrill 2002). 

The ecologically important eelgrass beds in 

Humboldt Bay are the largest between Willapa Bay, 

Washington, and Baja California, Mexico. These 

extensive eelgrass beds provide cover for many 

species of marine and estuarine vertebrates and 

invertebrates, and food for hundreds of thousands 

of migrating shorebirds and waterfowl, especially 

Pacific brant (WHSRN 2007).
32 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

Humboldt Bay NWR Geographic/Ecosystem 

Setting

The refuge is located in and around Humboldt Bay 

near the cities of Arcata and Eureka. Humboldt Bay 

is located on a narrow coastal plain and is a natural 

land-locked harbor 0.5 to 4 miles wide and 14 miles 

long. Humboldt Bay consists of two tidal basins, 

designated as the Arcata Bay and the South Bay 

(USFWS 1997). 

The Mad and Eel rivers bound Humboldt Bay on 

the north and south respectively. The countryside 

adjacent to the refuge is relatively flat with rolling 

terraces. The Humboldt Bay NWR contains many 

types of habitats including intertidal flats (mudflats 

and eelgrass beds), estuarine wetlands, palustrine 

wetlands, agricultural grasslands, riparian forest 

communities, dunemat/foredune grasslands, dune 

swales, dune riparian/swamp forest communities, 

and coniferous dune forest. The topography of 

the area immediately east of the coastal plain is 

characterized by steep hills and narrow valleys. 

Vegetation of these uplands consists of dense forests 

of redwood, Sitka spruce, and Douglas-fir.

The majority of land within the refuge boundary 

was tidally influenced. Vast expanses of wetlands 

around the bay, including lands within the Humboldt 

Bay NWR boundary, were historically diked to 

prevent tidal water exchange and to convert salt 

marsh to pasture to allow for cattle grazing and 

other agricultural practices. Many changes in the 

topography, hydrology, soils, and plant species 

composition have taken place since these lands 

were diked. Freshwater marsh was historically rare 

within the Humboldt Bay area, however, freshwater 

wetlands are an extremely valuable habitat type 

for a large variety of birds, and contribute to the 

abundance of wildlife found at the Humboldt Bay 

NWR specifically and around the bay generally. 

Other areas that provide freshwater marsh habitats 

include the Arcata Marsh and several of the CA 

Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Areas. 

Both estuarine (tidally Influenced) wetlands and 

freshwater wetlands have been reduced by over 90% 

throughout California.

3.2.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Units

The refuge consists of nine units located within 

Humboldt Bay (five units in South Bay and four 

units in North Bay) and two units to the west of 

the Mad River Slough (dune units) (Figure 5). The 

South Bay units include Table Bluff, South Bay, 

Hookton Slough, Salmon Creek, and White Slough, 

while the North Bay units include Indian Island, 

Eureka Slough, and Jacoby Creek. The Sand 

Islands in northern Humboldt Bay are within the 

Humboldt Bay NWR boundary, although no interest 

in the Island’s lands have been acquired by the 

Service. These islands are likely at elevations below 

3.15 feet above mean sea level, and therefore, under 

the management of HBHRC District. Three of the 

low elevation islands are man-made of dredge spoil. 

The refuge has no plans for the refuge to acquire 

these islands. As with other private lands within the 

boundary, because they are not owned in fee title by 

the Service, no management actions are proposed. 

The approved refuge boundary encompasses over 

9,500 acres, of which ~ 3,379 are owned in fee title 

by the Service (Table 2). 

South Bay Units

Table Bluff Unit. The Table Bluff Unit, comprising 

~168 acres, is located in the southwest corner of 

Humboldt Bay (Figure 6). Former salt marsh on the 

site was diked around 1914 to create agricultural 

grasslands (Pickart 2005b). The Table Bluff Unit 

was added to the Humboldt Bay NWR in 1981. The 

pastures were of low quality and the long-term 

plans were to restore this tract to tidal exchange. 

Leaky tidegates had created a mosquito nuisance, 

and in the summer of 1984 the dike was breached in 

two places by the Service to alleviate the mosquito 

problem. The unit now includes a continuum of 

mudflat to dune habitats. 

The Table Bluff Unit has unique wetland vegetation 

composition and patterns for Humboldt Bay, 

resulting from its history of diking and subsequent 

breaching (Pickart 2005b). The gradient of salt to 

freshwater is very well defined across the northern 

arm of the Table Bluff Unit, from palustrine dune 

wetlands on the west to estuarine salt marsh on 

the east. The presence of the Little Salmon Creek 

fault, responsible for the juxtaposition of the bluff 

and dune/estuary habitats, also contributes to the 

uniqueness of the site.

In 2004 the Table Bluff Unit was surveyed for rare 

plants and to classify its vegetation communities 

(Pickart 2005b). Seven wetland vegetation types 

were characterized and mapped. Cordgrass, 

salt marsh, and two of the three brackish marsh 

subtypes (salt rush and mixed brackish marsh) are 

estuarine wetlands, subjected to regular or irregular 

tidal inundation and occurring on primarily organic 

soils (although there is much intergrading of sand 

and peat), while freshwater/brackish marsh and 

agricultural grassland, shrub swale, and herbaceous 

swale are palustrine wetlands on primarily sandy 

dune substrates.

The Table Bluff Unit freshwater and brackish 

marsh communities include mixed brackish 

marsh dominated by salt rush (Juncus leseurii), 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 33

Figure 5. Refuge boundary and management units for Humboldt Bay NWR.

Eureka

Arcata

Arcata

Bay

Pacific

Ocean

101

255

South

Bay

Lanphere

Dunes 

Unit

Ma-le'l

Dunes 

Unit

Jacoby

Creek 

Unit

Eureka 

Slough 

Unit

Indian 

Island

Unit

White

Slough

Table Unit

Bluff

Unit

Salmon

Creek

Unit

Hookton

Slough

Unit

South

Bay

Unit

Approved Boundary

Humboldt Bay

National Wildlife Refuge

OR

NV

CA

Area of Enlargement

Figure 5. Location Map

1 0 1 0.5 Miles
34 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3 Habitat Type Acreage by Unit Lanphere

Dunes

Ma-le’l

Dunes

Jacoby 

Creek

Eureka

Slough

White 

Slough

Salmon

Creek

Hookton

Slough

Table

Bluff

South 

Bay

Total Acreage 

by Habitat Type

Beachgrass 3 7 10

Brackish marsh (Native) 3 7 35 42 84 14 185

Coniferous Forest 111 71 182

Dune mat with beachgrass 11 11

Dune mat 74 40 114

Dune swale 46 21 33 100

Freshwater marsh 2 218 50 10 280

Infrastructure 63 63

Tidal flats/slough channels/eelgrass 206 62 823 1091

Non-native Brackish marsh 12 339 12 363

Open sand 88 91 179

Open water (ponds, ditches) 30 30

Riparian forest/ Swamp 19 14 2 52 15 3 105

Salt marsh 9 37 73 86 11 36 26 35 313

Short-grass Pasture 10 270 51 331

Total Acreage By Unit 353 295 73 86 70 1075 444 160 823 3379

Table 2. Habitat type and acreage by unit.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 35

Figure 6. Terrestrial vegetation of White Slough, Salmon Creek, Hookton Slough, and Table Bluff units.
36 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

silverweed, and spear-leaved saltbrush (Atriplex 

triangularis); salt rush marsh dominated by salt 

rush); and slough sedge marsh dominated by slough 

sedge (Carex obnupta) with seacoast angelica 

(Angelica lucida).

Two types of salt marsh exist on the Table Bluff 

Unit: those dominated by non-native dense-flowered 

cordgrass; and those co-dominated by native species. 

Native salt marsh is characterized by 100 percent 

cover, comprised of saltgrass (Distichlis spicata; 

25–50 percent), pickleweed (Salicornia virginica; 

25–50 percent), jaumea (Jaumea carnosa; 5–25 

percent), minor Lyngbye’s sedge (Carex lyngbyei), 

salt rush, sand spurrey (Spergularia macrotheca), 

and seaside arrow-grass (Triglochin maritima). 

This vegetation falls within the “mixed marsh” type 

described by Eicher (1987), characteristic of high 

elevation marshes.

South Bay Unit. The approved boundary of the 

South Bay Unit includes almost all the natural 

tidelands in South Bay but excludes the navigation 

channel and turning basin along the developed 

portion of the bay between King Salmon and Fields 

Landing. The acquired area is ~823 acres in size 

and consists of deeper channels which convey the 

tidal flows, mudflats that are seasonally covered with 

algae that provide crucial nutrients to the bay’s food 

web, and eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds, which 

are a key habitat and the food for many marine 

invertebrates, fish species, and waterfowl, especially 

Pacific brant. The unit is tidally influenced and 

covered by water for some portion of every day.

Hookton Slough Unit. The Hookton Slough Unit 

is ~444 acres of low, diked, former tidelands and 

tidal slough (Figure 6). The dike greatly prohibits 

tidal exchange but it also protects low spots on 

the county-owned Hookton Road from flooding. 

Prior to acquisition by the Service, this area was 

managed as agricultural grassland for cattle 

grazing. Upon acquisition, grassland management 

ceased and the area has been allowed to revert to 

seasonal and semipermanently flooded wetlands. 

The unit is split by an interior dike that formerly 

provided landowners access to houses, barns, and 

the slough. It now provides the public access to 

facilities including a hiking trail, boat dock, and 

vault toilets. The wetlands on either side of the dike 

receive seasonal freshwater input from drainage 

off Table Bluff and perennial freshwater input from 

springs. Both sides also receive limited tidal input 

by fish-friendly tidegates installed between 2003 

and 2007. The vegetation in this unit was mapped 

in 2006–2007. The wetlands east of the interior dike 

have transitioned to a fresh to brackish wetland 

gradient ranging from more brackish saltgrass to 

fresher cattail (Typha latifolia), marsh pennywort 

(Hydocotyle ranunculoides), and willow (Salix 

hookeriana). To the west of the dike, the lands were 

more aggressively drained and this area is more 

transitional, but also displays a fresh to brackish 

continuum.

Although shortened by diking, Hookton Slough is 

tidal and could provide improved habitat for many 

estuarine species, including juvenile salmonids and 

the endangered tidewater goby, if it could be better 

reconnected to adjacent wetlands and have habitat 

complexity added in the form of large woody debris. 

There are also two salt marsh islands that remain in 

the upstream end of Hookton Slough. Teal Island, 

a 90 acre island of salt marsh that was diked in the 

mid-1900s, is now just the eroding remains of the 

dike surrounding a large tidal mudflat.

Salmon Creek Unit. The Salmon Creek Unit is 

composed of a modified arrangement of dikes, 

ponds, diversion structures, ditches, and tidegates 

(Figure 6). Each structure plays a role in creating 

a mixture of habitat types. This entire 1,075-acre 

unit consists of diked former tidelands that were 

converted to agricultural grasslands for cattle 

grazing from the late 1800s through the late 1980s. 

This also included a complex of ranching structures 

(houses, barns, silos, etc.) built on-site that were 

either converted to refuge use or demolished 

after the FWS purchased the ranch in 1988. The 

perimeter dike of this tract of land also protects 

Highway 101, refuge buildings and infrastructure, 

and some adjacent private lands between this unit 

and the Hookton Slough Unit from tidal influence. 

Salmon Creek historically flowed through the 

middle of the Salmon Creek Unit and emptied 

into White Slough, but was diverted to Hookton 

Slough to maximize drainage, spread silt, and 

sub-irrigate agricultural grasslands. In 1993, 

refuge staff excavated a new serpentine channel 

for the lower end of Salmon Creek (from the first 

diversion structure to the Salmon Creek tidegate) 

and abandoned the straight-ditched channel. In 

addition, the Salmon Creek tidegate was modified 

to allow muted tidal wetland to develop and 

increase the passage of migrating salmonids. This 

muted condition extends to an area just beyond 

the Salmon Creek tidegate, an area known as the 

Salmon Creek Overflow. This area supports the 

largest pickleweed (Salicornia-dominated) marsh 

remaining in Humboldt Bay, and is one of the most 

important waterbird roosting and feeding areas on 

the Humboldt Bay NWR, likely because the area is 

tidally influenced and is flooded throughout the year 

with brackish water (Mini 2003). 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 37

Much of the east side of the Salmon Creek unit 

consists of improved agricultural grassland that 

is managed with a grazing and haying program 

accomplished through a cooperative agreement 

established with local ranchers. Grasslands are 

dominated by velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), 

Mediterranean ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), and 

tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), with lower areas 

covered with silverweed and spikerush (Eleocharis 

macrostachya). The Salmon Creek Unit provides 

important foraging and roosting habitat for Aleutian 

cackling geese, tundra swans, and other waterfowl, 

shorebirds, wading birds, and many other wildlife 

species. 

White Slough Unit. The White Slough Unit totals 

~70 acres in size and, like the other units, is diked 

former tidal marsh used for pasture (Figure 6). 

The management of this unit is constrained by 

its proximity to the railroad and Highway 101 

(including the Tompkins Hill overpass) which 

bracket and split it into four different cells. There 

is a perennial spring upstream of this unit that 

contributes a small source of fresh water through 

the main cell and ultimately out to the bay. Brackish 

marsh constitutes the greatest acreage on the White 

Slough Unit. Vegetation types present include ~60 

acres of brackish marsh dominated by salt grass, 

10 acres of salt marsh dominated by cordgrass, one 

acre of freshwater riparian/swamp, and 6 acres of 

freshwater marsh/agricultural wetland. The dikes 

were in poor condition when the land was acquired 

by the refuge and have not been maintained because 

this area was always expected to ultimately be 

allowed to revert to salt marsh. 

North Bay Units

Indian Island Unit. Indian Island, completely 

within the approved refuge boundary, is located 

in central Humboldt Bay. It contains ~205 acres 

of salt marsh, the largest contiguous stand of salt 

marsh remaining in the bay (Pickart et al. 2006). 

This tract of land was split by Highway 255 in the 

1970s. A three-acre grove of mostly non-native 

trees (Cupressus macrocarpa and Eucalyptus 

globulus) contains a rookery (nesting habitat for 

several species of egrets and herons) that has been 

recognized by ornithologists, tribes, agencies, and 

bird enthusiasts for decades (Pickart et al. 2006). 

The rookery area is currently owned by the City 

of Eureka and the entire island is designated as an 

environmentally sensitive habitat area by the City of 

Eureka’s General Plan. 

Indian Island is an important cultural resource for 

the Wiyot Tribe, Blue Lake Rancheria, and Bear 

River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, and was the 

site of a massacre, at the hands of EuroAmerican 

settlers, in 1860. The northern portion of the island 

was purchased by the Table Bluff Reservation in 

2000. The North Coast Indian Development Council, 

working closely with the Wiyot Tribe, the City of 

Eureka, and the State Coastal Conservancy, is 

currently preparing a resource enhancement plan 

for the northernmost 60 acres of the island.

Refuge fee title ownership on the unit currently 

consists of two relatively small tracts, together 

totaling less than 2 acres in size. 

Eureka Slough Unit. The Eureka Slough Unit 

is ~86 acres in size and preserves the relatively 

small remnant of the slough’s historic salt marsh 

occurring west of Highway 101 (Figure 7). The 

marsh is dominated almost entirely by invasive 

cordgrass. 

Jacoby Creek Unit. The Jacoby Creek Unit is 

~73 acres in size and is located on the eastern 

shore of north Humboldt Bay (Figure 7). There is 

a significant amount of high elevation, native salt 

marsh vegetation, classified locally as mixed marsh 

(Pickart 2005a). 

Salt marsh vegetation on the Jacoby Creek 

Unit consists of jaumea, saltgrass, pickleweed, 

seaside arrow-grass, arrow-grass (T. concinnum), 

coastal gum-plant (Grindelia stricta var. stricta), 

and western marsh-rosemary (Limonium 

californicum). Along the edges of the Jacoby Creek 

channel are higher areas supporting coastal tufted 

hair-grass (Deschampsia caespitosa), and along the 

creek itself is Lyngbye’s sedge. Non-native invasive 

dense-flowered cordgrass occurs mostly in very 

dense discrete stands, which appear to be correlated 

well with lower elevations and tidal creeks (Pickart 

2005a). The large cordgrass stands at the western 

edge of the marsh probably colonized relatively 

recent sediment accretions, rather than displacing 

historic salt marsh.

The high elevation salt marshes of Jacoby Creek 

Unit provide habitat for the two rare salt marsh 

species Point Reyes bird’s-beak and Humboldt Bay 

owl’s-clover. A previous 1999–2000 mapping of these 

two species show large populations were present 

at that time. Although no subsequent mapping or 

monitoring has been done, qualitative observations 

indicate that these populations are still extant 

(Pickart 2005a). 

Dune Units

Ma-le’l and Lanphere Dunes Units. To the 

northwest of Humboldt Bay, adjacent to the Mad 

River Slough, are the Lanphere Dunes Unit and 

Ma-le’l Dunes Unit. The dune units are located on 
38 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

Figure 7. Terrestrial vegetation of Lanphere Dunes, Ma-le’l Dunes, Jacoby Creek, and Eureka 

Slough units.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 39

the upper North Spit of Humboldt Bay (Figure 7). 

These units contain ~648 acres consisting mainly of 

coastal dune and salt marsh habitats. The Lanphere 

Dunes Unit contains arguably the most pristine 

remaining dune system in the western U.S. This unit 

contains one of only a few remaining areas of the 

globally endangered foredune grassland community.

The biodiversity and resource values of the dune 

units have been well documented. At the local level 

(through the Humboldt County Coastal Plan) and 

at the eco-regional level (through The Nature 

Conservancy) the dunes have been identified as a 

high priority for conservation. At the national level 

a northern dune unit site is part of a dune system 

that was nominated for Natural National Landmark 

status. The dune units are also significant as 

stopover sites for neo-tropical migrants. 

The dune mat plant community provides habitat for 

two federally listed plant species, Humboldt Bay 

wallflower and beach layia, and the open sand dunes 

provide potential nesting habitat for the threatened 

snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus). In 

addition to dune mat and foredune grassland, the 

nearshore dunes support seasonal dune wetlands 

(dune swales). Between the nearshore and stabilized 

forested dunes is a large sand sheet. The older 

stabilized dunes are colonized by red alder (Alnus 

rubra) riparian forest, and maritime forest of beach 

pine (Pinus contorta ssp. contorta), Sitka spruce, 

and grand fir (Abies grandis) (Pickart and Barbour 

2007). East of the forest are estuarine salt marsh, 

brackish marsh, mudflats, and eelgrass beds. 

The interspersion of freshwater wetlands, uplands, 

and estuary is responsible for the wealth of diversity 

found within a relatively small area of these units 

(see Figure 7). The nearshore freshwater wetlands, 

known as dune swales, are seasonal and depend on 

winter rainfall that raises the water table. A few 

permanent marshes in the backdunes provide water 

for wildlife year-round. Some swales are dominated 

by Hooker’s willow thickets, which are important as 

habitat and forage for migrating bird species, as well 

as resident mammals and amphibians (Sendak 2008).

3.2.3 Humboldt Bay NWR Plant Communities 

and Habitats

Due to the rapidly changing nature of the National 

Vegetation Classification, the following summary 

of vegetation types relies on broader habitat and 

physiognomic distinctions. Vegetation sampling was 

carried out between 2005 and 2007 on the refuge, 

and alliance/association level classification and 

description are still being finalized. Plant taxonomy 

for California is also undergoing major revisions. 

All plant nomenclature follows the Jepson Manual

(Hickman 1993). Vegetation and habitat types are 

divided into three categories below: estuarine, 

palustrine wetland, and upland. A species list for 

vascular plants can be found in Appendix J. For 

further information on special status or protected 

species (listed species), see Appendix E: Final 

Environmental Assessment (chapter 4, Special 

Status Species section); Appendix L: Locally 

Occurring Special Status Species; and Appendix I: 

Compliance with the Federal Endangered Species 

Act. 

Estuarine Plant Communities and Habitats

Eelgrass Beds. With nearly 3,015 acres, Humboldt 

Bay has the ninth largest eelgrass beds on the west 

coast (Wyllie-Echeverria et al. 2003). Eelgrass 

beds are among the most productive habitats in 

an estuarine ecosystem. They provide habitat for 

marine animals and are a substrate for epiphytes 

(plants) and epizoites (animals), small organisms 

that attach to the leaves (Cooke 1997). 

Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is considered an 

important constituent of estuarine ecology, providing 

trophic support, improving water clarity, and 

functioning as refugia and nurseries (Shaughnessy 

et al. 2007). Eelgrass in Humboldt Bay has been 

shown to structure the size of some invertebrates 

such as Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) 

(Williamson 2006).

 

The non-native eelgrass Zostera japonica was 

identified in Humboldt Bay in 2002, and manual 

removal efforts were begun in 2003 by U.C. Sea 

Grant. Monitoring for new infestations continue 

as eradication proceeds, and a relatively large 

Humboldt Bay 

Wallflower
40 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

occurrence was located in the Eel River 

estuary in 2008 (Kirsten Ramey pers. 

comm.). Zostera japonica introduction 

impacts have been documented elsewhere, 

including alterations of physical habitat and 

the richness and densities of resident fauna 

(Posey 1988); and changes to water columnbenthos nutrient fluxes (Larned 2003) .

Intertidal Mud Flats (not mapped). 

Intertidal habitats are the most widespread 

habitat in Humboldt Bay, and are very 

productive in terms of the abundance and 

diversity of species they support. The 

intertidal zone contains a large variety of the 

phytoplankton and zooplankton that form the 

basis of food webs that support fish, mollusks, 

crustaceans, other invertebrates, birds, and 

mammals. This habitat supports abundant 

micro and macro algae growth and eelgrass 

at higher elevations. 

Macroscopic algal beds form as ephemeral 

communities on the intertidal mud flats. Two 

important species on the high intertidal flats are 

Enteromorpha sp. and Ulva sp. Algal beds are 

difficult to map because they are both ephemeral 

and spatially unstable. However, they are considered 

an important source of primary productivity for the 

estuary (Barnhart et al. 1992).

Brackish Marsh (tidally influenced). Brackish 

and estuarine marshes in the Salmon Creek area 

are behind dikes and may not represent natural 

(pre-diked) brackish marsh vegetation. Native 

dominants include seacoast bulrush (Scirpus 

maritimus), coastal tufted hair-grass (Deschampsia 

caespitosa), saltgrass, and salt marsh sand spurrey 

(Spergularia marina). Newly disturbed (excavated 

or disked) areas become seasonally dominated by 

invasive creeping saltbush or brass buttons (Cotula 

coronopifolia).

In the dune units and at the Table Bluff unit, 

brackish marsh occurs in its natural state as a linear 

strip of vegetation between the upland dunes and 

the salt marsh (although species composition at 

Table Bluff has been altered by past diking, now 

breached). These brackish marshes are irregularly 

flooded estuarine intertidal marshes. Dominant 

species include salt rush, seaside arrow-grass, 

hard-stemmed tule (Scirpus acutus) and Lyngbye’s 

sedge. 

Salt Marsh. The undiked salt marshes of the refuge 

are found in Hookton and White Slough in South 

Bay, and Mad River and Eureka sloughs and at 

the mouth of Jacoby Creek in North Bay. Island 

marshes are characterized by the highest tidal 

elevations and support the most diverse salt marsh 

plant assemblages. This community, classified as 

“Mixed Marsh” by Eicher (1987), is co-dominated by 

salt grass, pickleweed and jaumea with associated 

species arrow-grass, marsh rosemary, salt marsh 

plantain (Plantago maritima), dodder (Cuscuta 

salina), and sand spurrey. The rare Point Reyes 

bird’s beak and Humboldt Bay owl’s clover are 

found in some of the largest densities bay-wide on 

salt marsh islands on refuge units.

Invasive cordgrass now dominates most of 

Humboldt Bay’s salt marshes. In medium elevation 

marshes it forms a monotype and displaces native 

species. This type was classified by Eicher (1987) as 

Spartina marsh. Experimental eradication efforts 

have cleared Spartina densiflora from most of the 

salt marshes in the Lanphere and Ma-le’l Units.

Salt Marsh Behind Dikes. Seasonally flooded 

salt marshes form with estuarine influence from 

leaking tidegates or frequent dike overtopping. This 

community is dominated by pickleweed but also 

present are salt grass and invasive dense-flowered 

cordgrass.

Palustrine Wetland Plant Communities and 

Habitats

Open Water/Ponds. Open water habitats are those 

areas where water is permanent and generally too 

deep to support emergent vegetation. Emergent 

vegetation often forms a ring of vegetation around 

open water habitats. Floating and submergent 

vegetation may also be present, including 

pondweeds (Potamogeton pectinatus), mosquito 

Eelgrass. Photo: © Jeff Robinson
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 41

fern (Azolla spp.) and duckweed (Lemna spp.). In 

brackish areas, such as drainage channel bottoms, 

wigeon-grass (Ruppia maritima) may be present.

Shortgrass Pasture (non-native). Most of 

the refuge’s seasonal freshwater wetland 

areas were formerly salt marsh until they 

were diked and converted to agricultural use. 

Vegetation currently occurring in these areas is 

dominated by Mediterranean ryegrass (Lolium 

multiflorum), and common velvetgrass, with 

localized dominance by tall fescue, and bird’s-foot 

trefoil (Lotus corniculatus). Associated species 

include silverweed, creeping bentgrass (Agrostis 

stolonifera), and white clover (Trifolium repens) 

(Pickart 2006). Weedy species such as bullthistle 

(Cirsium vulgare), Canada thistle (Cirsium 

arvense), bristly oxtongue (Picris echioides), and 

lesser hawkbit (Leontodon taraxacoides) are also 

found in the agricultural grassland.

Freshwater and Brackish Marsh. Freshwater 

to slightly brackish marshes occur on Salmon 

Creek, Table Bluff, Hookton Slough, White Slough, 

Lanphere Dunes, and Ma-le’l Dunes units. These 

habitats vary greatly in size, but are either springfed or seasonally-flooded and highly productive 

for wildlife food. Emergent vegetation in these 

marshes, including cattails and bulrush, can range 

from mostly open water to almost 100 percent cover. 

These marshes are generally at least seasonally 

brackish due to the high salinity of underlying 

soils and/or salt spray. However, they differ from 

estuarine brackish marshes in having no current 

tidal influence.

Native freshwater marshes on the Humboldt Bay 

NWR are dominated by one or more of the following 

species: water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), 

marsh pennywort (Hydrocotyle ranunculoides), salt 

rush, small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), 

cattail, silverweed, common spikerush, short-awn 

foxtail (Alopecurus aequalis), or pondweed. 

The invasive species creeping bentgrass is 

abundant to dominant in fresh to brackish marshes 

in south bay units (Pickart 2006). Other invasive 

species that require monitoring and control in 

freshwater /brackish marsh include large bird’sfoot trefoil (Lotus uliginosus), woodland groundsel 

(Senecio sylvaticus), reed canarygrass (Phalaris 

arundinacea), fireweed (Erechtites glomerata), 

bristly ox-tongue, spiny sow thistle (Sonchus asper), 

and Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica) (Pickart 

2006). 

Riparian Swamp Habitat. Riparian swamp 

habitat communities are seasonally flooded, 

wooded palustrine wetlands dominated by 

coastal willow or red alder, with an understory 

including California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), 

salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), small-fruited 

bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), coastal wood 

fern (Dryopteris arguta), and coast hedge-nettle 

(Stachys chamissonis). Associated species include 

red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), poison oak 

(Toxicodendron diversilobum), wax myrtle (Myrica 

californica), and cascara (Rhamnus purshianus).

Non-native invasive plant species that require 

monitoring and control in freshwater swamp/

riparian forest habitat include; English ivy, poison 

hemlock (Conium maculatum), reed canarygrass, 

periwinkle (Vinca major), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus 

globulus), and Himalayan blackberry. 

Dune Swales. Dune swales, which occur on all dune 

units, are seasonal freshwater marshes and shrub 

swamps. Common dominants are slough sedge, 

spike rush, silverweed, Hooker’s willow, and beach 

Dune swale. Photo: Andrea Pickart Dune mat. Photo: Andrea Pickart
42 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

pine. Transitional areas between swales and dune 

mat can be quite extensive due to annual variation 

in flooding and saturation extent. While classified 

as seasonal wetlands, they include many facultative 

dune mat species (Pickart and Barbour 2007). The 

dominant species is Brewer’s rush (Juncus breweri). 

Invasive species in dune swales include rabbit’sfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), loosestrife 

(Lythrum hyssopifola), pennyroyal (Mentha 

pulegium) and yellow glandweed (Parentucellia 

viscosa). 

Upland Plant Communities and Habitats

Foredune Grassland (not differentiated from dune 

mat in maps). This endangered community occurs 

only on dunes of the Pacific coast of North America. 

The characteristic species of this community is 

the native dune grass Leymus mollis, but largeflowered sand dune blue grass (Poa macrantha) 

can be common to dominant and associated species 

include a number of forbs such as yellow sandverbena (Abronia latifolia), beach pea (Lathyrus 

littoralis), seaside daisy (Erigeron glaucus), coast 

buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium), and beach 

morning-glory Calystegia soldanella (Pickart 2008). 

Foredune grasslands are so-called because Leymus 

mollis is generally confined to the upper beach and 

the first rise, or “foredune.” Typically, foredune 

grassland is found on relatively high-energy sandy 

coastlines on ocean beaches.

Until the introduction and spread of the invasive 

European beachgrass, Leymus mollis was the 

dominant grass of northern California’s foredunes. 

Over the past century, European beachgrass 

displaced native dune grass over much of our 

coastline. The Lanphere Dunes is one of only a few 

remaining healthy populations of native beachgrass 

south of Alaska (Pickart and Barbour 2007).

Dune Mat. Dune mat floristically intergrades with 

foredune grassland, which is described above. 

The boundary between them is transitional, 

occurring near the crest of the primary foredune 

if a continuous foredune ridge occurs. Behind the 

foredune the dune mat community occurs on dune 

ridges aligned parallel to the northwest prevailing 

wind. Native dune mat communities are diverse with 

variable localized dominant species. Common and 

abundant species include dune goldenrod (Solidago 

spathulata), large-flowered sand-dune blue grass, 

beach-bur (Ambrosia chamissonis), beach pea, 

coast buckwheat, coastal sagewort (Artemisia 

pycnocephala), yellow sand verbena, common 

yarrow (Achillea millefolium), beach strawberry 

(Fragaria chiloensis), and seaside daisy (Pickart 

and Barbour 2007).

Dune mat communities support two ESAlisted endangered plant species; Humboldt Bay 

wallflower and beach layia; two CNPS List 1B 

(rare, threatened or endangered in California 

and elsewhere) species; dark-eyed gilia (Gilia 

millefoliata) and pink sand verbena; and a CNPS 

list 4 species (plants with limited distribution), 

American glehnia (Glehnia littoralis ssp. leiocarpa).

Dune mat, like foredune grassland, has been 

significantly threatened by non-native European 

beachgrass. In addition, non-native species such as 

iceplant, yellow bush lupine, and several invasive 

annual grasses including ripgut brome (Bromus 

diandrus), rattlesnake grass (Briza maxima), 

barren fescue (Vulpia bromoides), and European 

hairgrass (Aira spp.) also impact the native plant 

communities and require active management. 

The dune mat communities on the Lanphere Dunes 

and Ma-le’l Dunes units harbor rare biotic soil 

crusts, also called cryptogamic crusts. The dominant 

non-vascular plant in local biotic soils crusts are the 

mosses Didymodon vineali and Homalothecium 

arenarium (Glavich 2000). Associated lichens 

include Leptogium intermedium and Cladonia 

pyxidata. 

Coniferous Dune Forest. Coniferous dune forest 

communities occur on the Lanphere Dunes and 

Ma-le’l Dunes units east of the large sheet of 

moving dunes, on relatively older and stabilized 

portions of the dune units. The coniferous dune 

forest is a lush productive environment harboring 

Yellow Sand Verbena
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 43

over 300 species of fungi, lichen, and mosses. 

The forest canopy is dominated by Sitka spruce 

and beach pine, with grand fir, Douglas-fir, and 

madrone (Arbutus menziesii) subdominant. The 

forest understory occurs as two distinct phases. A 

dense shrub understory is dominated by evergreen 

huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), silk tassel 

(Garrya elliptica), and salal (Gaultheria shallon), 

while more open pine-dominated stands have a 

low carpet of bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) 

with reindeer lichen (Cladina portentosa ssp. 

pacifica). Other common understory species include 

twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), false lily-of-thevalley (Maianthemum dilitatum), yerba buena 

(Satureja douglasii), vanilla grass (Hierochloe 

occidentalis), sword fern (Polystichium minitum), 

leather fern (Polypodon scouleri), and the orchids 

rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera oblongifolia), 

elegant rein orchid (Piperia elegans), and rein 

orchid (Piperia tranversa) (Leppig and Pickart 

2005). A variety of nonvascular plants are found in 

the forest both on the forest floor and the canopy, 

including broom moss (Dicranum scoparium), cattail moss (Isothecium myosuroides), beaked moss 

(Kindbergia oregona and K. praelonga), flat-leaved 

liverwort (Radula complanata), and net lichen 

(Ramalina menziesii) (Pickart and Barbour 2007). 

Open Sand. This habitat consists of areas of 

moving sand. The few vegetated areas consist of 

small hummocks of early successional species such 

as yellow sand verbena and sea rocket (Cakile 

maritima). The ESA threatened and California 

Species of Concern snowy plover may eventually 

breed in open sand areas of the dune units, but is not 

known to at this time. 

Non-Native Dune Communities. Portions of 

the Table Bluff Unit support invasive European 

beachgrass, yellow bush lupine, and iceplant. 

Restoration of these communities to dune mat is 

needed, following techniques used at the northern 

dune units. These types are mapped as European 

beachgrass or dune mat/beachgrass in Alternative 

maps due to their localized nature.

Upland Dikes. Upland dikes surround much of 

the Salmon Creek, White Slough, Table Bluff, and 

Hookton Slough units. They are dominated by 

weedy grasses, and in some places by the native 

shrub coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis). Dike 

tops are regularly mowed in spring and summer. 

Perimeter dikes around the Hookton Slough and 

Salmon Creek Units are mostly armored on the bay 

side with some type of rip-rap (generally old broken 

concrete or medium to large quarry rock). All other 

dikes on the refuge are earthen and serve as roads 

and/or trails.

Non-Native Exotic Forests (not mapped). 

Approximately 20 acres of the Salmon Creek Unit is 

almost entirely dominated by non-native blue gum 

eucalyptus. There is little understory diversity in 

this habitat, due to competition by gum trees and 

the allelopathic effect of their leaves. Gum trees are 

also highly flammable (USFWS 2004).

Dune-forest ecotone.

Photo: Andrea Pickart
44 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

3.2.4. Overview of Humboldt Bay NWR Fish and 

Wildlife

The Humboldt Bay NWR and surrounding 

environments provide important habitats for fish, 

wildlife and plants.

The primary reason the refuge was originally 

established was because of the area’s importance as 

stopover habitat for migratory birds. 

Humboldt Bay is considered an internationally 

significant area for migratory birds due to the sheer 

number of birds that depend on it in the fall, winter, 

and spring. Important bird groups that depend on 

the bay include waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, 

raptors, and passerines. Many of the birds using the 

bay area frequent lands within the existing refuge 

boundary on a daily basis.

Many species of birds have evolved complex 

migratory behavior, resulting in annual visitation 

to different parts of their ranges. The vast majority 

of bird species found on the Humboldt Bay NWR 

utilize refuge habitats during particular seasons to 

fulfill needs during migration (see Appendix F). A 

much smaller number of bird species use various 

refuge habitats for the breeding season or are yearround residents. Humboldt Bay’s immense habitat 

value for birds is due, in part, to its proximity 

to a diverse array of nearby habitats including 

tidal marsh (Mad River and Eel River estuaries), 

restored freshwater marsh (HBNWR, CDFG 

Wildlife Areas, Arcata Marsh), eelgrass beds, wet 

agricultural grasslands, willow thickets, and coastal 

dunes (Evens and Tait 2005).

More than 50 different species of mammals and 

a wide variety of reptiles and amphibians are 

known to utilize Humboldt Bay habitats. Mammal 

species commonly found in bay ecosystems include 

river otter (Lontra canadensis), black-tailed deer, 

long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), and gray 

fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Species much 

less commonly seen include black bear (Ursus 

americanus), mountain lion (Felis concolor), 

ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), and porcupine 

(Erethizon dorsatum). The dune forests typically 

have no mammals larger than the gray fox, although 

occasional deer stray into the forest.

The diversity of habitats around the bay support 

many amphibians and reptiles, including a variety of 

frogs (red-legged and tree), salamanders, and snakes. 

In total, the bay provides habitat for ~95 species of 

fish, 41 of which contribute to sport or commercial 

fisheries or have contributed to those fisheries in 

the past. Salmon Creek provides a passage corridor 

or habitat for various life stages of steelhead, Coho 

salmon, Chinook salmon, and coastal cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki), which are all Federal 

and/or State listed species. Tidewater goby, another 

federally listed species of fish, use the edges of the 

bay, particularly brackish areas with little to no 

current.

Benthic invertebrate communities in marshes and 

the bay, are dominated by gastropods, crustaceans, 

and polychaetes (Barnhart et al. 1992). Intertidal 

flats support eelgrass beds that provide cover and 

contribute to the invertebrate food source and are 

important spawning and feeding areas for sport and 

commercial species. 

Invertebrates are abundant and diverse in the 

dunes system. Gordon (1984) identified 43 species 

of bees from six families at the Lanphere Dunes 

Unit. This unique assemblage of solitary nesting 

bees, including silver bees (Habropoda miserabilis) 

and leaf cutter bees (Megachile wheeleri), serve as 

crucial pollinators for dune plants (Nyoka 2004). 

3.2.5. Humboldt Bay NWR Wildlife

Migratory and Resident Birds

Fall migration begins as early as July for some 

shorebirds, while the peak of waterfowl migrants 

reaching the Humboldt Bay area is September 

through November. Wintering and spring staging 

birds are at their greatest numbers from November 

to April. Dozens of species of waterbirds use the bay 

from July through April, with most beginning to 

migrate back to their northern breeding grounds by 

sometime in April.

Over 260 different bird species have been 

documented throughout the vicinity of the bay 

(Harris 1996, Ralph et al. 1998). Nelson (1989) 

estimated ~four million bird use-days annually for 

the South Humboldt Bay alone. On a typical winter 

or spring day, it is not unusual for more than 100,000 

birds to use the bay as a feeding or resting site. 

According to WHSRN (2007), over 230 species of 

birds have been found within the refuge including 

over 31 species of waterfowl numbering ~70,000 

throughout the winter. The migratory and overwintering shorebird population generally exceeds 

100,000 birds from 34 species. Among the birds 

heavily dependent upon the bay and associated 

seasonal wetlands are willet, marbled godwit, dunlin, 

least (Calidris minutilla) and western sandpiper, 

Pacific brant, Aleutian cackling geese, tundra swans, 

American wigeon (Anas americana), greater scaup 

(Aythya marila), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), 

surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata), green-winged 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 45

teal (Anas crecca), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), 

northern pintail (Anas acuta), great (Casmerodius 

albus) and snowy (Egretta thula) egret, great blue 

heron (Ardea herodias), and black-crowned night 

heron (Nycticorax nycticorax). Humboldt Bay is the 

northernmost wintering area on the Pacific coast for 

significant numbers of long-billed curlews, marbled 

godwits, and willets. Over a million shorebirds 

migrate through the Humboldt Bay area each year 

(WHSRN 2007). 

The bay area is also a very important area for 

hundreds of passerine bird species, especially the 

dune and riparian habitats, which provide important 

food resources during migration (Ralph et al. 

1998). In the dunes, passerine bird use and nesting 

is concentrated in the forest, with lesser use of 

the swales. During winter and migration periods 

the dune ridges are also frequented by red-tailed 

hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), short-eared owls (Asio 

flammeus), white-tailed kites (Elanus leucurus), 

and other raptors, because of the many rodents that 

occur there and provide a primary source of prey. 

The upper beach is an important feeding habitat 

for migratory and resident shorebirds such as the 

threatened western snowy plover (Charadrius 

alexandrinus) and sanderlings (Calidris alba). In 

addition, recently de-listed species, such as the bald 

eagle, peregrine falcon, and Aleutian cackling geese, 

utilize refuge and bay habitats.

Waterfowl

The Humboldt Bay watershed is considered the 

most important wintering waterfowl habitat 

between San Francisco Bay and the Columbia 

River (PCJV 2004). Many species of waterfowl 

use habitats on Humboldt Bay NWR, particularly 

for resting and foraging over winter and spring 

during their annual migration through the bay area. 

Seasonally common waterfowl that use refuge/

bay wetlands and agricultural grasslands during 

migration include northern pintail, American 

wigeon, green-winged teal, Pacific brant, Aleutian 

cackling geese, tundra swan, white-winged scoter 

(Melanitta fusca), surf scoter, and red-breasted 

merganser (Mergus serrator). Several waterfowl 

species also nest on the refuge including western 

Canada geese, mallard, cinnamon teal (Anas 

cyanoptera), and gadwall (Anas strepera). 

Pacific Brant

Pacific brant are small dark geese that migrate 

long distances to their primary wintering areas in 

coastal Mexico which are typically characterized by 

an abundance of sea grasses, (especially eelgrass, 

Zostera maritima) and certain marine algae (Reed 

et al. 1998). Eelgrass is the principal forage for 

Pacific brant and other herbivorous waterfowl. Each 

spring, eelgrass beds in Humboldt Bay attract the 

largest flocks of Pacific brant along the Pacific coast 

as the birds stopover during their migration from 

southern wintering sites to breeding grounds in the 

Arctic (Evens and Tait 2005). Humboldt Bay NWR 

is the southernmost in a chain of national wildlife 

refuges in the United States that provide habitat for 

most of the world’s population of Pacific brant. It is 

estimated that over 40 percent of the Pacific Flyway 

population of Pacific brant use Humboldt Bay as a 

migratory stopover in the spring, primarily to utilize 

eelgrass resources (PCJV 2004). The bay’s extensive 

eelgrass beds make it the most important Pacific 

brant wintering and migration site in California. The 

primary wintering areas for these geese is now the 

coastal lagoons in Baja and Pacific coastal Mexico. 

Peak counts of spring staging Pacific brant in 

Humboldt Bay were 20,000–40,000 from 1950–1977, 

declined to 10,000–15,000 in the 1980s, and has 

increased to 20,000–25,000 in the late 1990s (PFC 

2002). It is not uncommon for more than 10,000 

Pacific brant to be found on the South Bay alone 

from late February through mid-April (PCJV 2004).

Cackling Geese and Western Canada Geese

In 2004 the formerly broad Canada goose species 

was divided by the American Ornithologists Union 

into a group of large-bodied interior and southern 

range breeding subspecies, and a group of smallbodied tundra breeding subspecies. The members 

of the large-bodied group are still known as Canada 

geese (Branta canadensis), while the small-bodied 

group was given the name cackling geese (Branta 

hutchinsii) (Sibley 2007). Both Aleutian cackling 

geese and cackling geese (Branta hutchinsii 

minima), a separate small-bodied species that 

breeds on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta in Alaska 

and winters primarily in the Willamette Valley 

of Oregon, as well as the large-bodied western 

Canada geese, use the agricultural grasslands and 

freshwater wetlands on the Humboldt Bay NWR. 

Aleutian Cackling Goose

The original decline of the Aleutian cackling goose 

primarily resulted from the introduction of Arctic 

foxes (Alopex lagopus) and, to a lesser extent, red 

foxes (Vulpes vulpes) during the late 1800 and 

early 1900s to the Aleutian Islands for the purpose 

of developing a fur industry. Hunting throughout 

its range in the Pacific Flyway, especially on the 

migration and wintering range in California, as well 

as loss and alteration of habitat on its migration and 

wintering range, also contributed to the Aleutian 

cackling goose subspecies’ decline (USFWS 2001).

The formerly named Aleutian Canada goose 

(now called the Aleutian cackling goose) was first 

designated as an endangered species in the United 
46 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

States on March 11, 1967, under the Endangered 

Species Preservation Act of 1966 (see Abundance 

of Aleutian Cackling Geese; Preliminary Results). 

Over time, conservation initiatives from the Aleutian 

Canada Goose Recovery Program were instituted. 

These included removal of foxes from nesting sites, 

closing of Canada/cackling goose wintering and 

migration areas to hunting, translocation of wild 

geese caught in the Aleutians to other islands where 

foxes had been removed, and habitat conservation 

(PCJV 2004). As a result of such management 

actions, the Aleutian goose population began a 

steady recovery and the subspecies was reclassified 

as threatened on December 12, 1990. The goose 

was officially removed from the list of ESA-listed 

threatened and endangered species on March 20, 

2001. 

Aleutian geese typically arrive in California in midOctober each year. The majority of the population 

currently bypasses the north coast and goes right 

to their primary wintering areas in the Central 

Valley. However, since 2002, there has been a 

relatively small (~1500-5000) number of geese that 

spend fall and winter on the north coast. In about 

late December the geese wintering in the Central 

Valley begin moving north, and by mid-February 

most of the Aleutian goose population is located in 

northwestern California until they depart for the 

Aleutian Islands in mid-April.

As the goose population grew (Figure 8, Table 3) so 

did their impact on grasslands in Del Norte County. 

Beginning in 2001, the geese began frequenting 

Humboldt County more often, likely as a result of 

a combination of hazing in Del Norte County and 

continued population growth. As of 2004, Humboldt 

County began receiving the majority of Aleutian 

goose use on the northwest coast from January 

through April. A working group of landowners, 

biologists, and others have been meeting since 2002 

in efforts to manage this situation. It has been and 

likely will continue to be a contentious problem until 

managers can find a way to bring the population 

closer to the Pacific Flyway management goal of 

60,000. A sustainable harvest of the geese is now 

allowed under CDFG regulations. Beginning in 

spring 2007, CDFG allowed a late season (~2 weeks 

in late February and early March) on private lands 

only with the intent to “push” geese off private and 

onto public lands.

Western Canada Goose

These large geese are native to the Great Basin but 

were not historically found on the coast. However, 

CDFG, with assistance from the Northcoast 

Waterfowlers, relocated several hundred birds 

from the Reno, NV, area during the mid-1980s. 

Those birds have become local nesters and yearround residents with a current population of ~3000. 

Approximately 50–75 pairs nest on refuge lands each 

spring (which are closed to hunting at that time).

Tundra Swans

Tundra swans are abundant in the Pacific flyway. 

Tundra swans are a relatively long-lived species that 

Aleutian cackling geese. Photo: © Red Jioras
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 47

Todd A. Sanders, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management; 27 April 2009

Aleutian cackling geese (Branta hutchinsii leucopareia) were listed as an endangered population in 1967, 

downgraded to threatened status in 1990 and they were removed from protection under the endangered species 

act in 2001. Accurate determination of population status continues to be a priority for management agencies 

because of the population’s past listing as endangered, the species status as a game bird, and because population 

expansion has resulted in depredation complaints. Breeding population inventories have never been considered 

a practical means of monitoring population status because of their remote and widely distributed breeding areas. 

Direct counts in winter were sufficient to monitor their status when the population was small and concentrated 

in a few local areas. However, as the population has grown and distribution expanded, challenges associated with 

direct counts have lead managers to indirect methods (mark-resight) of estimating population abundance of this 

important goose population. An estimate of Aleutian cackling geese abundance was derived by expanding an 

estimate of the abundance of marked birds by the ratio of total birds to marked birds. A closed robust design 

model was used for estimation of abundance of marked birds. The model included only sighting data from a 

primary sample period of 1 January–31 March annually with 2 secondary sample periods of 1 January–14 

February, primarily in the San Joaquin Valley region, and 15 February–31 March, primarily in the CaliforniaOregon Coast region. Estimation of the ratio of total birds to marked birds was determined during a single 

annual sample period 15 February–31 March in the California-Oregon Coast region. The estimated number of 

Aleutian Canada (cackling) geese in the winter of 2009 was 79,535 (95% CI = 53,454 – 105,617) (Fig.1 Table 1). 

Abundance of this subspecies has generally increased exponentially from 790 in 1975, reaching an estimated 

112,276 (95% CI = 96,761–127,791) in 2008 (Fig. 8, Table 3). 

The decline in the 2009 estimate was not expected, but is similar to the decline in annual estimates that occurred 

between 2004 and 2005. This decline may be real, or it may be the result of a bias in the estimate of the ratio of 

marked to total geese. No birds were marked in 2008, so there should be about 200 fewer marked birds available 

for detection compared to previous years. If abundance remained stable, the ratio of total geese per marked bird 

should have increased to about 300.

The estimated number of marked birds in the population was 377.0 (SE=45.6, 95% CI=307.9 to 491.0). This was 

down about 175 birds from each of the previous 2 years and probably reflects the lack of banding this year (about 

200 birds annually). The variance associated with this estimate also doubled from the previous 2 years (probably 

because of fewer neck collar observations compared to previous years). Overall, the estimate seems reasonable.

The estimated ratio of marked birds to total birds was 211.4 (SE=23.7, 95% CI=164.9 to 257.9). This number 

is similar to last year except that variance doubled. The true ratio could be about 300 if the total population 

remained at about 110,000 similar to last year and the total number of marked birds dropped to about 375. A 

ratio of 300 may be too extreme to get an unbiased estimate although simulations with the current sample size 

suggest that unbiased estimates should be possible. Possibly marked and unmarked geese are not randomly 

distributed across spring staging areas and current ratio estimates reflect only the portion of the population in 

the core sampling area and not in the more peripheral areas. We plan further investigations of these factors in 

future years to see if these issues can be resolved.

Figure 8. Abundance (point estimate 

and 95% confidence interval) of Aleutian 

cackling geese from direct counts (1975–

1998) and from estimates of marked 

bird abundance based on a closed robust 

design model for the San Joaquin Valley 

and California-Oregon Coast regions 

combined and expanded by estimates of 

the ratio of total geese to marked geese in 

the California North Coast region (1996–

2009). There is no estimate for 2001 and 

2002 because of insufficient data.

Abundance of Aleutian Canada (Cackling) Geese: Preliminary Results 2009
48 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

Year N SE L95%ci U95%ci Method

1975 790 Direct count

1976 900 Direct count

1977 1,280 Direct count

1978 1,500 Direct count

1979 1,590 Direct count

1980 1,740 Direct count

1981 2,000 Direct count

1982 2,700 Direct count

1983 3,500 Direct count

1984 3,800 Direct count

1985 4,200 Direct count

1986 4,300 Direct count

1987 5,000 Direct count

1988 5,400 Direct count

1989 5,800 Direct count

1990 6,300 Direct count

1991 7,000 Direct count

1992 7,680 Direct count

1993 11,680 Direct count

1994 15,700 Direct count

1995 19,150 Direct count

1996 21,420 Direct count

1997 22,800 Direct count

1998 27,600 Direct count

1996 21,280 777 19,757 22,804 Mark-resight

1997 20,227 756 18,744 21,709 Mark-resight

1998 32,270 1,064 30,185 34,356 Mark-resight

1999 35,845 3,139 29,692 41,997 Mark-resight

2000 34,290 1,364 31,617 36,962 Mark-resight

2001

2002

2003 74,677 2,855 69,081 80,273 Mark-resight

2004 115,050 6,265 102,770 127,330 Mark-resight

2005 89,255 5,061 79,336 99,174 Mark-resight

2006 101,905 5,738 90,658 113,152 Mark-resight

2007 108,346 7,647 93,357 123,336 Mark-resight

2008 112,276 7,916 96,761 127,791 Mark-resight

2009 79,535 13,307 53,454 105,617 Mark-resight

Table 3. Abundance (point estimate and 95% confidence interval) of Aleutian cackling geese from 

direct counts (1975–1998) and from estimates of marked bird abundance based on a closed robust 

design model for the San Joaquin Valley and California-Oregon Coast regions combined and expanded 

by estimates of the ratio of total geese to marked geese in the California North Coast region (1996–

2009). There is no estimate for 2001 and 2002 because of insufficient data.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 49

form monogamous pairs. Each year’s young remain 

with their parents until their arrival back on the, 

arctic wetland breeding grounds the following year 

(Limpert and Earnst 1994). 

The majority of tundra swans in the flyway winter 

in the Central Valley but ~1000 winter (November–

February) on the northcoast with primary use 

areas being the Smith River bottoms and Lake 

Earl Wildlife Area in Del Norte County, and the 

Eel River bottoms and the refuge’s Salmon Creek 

Unit in Humboldt County. Tundra swans graze 

agricultural grassland and forage for submerged 

aquatic vegetation, tubers, and some mollusks in 

ponds (Limpert and Earnest 1994). 

Shorebirds 

Many species of shorebirds use Humboldt 

Bay NWR habitats during migration and for 

overwintering. Humboldt Bay’s particular 

importance to shorebirds is indicated by its 

designation as a Western Hemisphere Shorebird 

Reserve Network (WSHRN) site (WHSRN 2007). 

The mission of WSHRN is to conserve shorebird 

species and their habitats across the Americas 

through a network of key sites. 

Marine waters, intertidal flats, seasonal wetlands, 

beaches, marshes, and agricultural grasslands are 

all used by shorebirds, primarily for foraging. 

Common species of shorebirds found in the 

Humboldt Bay area include marbled godwits, 

willets, long-billed curlews, whimbrels (Numenius 

phaeopus), western and least sandpipers, dunlin, 

long (Limnodromus scolopaceus) and short-billed 

(Limnodromus griseus) dowitchers, greater 

(Tringa melanoleuca) and lesser (Tringa flavipes) 

yellowlegs, common snipe (Gallinago gallinago), 

ruddy (Arenaria interpres) and black (Arenaria 

melanocephala) turnstones, several plover species, 

spotted sandpipers (Actitis macularia), and killdeer 

(Charadrius vociferus). In fact, surveys from the 

early 90s reveal that the bay supports 5-8 percent of 

the Pacific Flyway population of marbled godwits, 

4-5 percent of dunlin, and 3-4 percent of willet. 

More rare species include semi-palmated (Calidris 

pusilla), buff-breasted (Tryngites subruficollis), 

pectoral (Calidris melanotos), and stilt (Calidris 

himantopus) sandpipers; ruff (Philomachus 

pugnax) and golden plovers (Pluvialis fulva).

Few species of shorebird breed on the refuge; 

those that have include killdeer, black-necked stilt 

(Himantopus mexicanus), and American avocet. 

Waterbirds 

Waterbirds is a generic term that refers to a large 

group of species that tend to obtain most of their 

food from water-associated habitats. Birds that 

dive and forage the marine edges of the Humboldt 

Bay NWR include common (Gavia immer), Pacific 

(Gavia pacifica), and red-throated (Gavia stellata) 

loons; brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis); 

double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax 

auritus); Clark’s (Aechmophorus clarkii), western 

(Aechmophorus occidentalis), horned (Podiceps 

auritus), eared (Podiceps nigricollis), and rednecked (Podiceps grisegena) grebe.

Other waterbirds are best described as wading birds 

that feed primarily by wading in or standing still in 

fresh or brackish waters to strike at small fish and 

other prey. Many wading birds that breed on or near 

Humboldt Bay NWR primarily use freshwater and 

brackish marsh, seasonal wetlands, and riparian 

forest habitat. These include great blue heron; 

American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus); great, 

snowy, and cattle (Bubulcus ibis) egret; green heron 

(Butorides virescens), and black-crowned nightheron. 

Raptors 

Raptors are birds of prey, including owls 

(Order Strigiformes), but most are in the Order 

Falconiformes which includes osprey (Pandion 

haliaetus), kites, eagles, hawks, and falcons. On 

Humboldt Bay NWR, raptors feed primarily on a 

Long-billed curlew. Photo: © Red Jioras
50 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

variety of birds and small mammals. Forest habitats 

on the refuge are primarily used by raptors such 

as Cooper’s (Accipiter cooperii), sharp-shinned 

(Accipiter striatus), and red-shouldered (Buteo 

lineatus) hawks. Other raptors such as northern 

harrier (Circus cyaneus); white-tailed kite; roughlegged (Buteo lagopus), red-tailed, and Swainson’s 

hawk (Buteo swainsoni); peregrine falcon; 

merlin (Falco columbarius); American kestrel 

(Falco sparverius); short-eared, long-eared (Asio 

otus), burrowing (Speotyto cunicularia), great 

horned (Bubo virginianus), and barn owls (Tyto 

alba) primarily use more open habitats such as 

grasslands, dunes, and marshes for hunting. Osprey 

and bald eagle both nest near the refuge with osprey 

being an obligate fish-eating (piscivorous) bird, while 

eagles will eat both fish and waterfowl, as well as 

occasionally scavenging. 

Passerines

Over 150 passerine bird species have been sighted 

in the Humboldt Bay area (Harris 1996, Ralph et 

al. 1998), many of which use refuge habitats such as 

grasslands, dune swales, marshes, and coniferous, 

dune forest, and riparian/swamp. Riparian swamp 

In particular Is a favored habitat of migrating birds 

(Evens and Tait 2005).

The majority of these are migrants, but there are 

many breeding birds as well. Key species groups 

include swallows, sparrows, wrens, flycatchers, and 

warblers.

There have been banding sites set up and run at 

both the Lanphere Dunes Unit (since the 1980s) 

and the Salmon Creek Unit (since 2002) by the 

Humboldt Bay Bird Observatory (Ralph et al. 

1998). These sites are part of the Monitoring 

Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) 

program (Figure 9). The program was started 

by the Institute for Bird Populations in 1989 “to 

assess and monitor the vital rates and population 

dynamics of over 120 species of North American 

landbirds in order to provide critical conservation 

and management information on their populations.” 

The MAPS network now includes over 500 stations 

in North America and has captured and banded 

millions of birds. MAPS biologists use ultra fine 

nets, called mist nets which are about 2 meters high 

and 10 meters long, stretched between two poles 

to capture birds. A MAPS station typically utilizes 

10 nets, which are open for 6 hours beginning at 

sunrise. Each station is run once every 10 day 

period between May 1st and August 8th. Birds 

captured during this period are more likely to be 

resident and breeding at the station site. Some 

stations, such as at Salmon Creek and Lanphere 

Dunes, capture birds earlier and/or later in the year 

in order to capture birds during migration. Data 

collected on each bird captured includes its band 

number, species, amount of fat, and molt patterns. 

Biologists also attempt to determine the bird’s sex 

and age based on its plumage, breeding condition, 

and other characteristics. 

Birds that use the area but are not captured are also 

systematically surveyed via a method called area 

searching.

Mammals

A wide variety of mammals use Humboldt Bay 

NWR aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Marine 

mammals such as harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), 

harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and California 

sea-lion (Zalophus californianus) use bay habitats 

as well as near shore habitats. Harbor seals bear 

and rear their pups on exposed tidal flats, and 

sea-lions occasionally use haulout sites near the 

shoreline for resting. River otters use the sloughs 

and associated riparian forest for foraging and den 

building. 

The diversity of refuge habitats provide cover 

and forage for larger mammals including blackOsprey. Photo: © Ron LeValley
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 51

Figure 9. Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) on Salmon Creek restoration area.
52 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

tailed deer, bobcat (Lynx rufus), mountain lion, 

gray fox, and porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum). 

Smaller mammals include the dusky-footed woodrat 

(Neotoma fuscipes), white-footed deer mouse 

(Peromyscus maniculatus), Pacific jumping mouse 

(Zapus trinotatus), California harvest mouse 

(Reithrodontomys megalotis), Trowbridge shrew 

(Sorex trowbridgii), vagrant shrew (Sorex vagrans), 

shrew mole (Neurotrichus gibbsii), California vole 

(Microtus californicus), and the rare white-footed 

vole (Arborimus albipes). Botta’s pocket gopher 

(Homomys bottae aticeps) is very common and 

important on dunes. Bats include the big brown bat 

(Esptesicus fuscus bernardinus) and Yuma myotis 

(Myotis yumanensis saturatus). Open grassland 

and (seasonal) marsh habitats are preferred by 

black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), brush 

rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani), striped (Mephitus 

mephitus) and western spotted (Spilogale gracilis) 

skunk, long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), and 

American mink (Mustela vison), while also being 

utilized by some mammals mentioned above. The 

most adaptable and cosmopolitan mammals such as 

coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox, Virginia opossum 

(Didelphis virgiana), and raccoon (Procyon lotor) 

use a wide variety of habitats and food sources.

 

Anadromous Fish

The local anadromous salmonids have similar life 

histories. They begin their lives in streams and, 

after passing through larval stages, move out to the 

marine environment to mature. Finally returning 

to freshwater streams to deposit and fertilize 

eggs, they begin the cycle again. Fish trapping 

done on the Salmon Creek Unit in the late 1980s in 

cooperation with the Humboldt Fish Action Council 

and College of the Redwoods found that Salmon 

Creek supported remnant runs of steelhead, Coho, 

Chinook, and cutthroat trout. Chinook salmon 

utilize the main channels of larger rivers and 

some use of smaller tributaries. They are typically 

present in low-gradient area streams (1–2 percent 

grade) from October to January (HBWAC, RCAA 

2005). Steelhead, an anadromous form of rainbow 

trout, utilize tributary channels with less than 8 

percent grade, and may use stable side channels 

as well. Steelhead are typically present in area 

streams from winter through spring. Coho salmon 

utilize accessible reaches of streams, especially 

side channels with small gradients for breeding. 

Coho are typically present in area streams from 

November to January. Populations of Chinook 

salmon, steelhead, and Coho salmon, which migrate 

through Salmon Creek, are all listed as threatened 

species under the ESA. Since at least 2002, CDFG 

has been assessing salmonid populations at multiple 

locations in tributaries around the bay, including 

Salmon Creek. This work indicates that currently 

lower Salmon Creek is not receiving significant use 

by outmigrating salmonids. 

Coastal cutthroat trout are listed as a California 

Species of Special Concern. Coastal cutthroat trout 

utilize small streams and headwaters, usually above 

those used by steelhead (HBWAC, RCAA 2005). 

Coastal cutthroats are weakly anadromous, being 

more tied to freshwater than other anadromous 

salmonids in California (Moyle 2002). Their 

preferred habitat is low-gradient coastal streams 

and estuaries (perhaps due to exclusion from 

other habitats by the more aggressive Coho and 

steelhead in pools and deeper water (Moyle 2002). 

They feed on invertebrates and small fish, becoming 

increasingly piscivorous with age. Coastal cutthroats 

first spawn at 2–4 years old, and may return to 

freshwater up to five times to overwinter and spawn 

(Moyle 2002). Cutthroats use off-channel habitats 

and intermittent tributaries and sloughs. Cutthroats 

are typically present from late winter through 

spring (HBWAC, RCAA 2005). 

The tidewater goby is an ESA-listed endangered 

species. Tidewater goby proposed critical habitat 

includes most of the southern Humboldt Bay NWR 

units (USFWS 2006b). The entire life history of the 

goby can be completed on the refuge. Tidewater 

gobies are known to migrate upstream in tributaries 

up to 0.6 mile from estuaries. Sub-adult and adult 

gobies migrate upstream in tributaries in summer 

and fall for reproduction. Nesting burrows are dug 

in coarse, sandy substrate. They primarily feed 

on small benthic crustaceans and aquatic insects. 

Individuals typically live for 1 year (Moyle 2002). 

River otter. Photo: © Red Jioras
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 53

Pacific tree frog. Photo: Shannon Smith

The Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) is 

also anadromous and is likely to be found in the 

streams of Humboldt Bay, but is in the Family 

Petromyzontidae and unrelated to salmonids. 

According to Moyle (2002), adult Pacific lamprey 

spawn in streams generally from early March to late 

June. Adults typically die after spawning, and the 

embryos hatch in about 10 days. The ammocoetes 

(juvenile lampreys) burrow into sand or mud and 

live as filter feeders for 5–7 years. After the filter 

feeding life stage, lampreys become predatory and 

move downstream to the marine environment where 

they live for a maximum of 3–4 years (Moyle 2002). 

Marine Fish

Hundreds of species of marine fish live in Humboldt 

Bay (Barnhart et al. 1992) (see Appendix K). Many 

marine fish may use nearshore areas adjacent to 

Humboldt Bay and estuarine/slough areas within the 

bay for a portion of their lifecycle. Several species 

are caught and or harvested for their commercial 

or sport value, while most others are relatively little 

known members of the bay, nearshore fauna and 

ecologic cycle(s).

Amphibians and Reptiles

Amphibians that occur in the local area include the 

western toad (Bufo boreas), pacific tree frog (Hyla 

regilla), northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora 

aurora), rough-skinned newt (Taricha granulose), 

northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile), 

Oregon ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzii

oregonensis), and Pacific giant salamander 

(Dicamptodon ensatus). These amphibians are 

associated with the various freshwater wetland 

habitats on the Humboldt Bay NWR, and breed in 

permanent freshwater areas near Salmon Creek and 

on dune units.

Snakes also make use of grassland, riparian 

forest, marsh, and dune habitats on the Humboldt 

Bay NWR including several species of garter 

(Thamnophis spp.) snakes and the gopher snake 

(Pituophis catenifer). Lizards that make use of 

these habitats include northern alligator lizard 

(Elgaria coerulea), western skink (Eumeces 

skiltonianus), and western fence lizard (Sceloporus 

occidentalis).

Management considerations for the long term 

persistence of the herpetofauna of the Humboldt 

Bay National Wildlife Refuge need to consider both 

breeding and upland habitats. Most amphibians 

breed in the freshwater wetlands and canal system 

on the main management unit of the refuge. 

Most research focusing on management of 

amphibians has recently been conducted on 

northern red-legged frogs, due to their limited 

range in relation to other amphibian species found 

on the Humboldt Bay NWR. The northern redlegged frog uses freshwater habitat for breeding, 

which occurs locally on the refuge from midDecember to the end of March, when males and 

females congregate at breeding sites to deposit 

egg masses. Larvae hatch out of egg masses 2 

to 4 weeks after oviposition, depending on water 

temperature, and the larvae are free swimming 

herbivores that go through metamorphosis starting 

in June to August. Wetlands where breeding occurs 

but hydroperiods last only until May might be 

insufficient in successfully recruiting new individuals 

into a population, so management should consider 

maintaining wetlands that have longer hydroperiods 

that will allow for completion of metamorphosis. 

Post-metamorphic frogs disperse from wetlands and 

move to upland habitats in alder forest adjacent to 

wetlands, although some individuals stay year round 

near wetlands. After two years post-metamorphosis, 

males become sexually mature and females become 

sexually mature after three years. 

Recent surveys conducted in “Cattail Creek” 

from November 2006 until April 2007 revealed an 

effective population size of 237 females utilizing 

this ~500 meter reach of the canal as based on 

detection of egg masses (Bettaso et al. 2008). 

Population estimates of metamorphic northern redlegged frogs were 829 animals for Pond 1 and 851 

animals for Pond 5 during abnormal frog surveys 

in 2004 (Bettaso 2004). Sendak (2008) found that 

northern red-legged frog abundance was greater 

in the smaller, permanent pond habitats out in the 

dune ecosystem, as compared to the seasonal pond 

breeding habitats in the study area. Sendak also 
54 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

found that movement of adults to the breeding 

ponds was greatest during the breeding season. 

Adult movements away from breeding ponds can 

be up to 4.8 kilometers to appropriate non-breeding 

habitats (Hayes et al. 2007) demonstrating the 

importance of maintaining upland habitats as part of 

management of this species. 

Management of both freshwater breeding sites 

and adjacent upland habitats will likely maintain a 

robust effective population size of northern redlegged frogs and these same habitats would be 

utilized by the other pond breeding amphibians 

of the refuge. Proper management of the 

adjacent uplands will facilitate habitats that the 

reptile assemblage of the refuge would occupy. 

If restoration projects are to reduce freshwater 

breeding habitats (e.g. areas that are freshwater 

now but historically salt marsh), mitigation by 

construction of additional freshwater habitats could 

be managed on the refuge property. For restoration 

of currently occupied habitats, pre-construction 

and post-construction surveys should be initiated to 

understand the cost-benefits of restoration projects 

to the currently healthy population of breeding 

amphibians on the refuge.

Invertebrates

A wide variety of invertebrates inhabit wetlands and 

shorelines associated with Humboldt Bay NWR for 

at least a portion of their lifecycle. Barnhart et al. 

(1992) and Boyd et al. (2002) provide lists of marine 

and intertidal invertebrate species known to inhabit 

Humboldt Bay. In total there is thought to be in 

excess of 360 species invertebrates inhabiting the 

bay as well as the associated intertidal mudflats, 

marshes, and dunes (Hull 2002). Though they are 

generally considered unvegetated, intertidal flats 

contain a living system of diatoms, green, red and 

brown algae, protozoa, and other invertebrates. 

Other invertebrates living in the intertidal flats 

include suspension or surface deposit feeding 

invertebrates. The invertebrates are fed upon 

by larger consumers such as shrimp, fish, crabs, 

and birds. During low tide these primary and 

secondary producers are exploited by thousands of 

migratory shorebirds. Three taxa of invertebrates 

dominate the fauna of intertidal flats, polychaete 

worms, crustaceans, and molluscs. Each of these 

groups is represented by over 100, 75 and 60 

species respectively along with many smaller 

groups. Humboldt Bay also host many non-native 

species introduced by humans, ocean currents, 

and other pathways. These include 24 polychaetes, 

20 amphipods, and 8 bryzoa (Boyd et al. 2002). 

As microscopic species have not received much 

attention, the diversity and abundance of Humboldt 

Bay fauna probably exceeds the documented 

number many times over.

Two types of invertebrates, the Dungeness crab 

(Cancer magister) and Pacific oysters (Crassostrea 

gigas), have the highest respective commercial 

value to fisheries and aquaculture in Humboldt 

Bay. Limited sport harvest of Dungeness crab is 

also permitted by the CDFG, but is insignificant 

compared to the commercial harvest. Dungeness 

crabs prefer sandy and sand-mud substrates, but 

can be found on almost any substrate type. They live 

in the intertidal zone to a depth of 750 feet, but are 

not abundant beyond 300 feet (CDFG 2004b). Pacific 

oysters have been grown in the intertidal zones of 

Humboldt Bay (primarily the north Bay) for over 

60 years using a variety of methods (Rumrill and 

Poulton 2004). 

Many invertebrates also inhabit the bay’s 

surrounding marine environment. Red rock crab 

(Cancer productus) are also commercially and 

recreationally harvested in large numbers in the 

area surrounding Humboldt Bay (CDFG 2004b). 

Rock crabs are both predators and scavengers. They 

feed on a variety of other invertebrates and provide 

a source of food to many predators (CDFG 2004b).

California’s coastal dunes have been recognized 

for their unique and endangered terrestrial 

invertebrate (insect) fauna (Powell 1978). The 

nearshore dunes are populated by numerous beetles 

including darkling beetles (Coelus ciliatus, Eleodes 

scabrosus), carrion beetles (Nicrophorus defodens), 

blister beetles (Family Meloidae), and June beetles 

(Polyphlla decemlineata, Phyllophaga sp). Oregon 

tiger beetles (Cicindela oregana) are found in the 

spring around flooded dune swales. Pallid-winged 

grasshoppers (Trimerotropis pallidipenis) are 

ubiquitous in the dune mat during the late summer, 

while spur-throated grasshoppers (Melanoplus

sp.) are common in herbaceous dune swales. 

Jumping spiders (Habronottis amicus) are found 

on the open sand, along with termites that colonize 

buried trees. Broad-headed bugs (Alydus pluto) 

are conspicuous when feeding on beach pea seeds 

with their piercing mouth parts. One of the most 

ubiquitous insects on the ground in the near-shore 

dunes are mound-building thatch ants (Formica 

obscuripes) considered an “ecosystem engineer” 

for their disproportionate effect on the ecosystem 

(Crutsinger and Sanders 2005). Their mounds, 

constructed of pieces of vegetation, can reach a 

height of 4 feet.

The dunes are also home to 40 species of bees 

(Gordon 1984), including a unique assemblage 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 55

of solitary nesting bees such as the silver bee 

(Hapbropoda miserabilis) and leaf cutter bee 

(Megachile wheeleri). Many of these species are 

specialized on certain dune plants and serve as 

crucial pollinators (Nyoka 2004). Others require 

specialized nesting substrate present only on the 

dunes (Gordon 2000).

3.2.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Special Status 

Species

Federal Endangered Species Act Listed Species 

at the Refuge 

An endangered species is an animal or plant species 

in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. A threatened species is an 

animal or plant species likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. Various ESAlisted threatened and endangered species found 

seasonally or permanently on the Humboldt Bay 

NWR use a wide diversity of the available habitats. 

Two endangered plant species, Humboldt Bay 

wallflower and beach layia, are members of the 

dune mat community on the Lanphere and Male’l dune units. Salmon Creek provides habitat for 

juvenile ESA-listed threatened steelhead, Coho and 

Chinook salmon, as well as passage for migrating 

adults of these species. Endangered tidewater 

gobies may migrate upstream in tributaries up to 

0.6 mile from estuaries. Sub-adult and adult gobies 

migrate upstream in summer and fall to reproduce 

in tributaries (USFWS 2006a). 

Birds of Conservation Concern

A 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act mandates the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) to “...identify 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.” Bird 

species meeting this criteria are referred to as 

Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC). Further, 

the Service is required to update the list every 

5 years. Species that occur in Humboldt Bay 

that are listed within the “Birds of Conservation 

Concern 2008” (USFWS 2008b) list are identified 

in Appendix L. Many BCCs migrate through the 

Humboldt Bay NWR area seasonally, including 

tricolored blackbirds (Agelaius tricolor), burrowing 

owls, ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), Swainson’s 

hawk, black swift (Cypseloides niger), prairie falcon 

(Falco mexicanus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius 

ludovicianus), Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes 

lewis), and Caspian tern (Sterna caspia). Two BCCs 

are commonly found on the refuge: the olive-sided 

flycatcher is known to breed in Douglas-fir trees 

growing in stabilized dune coniferous forest habitat 

on the dune units and long-billed curlews are found 

on wetlands from fall through spring. 

California State Endangered Species Act 

Listed Species

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) 

listed endangered willow flycatcher (Empidonax 

traillii) and the threatened bank swallow (Riparia 

riparia) may use habitat on the Humboldt Bay 

NWR during their annual migrations. The CESA 

endangered bald eagle uses Humboldt Bay NWR 

habitat for hunting on the refuge.

California State Species of Special Concern

California Species of Special Concern (SSC) is a 

designation that the CDFG can give to vertebrate 

species because of declining population levels, 

limited ranges, and/or continuing threats that may 

make the listed species vulnerable to extinction. 

A single amphibian SSC, the northern red-legged 

frog, uses wetland habitats on the Humboldt 

Bay NWR. Fish SSC that use Humboldt Bay 

NWR habitat include green sturgeon (Acipenser 

medirostris), tidewater goby, coast cutthroat trout, 

Coho salmon (southern Oregon/northern California 

ESU), steelhead (northern California ESU), 

Chinook salmon (California coastal ESU), longfin 

smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), and eulachon 

(Thaleichthys pacificus). Bird SSC species that use 

the Humboldt Bay NWR include osprey, merlin, 

prairie falcon, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, 

Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, northern 

harrier, long-eared owl, burrowing owl, short-eared 

owl, Barrow’s goldeneye (Bucephala islandica), 

common loon, California gull (Larus californicus), 

black tern (Chlidonias niger), double-crested 

cormorant, long-billed curlew, western snowy plover, 

tricolored blackbird, Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi), 

black swift (Cypseloides niger), yellow-breasted 

chat (Icteria virens), yellow warbler, (Dendroica 

petechia) loggerhead shrike and purple martin 

(Progne subis). 

Other Special Status Species 

Two globally endangered lichens are found in 

the forest of the dunes units, Bryoria spiralifera

and B. pseudocapillaris (Glavich 2003). Both are 

arboreal and are commonly found at the edges of 

the coniferous forest. These two lichens are endemic 

to the California and Oregon coastlines and listed 

under the Department of Agriculture/Department of

Interior’s InterAgency Special Status/Sensitive 

Species Program (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/

issssp/).
56 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

Humboldt Bay wallflower (Erysimum menziesii

ssp. eurekense) is a federally and State-listed 

endangered plant in the Brassicaceae. The 

subspecies is restricted to coastal dunes in 

the Humboldt Bay region, and is one of three 

endangered subspecies of Menzies’ wallflower 

(Erysimum menziesii). The semelparous life 

history (it is a short-lived perennial with only one 

reproduction event) of Erysimum is distinctive 

among dune plants. Many years of research on 

the Humboldt Bay wallflower have shown that it 

requires a semi-stable substrate with openings of 

bare sand to thrive, and is particularly vulnerable 

to invasions by stabilizing vegetation. 

Over the past two decades, management for this 

subspecies has been carried out on Humboldt 

Bay NWR and other public lands on the North 

Spit of Humboldt Bay. Management has consisted 

primarily of removal of invasive species to allow 

for maintenance of underlying disturbancegenerating processes. A sampling program for 

the entire North Spit population was carried 

out in 1988 (Sawyer and André 1990), and 

repeated in 1997 (Pickart et al. 2000) and 2006 

(USFWS unpublished data), allowing for a unique 

opportunity to track the health of this plant over 

Population status of the endangered Humboldt Bay wallflower

(Erysimum menziesii ssp. eurekense)

two decades of active management. Although the 

2006 results are still preliminary, we present them 

(Figure 10) to illustrate the positive response 

of this plant to management. Between 1988 and 

2006, the North Spit population of wallflowers 

has increased from 20,657 (+1,172 SE) to 

55,605 (+7,020 SE). As is visible on the chart, 

the Lanphere Dunes subpopulation accounts 

for the greatest increase, and now represents 

nearly 50 percent of the total population. This 

subpopulation was the most intensively managed 

over this period, with removal of virtually all 

invasive species occurring in wallflower habitat 

(yellow bush lupine, European beachgrass, 

iceplant, and annual grasses) as well as the 

intentional movement of seeds from occupied to 

unoccupied habitat areas between 1997 and 2006.

Of the three endangered subspecies, Erysimum 

menziesii ssp. eurekense is considered the closest 

to achieving recovery (USFWS 2008a). However, 

additional protection of privately held habitat, and 

additional off-refuge habitat restoration is still 

needed. Figure 10. Population status of Humboldt Bay 

wallflower.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 57

Non-native Wildlife

Beginning in 2000, the CDFG conducted the most 

thorough aquatic organism sampling program 

recently undertaken in Humboldt Bay (Boyd et 

al. 2002). During this survey of marine species, 

researchers collected and identified 95 species 

that are possibly non-indigenous to Humboldt Bay. 

These were representatives from diverse groups of 

organisms ranging from vascular plants to fish. The 

majority of non-indigenous species found were in 

various invertebrate groups, including polychaetes 

(24 species), amphipods (20 species), and bryozoa (8 

species) (Boyd et al. 2002). 

Non-native wildlife found on the other refuge 

units includes starlings, house sparrows (Passer 

domesticus), feral cats (Felis domesticus), and 

Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus).

3.3. Humboldt Bay NWR Visitor Services 

3.3.1. Overview of Humboldt Bay NWR Visitor 

Services

Recreational uses occur throughout Humboldt Bay, 

but are most common in the North and South Bay 

areas. Some of the most common are recreational 

bird watching, fishing, boating, clamming, hunting, 

and hiking (Hull 2002). 

Bird watching is one of America’s fastest growing 

recreational pastimes (USFWS 1997), and the 

Humboldt Bay area is a birding destination due to 

both the diversity of birds and the number of great 

spots to view them. Godwit Days has grown into a 

very successful week-long community birding event 

that brings in hundreds of birding enthusiasts each 

spring.

Recreational boating (primarily kayaks and canoes) 

has also increased dramatically both nationally 

and locally. There are several businesses that rent 

boats for use on and around the bay, as well as a 

local kayaking club. Boaters have access from many 

locations around the bay including Woodley Island, 

Arcata Marsh, Fields Landing boat launch, and the 

refuge at Hookton Slough (non-motorized only). 

A water trails plan for the bay has recently been 

developed in order to inform people of some of the 

best locations, as well as provide information on 

safety, potential impacts to wildlife and habitats and 

considerations of tides and weather. 

Sport fishing continues to be a popular pastime 

in and around Humboldt Bay. Most of the fishing 

around the South Bay occurs on the South Jetty and 

at Buhne’s Point. The South Bay also contains large 

clam beds, including gaper (Tresus capax), and 

Washington (Tresus nuttallii) and littleneck clams 

(Protothaca staminea). Several thousand clammingdays occur in good years. Sport fishermen, including 

clammers, spend over $400,000 annually on licenses 

alone in Humboldt County.

Another popular traditional use on and around 

the bay is waterfowl hunting. Humboldt Bay has 

been well known for generations as one of the best 

places on the west coast of the United States to hunt 

Pacific brant. The recent increase in both Aleutian 

cackling and western Canada geese around the bay, 

in addition to other waterfowl, provides increased 

Kayaking on 

Hookton Slough.

Photo: Shannon Smith
58 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

opportunities for hunters. Estimated use 

by hunters around the bay exceeds 7,500 

use-days annually. Like other recreational 

pursuits, hunters add significantly to 

the local economy through purchase of 

local goods and services. In addition, a 

percentage of required licenses and stamps 

purchased by hunters and fishers are used 

to pay for State and Federal conservation 

programs and acquire lands for public use.

Aesthetics of Humboldt Bay NWR Area

The southern units of Humboldt Bay NWR 

can be partially viewed from Highway 101. 

The refuge is enclosed by Tompkins Hill on 

the east and Table Bluff to the south. The 

views of these areas from the refuge are 

currently pastoral in nature, but increasing 

development on both ridges is a concern 

from the standpoint of a refuge visitor’s 

aesthetic experience. Hopefully, in decades 

to come, refuge visitors will still have the sense of 

being in a rural area rather than semi-urban. 

Once on the refuge, open agricultural grasslands 

and seasonal wetlands allow visitors to glimpse 

shorebirds, wading birds, geese, raptors, deer, 

and occasionally gray foxes, skunks, and/or otters. 

The southern portion of the Salmon Creek Unit 

appears as a deciduous riparian forest bordering 

Highway 101. Once visitors enter the Humboldt 

Bay NWR southern units they find several trails 

that can provide immediate viewing opportunities 

for a variety of wildlife, primarily birds and deer. 

Interpretive displays around the visitor center 

and along the trails provide visitors with basic 

information about the species and habitats present 

on these units. The refuge has two interpretive 

trails in South Bay, one each at the Hookton Slough 

and Salmon Creek Units. Peak viewing season 

from these trails is September through March for 

most species of waterbirds and raptors. On the 

Humboldt Bay NWR, Pacific brant and migratory 

shorebird viewing peaks from mid-March to late 

April. Summer visitors will see many gulls, terns, 

cormorants, and pelicans, as well as resident egrets 

and herons. Waterfowl, raptors, and harbor seals are 

visible throughout the year. 

The entrance to Humboldt Bay’s northern dune 

units is generally lined by willow swamp and 

coniferous dune forest and appears as a pristine 

natural forest along a country road. Those who take 

a guided tour of the dunes experience a continuum 

of pristine dune habitats from coniferous forest, 

to dune mat, moving dunes, swales, foredune 

grasslands, beaches, and finally the Pacific Ocean. 

In the near future there will be a new trail open 

to the public at the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit adjacent to 

the Mad River Slough. The dunes offer spectacular 

panoramic views to the east and west all year long, 

but spring time is the best for birds and summer for 

viewing the prolific floral displays in the dune mat 

plant communities.

3.3.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Visitor Services

Public visitation of the Humboldt Bay NWR has 

steadily increased since 1988 when the refuge 

acquired the Salmon Creek Unit. 

In spring 2002, the Richard J. Guadagno 

Headquarters and Visitor Center was dedicated and 

offered an obvious destination for visitors. Prior 

to 2002, the Humboldt Bay NWR headquarters 

and residence was an old ranchhouse at the end 

of a gravel road. Visitation increased dramatically 

shortly after the construction of the visitor center 

and paving of the entrance road. 

As visitation increased, the older established trails 

had to be re-routed to minimize wildlife disturbance 

while providing the public with the opportunity to 

view a representative sample of wildlife and habitats 

on the refuge units. Increased public exposure and 

ongoing habitat improvement projects resulted in 

requests by the public to open the Salmon Creek 

Unit on weekends. 

In response to the growing demand, and with 

volunteer assistance, the Salmon Creek Unit was 

opened on Saturdays in 2003. Due to the continued, 

increasing demand for weekend access to the refuge, 

Painting waterbird silhouettes. Photo: Shannon Smith
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 59

hours were again expanded in 2005 making the 

Salmon Creek Unit open to the public seven days a 

week from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Currently, with the assistance of two Friends groups 

and volunteers, Humboldt Bay NWR makes a 

variety of visitor services accessible to the public. 

The total number of visitors averages 15,000 to 

17,000 per year, conservatively. Wildlife observation, 

environmental education/interpretation, and 

waterfowl hunting are currently the principal 

public uses of the refuge. The Visitor Center 

has interpretive exhibits and staff or volunteers 

available to provide information daily from 8:00 

a.m. to 5:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. The 

Hookton Slough Unit is open daily from sunrise to 

sunset. Only day-use activities are allowed on refuge 

units.

The southern units of Humboldt Bay NWR include 

two self-guided trails and a sheltered viewing area 

for wildlife observation. One trail is open seven 

days a week during daylight hours (Hookton Slough 

Trail), and one is open daily from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

(Shorebird Loop Trail). The Hookton Slough Trail 

follows a tidal slough one and a half miles out along 

the south edge of the bay. The three mile round trip 

trail passes along grasslands, freshwater marsh, 

mudflats, and open water. Visitors can see herons 

and egrets, as well as shorebirds, waterfowl, and 

harbor seals. The 1.75-mile Shorebird Loop Trail 

passes near some of the refuge’s best shorebird 

viewing areas. The trail affords a good overview 

of the diverse seasonal wetlands; an optional side 

trail goes to the refuge’s photoblind. Interpretive 

panels along the way illustrate wildlife resources 

and habitat management practices on Humboldt 

Bay NWR. Visitors often see shorebirds, waterfowl, 

songbirds, raptors, tree frogs, deer, and river otters. 

Seasonal waterfowl hunting is currently allowed 

on all refuge units except Hookton Slough and 

the dune units. The managed hunt area with the 

Salmon Creek Unit supported over 1000 hunter 

use-days during the 2007-08 waterfowl season. 

Humboldt Bay and tidal sloughs are open to fishing 

year-round. Areas separated from the bay by land, 

such as creeks and flooded areas behind dikes, are 

closed to fishing. The Hookton Slough Trail is open 

to shore fishing; access to other areas is by boat. 

The Hookton Slough Unit has a non-motorized boat 

launch. 

The northern Lanphere Dunes Unit of Humboldt 

Bay NWR is accessible only by permit or guided 

tour to minimize disturbance of sensitive species 

and dune habitats. Visitation to the Lanphere 

Dunes Unit is estimated at 2500–3500 people per 

year. The recently acquired Ma-le’l Dunes Unit is 

currently closed to public access, but will be open to 

daily walk-on use by 2009. Volunteers for Friends of 

the Dunes (FOD), a nonprofit organization whose 

mission is “to conserve the natural diversity of 

coastal environments through community-supported 

education and stewardship programs at multiple 

locations around the bay,” lead monthly walks, 

restoration events, and conduct environmental 

education activities on the Dunes Units. 

The Humboldt Bay NWR tries to mitigate for, or 

minimize, disturbance impacts caused by public use 

through a variety of methods. Areas of some refuge 

units remain closed to the general public to provide 

inviolate sanctuary areas for wildlife. The White 

Slough Unit is closed to the public at this time. Trails 

have been re-routed and/or enhanced to provide 

closer views of wildlife and their habitats, while 

providing a distance buffer for wildlife. Certain uses, 

such as hunting and the refuge trails, are largely 

compartmentalized to reduce wildlife disturbance, 

as well as to provide safe high quality experiences 

for visitors. The Humboldt Bay NWR also limits the 

level, intensity, frequency, and time of day of public 

uses to minimize wildlife disturbance.

Environmental Education and Interpretation

The Humboldt Bay NWR has continually offered 

environmental education and interpretation, at 

some level, and provided off-site outreach since 

the establishment of the Salmon Creek Unit in 

1988. Groups regularly utilizing refuge units for 

environmental education range from kindergarten 

through 12th grade, and university level students. 

The Redwood Region Audubon Society led monthly 

bird walks on the Hookton Slough Unit for many 

years. In recent years, they have changed the 

location of their walks to the Salmon Creek Unit.

With the addition of the Lanphere Dunes Unit in 

1998, the refuge gained the valuable support of the 

FOD. The FOD still conducts portions of their Bay 

to Dunes curriculum, restoration activities, monthly 

guided docent walks, and volunteer coordination on 

the Dunes Units. 

In 2002, the refuge expanded its relationship with 

the FOD to include limited environmental education 

and volunteer coordination on the southern units 

of the Humboldt Bay NWR. The FOD received a 

Nature of Learning Grant which helped to expand 

their Bay to Dunes environmental education 

curriculum to include trips to the Salmon Creek 

Unit. In recent years, environmental education and 

interpretation activities on the South Bay Units 

have been coordinated by the newly formed Friends 
60 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

of Humboldt Bay NWR, whose mission is to assist 

the refuge and staff in all functions.

Since 2005, the refuge has contracted with the 

California Waterfowl Association (CWA) to hire a 

temporary Visitor Services Assistant, who manages 

the Visitor Services Program. 

The lack of a full-time, dedicated staff person has 

hindered the Complex’s ability to provide consistent 

environmental education, interpretation, volunteer 

coordination, and outreach. However, in 2008 the 

refuge received funding for a permanent position to 

be shared with the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 

to accomplish Visitor Services and Outreach goals 

for the FWS mission on the north coast. When filled, 

the shared position will be stationed at the Salmon 

Creek Unit of the Humboldt Bay NWR.

The Humboldt Bay NWR conducted a Visitor 

Services Review in November 2006. This review 

gathered invaluable background material and helped 

to inform the Visitor Services Plan (Appendix B).

3.4. Humboldt Bay NWR Cultural 

Resources

Cultural resources are physical remains, sites, 

objects, records, oral testimony, and traditional 

life-ways that connect people to our nation’s past. 

They include archaeological and historical artifacts, 

ecofacts, sites, landscapes, sacred locations, and 

traditional cultural properties. Cultural resources 

are integral components of the landscape. They tell 

us how people have used the land, its water, and 

its wildlife. Cultural resources are also important 

components of individual and group identification. 

Cultural resources remind us that, before the 

arrival of EuroAmericans in the mid-1800s, 

human beings have been part of the web of life at 

Humboldt Bay for thousands of years. And although 

the EuroAmerican settlement and modification 

of Humboldt Bay is well documented on paper, 

cultural resource sites provide a tangible link and an 

alternative perspective on our recent past. 

It is beyond the scope of the CCP to prepare and 

present a comprehensive or detailed overview of 

the cultural resources and cultural history of the 

Humboldt Bay region. However, in preparation of 

this document, the Service did consult the principal 

documents and records, including information from 

the North Coastal Information Center (NCIC) of 

the California Historical Resources Information 

System, on the prehistory, history, and cultural 

resources of the refuge to compose the summary 

presented here. Moratto (1984) presents an 

overview of the prehistoric archaeology of the North 

Coast Region including Humboldt Bay. For the land 

within and adjacent to the Humboldt Bay NWR, the 

most important references on the prehistory and 

archaeology include publications by Loud (1918), 

Elsasser and Heizer (1964), Eidsness (1993, 2006), 

and Angelhoff et al. (2004). Important references 

concerning Wiyot ethnography and cultural places 

include Elsasser (1978), Loud (1918), and Nomland 

and Kroeber (1936). The Service recognizes the 

need for a detailed and comprehensive cultural 

resource overview and historic context for the 

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex and proposes in 

all CCP alternatives the preparation of just such 

a document when the CCP is implemented. Until 

then, the Service encourages the interested reader 

to pursue the references cited here for further 

information on the cultural resources of Humboldt 

Bay. 

3.4.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Native American 

Cultural History 

Archaeological research in northwest California 

shows a record of Native American occupation 

spanning at least 8,000 years that is subdivided into 

three time periods marked by different adaptive 

patterns, environmental regimes, and geographical 

distributions (Moratto 1984, Hildebrandt and 

Swenson 1985). 

The Borax Lake Pattern is the oldest period dating 

from approximately 6000 B.C. to 800 B.C. The Borax 

Pattern involved generalized hunting and gathering 

by small, highly mobile family groups who moved 

among a series of temporary camps. 

The Willits Pattern dating from approximately 800 

B.C. to 900 A.D. sees the establishment of riverine 

villages near productive fisheries and acorn crops. 

Two common site types include “village sites,” 

located near interior rivers and “special purpose 

sites” located in a variety of interior settings. The 

Willits Pattern is marked by a greater diversity 

of projectile point forms and a greater reliance on 

use of mortars and pestles over milling slabs and 

handstones. 

The Gunther Pattern dates from about A.D. 900 

to EuroAmerican settlement in 1850s. Settlement 

focused on the coast; particularly bays, estuaries and 

sloughs. The Gunther Pattern is characterized by 

a well-developed woodworking technology, riverine 

fishing specialization, and distinctive artifact types 

such as large obsidian ceremonial blades, antler 

spoons, steatite pipes and bowls, bone and antler 

harpoon points, and small Gunther Barbed stone 

projectile points. Archaeological investigations 

demonstrate that most prehistoric sites found along 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 61

the North Coast correspond to the Gunther Pattern. 

Archaeologically, Gunther Pattern occupation sites 

are commonly marked by dark-stained midden soils 

containing shellfish and other dietary remains, firecracked rock and cooking stones, chert toolmaking 

debris, a variety of flaked and groundstone tools 

and occasionally, preserved housepit depressions. 

Cemeteries are often associated with major villages.

Archaeologists, historians and the Wiyot people 

have identified and recorded hundreds of prehistoric 

and historic archaeological sites, ethnographic 

Wiyot places, historic buildings and structures, and 

plant and animal resources important to on-going 

Wiyot identity and heritage in the Humboldt Bay 

region. In 1913, Llewellyn Loud conducted the first 

formal archaeological and ethnographic fieldwork 

in the Humboldt Bay area. His interviews of early 

EuroAmerican settlers and Wiyot people formed 

the basis for a detailed presentation of Wiyot 

archaeology, settlement, and culture (Loud 1918). 

Loud described and mapped 115 archaeological 

sites, plus 57 “modern village and camp sites,” for 

a total of 172 Wiyot sites in the Humboldt Bay area 

(Loud 1918:256, 258). Since then there have been 

dozens of other archaeological investigations in the 

region (e.g., Nomland and Kroeber 1936, Benson 

et al. 1977, Elsasser 1978, Hayes 1983, Hildebrandt 

and Swenson 1985, Raymond 1990, Eidsness 1993, 

2003, and Angelhoff et al. 2004). 

There are approximately 45 formally recorded 

cultural resource sites on the Humboldt Bay NWR. 

An exact count is impossible to ascertain at this time 

because many of the recorded sites have not been 

field checked since the creation of the refuge in 1985 

so their location with respect to the boundary of the 

refuge is not well understood. Furthermore, only 

a small fraction of the over 3,000-acre refuge has 

been specifically inspected for cultural resources. 

The cultural resource surveys that have been 

conducted on refuge land have been in response to 

specific refuge development and habitat restoration 

projects. The Service’s Region 1 archaeologists 

suspect that the 45 sites represent a small fraction 

of the total number of cultural sites that would 

be documented if the refuge was subjected to a 

comprehensive archaeological and ethnographic 

inventory. 

Wiyot towns, villages, fishing camps and resource 

collecting zones compose the majority of the 

formally recorded archaeological sites in and 

adjacent to the Humboldt Bay NWR. Among these 

some important locations deserve mention including 

the village of Mole’l on Mad River Slough, Wiyot 

villages and surf fishing camps on South Spit and 

among the Lanphere and Ma-le’l dunes coastal 

dunes, the historic and modern settlements near 

Indianola, Table Bluff, Fields Landing, and Tuluwat

and EtpidoL wotperoL on Indian (Gunther) Island. 

Indian (Gunther) Island, which is located within the 

Humboldt Bay NWR boundary but is not owned or 

actively managed by the FWS, is one of the most 

important places of the Wiyot. Contemporary Wiyot 

people identify Indian Island as the traditional 

center of the Wiyot world. Located in the middle 

of Humboldt Bay, Indian Island hosts two large 

archaeological village sites (Tuluwat and EtpidoL 

wotperoL), provides access to a diverse array of 

plant and animal resources, supports a traditionally 

significant bird rookery, is the location of several 

important Wiyot myths and stories, contains a dance 

and ceremonial site for the Wiyot world renewal 

ceremony, and was targeted during the infamous 

Wiyot massacre by EuroAmerican settlers in 1860 

(Loud, 1918, Eidsness 2003). 

Tuluwat (CA-HUM-67) on Indian Island contains 

the remains of a large Wiyot village. It was 

continuously occupied from at least A.D. 900 

to 1860. Loud’s 1913 field investigation there 

contributed to establishing the cultural chronology 

for North Coastal California (i.e., Gunther Pattern), 

archaeological deposits include the remains of 

houses, cooking features and dumps, fishing gear 

and facilities, over 350 graves, and thousands of 

artifacts (Loud 1918, Elsasser and Heizer 1964). 

The account of the February 25, 1860 massacre at 

Tuluwat during the World Renewal Ceremony is 

well known (cf. Loud 1918). The Tuluwat site is 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places 

and designated a National Historic Landmark by 

the Department of the Interior. 

EtpidoL wotperoL (CA-HUM-68/H) contains an 

extensive shell midden associated with a large precontact and historic Wiyot village. The site figures 

prominently in Wiyot mythology, had a level flat 

used for dancing, and its geographic position at the 

center of the island makes this site highly significant 

(Eidsness 2003). Among the mythological events at 

EtpidoL wotperoL is the story of a “medicine-man 

...who was the first man of one of the nations,” and 

who sought power from the pelicans flying overhead 

and obtained strong fishing luck. This attracted 

many people to live at EtpidoL wotperL (Loud 

1918:283). The historic period at the site includes the 

archaeological remains of the house and agricultural 

operation of Freidrick Robert Gunther, a German 

immigrant who purchased the property in 1860 from 

Captain John T. Moore, the first American to claim 

Indian Island in 1858. EtpidoL wotperoL is eligible 

to the National Register of Historic Places.
62 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

Many other cultural sites in and near the refuge 

are eligible National Register of Historic Places 

for their potential to yield information important 

to Wiyot archaeology and for their association with 

events and persons important in Wiyot culture 

and history. In addition, many Wiyot sites contain 

unmarked burials and other culturally sensitive 

materials that are very important to contemporary 

Wiyots. It is clear that the Humboldt Bay NWR 

contains many cultural places that are important 

archaeologically, historically, and as traditional 

cultural places important to the contemporary 

Wiyot.

3.4.2. Ethnographic and Contemporary Native 

American Setting

The Wiyot people and their ancestors have lived in 

the Humboldt Bay region of the California coast 

for thousands of years. From their homes and 

camps on the Bay and the rivers, streams, uplands, 

and coastlands between the Little River and the 

Eel River the Wiyot thrived on the richness of 

land (Fredrickson 1984). They were people of the 

wetlands. Their sustenance came from the Bay, 

rivers, estuaries, adjacent uplands, and occasionally 

the ocean. The varied diet of the Wiyot consisted 

of fish, shell-fish, marine mammals such as seal, 

sea-lion, and occasionally whale, waterfowl, deer, 

elk, small mammals and a host of plants. The Wiyot 

maintained their villages and camps close to the Bay 

and its estuaries. They built redwood plank houses 

with gabled roofs. They traveled by redwood canoe 

far more often than by foot (Loud 1918). The Wiyot 

legacy is embodied by numerous archaeological 

and cultural sites that are intrinsic elements of the 

modern landscape of the Humboldt Bay region. 

Immediately prior to EuroAmerican contact the 

Wiyot numbered between 1000 and 3300 (Cook 

1976). As such, they maintained one of the highest 

aboriginal population densities in California. But in 

1850, numerous EuroAmerican adventurers, lured 

by the prospect of supplying California’s inland gold 

mines, began arriving at Humboldt Bay. Almost 

immediately upon arrival the newcomers attacked 

the Wiyots, raided their villages, and appropriated 

their land and its resources. Within 15 years the 

new American settlers completely displaced the 

Wiyots. The farms, buildings, and streets of the 

white settlers covered up, if not destroyed, most 

of the villages and resource places of the Wiyots’ 

homeland. 

Nevertheless, the Wiyot continue to occupy the 

Humboldt Bay area. They are represented by the 

Wiyot Tribe (which consists of Wiyot only), the Bear 

River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, and the Blue 

Lake Rancheria, which are composed of Wiyot and 

several other tribal groups. There are currently over 

600 Wiyot Tribal citizens. Approximately 50 Wiyot 

reside on the 88-acre Table Bluff Reservation, 16 

miles south of the City of Eureka and adjacent to 

the Humboldt Bay NWR. 

3.4.3. Humboldt Bay NWR EuroAmerican 

Cultural History 

In 1806, the Russian governor in Alaska sent 

American sailing Captain Jonathan Winship, and 

100 Aleuts to the California coast. Winship spent two 

days cruising and mapping Humboldt Bay which he 

referred to as the “Bay of Indians” (Loud 1918:245). 

Not until 1850 would more Americans, determined 

to supply the gold mines of the interior, arrive at 

Humboldt Bay. The new Americans displaced the 

Wiyot and appropriated their lands and resources. 

The inevitable hostilities climaxed in February 1860 

when the settlers massacred the Wiyot at several 

locations around the bay and burned Wiyot villages 

including Tuluwat on Indian Island (Loud 1918, 

Sparks 1988). 

The southern units of Humboldt Bay NWR are 

composed of land previously owned and developed 

by ranchers who began to settle the South Bay 

area in the late 1800s and early 1900s (USFWS 

1990). Ranchers built a dike around the entire salt 

marsh zone of the South Bay, effectively eliminating 

daily tidal exchange in the marsh. Other dikes and 

channels were constructed to control and spread 

Salmon Creek and other unnamed brooks. The 

tidal marshlands of the South Bay steadily dried 

out. The marsh and soils, deprived of the daily 

sweep of tidewater and flushed with fresh water 

and silt from Salmon Creek, eventually supported 

agricultural grasses. The grasses quickly spread 

and fed hundreds of cattle. Ranching facilities were 

built in the area in the 1920s, which were removed, 

improved, or maintained through the present.

Large areas of the Hookton Slough, Salmon Creek, 

and White Slough Units have subsided as a result 

of land reclamation. Lacking tidewater, aeration 

increased, organic matter decomposed, and soil 

compacted. Elimination of salt marsh plants has 

stopped the annual accumulation of organic matter 

and peaty soil formation from senescing salt marsh 

plants. Cattle have also contributed to subsidence 

and soil compaction by their weight on soils as they 

forage. This resulted in a situation where at certain 

locations the substrate inside the dike on these 

units is anywhere from 1–4 feet lower than the tidal 

mudflat on the bay side of the dike.

However, in the southern part of the Salmon Creek 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 63

Unit along Salmon Creek, sediment has accumulated 

to a depth of 3 to 4 feet as a result of historic 

modifications of the channel and the resulting 

overbank flooding. The channeling of Salmon Creek 

into a network of canals has forced sedimentation 

here instead of onto the tidal flats of the bay. Since 

the area has been diked off from the daily influence 

of tides, the soil has changed from tidal marsh series 

to a Weott series (Soil Survey Staff 2007).

3.5. Humboldt Bay NWR Social and 

Economic Conditions

3.5.1. Humboldt Bay NWR Social and Economic 

Regional Overview

Since the 1850s, great demands have been placed 

on the Humboldt Bay region for timber, livestock, 

and agricultural products. Although these activities 

have provided economic benefits, they have also 

affected some of the region’s other natural resources 

(USFWS 1997). 

Humboldt County has historically been a very 

productive timber region (TNC et al. 2005). 

However, over the past 20 years the timber industry 

in California has undergone a major downturn, 

economically impacting the industry as well as the 

local community (TNC et al. 2005). One important 

factor in the industry’s downturn is a reduction in 

supply due to prior intensive harvest. In addition, 

an inconsistent domestic housing market, declining 

Asian markets in the 1990s, an increasing foreign 

lumber supply with relatively lower cost from 

Canada, Brazil, Chile, and Russia, and regulatory 

constrictions for protected species have had negative 

impacts (TNC et al. 2005). Nonetheless, as of 2005, 

Humboldt County timber production was over 390 

million board feet, equivalent to 22.6 percent of 

California’s total production (CDOF 2007). 

As of 2000, approximately 1,220 people were 

employed in agriculture in Humboldt County 

(CDOF 2007). Agricultural products, such as 

livestock and livestock products, as well as plant 

products, had a value of over $124 million (in year 

2000 $) for Humboldt County (Table 4). Dairy 

and beef cattle are primary products. The illegal 

production of marijuana has occurred for decades 

and is acknowledged by literally everyone in 

the county as a substantial economic driver but 

obviously there are not reliable figures regarding 

production, employment, or societal costs of this 

particular crop. 

Commercial and sport fishing have been a consistent 

part of the local economy for decades, but have 

recently fallen on hard times due to declining 

fisheries populations and increasingly complicated 

management and regulation (Table 5). For the first 

time in over 150 years, in summer 2008 there was 

not a commercial or sport ocean salmon fishing 

season allowed, due primarily to an unprecedented 

downturn in the Sacramento River Chinook salmon 

population.

Commercial oyster culture has a relatively long 

history on Humboldt Bay and provides much of the 

west coast supply of oysters as well as business and 

jobs within the local community.

The majority of non-agricultural employment in 

Humboldt County is in a few sectors including State 

and local government; trade, transportation and 

utilities; educational and health services; and leisure 

and hospitality (Table 6). 

3.5.2. Humboldt Bay NWR Management 

Economics

The current Complex staff consists of six full-time 

employees and one term-funded position. All seven 

employees are permanently stationed at Humboldt 

Bay NWR. The Complex’s total operational budget 

for fiscal year (FY) 2008 was ~$1M, including 

~$362K for maintenance.

National Wildlife Refuges contribute funds to local 

counties through revenue sharing programs that are 

intended to cover unrealized tax revenues for either 

lands purchased in fee title or lands reserved from 

Table 4. Value of agricultural commodities produced 

in Humboldt County for 2005. 

Commodity Value $ Million 

Nursery Products $43.50 

Milk, Market $29.10 

Cattle and Calves $19.90 

Milk, Manufactured $12.90 

Biomas, Energy $5.60 

Pasture, Range $4.70 

Livestock $3.70 

Pasture, Irrigated $3.10 

Silage $0.90 

Vegetables $0.90 

Total Value $124.30 

from www.dof.ca.gov
64 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

the public domain. For fiscal year 2007, Humboldt 

County received payment in the amount of ~$15K 

from the Federal government under this revenue 

sharing program.

3.5.3. Humboldt Bay NWR Regional Land Use

Humboldt County and Bay Area Land Use

Humboldt County is comprised of ~2,286,400 acres. 

The county has nearly 132,000 residents with the 

vast majority of people living in the larger cities 

around Humboldt Bay of Eureka (27,208), Arcata 

(17,244), and Fortuna (11,207) (CDOF 2007). Today, 

the area surrounding Humboldt Bay is a mixture 

of developed urban areas, agricultural lands, forest 

lands, and publicly owned natural areas (Table 7). 

According to the California Department of Finance, 

as of 2001, 27.7 percent (634,000 acres) of Humboldt 

County was farmland. In 2002 there were 993 farms 

in Humboldt County. 

As is the case with all development, including 

that around Humboldt Bay, there have been 

consequences to the local environment. Some of 

the regional environmental impacts from decades 

of development, logging, and agriculture include: 

sedimentation and aggraded stream and slough 

channels, degraded water quality and the reduction 

or loss of wetlands and other native habitats, and the 

fish, wildlife, and plants those lands support. 

Humans drastically altered lands around Humboldt 

Bay beginning in 1850. From 1850–1870, much of the 

shrubs and trees (riparian plant communities) were 

cleared from the bottoms around the bay. From 

1880–1910, the majority of the salt marshes were 

Table 6. Non-agricultural sector employment in 

Humboldt County as of 2006.

from www.dof.ca.gov

Humboldt County 

Non-Agricultural 

Sector in 2006

Number 

Employed 

in Sector

Percent 

of Total 

Employed 

in Sector

State and Local 

Government

13,050 26.8

Trade, Transportation 

and Utilities

9,867 20.2

Educational and 

Health Services

5,775 11.8

Leisure and 

Hospitality

5,250 10.8

Manufacturing 3,383 6.9

Professional and 

Business Services

3,158 6.5

Construction 2,533 5.2

Financial Activities 2,033 4.2

Other Services 1,833 3.8

Federal Government 792 1.6

Information 717 1.5

Natural Resources 

and Mining

383 0.8

Total 48,775 100

Year Millions of Pounds 

of Fish

Millions of 

Dollars

1981 35 13.5

1982 36 12.4

1983 21.9 7

1984 22.5 8.6

1985 28.5 10.7

1986 19.4 8.3

1987 28.5 12.6

1988 27 12

1989 21.2 8.4

1990 24.4 12.8

1991 20 8

1992 21.2 10.1

1993 18.3 9.1

1994 18.4 13

1995 15.1 10.3

1996 18 12.3

1997 19.7 12.7

1998 12.8 9

1999 12.1 9.7

2000 13.7 7.7

2001 9.5 5.7

2002 16.4 7.2

2003 16.4 12.8

2004 19.4 13.1

2005 14.9 7

from: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/landings/

lport_hist.html

Table 5. Eureka commercial fish harvest through 2005.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 65

diked and converted to agricultural grasslands. 

The higher areas of Arcata Bottoms, Jacoby Creek, 

Freshwater Creek, Elk River, Salmon Creek, and 

parts of Humboldt Hill were cleared and converted 

for hay production and agricultural grassland. Land 

use changes between 1871 and 1948 resulted in an 

approximate six-fold increase in agriculture lands 

with a corresponding loss in salt marsh. The current 

estimate of the area of salt marsh remaining around 

the Bay is 970 acres.

Currently, according to the National Wetland 

Inventory, there are ~10,200 acres of palustrine 

wetland (former tidelands) around Humboldt Bay, 

the majority of which is grazed or farmed. Most 

of the farmed or grazed wetlands are adjacent to 

the North Bay in the Arcata Bottoms and EurekaArcata agricultural grasslands. In recent decades 

there has been an increased interest in identifying 

opportunities and implementing actions to reclaim 

and preserve portions of historic bay ecosystems 

(Monroe 1973). Additionally, public interest is 

increasing for more wildlands and wildlife viewing 

opportunities (USFWS 1997), mirroring national 

trends that rank wildlife viewing as the most 

popular outdoor recreational activity (OIF 2006).

3.5.4. Humboldt Bay NWR Land Use

The Humboldt Bay area is the major population and 

industrial center along the California coast north of 

San Francisco (Table 5). The cities of Eureka and 

Arcata, and the small communities of Fairhaven, 

Manila, Samoa, King Salmon, and Fields Landing, 

lie along the shores of the bay. Several other 

communities, including Trinidad, McKinleyville, 

Loleta, Ferndale, and Fortuna, are within a broad 

service area. Arcata is the site of HSU, which 

currently has an enrollment of ~7,500 students. The 

College of the Redwoods, a two-year college with 

an enrollment of about 5,000 full-time and part-time 

students, is located a few miles south of Eureka, and 

right across Highway 101 from the refuge.

The South Humboldt Bay area, though strongly 

influenced by the urban and industrial nature of 

Eureka and the mid-bay, is still largely rural. Land 

uses along the east side of South Bay include log 

storage and deep-water docking facilities, a marina, 

power plant, two small residential areas (King 

Salmon and Field’s Landing), the College of the 

Redwoods, and improved agricultural grassland. 

Table Bluff, which separates South Bay from the Eel 

River bottoms, supports the Wiyot Rancheria, as 

well as agricultural operations and rural residences.

3.5.5. Humboldt Bay and Surrounding Area 

Demographics

Humboldt County is home to 131,595 residents as 

of 2007 (CDOF 2007). The two largest cities near 

Humboldt Bay NWR, Eureka and Arcata, have 

populations of 27,208 and 17,244 respectively (CDOF 

2007). According to the U.S. census of 2000, 51,238 

households, and 30,640 families reside in Humboldt 

County. The population density was 35 per square 

mile in 2000. There were 55,912 housing units at an 

average density of 16 per square mile. The racial 

makeup of the county was 84.7 percent white, 0.9 

percent black or African American, 5.7 percent 

Native American, 1.7 percent Asian, 0.2 percent 

Pacific Islander, 2.5 percent from other races, 6.5 

percent Hispanic or Latino of any race, and 4.4 

percent identified themselves as from two or more 

races.

As of 2000, there were 51,238 households in 

Humboldt County. The average household size was 

2.4 people and the average family size was 3 people. 

The median age was 36 years. 

3.5.6. Humboldt Bay NWR Local Economy and 

Employment

As of the 2000 U.S. census, the median income 

for a household in Humboldt County was $31,226, 

and the median income for a family was $39,370. 

The per capita income for the county was $17,203. 

About 12.9 percent of families and 19.5 percent 

of the population were below the poverty line. 

Although somewhat higher, Humboldt County’s 

recent unemployment rates tend to closely follow 

the state’s pattern (EDD 2007). As of May, 2007 

the median home price in Humboldt County was 

$314,000 (Eschker et al. 2007).

Economic development of the Humboldt Bay region 

is primarily limited by its remote location (Barnhart 

Table 7. Current land use in Humboldt Bay area as of 

2001 (adapted from Hull 2002). 

Use Acres Percentage

Agriculture 17,760 62.8%

Natural Resources 4,315 15.3%

Commercial/Industrial 2,596 9.2%

Residential/Rancheria 1,979 7.0%

Public 1,156 4.1%

Timberland 348 1.2%

Railroad 39 0.1%

from www.dof.ca.gov
66 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

Castle Rock seen from overhead. 

Aerial photograph taken on 25 

February 2006 by D. Jaques from 

a U.S. Coast Guard helicopter.

et al. 1992). The economic base is dependent upon 

natural resource related industries including timber 

and wood products, fisheries, agriculture (primarily 

dairy products), and tourism (Barnhart et al. 1992). 

Commercial maritime activities associated with 

shipping and fishing operates from Fields Landing, 

King Salmon, and Eureka (Hull 2002). Major export 

products include wood chips, paper pulp, and logs 

and lumber, while logs, wood chips and fuel are the 

major imports to local port facilitates (Hull 2002). 

Lumber-based manufacturing generates about 55 

percent of total Humboldt County manufacturing 

employment. Overall manufacturing is down 40.8 

percent from 10 years prior throughout the county. 

Lumber-based manufacturing has declined sharply 

since its recent peak in 2005 (Eschker et al. 2007).

The ecosystems in and near Humboldt Bay have 

historically supported the largest commercial 

fishery of all California ports north of Los Angeles. 

While commercial fisheries vary in complex cycles, 

there has been a general downward trend in the 

annual harvest reported for the port at Eureka, CA, 

from well over 20 million pounds of fish harvested 

per year in the 1980s to well below 20 million pounds 

of fish harvested per year since the early 1990s 

(NOAA Fisheries Service 2007). Annual harvests 

of Dungeness crab off of Eureka, CA, are the 

largest in the state. Between the fishing seasons 

of 1982–1983 and 2001–2002, the annual harvest of 

Dungeness crab in northern California ranged from 

1.9–13.1 million pounds, and averaged 6.9 million 

pounds per year (CDFG 2004b). Although declining 

in importance, commercial fisheries continue to be 

a significant source of resource-driven economic 

benefits.

During the period 2001–2005, Humboldt County’s 

industry employment declined overall by 900 

jobs. While the county experienced job losses in 

manufacturing, educational and health services; 

professional and business services; financial 

activities; and other services as well as growth in 

other industries offset some of the decline (EDD 

2007). As of 2005, some of the largest industries 

in Humboldt County included government (26.8 

percent); trade, transportation, and utilities (19.8 

percent); education and health services (11.5 

percent); leisure and hospitality (10.5 percent); 

manufacturing (7.7 percent); professional and 

business services (6.7 percent); and construction (4.8 

percent) (EDD 2007).

Pt. St. George

Washington Drive

Interpretive 

Panels

(best observation 

point)

CRESCENT

CITY

Pebble Beach Drive

Castle

Rock 

NWR

N

Castle Rock NWR location map.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 67

3.6. Overview of Castle Rock NWR

3.6.1. Castle Rock NWR Geographic/Ecosystem 

Setting

Castle Rock is the largest, most structurally diverse 

island on the California coast north of Southeast 

Farallon Island. It is unique among the more than 

1,000 offshore rocks and islands in the state in that 

it has so many types of habitat on one large island 

within an extremely productive region of the Pacific 

Ocean. Castle Rock NWR’s habitat features include 

relatively deep topsoil, vegetated terraces, sheer 

rock cliffs, talus slopes, a tiny beach of small cobble 

(greater than 1 centimeter diameter), a small patch 

of pebble sand, and reef habitat. These features 

allow it to host more than 100,000 breeding seabirds 

of 11 species, as well as provide haulout grounds 

for pinnipeds and a secure night roost for Aleutian 

cackling geese. 

Castle Rock NWR supports one of the largest 

populations of nocturnal cavity-nesting seabirds in 

California and one of the most important colonies of 

common murres on the Pacific coast (Carter et al. 

1992, USFWS 2005). It is one of only five sites in the 

California Current System that supports more than 

100,000 nesting seabirds. One species of shorebird, 

the black oystercatcher, also nests at Castle Rock 

NWR. The island is important to non-breeding 

seabirds as well. It serves as a communal roost for 

thousands of brown pelicans during migration, and 

has become one of the most important resting sites 

for State and federally listed species on the northern 

California coast. 

Four species of pinnipeds occur regularly at Castle 

Rock NWR and its associated reef. Two seals, the 

elephant seal and harbor seal, breed there. The 

island represents the northernmost colonial site in 

the Pacific Ocean where elephant seals regularly and 

successfully breed. In addition, Castle Rock NWR 

is part of one of the largest haul-outs for California 

sea-lion in northern California, and a key haulout 

for a local breeding population of the federally 

endangered Steller sea-lion. 

Castle Rock NWR is fringed by a lush intertidal 

zone and surrounded by waters rich with marine 

resources. This intertidal zone and near shore 

habitat provide rich feeding grounds for seabirds 

and pinnipeds that also use the island. 

Table 8. Monthly and annual precipitation data for Crescent City, CA (near Castle Rock NWR), from 1948 

through 2007 (adapted from WRCC 2007). 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Average Max. 

Temperature 

(F)

 54.0 55.7 56.9 59.1 62.0 64.9 66.9 67.4 67.7 64.2 58.4 54.8 61.0

Average Min. 

Temperature 

(F)

 39.6 40.5 41.0 42.5 45.3 48.3 50.6 50.9 49.1 46.2 42.8 40.2 44.7

Average Total 

Precipitation 

(in.) 11.68 9.90 8.97 5.40 3.49 1.60 0.45 0.61 1.86 5.24 9.86 11.61 70.66

Average Total 

SnowFall 

(in.)

 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7

Average 

Snow Depth 

(in.)

 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Period of Record : 1/ 1/1893 to 12/31/2007

Percent of possible observations for period of record.

Max. Temp.: 95.2% Min. Temp.: 95.1% Precipitation: 97.4% Snowfall: 99.7% Snow Depth: 99.7% 

Source of data: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmnca.html
68 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

3.6.2. Castle Rock NWR Physical Geography 

and Climate

The coastal habitats of Del Norte County have a 

Mediterranean climate, characterized by moderate 

temperatures and heavy precipitation with many 

foggy days throughout the year (HC 2001). The area 

receives over 50 inches of precipitation annually, 

with the majority occurring from October through 

April (WRCC 2007). Table 8 displays the average 

monthly and annual precipitation data for Crescent 

City (WRCC 2007). Prevailing winds during spring 

and summer are from the north and northwest 

(WRCC 2007). Winter storms can bring winds, 

generally from the south or southwest, sometimes 

exceeding 55–75 miles per hour. 

Ocean Climate and the California Current 

System 

The California Current System, which extends from 

Baja Mexico to British Columbia, is a complex and 

extremely productive system of currents, counter 

currents, undercurrents and other oceanographic 

processes, such as upwelling, that supports millions 

of breeding and seasonally migrating seabirds. 

Surface flow along the northwest California coast 

(north of Point Conception) is generally northward 

during winter, but during the spring there is 

a dramatic reversal, or “spring transition,” as 

the current shifts to predominantly southward. 

Upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich waters along the 

coast is greatest in spring and summer, coincident 

with seabird breeding seasons. Contours of the 

coastline, ocean floor topography, and weather all 

contribute to spatial and temporal variability in the 

system, such as variable upwelling. Murres, gulls, 

and shearwaters are the most abundant seabirds in 

the California Current System. 

Large Scale Oceanic and Climate Processes 

El Niño, La Niña, the Southern Oscillation, and 

currents are linked via changes in global pressure 

systems of the southwestern Pacific Ocean 

(Southern Oscillation). The connection of El Niño 

and La Niña with the Southern Oscillation has led to 

the acronyms, ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) 

and LNSO (La Niña Southern Oscillation). Declines 

and increases in zooplankton, squid, and fish 

populations that compose the food webs of most 

seabirds in the Pacific Ocean can be linked directly 

to a variety of physical oceanographic changes that 

occur during ENSO events. Periodic El Niño ocean 

warming conditions occur every 4–7 years. During 

El Niño, biological productivity in the upper water 

column declines markedly, with resulting negative 

effects on survival and reproduction of seabirds. The 

inverse of El Niño is La Niña, a periodic condition 

that results in ocean cooling. During La Niña, 

enhanced upwelling has positive effects on food web 

development and seabird productivity.

Seabird responses can vary in relation to the 

intensity and timing of each El Niño. Life history 

and demographic parameters affected by El Niño 

and La Niña include reproductive success, adult 

mortality, mortality of hatch-year birds, colony 

attendance, and breeding effort. Starvation is 

the likely cause of increased mortality of young 

and adults, but direct evidence of this mechanism 

is often lacking. El Niño has been linked to the 

population dynamics of seabirds, suggesting an 

important natural mechanism for understanding 

seabird population changes. In contrast, strong 

La Niña years may result in the production of 

exceptionally large cohorts which can sustain 

seabird populations for decades.

Pacific Decadal Oscillation 

In addition to ENSO/LNSO there are other natural 

oceanic climatic cycles that occur on time scales of 

decades or centuries. In the North Pacific, one of 

these long cycle marine climate shifts is called the 

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The PDO can be 

thought of as an El Niño-like event that operates on 

a time scale of decades, with a 50–60 year periodicity 

of warm and cold phases.

Biological communities have historically responded 

to PDO-related ocean warming and cooling in 

the Pacific Ocean. There have been few studies of 

the effects of long-term ocean climate shifts on 

seabirds. In California and Hawaii, some seabirds 

showed long-term declines in productivity, while 

others did not after the PDO shifted from a cool 

to a warm phase in 1976–1977. However, after a 

hypothesized shift back to a cool era in 1998–1999, 

colony data from the Farallon Islands NWR clearly 

demonstrated an increase in productivity for six 

species of seabird. 

Functional relationships between seabird life history 

parameters, demographic traits, and environmental 

conditions have rarely been documented, yet 

knowledge of such relationships is critical to 

understanding the causes of seabird population 

fluctuations in relation to climate variability and 

change. Developing an understanding of the relative 

effects of anthropogenic and natural factors on 

ocean warming at multiple temporal scales remains 

a serious conservation challenge.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 69

3.6.3. Castle Rock NWR Climate Change and 

Sea Level Rise

Castle Rock NWR is a 14-acre island, which offers 

essentially no opportunity for geographic migration 

by terrestrial plant communities. If the ambient 

climate becomes intolerable for a resident plant 

species, then local extirpation of that plant species is 

very likely. 

Much of the productivity of the California’s open 

coastal habitat is directly or indirectly related to 

upwelling caused as currents and winds move water 

offshore (Hunt 1995). Upwelling is a wind-driven 

process in which colder, nutrient-rich waters from 

the depths are brought to surface waters where 

plankton utilize the nutrients for growth, fueling 

increased productivity in higher trophic levels. If 

historic changes in the upwelling, and resulting 

productivity of the California Current System, occur 

and are amplified by global climate change, then 

impacts to seabird and marine mammal food sources 

could be substantial. Little evidence is available 

to accurately predict changes to the California 

Current System over time as the climate warms. 

However, fluctuations in upwelling can produce 

major impacts on biological productivity. Impacts 

on productivity, correlated with reduced upwelling, 

include large-scale seabird deaths recently observed 

along the coasts of California and Oregon (CSG 

2007). One flood hazard scenario map produced by 

researchers at the Pacific Institute, with support 

from the California Energy Commission, California 

Department of Transportation, and the Ocean 

Protection Council (see Appendix P, Crescent City 

quadrangle) shows the extent of the coastal base 

flood elevation (approximate extent of a 100-year 

flood) plus a sea level rise of 1.4 meters (55 inches). 

The map of this scenario shows relatively little sea 

level rise on Castle Rock NWR due to the steep 

rocky cliffs on the island.

3.6.4. Castle Rock NWR Geology, Hydrology, 

and Soils

Castle Rock NWR is located within the geographic 

boundary of the Coast Range of northern California. 

The Coast Range geological province is located 

along the coastal portion of the Klamath ecoregion 

from Sonoma County to the Oregon border. It 

includes the entire watershed of most of the smaller 

coastal streams, as well as portions of the Smith 

River and Klamath River hydrobasin. It consists of 

a system of north and northwest trending mountain 

ridges and valleys formed by folding and faulting. 

The geologic history of this province is complex. 

The exposed stratigraphy suggests long periods 

of marine deposition, plutonic intrusion (igneous 

rocks that solidify below the earth’s surface), and 

intermittent volcanic activity and orogeny (mountain 

building from plate tectonics) (Cooperrider and 

Garrett 1998). The predominant formation in 

the Coast Ranges is the Franciscan Complex of 

Upper Jurassic (~160 to 136 million years ago) 

and Lower Cretaceous (beginning ~136 million 

years ago) age. Franciscan Complex rocks include 

graywacke, metagraywacke, argillite, greenstone, 

chert, blueschist, and associated ultramafic rocks 

and serpentine. Over millennia, these rocks have 

undergone periods of intense folding, faulting, and 

deformation associated with the complex process of 

tectonic plate movement. The rivers of this province 

mostly run south/north or north/south paralleling 

the underlying rock formations and fault lines.

Castle Rock is associated with the Smith River 

Plain and emerged marine terrace (Osborne 1972, 

USFWS 1978). The plain covers an area of about 60 

square miles and is composed of geologic formations 

from the Jurassic age to recent times. Castle Rock is 

of the Franciscan Formation. It has a base of pillow 

basalt which extends 200 feet high on the west end. 

The east end of the island is largely graywacke and 

shale. The south and west aspects of the island are 

largely barren cliffs. The northwest portion of the 

island slopes downward to the water at a 30 degree 

angle. There is soil on the northern and eastern 

slopes of the island. A rocky yellow-sandy subsoil 

exists on the relatively flat portions of the island. 

This soil layer is reportedly up to 25 feet deep and 

is the product of late Pleistocene era deposits. The 

topsoil above this has been described as a dark 

organic humus layer 6–12 inches deep (Osborne 

1972). 

There are faults in the island running north-south 

which have been eroded by waves forming large 

caves on the southern side. Near the east side of the 

island, one of these faults has collapsed forming an 

open “pit” 100 feet in diameter and connected to the 

sea by a cave. 

3.6.5. Castle Rock NWR Minerals

There are no known mineral deposits on Castle 

Rock NWR. Prior to the purchase by the 

Nature Conservancy in 1979, speculators were 

contemplating guano mining and rock quarrying on 

the island.
70 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

3.6.6. Castle Rock NWR Paleontological 

Resources

No known paleo-faunal remains occur within the 

approved refuge boundaries of Castle Rock NWR.

3.6.7. Castle Rock NWR Water Resources

There are no permanent water resources on Castle 

Rock NWR. Plant communities survive on water 

supplied through precipitation and fog. 

3.6.8. Castle Rock NWR Hazardous Materials

No area within the Castle Rock NWR is listed as 

a hazardous waste site by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency.

3.7. Castle Rock NWR Biological 

Resources

3.7.1. Castle Rock NWR Ecoregional Context 

The California North Coast Ecoregion represents 

the southern extension of the temperate rain forests 

of the U.S. Pacific Northwest (TNC et al. 2005). The 

cool, foggy coastal climate supports coastal redwood 

forests and the resident flora and fauna that depend 

on these forests. 

3.7.2. Castle Rock NWR Fish and Wildlife

Castle Rock NWR, and portions of the surrounding 

environment, is an important stopover for migratory 

birds, as well as important breeding habitat for 

resident birds. 

In addition to providing breeding habitat for 

many species of birds, Castle Rock NWR and the 

surrounding sea rocks and reefs offer haulout sites 

for resident and migratory pinnipeds, including 

species of seal and sea-lion. Given the sensitivity 

of Castle Rock’s bird nesting habitat, no formal 

surveys for resident terrestrial mammals, reptiles, 

or amphibians have been completed so information 

about such groups is historic, speculative, or 

anecdotal. 

3.7.3. Castle Rock NWR Plant Communities

Osborne (1972) developed a rough map of the major 

cover types (Figure 11), and listed the most common 

plant species on Castle Rock based on island visits 

in 1970. John Sawyer visited the island in 1984 and 

developed a plant list (modified in Appendix J: Plant 

list for HBNWRC). Both investigators described 

apparent trends in plant community composition 

and soil erosion. 

In the early 1970s, Osborne (1972) found two 

primary plant cover types on the eastern flat 

(meadow) and northern slopes, an area dominated 

by maritime goldfields (Lasthenia maritima), 

annual blue grass (Poa annua), sand spurrey, and 

lesser swine cress (Coronopus didymus), and 

an area covered with a dense growth of Pacific 

reedgrass (Calamagrostis nutkaensis) and a 

host of mixed herbs. In 1984, Sawyer noted that 

the meadow was covered with sand spurrey and 

goldfields. Clumps of Pacific reedgrass on the plains 

in areas with deeper soils were intermixed with 

other coastal scrub plants, such as coast angelica 

(Angelica hendersonii), rush, and sedge. 

Plants growing in rocky areas during the surveys 

included bluff lettuce (Dudleya farinosa), brome 

(Bromus sp.), seaside daisy, and leather leaf fern 

(Polypodium scouleri). The protected portion of the 

north side of the island supported miner’s lettuce 

(Claytonia perfoliata, syn. Montia perfoliata), snow 

queen (Synthris reniformis), and leather leaf fern, 

with a few pockets of salt grass. 

Changes in Castle Rock NWR Plant 

Communities

Over the last century, the area covered with 

reedgrass has receded and been replaced with 

goldfields and sand spurrey. The cause of the 

decrease in reedgrass has been attributed to 

the increase in the Brandt’s cormorant breeding 

population on Castle Rock (Osborne 1972). 

Osborne observed cormorants using reedgrass 

almost exclusively for nesting material when it was 

readily available. He also suggested that Canada 

geese might be having some impacts on vegetative 

changes at Castle Rock. At that time, only up to 

600 geese were using the island for roosting and 

grazing (compared to up to 20-25,000 currently). 

Sawyer (1984) stated that the loss of reedgrass was 

indicative of a more extensive problem of heavy 

erosion of the habitat overall. 

In recent years, thousands of roosting Aleutian 

cackling geese and breeding seabirds have appeared 

to impact the short-term status of vegetation at 

Castle Rock NWR, with long-term impacts likely. 

The geese cause a general browning of the spring 

vegetation due to trampling, foraging, and intensive 

fecal output. The vegetation greens up and grows 

back lushly by the peak incubation time of most 

seabirds. Breeding seabirds, and lack of summer 

rain, cause a second death of vegetative growth due 

to use of island plants for nest material, trampling, 

and effects of guano. By mid to late summer, the 

island appears more white and brown than green. 

Temporary vegetation loss is likely to affect longterm soil erosion on the island (Osborne 1972, 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 71

Sawyer 1984, Jaques and Strong 2001), particularly 

during the rainy season. Accelerated soil erosion 

could have long-term negative impacts on burrownesting seabird habitat.

There has been no recent assessment of the ratio 

of native versus non-native plant communities 

at Castle Rock NWR. The USFWS Seabird 

Conservation Plan (2005) states that non-native 

plants can displace native plants and may limit 

or degrade seabird nesting habitat. Non-native 

plants may have shallow root systems that do not 

stabilize the soil as well as native vegetation and 

consequently effect burrow stability. 

3.7.4. Castle Rock NWR Seabirds

Castle Rock NWR provides habitat for one of 

the largest, most diverse, and densely populated 

seabird breeding colonies in the California Current 

System (Tables 9 and 10). It is one of only five sites 

in the California Current System that supports 

more than 100,000 nesting seabirds. Castle Rock 

NWR is known as the second largest seabird colony 

south of Alaska, after Southeast Farallon Island. 

This ranking is based on population levels that 

include rough historical estimates for nocturnal 

cavity nesting seabirds, whose status is currently 

unknown. Common murres comprise the majority of 

the breeding seabird population at both Castle Rock 

NWR and SEFI. Due to annual variability in murre 

breeding effort between the two sites, Castle Rock 

NWR may be the largest seabird colony south of 

Alaska in some years. 

The relative importance of Castle Rock NWR on a 

statewide and regional scale has been established 

by large-scale inventories. Two statewide surveys 

of all breeding species have been conducted in 

California, in 1975–1980 (Sowls et al. 1980) and in 

1989–1991 (Carter et al. 1992). The last statewide 

inventories of all species in Oregon and Washington 

were conducted in 1988 and 1978–1982, respectively 

(Speich and Wahl 1989, USFWS in prep). More 

recently, large-scale inventories have focused on 

aerial surveys of only murres and cormorants.

Castle Rock NWR was the second largest seabird 

colony in California, following closely behind the 

Farallon Islands NWR during the last statewide 

Figure 11. Historic vegetative cover map of Castle Rock. (Note: Baeria has been renamed Lasthenia.) 

Figure adapted from Osborne (1972) and converted into ArcView format by D. Jaques. 
72 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

et al. 2006) and supported substantial portions of 

the California total of six species during the last 

statewide survey: fork-tailed storm petrel (24 

percent), leach’s storm-petrel (19 percent), common 

murre (31 percent), Cassin’s auklet (10 percent), 

rhinoceros auklet (58 percent), and tufted puffin (30 

percent) (Carter et al. 1992). 

3.7.5. Castle Rock NWR Nesting Seabirds

Fork-tailed Storm-petrel 

The fork-tailed storm-petrel is widely distributed 

throughout the North Pacific. It is separated into 

two subspecies; Oceanodroma furcata plumbea 

breeds along the west coast of North America 

from southern Alaska to northern California 

(Osborne 1972, Harrison 1983). There are about 

5,000 breeding birds on the west coast of the U.S., 

excluding Alaska, with an estimated 400 pairs in 

California (USFWS 2005). The fork-tailed stormpetrel is a pelagic seabird that feeds primarily 

offshore, near the continental shelf break in summer, 

and further offshore in the non-breeding season 

(Briggs et al. 1987). Its diet consists of planktonic 

crustaceans, and fish and animal detritus from the 

ocean surface (Boersma and Silva 2001). It breeds 

colonially in crevices and burrows on rocky islands, 

and is nocturnally active at breeding colonies 

(Boersma et al. 1980).

Castle Rock NWR is near the southern limit of 

the fork-tailed storm petrel species range and, 

according to very limited historic information, 

appears to be the second largest fork-tailed stormpetrel colony in California (Carter et al. 1992). 

The fork-tailed storm petrel breeding population 

at Castle Rock NWR has never been scientifically 

assessed due to inherent survey difficulties. Their 

presence on Castle Rock NWR has been established 

through mist-netting as well as auditory cues. In 

1970 (16 May), Osborne captured two FTSPs, and 

suggested that the total population was probably 

fewer than 100 pairs. The next mist-netting effort 

took place in 1989 (Sept. 12–13), when six fork-tailed 

storm petrels were captured in a mist-net located in 

the “saddle” of the meadow. FTSPs also were heard 

calling near the east end of the island on 21–22 

August. Until new information is collected, the only 

definitive statement that can be made is that they 

were present in the early 90s.

The fork-tailed storm petrel is one of the earliest 

breeding seabirds in northern California. First 

landfall at Little River Rock was February 25 

(Harris 1974). Egg dates range from March 22 to 

June 18 (Clay 1925, Dawson 1923, Harris 1974). 

Local chick records range from June 11 to August 9 

(Osborne 1972). 

Table 9. Complete seabird breeding population 

estimates on Castle Rock, 1970 to 1989. 

Estimated Number of 

Nesting Birds

Species 1970 (a) 1979-80 (b) 1989 (c)

Fork-tailed 

Storm-petrel <200 100 100

Leach’s Stormpetrel 5,000 5,000 1,646

Brandt’s 

Cormorant 1,758 2,200 2,490

Pelagic 

Cormorant 100 340 392

Black 

Oystercatcher 2 6 4

Western Gull 1,200 1,350 1,370

Common 

Murre 80,000 126,000 108,318

Pigeon 

Guillemot 250 800 360

Cassin’s 

Auklet 3,600 3,600 5,638

Rhinoceros 

Auklet 150 200 1,034

Tufted Puffin 50 100 82

TOTAL 92,310 140,596 121,434

Data from Osborne (1972) (a), Sowls et al. (1980) (b), 

and Carter et al. (1992) (c).

survey. The total breeding population estimate 

at Castle Rock NWR was 122,000 birds in 1989, 

compared to about 128,000 at SEFI (Carter et 

al. 1992). In 2004, the Castle Rock NWR murre 

estimate alone was over 138,000 birds (Capitolo et 

al. 2006). Castle Rock supports about 8,600 breeding 

birds per acre, compared to about 1,300 birds per 

acre at SEFI. Eleven species of seabirds breed at 

Castle Rock NWR, which represents all of the island 

breeding seabird species in California north of 

Point Reyes. Five are surface nesters: the common 

murre; Brandt’s, pelagic, and double-crested 

cormorants; and western gull. The remaining six 

species are cavity nesters: fork-tailed and Leach’s 

storm-petrels; Cassin’s and rhinoceros auklets; 

pigeon guillemot; and tufted puffin. One species 

of shorebird, the black oystercatcher, also breeds 

on the island. Castle Rock NWR is the site of the 

largest common murre colony in California (Capitolo 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 73

Leach’s Storm-petrel 

The Leach’s storm-petrel is one of the most 

widely distributed procellariform (in the order 

Procellariiformes, or tube-nosed seabirds) species 

in the northern hemisphere. They breed from Japan 

to Guadalupe, Mexico, in the Pacific, and also in the 

Atlantic (Huntington et al. 1996). The subspecies 

in northern California is Oceanodroma leucorhoa 

leucorhoa. The population estimate for the U.S. 

west coast, excluding Alaska, is nearly 500,000 birds, 

with about 90 percent of these breeding in Oregon. 

The number of storm petrel colonies in California 

north of Cape Mendocino was reduced from 11 

historic sites to five known sites by 1969 (Harris 

1974). There is evidence of a continued decline of 

this species in California (Carter et al. 1992). The 

Leach’s storm petrel is a pelagic seabird that is 

most abundant seaward of the continental shelf, and 

closer to shore during the breeding season. Its diet 

includes plankton and small nekton, concentrated 

at the surface. These petrels nest in burrows or 

crevices. They feed during the day and move to and 

from breeding colonies only at night. 

Leach’s storm petrels arrive at northern California 

breeding colonies and begin courtship activities 

early in the spring. The earliest landfall detected 

in the region was 12 February (Osborne 1972). 

Harris (1974) found courtship and intensive burrow 

construction from March to May. Eggs have been 

reported from 7 May to 24 July (Clay, unpubl.). 

Small numbers of birds may be found at northern 

California colonies as late as October (Osborne 

1972).

Leach’s storm petrels at Castle Rock have been 

strongly associated with reed grass vegetation on 

the east end of the island. Osborne (1972) estimated 

2,500 pairs of Leach’s storm petrels nesting under 

the grass, and found their burrows nowhere else on 

Castle Rock NWR. That vegetation now appears 

to be extirpated from the island. The vegetation on 

Castle Rock NWR is directly affected by surfacenesting seabirds and non-breeding Aleutian cackling 

geese. 

Double-crested Cormorant

The double-crested cormorant on the Pacific 

coast is one of five subspecies recognized in North 

America. The breeding range of this subspecies 

extends from Mexico to Canada. Post-breeding 

dispersal occurs along the Pacific coast, but major 

migratory movements have not been described. The 

continental population has been estimated at about 

two million birds (USFWS 2003b). Since the 1970s, 

numbers of this species have increased significantly 

in many regions of North America. Many negative 

impacts have been associated with this increase, 

prompting legal and illegal actions to control 

numbers in various places of the U.S. (Wires et al. 

2001). 

On the California coast the total number of doublecrested cormorants nests in 2001–2003 was about 

6,500 at 42 colonies (~940 (1975-80), 4,300 (1989-91), 

and 6,160 (2001-03); Capitolo et al. 2004b). Most of 

the increase in northern California between 1990 

and 2003 was due to two new colonies in Arcata/

Humboldt Bay (Teal Island and Arcata Bay Sand 

Table 10. Population estimates for surface nesting and diurnal cavity nesting species at Castle Rock, 1979-

1999.

Estimated Number of Nesting Birds

Species 1997 (a) 1998 (a) 1999 (a) 2003 (b) 2004 (b,c)

Common Murre 75,246 51,138 97,996 104,381 138,104

Pigeon Guillemot 288 269 260 nd 324

Tufted Puffin 12 6 24 nd 9

Brandt’s Cormorant 1,638 1,380 1,208 2,068 3,122

Double-crested 

Cormorant 44 58 80 272 116

Pelagic Cormorant 372 80 308 nd 534

Western Gull nd 662 698 nd nd

TOTAL 77,600 53,593 100,574 106,721 142,209

from Jaques and Strong (2001) (a), Capitolo et al. 2006 (b), and Jaques (2004) (c). The murre estimate is the 

raw count times a correction factor of 1.67; the cormorant estimate is derived from the number of nests directly 

counted times 2. 
74 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

Island) This nest count was 48 percent higher than 

in 1989–1991 and almost six times higher than in 

1975–1980. One of the three largest colonies in 

northern California is located just north of Castle 

Rock at Prince Island. 

The double-crested cormorant uses a variety of nest 

habitat types. It constructs nests of vegetation in 

trees, islands, and a variety of artificial structures. 

It is known to denude vegetation and have negative 

effects on habitats shared with other species. 

Double-crested cormorants nest earlier than other 

coastal cormorants (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990, 

Carter et al. 1992). Egg laying may begin as early 

as late March in northern California; hatching takes 

place from late April to mid-August (Sowls et al. 

1980). 

Double-crested cormorants were first documented 

nesting at Castle Rock in 1997 (Jaques and Strong 

2001). The colony increased from 29 nests in 1997 

to an estimated 136 nests in 2003 (Capitolo et al. 

2004b). 

In 1997, double-crested cormorants were observed 

building nests in tall vegetation at the southeastern 

rim of the island (Jaques and Strong 2001). After 

1997 it was not possible to see all nests from shore. 

Large chicks were observed creching in the nesting 

area in mid to late July each year from 1997–1999. 

Since at least 2001, double-crested cormorant 

nesting has moved from exclusively at the eastern 

rim of Castle Rock NWR to various regions, 

including the western peak of the island (P. Capitolo, 

UCSC, pers. comm.). Capitolo et al. (2004b) reported 

that it is difficult to distinguish double-crested 

cormorant nests from those of Brandt’s cormorant 

in the aerial photographs of Castle Rock because 

few stick nests were obvious there. Jaques (2004) 

observed that cormorants use vegetation from the 

island itself to build nests, and that there was no tall 

vegetative growth remaining on the eastern rim by 

2004. 

Double-crested cormorant productivity and 

chronology is relatively immune to variability in 

ocean conditions compared to other cormorants (see 

Capitolo et al. 2004a). The double-crested cormorant 

was one of only two seabird species breeding on 

Castle Rock NWR that did not demonstrate a 

negative response to ENSO conditions in 1998 

(Jaques and Strong 2001). There was no apparent 

effect of the 2003 ENSO on this species’ breeding 

status in California (Capitolo et al. 2004a). The 

consistent increase in the double-crested cormorant 

population in northern California likely reflects 

the fact that double-crested cormorants forage 

opportunistically in estuaries and fresh water 

bodies, as well as coastal waters of the region 

(Ainely and Boekelheide 1990, Carter et al. 2001, 

Jaques and Strong 2001, Capitolo et al. 2004a).

Brandt’s Cormorant

The Brandt’s cormorant breeds only along the west 

coast of North America. Approximately 75 percent 

of the population breeds in California and Oregon. 

Some small colonies have occurred as far north as 

Alaska, and others exist as far south as southern 

Baja California. Post-breeding dispersal takes 

place out of central California, but no consistent 

movement pattern or direction has been established 

(Briggs et al. 1987). The total population has been 

estimated at more than 100,000 birds (USFWS 

2005). A statewide nest count in California in 2001–

2003 totaled 27,000 nests at 97 active colonies. These 

data indicated a 29 percent decline in the population 

between 1989–1991 and 2001–2004, but were similar 

to numbers reported in 1975–1980 (Capitolo et al. 

2004a). 

Brandt’s cormorants nest in colonies on islands 

or cliffs with relatively flat ledges (Wallace and 

Wallace 1998). Nests are made of terrestrial plants 

or seaweed collected from the land or sea, or 

stolen from other nests. Nest building in northern 

California generally begins in April, and eggs are 

laid in May (Osborne 1972, Carter et al. 1992). 

Breeding chronology may be related to the onset 

of upwelling at different locations (Boekelheide et 

al. 1990). Nesting can be significantly depressed 

during ENSO and post-ENSO years; the degree of 

response has been related to intensity and timing of 

warm events. Brandt’s cormorants will abandon nest 

sites en masse if food supplies decline midseason 

(Boekelheide et al. 1990).

Castle Rock NWR supported the third largest 

colony of Brandt’s Cormorant in California during 

the last series of statewide surveys in 2003 (Capitolo 

et al. 2004a). This was a decrease of about 9 percent 

since the 1989 survey. The statewide population 

reportedly declined 25 percent from 1989 to 2003. 

In 2004, the numbers of Brandt’s cormorant nests 

at Castle Rock increased. There were 1,561 nests 

present (Capitolo et al. 2006), which was the greatest 

number of nests ever recorded at the island. 

Jaques and Strong (2001) reported much lower 

Brandt’s cormorant nest counts at Castle Rock in 

1997–1999 (604–819 nests), but breeding during 

much of that period was strongly affected by ENSO 

conditions. Major nest abandonment occurred 

in 1998. Nest counts at Castle Rock in 1970 and 

1980 totaled 879 and 1,100, respectively (Osborne 

1972, Sowls et al. 1980). These data probably 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 75

reflect fluctuation in the population related to 

oceanographic variability and availability of prey 

(Capitolo et al. 2004). No major disturbances or 

oil spill impacts have been documented for this 

breeding population. 

Brandt’s cormorants roost on Castle Rock NWR in 

March, and begin forming colonies as early as the 

first week of April. Roosting Aleutian geese and 

Brandt’s cormorants overlap during this period, 

but Jaques (2004) found no evidence of direct 

interference between geese and cormorants.

Brandt’s cormorants use vegetation growing on 

Castle Rock to build nests (Osborne 1972, Jaques 

and Strong 2001, Jaques 2004). Historically, Brandt’s 

cormorants preferred Pacific reedgrass, but as it is 

no longer available they use maritime goldfields and 

other plants. A major loss of protective vegetation 

and soil was reported at Castle Rock NWR in 

the early 1970s by Osborne (1972), who believed 

that the primary cause of the habitat degradation 

was removal of vegetation by nesting Brandt’s 

cormorants. 

Pelagic Cormorant 

The pelagic cormorant breeds from northern Baja 

California to the Bering Sea, and south in the 

Northwest Pacific to Japan (Hobson 1997). The 

subspecies Phalacrocorax pelagicus resplenens

breeds from Baja to British Columbia. About 

29,000 birds, more than 40 percent of the global 

population, breed in Washington, Oregon, and 

California (USFWS 2005). Pelagic cormorants nest 

on cliff ledges on islands and mainland shores, and 

occasionally use artificial structures (Carter et al. 

1992, Hobson 1997). Pelagic cormorants are very 

sensitive to changes in oceanographic conditions, 

such as ENSO events, and breeding effort and 

success can vary greatly on an annual basis (Ainley 

and Boekelheide 1990). Food supply also influences 

laying dates and variations in hatching and fledging 

dates in California (Boekelheide et al. 1990). Pelagic 

cormorants are extremely vulnerable to human 

disturbance at breeding areas (Verbeek 1982, SiegelCausey and Litvinenko 1993). 

Pelagic cormorants breed on cliff ledges all around 

the shoreline of Castle Rock NWR. Breeding 

activity has increased greatly since 1970 when only 

about 50 nests were reported (Osborne 1972). A 

record 267 nests was found during the most recent 

survey in 2004, indicating a breeding population 

of 534 birds (Jaques 2004 unpublished data). The 

breeding population ranged between 300-400 birds 

during 5 surveys conducted from 1979 to 1999, with 

the exception of 1998 (Sowls et al. 1980, Carter et 

al. 1992, Jaques and Strong 2001). In 1998, only 25 

nests were built, probably due to ENSO conditions 

that year (Jaques and Strong 2001). 

Western Gull 

The western gull is endemic to the west coast of 

North America, and breeds from central Baja 

California to southern Washington (Pierotti and 

Annett 1995). There are two subspecies, with Larus 

occidentalis occidentalis occurring on the outer 

Pacific coast. The total subspecies population has 

been estimated at 80,000 to 126,000 breeding birds 

(USFWS 2005), including about 62,000 in California 

(Carter et al. 1992). Numbers have increased 

in California since the early 1900s (Pierroti and 

Annett 1995). The statewide survey in 1989–1991 

indicated that the population has continued to grow 

since 1975–80 (Carter et al. 1992). Most California 

western gulls breed on the Channel Islands and 

Southeast Farallon Island NWR. Their relatively 

small population size and limited range make them a 

vulnerable species worthy of regional management 

concern (Pierotti and Annette 1995, USFWS 2005).

Castle Rock NWR supports the largest western gull 

colony in California north of the Farallon Islands, 

and represented 2 percent of the statewide breeding 

population with 1,370 breeding birds in 1989 (Carter 

et al. 1992). This was a slight increase over 1970 and 

1979–1980. 

Common Murre 

The common murre is one of the most abundant 

seabirds in the Northern Hemisphere, with a 

breeding population of 13 to 21 million birds (Ainley 

et al. 2002). It is also one of the most intensively 

studied avian species in the world. Five subspecies 

are recognized; Uria aalge californica breeds from 

British Columbia to central California. Common 

murre breeding populations in California have been 

monitored more thoroughly than any other coastal 

nesting seabird in the state. Common murres in 

central California have been depressed due to gill 

net fisheries, oil spills, and ENSO events (Carter 

et al. 2001). The most recent surveys of sample 

colonies indicate that the common murre population 

in northern California is currently experiencing a 

general long-term population increase (Capitolo et 

al. 2006). 

Castle Rock NWR supports the largest common 

murre breeding colony in the state of California. 

These birds comprise about 90 percent of the total 

seabird population. Recent aerial survey data 

suggest that the population has fluctuated since 

1989, but has not declined over the longer term. 

Murre numbers at Castle Rock NWR and other 

northern California colonies were low during 

1997–1999, a period of anomalous ocean conditions 
76 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

(Jaques and Strong 2001, Capitolo et al. 2004). 

Murres counts were comparable to 1989 numbers 

during 2001 and 2003 (Capitolo et al. 2006). The 

most recent raw count in 2004 was significantly 

greater than any counts over the past few decades 

(Capitolo et al. 2006), indicating a healthy, possibly 

growing, breeding population of murres on Castle 

Rock NWR. Adjusting the raw count of birds by 

a standard correction factor (Carter et al. 2001) 

results in an estimate of over 138,000 murres 

present in 2004. 

Murres reside at Castle Rock NWR throughout the 

winter, beginning by mid-November, but residence 

patterns have not been methodically evaluated. 

Pre-breeding season presence at the colony was 

monitored in 2004 in conjunction with observations 

of roosting Aleutian geese (Jaques 2004). Murres 

were present at dawn each morning in March and 

April and overlapped with thousands of geese 

departing the roost. 

Pigeon Guillemot 

The pigeon guillemot is endemic to the North Pacific 

and occurs from Alaska to southern California 

(Ewins et al. 1993). There are five recognized 

subspecies; Cepphus columba eureka breeds in 

Oregon and California. The California breeding 

population was estimated at about 15,500 nesting 

birds at 235 colonies during the most recent 

statewide survey in 1989 (Carter et al. 1992). Pigeon 

guillemot are a diurnally active, cavity-nesting 

species (Ewins et al. 1993). 

The statewide pigeon guillemot population appeared 

to be stable from about 1979 to 1989, however, 

estimates for Del Norte and Humboldt County had 

decreased by about 40 percent over the 10 year 

period (Carter et al. 1992). Competition for nest 

sites and an expanding rhinoceros auklet population 

may cause declines in pigeon guillemot numbers 

where nest sites are limited (Ainley and Boekelheide 

1990). 

Castle Rock NWR supports the largest pigeon 

guillemot colony in northern California and has 

accounted for 2 percent of the statewide population 

(Carter et al. 1992). Pigeon guillemot nest in rock 

crevices as well as burrows in the soil at Castle Rock 

NWR. The greatest concentration of birds occurs in 

the talus slope on the east end of the island. 

Cassin’s Auklet 

The Cassin’s auklet breeds from the Aleutian 

Islands in Alaska south to Baja California. During 

the non-breeding season, these alcids (birds in the 

Family Alcidae) spend most of their time at sea, 

often seaward of the continental shelf (Manuwal and 

Thoresen 1993). Individuals may visit the breeding 

colony in any month at southerly breeding colonies. 

They feed primarily on small crustaceans, as well 

as squid and fish. Cassin’s auklets nest in shallow 

burrows, small rock crevices, or under trees on the 

ground. They move to and from nest sites at night 

to avoid predation. There are two subspecies; the 

northerly population, Ptychoramphus aleuticus 

aleuticus, occurs in the California Current System. 

The core of the population breeds in British 

Columbia. Population declines have been reported 

in Canada and California. Introduction of predators 

and changes in food supply are cited as major 

causes of population change. The species will accept 

artificial nest boxes, which have been used as a 

research tool. 

The presence of Cassin’s auklets at Castle Rock 

NWR was first noted by Clay in 1934. Thoreson 

found a juvenile Cassin’s auklet in a burrow in late 

August, 1958 (Thoreson 1964). Thoreson placed 25 

artificial burrows constructed of wood on Castle 

Rock in October 1958, and returned on 26 April 1959 

to find that none of the boxes were occupied. An 

inspection of five burrows on the same date found 

two Cassin’s auklets incubating eggs. Thoreson 

discontinued further investigations on Castle 

Rock due to hazardous landing conditions on the 

island and because “none of the auklet burrows 

was sufficiently shallow to observe without great 

disturbance and certain desertion by the birds.” 

Rhinoceros Auklet 

The rhinoceros auklet breeds in the North Pacific 

from the Channel Islands in southern California up 

through the Aleutian Islands and south to Japan 

(Gaston and Dechesne 1996). The North American 

population is roughly estimated at about one 

million birds. About 73 percent of this population 

breeds in British Columbia. The species was 

historically extirpated from Oregon and California; 

recolonization of islands in the region began in 

the 1960s and 1970s. The most recent estimate 

for California was about 1,800 birds at 32 colonies 

(Carter et al. 1992). Rhinoceros auklets move south 

after breeding, and the majority of the eastern 

Pacific nesting population appears to winter in 

central and southern California (Briggs et al. 1987).

Tufted Puffin 

Tufted puffins have historically bred from the 

Channel Islands in southern California along the 

Pacific coast to the Aleutian Islands and down 

to Japan (Piatt and Kitaysky 2002). The world 

breeding population is estimated at nearly three 

million birds, about 80 percent of which nest in 

North America. Puffins were historically far more 

abundant in California than they are now (Ainley 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 77

and Lewis 1974, Ainely and Boekelheide 1990, 

McChesney et al. 1995). The California population 

is estimated at less than 300 breeding birds (Carter 

et al. 1992), compared to about 5,000 in Oregon and 

22,000 in Washington (Piatt and Kitaysky 2002). 

Tufted puffin numbers are declining throughout 

the coasts of California, Oregon, Washington, and 

British Columbia, but increasing in Alaska. Causes 

for recent declines have not been determined. 

However, tens of thousands were killed in offshore 

fishing nets from the 1950s to 1990s (DeGange 

and Day 1991). An unknown level of fisheries 

bycatch continues off of Alaska, Russia, and Japan 

(DeGange et al. 1993). Tufted puffins winter 

offshore throughout the North Pacific. Winter and 

spring population peaks offshore in California were 

estimated at 10,000 to 20,000 birds (Briggs et al. 

1987). 

The tufted puffin is a diurnally active cavity nester. 

Nests are typically excavated in deep vegetated 

soil on steep slopes or plateaus, but birds will use 

rocky crevices for nesting when available (Piatt and 

Kitaysky 2002). Populations are monitored by direct 

counts of birds, as well as burrow/plot counts.

Castle Rock NWR supported an estimated 50 

percent of the California tufted puffin population in 

1979–80 (Sowls et al. 1980). This refuge was thought 

to be the largest tufted puffin colony in California 

in 1989–1991, with an estimated 82 breeding birds 

(Carter et al. 1992). The sporadic record of direct 

counts for tufted puffins at Castle Rock indicates 

a gradual decline since at least 1970. In 1970, up to 

56 puffins were counted (Osborne 1972), compared 

to a peak count of 24 birds in 1999 (Jaques and 

Strong 2001) and 9 birds in 2004 (Jaques 2004). The 

trend suggests that the species may soon become 

extirpated as a breeding bird at Castle Rock NWR.

Changes in prey conditions, competition with 

rhinoceros auklets (Ainley et al 1994, McChesney et 

al. 1995), and habitat degradation due to soil erosion 

have been cited as possible causes for tufted puffin 

population suppression in central California and 

Oregon. These factors may be relevant at Castle 

Rock NWR as well. Rhinoceros auklet numbers at 

Castle Rock NWR increased greatly from 1979–1989 

(Carter et al. 1992). In addition, western gulls 

interfere with tufted puffins at Castle Rock NWR 

(Jaques and Strong 2001). Large gulls are one of 

the primary problems for puffins in other areas 

(Nettleship 1972, Vermeer 1979). Tufted puffins 

rely on vegetation to help shield them from diurnal 

interference and piracy from gulls. Changes in 

vegetation cover and height have occurred at Castle 

Rock NWR due to geese, surface-nesting seabirds, 

and sea-lions. Soil erosion in burrow-nesting areas 

has occurred in denuded areas. Thus, other native 

species may be degrading the quality of the habitat 

for tufted puffins, and indirectly exacerbating 

problems with western gulls. 

Tufted puffins arrived at Castle Rock during the 

first week of April in 2004 (Jaques 2004). The birds 

occupy nest habitat about 1 week after arriving 

(Piatt and Kitaysky 2002). Eggs are expected to 

be laid at Castle Rock by early to mid-May, and 

the incubation period is estimated at about 42–43 

days based on other studies (Boone 1986, Ainley 

and Boekelheide 1990). Hatching is expected in late 

June. The average nestling period is 48 days (Piatt 

and Kitaysky 2002), with fledging from Castle Rock 

expected in August. 

3.7.6. Castle Rock NWR Other Bird Species

Aleutian Cackling Goose

Aleutian cackling geese use Castle Rock NWR 

as a night roost and minor foraging area during 

migration and staging in the Crescent City area. 

Woolington documented use patterns at Castle 

Rock from fall 1975 to spring 1977. These studies 

revealed that the entire known Western Aleutian 

Islands population staged in the Crescent City area 

during late March to early April prior to migration 

to Alaska, with Castle Rock their primary night 

roost. The Service’s proposal to acquire Castle Rock 

in 1978 was, in part, motivated by knowledge of its 

critical importance to the goose (USFWS 1978).

Goose-use of the Crescent City area, including 

Castle Rock NWR, declined as the population 

increased in Humboldt Bay and southern Oregon 

(Bachman and Nelson 2005). Peak counts of 27,570 

and 27,200 birds were recorded roosting on Castle 

Rock in March 1999 and 2000, respectively (Strong 

and Jaques 1999, Lyon 2000). In comparison, the 

peak count in 2004 was about 20,000 birds (Jaques 

2004). 

American Black Oystercatcher 

The American black oystercatcher is a traditional 

breeding species at Castle Rock NWR, and is 

present in the nearby Point St. George area for 

much of the year. Black oystercatchers were first 

noted at Castle Rock in 1934 by Fraser (Osborne 

1972). These birds nest in small numbers on the 

rocky shores of the island. The number of nesting 

pair ranged from 2–3 in surveys conducted from 

1979–1998 (Sowls et al. 1980, Carter et al. 1992, 

Jaques and Strong 2001). 
78 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

Peregrine Falcon 

The peregrine falcon is a common visitor and 

historic breeder at Castle Rock NWR. Breeding was 

first documented by Clay in May 1934. The nest site 

was described as located on the top edge of a steep, 

grassy slope against a sheer overhanging rock wall 

on the east slope of the island. A three-week-old 

chick was present at the eyrie. A peregrine falcon 

nest with petrel wings around it was documented by 

Talmage in 1940 (Osborne 1972). Aerial courtship 

has been seen over Castle Rock in recent years 

(Jaques and Strong 2001), but breeding has not been 

documented. 

Peregrine falcons forage from various high perches 

on Castle Rock, and have been noted to chase pigeon 

guillemots and flush common murres during the 

breeding season (Jaques and Strong 2001). They 

can be seen at Castle Rock NWR during all times 

of year, but seem to be less common during summer 

(Jaques 2004) when they presumably retreat to 

breeding territories. Peregrine falcons can be an 

important predator on seabird colonies (Drost 

and Lewis 1995), and may have been a historical 

predator when nesting at Castle Rock. There is a 

strong potential for re-establishment of breeding on 

the island, which may have ecological implications 

for Castle Rock NWR. 

Barn Owl 

Barn owls were historically present at Castle Rock, 

but their present status is unknown. A barn owl 

was found in the shepherd’s cabin by Fraser in 1934 

(Osborne 1972). The cabin has been reduced to a 

pile of wood on the ground, and there have been no 

recorded detections of barn owls since then. The 

barn owl is a potential predator on storm-petrels 

and other seabirds at Castle Rock NWR. 

Common Raven 

Common ravens (Corvus corax) occur regularly 

on Castle Rock NWR. A raven nest was observed 

on the western cliffs of the island in 1999. Active 

predation by a raven on murre eggs was observed in 

2004 (Jaques 2004). It is not known how ecologically 

important this predator/scavenger is to seabirds at 

Castle Rock NWR. 

3.7.7. Castle Rock NWR and Surrounding Area 

Use by Marine Mammals

Four species of pinnipeds regularly occur at Castle 

Rock NWR: Steller sea-lion, California sea-lion 

(Zalophus californianus), Pacific harbor seal, and 

northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris). 

Harbor and elephant seals breed on the island, and 

both California and Steller sea-lions use the island 

regularly as a seasonal non-breeding haulout. The 

Steller sea-lion is the only ESA-listed endangered 

marine mammal that utilizes Castle Rock NWR 

habitat. The northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) 

could occur at Castle Rock NWR rarely, but the 

species has not been documented hauled out on the 

island. North American river otter are common 

on the beaches and ocean waters just off Point St. 

George, but have not been documented on Castle 

Rock.

Gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) and harbor 

porpoises are the most common cetaceans inhabiting 

the waters surrounding Castle Rock NWR. Gray 

whales are relatively abundant in the area during 

migration, and sightings of small numbers of these 

whales occur year round. Gray whales have been 

observed feeding within two miles offshore in the 

Crescent City area (Jaques and Strong unpublished 

data), and likely feed in the waters immediately 

surrounding Castle Rock NWR.

Pacific Harbor Seal

The eastern North Pacific subspecies of harbor 

seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) ranges from 

Baja California, Mexico, to the Pribilof Islands in 

Alaska. Three separate stocks have been identified 

for management purposes: 1) inland waters of 

Washington, 2) Oregon and Washington coast, and 

3) California. Harbor seals are generally nonmigratory, but move locally in relation to factors 

such as tides, weather, season, food availability, and 

reproduction (Carretta et al. 2004).

Harbor seals occur in nearshore coastal and 

estuarine habitats. They feed in marine, estuarine, 

and, occasionally, fresh waters. They haul out on 

relatively flat substrates, including rock reefs, 

sandspits, and mudflats. Peak numbers haul out at 

low tides, particularly in the afternoon (Le Boeuf 

and Bonnell 1980). Harbor seals display strong 

fidelity for haulout sites (Carretta et al. 2004).

Pacific harbor seal breeding takes place from March 

to June in California, with peak pupping occurring in 

April and May. Courtship and mating appear to take 

place in the water. Females give birth on land, often 

at low tide. Pups are able to swim at birth. After 

pups are born, the females form nursery areas away 

from the main colony for about 2 weeks. Pups are 

nursed for 4–6 weeks. Adult seals may breed again 

soon after weaning (Knudtson 1974, Shaughnessy 

and Fay 1977, Loughlin 1978, Newby 1978).

Pacific harbor seal populations have increased since 

the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA) in 1972. The California stock may 

have reached its environmental carrying capacity 

(Carretta et al. 2004). Harbor seals are not 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 79

considered depleted or strategic under the MMPA. 

Based on the most recent harbor seal counts (Lowry 

and Maravilla-Chavez. 2005), and a correction factor 

developed by the CDFG, the harbor seal population 

in California is estimated at 34,233 animals 

(Carretta et al. 2005). Castle Rock is a year-round 

haulout, nursery area, and probable breeding site 

for the Pacific harbor seal. Castle Rock NWR was 

one of 563 haulout sites documented for the species 

in California during the 2004 statewide survey 

(Lowry and Maravilla-Chavez. 2005) (Table 11). The 

haulout on Castle Rock NWR (109 seals) was larger 

than the statewide average (51.1 animals), and was 

one of the largest haul-outs in northern California. 

Pupping has been documented on the reef adjacent 

to Castle Rock NWR, but not on Castle Rock NWR 

itself. Small numbers of harbor seals, including some 

nursing pups, regularly haul out around the rim of 

Castle Rock NWR in summer (Jaques and Strong 

unpublished).

Northern Fur Seal

Northern fur seals range widely in the North Pacific. 

Less than 1 percent breed in California (Carretta 

et al. 2004), with the majority breeding in Alaska. 

Fur seal rookeries in California have been gradually 

recovering from near extinction by the fur seal 

trade. 

Northern fur seals may have historically occurred 

at Castle Rock NWR, and may occasionally haul out 

at Castle Rock NWR. An unusual influx of fur seals 

occurred in the Crescent City area during winter 

2006–2007. Seven malnourished northern fur seal 

pups were recovered in the Crescent City area from 

November to January 2007. The pups were taken 

in for rehabilitation at the North Coast Marine 

Mammal Center. Fur seals are negatively affected 

by strong El Niños (Melin and DeLong 2000), and 

the pup starvation event along the north coast 

probably reflected a year of particularly poor ocean 

conditions rather than increased association with 

the nearshore environment. A return of fur seals 

to other historical breeding rookeries in northern 

California, besides the Farallons, is possible. 

Careful pinniped monitoring at Castle Rock NWR 

might reveal more information about the species’ 

population status in this region.

California Sea-lion

California sea-lions of the subspecies Zalophus 

californianus californianus range from southern 

Mexico to British Columbia. They breed mainly on 

offshore islands, ranging from southern California’s 

Channel Islands south to Mexico. There is a fall 

northward migration along the coast and more rapid 

southward migration in spring. 

The U.S. stock was most recently estimated 

at 138,881 animals (Carretta et al. 2004). The 

population has experienced an annual growth rate 

of ~6 percent since at least 1975. The species is not 

listed under the ESA and is not depleted or listed as 

a strategic stock under the MMPA.

California sea-lions occur primarily on rocky islands 

within a few miles of shore. They are able to climb 

to the upper reaches of many islands, and can 

affect vegetation and erosion on islands with fragile 

topsoil. California sea-lions on the U.S. Pacific coast 

are primarily from the stock that breeds on islands 

in southern California, although males that breed in 

Baja California, Mexico, may also spend most of the 

year in the U.S. (Carretta et al. 2004).

Castle Rock NWR is used by California sea-lions 

year round (Mate 1973, Griswold 1985). It was 

historically the northernmost haulout site during the 

breeding season (Mate 1973) and the southernmost 

overwintering site in northern California (Griswold 

1985). Bonnell et al. (1981) identified Castle Rock 

NWR and associated shoals as one of the largest 

California sea-lion haulout grounds in central and 

northern California. Use of Castle Rock NWR by 

Location of haulout site Date Time Tide 

height

Count 

of seals 

onshore

Count of 

seals in 

water

Vicinity of Castle Rock, Crescent City 5-Jul-04 10:49 -0.03 61 1

Vicinity of Castle Rock, Crescent City 5-Jul-04 10:39 -0.03 109 4

Vicinity of Castle Rock, Crescent City 5-Jul-04 10:38 -0.09 13 0

Vicinity of Castle Rock, Crescent City 5-Jul-04 10:46 -0.03 513 3

 

Table 11. Counts of harbor seals in the Castle Rock vicinity in 2004 (from 126 mm format aerial color 

photographs). 

Data are from Appendix 1, Carretta et al. 2005. 
80 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

non-breeding sea-lions has likely increased along 

with the overall west coast population. Data appear 

to indicate that numbers of sea-lions at Castle 

Rock in early July are very low, but that postbreeding influx to the island begins by mid-July. 

Griswold (1985) made 72 censuses of pinnipeds at 

Castle Rock during 1984, with July the period of 

lowest abundance. Numbers increased in August 

and were highest in fall and winter, then dropped 

again in April. The mean count in July was 11 

animals, compared to about 280 on average during 

September through October. Historic counts made 

by Bonnell et al. (1983) were higher, with about 1,500 

and 570 animals present in October and January, 

respectively. 

The most recent non-breeding season counts of 

pinnipeds at Castle Rock NWR were made in 1994–

1995 (Table 12). Jaques and Strong (1995) conducted 

aerial photographic surveys of sea-lions in March 

1994 and January 1995. In January, a total of 1,277 

California sea-lions were counted, with the majority 

of the animals (83 percent) on the main island rather 

than the associated reef. Sea-lions climb up to the 

top of the eastern edge of Castle Rock NWR during 

winter weather conditions, and can be crowded 

together on the upper areas of “the pit” during 

storms and high swells (Griswold 1985). 

California sea-lions haul out primarily on the east 

side of Castle Rock NWR, particularly on the beach, 

outer slopes, and rim of the pit, as well as rock 

outcrops associated with the cover on the south 

side of the island. Accelerated erosion of any soilcovered areas used by sea-lions is to be expected, 

particularly sloping areas, such as the area used to 

access haul-outs. 

Steller Sea-lion

Steller sea-lions range along the North Pacific rim 

from northern Japan to central California. The 

species was divided into two distinct population 

segments (DPS) in 1997 (NOAA Fisheries Service 

2006). Castle Rock NWR occurs in the range of 

the eastern stock (eastern DPS), which includes 

the population from the central California coast 

north to Cape Suckling in southeast Alaska. Both 

the eastern and western stocks were listed as ESA 

threatened in 1990 (55 FR 49204); the western stock 

was subsequently upgraded to endangered status in 

1997. The Steller sea-lion is also listed as depleted 

under the MMPA, and is classified as a strategic 

stock. Critical habitat was designated in 1993. 

Steller sea-lions historically occurred at five major 

rookeries in California, from the Channel Islands 

to the St. George Reef (NOAA Fisheries Service 

2006). The Steller sea-lion eastern DPS population 

is currently between 45,000 and 51,000 animals, and 

has been increasing at 3 percent per year for the 

past 30 years, with variation in trends within the 

range (NOAA Fisheries Service 2006). Numbers 

have decreased at the southern extent of the 

range in southern and central California, but have 

increased in northern California and Oregon (NOAA 

Fisheries Service 2006). 

Steller sea-lion breeding areas are typically located 

on remote offshore islands and reefs, and require 

adequate areas above high water levels where 

young pups can survive weather conditions (NOAA 

Fisheries Service 2006). Female sea-lions appear to 

select haulout birthing habitat that is gently sloping 

and protected from waves. Birthing occasionally 

takes place at haul-outs, but more commonly occurs 

at a rookery where 25–50 pups are born each year. 

Sea-lions use traditional locations from year to year. 

Factors that influence habitat suitability include 

substrate, exposure, proximity to food resources, 

oceanographic conditions, season, and human 

activities (NOAA Fisheries Service 2006).

Steller sea-lion pupping and breeding season 

extends from late May to early July (NOAA 

Fisheries Service 2006). Adult females give birth 

to a single pup and then breed with territorial 

males about 11–14 days postpartum. Females with 

pups begin dispersing from rookeries to haul-outs 

when the pups are about 2.5 months of age. Adult 

males that breed in California move north after the 

breeding season. They are rarely seen in California 

or Oregon except from May through August. 

Females tend pups for several months following 

dispersal from breeding rookeries. Juveniles part 

with their mothers and begin to disperse at about 

8 months of age (NOAA Fisheries Service 2006). 

While Steller sea-lions are not known to migrate, 

they may disperse widely outside of the breeding 

season (NOAA Fisheries Service 2006).

Table 12. Counts of California sea-lions at Castle 

Rock and reef during July 2000-2004 (from 126 mm 

aerial color photographs taken by NOAA Fisheries 

Service). 

Location name Date Sea-lion Count

Castle Rock 8-Jul-00 37

Castle Rock 17-Jul-01 380

Castle Rock 9-Jul-02 2

Castle Rock 12-Jul-03 644

Castle Rock 5-Jul-04 2

Data from Carretta et al. 2005.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 81

Castle Rock NWR and its adjacent shoals are a 

traditional seasonal haulout for the Steller sealion (Table 13). The species is present year round 

at Castle Rock NWR and associated shoals where 

haulout habitat is relatively protected from winter 

conditions (Griswold 1985, Jaques and Strong 1995). 

Castle Rock NWR is one of 41 haulout sites noted 

in California (NOAA Fisheries Service 2006). Data 

from aerial surveys over the period 2000–2005 

indicate that use of Castle Rock is variable and 

possibly increasing. A high count of 918 individuals 

occurred at Castle Rock NWR and associated shoals 

collectively in July, 2004 (M. Lowry pers. comm.). 

The NOAA Fisheries Service data indicate that 

716 of these animals were on Castle Rock itself. On 

the same date, 1,092 non-pups and 444 pups were 

recorded nearby on the St. George Reef. Most of 

the Steller sea-lions using Castle Rock NWR are 

either immature animals or nursing females with 

dependent pups (Jaques and Strong 1995). Only 

a few winter counts of the species are available. 

Jaques and Strong (1995) counted 203 Steller 

sea-lions from aerial photographs in January 1995, 

including 36 females with nursing pups. Griswold 

(1985) had a peak count of about 200 Steller sea-lions 

at Castle Rock in November. 

The growing Steller sea-lion breeding population at 

Point St. George Reef is near its physical capacity 

and may be on the verge of expanding to nearby 

sites (R. Brown pers. comm.). Castle Rock NWR 

offers suitable habitat for a new colony in this 

vicinity. The potential for future breeding on Castle 

Rock NWR by this ESA-listed species seems 

high, and may represent a positive step forward in 

recovery of the eastern population. 

Prevention of disturbances to Steller sea-lions 

during the pre-breeding and breeding season would 

be a step towards encouraging establishment of the 

island as a rookery. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Northern elephant seals in the California stock 

range from Baja California to the Gulf of Alaska. 

They breed and give birth in California and Baja 

California, primarily on offshore islands (Stewart 

et al. 1994) from December to March (Stewart and 

Huber 1993). Populations of northern elephant 

seals in the U.S. and Mexico were all originally 

derived from a few tens or hundreds of individuals 

that survived in Mexico after being hunted to 

near extinction (Stewart et al. 1994). The current 

population estimate is over 100,000 animals in 

California alone (Carretta et al. 2005). As the 

population recovered, breeding colonies formed 

along the California coast. Most of the stock in the 

U.S. currently breeds on the southern California 

Channel Islands, with about 20 percent of the pups 

born in central California in recent years (Carretta 

et al. 2005). The breeding range expanded as far 

north as Oregon by 1993 (Hodder et al. 1998). 

Based on trends in pup counts, northern elephant 

seal colonies were continuing to grow in California 

through 2001, but appear to be stable or slowly 

decreasing in Mexico (Stewart et al. 1994.)

Male elephant seals feed in the Gulf of Alaska near 

the eastern Aleutian Islands, and females feed 

further south, south of 45°N (Stewart and Huber 

1993, Le Boeuf et al. 1993). Adults return to land 

between March and August to molt, with males 

returning later than females. Adults return to their 

feeding areas again between their spring/summer 

molting and their winter breeding seasons. 

Elephant seal breeding rookeries occur on relatively 

flat sand beaches either on islands or relatively 

isolated coastal mainland areas. Females give birth 

first when 3–5 years old (Barlow et al. 1993). Males 

reach prime breeding condition at 9–12 years of 

age. Pregnant females come ashore to give birth 

from December through February. The seals mate 

about 24 days after birthing. Pups are abandoned 

on beaches when they are about one month old, 

but remain at the rookery for another one to three 

months prior to going to sea. Juveniles and adults 

return to molt from March to August. Most elephant 

seals return to their natal rookeries when they start 

breeding (Huber et al. 1991). 

Elephant seals breed on Castle Rock and the 

associated shoals, but the population has not been 

regularly monitored by NOAA Fisheries Service 

or any other entity. Although breeding was evident 

as early as 1978 (Griswold 1985), aerial surveys to 

confirm that the island was a breeding rookery did 

not take place until 1994–1995 (Jaques and Strong 

1995) (Table 14). No surveys have taken place since 

Location 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NW Seal Island 334 335 175 220 354

SW Seal Island 

non-pups

532 455 541 583 738

SW Seal pups 293 338 367 458 444

Castle Rock and 

shoals

12 66 692 100 918

Table 13. Steller sea-lion count data for the St. 

George Reef and Castle Rock, July 5-17, 2000-2004. 

Preliminary data from M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries 

Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. 

 
82 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

that date. The breeding area on Castle Rock NWR is 

largely out of view from the mainland shore or boat. 

The first record of elephant seals on Castle Rock 

was made by Osborne (1972), who observed six 

elephant seals there in 1970. A young elephant seal 

pup washed up a nearby Crescent City beach in 1978 

(Griswold 1985). Bonnell et al. (1983) counted four 

elephant seals on Castle Rock NWR, and speculated 

that one pup may have been born there that year. 

Pre-weaned pups have washed up on the mainland 

regularly since about 1985 (D. Wood, pers. comm.). 

Sightings of tagged animals indicate that it was 

initially colonized by immigrants from Año Nuevo 

Island.

Aerial surveys in 1994–1995 confirmed that the 

elephant seal breeding population at Castle Rock 

NWR was relatively small, and that breeding 

takes place on both the main island and inner reef 

(Jaques and Strong 1995). Up to 52 nonpups and 11 

pups were counted at the rookery in January 1995. 

Most elephant seals on Castle Rock NWR were 

on the flat beach inside the pit. There is very little 

suitable elephant seal habitat on Castle Rock NWR 

and this factor likely limits the size of the breeding 

population. Pup mortality appears to be high, as 

evidenced by the number of pups that wash off the 

site during winter storms. 

3.7.8. Castle Rock NWR Mammals 

Bats 

Bats were historically present in the shepherd’s 

cabin (Osborne 1972), but their current occurrence 

is not known. 

Rodents

Osborne (1972) reported seeing two deer mice 

(Peromyscus maniculatus) on Castle Rock in 1970. 

The current status of this native mouse at Castle 

Rock NWR is not known. The house mouse is a nonnative species that may be present on Castle Rock 

NWR. One dead specimen was observed on the 

island’s eastern shore by Osborne (1972).

River Otters

River otters are common along the mainland shore 

adjacent to Castle Rock, but have not been seen 

on the island itself. An otter was observed preying 

on birds at sea between Castle Rock and Point St. 

George (D. Jaques, unpublished field notes). River 

otters are a suspected predator on Leach’s storm 

petrels nesting at Prisoner Rock in Humboldt 

County (Osborne 1972, Sowls et al. 1980, Carter 

et al. 1992) and at other seabird colonies in the 

northeastern Pacific (Duffy 1995). 

3.7.9. Castle Rock NWR Amphibians and 

Reptiles 

No information is available on possible habitation of 

Castle Rock NWR by amphibians and reptiles. 

3.7.10. Castle Rock NWR Invertebrates

The intertidal region around Castle Rock NWR is 

rich with invertebrates. However, no surveys have 

been conducted around or on the island.

3.7.11. Castle Rock NWR Special Status 

Species

Federal Endangered Species Act Listed Species 

Two species using Castle Rock NWR are protected 

by the Federal Endangered Species Act: the 

California brown pelican and the Steller sea-lion 

(Table 15). The marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus 

marmoratus) is an ESA-listed threatened species, 

but it uses habitat outside Castle Rock NWR, 

including the waters surrounding Castle Rock. The 

Aleutian cackling goose and gray whale were both 

formerly listed, but now are recovered species. 

California Brown Pelican 

The brown pelican became endangered on the 

U.S. Pacific coast due to pesticide contamination of 

marine waters near breeding colonies in southern 

Elephant 

Seal Status

Castle 

Rock

Castle 

Rock 

Shoals

Total

20-Jan-95 Bull 1 * 1

Subadult male 6 * 6

Female 34 11 45

Pup 3 3

Total 44 11 55

4-Feb-95 Bull 1 1 2

Subadult male 4 * 4

Female 24 17 41

Pup 4 7 11

Total 33 25 58

17-Mar94Adult 2 3 5

Pup 9 2 11

Total 11 5 16

Counted from aerial photographic surveys; from 

Jaques and Strong 1995.

Table 14. Northern elephant seals at Castle Rock and 

Castle Rock shoals in 1994-1995.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 83

California (USFWS 1983). Breeding populations 

have generally recovered, and both the State of 

California and the USFWS are conducting a status 

review of the species. Non-breeding pelicans roost 

communally on Castle Rock NWR, but have never 

been known to nest north of Monterey, California 

(USFWS 1983). They can be found from April to 

December, but are most abundant at Castle Rock 

NWR in fall. As many as 3,660 pelicans have been 

counted on the island. Castle Rock NWR is a key 

night roost for pelicans in the Crescent City area. 

Peregrine Falcon 

(See Other Bird Species That Use Castle Rock 

NWR).

Birds of Conservation Concern

Three bird species recognized as USFWS Species of 

Conservation Concern occur at Castle Rock NWR: 

peregrine falcon, black oystercatcher, and Cassin’s 

auklet (see Other Bird Species That Use Castle Rock 

NWR).

Steller Sea-lion 

(see Castle Rock NWR and Surrounding Area Use 

by Marine Mammals.)

California State Species of Special Concern 

(SSC)

California Species of Special Concern is a 

designation that CDFG can give to vertebrate 

species because of declining population levels, 

limited ranges, and/or continuing threats that may 

make the listed species vulnerable to extinction. 

Four SSC birds (CDFG 2007) breed on Castle Rock 

NWR: rhinoceros auklet, tufted puffin, fork-tailed 

storm-petrel, and double-crested cormorant (see 

Other Bird Species That Use Castle Rock NWR).

3.7.12. Castle Rock NWR Non-native Wildlife

There has been no assessment of non-native plant 

or animal species on Castle Rock NWR. Non-native 

rodents and plants can have a detrimental impact on 

seabird colonies. 

3.8. Castle Rock NWR Cultural 

Resources

There are no known Native American cultural 

resources on Castle Rock NWR. The wood 

remaining from the shepherd’s cabin might be 

considered a historic relic or cultural resource.

3.8.1. Prehistoric Use of Castle Rock and 

Surrounding Area

In aboriginal times, the Tolowa people lived along 

the extreme northern coast, from the southwestern 

corner of what is now Oregon to ~15 miles south 

of the shoreline adjacent to Castle Rock (Cramblit 

Table 15. Threatened or Endangered species that occur or have occurred at Castle Rock NWR or adjacent 

marine waters. 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal 

Status

California 

State Status Notes

brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis 

californicus

FE 10/13/70 SE 6/27/71 State and Federal status 

review in progress

Aleutian cackling 

goose 

Branta (Canadensis) 

leucopareia

Delisted 

3/20/01

FT 12/12/90

FE 03/11/67

American peregrine 

falcon

Falco peregrinus tundrius Delisted 

8/25/99

FE 6/2/70

SE 6/27/71

marbled murrelet * Brachyramphus 

marmoratus

FT 9/30/92 SE 3/12/92 Surrounding waters 

only

Steller sea-lion Eumatopius jubatus FT 4/5/90 

gray whale * Eschrichtuius robustus Delisted 

6/15/94

FE 6/2/70

Surrounding waters 

only

* indicates adjacent waters only
84 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

2007). Humboldt Bay was home to the Wiyot people, 

an Algic-speaking group that fished and hunted on 

the California coast from Trinidad Head to the Eel 

River (Fredrickson 1984). The coastal areas between 

the Wiyot and Tolowa people was home to the Yurok 

peoples (Cramblit 2007).

The Tolowa people who originally inhabited what is 

now Crescent City, California (Cramblit 2007), are 

an Athabascan tribe (UO 2007). Linguistically they 

were closer to the Rogue River tribes to the north 

than to tribes inhabiting the south (UO 2007). 

The Tolowa resided in permanent villages along 

the coast in winter, and in late summer moved 

inland for salmon and acorns. Their house types 

were low peaked redwood plank dwellings with 

gable end entrances. Tolowa society was associated 

with acquisition of wealth, usually dentalium 

shells, obsidian blades, and woodpecker scalps. 

Ceremonialism associated with the taking of the first 

salmon and sea-lion suggests that they belonged to 

the northern Californian ‘World Renewal’ complex 

of the Karok, Yurok, and Hupa type. 

‘Ee-nii-k’wvt’ was the name given to Castle Rock 

by the Tolowa, which translates to “Ground there 

upon” (L. Bommelyn pers. comm.). The Tolowa had 

a subsistence relationship with Castle Rock, but 

were not known to ever reside on the island. During 

the 1800s, the Tolowa occupied a large village site 

on the headland adjacent to Castle Rock at Point 

St. George. An intensive study of the village site 

was made by Gould (1966), which incorporated 

archaeological evidence, oral history, and historical 

data in an attempt to reconstruct the culture of the 

people living at Point St. George. 

“Ta’giatun” or “Land laying outward place” is 

one of the names given to Point St. George, and is 

described as a “...place for shellfish gathering; also 

camping place for sea-lion expeditions...” (Gould 

1966). The intertidal regions surrounding the Point 

were used by the Tolowa for gathering shellfish 

and seaweed. The people also engaged in sea-lion 

hunting expeditions offshore. Dugout canoes, 30–40 

feet long, were used for regular trips to the St. 

George Reef and, presumably, Castle Rock. Marine 

mammal species included in the native diet at the 

village on the Point were whales, sea otter, Steller 

sea-lion, California sea-lion, northern fur seal, 

and harbor seal. The Steller sea-lion was the most 

common mammalian species found in archaeological 

digs at the site, and appeared to be of major 

importance to the people. Gould stated that birds 

were clearly part of the regular diet and were taken 

whenever possible. At certain times of year bird 

eggs and immature birds were harvested in large 

numbers. The most common bird bones found were 

those of immature cormorants. 

Oral history describes the seasonal taking of 

flightless cormorants from nesting islands around 

Point St. George in more recent times (Gould 1966). 

At Castle Rock, May was egg gathering time (Calla 

et al. 2005). Men in canoes made expeditions to the 

island, scaled the cliffs, and marked a circular area 

with stones. They then threw all the eggs inside the 

area off the cliff. Ten days later they would return 

and collect the new eggs, knowing they were fresh. 

The eggs were probably common murre. Eggs 

were also blown and used for ornamental purposes, 

strung in a garland to decorate homes. 

EuroAmerican settlement of the Crescent City 

area began in the 1850s. The general destruction 

of the native American population followed rapidly. 

By 1856 there were only an estimated 316 Tolowa 

survivors (Gould 1966). The village at Point St. 

George was abandoned about the mid-1850s, prior 

to intensive white settlement of the area, but use of 

Point St. George for subsistence continued after the 

village was abandoned. Shell middens are present 

at Point St. George, but there are no recorded 

archaeological sites on Castle Rock itself (USFWS 

1978).

3.8.2. Castle Rock NWR History 

EuroAmerican Settlement of Crescent City and 

Use of Castle Rock

The overland explorations of Jedediah Smith were 

probably the first contacts between Tolowa peoples 

and EuroAmericans. Intensive white settlement of 

the larger region came after the gold rush of 1850 

(UO 2007). The Tolowa people probably numbered 

more than 1,000 prior to EuroAmerican contact. 

However, the census of 1910 registered only 121 

Tolowa, likely as a result of diseases and numerous 

attacks by EuroAmericans on their settlements (UO 

2007). Two small reserves, called Rancherias, at 

Crescent City and Smith River, continue to be home 

to some Tolowa descendants, reportedly numbering 

37 and 113 respectively in 1945 (UO 2007).

The only recorded uses of Castle Rock by 

EuroAmerican people were sheep grazing and eggcollecting. The island was initially claimed by the 

U.S. Government around the turn of the century. A 

private shepherd grazed sheep on the island from 

about 1900 to about 1920 (Osborne 1972). Sheep 

were periodically transported to and from the island 

by boat during extreme minus tides. A small wooden 

cabin was constructed on the east end of the island. 

Fraser, an early ornithologist/egg collector, reported 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 85

that no sheep were present by the time of his visit, 

in the 1930s (Osborne 1972).

Several egg collectors visited the island from at least 

1917 to 1961. These early oologists left valuable 

notes in some cases. Clay (1901-1953) visited the 

island at various times from 1917-1934. Talmage 

visited in the mid-1930s but lost all of his field 

notes and specimens in a fire (Osborne 1972). Early 

ornithological accounts were also provided by Zerlag 

and Fraser (1940). 

Castle Rock was purchased from the U.S. 

Government in 1937. The intent of the first private 

owners was to quarry the island for rock to build 

coastal highways and jetties. Rock quarrying did 

take place on the mainland on Point St. George 

during the 1950s and 1960s. The southwest tip of the 

point was dynamited to supply the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers with material for the breakwater 

at Crescent City Harbor. As late as the 1970s, 

speculators were contemplating guano mining, 

rocky quarrying, and construction of a tourist 

attraction on Castle Rock, (Sowls et al. 1980), but for 

various reasons none of these plans ever proceeded 

(USFWS 1978). 

In 1979, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) purchased 

Castle Rock. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

bought the island from TNC in 1980 for ~$41,250.

3.9. Castle Rock NWR Social 

Environment

Castle Rock is in Del Norte County, California, ~1 

mile off-shore from Crescent City. Del Norte County 

was founded in 1857 from part of the territory of 

Klamath County, which ceased to exist in 1875. The 

name of the county signifies “the north,” derived 

from its location in California.

Del Norte County is the northwesternmost county 

in California. It is located on the Pacific coast, and 

bordered by Oregon to the north. The county seat 

is Crescent City, the county’s only incorporated city. 

Del Norte County is noted for its redwood forests 

and the wild Smith River National Recreation Area.

3.9.1. Del Norte County Demographics

As of 2007, there were 29,341 people residing in 

Del Norte County (CDOF 2007). According to the 

U.S. census of 2000, the population density is 27 

per square mile. There are 10,434 housing units 

at an average density of 10 per square mile. The 

racial makeup of the county is 78.9 percent white, 

4.3 percent black or African American, 6.4 percent 

native American, 2.3 percent Asian, 0.1 percent 

Pacific islander, 3.9 percent from other races, 4.1 

percent from two or more races, and 13.9 percent of 

the population Hispanic or Latino of any race.

As of 2000, there were 9,170 households, of which 

33.5 percent had children under the age of 18 living 

with them, 50 percent were married couples living 

together, 13.6 percent had a female householder with 

no husband present, and 31.4 percent were nonfamilies. 25.3 percent of all households were made 

up of individuals and 10.1 percent had someone 

living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The 

average household size was 2.6 and the average 

family size 3.1.

In Del Norte County the population was spread 

out with 25.1 percent under the age of 18, 8 percent 

from age 18 to 24, 32.2 percent from age 25 to 44, 

22.3 percent from age 45 to 64, and 12.5 percent 

who were 65 years of age or older. The median age 

was 36 years. For every 100 females there were 123 

males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there 

were 130 males.

3.10. Castle Rock NWR Social and 

Economic Conditions

3.10.1. Castle Rock NWR Social and Economic 

Regional Overview

Del Norte County has historically been a very 

productive timber region (TNC et al. 2005). 

However, over the past 20 years the timber industry 

in California has undergone a major downturn, 

economically impacting the industry as well as the 

local community (TNC et al. 2005). One major factor 

in the downturn is a reduction in supply due to 

prior intensive harvest. In addition, an inconsistent 

domestic housing market, declining Asian markets 

in the 1990s, and an increasing foreign lumber 

supply with relatively lower cost from Canada, 

Brazil, Chile, and Russia have had negative impacts 

(TNC et al. 2005). In 2005, Del Norte County 

timber production was 22,500,000 board feet, just 

1.3 percent of California’s total production (CDOF 

2007).

As of 2000, agricultural employment in Del Norte 

County was just 370. Agricultural products such as 

livestock and livestock products, as well as plant 

products, had a value of over $41 million (in year 

2000 $) (CDOF 2007).

The majority of non-agricultural employment in Del 

Norte County is in a few sectors including State and 

local government; trade, transportation and utilities; 

educational and health services; and leisure and 

hospitality. 
86 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

3.10.2. Castle Rock NWR Regional Land Use

Del Norte County Land Use

Del Norte County is less than half the size of 

Humboldt County and comprises 644,990 acres. 

More than 32,000 residents reside in more than 

9,100 households, including over 3,300 prisoners 

in Pelican Bay State Prison. The county is rural, 

consisting of Crescent City and several small 

unincorporated towns such as Smith River, Gasquet, 

Hiouchi, and Klamath. As of 2005, there were over 

417 miles of streets, roads, and highways in the 

county (CDOF 2007). In 2002 there were 89 farms, 

comprising over 13,300 acres (CDOF 2007). Field 

crops, vegetables and fruits, nursery stock, timber, 

and livestock all continue to be produced throughout 

parts of Del Norte County, with trends of increasing 

nursery stock and livestock (DNC 2003).

Del Norte County historically had 43 large lumber 

mills; by 1994 the last one closed. With this closure 

Del Norte County began a regional economic 

transition. The establishment of Redwood National 

and State Parks in the early 1970s, and the Smith 

River National Recreation Area in the late 1980s, 

put more than 75 percent of the county land area in 

NPS, U.S. Forest Service, or other publicly owned 

land. 

3.10.3. Castle Rock NWR Local Land Use

Crescent City is a mixture of natural area preserves, 

a long coastline, and creeping urbanization. Highway 

access is provided by U.S. Route 101, which runs 

directly through the city, and extents to Brookings, 

Oregon, to the north and Eureka to the south.

In 2007 there were 7,762 people residing in Crescent 

City (CDOF 2007). Census data from the year 2000 

indicate that the population density is over 2,500 per 

square mile in Crescent City, orders of magnitude 

higher than the rest of Del Norte County. There are 

over 1,700 housing units with an average density of 

over 980 per square mile. Pelican Bay State Prison, 

located on 275 acres near Crescent City, opened in 

1989 principally to house the growing population of 

maximum-security and high-security risk inmates 

in the California prison system. The Del Norte 

County airport covers 500 acres ~3 miles northwest 

of Crescent City (Mead and Hunt 2005). The airport 

consists of two intersecting runways with regular 

flights over Castle Rock NWR. To date, no collisions 

have been reported between planes and nesting 

birds. 

3.10.4. Castle Rock NWR Local Economy and 

Employment

When Crescent City became the county seat of 

Del Norte County in 1857, most of the inhabitants 

worked in the nearby mines. As the mining industry 

waned, it was largely replaced by logging and fishing 

industries during the early twentieth century. 

Although these industries have also experienced 

recent decline, forestry product processing 

continues, and the Crescent City Harbor still serves 

as a commercial fishing boat basin for salmon, 

shrimp, tuna, cod, and Dungeness crab commercial 

fishing vessels. The harbor is also home to multiple 

fishing and non-fishing related businesses and 

harbor governmental offices. The Crescent City 

Harbor has several pleasure boat docks.

The median income for a household in Crescent 

City is $20,133, and the median income for a family 

is $22,058. Males have a median income of $36,667 

versus $19,922 for females. The per capita income 

for the city is $12,833. Over 34 percent of the 

population, and over 33 percent of families, are 

below the poverty line.

3.10.5. Castle Rock NWR Management 

Economics

There are no staff or base budget funds specifically 

allocated to Castle Rock NWR. Management 

of Castle Rock NWR is covered by the staff and 

budget at Humboldt Bay NWR. Recent work there 

on research and visitor services/outreach has been 

paid for primarily with special programmatic and 

grant funding. Annual costs to maintain this level of 

effort would be ~$30K.

National Wildlife Refuges contribute funds to local 

counties through revenue sharing programs that are 

intended to cover unrealized tax revenues for either 

lands purchased in fee title or lands reserved from 

the public domain. To mitigate the loss in property 

taxes, Del Norte County receives an annual payment 

in accordance with the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act 

of 1964. The county receives either 0.75 of 1 percent 

of the value of Castle Rock, annually (~$4,000).

3.10.6. Castle Rock NWR Environmental 

Justice

There are no minority or low income populations 

that would be affected by any management 

alternatives on Castle Rock NWR. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 87

3.11. Castle Rock NWR Public Access 

and Recreation 

3.11.1. Castle Rock NWR Traffic, Public 

Access, and Recreation

Crescent City can be accessed from the north and 

south on Highway 101, and from the east on highway 

199. There is no public access to Castle Rock NWR. 

3.11.2. Aesthetics of Castle Rock NWR

The primary viewing area for Castle Rock NWR 

is from Pebble Beach Drive and the mainland at 

Point St. George. The area surrounding Castle 

Rock NWR contains other, smaller rocks and offers 

majestic views of California’s coastline. 

3.12. Castle Rock NWR Public Use

Castle Rock NWR is currently closed to all public 

access and is very unlikely to ever be opened. 

Sensitive cavity nesting bird and other habitats 

would be irreparably damaged by visitor use of 

Castle Rock NWR.

Periodic visits to the island are conducted only 

by Complex staff and academic researchers 

accompanied by staff, to install and maintain remote 

sensing wildlife cameras or to conduct other forms 

of monitoring and research. A remote viewing 

site and interpretive panels are provided on shore 

immediately adjacent to Castle 

Rock NWR, on Pebble Beach 

Drive. With binoculars or, better 

yet, a spotting scope, visitors can 

see seabirds and resting pinnipeds 

from this remote viewing location.

3.12.1. Castle Rock NWR 

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

Interpretive signs are provided at a 

rest stop along Pebble Beach Drive, 

from which the public can safely 

view Castle Rock NWR and learn 

more about its wildlife (Figure 12). 

Real-time video of Castle Rock 

NWR and associated seabirds 

is available over the internet, 

through a partnership between the 

USFWS, HSU, and the NPS. 

3.12.2. Castle Rock NWR Trends

Kayaking, jet skiing, and other recreational boating 

occur in the waters around Castle Rock NWR, 

but the island is posted with signage indicating 

that landing is not permitted. No trend data about 

these uses is currently available, but non-motorized 

boating (especially the use of sea kayaks) has 

increased substantially in the last 10 to 15 years.

3.12.3. Castle Rock NWR Management and 

Monitoring

Since establishment, Castle Rock NWR has been 

passively managed by preventing disturbance of 

refuge wildlife. Because Castle Rock NWR is so rich 

with sensitive wildlife species and fragile habitat, 

only very limited access for research, monitoring, 

and management can be allowed while fulfilling 

the purposes for which it was established. Limited 

remote observation of Castle Rock NWR has 

been allowed for research purposes. The Complex 

collaborates with partners such as HSU, AFWO, and 

NOAA Fisheries Service to conduct photo surveys 

of birds and marine mammals utilizing Castle Rock 

NWR and associated habitat. 

Estimates of the abundance of common murres, 

cormorants, pigeon guillemots and tufted puffins 

on the refuge can be obtained using aerial photos 

or other means. However the burrow-nesting 

nocturnal species (rhinoceros and Cassin’s auklets, 

fork-tailed and Leach’s storm-petrels) are not easily 

Figure 12. Castle Rock NWR interpretive panels along Pebble Beach 

Drive, Crescent City. Photo: USFWS
88 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 3

seen because they are out in the ocean feeding 

during the day and only come to the island between 

sunset and sunrise to attend to their young. Human 

activity on the island is very restricted because the 

burrow systems can be destroyed or badly damaged 

when stepped on by people. Therefore, they have 

posed a very difficult challenge to study. Based on 

past surveys, it is suspected that Castle Rock still 

hosts substantial numbers of these burrow-nesting 

species, but their current status is not known. With 

advanced technology we can now use cameras to 

view the seabirds without the disturbance associated 

with having people present. Our intent is to establish 

a long-term, forward looking monitoring program on 

this very important seabird island.

The camera system installed on Castle Rock NWR 

sends video signals to an antenna on top of the NPS 

building in Crescent City, then to a digital video 

recorder, and finally to a screen. This system allows 

us to gather information on the number of birds in a 

certain area, the percentage of burrows occupied by 

which types of birds, when the birds are there, how 

often they bring fish back, when eggs are laid and 

hatch, when young birds leave the nest, and other 

data that help us determine how the populations 

are doing. Additionally, the video from the camera 

will be available to the public “live,” either by high 

quality TV in the Crescent City visitor center of 

the NPS, or via an internet connection to the web 

at http://www.humboldt.edu/~rtg1/research/castle_

rock.html
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 89

4.1. Issues and Challenges Identified by 

the Public and the Service

Based on input from the public, agencies, tribes, 

and elected officials, as well as internal scoping, 

the Service summarized the following planning 

issues to guide the development of alternatives. A 

third planning update, summarizing the results of 

the CCP scoping process, was sent out to over 600 

interested stakeholders on September 14, 2007. 

In addition, a fourth planning update was sent out 

during spring of 2008.

4.1.1. Potential Impacts of Global Climate 

Change on the Complex

The recent warming trend of the global climate is 

confirmed by observations of increases in global 

average air and ocean temperatures and rising mean 

sea level (IPCC 2007). Since Humboldt Bay NWR 

is located adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, it is likely to 

be impacted by both increased temperature and sea 

level rise (see section 3.1.2 for further discussion).

Given the height of Castle Rock NWR above mean 

sea level, its habitat for nesting sea birds and 

roosting birds is unlikely to be impacted by rising 

sea level in the near term. More likely impacts to 

resident and migrant wildlife are any changes in 

the supply of marine prey that could result from 

changes in ocean temperatures or ocean currents. 

4.1.2. Staffing Needs for the Complex

The Complex currently has six permanent full 

time equivalent (FTE) employees; five positions 

are stationed at the Visitor’s Center, while one 

permanent employee and one term employee are 

stationed at the office at the Lanphere Dunes Unit. 

In 2008 the refuge received additional base funding 

for a permanent Visitor Services/Outreach position 

to be shared with the Arcata Fish and Wildlife 

Office. When filled, the shared position will be 

stationed at the Salmon Creek Unit of the Humboldt 

Bay NWR. Since 2002 the Complex has had a 

graduate Student Career Experience Program 

(SCEP) position (two different students) that has 

helped with the Complex’s biology program. 

The Complex has also periodically had one or two 

six-month temporary contract positions that have 

assisted primarily with Visitor Services, and a Youth 

Conservation Corps Crew Leader and Crew.

4.1.3. Aleutian Cackling Goose Habitat 

Management

The recovery of the Aleutian cackling goose 

population from endangered (~800 birds in 1974) to 

thriving is one of the signature success stories of the 

Federal Endangered Species Act. 

To the best of current knowledge, Aleutian cackling 

geese historically used Castle Rock NWR in Del 

Norte County, but did not use the Humboldt Bay 

area, as a spring staging area. This historic use 

pattern is consistent with historic vegetation 

conditions around the bay. However, since 2001, 

the use of private and public grasslands around 

Humboldt Bay and the lower Eel River by Aleutian 

cackling geese has increased significantly. The 

Humboldt Bay area now receives the majority of 

use by 50,000 to 80,000 Aleutian cackling geese from 

mid-January to late March. The Pacific Flyway 

objective for this population is 60,000. However, 

the current population is ~100,000 and is likely 

still increasing (see Figure 3 and Table 9). Use of 

habitat in Humboldt County by Aleutian cackling 

geese has already increased to the point where 

local ranchers are reporting financial losses due to 

forage removed by geese and therefore unavailable 

for livestock (Nelson pers. comm., Mini 2005). At 

this time, direct compensation for adverse effects 

caused by Aleutian cackling goose are not available 

nor is it foreseen to be within the life of this CCP 

(15 years). An Aleutian cackling goose working 

group continues to explore the best possible options 

to solve these goose management issues. As long 

as ranchers are suffering these losses without any 

compensation, they look to the public agencies to 

make the public land available for goose forage. 

However, one of the challenges is that most public 

lands around Humboldt Bay and the Eel River are 

former tidelands and therefore potential habitat for 

listed salmonids and tidewater goby. Any acre of 

land managed for geese is land that can not or is not 

being managed for salmonids and gobies, see below.

4. Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities
90 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 4

4.1.4. Estuarine Habitat Restoration on 

Humboldt Bay NWR

The Salmon Creek, White Slough, and Hookton 

Slough units of Humboldt Bay NWR consist 

primarily of diked former salt marsh and, to a lesser 

extent, brackish marsh. Humboldt Bay has lost 

~90 percent of its salt marsh since EuroAmerican 

settlement through diking and draining as well 

as filling for development. Of the remaining salt 

marsh, 95 percent has been invaded by introduced 

dense-flowered cordgrass, which displaces native 

plant communities resulting in a loss of biodiversity 

and unknown impacts to marsh function and 

productivity. Much of the former salt marsh around 

the bay still supports seasonal wetlands, including 

“agricultural wetlands” used primarily for grazing 

and hay production. In other areas where there is 

substantial freshwater input, including the Salmon 

Creek, Hookton Slough and White Slough units, 

there are fresh to brackish marshes and riparian 

areas supporting native plant communities. 

Restoration of some former tidelands to tidal 

influence is desired by the Service as well as some 

other resource agencies and community members 

both to restore function as well as to provide habitat 

for native plant and animal communities, some of 

which are listed.

However, the restoration of tidal influence to former 

salt marsh is also constrained by a number of 

factors. Some residents and private ranch owners 

are opposed to tidal restoration because it removes 

land from agricultural production. The use of grazed, 

short-grass agricultural grassland by increasing 

numbers of migrating Aleutian cackling geese has 

resulted in the need for public landowners to retain 

some amount of this grazed habitat to support these 

populations and to remove geese grazing pressures 

from private lands. Restoration of salt marsh and 

brackish marsh is also constrained by the substantial 

subsidence that has occurred in most of these 

former tidelands. The majority of these lands may 

be two to three feet below the elevation needed to 

establish salt marsh, and three to four feet below 

the elevation required to establish native plant 

communities instead of dense-flowered cordgrassdominated communities. Both cost and the need 

to model and experimentally test methodologies 

constrain the potential conversion of these areas to a 

condition that supports native salt marsh vegetation, 

either through raising elevations or establishing 

muted tidal influence. In addition, the presence of 

relatively uncommon native brackish to fresh marsh 

communities on some of these lands may affect the 

desirability of restoration. Since bay-wide vegetation 

mapping has not occurred, and little research has 

been devoted to the habitat values and functions of 

these wetlands, it is difficult to precisely quantify the 

impact of converting these vegetation types.

Lastly, but certainly not least is the fact that 

additional constraints exist due to proximity and 

exposure of adjacent infrastructure to flooding, 

including: Highway 101, Hookton Road, private 

lands and the refuge headquarters.

4.1.5. Replacement of Eucalyptus Trees with 

Native Vegetation

Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), a tree native to 

Australia, was introduced in California in the mid 

to late 1800s. A variety of reasons are listed as to 

why these trees were planted all along the coastal 

and interior valleys of California, such as crop trees, 

wind breaks, lumber, firewood, medicine, and shade. 

In the 1920s an approximately one mile long strip 

of blue gum was planted on the Humboldt Bay 

NWR, north of what is now the Visitor Center, by 

McBride family ranch hands probably as a wind 

break. Blue gum and other non-native trees, such 

as Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) and Monterey 

cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), were also planted 

in this area. Currently this area is ~85 percent blue 

gum. Blue gum stands tend to be monotypic, largely 

due to their rapid growth and the toxins released by 

leaves and in the surrounding soil, which inhibit the 

growth of other species. 

Although some wildlife, such as raptors, European 

starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), skunk, and deer use 

this area in general for resting and in some limited 

cases foraging and breeding, blue gum is recognized 

to be largely detrimental to wildlife. All birds that 

naturally evolved with this tree species have long 

bills and are typically not diminutive songbirds. A 

few of the species of songbirds that would typically 

inhabit the native trees in winter are Anna’s 

(Calypte anna) and Allen’s (Selasphorus sasin) 

hummingbirds, yellow-rumped warblers (Dendroica 

coronata), and kinglets (Regulus sp.). These birds 

have short bills and small nasal openings relative 

to the species that have evolved with the blue gum. 

The gum (thick nectar) and pollen of these winter 

blooming trees tends to clog the nasal openings 

of these birds, which can lead to starvation. In 

addition, hummingbirds that nest in these trees 

typically have low nesting success as their nests 

blow out of trees five times more often than in 

native vegetation. Although blue gum are used by 

some birds, the diversity and number of birds and 

other wildlife that uses native riparian habitat is far 

greater.

Removal of the non-native trees was recommended 

in the original 1989 Management Plan for the 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 91

refuge. Due to the lower habitat value of these 

monotypic stands of eucalyptus, the Management 

Plan recommends that blue gum be replaced with 

native vegetation such as Sitka spruce, alders 

(Alnus sp.), and willows (Salix sp.). Sitka spruce 

and willows have thrived when planted elsewhere 

on the Salmon Creek Unit. Incremental removal 

has taken place, primarily by the California 

Conservation Corps (CCC), after approval of the 

1989 Management Plan. Removal of the remaining 

eucalyptus would take place over a 5-year period. 

Downed trees are then donated to programs that 

distribute the wood to seniors and other needy 

citizens. This program is scheduled to continue in 

cooperation with the Humboldt Fish Action Council 

(HFAC). 

4.1.6. Potential Water Quality Concerns with 

Increased Public Use in Mad River Slough

In the last 20 years, non-motorized boating has 

increased dramatically both nationally and on 

Humboldt Bay. To help accommodate this increasing 

use around the Bay, in 2008 the Service proposed 

construction of a non-motorized boat launch on 

the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit. The oyster growers in 

Mad River Slough expressed concern about the 

proposal for opening the Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative 

Management Area (MDCMA) for public use, 

especially related to potential impacts on water 

quality (Figure 13). Their primary concern is that if 

the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) 

will not certify the waters of Mad River Slough, the 

oyster growers may be prohibited from harvesting 

oysters due to the potential for violations of water 

quality standards for aquaculture. Both growers and 

CDPH are concerned that increased public use in 

the area can potentially jeopardize the water quality.

To address these concerns, refuge and SCC staff 

have met with the oyster growers and HBHRCD. 

The California Department of Public Health’s 

(CDPH) April 18, 2008 comment letter to the 

California State Coastal Conservancy on the 

“Ma-le’l Dune Cooperative Management Area and 

Revised Environmental Review Documents and 

Access Plan,” the CDPH documented their concerns 

with the proposed non-motorized boat launch as 

follows: 

The CDPH letter indicated that “unpredictable 

pollution events cannot be managed, therefore 

commercial shellfish growing is not allowed in 

areas that experience these types of potential 

impacts [to water quality]....Pollution sources in 

Humboldt Bay can directly impact water quality in 

the commercial shellfish growing areas and affect 

the classification.” The CDPH letter indicated 

that if a non-motorized boat ramp was installed 

at the Ma-le’l north parking and picnic area along 

the Mad River Slough, the associated increased 

boating activity in the Mad River Slough that they 

expected as a result of installing a boat launch, and 

the anticipated increase in visitors and pets would 

present the following potential non point pollution 

sources: bacterial and viral pathogens and runoff 

of improperly deposited waste, especially along the 

banks of the Mad River Slough. Further, the CDPH 

letter stated that the ramp, associated increased 

boating activity in the Mad River Slough, and the 

anticipated increase in visitors to that location would 

create an “unmanageable potential source of human 

pathogens that is not consistent with the current 

use as an aquaculture site. CDPH will be required 

to take action if [the non-motorized boat ramp] is 

completed. Regulatory actions [by CDPH] could 

include harvest restrictions during periods of peak 

activity, permanent reclassification of the growing 

area to Prohibited (no shellfish harvesting 

allowed), or a temporarily harvest closure 

with increased microbiological sampling of the 

certified growing areas until the water and 

shellfish quality impacts can be assessed.” If 

the CDPH reclassified the Mad River Slough 

area to prohibit shellfish harvesting, this would 

adversely affect the oyster growers in the area 

because they could no longer harvest or sell 

shellfish.

The Service continues to be committed to 

maintaining water quality standards in Mad 

River Slough. During the last several years 

a working group including the HBHRCD, 

SCC, and RCAA have gathered public input 

and developed prioritized locations for boat 

launches and water trails for non-motorized 

boats. Due to the aforementioned water quality 

ARCATA

Dune Units

of Humboldt Bay NWR

Humboldt Bay NWR

Ma-le’l Dunes 

Cooperative 

Management Area

PACIFIC

OCEAN

Lanphere

Dunes

Unit

Ma-le’l

Dunes

Unit

Entrance (Young Lane)

Ma-le’l Access Road

Humboldt Bay

Mad River Slough

255

101

BLM

Manila

Dunes

(not to scale)

Figure 13. Dune Units of Humboldt Bay NWR.
92 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 4

concerns and elevation at mid and lower tides, the 

Mad River Slough site was not a priority location. A 

boat ramp at Ma-le’l Dunes is not proposed as a part 

of this CCP or the MDCMA Plan.

4.1.7. Invasive Plant Species on Humboldt Bay 

and Adjacent Lands

An invasive species is a non-native species whose 

introduction does or is likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health (E.O. 

13112, 3 February 1999). Invasive species are widely 

considered to be the greatest threat to natural 

areas after habitat loss. They negatively affect 35 

to 46 percent of endangered species. There are 2.3 

million acres of Refuge System lands infested with 

invasive plants and this number is increasing. The 

Biological Integrity Policy (601 FW 3) specifies that 

the Refuge System manages non-native invasive 

species by the use of integrated pest management 

strategies, which can include mechanical, chemical, 

biological, and cultural techniques. The ecosystem 

of the south bay units has been highly altered 

through human manipulation and invasive species, 

which are widespread within these units. Many of 

these species are in an incipient stage of infestation, 

occurring only in a few small areas. 

Invasive species infestations are not limited by 

ownership boundaries. Identifying the threat of 

an invasive species at an ecosystem level improves 

the ecological and economical effectiveness of 

the control methods. The Humboldt Bay NWR is 

committed to cooperatively work with adjacent 

landowners and the Humboldt-Del Norte Weed 

Management Area to control the spread and impact 

of invasive species. This cooperation will enhance the 

effectiveness of control strategies on Humboldt Bay 

NWR lands and will reduce the ecological impacts of 

invasive species on those lands and the surrounding 

ecosystems. 

4.1.8. Flooding of Highway 101

During heavy rain events Salmon Creek goes out 

of its bank on a regular basis, both above and below 

the Highway 101 bridge. Salmon Creek overtops 

its banks primarily because it has been channelized 

in its lower portion and over time silt has aggraded 

in the lower channel of the creek. The elevation of 

the creek bottom at the Hookton Road bridge is 

now ~5 feet higher than it was historically due to 

aggraded sediment. This elevated creek bottom acts 

as a “dam” in the creek. During large storm events 

the creek comes out of its channel on the east side 

of Highway 101 and can flood the east side of the 

Hookton Road interchange and just to the north 

where Cattail Creek runs under Highway 101. This 

occurs less often than flooding of the west Hookton 

exits and the Humboldt Bay NWR entrance road. 

This flooding impacts access for many people in the 

Tompkins Hill and Table Bluff area. 

Parts of Phase I of the Salmon Creek restoration 

should reduce this problem. Two new tidegates 

installed during summer 2007-08 will improve fish 

passage, estuarine conditions, sediment, and flood 

flow transport. Phase II of the project is designed to 

help remove aggraded material in the lower creek 

channel and to further improve the objectives of 

Phase I.

4.1.9. Legal Jurisdiction of Tidelands 

Federal ownership and management of “State 

tidelands” has long been an issue in Humboldt 

County and affects refuge management in multiple 

places around the bay. While the county assessors 

parcel map may show Service ownership, the State 

Lands Commission has determined that all tide 

and submerged lands, as well as navigable rivers 

and sloughs, are impressed with the Common Law 

Public Trust. The Public Trust is a sovereign public 

property right held by the State or its delegated 

trustee for the benefit of all the people in the 

State. This right limits the uses of these lands to 

waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, open 

space, recreation, or other recognized Public Trust 

purposes. Most of the bed of Hookton Slough is 

located within the lands that the State acquired and 

patented as Swamp and Overflow lands. Any state 

interest in the project area has been legislatively 

granted to the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, 

and Conservation District (HBHRCD) pursuant to 

Chapter 1283, Statutes of 1970, as amended, with 

minerals reserved to the State. The HBHRCD has 

indicated that their management boundary extends 

to “mean higher high water”. That is, the CCP and 

the management documents in the CCP appendix 

pertain to areas of Hookton Slough and other 

waterways within the refuge boundary that are 

above the elevation of mean higher high water (7.06 

feet NGVD). 

4.1.10. Hunting Regulations on Humboldt Bay 

NWR

The sport hunting plan for Humboldt Bay NWR 

used prior to finalizing this CCP is over 17 years 

old and was due for an update (see Appendix C). 

There have been relatively large land acquisitions 

for Humboldt Bay NWR since 1990, including some 

historically hunted salt marsh islands associated 

with the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 93

In 2005, portions of the former Buggy Club (private 

land) were transferred to the Service from the 

Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM). 

The lands had been purchased by the California 

Coastal Conservancy and donated to CNLM to 

hold until the Service could complete the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. These 

lands were then combined with the southernmost 

portion of the Lanphere Dunes Unit (also known 

as the Fernstrom-Root parcel) to create the Male’l Dunes Unit. The Ma-le’l Dunes Unit, along 

with the BLM’s Manila Dunes parcels, now form 

the Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area. 

Interim compatibility determinations (CD) were 

done for established authorized priority public uses 

and boating, but not hunting because it was not a 

recognized and authorized public use.

The previous draft Public Access Plan included the 

formal closure of some areas that while not officially 

authorized had been traditionally hunted. Hunting 

on those areas was considered incompatible. 

A previously used (1990–1994) trail along the 

shoreline was planned to be used again, which would 

make hunting in close proximity to this location a 

safety issue. 

Because any refuge areas proposed to be newly 

opened to hunting require NEPA compliance and no 

other new public uses were proposed to the area, it 

was decided to address hunting in this area through 

the CCP process and it was excluded from the final 

Cooperative Area Management Plan. The Coastal 

Conservancy and the Service have had multiple 

discussions with hunters and their representatives 

and have proposed the following adjustments 

that would partially accommodate the hunters’ 

position(s):

1. Allow hunting, but no blind construction on the 

portion of the Fernstrom-Root Island owned by 

the Service;

2. Allow retrieval only on the island adjacent to the 

trail, areas of Ma-le’l Island within the Service’s 

jurisdiction;

3. Post educational materials on hunting and 

avoiding conflict between user groups.

In summary, the Service believes that the 

adjustments outlined above reflect a viable balance 

and compromise between priority refuge uses that 

sometimes conflict.

At the Jacoby Creek Unit, only boat-in access is 

provided to Jacoby Creek. Visitors accessing Jacoby 

Creek have illegally parked and camped on Highway 

101 and the railroad rights of way, especially during 

hunting season. Parking, camping and vehicle 

access at Jacoby Creek Unit is prohibited without 

a special use permit. The Service recognizes the 

desire for vehicle access at Jacoby Creek, but due 

to safety along the rights of way and jurisdictional 

constraints, it is not allowed at this time.

4.1.11. Sport Fishing Regulations on Humboldt 

Bay NWR

The sport fishing plan for Humboldt Bay NWR used 

prior to finalizing this CCP is over 17 years old, and 

there have been many changes in infrastructure 

and management of refuges units during that 

time. Internal scoping motivated the creation of 

an updated Sport Fishing Plan for Humboldt Bay 

NWR (see Appendix D).

4.1.12. Non-Wildlife Dependent Visitor 

Services on Humboldt Bay NWR

Since the emphasis of visitor services for Humboldt 

Bay NWR is on wildlife-dependent recreation, 

other uses such as dog walking, horseback riding, 

bicycling, and jogging/running are currently not 

allowed, with the exception of the use of bikes on 

the paved entrance road. Any other proposed uses 

must be analyzed and found by the refuge to be 

compatible before they can be allowed. The process 

of evaluating proposed uses is discussed in Chapter 

1 of this CCP under Legal and Policy Guidance.

4.1.13. Traditional Tribal Uses on Humboldt Bay 

NWR

Increased communication with the Wiyot Tribe, 

Blue Lake Rancheria, and Bear River Band of 

Rohnerville Rancheria is very important to the 

Complex. For reported thousands of years, the 

lands from Little River south along the coast to 

Bear River and inland to the first set of mountains 

were Wiyot territory. This area includes all of the 

existing units of the Humboldt Bay NWR. The 

Wiyot hunted wildlife, fished, and gathered plants 

for food, medicine, and basketry. Many of these uses 

are still practiced today. The Native American Policy 

of the Fish and Wildlife Service states that “The 

Service will provide Native Americans reasonable 

access to Service managed or controlled lands and 

waters for exercising ceremonial, medicinal, and 

traditional activities recognized by the Service and 

by native American governments. The Service will 

permit these uses if the activities are consistent with 

treaties, judicial mandates, or Federal and tribal law 

and are compatible with the purposes for which the 

lands are managed” (USFWS 1994). 
94 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 4

4.1.14. Mosquito Integrated Pest Management 

on Humboldt Bay NWR

Mosquitoes are a natural component of wetland 

ecosystems. Both adult and larval forms are a 

food source for a variety of wildlife, such as birds, 

mammals, fish, and other invertebrates. Mosquitoes 

are also associated with being a nuisance species and 

vectors of disease-causing microorganisms, such as 

West Nile Virus (WNV). Five species of mosquitoes 

are known to inhabit the Humboldt Bay NWR 

and surrounding areas (Culex tarsalis, Culesita 

particeps, Aedes increpitus, Aedes dorsalis, and

Aedes vexan). These mosquitoes can breed in and 

inhabit salt and freshwater marshes, riparian 

areas, and any objects that retain open water. Adult 

mosquitoes appear as early as April and persist until 

late summer, depending on the species. Although 

adults of individual species are relatively short 

lived, there are certain years when they experience 

natural periodic population explosions. In Humboldt 

County, Culex tarsalis transmits WNV, but is not the 

most numerous species found around the county. 

The virus responsible for WNV entered California 

from the eastern U.S. in 2003 and was first reported 

in Humboldt County in 2004. WNV is found locally 

in corvids (crows and ravens), and raptors such as 

hawks and owls. To date, no human cases of WNV 

have been reported in Humboldt County. The young, 

old, and those with compromised immune systems 

are the most susceptible to being affected by WNV. 

Not all who contract the disease die from it, but 

fatalities from WNV have been recorded across the 

country.

In 2003 the county began implementing the 

Humboldt County West Nile Virus Monitoring 

and Response Plan. This program involved public 

education, media outreach, breeding source 

abatement, disease surveillance, and identification 

of mosquito species. Currently the county is not 

an abatement district, but is set up to become one 

if voted on by the County Supervisors. The state’s 

Department of Public Health just released Best 

Management Practices for mosquito control on 

California State properties, the Service’s Draft 

Mosquito Abatement Policy and Humboldt County’s 

Mosquito Abatement Policy have similar methods 

and approach this issue in similar ways. The key 

to maintaining seasonal and estuarine wetlands 

with a minimum of mosquito production is to 

avoid conditions where pockets of water become 

isolated. If wetlands are connected to larger water 

bodies then most mosquito larvae are consumed 

by predators. Appendix F includes a compatibility 

determination for Mosquito Control for Humboldt 

Bay NWR. 

4.1.15. Management of Older Buildings on 

Humboldt Bay NWR

The Humboldt Bay NWR has several old buildings 

on site. All are located on the Salmon Creek and 

Lanphere Dunes units. Disposal through sale, 

donation, recycling, demolition, or a combination 

thereof is currently the desired goal for the old 

Complex quarters/office, and at least the south 

part of the large barn, and possibly the quarters at 

Lanphere Dunes.

The refuge is planning to restore and maintain the 

old hunting cabin and much of the large barn if they 

pass a safety review. Both of these buildings have 

historic value locally and could add greatly to the 

refuge’s connection with the local public. 

4.1.16. Potential Humboldt Bay NWR 

Acquisitions

The refuge has recently worked with the Service’s 

Region 8 realty staff to complete environmental 

compliance documentation for several small 

properties adjacent to the Hookton Slough Unit and 

one larger property adjacent to the Lanphere Dunes 

Unit. Other potential acquisitions in the foreseeable 

future could include several tracts within and/or 

adjacent to the Lanphere Dunes Unit, tidelands in 

both North and South Bay, and tracts adjacent to 

the Salmon Creek Unit. Lands are only acquired 

from willing sellers. Depending on the preference 

of each landowner, and according to Service’s policy, 

the USFWS protects lands by acquiring the least 

amount of “interest” in a property necessary to 

accomplish refuge goals. This may include technical 

assistance, cooperative agreements, easements, fee 

title acquisition, and donations.

4.1.17. Potential Management Options for the 

Hookton Slough Unit

The Hookton Slough Unit was historically tidally 

influenced with freshwater contributions coming 

from Salmon Creek during floods, runoff and 

perennial springs from Table Bluff. In the 1800s, 

it was split by a road that led to what was a 

docking point for sailing ships that were taking 

crops from the Eel River Valley to other places of 

commerce. This road still exists and serves as a 

dam that separates the unit hydrologically, except 

during the largest flood events. In later years, the 

rest of the area was diked and managed as shortgrass pasture until purchased by the refuge in the 

1970s. Livestock was removed shortly after refuge 

acquisition. During the 1980s and 1990s, the refuge 

removed two large barns, a small residence, and a 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 95

small shack at the slough’s edge while at the same 

time constructing a parking area and trailhead that 

leads to a 1.5-mile trail with interpretive panels, 

vault restrooms, and a fishing dock/launch area for 

non-motorized boats.

During the early-1980s, when the refuge was still 

being managed from South San Francisco due to 

budget constraints, the decision was made to repair 

the outer dike along the edge of Hookton Slough. 

The dike was rip-rapped and tidegate structures 

were replaced. In 2002, the two water control 

structures to the west of the parking lot failed and 

were replaced. In fall 2006, both the concrete box 

culvert east of the parking area and the 36-inch 

water control structure at the terminal end of the 

slough were modified with side-hinged gates to 

improve estuarine connection and fish passage. In 

January 2006, storm-driven tides topped this dike 

in several places and relatively minor repairs are 

necessary.

Because of the proximity of the Hookton Slough 

Unit to Salmon Creek, the potential value of these 

marshes as off channel rearing habitat for salmonids 

is very high (compared to the White Slough Unit, 

for instance). The Hookton Slough Unit also has 

high potential as tidewater goby habitat and is 

designated as critical habitat in the recovery plan 

for this species.

Existing issues/constraints to wetland connection 

and management options include: 

■ the aforementioned road, 

■ two homes along Hookton Road on the east side, 

■ at least two areas where Hookton Road would 

be inundated (if dikes were breached for tidal 

restoration), 

■ a relative lack of hydrologic, topographic, and 

ecological information, 

■ drainage issues of adjacent landowners, and 

■ potential for mosquito production and impacts. 

The area is currently a mixture of fresh and 

brackish marsh and introduced grasses. The 

vegetation on Hookton Slough Unit has recently 

been mapped and there are some unique wetland 

vegetation associations. Current wildlife use 

is primarily by small birds, mammals, and 

invertebrates; however, cattail swamp is a relatively 

rare wetland type around Humboldt Bay and is 

used extensively by bitterns, rails, marsh wrens and 

red-winged blackbirds. Much of the unit (especially 

the west side) is currently not conducive to use by 

waterfowl or shorebirds due to vegetation and/or 

water conditions. 

The original 1989 refuge management plan called 

for separating the Hookton Slough Unit into 

three management sections. The section east of 

the parking area would have been managed as 

freshwater marsh. The west side was to be split 

by a low contour dike constructed on the west side 

of an existing drainage ditch. The west side of this 

was proposed to be managed as more brackish 

and the middle area would be muted tidal marsh. 

This management was not implemented due to 

concerns over the constraints mentioned previously, 

permitting issues and other priorities. If the above 

mentioned constraints can be addressed, the options 

for management would be expanded.

4.1.18. Dioxin and Pentachlorophenol 

Contamination

 

Several dioxin and pentachlorophenol contamination 

sites have been identified by others near Ma-le’l and 

Lanphere Dunes Units, adjacent to Sierra Pacific 

Industries Mill; Jacoby Creek Unit, adjacent to 

the former Bracut Mill location; and Indian Island, 

not owned by the Service, but within the refuge’s 

approved boundary. Existing contamination of 

these areas is part of the existing condition that is 

likely to be present throughout the life of the CCP 

(15 years). The Service will continue to review and 

participate in regional planning activities sponsored 

by Humboldt County and local municipalities, 

such as the cities of Eureka and Arcata and the 

HBHRCD, that address water quality in and 

around Humboldt Bay. An analysis of the effects 

of dioxins and pentachlorophenol is included in the 

2004 National Research Council (NRC) review of a 

2003 draft document by the Federal Environmental 

Protection Agency entitled, Exposure and Human 

Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzop-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds (NRC 

2004). NRC recommended that EPA augment its 

reassessment further. Regulation or remediation 

of effects from dioxin and pentachlorophenol from 

existing or future contamination by others are not 

within the jurisdiction of the Service or the scope 

of this document and therefore are not discussed 

further. 

4.1.19. Habitat Management on Castle Rock 

NWR 

A major concern on Castle Rock NWR is loss of 

vegetative diversity, structure, and soil erosion. 

The concern about vegetation is primarily due 

to potential impacts on burrow-nesting species. 

Management intervention may be needed to 

maintain or restore healthy populations of burrow 

nesting species. 
96 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 4

Vegetative changes on Castle Rock NWR occur 

annually due to grazing and roosting activities 

by geese and breeding activities by cormorants. 

Concern about the potential impacts of geese on 

vegetation and seabird habitat at Castle Rock 

were first mentioned by Osborne (1972) following 

the observation of 600 Aleutian Canada Geese on 

the island in 1970. Visible changes in the island’s 

vegetation and declines in numbers of some 

breeding seabird species prompted management 

concern regarding potential negative impacts of the 

growing population of geese on the island’s seabirds 

and sensitive habitats (Carter et al. 1992, Jaques and 

Strong 2001). Jaques (2004) conducted a preliminary 

examination of spatial and temporal relationships 

between selected breeding seabirds and roosting 

geese and suggested that night roosting geese 

are probably not a significant concern for surface 

nesting seabirds, but may represent an important 

negative impact on burrow-nesting species such as 

the tufted puffin. Changes in vegetation and soil 

erosion due to goose/cormorant use of Castle Rock 

NWR may be affecting other species including the 

Leach’s storm-petrel and Cassin’s auklet. Although 

eliminating or deterring geese from using Castle 

Rock has been suggested, the effects of the geese 

have not yet been adequately documented and there 

is no currently feasible management option to allow 

the Service to eliminate or deter geese from Castle 

Rock without adversely affecting other protected 

species and their habitat, such as the burrownesting seabirds. The first step in addressing these 

issues is to establish baseline vegetation and erosion 

monitoring to better determine what, if any, changes 

are actually occurring due to geese and cormorants.

Mice can be a harmful predator for burrownesting seabirds. In addition to native mice, house 

mice (Mus musculus) have been found on Castle 

Rock NWR and could have ecological impacts if a 

breeding population exists. 

4.1.20. Protection of Castle Rock NWR from 

Disturbance

Very few human disturbance events have been 

documented at Castle Rock NWR. However, due 

to its close proximity to shore and the Del Norte 

County airport it is vulnerable to disturbance from 

recreational boaters, low-flying aircraft, and other 

potential sources. Disturbance to seabird colonies 

during the breeding season can cause lowered 

reproductive success, breeding failure, and even 

colony abandonment. 

4.1.21. Educational Outreach Regarding Castle 

Rock NWR

Educational outreach may help the public to 

generate voluntary support to reduce disturbance 

on and around Castle Rock NWR and to promote 

stewardship of the island resources by the local 

community. 

Educational outreach and interpretation 

partnerships have been or could be developed with 

some of the following organizations to improve 

effectiveness: the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the Del 

Norte County Airport, Del Norte County Planning 

Department and Department of Parks, Del Norte 

County School System, kayaking guides/groups, 

and the sport and commercial fishing industries. 

The Aleutian Goose Festival held annually in 

Crescent City provides an excellent opportunity for 

educational outreach to the local and visiting public. 

4.1.22. Seabird Monitoring on Castle Rock 

NWR

There is a need to establish a consistent seabird 

monitoring program at Castle Rock NWR to better 

inform population management for species that 

use its habitat. Management questions associated 

with this need include: how to accomplish the 

necessary monitoring without causing undue 

disturbance to sensitive island resources; what the 

monitoring frequency and techniques should be for 

given species; how can monitoring be funded; what 

parameters should govern the issuance of special 

use permits for research and monitoring; and how 

can Castle Rock NWR make the most of interagency 

relationships and larger-scale monitoring programs 

that are already in place. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 97

This chapter presents the refuge goals based on 

the vision statements described in Chapter 1. The 

management objectives and strategies to achieve the 

goal are listed after each goal. 

Humboldt Bay NWR Goals, Objectives and 

Strategies

Goals are descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statements of desired future conditions that convey 

a purpose, but do not define measurable outcomes. 

Goals translate refuge purposes into management 

direction. Each goal is supported by one or more 

specific, measurable, achievable, results-oriented, 

time-fixed objectives with specific strategies 

needed to accomplish the objectives. Objectives are 

designed to be accomplished within 15 years. Actual 

implementation may vary as a result of available 

funding or other resource limitations. 

Currently, the Service manages approximately 35 

percent of the lands within the approved Humboldt 

Bay NWR boundary. This CCP presents goals and 

objectives primarily for those lands that are or will 

soon be managed by the Service, as well as limited 

voluntary cooperative land management with 

adjacent and regional landowners. The restoration 

objectives identified here are consistent with the 

restoration goals identified in the 1989 Humboldt 

Bay NWR Management Plan, described in Chapter 1. 

Although invasive plant species are an integral part 

of managing salt marsh and other habitat types, 

prevention and control of invasive species are 

addressed in Goal 3, Objectives 3.1 through 3.3.

Note: Acreages given are approximate.

Goal 1. Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance 

estuarine and palustrine wetland habitats 

representative of the Humboldt Bay area to 

benefit their associated native fish, wildlife, 

plants, and special status species.

Objective 1.1 - Salmon Creek Delta Restoration: 

■ Adaptively manage ~60 acres of Salmon Creek 

overflow and ~50 acres adjacent to the main 

channel to meet the goals of Phase I of the Salmon 

Creek Restoration project. 

■ Within 3 years, meet the goals of Phase II of 

Salmon Creek Restoration project.

■ Within 5 years, connect the new Salmon Creek 

channel to salmonid rearing habitat (Cattail 

Creek), and enhance habitat in upper section of 

Hookton Slough.

Rationale - Salmon Creek Delta Restoration:

The entire Salmon Creek watershed has been 

significantly impacted by logging in its upper 

reaches, agricultural development in the lower 

portion, and road building throughout. All of these 

activities have cumulatively altered the natural 

hydrology and topography of the Salmon Creek 

watershed and the delta in particular. Much habitat 

diversity has been lost, converted, or simplified due 

to historic diking, ditching, and removal or lack of 

recruitment of large woody debris to the system. 

Logs and rootwads that historically came down the 

creek and were integral components of the delta and 

marsh habitat have either been removed or cannot 

pass through smaller culverts or under low bridges. 

Following refuge goals established in the previous 

management plan, Phase I of the Lower Salmon 

Creek Delta Salmonid Habitat Enhancement 

Opportunities Project (PCFWWRA 2003, 2008) has 

been underway since 2002. The goals of this project 

are to improve fish passage, fish habitat, and water 

quality, create additional estuarine habitat, improve 

sediment transport, and reduce flooding upstream 

of the refuge. The first phase included replacement 

of the Lower Salmon Creek tidegate and installation 

of a second tidegate at the west end of the Salmon 

Creek overflow. In addition, two smaller tidegates on 

the Hookton Slough Unit were modified and some 

excavation work done to connect adjacent ponds to 

the creek to prevent fish stranding (PCFWWRA 

2003). 

5. Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and 

Strategies
98 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 5

Phase II of the Salmon Creek Restoration project 

includes:

■ Relocate the reach of Salmon Creek channel 

within the refuge that currently flows through a 

linear ditch. A new channel will be constructed in 

the upper reach of tidal influence, and include a 

stable channel form, historic habitat complexity 

and sinuosity, and improved routing of sediment 

and flood waters. 

■ Construct off-channel estuarine wetlands and 

side-channels in upper reach for salmonid rearing 

habitat and channel maintenance.

■ Screen existing high-flow water diversion to 

eliminate stranding.

Many special status fish species use Salmon Creek 

during some stages of their lifecycle. Steelhead, 

Coho, and Chinook salmon are all Federal ESAlisted threatened species, which migrate upstream 

through Salmon Creek between fall and early 

spring (HBWAC, RCAA 2005). The tidewater goby, 

a Federal ESA-listed endangered species, uses 

the brackish, slower moving portions of the creek 

(USFWS 2006). 

Large woody debris has been shown elsewhere on 

the west coast to be a key habitat component for 

salmonids in estuaries, providing them both feeding 

areas and refuge from predators (Simenstad et al. 

2003). Currently, Hookton Slough (and the rest of 

the Bay) is almost completely lacking in habitat 

diversity due to diking and no large woody debris. 

Recent research has increasingly demonstrated 

the importance of tidal estuaries and low gradient 

freshwater wetlands in the life history of salmonids 

(Cornu and Sadro 2002, Wallace pers. comm. 2006). 

Increasing natural estuarine function at the lower 

end of Salmon Creek will help to restore habitat 

used by protected fish species. Truly functional 

estuarine habitat around Humboldt Bay is rare. It 

is a goal of the Complex to restore estuarine habitat 

to the maximum extent practicable on the Humboldt 

Bay NWR. 

Refuge staff will continue to use the principles of 

adaptive management to restore natural function, 

conditions, and processes to the extent practicable 

on refuge lands without harm to adjacent 

landowners. This has been the goal since refuge 

acquisition of these lands in the 1980s.

Strategies - Salmon Creek Delta Restoration:

1.1.1. Continue to adaptively manage during all 

phases of the Salmon Creek Restoration project 

(monitor species, including juvenile salmonids and 

amphibians, and habitat use, changes in channel 

cross-sections, sediment transport, water quality, 

etc., and use results to guide future management). 

Report to CDFG annually the findings of species 

monitoring.

1.1.2. Continue to develop and implement 

restoration projects with the staff of the Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife and Coastal Programs at the 

Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office. Also coordinate 

restoration projects with the NOAA Fisheries 

Service, USACE, and other regulatory agencies. 

1.1.3. Implement Phase II of the Salmon Creek 

Restoration project, including excavation and 

restoration of 1,500 linear feet of meandering 

channel and other features as described in 

PCFWWRA (2003).

1.1.4. Establish a permanent tidal elevation station 

on Hookton Slough to quantify tidal change over 

time and assess managed conditions (i.e., how 

creek level upstream of the dike reflects tidegate 

parameters).

1.1.5. Work with appropriate bay management 

partners and permitting agencies to develop and 

implement a plan to place large woody debris in 

Hookton Slough to improve habitat diversity for 

salmonids and goby and reduce predation.

1.1.6. Use excavated material from Phase II for salt 

marsh restoration and/or dike maintenance.

1.1.7. Install fish screen(s), ladder(s), or other 

measures acceptable to NOAA Fisheries Service at 

appropriate locations on the Salmon Creek Unit to 

allow diversion to seasonal wetlands without adverse 

effects to salmonids or other listed species. 

1.1.8. Seek opportunities to work with upstream 

private landowners on habitat improvement 

projects.

1.1.9. Seek funding for a new FTE biologist position 

to assist in planning and implementing projects and 

strategies.

1.1.10. Develop Habitat Management Plan and 

Resource Inventory and Monitoring Plan for all 

refuge units.

1.1.11. Excavate 500 linear feet to connect the new 

meandering Salmon Creek channel to salmonid 

rearing habitat (Cattail Creek) and secure large 

woody debris in the upper section of Hookton 

Slough to increase habitat, if feasible.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 99

Objective 1.2 - Salt Marsh Habitat:

■ Within 15 years, maintain 313 acres of existing 

salt marsh habitat and remove western dike on 

Table Bluff Unit. 

■ If feasible, restore 235 acres (90 acres at the 

Hookton Slough Unit, 45 acres on White Slough 

Unit, and 100 acres on Table Bluff Unit) to native 

salt marsh habitat. 

Rationale - Salt Marsh Habitat: 

Salt marsh was historically the most widespread 

wetland type around Humboldt Bay, but only ~10 

percent remains, largely due to diking from the 

late nineteenth to the early twentieth century. 

The majority of land within the Humboldt Bay 

NWR boundary was historically tidally influenced, 

comprising large areas of salt marsh. Most of the 

lands were diked to prevent tidal water exchange 

and to promote agricultural practices. Many changes 

in the topography, hydrology, soils, and plant species 

composition have taken place since these lands were 

diked.

Native salt marsh is a threatened habitat type in 

Humboldt Bay and throughout the United States. 

Salt marsh contributes invaluable nutrients to 

the estuarine ecosystem; provides important 

habitat for fish, invertebrates, many shorebirds, 

and some other waterbirds; filters out pollutants; 

and buffers adjacent lands from flood tides and 

storms. Salt marshes may provide habitat for 

the endangered tidewater goby; several species 

of threatened salmonids; and eulachon, a CDFG 

California Species of Special Concern. Because of 

extensive diking, the Humboldt Bay estuary has 

sustained significant losses of salt marsh, primary 

productivity, and natural hydrology resulting in 

changes to sedimentation, deposition, currents, 

habitat for estuarine plant and animal species, and 

water quality.

Currently, the Humboldt Bay NWR includes 205 

acres of salt marsh in North Bay distributed among 

the Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes units adjacent to 

Mad River Slough (46 acres) and the Jacoby Creek 

(73 acres) and Eureka Slough (86 acres) units, and a 

total of 108 acres of salt marsh in South Bay within 

the Salmon Creek (36 acres), Hookton Slough (26 

acres), White Slough (11 acres) and Table Bluff (35 

acres) units. 

Several units of the refuge may provide some of the 

few remaining opportunities to regain some of the 

lost salt marsh around Humboldt Bay, including 

the Hookton Slough, White Slough, and Table 

Bluff units, which are all diked former salt marsh. 

However, there are substantial challenges including 

subsidence, lack of information on sedimentation 

rates and locations, invasive plants, and potential 

sea level rise. Refuge staff will use the principles of 

adaptive management to restore natural function, 

conditions, and processes to the extent practicable 

on refuge lands. 

Possibilities for salt marsh restoration range from 

a managed muted tidal exchange through tidegates 

to completely natural and unmanaged tidal flow. The 

Table Bluff Unit mudflat and Teal Island are similar 

environments in that both were diked former salt 

marsh that have now had tidal flow re-established 

but have converted to mudflat due to subsidence. 

Methods employed for restoration to salt marsh 

here would necessitate fill being placed on existing 

mudflat to raise elevations. The Hookton Slough 

and White Slough units contain diked former salt 

marsh that is now subsided freshwater or brackish 

marsh. On these sites there is the possibility of 

managing for muted tidal exchange in order to avoid 

the necessity of elevation increases. Alternatively, if 

appropriate material was available, these sites could 

also be raised in elevation and subject to full tidal 

exchange. Potential methods to bring substrate up 

to the appropriate level include use of excavated or 

dredged materials, both of which have been used in 

San Francisco Bay and other coastal locations. Other 

factors to be considered during restoration planning 

include: impacts on threatened, endangered, and 

other species, values and uniqueness of existing 

habitat types, feasibility, and cost. While each coastal 

location presents a unique set of challenges, refuge 

managers can learn from other sites and projects, 

employ an adaptive approach, and restore estuarine 

habitats on the refuge to the extent practicable.

Strategies - Salt Marsh Habitat:

1.2.1. Continue to develop and implement 

restoration projects with the staff of the Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife and Coastal Programs at the 

Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office. Also coordinate 

restoration projects with the NOAA Fisheries 

Service, USACE and other permitting agencies. 

1.2.2. Do maintenance on tidegates and low points 

of dikes on the White Slough Unit in 2009-2010 

in order to preserve the opportunity to have a 

managed restoration.

1.2.3. Gather existing information and pursue 

funding to assess existing elevations on refuge units 

and sedimentation rates and locations in South Bay 

with respect to salt marsh restoration.
100 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 5

1.2.4. Repair and modify the White Slough tidegate 

to improve estuarine and brackish marsh conditions 

on the inside of Salmon Creek dikes.

1.2.5. Collect data needed to model sea level rise 

for HBNWR using SLAMM (Sea Level Affecting 

Marsh Management), including sedimentation 

rates. Update National Wetland Inventory (NWI) 

maps for HBNWR to be used as basis for SLAMM 

models. Continue to keep informed of the latest 

research on sea level rise and other salt marsh 

restorations, especially in Humboldt Bay, SF Bay, 

and in the Pacific Northwest, and factor information 

into restoration plans.

1.2.6. Assess possibilities of using clean dredge spoil 

or excavated materials to increase tidal elevation 

prior to restoration (HBHRCD, Caltrans, etc.).

1.2.7. Facilitate research projects related to salt 

marsh function (efficient restoration techniques, 

value to wildlife, influence on hydrology, functions).

1.2.8. Adaptively manage restoration of salt marsh 

habitat and maximize experimental value of all 

projects using adequate monitoring.

1.2.9. Collect native salt marsh vegetation prior to 

raising elevations, stockpile and re-plant vegetation 

after topsoil has been replaced on raised elevation 

site.

1.2.10. Raise the marsh plain elevation of Salmon 

Creek overflow by placing a layer of native, 

appropriate fill soil.

1.2.11. If feasible, use the dike material and 

additional appropriate fill from local sources on the 

White Slough Unit to raise the marsh elevation.

1.2.12. Use the dike material on the west side of the 

Table Bluff Unit to fill in the adjacent borrow ditch.

1.2.13. Use existing contractors and/or work with 

Humboldt Botanical Garden and Humboldt Fish 

Action Council to propagate salt marsh species for 

revegetation in restored salt marsh areas.

1.2.14. Coordinate with the North Coast Railroad 

Authority to open tidegates on the north end of the 

White Slough Unit to allow muted tidal action.

1.2.15. If feasible, import local topsoil layer or 

dredge spoil as fill to increase the elevation on the 

Table Bluff Unit to restore native salt marsh.

1.2.16. Seek funding for a new FTE biologist 

position to assist in planning and implementing 

projects and strategies.

1.2.17. Develop Habitat Management Plan and 

Resource Inventory and Monitoring Plan for all 

refuge units.

1.2.18. Work with HBHRCD, California State 

Lands Commission, and DOI Solicitor’s Office to 

pursue a lease or other written agreement for the 

management of tidelands (including salt marsh, 

mudflats, and open water) consistent with wildlife 

habitat restoration on lands within the USFWS’s 

jurisdiction.

Objective 1.3 - Freshwater and Brackish Marsh 

(FBM): 

■ Within 15 years at the Salmon Creek Unit (SCU) 

(not including Salmon Creek restoration area), 

maintain 630 acres of seasonal FBM, maintain 270 

acres of short-grass pasture, and of the 270 acres 

restore 100 acres to improve short-grass pasture 

for Aleutian cackling geese and other species. At 

the Hookton Slough Unit maintain 150 acres of 

FBM, within 2 years at the White Slough Unit 

repair perimeter dike and maintain 50 acres of 

FBM, at the Table Bluff Unit maintain 25 acres of 

FBM and restore 13 acres of non-native pasture 

grasses and weedy species to FBM. 

■ At the White Slough Unit maintain 7 acres of 

FBM. 

Rationale - Freshwater and Brackish Marsh: 

Freshwater and brackish marsh are relatively rare 

and extremely valuable habitat types for a large 

variety of birds, and contribute to the abundance 

and diversity of wildlife found at the refuge. These 

two habitat types help sustain a variety of waterfowl, 

shorebirds, passerines, and waterbirds, as well as 

the raptors that prey upon them and other animals. 

In addition, otters, weasels, frogs, salamanders, and 

invertebrates use these habitats. Sloughs lined by 

brackish marsh are used by threatened salmonids 

and endangered tidewater gobies. Historically, there 

would have been a natural continuum or gradient of 

wetland habitats based on the salinity of the water 

from the bay’s eelgrass and mudflats to salt marsh, 

brackish marsh, freshwater marsh, swamp, and 

riparian zones as the habitats progressed upstream. 

To the extent practicable on refuge lands, refuge 

staff will use the principles of adaptive management 

to restore these natural functions, conditions, and 

processes to refuge lands. 

On the Hookton Slough Unit, restoring freshwater 

and brackish marshes at the east and west ends 

of the unit will allow for fish passage and increase 

rearing habitat for species such as threatened 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 101

salmonids, listed endangered tidewater goby, and 

other associated species. 

On the White Slough Unit, maintaining brackish 

marsh, enhancing and restoring freshwater 

riparian/swamp habitat, and restoring a continuum 

of freshwater to brackish to salt marsh in the 

northwestern portion of the unit will optimize 

estuarine conditions. 

A unique situation has developed regarding the 

management of Aleutian cackling geese. Aleutian 

cackling geese are a recovered (previously 

endangered) species. The geese use short-grass 

habitat around Humboldt Bay during the winter 

and spring. Currently, the geese have reached a 

population level (100,000+) where they are having 

depredation impacts on ranchers and farmers 

from the Eel River in northern California to the 

New River in southwestern Oregon. Enhancing 

grasslands on the Humboldt Bay NWR for Aleutian 

cackling goose forage can help reduce goose grazing 

pressure on adjacent agricultural lands and provide 

valuable short-grass habitat for many species of 

wildlife. Short-grass habitat also supports other 

wildlife such as invertebrates, some amphibians, 

small mammals, and migratory birds, including 

many species of shorebirds. Studies done on both 

the refuge and local ranches show that these geese 

prefer feeding on annual and perennial rye grasses, 

white clover, and berseem clover (USFWS unpubl. 

report).

Strategies - Freshwater and Brackish Marsh: 

1.3.1. Continue to develop and implement 

restoration projects with the staff of the Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife Program and the Coastal 

Program at the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office. Also 

develop and coordinate restoration projects with 

the NOAA Fisheries Service, USACE, and other 

permitting agencies. 

1.3.2. Continue to work with Aleutian Goose 

Working Group on goose depredation and 

management issues.

1.3.3. Develop detailed designs to facilitate 

permitting on all South Bay Units restoration work.

1.3.4. Implement Phase II of the Lower Salmon 

Creek Restoration Plan.

1.3.5. Implement best management practices to 

minimize mosquito breeding habitat on all units. 

1.3.6. Continue to use a cooperative land 

management agreement (CLMA) with local 

ranchers to manage short-grass pasture through a 

combination of grazing and haying. 

1.3.7. Continue to update soil testing approximately 

every five years, and add lime when necessary to 

raise soil pH.

1.3.8. Continue seasonally appropriate mowing to 

maintain short-grass pasture and control thistle.

1.3.9. Assess implementation of Aleutian cackling 

goose study recommendations for management of 

short-grass pasture.

1.3.10. Use seasonally appropriate mowing to 

encourage growth of short-grass species favorable 

to Aleutian cackling geese on the Salmon Creek 

Unit and Hookton Slough Unit.

1.3.11. Study long term effects of disking and water 

management on wetland vegetation. 

1.3.12. Enhance drainage (by cleaning ditches and 

maintaining water control structures) to create 

conditions more favorable to short-grass species 

and less favorable to salt grass and other non-target 

species such as drier and less saline tolerant species 

on the Salmon Creek Unit and Hookton Slough 

Unit. 

1.3.13. Seek funding for a new FTE biologist 

position to assist in planning and implementing 

projects and strategies.

1.3.14. Maintain and enhance existing native grass 

populations, including Deschampsia caespitosa

and Leymus triticoides, through seeding and other 

cultivation activities on the Hookton Slough Unit.

1.3.15. On the Hookton Slough Unit, use existing 

and/or new water control structures to allow for 

muted tidal exchange and fish passage in eastern 

and western areas without loss of freshwater and 

brackish marsh. 

1.3.16. On the White Slough Unit, work with 

Caltrans to dechannelize Chism Creek so that it 

enters the west White Slough Unit area to maximize 

freshwater/salt marsh continuum. 

1.3.17. Develop wetlands around Headquarters Unit 

and adjacent to Long Pond on the Salmon Creek 

Unit.

1.3.18. On the Salmon Creek Unit (near the duck 

ponds), install a low contour dike to impound water, 

or for a more stable wetland habitat excavate and 

use excavated materials for a contour dike. 
102 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 5

1.3.19. On the Hookton Slough Unit, develop and 

implement a hydrologic model and restoration plan 

that allows for at least partial tidal restoration in 

the central area (see Salt Marsh alternatives), with 

muted tidal influence to eastern and western areas 

such that native freshwater to brackish vegetation is 

preserved while allowing for fish passage, salmonid 

rearing, and tidewater goby habitat. 

1.3.20. Construct a 1/4 mile low contour dike along 

Hookton Road to allow muted tidal flooding on the 

Hookton Slough Unit.

1.3.21. Develop Habitat Management Plan and 

Resource Inventory and Monitoring Plan for all 

refuge units.

Objective 1.4 - Riparian Swamp Habitat: 

■ Within 15 years, manage 35 acres of existing 

riparian/swamp habitat, plant native riparian/

swamp vegetation in agricultural wetlands, and 

within 5 years replace 20 acres non-native tree 

community (including eucalyptus, Monterey pine, 

and Monterey cypress) on Salmon Creek Unit 

with native riparian vegetation. Species that may 

benefit from riparian swamp habitat restoration 

include the bank swallow (a California ESA-listed 

as threatened bird) and Vaux’s swift (a California 

bird species of special concern).

■ Restore approximately 3 acres of riparian habitat 

on the White Slough Unit.

Rationale - Riparian Swamp Habitat: 

Riparian habitat is very rare now compared to 

what existed historically in the Humboldt Bay area. 

This diverse plant community provides valuable 

travel corridors for wildlife and habitat supporting 

biological integrity and environmental health on 

the refuge. Riparian forests provide rich habitat 

for a wide variety of plant species, mammals, 

reptiles, amphibians, and especially migrating 

and nesting songbirds, and improve conditions for 

fish by contributing nutrients, shade, and cover to 

streams. Riparian/swamp plant communities in the 

region are largely composed of red alder, willows, 

Sitka spruce, salmonberry, twinberry, California 

blackberry, wax myrtle, ladyfern, woodfern, sword 

fern, small-fruited bulrush, skunk cabbage, and 

associated species in wetter areas. Since refuge 

acquisition in the late 1980s, much effort has been 

put into development of riparian habitat. However, 

much of the restored riparian habitat on the refuge 

lacks a complex understory and has limited species 

diversity. Although some wildlife, such as raptors, 

birds, and mammals use the existing stands of 

non-native eucalyptus trees for resting and in some 

limited cases foraging and breeding, blue gum 

eucalyptus is recognized to be largely detrimental to 

wildlife. Although blue gum are used by some birds, 

the diversity and number of birds and other wildlife 

that uses native riparian habitat is far greater. 

Gradual removal of the eucalyptus trees and 

replacement with native vegetation such as Sitka 

spruce, alders, willows and the appropriate native 

understory plants will improve riparian swamp 

habitat value and increase species diversity. 

Strategies - Riparian Swamp Habitat:

1.4.1. Continue selective removal of non-native trees 

as resources allow.

1.4.2. Use a combination of IPM techniques to 

control non-native tree communities.

1.4.3. Enhance riparian/swamp habitat by planting 

native understory plants, and provide deer 

protection until establishment.

1.4.5. If feasible, implement cooperative agreements 

with interested parties to remove non-native 

eucalyptus trees over a 5-year period. See also 

strategy 3.2.6.

1.4.6. Continue to partner with local habitat 

restoration groups and volunteers (California 

Trout, Fortuna Creeks, CCC, Master Gardeners, 

FHBNWR, College of the Redwoods, Humboldt 

State University, Humboldt Fish Action Council and 

Botanical Garden Foundation to complete riparian 

restoration projects.

1.4.7. Use local native plant genotypes for 

restoration.

1.4.8. Seek funding for a new FTE biologist position 

to assist in planning and implementing projects and 

strategies.

1.4.9. If the railroad authority declines to open 

tidegates on the White Slough Unit, assess 

possibility of restoring northern 16 acres to riparian 

habitat. 

Objective 1.5 - Eelgrass and Mudflat Habitat: 

■ Over 15 years, participate in ongoing partnerships 

and create new partnerships to conserve and 

manage mudflat/eelgrass habitat for long term 

health. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 103

Rationale - Eelgrass and Mudflat Habitat: 

Maintaining healthy eelgrass beds is essential to the 

health and productivity of Humboldt Bay fish and 

wildlife. Eelgrass is a key component of the lifecycle 

of many bay species. Among waterfowl, the Pacific 

Flyway population of brant is dependent upon 

eelgrass throughout the Flyway. Humboldt Bay is 

a critical spring staging area for brant because it 

has the greatest amount of eelgrass between their 

wintering areas in Baja California and Willapa Bay 

in Washington, their next most important stop after 

Humboldt Bay during spring migration. 

Currently, refuge staff coordinates with researchers 

monitoring eelgrass beds in Humboldt Bay. 

Monitoring eelgrass beds is important because many 

human land use activities can impact the survival 

and health of eelgrass communities. In addition, 

non-native dwarf eelgrass (Zostera japonica) has 

been introduced to Humboldt Bay and the Eel River 

estuary. Detecting and controlling new or previously 

unidentified infestations of dwarf eelgrass will be 

an important part of maintaining healthy native 

eelgrass beds. 

Some restoration activities have the potential to 

affect eelgrass beds. To help ensure that restoration 

activities are not adversely affecting eelgrass beds, 

the refuge will pursue new partnerships to assist 

in monitoring and management of eelgrass beds 

in south Humboldt Bay. Some examples of how 

restoration activities may effect eelgrass beds 

include (Thayer et al. 2005): 

• siltation can entirely smother plants or increase 

turbidity, lowering available radiation for 

photosynthesis

• high levels of nutrients in run-off can cause 

increases in algal growth and subsequent 

eutrophication detrimental to eelgrass

• mechanical damage to eelgrass can result from 

fishing, anchoring, and dredging

• oil spills can cause direct mortality of plants

Transplanting eelgrass rhizomes with shoots can 

be a successful way to restore eelgrass beds if the 

habitat requirements of eelgrass are met (Thayer 

et al. 2005). Perhaps the greatest threat to eelgrass 

in the longer term is sea level rise, and for this both 

local and regional monitoring will be needed.

Strategies - Eelgrass and Mudflat Habitat:

1.5.1. Work with partners including HBHRCD 

to monitor potential impacts of Salmon Creek 

restoration projects on eelgrass beds.

1.5.2. Continue partnership with the Humboldt 

Bay Ecosystem Program (HBEP) for studying the 

bay ecosystem, including mudflat/eelgrass habitat, 

and continue collaboration with Humboldt State 

University and USFWS/USGS to study eelgrass/

brant/sea level rise interrelationships.

1.5.3. Continue partnership with CDFG, University 

of California Sea Grant, and Humboldt Bay Harbor, 

Recreation, and Conservation District (HBHRCD) 

for continued monitoring of and research on invasive 

species that may impact eelgrass.

1.5.4. Pursue additional funding for research on 

the ecology and conservation of eelgrass, including 

effects of sea level rise, through the PCJV and the 

Service’s coastal program.

1.5.5. Pursue an MOU with the HBHRCD and 

CDFG, which have special regulatory and legal 

jurisdiction over the bay, to conserve inter-tidal 

areas within the approved refuge boundary.

1.5.6. Seek funding for a new FTE biologist position 

to assist in planning and implementing projects and 

strategies.

1.5.7. Work with HBHRCD, California State Lands 

Commission, and DOI Solicitor’s Office 

to pursue a lease or other written agreement for 

the management of tidelands (including salt marsh, 

mudflats, and open water) consistent with wildlife 

habitat restoration on lands within the USFWS’s 

jurisdiction.

Objective 1.6. - Floodplain Management:

■ Manage Humboldt Bay NWR floodplain lands in 

a manner consistent with local, State, and Federal 

flood management, sediment, and erosion control 

and water quality objectives as required by local, 

State, and Federal guidelines, and within 10 years 

work toward achieving the North Coast Basin 

Plan objectives for inland surface waters, enclosed 

bays, and estuaries for the benefit of fish and 

wildlife resources.

Rationale - Floodplain Management:

Refuge restoration and management will be 

consistent with Federal, State, and local flood 

guidelines. Compliance with guidelines can largely 

be achieved by operating the Humboldt Bay NWR 

consistent with the North Coast Regional Water 

Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) Basin Plan. 

Water quality control basin plans provide a basis 

for protecting water quality throughout California 
104 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 5

(NCRWQCB 2007). The goal of the Basin Plan is to 

provide a definitive program of actions designed to 

preserve and enhance water quality and to protect 

beneficial uses of water in the North Coast Region.

A water quality monitoring program can be used 

to further education and outreach efforts with local 

landowners and agricultural landowners. Current 

threats to the water quality of the refuge and bay 

include bacterial quality concerns, and to a lesser 

extent include sediment, nutrients, bacteria and 

pesticides from agricultural runoff; impacts from 

forestry activities; urban runoff; and spill sites 

around the bay (NCRWQCB 2007). 

Strategies - Floodplain Management: 

1.6.1. Implement Humboldt Bay NWR habitat 

improvement projects and strategies in a manner 

that does not exacerbate local or regional flooding, 

water quality, or erosion effects on adjacent or 

nearby landowners or residents.

1.6.2. Within 10 years, work to achieve the relevant 

water quality objectives as described in Section 

3 of the North Coast Basin Plan (as described in 

NCRWQCB 2007).

1.6.3. Review and participate in regional planning 

activities sponsored by Humboldt County and local 

municipalities, such as the cities of Eureka and 

Arcata, which may affect flooding regimes or water 

quality in and around Humboldt Bay.

1.6.4. Work with the appropriate entities, such as 

California Department of Public Health, to develop 

a long-term water quality monitoring program to 

assess the effects of non-point sources of pollution 

entering the Humboldt Bay NWR and contaminant 

levels in fish and other biota (especially in Mad 

River Slough, above the oyster rafts).

1.6.5. Work with the appropriate entities to develop 

a long-term water quality monitoring program to 

assess the impact of sediment flushing from Salmon 

Creek on eelgrass beds in southern Humboldt Bay 

and potential non-point source pollutants adjacent to 

Mad River Slough.

1.6.6. Work with partners to develop strategies to 

inform people within the watershed about non-point 

sources of pollution and the benefits of reduced 

pollutants entering Humboldt Bay. 

1.6.7. Seek funding for a new FTE biologist position 

to assist in planning and implementing projects and 

strategies.

1.6.8. Work with HBHRCD, California State Lands 

Commission, and DOI Solicitor’s Office 

to pursue a lease or other written agreement for 

the management of tidelands (including salt marsh, 

mudflats, and open water) consistent with wildlife 

habitat restoration on lands within the USFWS’s 

jurisdiction.

Goal 2. Conserve and restore globally rare dune 

and dune forest habitats, associated native 

plant and animal species, and support recovery 

of threatened, endangered, and endemic species 

dependent upon these rare habitats. 

Objective 2.1 - Dune Mat/Foredune Grassland:

 

■ Within 5 years, restore the Ma-le’l Dunes and 

Table Bluff units dune mat/foredune grassland 

habitat. 

■ Over 15 years, create ongoing experimental dune 

blow-outs in late successional, low diversity dune 

mat (to mimic natural disturbances), and assess 

impacts on existing habitat and special status 

plants on the Lanphere Dunes Unit. 

Rationale - Dune Mat/Foredune Grassland:

Dune mat habitat on the Humboldt Bay NWR is 

some of the most pristine habitat of its type on the 

west coast of the United States, containing native 

plant communities that are globally declining 

(Pickart and Barbour 2007). Humboldt Bay 

wallflower and beach layia are listed as endangered 

species under the Federal ESA. California Native 

Plant Society 1B list plants (rare or endangered in 

California and elsewhere) in the dune mat/foredune 

grassland plant community include dark-eyed gilia 

and pink sand verbena. Due to the isolation of dune 

habitats, many rare species occur there, and many 

potentially endemic or rare species may not have 

yet been scientifically documented. Under-studied 

species of globally endangered lichens, endemic 

insect populations, and endemic mycorrhizal fungi 

exist in unknown quantities in this rare habitat type. 

Foredune plant communities are globally rare, and 

the Lanphere Dunes represent some of the most 

pristine dunes left on the west coast of the United 

States. 

Due to a combination of natural succession and 

possibly some human-induced impacts, early 

successional vegetation found at the Lanphere and 

Ma-le’l Dunes Units is succeeding to more stable, 

less diverse communities in many areas. It is likely 

that dune mat and foredune grasslands evolved 

with dune blow-outs (rapid shifts in tall dunes) as a 

factor in their constant regeneration (Pickart and 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 105

Barbour 2007). The refuge proposes to experiment 

with the use of heavy equipment to mimic large scale 

disturbances such as blow-outs to stimulate localized 

sand movement to sustain early successional 

communities. By creating blow-outs and monitoring 

the effects on plant communities, the refuge will 

increase the understanding of the best methods to 

manage these communities over time.

Strategies - Dune Mat/Foredune Grassland: 

2.1.1. Continue to work with the Humboldt County 

Dunes Cooperative to contribute to managing 

Humboldt County dunes as an ecosystem. 

2.1.2. Conduct experiments with heavy equipment 

to create and monitor blowouts in strategic areas 

where foredunes are stable and species diversity is 

declining.

2.1.3. Repeat vegetation sampling done in 1987 to 

quantify dunemat/foredune grassland succession 

rate and impacts to Humboldt Bay wallflower.

2.1.4. Conduct research on interactions between 

endemic solitary bees and biotic soil crusts 

(cryptogamic crusts).

2.1.5. Conduct Humboldt Bay wallflower population 

viability assessment (PVA) using existing 

demographic data set for Lanphere Dunes.

2.1.6. Develop a cooperative agreement with 

adjacent private landowners to collect native 

dune grass propagules, and plant out to increase 

population of Leymus mollis at Lanphere and Male’l units.

2.1.7. Develop a Habitat Management Plan and 

Resource Inventory and Monitoring Plan for all 

refuge units.

2.1.8. Inventory wildlife species, including 

invertebrates, in dune mat/foredune grassland 

habitats.

2.1.9. Seek funding for a new FTE biologist position 

to assist in planning and implementing projects and 

strategies.

2.1.10. Continue to conduct metapopulation 

sampling of Humboldt Bay wallflower North Spit 

populations. Expand to include South Spit and 

Elk River spit populations. Track population size, 

reproductive rate, size class distribution, and disease 

incidence by geographic areas on a 9- or 10-year 

interval. 

2.1.11. Develop partnerships to conduct habitat 

restoration, caging of reproductive plants to protect 

from deer, and to collect Humboldt Bay wallflower 

seed from South Spit, with the goal of increasing 

this subpopulation size. Reintroduce seeds from this 

subpopulation to restored habitat on Table Bluff 

Unit.

2.1.12. Disperse seeds of Humboldt Bay wallflower 

from Lanphere Dunes and Ma-le’l dunes 

subpopulations to unoccupied, restored habitat on 

Ma-le’l dunes and monitor results.

2.1.13. Continue annual monitoring of Layia 

carnosa on northern dune units. Map and begin 

monitoring of Table Bluff Unit subpopulations.

Objective 2.2 - Dune Swale: 

■ Within 10 years, restore ~67 acres of dune swale 

plant communities on all dune units. Species that 

may benefit from dune swale habitat restoration 

include northern red-legged frog (a California 

species of special concern), black-capped 

chickadee, yellow warbler, and Cooper’s hawk and 

a variety of mammals.

Rationale - Dune Swale: 

Dune swales are a relatively rare vegetation type, 

occurring strictly in dune systems and primarily 

north of the central coast of California. Swales 

provide valuable habitat for several species of 

reptiles and amphibians, including the northern redlegged frog, a California Species of Special Concern 

(SSC). Several bird SSC also use dune swale 

habitat, including black-capped chickadee, yellow 

warbler, and Cooper’s hawk. Many mammal species 

use this habitat for foraging and cover, as well as 

for breeding by small mammals. As with other 

rare dune habitats, pristine dune swales are rare 

on the west coast of the United States, occurring 

only north of the central coast in California (Pickart 

and Barbour 2007). Compared with the coniferous 

forests and dune mat, swales have received 

relatively little management attention. Quantitative 

descriptions of these plant communities are needed, 

especially given potential changes induced by 

climate change.

Given the rarity of dune swale habitat and its value 

to wildlife, removal of invasive plant species and 

restoration of native plant species is necessary for 

the maintenance of the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the dune ecosystem as 

well as to protect many California Species of Special 

Concern.
106 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 5

Strategies - Dune Swale: 

2.2.1. Continue to work with the Humboldt County 

Dunes Cooperative to contribute to managing 

Humboldt County dunes as an ecosystem. 

2.2.2. Assess need for and revegetate with 

appropriate native local plants after invasive plants 

are removed. 

2.2.3. Pursue funding to complete restoration. 

2.2.4. Develop a Habitat Management Plan and 

Resource Inventory and Monitoring Plan for all 

refuge units.

2.2.5. Inventory wildlife species, including 

invertebrates, in dune swale habitats.

2.2.6. Inventory nonvascular plants, and 

quantitatively sample and describe dune swale plant 

communities.

2.2.7. Seek funding for a new FTE biologist position 

to assist in planning and implementing projects and 

strategies.

Objective 2.3 - Dune riparian/swamp:

■ Within 5 years, restore ~33 acres of riparian/

swamp habitat on the Ma-le’l and Lanphere 

Dunes units, and gain a more comprehensive 

understanding of plant and animal species that 

inhabit the riparian/swamp habitat on the Male’l and Lanphere Dunes units. Species that 

may benefit from dune riparian/swamp habitat 

restoration include the northern red-legged frog 

(a California species of special concern), many 

species of migratory birds, several bird species 

of special concern, including Vaux’s swift, willow 

flycatcher, yellow-breasted chat, and the bank 

swallow, a California ESA-listed as threatened 

bird.

Rationale - Dune Riparian/Swamp: 

Dune riparian swamp habitat provides valuable 

habitat for several species of reptiles and 

amphibians, including the northern red-legged 

frog, a California Species of Special Concern. Many 

species of migratory birds use dune riparian/swamp 

habitat, as do several SSC bird species including 

Vaux’s swift, willow flycatcher, yellow-breasted 

chat, and a California ESA listed threatened bird, 

the bank swallow. The SSC yellow warbler nests in 

this habitat type. Many mammals also make use of 

dune riparian/swamp habitat for foraging, cover, and 

breeding. Maintaining and restoring this habitat will 

contribute to the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of this rare dune habitat type. 

Currently there are no complete inventories of 

nonvascular plants and wildlife species, including 

invertebrates, that are resident or migratory 

inhabitants of riparian/swamp habitats on the 

dune units. Although plant inventories have 

been completed, there has been no quantitative 

description of the vegetation of these habitats. While 

riparian swamps are known to be rich habitats for 

wildlife, the lack of adequate information on wildlife 

use of dune riparian and swamp habitat makes it 

difficult to prioritize management of this habitat 

when compared with other management needs of 

the refuge. Gaining a comprehensive understanding 

of vegetation, nonvascular flora, and animal species 

utilizing dune riparian and swamp habitat would 

yield information that may provide guidance to the 

management of these habitats for higher priority 

species conservation. Once comprehensive species 

information is obtained, managers would have a 

basis upon which to implement various strategies 

to enhance dune riparian and swamp habitats that 

would be more likely to benefit conservation of 

high priority species, and a reasonable basis for 

expending limited resources. 

Strategies - Dune Riparian/Swamp: 

2.3.1. Continue to work with the Humboldt County 

Dunes Cooperative to contribute to managing 

Humboldt County dunes as an ecosystem. 

2.3.2. Develop a Habitat Management Plan and 

Resource Inventory and Monitoring Plan for all 

refuge units.

2.3.3. Inventory wildlife species, including 

invertebrates, in dune riparian/swamp habitat.

2.3.4. Work with Humboldt Bay Bird Observatory, 

the Humboldt State University wildlife department, 

and other partners to develop avian research 

objectives. 

2.3.5. Continue collaborative research on neotropical migrant birds by Humboldt State 

University, Humboldt Bay Bird Observatory, or 

other partners. 

2.3.6. Seek funding for a new FTE biologist position 

to assist in planning and implementing projects and 

strategies.

2.3.7. Inventory nonvascular flora, and 

quantitatively sample and describe vegetation 

communities of riparian/swamp habitats. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 107

2.3.8. To enhance dune riparian/swamp habitat, 

plant native dune riparian/swamp species where 

invasive plants were removed or gaps in native 

vegetation exist and are vulnerable to re-infestation 

by invasives, as appropriate.

Objective 2.4 - Coniferous Dune Forest: 

■ Over 10 years, maintain and restore 180 acres 

of coniferous dune forest habitat on the Ma-le’l 

and Lanphere Dunes units; within 10 years, gain 

a more comprehensive understanding of animal 

species that inhabit the coniferous dune forest 

habitat on the Ma-le’l and Lanphere Dunes units.

Rationale - Coniferous Dune Forest: 

Coniferous dune forest is a globally declining 

habitat type. It includes a number of different 

plant associations, some of which are restricted 

in distribution or at the edge of their geographic 

ranges. Coniferous forest supports many 

of Humboldt Bay NWR’s mammal species, 

including the rare white-footed vole, a CDFG 

California Species of Special Concern (CDFG 

2007). Several CDFG California Bird Species of 

Special Concern also use coniferous dune forest 

habitat including Cooper’s hawk, yellow warbler, 

osprey, and black-capped chickadee. Coniferous 

dune forest provides habitat for several species 

of amphibians and reptiles. Many specialized 

(including mycoheterotrophic) plant species, such as 

sugar stick (Allotropa virgata), spotted coral-root 

(Corallorhiza maculata), calypso orchid (Calypso 

bulbosa), and twayblade (Listera cordata), are 

uncommon close to the coast, and have been found 

only in a few locations in the coniferous dune forest 

habitat. Maintaining and restoring healthy native 

plant communities in the coniferous dune forest 

contributes greatly to the overall biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the refuge 

and surrounding area. 

The coniferous forest at the refuge was subject 

to a large windfall event during the storm of New 

Years eve, 2005. Although wind is recognized as the 

structuring agent of these forests, the large losses 

of trees may be ecologically significant given the 

fragmented state of the forest. Research is needed 

to evaluate the effects of this event, particularly 

given the likelihood of increased extreme weather 

events with climate change. 

While some information is available, currently 

there are large gaps in survey information of 

nonvascular plants and wildlife species that are 

resident or migratory inhabitants of coniferous 

dune forest habitats on the dune units, and this 

limits the ability to effectively manage this habitat. 

Restoring coniferous dune forest margins at the 

Ma-le’l Dunes Unit, now dominated by European 

beachgrass, to native coniferous forest communities 

will enhance habitat for many special status species. 

There is currently a discontinuity in forest habitat 

at this location. Restoring forest species will provide 

a corridor for movement of wildlife species and 

prevent the continued expansion of European 

beachgrass.

Strategies- Coniferous Dune Forest: 

2.4.1. Continue to work with the Humboldt County 

Dunes Cooperative to facilitate coordinated, 

ecosystem management of dune forests. 

2.4.2. In 5 years, inventory, remove, and restore 

non-designated human trails throughout the forest 

by planting with native coniferous dune forest 

species, as appropriate.

2.4.3. Develop a Habitat Management Plan and 

Resource Inventory and Monitoring Plan for all 

refuge units.

2.4.4. Pursue funding for research on coniferous 

dune forest ecology, including 2005 windstorm/tree 

fall event, and initiate longterm monitoring in forest 

gaps resulting from this event.

2.4.5. Pursue grant funding and research on neotropical migrant birds by Humboldt Bay Bird 

Observatory, Humboldt State University, or other 

partners. 

2.4.6. Repeat endangered (e.g., internationally 

endangered Bryoria spp.) lichen survey and 

consider management; tie research into 2005 

windstorm/tree fall event.

2.4.7. Inventory wildlife species, including 

invertebrates, in dune forest habits.

2.4.8. Seek funding for a new FTE biologist position 

to assist in planning and implementing projects and 

strategies.

2.4.9. Grow or identify local appropriate sources for 

restoration plant materials.

2.4.10. Pursue grant funding to restore European 

beachgrass stands to coniferous forest at the Ma-le’l 

Dunes Unit. 
108 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 5

Goal 3. Conserve and restore all refuge habitats 

through the prevention and control of invasive 

plants and animals.

Objective 3.1. Prevention and early detection:

■ Over the next 5 years, develop and implement 

a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 

(HACCP) Plan for the refuge. 

■ Within 10 years, develop and enhance the refuge’s 

capacity to identify, report and effectively respond 

to newly discovered, localized invasive species.

■ Over the next 15 years, increase organizational 

collaboration on invasive species issues with 

Federal, State, and local entities, tribes, private 

organizations and individuals.

Rationale - Prevention and early detection:

An invasive species is a non-native species whose 

introduction does or is likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health (E.O. 

13112, 3 February 1999). Invasive species are widely 

considered to be the greatest threat to natural 

areas after habitat loss. They negatively affect up 

to 46 percent of endangered species. The USFWS’s 

Biological Integrity Policy (601 FW 3) specifies that 

the Refuge System manage non-native invasive 

species by the use of integrated pest management 

strategies, which can include mechanical, chemical, 

biological, and cultural techniques. 

Early detection and prevention are the most 

ecological and economical methods of invasive 

species control. Humboldt Bay has a regional 

fishing industry and commercial shipping. These 

boats and ships are potential carriers of invasive 

species. Preventive measures (similar to those used 

in Alaska, Hawaii, Australia) to invasive species 

importations would not only support the Refuge 

System’s mission, but would support the protection 

of the Bay’s biodiversity during the upcoming 

challenges that will be faced by land management 

agencies with global climate change. The refuge 

promotes preventive measures for the current and 

future threats to the integrity of biological diversity 

and natural ecosystem integrity in this region and 

nationally.

Invasive species infestations are not limited by 

ownership boundaries. Identifying the threat of an 

invasive species at an ecosystem level improves the 

ecological and economic effectiveness of the control 

methods. The Humboldt Bay NWR is committed 

to cooperatively work with adjacent landowners 

and the Humboldt-Del Norte Weed Management 

Area to control the spread and adverse effects of 

invasive species. This cooperation will enhance the 

effectiveness of control strategies on Humboldt Bay 

NWR lands and will reduce the ecological impacts of 

invasive species on those lands and the surrounding 

ecosystems. 

The Humboldt Bay NWR has been highly altered 

through human manipulation and invasive species, 

which are widespread within the refuge’s units. 

However, many of these species are in an incipient 

stage of infestation, occurring only in a few small 

areas. Control at this early stage of infestation is 

most efficient and effective. The dune units of the 

refuge have received extensive management for the 

control and eradication of invasive species beginning 

in the 1970s. Ongoing maintenance efforts are 

needed to prevent new infestations from occurring, 

and to locate and eradicate missed occurrences. This 

minimal effort protects the financial investment as 

well as the ecological values of these highly diverse 

natural systems.

In this section, the scientific names are used in cases 

where the use of the common name alone would not 

provide sufficient information to identify the plant 

species being discussed. Scientific names are shown 

in italicized text. All species presently on the refuge 

are included in the plant list in Appendix J.

Strategies - Prevention and early detection: 

3.1.1. Develop a Hazard Analysis and Critical 

Control Point (HACCP) Plan for the refuge to 

prevent establishment of new invasive species on the 

refuge.

3.1.2. Continue to develop the Volunteer Invasives 

Mapping and Control Program at south refuge units 

and seek Service funding of $16,000 per year for 

volunteer and Friends groups’ invasive plant control 

programs.

3.1.3. Continue coordination and collaboration on 

control projects with existing partners (e.g., FOD, 

Friends of HBNWR, Fortuna Creeks Project, CCCs, 

CDF, etc.).

3.1.4. Participate in the local weed management 

area coordination meetings.

3.1.5. Recruit local high school students to support 

the volunteer mapping program.

3.1.6. Develop a volunteer early detection rapid 

response crew that can quickly remove incipient 

invasive species populations at all units.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 109

3.1.7. Provide outreach and information to adjacent 

landowners, cooperators and the public informing 

them of the complete costs of invasive plants.

3.1.8. Eradicate/control invasive species in south 

refuge units identified in Volunteer Invasive 

Species Mapping Program as early detection 

species: Phalaris arundinacea, Phalaris aquatica, 

Echinochloa crus-galli, Cortaderia jubata, Cirsium 

arvense and Calystegia silvatica.

3.1.9. Work with partners, including the Humboldt 

Bay Harbor Recreation and Conservation 

District, the Humboldt Bay Ecosystem Program 

and Humboldt County Weed Management Area 

to develop and fund a multi-species monitoring 

program for Humboldt, Eel River and Mad River 

estuaries to detect new infestations of high priority 

intertidal and sub tidal species such as dwarf 

eelgrass (Zostera japonica).

3.1.10. Continue ongoing survey, monitoring 

and treatment of new occurrences of previously 

eradicated species including English ivy and other 

forest invasive plants.

3.1.11. Continue the annual European beachgrass 

(Ammophila) Sweep at dunes units and expand 

to detect new infestations of other high priority 

previously eradicated species including Cortaderia 

jubata and Cirsium vulgare.

3.1.12. Work with partners including Friends of the 

Dunes to complete eradication of Coincya monensis, 

a highly invasive mustard known to only one area 

(in Manila) west of Mississippi and Senecio elegans, 

known in Northern California only in the Manila 

area.

3.1.13. Work with partners including Redwood 

National and State Parks to eradicate the highly 

invasive purple loosestrife on the South Fork Eel 

River to prevent infestation of Eel River estuary 

and Humboldt Bay wetlands. 

3.1.14. Seek funding for a new FTE biologist 

position to assist in planning and implementing 

projects and strategies.

3.1.15. Coordinate with adjacent landowners and 

proactively work with partners and pursue grant 

funding to control the spread of invasive plants onto 

Humboldt Bay NWR units.

3.1.16. To protect the northern red-legged frog 

(California species of special concern) and other 

native species, create a monitoring program that 

will detect the presence of non-native bullfrog within 

the Humboldt Bay NWR and control or abate its 

adverse effects on native species.

Objective 3.2. Control and reduce the spread of 

established invasive species populations in refuge 

habitats

■ Within 15 years, monitor and strategically remove, 

control, or eradicate invasive plant infestations. 

■ Within 5 years, expand the existing the volunteer 

program for invasive plant control to achieve 

maintenance level control of high priority target 

invasive plant species.

■ Within 10 years, use an additional contract based 

control program to achieve maintenance level 

control of all targeted invasive plants.

Rationale - Management of established invasive 

species: 

As discussed under Objective 3.1, invasive species 

are among the most pressing threats to natural 

areas, their biodiversity, ecosystem function, 

and endangered species. Invasive plants directly 

displace native plants through competition, resulting 

in a loss of species diversity and creating artificially 

homogeneous communities. They also indirectly 

impact native plants by altering soils and biophysical 

processes, facilitating secondary invasive species, 

and altering the balance of plant-invertebrate, 

plant-microbe, and plant-fungal interactions 

including pollination, herbivory, and mutualism, 

and increasing susceptibility to pathogens. Invasive 

plants impact wildlife by providing inferior forage 

for mammals, eliminating the food base for speciesspecific invertebrate herbivores, and by negatively 

changing habitat structure. Invasive species affect 

ecosystem processes such as mineral, nitrogen, and 

carbon cycling, and hydrology. Invasive species are 

not generally confined to the refuge; rather, they 

spread to and from private and other public lands 

and cause the same impacts there. This presents 

the dual problems of protecting the refuge from 

adjacent impacts and protecting refuge neighbors 

from dispersal of invasives already on the refuge.

Partnerships and volunteer programs can be 

a valuable way to increase the refuge’s ability 

to remove invasive plant species. Both types of 

programs offer important outreach opportunities. 

However, volunteer time is limited and may only 

allow for maintenance level control of the highest 

priority invasive plants. Staff oversight of an 

expanded volunteer invasive plant control program 

would either require additional staff time or would 

draw limited staff resources away from other 

projects. 
110 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 5

The highest level of invasive species control would 

be achieved through a combination of expanded 

volunteer, partner, and supplemental contractor 

based programs. Invasive species control is a 

priority for the refuge system. This combined 

approach would achieve the highest level of invasive 

species control, but would require additional staff 

time, material support for volunteer programs, and 

resources for contract support.

Invasive plant and wildlife management would 

continue to occur on a project-by-project basis, with 

the greatest threats being prioritized. The refuge 

would continue to remove invasive plant species at

restoration sites using physical (cutting and 

extraction) and chemical (herbicides) means, 

as appropriate based on the integrated pest 

management strategies described herein and the 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan that 

will be developed (in Strategy 3.2.1). Mechanical 

methods would continue to be used around manmade reservoirs and other open water sources to 

control vegetation and improve open water habitat 

for fish and wildlife.

Strategies - Management of established invasive 

species: 

3.2.1. Within 4 years, complete and implement a 

step-down Integrated Pest Management Plan for 

control of all invasive plant species that threaten 

Humboldt Bay NWR habitats and species.

3.2.2. Control and/or eradicate invasive plants 

on all units, with emphasis on newly established 

populations including Lotus uliginosus, Iris 

pseudacorus, Senecio sylvaticus, reed canarygrass 

(Phalaris arundinacea), and Erechtites glomerata 

on the Hookton Slough Unit, and on annual grass 

infestations on dune units. 

3.2.3. Work with Youth Conservation Corps 

(YCC) to eradicate/control invasive plant species, 

particularly Cirsium vulgare and Erechtites 

glomerata on the Table Bluff Unit.

3.2.4. Manage non-native pasture grass in restored 

areas of Hookton Slough and Table Bluff units to a 

maintenance level of control.

3.2.5. Systematically carry out seasonally 

appropriate mowing to maintain short-grass pasture 

and control thistle on most South Bay refuge units.

3.2.6. Develop and implement a 5-year plan to 

remove eucalyptus and other non-native tree 

communities, and restore native communities using 

IPM techniques for removal and control of the 

eucalyptus. See also strategy 1.4.5.

3.2.7. Work with California Conservation Corps 

and California Department of Forestry (High Rock 

Conservation Camp) to complete removal of Hedera 

helix and other forest invasive plants and any 

remaining ice plant on dune units.

3.2.8. Assess dune swale invasive plants and 

implement large scale experiments as appropriate 

(e.g., flaming, controlled burning, mowing).

3.2.9. Work with CDF to complete manual removal 

of European beachgrass on appropriate areas of Male’l Dunes Unit in areas that were not covered under 

Ma-le’l CDF restoration plan.

3.2.10. Use heavy equipment to remove European 

beachgrass on appropriate areas of Ma-le’l Dunes 

Unit in areas that were not covered under Ma-le’l 

CDF restoration plan.

3.2.11. Work with YCC, volunteers, and contractors 

to plant coniferous dune forest species on Ma-le’l 

in areas with European beachgrass that were not 

included in Ma-le’l CDF restoration plan (on interior 

high slipfaces).

3.2.12. Address off-site source of annual grass 

infestation on dune units through cooperative 

agreements or acquisition and management of 

source sites.

3.2.13. Work with Ma-le’l CMA partners (BLM, 

Redwood Gun Club, Sierra Pacific, Friends of the 

Dunes, staff of the Service’s Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife and Coastal Programs, and private 

landowners) to address offsite sources of invasives 

such as reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), 

pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), yellow bush 

lupine (Lupinus arboreus), and Scotch broom 

(Cytisus scoparius) using YCC volunteers. Seek 

funding from multiple sources such as the Coastal 

Program, Partners for Wildlife, and the Humboldt 

WMA.

3.2.14. Test use of prescribed burns on dunes to 

control annual grass invasions.

Objective 3.3 - Control of Spartina densiflora: 

■ Within 10 years, control Spartina on all refuge 

locations. 

■ Within 15 years, participate in a collaborative 

interagency effort to eradicate Spartina on the 

majority of coastal habitats of Humboldt County, 

if found to be feasible.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 111

Rationale - Control of Spartina densiflora: 

Salt marsh was historically the most widespread 

wetland type around Humboldt Bay, but only 

~10 percent of those wetlands remain, largely 

due to diking from the late nineteenth to the 

early twentieth century. Remaining native salt 

marsh habitat is threatened by invasive denseflowered cordgrass, (Spartina densiflora, hereafter 

Spartina), which was introduced from Chile in 

the nineteenth century in ship ballast. Native salt 

marsh vegetation has several State-listed plant 

species of special concern, including Pt. Reyes birdsbeak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris), 

Humboldt Bay owl’s clover (Castilleja ambigua ssp. 

humboldtiensis). Of the estimated 970 acres of salt 

marsh remaining around the Bay, about 90 percent 

has been invaded by the non-native Spartina. 

This Spartina out-competes native salt marsh 

plants, reducing native biodiversity and converting 

marshes to a monoculture. Spartina likely changes 

sedimentation patterns, alters carbon cycling and 

productivity, and changes the estuarine food web in 

undocumented ways. Control of this non-native plant 

is important to re-establishing the native salt marsh 

plant and animal communities in Humboldt Bay and 

adjacent estuaries, as well as preventing the spread 

of Spartina to other locations on the Pacific coast 

that are trying to protect their own native flora and 

fauna. Because of Spartina spp. ability to spread 

and their threat to native fish, wildlife, and habitats, 

eradication of Spartina spp. on the west coast of the 

United States was identified as a high priority in the 

West Coast Governors Agreement that was signed 

in 2007. Over the past two years, the refuge has 

developed a successful methodology for controlling 

Spartina, although true eradication is not possible 

while sources of seed continue to exist outside the 

refuge’s boundaries. 

Strategies - Control of Spartina densiflora:

3.3.1. Complete and maintain Spartina removal at 

dune units using methods that have proven to be 

successful at the refuge (including the use of metalbladed weed-eaters).

3.3.2. Seek funding to expand Spartina control to 

south refuge units, focusing on early infestations in 

Hookton Slough, Salmon Creek, and White Slough 

brackish marsh areas.

3.3.3. Consider effects of climate change during 

planning and implementation of Spartina control in 

Humboldt Bay; utilize available models to develop 

predictions and adaptive responses. 

3.3.4. Keep informed of other Spartina eradication 

efforts, especially on the west coast.

3.3.5. To the extent feasible, build monitoring and 

detection efforts for other Spartina species into 

planned and future Spartina densiflora mapping, 

monitoring, and control.

3.3.6. Work with existing non-profit organizations, 

such as Humboldt Fish Action Council, to collect 

seeds and to propagate plants to be used in 

enhancement and restoration projects.

3.3.7. Participate with the State Coastal 

Conservancy in planning and outreach effort for 

regional Spartina eradication in Humboldt Bay, Eel 

River, and Mad River estuaries.

3.3.8. Continue to coordinate research projects 

related to mapping of regional Spartina distribution, 

control methods and impacts to sedimentation, soil 

properties, tidal creek morphology, vegetation, and 

rare plants.

3.3.9. Coordinate research on seed bank ecology 

with respect to regional control of Spartina.

3.3.10. Work with academic partners, including 

Humboldt State University and the State Coastal 

Conservancy, to facilitate research on salt marsh 

function (productivity, value to wildlife, plant animal 

interactions.).

3.3.11. Seek funding for a new FTE biologist 

position to assist in planning and implementing 

projects and strategies.

Goal 4: Promote long-term viability of the 

Humboldt Bay estuarine and dune ecosystems 

through ecosystem-based management (including 

endangered and threatened species management 

across boundaries) coordinated with both public 

and private partners around the Bay.

Objective 4.1 - Ecosystem Management: 

■ Over 15 years, continue participation on 

ecosystem-based management collaborations 

as staff time and resources permit. Pursue 

information and activities that will help determine 

a long term sustainable management direction for 

refuge lands.

■ Within 2 years, devote an additional 1/4 FTE 

(combined staff time) to serve an increased role in 

ecosystem-based management collaborations over 

the 15-year period.
112 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 5

Rationale - Ecosystem Management: 

The Humboldt Bay Ecosystem Program is 

a relatively new program, a comprehensive 

process of integrated resource management 

that considers the entire ecosystem, including 

humans. It is coordinated by the Eureka Sea 

Grant Office in cooperation with the HBHRCD 

and many other partners (http://groups.ucanr.org/

HumboldtBayEBM/). The program mission is “to 

create an integrated framework that links the needs 

of people, habitats, and species by increasing our 

scientific understanding of our ecosystem and by 

promoting community-wide collaboration in sound 

natural resource management.” It also seeks to 

develop recommendations for establishment and 

maintenance of a Humboldt Bay ecosystem database 

and continued work on research, education, and 

outreach projects with an ecosystem approach. 

While all Humboldt Bay NWR units conserve 

and/or preserve ecologically important estuarine, 

palustrine, and dune habitats, these habitats are 

part of a larger ecosystem that extends beyond 

the refuge boundary. Because the South Bay 

refuge units in particular have been altered so 

significantly, there is concern about the long-term 

sustainability of diked coastal wetlands, especially 

given projections of sea level rise. Sustainable 

efficient management of public trust resources that 

utilize bay/refuge habitats will require management 

coordination and information sharing with other 

landowners and partners throughout the Humboldt 

Bay ecosystem. 

Additional staff time will increase the extent to 

which refuge staff can engage in collaborative 

management efforts for the Humboldt Bay 

ecosystem. 

Strategies - Ecosystem Management: 

4.1.1. Participate on the Humboldt Bay Ecosystem 

Program’s Advisory Committee, the Humboldt 

Bay and Eel River Estuary Habitat Goals Advisory 

Committee, and the Humboldt Bay Harbor, 

Recreation Conservation District Management Plan 

Advisory Team.

4.1.2. Pursue and support relevant bay ecosystem 

studies and modeling (currents and sediment 

transport, hydrology, sea level rise, nutrient cycling, 

etc.) that would provide information needed to 

determine a long-term sustainable management 

direction for refuge lands. 

4.1.3. Work with USFWS, USGS, academic 

institutions, other agencies, and collaborative 

groups to monitor and address effects of and 

management response to local sea level rise and 

other environmental changes resulting from climate 

change.

4.1.4. Coordinate with the AFWO Conservation 

Partnerships Program (Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife and Coastal Program) within the North 

Coast Initiative Area to provide technical advice to 

private landowners and other entities.

4.1.5. Collaborate to the extent possible with public 

and private partners, including but not limited to: 

• local representatives of the Wiyot Tribe and the 

Blue Lake Rancheria and Bear River Band of the 

Rohnerville Rancheria

• Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (AFWO), 

Conservation Partnerships, Fisheries and 

Endangered Species Programs 

• Bureau of Land Management, NOAA Fisheries 

Service, NPS, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, US Geological Survey, US Army Corps of 

Engineers 

• California (CA) Dept. of Fish and Game, CA 

Coastal Conservancy, CA Coastal Commission, 

CA State Parks, Caltrans, CA Dept. of Forestry, 

CA Conservation Corps, CA Dept. of Corrections, 

CA Dept. of Health Services

• Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and 

Conservation District; Humboldt County; local 

cities and communities

• Humboldt State University, UC Sea Grant, 

College of the Redwoods

• Humboldt County Dunes Cooperative, HumboldtDel Norte Weed Management Area, Humboldt 

and Del Norte County Resource Conservation 

Districts 

• Pacific Coast Joint Venture, Audubon Society, 

Ducks Unlimited, and California Waterfowl 

Association

• Aleutian Goose Working Group, Farm Bureau, 

Humboldt Bay Oyster Growers, and nonmotorized boating groups

• Friends of Humboldt Bay NWR, Friends of the 

Dunes, Friends of Arcata Marsh, North Coast 

Explore, North Coast Chapter, California Native 

Plant Society

• private landowners

• local, regional, and national non-profits

 

4.1.6. Seek funding for a new FTE biologist position 

to assist in planning and implementing projects and 

strategies.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 113

Goal 5. To provide the public (and especially 

children) with accessible, safe, high-quality 

wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities to 

enhance public appreciation and understanding 

of fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats of Humboldt 

Bay and associated watersheds.

Objective 5.1 - Visitor Services—Wildlife 

Observation and Photography:

■ Within 15 years, provide 20,000 annual wildlife 

observation and photography visitor opportunities 

by land and water trails, 3/4 mile (Salmon Creek 

Unit-Shorebird Loop Trail out to kiosk and Ma-le’l 

Dunes Unit Railroad berm trail) of wheelchairaccessible wildlife viewing opportunities for all 

primary habitat types on the Humboldt Bay 

NWR. 

■ Provide a total of 3.7 miles of Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible trail at Salmon 

Creek, Hookton Slough, and Ma-le’l Dunes units.

■ Within 2 years of its adoption, implement 

all phases of the Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative 

Management Area Access Plan, which includes 

an expanded trail system, interpretive panels, a 

viewing deck, a volunteer caretaker, restrooms 

and, if feasible (see concerns below), a nonmotorized boat launch at the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit. 

Rationale - Visitor Services—Wildlife 

Observation and Photography: 

A Visitor Services Plan has been developed 

concurrently with the preparation of the CCP 

(Appendix B). In addition, in collaboration with 

BLM, the CA Coastal Conservancy, and Friends 

of the Dunes, there has been considerable effort 

to provide additional public use opportunities 

at the Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management 

Area, including a publicly reviewed plan. Wildlife 

observation and photography are two of the six 

priority public uses identified in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Despite a small staff and a refuge of relatively small 

size, all six priority public uses are made available 

at Humboldt Bay NWR. With few exceptions, 

the vast majority of wildlife species found on the 

refuge can be viewed and/or photographed from 

existing trails and/or blinds. A common comment 

from the public at this and many other refuges is, 

“The trails you have are great but we would like 

to hike/bike/drive around the rest of the refuge.” 

While this desire to “see the rest of the refuge” is 

certainly understandable, it is often not compatible 

when considered cumulatively with all other actions 

occurring on the refuge. Managers need to better 

clarify for the public the need for portions (often 

large) of the refuge to be closed to public use to 

conserve fish, wildlife, and habitat. 

Similar to national trends, there is a large and 

growing desire for wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities on Humboldt Bay 

NWR. If additional staff and project resources 

are available, the refuge could provide increased 

opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography from refuge facilities, if compatible.

If additional resources are available, offering 

increased opportunities for the public to observe 

wildlife would build local support and appreciation 

for the refuge and the natural resources it helps to 

conserve. 

Strategies - Visitor Services—Wildlife 

Observation and Photography:

5.1.1. Maintain existing visitor use facilities, making 

all as fully accessible as possible. 

5.1.2. Work with Friends groups and other 

partners to develop and implement FWS Initiatives 

(Connecting People with Nature, Schoolyard 

Habitats and Birding Initiatives).

5.1.3. Develop wheelchair access out to the kiosk 

on the Salmon Creek Unit and on the Ma-le’l Dunes 

Unit Tsoutsgish Trail.

5.1.4. Continue to collaborate with Friends groups 

and other partners to provide regularly scheduled 

and special event guided wildlife observation day 

use opportunities.

5.1.5. Continue to work with local and national 

wildlife photography groups (and individuals) to 

improve wildlife photography day use opportunities 

on the refuge.

5.1.6. Install a wildlife camera on the Salmon Creek 

Unit which will provide opportunities for “live 

action” wildlife observation from the closed portion 

of the refuge back to a large screen TV at the Visitor 

Center.

5.1.7. Monitor and assess disturbance caused by 

different public uses on Humboldt Bay NWR to 

both develop a baseline of use and provide the best 

possible management direction regarding existing 

and proposed future uses.
114 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 5

5.1.8. Work with partners to fully implement Ma-le’l 

Dunes Cooperative Management Area Access Plan.

5.1.9. Work with HBHRCD, Redwood Community 

Action Agency (RCAA), and Humboldt Bay boating 

groups to produce an assessment of needs for safe 

compatible boating experiences (including the 

proposed bay trail(s) on or adjacent to the refuge, 

and then implement recommendations.

5.1.10. Work with the same groups to produce 

guidelines and conduct outreach to the boating 

community on avoiding impacts (especially 

disturbance) to natural resources on and around the 

bay.

5.1.11. Provide both signage and brochures to 

explain the need to maintain high water quality, how/

where to properly dispose of waste, and the need to 

be good stewards of the bay.

5.1.12. Assess opportunities to increase seasonal 

day use hiking on the Salmon Creek Unit around 

the hunt area or other areas normally closed to the 

public. 

5.1.13. Work with CA Coastal Conservancy, 

HBHRCD, RCAA, City of Arcata, Humboldt 

County, and groups interested in the “Trail Around 

the Bay” to assess the potential and compatibility of 

a bay trail(s) on or adjacent to the refuge. 

5.1.14. Seek funding for a new FTE Volunteer 

Coordinator position to assist in planning and 

implementing projects.

5.1.15. Increase law enforcement on the Humboldt 

Bay NWR by contract or hiring a seasonal law 

enforcement officer. 

5.1.16. Assess the need to implement a fee collection 

program. 

Objective 5.2 - Visitor Services—Environmental 

Education and Interpretation: 

■ Within 15 years, provide wildlife-dependent 

educational opportunities for at least 8 school or 

community groups per month, and 35,000 annual 

visitor opportunities for interpretive experiences 

on and off refuge to foster public awareness and 

appreciation of the natural heritage of the north 

coast. 

■ Develop and construct a Children’s Outdoor 

Exploration Area on the Salmon Creek Unit.

■ Within 3 years, complete the Salmon Creek 

Historic Hunt Cabin.

■ Assess feasibility for an on-site environmental 

education outdoor classroom facility on the 

Salmon Creek Unit.

Rationale - Visitor Services—Environmental 

Education and Interpretation: 

Environmental education and interpretation are 

two of the six priority visitor uses identified in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997. The Humboldt Bay NWR provides 

a unique opportunity for the local community 

to experience pristine dune habitats, native bay 

habitats, and wildlife in proximity to an urban area 

with multiple educational institutions. Refugebased environmental educational and interpretive 

activities can also be integrated into both indoor and 

outdoor classroom curricula. Interpretive activities 

can introduce the public to habitat management 

activities and familiarize them with the conservation 

efforts that protect local natural resources. The 

activities currently offered at the refuge are 

primarily the result of collaboration with refuge 

Friends groups and volunteer efforts, which we will 

seek to enhance. 

If additional staff and project resources are 

available, the refuge will work with Friends groups, 

volunteers, and others to provide additional 

environmental education and interpretation 

opportunities to foster public awareness and 

appreciation of unique Humboldt Bay and north 

coast natural heritage, which will ultimately help 

to fulfill the purposes for which the refuge was 

established. The refuge will look at opportunities 

to implement existing (Junior Duck Stamp, The 

Nature of Learning, Project WILD, Shorebird 

Sister Schools, etc.) and new (Children in Nature, 

Schoolyard Habitats) environmental education/

interpretation initiatives from the Service and 

others. 

Strategies: - Visitor Services—Environmental 

Education and Interpretation: 

5.2.1. Maintain existing Visitor Services Programs 

and infrastructure, including completion and 

upgrading of interpretive exhibits, panels, and 

signage plans. 

5.2.2. Maintain, improve, and keep updated refuge 

website to provide information on refuge complex 

history, management, visitor service opportunities, 

and current events.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 115

5.2.3. Continue to offer guided bird walks by 

Friends of the Humboldt Bay NWR (FHBNWR) 

every other week and Audubon once per month.

5.2.4. Continue to offer Humboldt State University 

and College of the Redwoods professors, high school 

classes, and other local citizens access to the Salmon 

Creek, Lanphere, and Ma-le’l Dunes units for 

guided and self-guided educational tours and study. 

5.2.5. Continue to partner with Friends of the Dunes 

to offer guided natural history walks on the dunes 

units (once per month).

5.2.6. Continue to coordinate with the Friends of the 

Dunes (FOD), which leads a restoration work day 

once a month on Ma-le’l Dunes or Lanphere Dunes 

units, and for their annual Spring Breakaway event.

5.2.7. Continue to coordinate with Friends of the 

Dunes for the annual lupine bash; work to increase 

involvement by additional partners (particularly 

North Coast Chapter of California Native Plant 

Society). 

5.2.8. Continue to participate in interpretive events 

both on the refuge and off (e.g., Aleutian Goose FlyOff, California Waterfowl Outdoor Adventure Day, 

California State Fair, Humboldt County Fair, Godwit 

Days, Aleutian Cackling Goose Festival, National 

Wildlife Refuge Week). 

5.2.9. Offer a seasonal lecture series (3-6 per year) 

that interprets pertinent natural and cultural 

resources. 

5.2.10. Continue to offer occasional presentations 

to community groups and college/university classes 

(four to six per year).

5.2.11. Continue to offer a self-guided trail guide, 

produced by FHBNWR, on the Salmon Creek Unit.

5.2.12. Build on existing Outdoor Youth Days event 

and offer multi-day programs during the summer 

(e.g., Day Camp, Jr. Ranger/Naturalist).

5.2.13. Work with refuge Friends groups to locate 

and develop a Children’s Outdoor Exploration Area 

at the Salmon Creek Unit to provide unstructured 

environmental education/interpretation 

opportunities for children. 

5.2.14. Work with the Regional Office, AFWO, and 

Friends groups to develop/implement environmental 

education programs that could include Junior Duck 

Stamp, Schoolyard Habitats, Nature of Learning, 

Bay to Dunes, Shorebird Sister Schools, Salmon 

Creek Watershed Education, and others.

5.2.15. Work with AFWO and two schools in the 

Humboldt Bay area to develop pilot Schoolyard 

Habitat Projects. 

5.2.16. Complete the “Historic Hunt Cabin,” which 

will interpret the history of the Salmon Creek Unit 

and how it came to be, refuge development, and the 

historic role of waterfowl management in Humboldt 

Bay NWR and the Refuge System.

5.2.17. Work with Coastal Conservancy and Friends 

of the Dunes to implement planned interpretive 

themes at Ma-le’l Dunes Unit, including Wiyot tribal 

heritage. (See also Strategy 6.2.1 under Strategies - 

Cultural Resource Management - Partnerships.)

5.2.18. Work with partners to develop and/or modify 

existing interpretive outreach for the public about 

the historical support hunters and fishermen have 

provided for the refuge system and conservation.

5.2.19. Assess feasibility of conversion of the barn or 

construction of a new covered outdoor structure for 

environmental education wet lab type activities.

5.2.20. Investigate grants and/or community 

assistance to acquire rain gear for use by K-12 

visitors, and facilitate visitation by economically 

challenged members of the community (e.g., shuttle 

buses/vans, etc.).

5.2.21. Develop an off-refuge wildlife presentation 

for K-12.

5.2.22. Develop traveling trunks of educational 

materials for use by staff and/or Friends on and off 

site.

5.2.23. Facilitate teacher training workshops so 

that teachers can lead environmental education field 

trips.

5.2.24. Create a curriculum that corresponds to 

California state education standards to cultivate an 

appreciation for refuge resources. 

5.2.25. Design training guide for volunteer docents 

who would like to lead environmental education 

activities.

5.2.26. Provide for additional program assistance 

through trained volunteers, friends, interns, grant 

funding, and other partnerships.
116 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 5

5.2.27. Develop and implement greening policies, 

and then interpret greening activities completed on 

the refuge.

5.2.28. Seek funding for permanent full-time 

Information and Education Specialist and Volunteer 

Coordinator positions to assist in planning and 

implementing projects.

Note: See also Strategy 6.2.1.

Objective 5.3 - Visitor Services—Outreach/

Friends and Partners: 

■ Over 15 years, refuge staff will collaborate with 

Friends groups and other regional partners 

to annually host at least two regionally based 

environmental education field trips, workshops, 

seminars, or study courses, and refuge staff will 

take a local leadership role in developing and 

strengthening partnerships.

Rationale - Visitor Services—Outreach/Friends 

and Partners:

Part of the mission of the Service is working with 

others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, 

wildlife, and plants, and their habitats. Staff at 

the Humboldt Bay NWR realize that all wildlife, 

plants, and habitats on the refuge are part of an 

interdependent ecosystem that extends beyond the 

refuge boundaries. Providing outreach to the public 

and developing partnerships is the best way to 

manage the Humboldt Bay ecosystem for the benefit 

of all. Additionally, when the public and partners are 

not aware of the refuge and its role in local, regional, 

and national conservation, they are less likely to 

value, appreciate, or advocate for the resources on 

the refuge. 

If additional staff and project resources are 

available, the Humboldt Bay NWR should provide 

additional environmental education and outreach to 

contribute to the protection of the Humboldt Bay 

ecoregion.

Strategies - Visitor Services—Outreach/Friends 

and Partners:

5.3.1. With Friends groups, volunteers, and staff, 

continue to participate in interpretive events both on 

and off the refuge. 

5.3.2. Continue to involve volunteers in a variety 

of refuge programs and community events to 

strengthen ties with the community.

5.3.3. Incorporate elements of FWS Initiatives 

(Connecting People with Nature and Birding 

Initiatives). 

5.3.4. Work with Friends groups to develop 

and implement priority projects for the refuge 

(environmental education/interpretation programs, 

trailguide, Children’s Outdoor Exploration Area, 

bookstore, etc.).

5.3.5. Pursue funding for permanent full-time 

Information and Education Specialist and Volunteer 

Coordinator positions to assist in planning and 

implementing projects to strengthen and enlarge 

the volunteer services program, and to provide 

effective training and program management of the 

program for a corps of 50-100 volunteers.

Objective 5.4 - Visitor Services—Hunting:

■ Within 15 years, maintain and improve existing 

waterfowl, coot, and snipe hunting program 

to accommodate a minimum of 1,200 hunter 

opportunities per year on the Salmon Creek Unit, 

and continue waterfowl, coot, and snipe hunting 

on Table Bluff, Eureka Slough, and Jacoby 

Creek units, as well as Egret Island, Teal Island, 

and Hookton Slough, concurrent with State 

regulations.

■ Improve information and outreach of existing 

regulations. 

■ Open the Service-owned Fernstrom-Root island 

portion of the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit to waterfowl, 

coot, and snipe hunting and retrieval. The Service 

would also provide 2 additional Junior-only 

hunting days on the Salmon Creek Unit. 

Rationale - Visitor Services—Hunting: 

The existing (1990) Humboldt Bay NWR Sport 

Hunting Plan has been revised concurrently 

with the preparation of the Humboldt Bay NWR 

Complex CCP (Appendix C).

Hunting is one of the six priority public uses 

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. Currently, waterfowl 

hunting regulations on the Salmon Creek Unit 

are slightly less permissive than State hunting 

regulations, as follows. Hunting on the Salmon 

Creek Unit is permitted from legal shoot time to 

3 p.m. on Tuesdays and Saturdays of the regular 

waterfowl hunting season (usually the last weekend 

in October through January). Waterfowl, coot, 

and snipe hunting is permitted on the Table 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 117

Bluff, Eureka Slough, and Jacoby Creek units, 

including Egret Island, Teal Island, and Hookton 

Slough, concurrent with State regulations. In the 

best professional judgment of the Humboldt Bay 

NWR Manager, restricting the number of days 

that hunting occurs on the Humboldt Bay NWR 

maintains a high quality hunting experience. Upland 

game hunting (e.g., deer hunting) is not permitted 

on the Humboldt Bay NWR due to the small size of 

potential hunt areas, safety issues, and likelihood for 

conflicts with other high priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses recognized by the Improvement 

Act. 

The refuge acknowledges that illegal parking and 

camping occur on the Highway 101 and railroad 

rights of way to access Jacoby Creek, especially 

during hunting season. Camping is not allowed on 

the refuge. Parking, camping and vehicle access 

at the Jacoby Creek Unit is prohibited without a 

special use permit. The Service recognizes the 

desire for vehicle access at Jacoby Creek, but due 

to safety and jurisdictional constraints, it is not 

allowed. 

Portions of the recently acquired Ma-le’l Dunes Unit 

adjacent to the Mad River Slough, while privately 

owned, were hunted for waterfowl, coot, and snipe 

prior to acquisition by the Service, so the refuge 

will be opening portions of these areas to hunting 

and/or retrieval from adjacent areas that are open 

to hunting (see Appendix C: Figure C–4). Beyond 

this, any further increase in total hunt area on the 

refuge is unlikely due to the numerous hunting 

opportunities that already exist around Humboldt 

Bay, the relatively small size of the refuge, and its 

proximity to Highway 101 and residential areas.

Limited junior-only hunting opportunities in 

the Humboldt Bay area and the high quality of 

waterfowl hunting on the Salmon Creek Unit 

justifies the addition of two days for junior-only 

hunts. In addition, allowing less experienced junior 

hunters to learn hunting skills outside of the regular 

hunting times will avoid reducing the quality of the 

hunting experience for regular, more experienced 

hunters. 

Strategies - Visitor Services—Hunting:

5.4.1. Maintain current sport hunting program as 

described in the updated Humboldt Bay NWR Sport 

Hunting Plan.

5.4.2. Continue to fund and use MOUs with Federal, 

State, and local agencies for law enforcement 

support.

5.4.3. Follow necessary procedures to permit 

waterfowl hunting on portions of the island salt 

marsh areas of the recently acquired Ma-le’l Dunes 

Unit.

5.4.4. Add two junior-only waterfowl hunt days per 

season at the Salmon Creek Unit. 

5.4.5. Improve interpretation and outreach, 

especially on Salmon Creek, Hookton Slough, Jacoby 

Creek, and Ma-le’l Dunes units to make sure that 

where hunting and other wildlife-dependent visitor 

uses come together, all users are aware and all uses 

are managed for maximum mutual compatibility.

5.4.6. Conduct daily bag checks (i.e., verify number 

and species of waterfowl), which will promote 

compliance with regulations and keep biological data 

on species harvest.

5.4.7. Improve hunt program record-keeping by 

improving harvest record card.

5.4.8. Improve directional signs in the hunt area on 

the Salmon Creek Unit. 

5.4.9. Create new maps of hunting areas to improve 

accuracy and quality of the hunting experience and 

the efficiency of the hunting system. 

5.4.10. Increase staffing of the hunter check 

station, to a minimum of two individuals per hunt 

day (Humboldt Bay NWR staff, temporary hires/

contractors, or volunteers) to best manage refuge 

hunt.

5.4.11. Modify hunting pit blinds to prevent 

stranding of wildlife.

5.4.12. Post additional boundary signs on the 

Eureka Slough, Jacoby Creek, and Table Bluff units, 

and Egret Island, Teal Island, and Hookton Slough. 

5.4.13. Enforce boat in only regulations on 

Humboldt Bay NWR land on the Eureka Slough and 

Jacoby Creek units in order to meet the Service’s 

safety standards.

5.4.14. Work with HBHRCD, California State 

Lands Commission, CDFG, and the DOI Solicitor’s 

Office to pursue a lease or other written agreement 

for the management of over-water hunting in 

tidelands (including salt marsh, mudflats, and open 

water) consistent with hunting on lands within the 

Service’s jurisdiction.
118 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 5

5.4.15. Increase law enforcement on the Humboldt 

Bay NWR, especially during waterfowl season, by 

contract or hiring a seasonal law enforcement officer.

5.4.16. Seek funding for permanent full-time 

Volunteer Coordinator positions to assist in planning 

and implementing projects.

Objective 5.5 - Visitor Services—Fishing: 

■ Maintain existing sport fisheries program. 

Provide fishing opportunities at the Ma-le’l Dunes 

Unit.

■ Collaborate with CDFG and other local agencies 

and private entities to increase awareness of 

fishing and shellfishing opportunities on the 

Humboldt Bay NWR and/or in Humboldt Bay. 

Rationale - Visitor Services—Fishing:

The existing (1990) Humboldt Bay NWR Sport 

Fishing Plan has been revised concurrently with the 

preparation of the Humboldt Bay NWR Complex 

CCP (Appendix D).

Fishing is one of the six priority public uses 

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. Most local fishing occurs 

in freshwater areas that are not within the refuge 

boundaries. Limited fishing does occur for sharks, 

rays, and shellfish on Humboldt Bay NWR. Shell 

fishing is most popular on South Bay mudflats. Many 

other freshwater and saltwater fishing areas are 

located nearby to the Humboldt Bay NWR.

While fishing opportunities on the Humboldt Bay 

NWR are limited, fishing is a priority wildlifedependent recreational use recognized by the 

Improvement Act and additional outreach may 

promote its use by the public.

Strategies - Visitor Services—Fishing:

5.5.1. Maintain current fishing program as 

described in the updated Humboldt Bay NWR Sport 

Fishing Plan (see Appendix D: Sport Fishing Plan).

5.5.2. Continue to fund and use MOUs with Federal, 

State, and local agencies for law enforcement 

support.

5.5.3. Incorporate elements of USFWS Initiatives 

(i.e., Connecting People with Nature).

5.5.4. Enhance outreach and education on fishing 

regulations and opportunities on Humboldt Bay 

NWR.

5.5.5. Increase signage at allowable sport fishing 

sites.

5.5.6. Advertise and participate in events which 

promote fishing (e.g., CDFG free fishing day, 

USFWS fishing days, etc.).

5.5.7. Conduct outreach at pertinent events, such as 

Harbor District Maritime Expo, etc.

5.5.8. Increase law enforcement on the Humboldt 

Bay NWR by contract or hiring a seasonal law 

enforcement officer.

Goal 6. In cooperation with tribal 

representatives, identify and protect tribal 

cultural resources on the Humboldt Bay NWR. In 

addition, assess and manage refuge’s more recent 

cultural resources and structures.

Objective 6.1 - Cultural Resource Management: 

■ Create and implement a basic Cultural Resources 

Management capability at Humboldt Bay NWR to 

respond to the basic compliance requirements of 

Federal cultural resources legislation.

Rationale - Cultural Resource Management:

Three contemporary entities represent the historic 

Wiyot Ancestral Territories located around 

Humboldt Bay: the Wiyot Tribe, Bear River Band 

of Rohnerville Rancheria, and the Blue Lake 

Rancheria. Cultural resources are non-renewable 

resources and are protected under Federal law and 

Service/Refuge System policy. The Service Manual 

section on Cultural Resource Management (Part 

614) describes Service/Refuge System policies 

regarding management of cultural resources on 

refuges.

The Service’s protocol or policy for inadvertent 

archaeological discovery is to follow the existing 

laws. The Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, 

and the Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act each have a provision for 

“discovery.” NAGPRA has both “inadvertent 

discovery” and “intentional discovery.” Essentially, 

each law provides the provision to codify tribal 

consultation procedures in case of a discovery. 

NAGPRA is the most specific.

 

Strategies - Cultural Resource Management:

6.1.1. Notify the Regional Office Archaeologist 

when site-specific projects are initiated so that 

appropriate resource assessments and coordination 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 119

with California State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) and the Wiyot Tribe, Bear River Band 

of Rohnerville Rancheria, and the Blue Lake 

Rancheria will occur.

6.1.2. Consult with the Wiyot Tribe, Bear River 

Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, and the Blue Lake 

Rancheria, and the Regional Office Archaeologist on 

a project-by-project specific basis to collect related 

cultural resources background information and 

develop strategies for protection and preservation 

of cultural resources within refuge boundaries per 

Section 110 of National Historic Preservation Act.

6.1.3. Within 10 years, work with the Wiyot Tribe, 

Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, and 

the Blue Lake Rancheria to develop an MOU 

or Cultural Resources Management Plan that 

addresses resource management issues and 

inventory, evaluation and treatment of at-risk 

cultural places on the Complex. 

6.1.4. Incorporate cultural resource values, issues, 

and requirements into design and implementation of 

the other habitat, wildlife, and public use activities 

and strategies conducted by the refuge.

6.1.5. Communicate and consult with the Wiyot 

Tribe, Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, 

and the Blue Lake Rancheria, academic institutions, 

advocacy organizations, agencies, and the California 

SHPO for basic informational, compliance, research, 

and “government-to-government” purposes.

6.1.6. Develop and implement a plan to survey 

the Humboldt Bay NWR for newly identified 

cultural resources, including archaeological sites 

and traditional cultural properties, and previously 

unsurveyed areas.

6.1.7. Assess options for refuge-owned Indian 

Island parcels with Wiyot Tribe.

6.1.8. Identify, inventory, evaluate, and nominate to 

the National Register sites eligible for the National 

Register under Criteria A-D in consultation with 

the Wiyot Tribe, Bear River Band of Rohnerville 

Rancheria, and the Blue Lake Rancheria. 

6.1.9. Create a cultural resource layer in the refuge 

GIS that aids in the identification, planning and 

monitoring, and interpretation of cultural sites. 

6.1.10. Complete the “Historic Hunt Cabin,” which 

will interpret history of the Salmon Creek ranch 

and how it came to be, refuge development, and the 

historic role of waterfowl management in Humboldt 

Bay and the Refuge System.

6.1.11. Convert the Salmon Creek Unit barn into 

an environmental education/interpretation facility, 

if feasible. If not, maintain in present condition or 

remove/recycle it.

6.1.12. Restore or replace quarters and storage 

buildings at the Lanphere Dunes Unit.

6.1.13. Designate a refuge Cultural Resources 

Management coordinator.

6.1.14. Within 1 year, begin consultation with the 

Wiyot Tribe, Blue Lake Rancheria, and Bear River 

Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, to establish an 

Archaeological Inadvertent Discovery Protocol.

Note: See also Strategy 6.2.1.

Objective 6.2 - Cultural Resource Management—

Education:

■ Within 5 years of CCP approval, develop, in 

partnership with the Wiyot Tribe, Bear River Band 

of Rohnerville Rancheria, the Blue Lake Rancheria 

and other preservation partners, a cultural 

resources overview of the Humboldt Bay NWR.

Rationale - Cultural Resource Management—

Education:

Cultural resources are not renewable. Thus, 

interpretation of cultural resources can instill a 

conservation ethic among Humboldt Bay NWR 

visitors who encounter or manage them. 

If additional staff and project resources are 

available, the Humboldt Bay NWR should provide 

additional interpretation of cultural resources 

and history of Humboldt Bay NWR. The goals of 

the cultural resource education and interpretive 

program would be to: 

• translate the results of cultural research into 

interpretive media that can be understood and 

appreciated by a variety of refuge visitors

• engender an appreciation for the Native American 

culture and perspective on cultural resources

• relate the connection between cultural resources 

and natural resources and the role of humans in 

the environment

• instill an ethic for the conservation of our cultural 

heritage 

Cultural resources overview materials will aid 

refuge staff in explaining historical ecological 

conditions, the importance of restoring and/or 

maintaining the integrity of those conditions, and 

the role the native environment plays in Native 

American culture and history.
120 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 5

Strategies - Cultural Resource Management—

Education:

6.2.1. Develop interpretation and education 

programs and information at the Headquarters 

Unit that illustrate indigenous lifestyles and 

various subsistence strategies of the Wiyot Tribe 

and contemporary Wiyot communities and cultural 

activities.

6.2.2. Consult with the Wiyot Tribe, Bear River 

Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, and the Blue Lake 

Rancheria and other stakeholders to design and 

implement educational materials, programs, and 

activities that would be used to address traditional 

or sacred resources.

6.2.3. Update the Humboldt Bay NWR brochures 

and interpretive signage, as staffing and funding allow, 

with appropriate cultural resources information.

6.2.4. Work with the Wiyot Tribe, Bear River 

Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, and the Blue Lake 

Rancheria to provide education and training to 

refuge staff on tribal cultural history.

6.2.5. Within 10 years, in consultation with the 

Wiyot Tribe, Bear River Band of Rohnerville 

Rancheria, and the Blue Lake Rancheria, research 

the ethnobotany and traditional plants and periodic 

use locations on the refuge; and plan, fund, and 

implement restoration of ethnobotanical resources 

on the dunes units. 

6.2.6. Within 10 years, in consultation with the 

Wiyot Tribe, Bear River Band of Rohnerville 

Rancheria, and the Blue Lake Rancheria, conduct 

research on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and its 

contribution to habitat management on the refuge.

6.2.7. Identify and evaluate cultural resources 

that can educate refuge users on how humans have 

interacted with wildlife and habitats in the past, 

and consult with tribes and other stakeholders on 

ways to use these resources to achieve educational, 

scientific, and traditional cultural needs.

Objective 6.3 - Cultural Resource Management—

Coordination:

■ Meet periodically with the Wiyot Tribe, Bear 

River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, and the 

Blue Lake Rancheria and other concerned 

tribal groups to discuss land management and 

restoration activities planned for the future.

Rationale - Cultural Resource Management—

Coordination:

The Wiyot people have lived on the shores of 

Humboldt Bay and surrounding areas for thousands 

of years. Indian Island, within the approved 

Humboldt Bay NWR boundary, is home to two 

ancient Wiyot villages: EtpidoL and Tuluwat, a 

National Historic Landmark. Today the Wiyot Tribe 

has over 600 enrolled citizens. Native peoples with 

Wiyot ancestry are also enrolled locally at Blue 

Lake Rancheria, Bear River Band of Rohnerville 

Rancheria, and other tribal governments on the 

North Coast. Fifty tribal citizens reside on Table 

Bluff Reservation to the south of Humboldt Bay 

NWR. Traditional Wiyot village sites were located 

on the bay and along the sloughs and rivers. The 

Wiyot traditionally used the dunes for implement 

making sites, gathering, and surf fishing. 

Annual meetings would provide a forum for tribal 

representatives to present any of their proposals 

or discuss other concerns that relate to proposed 

management of Humboldt Bay NWR lands.

Strategies - Cultural Resource Management—

Coordination:

6.3.1. Offer an annual meeting with the Wiyot Tribe, 

Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, and the 

Blue Lake Rancheria to review previous projects or 

summarize management or restoration projects and 

public events that are planned by the Humboldt Bay 

NWR for the upcoming year, whether or not these 

activities will require formal SHPO consultation.

6.3.2. Work with the Wiyot Tribe, Bear River 

Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, and the Blue 

Lake Rancheria on projects to restore habitats 

of important native plants, and to harvest (for 

traditional non-commercial purposes) native plant 

foods.

6.3.3. Review and reissue, if appropriate, any special 

use permits for traditional activities such as plant 

collecting for basket weaving.

6.3.4. Develop in consultation with the appropriate 

tribes procedures and information required under 

the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 121

Castle Rock NWR Goals, Objectives, and 

Strategies

Goal 1. Protect and maintain habitats for 

migratory birds and marine mammals, with an 

emphasis on seabirds and Aleutian cackling 

geese.

Objective 1.1 - Castle Rock Research and 

Monitoring:

■ Over the 15 year life of the plan, sustain and 

protect habitat for healthy breeding seabird 

populations, seasonally roosting Aleutian cackling 

geese, and marine mammals by conducting 

monitoring supported by remote research and 

preventing disturbance. 

■ In collaboration with partners, including 

Humboldt State University, the Coastal Program 

at Humboldt Bay managed from the AFWO, 

Bureau of Land Management and the NPS: 

Develop and Implement a seabird Research and 

Monitoring Plan based on the USFWS California 

Current Seabird Management Plan.

■ In collaboration with partners, including 

Humboldt State University and NOAA: Develop 

and Implement a Research and Monitoring Plan 

for the marine mammals which use Castle Rock 

NWR.

Rationale - Castle Rock Research and Monitoring: 

Breeding birds of Castle Rock NWR include: open 

area nesters such as common murres; doublecrested, Brandt’s, and pelagic cormorants, western 

gulls, black oystercatchers; the pigeon guillemot, 

a crevice nesting species; and burrow nesters 

including: Cassin’s and rhinoceros auklets, Leach’s 

and fork-tailed storm-petrels, and tufted puffins. A 

portion of the Aleutian cackling goose population 

(~20,000 geese) roosts at night on Castle Rock NWR 

from January through April. Several of the species 

that utilize Castle Rock NWR are California Species 

of Special Concern including: tufted puffin, forktailed storm-petrel, and double-crested cormorant. 

Obviously, a thorough understanding of the biology 

of these seabirds is important to their conservation. 

As the second largest breeding colony in California, 

Castle Rock is a vital link in the health of these 

populations. Further, these birds forage in the ocean 

and the health of their populations is reflective 

of ocean conditions. Having reliable data on the 

common murre and other seabird populations 

of Castle Rock NWR is an important part of 

understanding the California Current System, and 

the effects of natural and anthropogenic change 

occurring along this portion of the coast.

While some species like common murres nest on 

rock ledges and can be observed and monitored 

through aerial photography; other species, such as 

rhinoceros and Cassin’s auklets, and storm-petrels, 

are nocturnal and burrow into the soft soil making 

aerial observation impossible. These burrowing 

species can make tunnels up to six-feet long, into 

the soft and fragile ground. Any human disturbance 

on the surface can easily crush and destroy the 

underground nest of these seabirds. 

Thus, a challenge of monitoring seabirds on Castle 

Rock is to minimize disturbing the birds and avoid 

the crushing of burrow nests and habitat. In 2005, 

in partnership between the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Coastal Program at Humboldt Bay, 

Humboldt State University, the US Geological 

Survey, Redwood National and State Parks, and the 

USCG, robotic video cameras were installed as a 

remote sensing technique to gather data on relative 

abundance, burrow use, attendance and departure, 

nesting chronologies, and breeding behavior of 

seabirds on Castle Rock. Part of this project is 

to develop formal monitoring protocols to assist 

managers on the north coast to follow trends, detect 

disturbance, and understand the biology of the 

seabirds which use Castle Rock and the surrounding 

area. 

Seabirds are not generally well understood by the 

public. The colonies are very sensitive to disturbance 

and public outreach is needed to conserve these 

species. We propose to use the scientific findings 

from this effort and interpret seabird biology on the 

north coast to the public. Better public access (via 

video) can lead to better public protection of these 

unique birds. As part of the project discussed above, 

we also successfully established a live video feed 

which is available (seasonally from ~March–August) 

to the public over the internet (see www.humboldt.

edu/~rtg1/research/castle_rock.html ) and in the 

national park visitors center in Crescent City. The 

live video feed available to the public will allow 

public observation of wildlife values that can not 

otherwise be viewed. We hope that soon this will also 

be coordinated with the California Coastal National 

Monument via the Arcata Field Office of the Bureau 

of Land Management. 

Concurrent with the existing live video feed, 

installation of acoustic monitoring of seabirds is a 

cost effective means of both detecting and obtaining 

some index of abundance of nocturnal burrow 

nesting species without adding any adverse impact 

to the island or its natural resources. While the 
122 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 5

existing video recording has an audio track, more 

can be gained by use of higher fidelity recording 

and/or use of parabolic microphones. 

Marine mammals that use Castle Rock NWR for 

resting and or pupping include Steller sea-lions, 

harbor seals, elephant seals, California sealions, and northern fur seals. These species are 

susceptible to the same types of disturbance from 

humans that seabirds are, the only exception being 

they are often the first to react as they are generally 

closer to the source of disturbance (except for aerial 

disturbances). We seek to conserve and protect 

marine mammals for essentially the same reasons 

we seek to conserve and protect seabirds.

Strategies - Castle Rock Research and Monitoring:

1.1.1. Pursue base funding to accomplish necessary 

work at Castle Rock NWR annually.

1.1.2. Continue collaboration with Humboldt State 

University, San Francisco Bay NWR staff, AFWO, 

and Coastal Program staff to monitor and research 

seabird populations.

1.1.3. Continue photo surveys both aerially and by 

remote camera for population estimates.

1.1.4. Conduct further research into the monitoring 

frequency required and best (scientifically valid 

and lowest impact on species) techniques for each 

species as recommended in the California Current 

System Seabird Monitoring plan. Research will also 

evaluate quantity, quality, and rate of erosion of soils 

available for burrow nesting seabirds.

1.1.5. Develop alternative monitoring techniques 

to assign cost effectiveness. This task will include 

storm-petrel assessments, boat-based surveys, 

and early morning shore-based surveys to refine 

alternative methods. 

1.1.6. Develop formal monitoring protocol for 

nocturnal nesting seabirds. Camera maintenance, 

data compilation, analysis and the addition of 

camera validation for nesting by rhinoceros auklets 

and common murres. 

1.1.7. Coordinate with NOAA Fisheries Service on 

marine mammal issues and population estimates.

1.1.8. Increase signage, distribute brochures, and 

use other outreach to educate kayakers, anglers, 

and the commercial fishing industry to the risk of 

disturbance, the potential impact on seabirds and 

marine mammals and the illegality of trespass or 

disturbance to seabirds and marine mammals. 

1.1.9. Provide outreach on aviation hazards as 

well as over-flight impacts to seabirds and ACG at 

Crescent City airport for commercial and private 

pilots and with USCG annually.

1.1.10. Implement a study to quantify sources, 

frequency and severity of disturbance (including 

research) to seabirds and marine mammals.

1.1.11. Conduct surveys for flora and fauna besides 

birds and marine mammals including; invertebrates, 

salamanders, rare and invasive plants.

1.1.12. Evaluate additional options for remote 

monitoring of seabird, and Aleutian cackling goose 

monitoring on Castle Rock NWR.

1.1.13. Assess the possibility to experiment with 

options for seabird habitat restoration by excluding 

geese from key habitat locations.

1.1.14. Concurrent with the existing video 

monitoring, install acoustic monitoring of seabirds 

to obtain an index of abundance of nocturnal burrow 

nesting species (using higher fidelity recording and/

or parabolic microphones).

Objective 1.2 - Castle Rock NWR Wilderness 

Designation:

Within 15 years of the approval of the CCP, the 

Service would recommend a wilderness designation 

for Castle Rock NWR and complete the associated 

environmental impact statement.

Goal 2. Provide high quality environmental 

education, interpretive information, and outreach 

to the public highlighting the ecology and 

sensitivity of the wildlife of Castle Rock National 

Wildlife Refuge.

Objective 2.1 - Environmental Education, 

Interpretive Information, and Outreach:

■ Over the 15 year life of the plan coordinate 

environmental education and interpretation on the 

seabird, marine mammal, and Aleutian cackling 

geese populations that use Castle Rock NWR with 

that of tribal, Federal, State, and local, and other 

California Current System seabird programs.

■ Within 3 years, collaborate with Federal and State 

organizations to develop and provide additional 

environmental education, interpretation, and 

outreach to kindergarten through 12th grade school 

groups, community groups, and individuals, and 

participate in at least 2 community events annually.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 123

■ Continue participation in the Aleutian Goose 

Festival and within 3 years develop a Friends of 

Castle Rock NWR and/or work with local entities 

and NPS/BLM to coordinate something similar. 

Rationale - Environmental Education, 

Interpretive Information, and Outreach:

Standard visitation is inappropriate for Castle Rock 

NWR due to the potential for sensitive wildlife 

disturbance and the general inaccessibility of this 

island refuge. However, by working collaboratively 

with Humboldt State University, NPS, USCG, 

and BLM (which manages adjacent islands as part 

of the California Coastal National Monument), 

NOAA Fisheries Service, local tribes, agencies, 

schools, and individuals we can still effectively and 

efficiently reach interested audiences and provide 

educational and interpretive messages about the 

natural resources of Castle Rock NWR. Methods of 

outreach include an existing web cam that is available 

online seasonally, associated instructional DVDs, and 

more traditional methods including development of 

interpretive panels, brochures, and outreach to local 

communities and schools.

As Castle Rock NWR is not a staffed refuge, 

developing local support via a Friends group and/

or collaboration with local entities and other Federal 

agencies with similar interests, such as NPS and 

BLM, will help conserve the resources of the refuge 

and surrounding marine areas.

Strategies - Environmental Education, 

Interpretive Information, and Outreach:

2.1.1. Continue collaboration with Humboldt State 

University, NPS, and AFWO to provide the seabird 

web cam online, and improve outreach information in 

NPS Visitor Center.

2.1.2. Continue participation in the Aleutian Goose 

Festival. 

2.1.3. Develop a Friends of Castle Rock NWR group 

and/or work with local entities and NPS/BLM to 

coordinate something similar.

 

2.1.4. Conduct outreach to educate the public, 

develop stewardship, and ultimately help protect the 

natural resources of Castle Rock NWR and integrate 

outreach with other programs.

2.1.5. Collaborate with Redwood National and State 

Parks, the chamber of commerce, and other tourism 

information centers to increase environmental 

education and community outreach through means 

such as newsletters, web sites, brochures, and 

campfire talks.

2.1.6. Develop an age group specific instruction 

curriculum for kindergarten through 12th grade 

students using video on DVD, live feed video, and 

science-based monitoring. 

2.1.7. Work with community partners (e.g., College 

of the Redwoods, Marine Mammal Center, and 

Siskiyou Field Institute) to provide educational 

interpretive field trips and courses using Castle 

Rock NWR to showcase wildlife, seabird, and marine 

mammal ecology. 

2.1.8. Increase signage and make brochures 

available to fisherman, kayakers, aircraft pilots, 

and the general public with information about the 

sensitivity of the seabirds and marine mammals to 

disturbance, and provide the link to the seasonally 

live video-stream. 

2.1.9. Collaborate with local tribal entities to provide 

interpretation of traditional uses of Castle Rock 

NWR as appropriate.

2.1.10. Work with partners to provide educational 

and interpretive information for guided excursions 

around Castle Rock.

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 125

6. Management Plan Implementation

Implementation

The CCP will serve as the primary management 

reference document for refuge planning, operations, 

and management for the next 15 years or until it is 

formally revised or amended within that period. The 

Service will implement the final CCP with assistance 

from existing and new partner agencies and 

organizations and from the public. The timing and 

achievement of the management strategies proposed 

in this document are contingent upon a variety of 

factors, including:

■ Funding & Staffing

■ Completion of Step-Down Plans

■ Compatibility Determinations

■ Compliance Requirements

■ Adaptive Management

■ Monitoring

Each of these factors is briefly discussed as it 

applies to the CCP.

CCPs provide long-term guidance for management 

decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and 

strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes 

and identify the Service’s best estimate of future 

needs. These plans detail program planning levels 

that are sometimes substantially above current 

budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for 

the USFWS’s strategic planning and program 

prioritization purposes. Accordingly, the plans do 

not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, 

operational and maintenance increases, or funding 

for future land acquisition.

Funding & Staffing

Resources are required to adequately operate 

any National Wildlife Refuge including initial 

capital outlay for equipment, facilities, labor and 

other expenses as well as recurring expenses. The 

estimated initial capital outlay to implement the 

strategies described in this CCP are presented in 

Table 16. Not all of these capital expenditures would 

occur in the same year as many of these expenses 

would be most likely implemented over the next 

15 years if approval and funding is provided by 

Congress. The detailed descriptions of the objectives 

and their associated implementation strategies 

serve as a guide to the ideal time frame in which to 

implement capital expenditures. The largest costs 

for initial outlays are for visitor services and habitat 

restoration.

Annual contracts or cooperative agreements will be 

needed to provide specialized services beyond the 

core refuge functions for which staff are required. 

The estimated annual cost to fully implement the 

CCP is approximately $1 million (Table 17). 

Table 17 shows both existing and new positions for 

the Complex. If all positions are filled, the refuges 

would be able to carry out all aspects of this plan 

to a reasonable standard. If some positions are not 

filled, all aspects of the Plan would not be completed 

or those projects may be done over a longer period 

of time.

Step-Down Management Plan Summaries 

Some projects or types of projects require more 

in-depth planning than the CCP process is 

designed to provide; for these projects, the Service 

prepares step-down management plans. Step-down 

management plans provide the additional planning 

details necessary to implement management 

strategies identified in a CCP. Included in this 

document are three step-down management plans: 

the Visitor Services Plan, Waterfowl Hunt Plan, and 

Sport Fishing Plan. The CCP also proposes four new 

step down plans for Habitat Management, Resource 

Inventory and Monitoring, Waterfowl Disease 

Contingency and Integrated Pest Management. 

These plans are scheduled to be completed within 

four years of the completion of the CCP.

Visitor Services Plan

The purpose of the Visitor Services Plan (Appendix 

B) is to establish guidelines for public uses at the 

Humboldt Bay and Castle Rock refuges that will 

provide the public with a quality wildlife-dependent 

recreational experience. The Visitor Services Plan 

was developed to provide safe wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities, while minimizing adverse 

impacts to the wildlife resources. The plan will allow 

the visitor services program to be conducted in a 
126 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 6

Table 16. Estimated initial capital outlay to fully implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Expenditure [Related Strategies] Unit Cost Priority

Continue to adaptively manage during all phases of the Salmon Creek 

Restoration project (monitor species including juvenile salmonids and habitat 

use, changes in channel cross-sections, sediment transport, water quality, etc. 

and use results to guide future management). Report annually to CDFG the 

findings of the species monitoring. [1.1.1]

$50,000 1

Implement Phase II of the Salmon Creek Restoration project as described in 

(PCFWWRA 2003). [1.1.3]

$750,000 1

Work with appropriate Bay management partners and permitting agencies to 

develop and implement a plan to place large woody debris in Hookton Slough 

to improve habitat diversity for salmonids and goby and reduce predation. 

[1.1.5]

$75,000 2

Use excavated material from Phase II for salt marsh restoration and/or dike 

maintenance. [1.1.6]

$250,000 2

Install fish screens or other appurtenances as needed at appropriate locations 

on the Salmon Creek Unit to allow diversion to seasonal wetlands without 

impact to salmonids or other listed species. [1.1.7]

$200,000 1

Gather existing information and pursue funding to assess existing elevations 

on refuge units and sedimentation rates and locations in South Bay with 

respect to salt marsh restoration. [1.2.3]

$150,000 2

Repair and modify the White Slough tidegate to improve estuarine and 

brackish marsh conditions on the inside of Salmon Creek dikes. [1.2.4]

$250,000 2

Develop detailed designs to facilitate permitting on all South Bay Units 

restoration work. [1.3.3]

$50,000 1

On the White Slough Unit work with Caltrans to de-channelize Chism Creek 

so that it enters west White Slough Unit area, rather than terminating 

directly into Humboldt Bay, to maximize freshwater/salt marsh continuum. 

[1.3.16]

$15,000 3

On the Hookton Slough Unit develop and implement a hydrologic model and 

restoration plan that allows for at least partial tidal restoration in central 

area (see Salt Marsh alternatives), with muted tidal influence to eastern and 

western areas such that native freshwater to brackish vegetation is preserved, 

while allowing for fish passage, salmonid rearing and tidewater goby habitat. 

[1.3.19]

$100,000 3

Enhance riparian/swamp habitat by planting native understory plants and 

provide deer protection until established. [1.4.3]

$50,000 3

Work with the appropriate entities to develop a long-term water quality 

monitoring program to assess the impact of sediment flushing from Salmon 

Creek on eelgrass beds in southern Humboldt Bay and potential non-point 

source pollutants adjacent to Mad River Slough. [1.6.5]

$100,000 3

Develop a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Plan for the 

Refuge to prevent establishment of new invasive species on the refuge [3.1.1]

$20,000 2

Continue to develop the Volunteer Invasives Mapping and Control Program 

at south refuge units and seek Service funding for volunteer and Friends 

invasive plant control programs [3.1.2]

$25,000 2
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 127

Expenditure [Related Strategies] Unit Cost Priority

Develop and implement a 5-year plan to remove eucalyptus (20 acres) 

and other non-native trees and replace with native communities. Use a 

combination of mechanical and chemical IPM techniques for removal and 

control of the eucalyptus [1.4.5, 3.2.6]

$75,000 1

Within 10 years, control Spartina on all refuge locations. [3.3.1-3.3.9, 3.3.11] $400,000 1

Conduct Humboldt Bay wallflower population viability assessment (PVA) 

using existing demographic data set for Lanphere Dunes. [2.1.5]

$25,000 2

Continue to conduct metapopulation sampling of Humboldt Bay wallflower 

North Spit populations. Expand to include South Spit and Elk River spit 

populations. Track on a 9 or 10-year interval. [2.1.10]

$15,000 3

Develop partnerships to conduct habitat restoration activities and collect 

Humboldt Bay wallflower seed from South Spit. Reintroduce seeds from this 

subpopulation to restored habitat on Table Bluff Unit. [2.1.11]

$10,000 2

Repeat Pickart 1987 vegetation sampling to quantify succession rate and 

impacts to Humboldt Bay wallflower. [2.1.3]

$20,000 2

Create a monitoring program that will detect the presence of non-native 

bullfrog and control or abate its adverse effects on native species. [3.1.16]

$10,000 2

Pursue and support relevant bay ecosystem studies and modeling (currents 

and sediment transport, hydrology, sea level rise, etc.) that would provide 

information needs to determine a long-term, sustainable management 

direction for refuge lands. [4.1.2]

$200,000 1

Develop wheelchair access out to the kiosk on the Salmon Creek Unit and on 

the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit Tsoutsgish Trail. [5.1.3]

$50,000 1

Install a wildlife camera on the Salmon Creek Unit which will provide 

opportunities for “live action” wildlife observation from the closed portion of 

the refuge back to a large screen TV at the Visitor Center. [5.1.6]

$20,000 3

Monitor and assess disturbance caused by different public uses on Humboldt 

Bay NWR to both develop a baseline of use and provide the best possible 

management direction regarding existing and proposed future uses. [5.1.7]

$40,000 2

Work with partners to fully implement Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative 

Management Area Access Plan. [5.1.8]

$65,000 1

Complete the “Historic Hunt Cabin”, which will interpret the history of 

the Salmon Creek Unit and how it came to be, refuge development, and the 

early role of waterfowl management in Humboldt Bay NWR and the Refuge 

System. [5.2.16]

$100,000 2

Develop and implement a comprehensive plan to survey the HBNWR 

for newly identified cultural resources, including archaeological sites and 

traditional cultural properties. [6.1.6]

$50,000 2

Convert the Salmon Creek Unit barn into an EE/I facility, if feasible. [6.1.11] $350,000 3

If above conversion not feasible, maintain at present condition or remove 

[6.1.11]

$100,000 3

Restore or replace the Quarters and Storage sheds at the Lanphere Dunes 

Unit [6.1.12]

$200,000 2
128 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 6

Expenditure [Related Strategies] Unit Cost Priority

In consultation with the Wiyot Tribe, Bear River Band of Rohnerville 

Rancheria, and the Blue Lake Rancheria, research the ethnobotany and 

traditional plants and use locations on the refuge, and the Traditional 

Ecological Knowledge and its contribution to habitat management on the 

refuge. [6.2.6]

$30,000 2

Total Humboldt Bay NWR $3,845,000

Castle Rock NWR

Develop a Monitoring Plan that takes into account the monitoring frequency 

required and best (scientifically valid and lowest impact on species) techniques 

for each species as recommended in the California Current System Seabird 

Management Plan [1.1.4]

$35,000 2

Camera maintenance, data compilation and analysis of existing data on 

rhinoceros auklets and common murres [1.1.6] 

$50,000 1

Implement a study to quantify sources, frequency and severity of disturbance 

(including research) to seabirds and marine mammals [1.1.10]

$25,000 3

Install acoustic monitoring of seabirds to obtain an index of abundance of 

nocturnal burrow nesting species [1.1.14]

$10,000 2

Develop an age group specific instruction curriculum for K through 12 schools 

using video on DVD, live feed video, and science based monitoring [2.1.6]

$35,000 1

Increase signage and make brochure available to fisherman, kayakers, 

aircraft pilots, and the general public with information about the sensitivity 

of the seabirds and marine mammals to disturbance and has the link to the 

seasonally live video-stream [2.1.8]

$50,000 2

Total Castle Rock NWR $205,000
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 129

Table 17. Estimated annual cost to fully implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan1.

Expenditure Status Unit Quantity Total Cost

Salaries and Benefits

Refuge Manager – GS-12/13 Existing FTE 1.0

Deputy Refuge Manager – GS-11/12 Existing FTE 1.0

Administrative Officer – GS-7/9 Existing FTE 1.0

Refuge Ecologist – GS-11/12 Existing FTE 1.0

Biological Technician – GS-5/7/9 Existing FTE 1.0

Wildlife Biologist – GS-9/11

To fulfill Goals 1,2,3,4 at Humboldt Bay NWR and 

Goal 1 at Castle Rock NWR

Proposed & 

Unfunded

FTE 1.0

Engineering Equipment Operator – WG-8/9/10 Existing FTE 1.0

Maintenance Worker – WG-7/8 Existing FTE 1.0

Information & Education Specialist – GS-7/9/11

Currently a shared position, proposed to be full time

Newly 

Funded

FTE 1.0

Volunteer/YCC Coordinator – GS-7/9

To fulfill Goals 5,6 at Humboldt Bay NWR and Goal 

2 at Castle Rock NWR

Proposed & 

Unfunded

FTE 1.0

Database Manager & IT Specialist – GS-7/9

Proposed position

Proposed & 

Unfunded

FTE 1.0

Subtotal Salaries and Benefits FTE 11.0 $845,655

Expenditure Unit Cost Unit Quantity Total Cost

Programs

Maintenance (repairs, replacement, rentals, etc.) & 

Utilities (fuel, propane, electricity, phones, postage, 

etc.)

$75,000 ea 1.0 $75,000

Invasive Weed Program $20,000 ea 1.0 $20,000

Water/Pumping Costs and Water Quality 

Monitoring

$10,000 ea 1.0 $10,000

Castle Rock NWR Wildlife Monitoring $35,000 ea 1.0 $35,000

Travel/Training $10,000 ea 1.0 $10,000

Supplies $25,000 ea 1.0 $25,000

Printing $2,000 ea 1.0 $2,000

Computer Services and Maintenance $1,000 ea 12.0 $12,000
130 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 6

Volunteer Invasives Program and Stipends $1,500 ea 12.0 $18,000

Law Enforcement MOU with BLM $5,000 ea 1.0 $5,000

Subtotal Programs $212,000

Grand Total (Annual salaries and benefits budget 

and annual maintenance program budget)

$1,057,655

1

 Staffing and funding would be sought over the 15-year life of this plan subject to approval and funding by 

Congress. 

 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 131

cost-effective manner. The program will be reviewed 

annually by refuge staff during the Habitat 

Management Plan review conducted each spring. 

The activities within the Visitor Services Plan are 

evaluated within compatibility determinations 

(hunting, wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education and interpretation, and 

bicycling) located in Appendix F.

Hunt Plan

The purpose of the Waterfowl Hunt Plan (Appendix 

C) is to establish guidelines for hunting on the 

Humboldt Bay NWR that will provide the public 

with a quality wildlife-dependent recreational 

experience, an opportunity to use a renewable 

resource, and the ability to maintain wildlife 

numbers at levels compatible with refuge habitat. It 

was developed to provide safe hunting opportunities, 

while minimizing conflicts with other priority 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses. The plan will 

allow the hunting program to be conducted in a 

cost-effective manner, coordinated with the State. 

The hunting program will be reviewed annually by 

refuge staff during the Habitat Management Plan 

review conducted each spring. The activities within 

the Waterfowl Hunt Plan are evaluated within a 

waterfowl hunting compatibility determination 

located in Appendix F.

Sport Fishing Plan

The purpose of the Sport Fishing Plan (Appendix D) 

is to establish guidelines for fishing on the Humboldt 

Bay NWR that will provide the public with a quality 

wildlife-dependent recreational experience, an 

opportunity to use a renewable resource, and the 

ability to maintain sport fish numbers at levels 

compatible with refuge habitat. The plan will allow 

the sport fishing program to be conducted in a costeffective manner, coordinated with 

the State. The fishing program will 

be reviewed annually by refuge staff 

during the Habitat Management 

Plan review conducted each spring. 

The activities within the Sport 

Fishing Plan are evaluated within a 

fishing compatibility determination 

located in Appendix F.

Waterfowl Disease Contingency 

Plan

Refuge staff will develop a 

Waterfowl Disease Contingency 

Plan for Humboldt Bay NWR, which 

will guide the refuge manager in 

the decision making process. The 

purpose of the Waterfowl Disease 

Contingency Plan is to establish 

protocols for monitoring and 

responding to wildlife disease outbreaks on the 

refuge. It will be developed to ensure a safe working 

environment for personnel involved in associated 

disease monitoring and clean-up activities while 

minimizing wildlife losses.

Habitat Management Plan

Refuge staff will develop an annual Habitat 

Management Plan for Humboldt Bay NWR, which 

will guide the refuge manager in the decision 

making process. This process is based on annual 

visits to each unit by the refuge’s core staff to 

identify resource issues, develop a prioritized list 

of projects to address those issues, and monitor 

outcomes/responses. The database for this planning 

document will be annually updated. The plan is 

based on an adaptive management philosophy 

that allows the team to assess habitat condition 

and wildlife use of the units annually and make 

adjustments accordingly in order to meet the 

refuges’ goals and objectives. 

Resource Inventory and Monitoring Plan

The purpose of the Wildlife Inventory and 

Monitoring Plan is to establish guidelines and a 

schedule for conducting routine surveys to inventory 

and monitor wildlife and plant populations on the 

refuges. It will be developed to maintain consistency 

in the timing and methods used to collect population 

and habitat data in all years.

Integrated Pest Management Plan

Refuge staff will develop an Integrated Pest 

Management (IPM) Plan to address and reduce 

public nuisance and human health risk from 

mosquito-transmitted diseases, as well as to 

address invasive and exotic plants on the refuges. 

The purposes of this plan are: to identify mosquito 

Photography blind. Photo: HBNWRC
132 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 6

abatement methods and materials currently 

approved for use on the refuge; identify use in an 

IPM program that is consistent with the goals of 

the refuge and minimizes public health risk from 

refuge-harbored mosquitoes; and provide long-term 

planning to meet the USFWS’s goal of reducing 

effects of pesticide use on DOI trust resources to the 

greatest extent possible. This plan will be reviewed 

and updated to include new information and policy 

changes as needed. It will cover chemical herbicide/

pesticide use, mechanical eradication, and biological 

controls. Mosquito monitoring and control activities 

are evaluated within a compatibility determination 

located in Appendix F. 

Appropriate Use Requirements 

The Appropriate Use policy describes the initial 

decision process the refuge manager follows 

when first considering whether or not to allow a 

proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager 

must find a use is appropriate before undertaking 

a compatibility review of the use. Uses that have 

been administratively determined to be appropriate 

are the six wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation) and the take of fish and wildlife 

under State regulations.

A review of appropriateness of existing and 

proposed refuge uses was completed for the refuges. 

Grazing and haying for wildlife habitat management, 

recreational boating (including kayaking) in 

navigable waters, research, walking/hiking, 

invertebrate sampling with nets, and mosquito 

integrated pest management were found to be 

appropriate uses on all units of the Humboldt Bay 

NWR. Biking, paddle-in access site for camping, 

dog field training, a 2 to 3 week day camp for 

kindergarten through 12th grade, and dog walking 

were found to be not appropriate uses on all units of 

the Humboldt Bay NWR.

Compatibility Determinations 

Federal law and policy provide the direction and 

planning framework to protect the Refuge System 

from incompatible or harmful human activities 

and to insure that Americans can enjoy Refuge 

System lands and waters. The Improvement Act 

is the key legislation on managing public uses and 

compatibility.

Before activities or uses are allowed on a refuge, 

uses must be found to be “compatible” through a 

written compatibility determination. A compatible 

use is defined as a proposed or existing wildlifedependent recreational use or any other use of 

a National Wildlife Refuge that, based on sound 

professional judgment, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment of the Refuge 

System mission or the purposes of the national 

wildlife refuge. Sound professional judgment is 

defined as a decision that is consistent with the 

principles of the fish and wildlife management and 

administration, available science and resources, and 

adherence to the requirements of the Improvement 

Act, and other applicable laws. Wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge 

when they are compatible and not inconsistent with 

public safety. 

Compatibility determinations for environmental 

education, fishing, grazing and haying, mosquito 

integrated pest management, plant gathering, 

recreational boating, research, waterfowl hunting, 

wildlife observation and photography for Humboldt 

Bay NWR; and research for Castle Rock NWR are 

included in Appendix F. These uses were all found to 

be compatible.

Compliance Requirements 

This CCP was developed to comply with all Federal 

laws, executive orders, and legislative acts. Some 

activities (particularly those that involve a major 

revision to an existing step-down management plan, 

or preparing a new plan) would need to comply with 

additional laws or regulations besides NEPA and the 

Improvement Act. A list of Federal laws, executive 

orders, and legislative acts is in Appendix H.

Bird banding being observed by Youth 

Conservation Corps members. Photo: HBNWRC
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 133

Monitoring and Evaluation

The CCP is designed to be effective for a 15-year 

period. The plan will be reviewed and revised 

as required to ensure that established goals and 

objectives are still applicable and that the CCP 

is implemented as scheduled. The monitoring 

program will focus on issues involving visitor service 

activities, habitat management programs, wildlife 

inventory, and other monitoring and management 

activities. Monitoring and evaluation will use 

the adaptive management process. This process 

includes goal and objective setting, and applying 

management tools and strategies followed by 

monitoring and analysis to measure achievement of 

objectives and then refining management techniques 

based on the results of that analysis.

Collection of baseline data on wildlife and plant 

populations will continue. This data will be used 

to update existing species lists, wildlife habitat 

requirements, and seasonal use patterns. Migratory 

and resident birds, raptors, endangered plants and 

plant communities, and species of management 

concern will be the focus of monitoring efforts.

Where information gaps exist, a concerted effort 

will be made to obtain information. With new 

information, goals and objectives may need 

modification. Public involvement will be encouraged 

during the evaluation process.

Monitoring of visitor service programs will involve 

the continued collection of visitor use statistics. 

Monitoring will be done to evaluate the effects of 

public use on refuge habitat, wildlife populations, 

and visitor experience. 

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is the process of 

implementing policy decisions as scientifically driven 

experiments that test predictions and assumptions 

about management plans, using ongoing monitoring 

to measure success and provide information to 

improve the plans. Adaptive management provides 

the framework within which biological measures and 

public use can be evaluated by comparing the results 

of management to results expected from objectives. 

Management direction is periodically evaluated 

within a system that applies several options, 

monitors the success of objectives, and adapts 

original strategies to reach desired objectives. 

Habitat, wildlife, plants and plant communities, and 

visitor service management techniques and specific 

objectives would be regularly evaluated as results 

of a monitoring program and other new technology 

and information become available. These periodic 

evaluations would be used over time to adapt both 

the management objectives and strategies to better 

achieve management goals. Such a system embraces 

uncertainty and provides new information for future 

decision-making while allowing resource use. 

Erosion control and dike maintenance at Salmon Creek Unit. Photo: HBNWRC
134 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 6

CCP Plan Amendment and Revision 

The CCP is intended to evolve as refuges change, 

and the Improvement Act specifically requires that 

CCPs be formally revised and updated at least 

every 15 years. The formal revision process would 

follow the same steps as the CCP creation process. 

In the meantime, the USFWS would be reviewing 

and updating this CCP periodically based on the 

results of the adaptive management program. 

While preparing annual work plans and updating 

the refuge database, refuge staff will also review 

the CCP. It may also be reviewed during routine 

inspections or programmatic evaluations. Results 

of any or all of these reviews may indicate a need 

to modify the plan. The goals described in this 

CCP would not change until they are reevaluated 

as part of the formal CCP revision process. 

However, the objectives and strategies may be 

revised to better address changing circumstances 

or to take advantage of increased knowledge of 

the resources on the refuge. It is the intent of the 

USFWS to have the CCP apply to any new lands 

that may be acquired. If changes are required, the 

Complex would complete the any associated NEPA 

documentation required.

The intent of the CCP is for the refuges’ objectives 

and strategies to be attained over the next 15 years. 

Management activities would be phased in over time 

and implementation is contingent upon and subject 

to results of monitoring and evaluation, funding 

through Congressional appropriations and other 

sources, and staffing.

Art students at Salmon Creek Unit of Humboldt Bay NWR. Photo: Shannon Smith
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 135

Ainley, D.G., and R.J. Boekelheide. 1990. Seabirds of the Farallon Islands: ecology, dynamics, and structure 

of an upwelling-system community. Stanford Univ. Press, Palo Alto, CA.

Ainley, D.G., and T.J. Lewis. 1974. The history of Farallon Island marine bird populations 1843-1972. Condor 

76: 432-446.

Ainley, D.G., Sydeman, W. J., Hatch, S.A., and Wilson, U.W. 1994. Seabird population trends along the west 

coast of North America: Causes and the extent of regional concordance. Studies Avian Biol. 15:119–133.

Ainley, D.G., D.N. Nettleship, H.R. Carter, and A.E. Storey. 2002. Common murre (Uria aalge). In: 

The birds of North America, No. 666 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA.

Air Resources Board of California (ARB). 2005. Air Resources Board almanac of emissions and air quality. 

Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac.htm

Air Resources Board of California (ARB). 2007. Area designation maps, State and National. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm Viewed February 2, 2007.

Anderson, M.K. 2005. Landscapes of stewardship. In: Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and the 

management of California natural resources. pp. 155-186. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Angeloff, N.A., L. Heald, W. Rich, B. Weber, and J. Roscoe. 2004. A cultural resources overview and 

inventory of selected parcels of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Humboldt Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge, Lanphere Dunes and Proposed Ma-le’l Unit, located in Humboldt County, California. Report 

submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata, CA.

Bachman, D.C., and E.T. Nelson. 2005. Aleutian Canada goose monitoring program, Winter-Spring. 

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Loleta, CA.

Barlow, J., P. Boveng, M.S. Lowry, B.S. Stewart, B.J. Le Boeuf, W.J. Sydeman, R.J. Jameson, S.G. Allen, 

and C.W. Oliver. 1993. Status of the northern elephant seal population along the U.S. west coast in 1992. 

Admin.Rept. LJ-93-01. Southwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, P.O. 

Box 271, La Jolla, CA. 32 pp.

Barnhart, R.A., M.J. Boyd, and J.E. Pequegnat. 1992. The ecology of Humboldt Bay, California: An 

estuarine profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Biological Report, Washington DC.

Bedoya, M., J. Kates, and E. Van Metter. 2008. A primer on climate change and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Graduate Program in Sustainable Development and Conservation Biology, University of 

Maryland, College Park. 

Benson, J.R., D.A. Fredrickson, and K.C. McGrew. 1977. Archaeological reconnaissance of the Humboldt 

Bay Area. Report submitted to Humboldt Bay Wastewater Authority.

Bettaso, J.B. 2004. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge 2004 northern red-legged frog malformation 

report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata Fisheries Technical 

Report Number AFWO-TR08-04, Arcata, California.

7. References
136 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 7

Bettaso, J. B., J. Garwood, and M. van Hattem. 2008. Breeding phenology of the northern red-legged frog 

(Rana aurora) at Humboldt Bay Nation Wildlife Refuge, California, USA. Abstract presented at the 

Amphibian Populations Task Force conference, 17-18Jan08, San Diego, CA.

Boekelheide, R.J., D.G. Ainley, S.H. Morrell, and T.J. Lewis. 1990. Brandt’s cormorant. In: Seabirds of the 

Farallon Islands, D. G. Ainley and R. J. Boekelheide, eds. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA.

Boersma, P.D. and M.C. Silva. 2001. Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma furcata). In: A. Poole and F. 

Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America No. 569. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and 

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC. 27 pp.

Boersma, P.D., N.T. Wheelwright, M.K. Nerini, and E.S. Wheelwright. 1980. The breeding biology of the 

Fork-tailed Storm-petrel (Oceanodroma furcata). Auk 97:268-282.

Bonnell, M.L., B.J. Le Boeuf, M.O. Pierson, D.H. Dettman, and G.D. Farrens. 1981. Summary of marine 

mammal and seabird surveys of the Southern California Bight Area, 1975-1978. Volume III. 

Investigators’ Reports. Part I. Pinnipeds of the Southern California Bight. Final rept. Available from: 

NTIS, Springfield, VA ; PB81-248171. 557 pp.

Bonnell, M.L., M.O. Pierson, and G.D. Farrens. 1983. Pinnipeds and sea otters of central and northern 

California, 1980-1983: status, abundance, and distribution. In: Marine mammal and seabird study, 

central and northern California. Vol. III, Investigator’s Final Report, Part 2. Minerals Management 

Service, U.S. Dept. of Interior. Contract NA. AA-551-CT9-33.

Boone, D.L. 1986. Breeding biology and early life history of the Tufted puffin Fratercula cirrhata, M.S. 

thesis. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis.

Boyd, M. J., T.J. Mulligan, and F.J. Shaughnessy. 2002. Non-indigenous marine species of Humboldt Bay, 

California. A Report to the California Department of Fish and Game. 

Briggs, K.T., W.B. Tyler, D.B. Lewis, and D.R. Carlson. 1987. Bird communities at sea off California: 

1975-1983. Studies in Avian Biology, No. 11.

California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2006. Our changing climate: Assessing the risks to California. A 

Summary Report from the California Climate Change Center.

California Department of Finance (CDOF). 2007. www.dof.ca.gov. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2004a. Recovery strategy for California Coho salmon. 

Report to the California Fish and Game Commission.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2004b. Annual status of the fisheries report through 

2003. Report to the California Fish and Game Commission.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2007. California Wildlife Action Plan: California wildlife 

conservation challenges. 

California Sea Grant (CSG). 2007. Climate change may be cause of seabird deaths. Christina S. Johnson, 

California Sea Grant.

Calla, S., S. Jerabek, and L. Bommelyn. 2005. A guide to the natural year and Native American celebrations: 

passing the moon through 13 baskets. Redwood Economic Development Institute, Crescent City, CA.

Capitolo, P.J., H.R. Carter, R.J. Young, G.J. McChesney, W.R. McIver, R.T. Golightly, and F. Gress. 2004a. 

Changes in breeding population size of Brandt’s and double-crested cormorants in California, 1975-

2003. Unpublished Report, Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. July 2004.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 137

Capitolo, P.J., H.R. Carter, G.J. McChesney, M.W. Parker, J.N. Hall, and R.T. Golightly. 2004b. Wholecolony counts of common murres, Brandt’s cormorants and double-crested cormorants at sample 

colonies in northern California, 1996-2003. Unpublished Report , Department of Wildlife, Humboldt 

State University, Arcata, CA; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay NWR Complex, 

Newark, CA, 40 pp. Dec. 2004.

Capitolo, P.J., G.J. McChesney, H.R. Carter, M.W. Parker, J.N. Hall, R.J. Young, and R.T. Golightly. 2006. 

Whole-colony counts of common murres, Brandt’s cormorants and double-crested cormorants at 

sample colonies in northern and central California, 1996-2004. Unpublished report, Department of 

Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San 

Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Newark, CA. 40 pp.

Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson, and M.S. Lowry. 2004. US Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments: 2004. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-375. 

Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson, and M.S. Lowry. 2005. U.S. Pacific 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2005. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-388.

Carter, H.C., G.J. McChesney, D.L. Jaques, C.S. Strong, and M.W. Parker 1992. Breeding populations of 

seabirds in California 1989–1991. Unpublished. rep., U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Res. Center, Dixon, CA and San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Newark, 

CA.

Carter, H.R., U.W. Wilson, R.W. Lowe, M.S. Rodway, D.A. Manuwal, J.E. Takekawa, and J.L. Yee. 2001. 

Population trends of the common murre (Uria aalge californica). In: D.A. Manuwal, H. R. Carter, 

T.S. Zimmerman, and D.L. Orthmeyer (Editors). Biology and conservation of the Common Murre 

in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Volume 1: Natural history and population 

trends. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Information and Technology Report 

USGS/BRD/ITR-2000-0012, Washington, DC. 

Carver, G.A., H.A. Abramson, C.E. Garrison-Laney, and T. Leroy. 1998. Investigation of paleotsunami 

evidence along the north coast of California. Unpublished document, Humboldt State University, 

Department of Geology. Arcata, CA. 

Cayan, D., P. Bromirski, K. Hayhoe, M. Tyree, M. Dettinger, and R. Flick. 2006. Projecting future sea level: 

A report from the California Climate Change Center. 

Cayan, D., M. Tyree, M. Dettinger, H. Hidalgo, T. Das, E. Maurer, P. Bromirski, N. Graham, and R. Flick. 

2009. Climate change scenarios and sea level rise estimates for California. 2008 Climate Change 

Scenarios Assessment. California Climate Change Center. In preparation. 

Clarke, S.H. Jr., and G.A. Carver. 1992. Late Holocene tectonics and paleoseismicity, Southern Cascadia 

Subduction Zone. Science 255:188-192.

Clay, C.I. (MS). Unpublished field notes 1901-1953. Humboldt State University Special Collections, Arcata, 

CA. 

Clay, C.I. 1925. Early nesting of the Fork-tailed Petrel. Condor 27:175-176.

Cook, S.F. 1976. The population of the California Indians 1769-1970. University of California Press, 

Berkeley, CA.

Cooke, S.S. (ed.) 1997. A field guide to the common wetland plants of western Washington and northwestern 

Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA.

Cooperrider, A., and R. Garrett. 1998. Klamath Central Pacific Coast Ecoregion Restoration Strategy: 

Volume 1 – Description of the ecoregion. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ukiah, CA and Klamath Falls, 

OR.
138 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 7

Cornu, C.E., and S. Sadro. 2002. Physical and functional responses to experimental marsh surface elevation 

manipulation in Coos Bays’ South Slough. Res. Ecol 10: 474-486.

Coy, O.C. 1982. The Humboldt Bay region 185-1875. Los Angeles; The California State Historical 

Association.

Cramblit, A. 2007. California Indian pre-contact tribal territories. Karuk Tribe, Northern California Indian 

Development Council. http://www.ncidc.org/pdfs/LocalTribalInfo.pdf Viewed February 28, 2007.

Crutsinger, G.M., and N.J. Sanders. 2005. Aphid-tending ants affect secondary users in leaf shelters 

and rates of herbivory on Salix hookeriana in a coastal dune habitat. American Midland Naturalist 

154:296-304.

Dawson, W. L. 1923. The birds of California. 4 Vols. South Moulton Co., San Diego. 2121 pp.

DeGange, A.R., and R.H. Day. 1991. Mortality of seabirds in the Japanese land-based gillnet fishery for 

salmon. Condor 93:251- 258.

DeGange, A.R., R.H. Day, J.E. Takekawa, and V.M. Mendenhall. 1993. Losses of seabirds in gill nets in the 

North Pacific. In: The status, ecology and conservation of marine bird of the North Pacific (K. Vermeer, 

K.T. Briggs, K.H. Morgan, and D. Siegel- Causey, eds.). Canadian Wildlife Service Special Publication, 

Ottowa, Ontario.

Del Norte County (DNC). 2003. Annual Crop Report for Del Norte County, Calendar year of 2003. Report 

to the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Deur, D. 2005. Tending the garden northwest coast estuarine gardens as engineered environments. In: Deur, 

D. and N.J. Turner. eds. Keeping it living traditions of plant use and cultivation on the northwest coast 

of North America. pp. 296-327. USA: University of Washington Press.

Drost, C.A., and D.B. Lewis. 1995. Xantus’ murrelet (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus). In: Poole, A. & Gill, 

F. (Eds). The Birds of North America. No. 164. Philadelphia & Washington, DC: Academy of Natural 

Sciences & American Ornithologists’ Union. 

Duffy, D.C. 1995. Apparent river otter predation at an Aleutian tern colony. Colonial Waterbirds 18(1):91-92.

Eicher, A.L. 1987. Salt marsh vascular plant distribution in relation to tidal elevation, Humboldt Bay, 

California. M.A. thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.

Eidsness, J.P. 1988. A summary of cultural resources projects, Redwood National Park. Redwood National 

Park, Arcata, CA.

Eidsness, J.P., D.D. Simons, S. Van Kirk, S.H. Bicknell, P. Brunmeier, A. Bramlette, S. Daniels, T. Origer, 

R. Hughes, T.L. Jackson, and P. Givens. 1993. Archaeological Investigations at CA-HUM-351/H on 

Humboldt Bay, California, for the Arcata Community Park and Sports Complex. Prepared for the City 

of Arcata, CA.

Eidness, J. 2003. Initial Cultural Resources Study for the Proposed Indian Island Rookery Enhancement 

and Cultural Restoration Project, City of Eureka, Humboldt County, California. Submitted to U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Restoration Programs, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA.

Elsasser, A. B. 1978. Wiyot. In: Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, R.F. Heizer, 

volume editor, pp. 155-163. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Elsasser, A.B., and R.F. Heizer. 1964. Archaeology of Site Humboldt 67: The Gunther Island Site. University 

of California Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley, CA.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 139

Employment Development Department of California (EDD). 2007. Humboldt County snapshot. www.calmis.

ca.gov/file/COsnaps/humbosnap.pdf Viewed July 6, 2007.

Eschker, E., G. Perks, and B. Foulds 2007. The Humboldt Economic Index, May 2007: www.humboldt.

edu/~indexhum/ Viewed July 6, 2007.

Evens, J., and I. Tait. 2005. Introduction to California birdlife. University of California Press. Berkeley and 

Los Angeles, CA. 

Ewins, P. J., H.R. Carter, and Y.V. Shibaev 1993. The status, distribution and ecology of inshore fish-feeding 

Alcids (Cepphus guillemots and Brachyramphus murrelets) in the north Pacific. In: Status, ecology 

and conservation of marine birds of the North Pacific (K. Vermeer et al., Eds.). Special Publication of 

the Canadian Wildlife Service and Pacific Seabird Group.

Fredrickson, D.A. 1984. The North Coastal Region. Chapter 10 in California Archaeology, Michael J. 

Moratto. Academic Press, NY.

Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod-Julius, B. Harrington, and G. Page. 2002. Global 

climate change and sea level rise: Potential losses of intertidal habitat for shorebirds.

Gaston, A.J., and S.B.C. Dechesne. 1996. Rhinoceros auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata). In: The birds of 

North America, No. 212 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, 

and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.

Gerike, C. 1988. Letter Report re: Proposed Humboldt Bay NWR, Humboldt County, CA. File 88168. 

California Archaeological Inventory, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA.

Giannico, G., and J.A. Souder. Tide gates in the Pacific Northwest: Operation, types and environmental 

effects. Oregon Sea Grant, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Glavich, D. 2000. Cryptogamic crusts in a coastal dune environment: Role playing, distribution and 

displacement by invasive exotic plants. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humboldt 

Bay NWR, Arcata, CA. 

Glavich, D.A. 2003. The distribution, ecology, and taxonomy of Bryoria spiralifera and B. pseudocapillaris

on the Samoa Peninsula, Humboldt Co., Coastal northern California. The Bryologist 106:588-595.

Gleick, and E. Moore. 2009. The impacts of sea-level rise on the California coast draft paper. California 

Climate Change Center. March 2009. CEC-500-2009-024-D. 

Gordon, D.M. 1984. Ecology of bees from coastal dunes, Humboldt County, California. M.A. thesis, 

Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.

Gordon, D.M. 2000. Plants as indicators of leafcutter bee (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) nest habitat in 

coastal dunes. Pan-Pacific Entomologist 76:219-233.

Gould, R.A. 1966. Archaeology of the Point St. Geroge site, and Tolowa prehistory. University of California 

Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles. 141 pp.

Gregory, S., K. Boyer, and A. Gurnell, eds. 2003. The ecology and management of wood in world rivers. Am 

Fish Soc Sym 37.

Griswold, M.D., Jr. 1985. Distribution and movements of pinnipeds in Humboldt and Del Norte counties, 

California. M.A. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 101 pp. 

Harris, S.W. 1974. Status, chronology, and ecology of nesting storm petrels in northern California. Condor 

76: 249–261.
140 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 7

Harris, S.W. 1996. Northwestern California Birds. Humboldt State University Press, Arcata, CA. Second 

Edition.

Harrison, P. 1983. Seabirds of the world: an identification guide. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Hatch, J.J., and D.V. Weseloh. 1999. Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). In: The birds of 

North America, No. 441 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Hayes, J.F. 1983. An archaeological survey of a proposed levee construction site in the southern Humboldt 

Bay Area, Humboldt County, California. Cultural Resources Facility, Sonoma State University, Rohnert 

Park, CA.

Hayes, M.C., C.J. Rombough, and C.B. Hayes. 2007. Rana aurora movement. Herpetological Review 

38(2): 192-193. 

Haynes, C.S. 2003. Mad River Canal. Humboldt Historian. Spring, 2003:9-17.

Haseltine, S. 2008. Climate change: Trends, future scenarios, and impacts on fish and wildlife. Associate 

Director for Biology Associate, Presented March 24, 2008 at the 73rd NA Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Hemphill-Haley, E. 1992. Application of diatom paleoecology to interpretations of Holocene relative 

sea-level change and coseismic subsidence in southwestern Washinton. PhD Dissertation. University of 

California, Santa Cruz.

Hickman, J.C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. U.C. Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Hickey, C., W.D. Shuford, G.W. Page, and S. Warnock. 2003. Version 1.1. The Southern Pacific Shorebird 

Conservation Plan: A strategy for supporting California’s Central Valley and coastal shorebird 

populations. PRBO Conservation Science, Stinson Beach, CA. 

Hildebrandt, W.R., and L. Swenson. 1985. Ethnography and prehistory of the North Coast Range, 

California. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication Number 8. pp. 53-52.

Hobson, K.A. 1997. Pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus). In: The birds of North America, No. 282 

(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.

Hodder, J., R.F. Brown, and C. Cziesla. 1998. The northern elephant seal in Oregon: a pupping range 

extension and onshore occurrence. Marine Mammal Science, 14(4):873-881.

Huber, H.R., A.C. Rovetta, L.A. Fry, and S. Johnston. 1991. Age-specific natality of northern elephant seals 

at the South Farralon Islands, CA. Journal of Mammalogy 72: 525–534.

Hughes, R.E. 1978. Aspects of prehistoric Wiyot exchange and social ranking. Journal of California 

Anthropology 5(1): 53-66.

Hull, D.M. 2002. The current uses of Humboldt Bay. In: Humboldt Bay and Watershed Symposium, 

February 8-9 2002. 

Humboldt Bay Watershed Advisory Committee and The Natural Resources Services Division of Redwood 

Community Action Agency (HBWAC, RCAA). 2005. Humboldt Bay Watershed Salmon and Steelhead 

Conservation Plan. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game and the California 

Coastal Commission.

Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District (HBHRCD). 2007. Humboldt Bay 

Management Plan. http://www.humboldtbay.org/harbordistrict/documents/
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 141

Humboldt County (HC). 2001. Humboldt 21st Century Natural Resources and Hazards Report; County 

General Plan Update. Humboldt County, CA.

Hunt, G.L. 1995. In: Ralph, John C., George L. Hunt, Jr., Martin G. Raphael, and John F. Piatt. Ecology and 

conservation of the marbled murrelet. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW- 152. 1995.

Huntington, C.E., R.G. Butler, and R.A. Mauck. 1996. Leach’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa). In: 

The birds of North America, No. 233 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, 

Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis, 

summary for policymakers. Geneva, Switzerland.

Jaques, D.L. 2004. Diurnal seabirds and Aleutian cackling geese: Use of Castle Rock NWR in 2004. 

Unpublished draft report to the USFWS, Humboldt Bay NWR. 18 pp.

Jacques, D. 2007. Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge information synthesis. Prepared for the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service by Pacific Eco Logic.

Jaques, D., and C.S. Strong. 1995. 1995 Survey of northern elephant seals and other pinnipeds at Castle 

Rock National Wildlife Refuge. Unpubished Report to the USFWS San Francisco Bay NWR and the 

Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. May 1995. 7pp.

Jaques, D., and C.S. Strong. 2001. Seabird status at Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge, 1997–1999. Fin. 

rep. to U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Humboldt Bay NWR, Loleta, CA.

Knudtson, P. M. 1974. Mother-pup behavior within a pupping colony of harbor seals (P. v. richardsi) in 

Humboldt Bay, California. M.A. Thesis, Humboldt State Univ., Arcata. 42 pp.

Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington, DC, U.S Government Printing 

Office.

Larned, S.T. 2003. Effects of the invasive, nonindigenous seagrass Zostera japonica on nutrient fluxes 

between the water column and benthos in a NE Pacific estuary. Marine Ecology—Progress Series 

254:69-80. 

Le Boeuf, B.J., and M.L. Bonnell. 1980. Pinnipeds of the California islands: abundance and distribution. 

Pages 475-493 in D. Power, ed. The California islands. Santa Barbara Mus. Nat. Hist. 787 pp.

Le Boeuf, B.J., and M.L. Bonnell. 1981. Pinnipeds of the California Islands: abundance and distribution. Pp. 

475-493, in, D.M. Power (ed.), The California Islands: Proceedings of a Multi-disciplinary Symposium. 

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA.

Le Boeuf, B.J., D.E. Crocker, S.B. Blackwell, P.A. Morris, and P.H. Thorson. 1993. Sex differences in 

foraging in northern elephant seals. Pages 149–178 In: I.L. Boyd, editor. Marine mammals: advances in 

behavioral and population biology. Oxford University Press, London, UK

Leppig, G., and A. Pickart. 2005. Vascular plants of Humboldt Bay dunes and wetlands. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Humboldt Bay NWR, Arcata, CA, and California Department of Fish and Game, 

Eureka, CA.

Lewis, O., ed. 1943. The Quest for Qual-a-wa-loo (Humboldt Bay). Oakland, California: Holmes Book Co. 

Limpert, R.J., and S.L. Earnst. 1994. Tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus). In: The birds of North America, 

No. 89 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC, 

The American Ornithologists’ Union.
142 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 7

Loud, L.L. 1918. Ethnogeography and archaeology of Wiyot territory. University of California Publications 

in American Archaeology and Ethnology 14 (3): 221-436.

Loughlin, T.R. 1978. Harbor seals in and adjacent to Humboldt Bay, CA. Calif. Fish and Game. 64:127-133.

Lowry, M.S., and O. Maravilla-Chavez. 2005. Recent abundance of California sea lions in western Baja 

California, Mexico and the United States. In Proceedings 6th California Islands symposium, Ventura, 

California, U.S., December 1-3, 2003, p. 485-497. National Park Service Tech Publ. CHIS-05-01, 

Institute for Wildlife Studies, Arcata, CA.

Lyon, V. 2000. Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Program, 1999-2000; Progress Report for California and 

Southern Oregon. US Fish and Wildlife Service, San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Los 

Banos, CA.

Manuwal, D.A., and A.C. Thoresen. 1993. Cassin’s auklet (Ptychoramphus aleutics). In: The birds of 

North America, No. 50. A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; 

Washington, D.C., The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Mate, B.R., 1973. Population kinetics and related ecology of the northern sea lion, Eumatopias jubatus and 

the California sea lion, Zalophus californianus, along the Oregon coast. Unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of 

Oregon, Eugene. 93pp. 

McChesney, G.J., H.R. Carter, and D.L. Whitworth. 1995. Reoccupation and extension of southern breeding 

limits of tufted puffins and rhinoceros auklets in California. Colonial Waterbirds 18(1):79-90.

Mead and Hunt. 2005. Del Norte County Airport Master Report Plan, Public Review Draft. Prepared for 

the County of Del Norte.

Melin, S.R., and R.L. DeLong. 2000. Population monitoring studies of northern fur seals at San Miguel 

Island, California. Pp. 41-51, In: Robson, B. W. (ed.), Fur seal investigations, 1998. U.S. Dep. Commer., 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-113. 101 pp.

Mini, A.E. 2003. Shorebird, waterfowl, and other waterbird use of the Humboldt Bay NWR, July – 

November 2003. Prepared for the USFWS, Humboldt Bay NWR Complex.

Monroe, G.M. 1973. The Natural Resources of Humboldt Bay. Coastal Wetland Series No. 6. CA State Dept 

of Fish and Game.

Moratto, M. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Francisco, CA.

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

National Institute of Health (NIH). 2007. Dioxin research at the National Institute of Environmental Health 

Sciences. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/factsheets/dioxin.htm Viewed March 20, 2007.

Nelson, E.T. 1989. The composition, distribution, and seasonal abundance of waterbirds using South 

Humboldt Bay, July 1987- June 1988. Masters thesis. Humboldt State University. Arcata, CA.

Nettleship, D.N. 1972. Breeding success of the common puffin on different habitats at Great Island, 

Newfoundland. Ecological Monographs 42: 239-268.

Newby, L.C. 1980. Impact of salt marsh chemistry on Spartina and Salicornia distribution, Indian Island, 

Humboldt Bay, CA. Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. 

NOAA Fisheries Service. 2006. Draft revised recovery plan for the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 143

NOAA Fisheries Service. 2007. Total commercial fishery landings at an individual U. S. port for all years 

after 1980. http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/landings/lport_hist.html Viewed July 6, 2007.

Nomland, G., and A. Kroeber. 1936. Wiyot Towns. University of California Publications in American 

Archaeology and Ethnology 35(5):39-48. Berkeley, CA.

North Coast Air Quality Management District (NCAQMD). 2007. Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

http://www.ncuaqmd.org/index.php?page=air.monitoring Viewed February 2, 2007.

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB). 2007. Water Quality Control Plan for the 

North Coast Region.

Nyoka, S.E. 2004. The effects of exotic plants on the diversity and abundance of bees in the Humboldt Bay 

dune system. M.A. thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.

Orme, A.R. 1992. Late Quaternary deposits near Point Sal, south-central California: a time frame for 

coastal-dune emplacement. Pp. 309-315 in: C.H. Fletcher, III and J.F. Wehmiller eds., Quaternary 

coasts of the United States: Marine and lacustrine systems. Society for Sedimentary Geology Special 

Publication No. 48. Tulsa, OK.

Orme, A.R., and V.P. Tchakerian. 1986. Quaternary dunes of the Pacific Coast of the Californias. Pp. 

150-175 in: Nickling, W.G., ed., Aeolian geomorphology. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Binghamton 

Geomorphology Symposium, September 1986. Allen & Unwin, London.

Osborne, T.O. 1972. Ecology and avian use of the coastal rocks of northern California. Unpublished, M.S. 

Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 215 pp.

Outdoor Industry Foundation (OIF). 2006. The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy. 

Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Association (PCFWWRA). 2003. Final Lower 

Salmon Creek Delta Salmonid Habitat Enhancement Opportunities. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge, Humboldt County, California. A feasibility scoping report for the California Department of 

Fish and Game and Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Prepared by Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife 

and Wetlands Restoration Association. Michael Love & Associates, Graham Matthews & Associates. 

Arcata, CA. 78 pp.

Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Association (PCFWWRA). 2008. Technical 

Memorandum. Salmon Creek Phase II Planning Project – Background, summary of preliminary 

conceptual design, and proposed analyses to further inform design development and refinement. 

Michael Love and Associates. Arcata, CA. 15 pp.

Pacific Coast Joint Venture (PCJV). 2004. Pacific Coast Joint Venture, Northern California Component, 

Strategic Plan Update. 

Pacific Flyway Council (PFC). 2001. Pacific Flyway management plan for the western population of tundra 

swans. Pacific Flyway Study Committee, Subcommittee on Tundra Swans, Portland, OR. Unpublished 

Report.

Pacific Flyway Council (PFC). 2002. Pacific Flyway management plan for Pacific brant. Pacific Flyway Study 

Committee, Portland, OR. Unpublished report.

Pacific Flyway Council (PFC). 2006. Pacific Flyway management plan for Aleutian cackling geese. Pacific 

Flyway Study Committee, Portland, OR. Unpublished report.

Parmesan, C., and H. Galbraith. 2004. Observed impacts of global climate change in the U.S. Prepared for 

the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, November 2004.
144 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 7

Peterson, C.D., E. Stock, C. Cloyd, C. Clough, J.M. Erlandson, G. Gelfenbaum, R. Hart, J. Murillo, D. Percy, 

D. Price, F. Reckendorf, and S. Vanderburgh. 2004. Morphostratigraphy and dating of coastal dune 

sheets in Washington, Oregon, northern California, and San Miguel Island, United States, and Baja 

California Sur, Mexico: West Coast Database. USGS Open-File Report.

Piatt, J.F., and A.S. Kitaysky. 2002. Horned puffin (Fratercula corniculata). In: The birds of North America, 

no. 611 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Pickart, A.J. 2001. The distribution of Spartina densiflora and two rare salt marsh plants in Humboldt Bay 

1998-1999. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata, CA.

Pickart, A.J. 2005a. Assessment of Jacoby Creek Salt Marsh: October 21, 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

Pickart, A.J. 2005b. A preliminary description of the Table Bluff Unit wetland vegetation, Humboldt Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Pickart, A.J. 2006. Indian Island Rookery Enhancement and Cultural Restoration Project. Prepared for the 

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex.

Pickart, A.J. 2008. Restoring the grasslands of northern California’s coastal dunes. Grasslands 18(1):4-9. 

Pickart, A.J., and M.G. Barbour. 2007. Beach and dune. Pages 155-179 In: M.G. Barbour, T. Keeler-Wolf, & 

A.A. Schoenherr, eds. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Third Edition. U.C. Press, Berkeley, CA.

Pickart, A.J., A.L. Eicher, M.M. Bivin, and K.F. Hayler. 2000. Changes in a metapopulation of the 

endangered Humboldt Bay wallflower (Erysimum menziesii [Hook.] Wettst. ssp. eurekense R.A. 

Price) in relation to disease incidence and management. Natural Areas Journal 20:234-242. 

Pickart, A., P. Golightly, and A. Davis. 2006. Enhancement plan for the Indian Island rookery. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Arcata, CA. 

Pierotti, R.J., and C.A. Annett. 1995. Western gull (Larus occidentalis). In: The birds of North America, 

No. 174 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.

Pitcher, K. W., P. F. Olesiuk, R. F. Brown, M. Lowry, J. Sease, W. Perryman, C. Stinchcomb, and L. Lowry. 

2003. Status and trend of the eastern population of Steller sea lions. Marine Sciences in the Northeast 

Pacific Symposium, 13-17 January, 2003, Anchorage, AK.

Posey, M.H. 1988. Community changes associated with the spread of an introduced seagrass, Zostera 

japonica. Ecology. 69(4). 1988. 974-983. Raymond, Anan W. 1990. Cultural Resources Survey at 

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge: Humboldt County, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Portland, OR. 

Powell, J.A., 1978. Endangered habitats for insects: California coastal sand dunes. Atala 6(1-2): 41-55. 

Ralph, C.J., K. Hollinger, and Miller, S.L. 1998. Monitoring productivity with multiple mist-net stations. 

Studies in Avian Biology No. 29:12–20.

Ralph, C.J., K. Hollinger, and Miller, S.L. 1998. Monitoring productivity with multiple mist-net stations. 

Studies in Avian Biology No. 29:12–20.

Raymond, Anan, 1990. Cultural Resource survey at Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Humboldt 

County, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 36 pp.

Redwood Coast Energy Authority (RCEA). 2005. Humboldt County Energy Element Background 

Technical Report. Prepared by Schatz Energy Research Center, Humboldt State University. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 145

Reed, A., D.H. Ward, D.V. Derksen, and J.S. Sedinger. 1998. Brant (Branta bernicla). In: The birds of North 

America, No. 337 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Rumrill, S. 2002. An introduction to the coastal land margin ecosystem. In: Humboldt Bay and Watershed 

Symposium, February 8-9 2002. 

Rumrill, S.S., and V.K. Poulton. 2004. Ecological role and potential impacts of molluscan shellfish culture in 

the estuarine environment of Humboldt Bay, CA. Oregon Department of State Lands, South Slough 

National Estuarine Research Reserve, Estuarine and Coastal Science Library, Charleston, OR.

Sawyer, J.O. 1984. The plants recognized or collected from Castle Rock, Del Norte, Co. CA. Unpublished 

Report, Prepared October 16, 1984. Humboldt State University.

Sawyer, J.O., and J.M. André. 1990. an integrated approach to enchancing rare plant populations through 

habitat restoration: (I) Population estimates for the Menzies’ wallflower. Pp. 469-477. In: H.G. Hughes 

and T.M. Bonnicksen, eds., Restoration ‘89: the new management challenge. Society for Ecological 

Restoration, Madison, WI. 

Schlosser, S.C., Price-Hall, R., Eicher, E., Hohl, A., Mierau, D., and G. Crawford. 2009. Humboldt 

Bay Initiative: Adaptive management in a changing world. 86 pp. http://groups.ucanr.org/

HumboldtBayEBM/ 

Seidner, C. 1999. Wiyot Nation. http://www.originalvoices.org/priceofgoldeight.htm Viewed October 31, 

2007.

Sendak, C.M. 2008. Spatial ecology and site occupancy of the northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora) in a 

coastal dune environment. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.

Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 1980. Humboldt Bay wetlands review and baylands analysis. Report prepared 

in three volumes for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District; contract number 

DACW07-78-C-0082.

Shaughnessy, P.D., and F.H. Fay. 1977. A review of the taxonomy and nomenclature of North Pacific harbour 

seals. J. Zool. (London) 182:385-419.

Shaughnessy, F.J., C.L. McGary, A.J. Frimodig, C. Witte, G.B. Roberts. 2007. Known and unknown 

aspects of bottom-up and top-down regulation of eelgrass in Humboldt Bay, California. In: Current 

perspectives on the physical and biological processes in Humboldt Bay. (S.C. Schlosser and R. 

Rasmussen, eds.) California Sea Grant Publication No. T-063. Pages 65-104.

Shriner, D., and R. Street. 1998. North America. The regional impacts of climate change: An assessment of 

vulnerability. (Eds. R. Watson, M. Zinyowera and R. Moss) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

pp. 253-330. 

Sibley, D.A. 2007. Identification of Canada and cackling goose. 

http://www.sibleyguides.com/canada_cackling.htm Viewed July 10, 2007.

Siegel-Causey, D., and N.M. Litvinenko. 1993. Status, ecology, and conservation of shags and cormorants of 

the temperate North Pacific. In: Status, ecology and conservation of marine birds of the North Pacific 

(K. Vermeer, K. T. Briggs, K. H. Morgan, and D. Siegel-Causey, eds.). Can. Wildlife Services Special 

Publication, Ottawa.

Smerling, T., M.S., B. Stygar, and M.H. Surridge. 2005. Predicting the impact of sea level rise on National 

Wildlife Refuges: A manual for coastal managers. Report to Brian Czech, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Fall 2005. 
146 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 7

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 

Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

Accessed 2007

Sowls, A.L., A.R. DeGange, J.W. Nelson, and G.S. Lester. 1980. Catalog of California seabird colonies. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service Biological Services Program. S/OBS/ 37/80. 371 p.

Sparks, V.K. 1988. Indian Island: A Place of Triumphs and Tears. Humboldt Historian 36(5):3-8. Humboldt 

County Historical Society, Eureka, CA.

Speich, S.M., and T.R. Wahl. 1989. Catalog of Washington seabird colonies. OCS Study, Fish Wildl. Serv. and 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Biological Report 88 (6).

Stewart, B.S., and H.R. Huber. 1993. Mirounga angustirostris. Mammalian Species 449: 1–10.

Stewart, B.S., P.K. Yochem, H.R. Huber, R.L. DeLong, R.J. Jameson, W.J. Sydeman, S.G. Allen, and B.J. 

Le Boeuf. 1994. History and present status of the northern elephant seal population. Pages 29–48. In: 

B. J. Le Boeuf and R. M. Laws, editors. Elephant seals: population ecology, behavior, and physiology. 

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Strong, C., and D. Jaques. 1999. Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Program: Population size and land use in 

Del Norte County during spring. Report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Thayer, G.W., T.A. McTigue, R.J. Salz, D.H. Merkey, F.M. Burrows, and P.F. Gayaldo. 2005. Science-based 

restoration monitoring of coastal habitats. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, MD.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Save the Redwoods League (SRL), and North Coast Regional Land Trust 

(NCRLT). 2005. Working toward a Humboldt - Del Norte conservation vision: Identifying regional 

conservation priorities.

Thompson, R.W. 1971. Recent sediments of Humboldt Bay. Final report, Pet. Res. Fund, PRF 789-G2, 

Eureka, CA.

Thoresen, A.C. 1964. The breeding biology of the Cassin’s auklet. Condor 66:456-476.

University of California Agricultural and Natural Resources Program (UCANRP). 2007. 

http://groups.ucanr.org/HumboldtBayEBM/ Viewed July 27, 2007.

University of Oregon (UO). 2007. Tolowa or Smith River. In: The Languages of Oregon. Department of 

Linguistics, Eugene Oregon. http://logos.uoregon.edu/explore/Oregon/athabascan.html 

Viewed February 28, 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. Dioxins and related compounds. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=55264 Viewed March 20, 2007.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1978. Negative Declaration. Proposed land acquisition project for 

the Aleutian Canada goose (Branta Canadensis leucopareia), an Endangered Species. Portland, OR. 

38 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983. The California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan. Prepared 

under contract with F. Gress and D.W. Anderson.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Environmental assessment update: Proposed land 

acquisition for Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Humboldt County California. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 147

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Cultural resource survey at Humboldt Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge, Humboldt County, California. Raymond, Anan, USFWS, Regional Archaeologist, Portland, 

OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Aleutian Canada goose (Branta Canadensis leucopareia) 

Recovery Plan. Prepared by the Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Team for Region 7, USFWS 

Anchorage AK. 49pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. The Native American Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Environmental Assessment: Lanphere Dunes Unit. 

USFWS, 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Seven Coastal Plants and the Myrtle’s Silverspot Butterfly 

Recovery Plan. USFWS Region 1, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule 

To Remove the Aleutian Canada Goose From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

Federal Register: 66, No. 54, 15643 - 15656.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003b. Restoration, Management, and Monitoring Plan for Beach 

Pine/ Sitka Spruce Forest and Red Alder Riparian Forest at the Lanphere Dunes Unit, Humboldt Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished Report to the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Wildland Fire Management Plan. Humboldt Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. Loleta, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006a. Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius 

newberryi). USFWS, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006b. Revised Critical Habitat for the Tidewater Goby 

(Eucyclogobius newberryi): 71, No. 228, 68914 – 68995.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the 

Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). California Nevada Operations Office, 

Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. Menzies’ wallflower (Erysimum menziesii) 5-year review: Summary 

and evaluation. Arcata Field Office, Arcata CA (http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1937.pdf) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. Division of Migratory 

Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85pp. [online version available at http://www.fws.gov/

migratorybirds/] 

Verbeek, N.A.M. 1982. Egg predation by Northwestern Crows: its association with human activity and Bald 

Eagle activity. Auk 99: 347–352.

Vermeer, K. 1979. Nesting requirements, food and breeding distribution of Rhinoceros Auklets, Cerorhinca 

monocerata, and Tufted Puffin, Lunda cirrhata. Ardea 67:101-110. 

Wallace, E.A.H., and G.E. Wallace. 1998. Brandt’s Cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicillatus). In: The Birds of 

North America, No. 362 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
148 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHAPTER 7

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN). 2007. Humboldt Bay Complex. http://www.

whsrn.org/index.html Viewed February 28, 2007.

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2007. Western U.S. Historical Climate Summaries. http://www.

wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html Viewed February 28, 2007.

Williamson, K.J. 2006. Relationships between eelgrass (Zostera marina) habitat characteristics and juvenile 

Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) and other invertebrates in southern Humboldt Bay, California, 

USA. M.A. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.

Wires, L.R., F.J. Cuthbert, D.R. Trexel, and A.R. Joshi. 2001. Status of the double-crested cormorant 

(Phalacrocorax auritus) in North America. Final Report to USFWS.

Wiyot Tribe. 2007. Wiyot Tribe history and culture. http://www.wiyot.com/history.htm Viewed September 

24, 2007.

Woolington, D.W., P.F. Springer, and D.R. Yparraguirre. 1979. Migration and wintering ecology of the 

Aluetian Canada goose. Pp. 299-309. In: R.L. Jarvis and J.C. Bartonek, eds. Management and biology 

of Pacific Flyway geese: a symposium. Oregon State Univ. Book Stores, Inc. Corvallis. 

Wyllie-Echeverria, S. and J.D. Ackerman. 2003. The Pacific coast of North America. In: World Atlas of 

Seagrasses eds. E.P Green & F.T Short University of California Press Berkeley, California USA pp 

199-206 

Yocom, C. F., and S. W. Harris. 1975. Birds of northwestern California. Humboldt State Univ. Bookstore, 

Arcata. 74 pp.

Zerlang, L., and T. Fraser. 1940. A large set of the black oystercatcher. Condor. 42:264.

Personal Communications

Bommelyn, Loren. Tolowa Tribe. Crescent City, CA.

Brown, Robin. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Marine Mammal Research Program. Newport, OR.

Capitolo, Phil J. University of California, Santa Cruz, CA.

Jacques, Deborah. Pacific Eco Logic. 

Lewis, Steve. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humboldt Bay NWR. Humboldt County, CA.

Lowery, Mark. NOAA Fisheries Service. Southwest Fisheries Science Center. La Jolla, CA.

McBride, Andy. July 2004. Landowner. Humboldt County, CA.

McClelland, Marty. McClelland Consulting. Kneeland, CA.

Nelson, Eric. Refuge Manager, Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Loleta, CA.

Ramey, Kirsten. May 2008. Associate Fishery Biologist, CA Department of Fish and Game. Wendel, CA.

Wallace, Mike. December 2006. Associated Biologist, CA Department of Fish and Game, North Coast 

Region, CA.

Wood, Dennis. Northcoast Marine Mammal Center (NCMMC). Crescent City, CA.
Appendices
150 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDICES

Appendices

Appendix A: Glossary..................................................................................................................................... A–1

Appendix B: Visitor Services Plan................................................................................................................ B–1

Appendix C: Waterfowl Hunt Plan ............................................................................................................... C–1

Appendix D: Sport Fishing Plan...................................................................................................................D–1

Appendix E: Final Environmental Assessment..........................................................................................E–1

Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations ................................................................................................ F–1

 Compatibility Determination for Environmental Education and Interpretation for 

 Humboldt Bay NWR............................................................................................................................. F–1

 Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation and Photography for Humboldt Bay 

 NWR........................................................................................................................................................ F–7

 Compatibility Determination for Recreational Boating for Humboldt Bay NWR..................... F–15

 Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting for Humboldt Bay NWR........................ F–21

 Compatibility Determination for Fishing for Humboldt Bay NWR ............................................ F–31

 Compatibility Determination for Grazing and Haying for Humboldt Bay NWR ...................... F–35

 Compatibility Determination for Mosquito Control for Humboldt Bay NWR........................... F–39

 Compatibility Determination for Plant Gathering for Humboldt Bay NWR.............................. F–43

 Compatibility Determination for Research for Humboldt Bay NWR ......................................... F–47

 Compatibility Determination for Research for Castle Rock NWR.............................................. F–53

Appendix G: Wilderness Review for Humboldt Bay NWR and Castle Rock NWR.............................. G–1

Appendix H: Supplemental Legal and Policy Guidance ............................................................................H–1

Appendix I: Compliance with Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act................................... I–1

Appendix J: Plant Lists...................................................................................................................................J–1

 Humboldt Bay NWR Flora ...................................................................................................................J–1

 Castle Rock NWR Flora......................................................................................................................J–27

Appendix K: Wildlife Lists.............................................................................................................................K–1

 Reptiles and Amphibians......................................................................................................................K–1

 Mammals.................................................................................................................................................K–3

 Birds. .......................................................................................................................................................K–5

 Fish.. ......................................................................................................................................................K–19

Appendix L: Locally Occurring Special Status Species............................................................................. L–1

Appendix M: Public Involvement Process for the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

 CCP/EA........................................................................................................................................................M–1

Appendix N: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex History.................................................. N–1

Appendix O: List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................... O–1

Appendix P: Coastal Flood Hazard Maps.................................................................................................... Q–1

Appendix Q: Compliance with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act ..........................................R–1

Appendix R: Responses to Comments on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

 Environmental Assessment...................................................................................................................S–1
Appendix A: Humboldt Bay NWR Complex CCP Glossary

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 A-1

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. 

Algae (plural of alga)—Any of numerous groups of chlorophyll-containing, mainly aquatic organisms 

ranging from microscopic single-celled forms to large multicellular forms, distinguished from plants by 

the absence of true roots, stems, and leaves and by a lack of nonreproductive cells in the reproductive 

structures.

Alliance (plant alliance)—A uniform group of plant associations sharing one or more dominant or diagnostic 

plant species which, are found in the uppermost strata of the vegetation.

Alkalinity—Refers to the extent to which water or soils contain soluble mineral salts. Waters with a pH 

greater than 7.4 are considered alkaline.

Allelopathy—The inhibition of growth in one species of plants by chemicals produced by another species.

Alluvial—Made of clay, sand, or dirt washed by flowing water.

Alternatives—Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and goals, 

helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving issues. (1) A reasonable way to fix the identified 

problem or satisfy the stated need. (40 CFR 150.2) (2) Alternatives are different means of accomplishing 

refuge purposes and goals and contributing to the System mission (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Ammocoetes—Juvenille lampreys. 

Anadromous—A lifecycle of fish that involves migrating up rivers from the sea to breed in fresh water 

followed by young returning to the sea until reaching maturity. 

Animal Unit Month (AUM)—The amount of forage necessary to maintain one 1,000-pound animal for one 

month.

Aquatic—Pertaining to water, in contrast to land. Living in or upon water. 

Aquatic Habitat—The physical, chemical, and vegetative features that occur within the water of lakes, 

ponds, reservoirs, rivers, irrigation canals, and other bodies of water.

Artifact—An object made by humans; usually in reference to primitive tools, vessels, weapons, etc.

Biodiversity (biological diversity)—Refers to the full range of variability within and among biological 

communities, including genetic diversity, and the variety of living organisms, assemblages of living 

organisms, and biological processes. Diversity can be measured in terms of the number of different items 

(species, communities) and their relative abundance, and it can include horizontal and vertical variability. 

The variety of life, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the 

communities in which they occur. 

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex CCP Glossary
A-2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX A

Biological Integrity—Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at the genetic, organism, and 

community levels consistent with natural conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape 

genomes, organisms, and communities. 

Birds of Conservation Concern—A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designation given to bird species 

(beyond those listed as endangered or threatened) that represent our highest conservation priorities and 

draw attention to species in need of conservation action.

California Current—The ocean current flowing southward along the western coast of the United States to 

northern Baja California.

California Species of Special Concern—A California Department of Fish and Game designation given 

to certain vertebrate species because declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats 

have made them vulnerable to extinction.

Carnivore—An animal that kills and eats other animals.

Categorical Exclusion (CE, CX, CATEX, CATX)—A category of actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and have been found to have no such effect 

in procedures adopted by a Federal agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 

1508.4).

Cetacean—Any of various aquatic, chiefly marine mammals of the order Cetacea, including the whales, 

dolphins, and porpoises, characterized by a nearly hairless body, anterior limbs modified into broad flippers, 

vestigial posterior limbs, and a flat notched tail.

Closed-cone pines—Pine species that rely upon fire to open their cones and release seeds.

Community—The combined populations of all organisms in a given area, and their interactions. For 

example, the frogs, fish, algae, cattails, and lily pads in a backyard pond make up a community. 

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)—A document that describes the desired future conditions of 

the refuge or planning unit; and provides long-range guidance and management direction to accomplish the 

purposes of the refuge, helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, 

restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; helps achieve the goals of the 

National Wilderness Preservation System; and meets other mandates.

Creching—The formation of groups of chicks from two or more broods in or adjacent to the breeding 

colony.

Crustacean—any of various predominantly aquatic arthropods of the class Crustacea, including lobsters, 

crabs, shrimps, and barnacles, characteristically having a segmented body, a chitinous exoskeleton, and 

paired, jointed limbs.

Cryptogamic Mat—short dune communities made up of members of a formerly recognized taxonomic 

group that included all seedless plants and plantlike organisms, such as mosses, algae, ferns, and fungi.

Cultural Resource—The physical remains of human activity (artifacts, ruins, burial mounds, petroglyphs, 

etc.) and conceptual content or context (as a setting for legendary, historic, or prehistoric events, such as a 

sacred area of native peoples) of an area. It includes historical, archaeological and architectural significant 

resources. 

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

of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. Inventories may involve various levels, 

including background literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all exposed physical 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 A-3

manifestations of cultural resources, or 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). 

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

other things, its prehistory and cultural history, the nature and extent of known cultural resources, previous 

research, management objectives, resource management conflicts or issues, and 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 described in Section VIII of the Cultural 

Resource Management Handbook (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7).

Dike—An embankment of earth and rock built to prevent floods.

Dune—A hill or ridge of wind-blown sand.

Ecosystem—The sum of all interacting parts of the environment and associated ecological communities 

within a particular area; an ecological system. Many levels of ecosystems have been recognized. Very few, 

if any ecosystems are self-contained; most influence, or are influenced by, components or forces outside the 

system. 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. 

Effect—A change in a resource, caused by a variety of events including project attributes acting on a 

resource attribute (direct), not directly acting on a resource attribute (indirect), another project attributes 

acting on a resource attribute (cumulative), and those caused by natural events (e.g., seasonal change).

Emergent Vegetation—Rooted, aquatic plants that have most of their vegetative (nonroot) parts above 

water. 

Endemic Species—Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and whose distribution is 

relatively limited to a particular locality. 

Endangered Species—Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range and listed as such by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973. Endangered species are afforded protection under the Act as amended and under various State 

laws for State-listed species.

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

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such 

action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental Health—Abiotic composition, structure, and functioning of the environment consistent 

with natural conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment.

Epifauna—Benthic fauna that live on a surface, such as the sea floor, other organisms, or objects.

Epiphyte—A plant that grows on another plant upon which it depends for mechanical support but not for 

nutrients.

Eradicate—To effectively eliminate a non-native organism from a defined area. It is acknowledged that 

weeds can be reintroduced (including by natural dispersal) and that, as the Office of Technology Assessment 

states in “Harmful Non-Indigenous Species of the United States (1993), “some continued unintentional 

introductions are inevitable...perfect screening, detection, and control are technically impossible and will 

remain so in the foreseeable future.” Our use of the term “eradication” suggests that the goal of the effort 

is to eliminate a species regionally, such that only continued screening is needed to detect and remove minor 

missed, re-established, or re-introduced occurrences. This contrasts with our use of the word “control” 

where the goal of the effort is to reduce the population to a level that requires minimal maintenance, 

knowing that continued dispersal from adjacent populations is likely. 
A-4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX A

Estuarine—Of, relating to, or found in an estuary.

Estuarine Wetland—Deepwater and wetland areas that are usually semi-enclosed with an opening to the 

ocean and in which there is some mixing of fresh and sea water.

Estuary—The part of the wide lower course of a river where its current is met by the tides.

EuroAmerican—A U.S. citizen or resident of European descent.

Eutrophic—Having waters rich in mineral and organic nutrients that promote a proliferation of plant 

life, especially algae, which reduces the dissolved oxygen content and often causes the extinction of other 

organisms. Used of a lake or pond.

Eutrophication—The process of becoming eutrophic.

Evapotranspiration—The collective processes by which water is transferred from the surface of the earth, 

including from the soil and the surface of water-bodies (through evaporation) and from plants (through 

transpiration). 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)—A population or group of populations inhabiting a defined 

geographical area that comprises a unique segment of the species; a distinct population, reproductively 

isolated from other conspecific populations and is an important evolutionary legacy of the species.

Exotic and Invading Species (Noxious Weeds)—Plant species designated by Federal or State law as 

generally possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive or difficult to manage; 

parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insects or disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the United 

States, according to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious weed is one that causes disease or 

has adverse effects on man or his environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce 

of the Unite States and to the public health.

Eyrie (aerie)—The nest of a bird, such as an eagle, built on a cliff or other high place.

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)—A document prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly presents why a Federal 

action will have no significant effect on the human environment and for which an environmental impact 

statement, therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Flyway—A route taken by migratory birds between their breeding grounds and their wintering grounds. 

Four primary migration routes have been identified for birds breeding in North America: the Pacific, 

Central, Mississippi, and Atlantic Flyways.

Foraging—The act of feeding; another word for feeding. 

Forbs—Herbaceous dicotyledonous plants.

Fragmentation—The process of reducing the size and connectivity of habitat patches.

Fungi (plural of fungus)—Any of numerous organisms of the kingdom Fungi, which lack chlorophyll and 

vascular tissue and range in form from a single cell to a body mass of branched filamentous hyphae that 

often produce specialized fruiting bodies (ex. mushrooms, puff balls, etc.). The kingdom includes the yeasts, 

molds, smuts, and mushrooms.

Gastropod—Any of various mollusks of the class Gastropoda, such as the snail, slug, or limpet, 

characteristically having a single, usually coiled shell or no shell at all, a ventral muscular foot for 

locomotion, and eyes and feelers located on a distinct head.

Geophyte—bulb plants.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 A-5

GIS—Geographic Information System. Refers to such computer mapping programs as ArcView, ArcInfo, 

ERDAS, etc. 

Goal—A descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a 

purpose but does not define measurable units (Draft Service Manual 620 FW 1.5). 

Grain—A single, hard seed of a cereal grass.

Habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for survival and reproduction. 

The place where an organism typically lives.

Hemiparasitic Plant—A plant, such as mistletoe, that obtains some nourishment from its host but also 

photosynthesizes.

Hydrobasin—A major hydrological drainage basin.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM)—Methods of managing undesirable species, such as weeds, including 

education; prevention, physical or mechanical methods or control; biological control; responsible chemical 

use; and cultural methods. 

Invasive Species—An alien (non-native) species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health

Invertebrate—Animals that do not have backbones. Included are insects, spiders, mollusks (clams, snails, 

etc.), and crustaceans (shrimp, crayfish, etc.). 

Irrigation Drainwater—Ideally, subsurface water which flows from irrigated land and generally transports 

higher concentrations of dissolved salts than the water applied to the land. 

Irrigation Return Flow—Water which reaches surface drainage by overland flow or through groundwater 

discharge as a result of applied or natural irrigation. 

Issue—Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, e.g., an initiative, opportunity, resource 

management problem, threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or the presence of 

an undesirable resource condition. 

Levee—An embankment raised to prevent a river from overflowing.

Lichens—A fungus that grows symbiotically with algae, resulting in a composite organism that 

characteristically forms a crustlike or branching growth on rocks or tree trunks. 

List 1B Plants (California Native Plant Society)—Plants that are rare, Threatened or Endangered in 

California and elsewhere.

List 4 Plants (California Native Plant Society)—Plants of limited distribution, often referred to as a plant 

watch list.

Marsh—An area of soft, wet, low-lying land, characterized by grassy vegetation and often forming a 

transition zone between water and land.

Mean high water (tide)—The average height of all high waters recorded at a given place over a 19-year 

period. 

Mean low water (tide)—The average height of all low waters recorded at a given place over a 19-year 

period. 

Memorandum of Understanding—A legal document outlining the terms and details of an agreement 

between parties, including each parties requirements and responsibilities.
A-6 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX A

Midden site—A mound or deposit containing shells, animal bones, and other refuse that indicates the site of 

a human settlement.

Mitigation—To avoid or minimize impacts of an action by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action; to 

rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; to reduce or eliminate 

the impact by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.

Mycoheterotrophs—Orchids and other species that are mutualists with mycorrhizal fungi; these plants 

derive their energy from fungi that in turn get their energy from another vascular plant.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—An act which encourages productive and enjoyable 

harmony between humans and their environment, to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate 

damage to the environment and atmosphere, to stimulate the health and welfare of humans. The act also 

established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Requires all agencies, including the Service, to 

examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental information, and use public 

participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with 

other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental 

decision making (from 40 CFR 1500). 

National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge or NWR)—A designated area of land or water or an interest in land 

or water within the system, including national wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, 

waterfowl production areas, and other areas (except coordination areas) under the Service jurisdiction for 

the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife. A complete listing of all units of the Refuge System may 

be found in the current “Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Refuge System, or System—Various categories of areas that are 

administered by the Secretary for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species that are threatened 

with extinction; all lands, waters, and interest therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; 

areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction; wildlife 

ranges; game ranges; wildlife management or waterfowl production areas. 

Native Species—Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem.

Nekton—The collection of marine and freshwater organisms that can swim freely and are generally 

independent of currents, ranging in size from microscopic organisms to whales.

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

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. Make objectives attainable, time-specific, and measurable. 

Oology—The branch of zoology that deals with the study of eggs, especially birds’ eggs.

Ornithology—The branch of zoology that deals with the study of birds.

Ozone—Ozone is an invisible pollutant formed by chemical reactions involving nitrogen oxides, reactive 

hydrocarbons and sunlight. It is a powerful respiratory irritant that can cause coughing, shortness of 

breath, headaches, fatigue and lung damage, especially among children, the elderly, the ill and people who 

exercise outdoors. 

pH—An index of acidity/alkalinity of a solution, being an expression of concentration of hydrogen ions.

Pacific Decadal Oscillation—The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is a pattern of Pacific climate 

variability that shifts phases on a multi-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years. The PDO is 

detected as warm or cool surface waters in the Pacific Ocean, north of 20° N. During a “warm”, or “positive”, 

phase, the west Pacific becomes cool and part of the eastern ocean warms; during a “cool” or “negative” 

phase, the opposite pattern occurs.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 A-7

Palustrine—being, living, or thriving in a marsh.

Palustrine Wetland—All non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, and persistent emergent 

vegetation.

Particulate matter—Particulate matter is the fine mineral, metal, soot, smoke and dust particles suspended 

in the air. For health reasons, regulators are most concerned with inhalant particulate matter less than 10 

microns in diameter (PM10), which can permanently lodge in the deepest, most sensitive areas of the lungs, 

and cause respiratory and other health problems.

Pelagic—Living in open oceans or seas rather than waters adjacent to land or inland waters.

Piscivorous—Habitually feeding on fish; fish-eating.

Pinniped—Of or belonging to the Pinnipedia, a suborder of carnivorous aquatic mammals that includes the 

seals, walruses, and similar animals having finlike flippers as organs of locomotion.

Plant Community—An assemblage of species populations of plants in a particular area at a particular point 

in time; the biological part of an ecosystem as distinct from its physical environment. The plant community 

of an area can change over time due to disturbance (e.g., fire) and succession.

Polychaete—Any of various annelid worms of the class Polychaeta, including mostly marine worms such as 

the lugworm, and characterized by fleshy paired appendages tipped with bristles on each body segment.

Population—All the members of a single species coexisting in one ecosystem at a given time. 

Preferred Alternative—This is the alternative determined (by the decision maker) to best achieve the 

Refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the Refuge System mission, addresses the significant 

issues; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. The Service’s selected 

alternative at the Draft CCP stage. 

Prescribed Fire—The skillful application of fire to natural fuels under conditions of weather, fuel moisture, 

soil moisture, , etc., that allows confinement of the fire to a predetermined area and produces the intensity 

of heat and rate of spread to accomplish planned benefits to one or more objectives of habitat management, 

wildlife management, or hazard reduction. 

Priority Public Uses—Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, and environmental education and interpretation). 

Propagules—Any of various usually vegetative portions of a plant, such as a bud or other offshoot, that aid 

in dispersal of the species and from which a new individual may develop.

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

implement the CCP. 

Public Involvement—A process that offers impacted and interested individuals and organizations an 

opportunity to become informed about, and to express their opinions on Service actions and policies. In the 

process, these views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public views is given in shaping 

decisions for refuge management. 

Public Scoping—See public involvement. 

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 congressionally 

designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness Act are additional purposes of the refuge.

Raptor—A bird of prey, such as a hawk, eagle, or owl. 
A-8 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX A

Redoximorphic Features—Colors in the soil that indicate water is seasonally present at the level the 

features are found.

Refuge—Short form of National Wildlife Refuge. 

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS)—The Refuge Operating Needs System is a national database 

that contains the unfunded operational needs of each refuge. We include projects required to implement 

approved plans and meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates. 

Salmonid—Of, belonging to, or characteristic of the family Salmonidae, which includes the salmon, trout, 

and whitefish.

Sand—A sedimentary material, finer than a granule and coarser than silt, with grains between 0.06 and 2.0 

millimeters in diameter.

Salinity—An expression of the amount of dissolved solids in water.

Salt Marsh—Low coastal grassland frequently overflowed by the tide.

Seabird—A bird, such as a petrel or albatross, that frequents the ocean, especially far from shore.

Shorebirds—Long-legged birds, also known as waders, belonging to the Order Charadriiformes that use 

shallow wetlands and mudflats for foraging and nesting. 

Silt—A sedimentary material consisting of very fine particles intermediate in size between sand and clay.

Siltation—The process of becoming covered with silt.

Shorebird—Any of various birds, such as the sandpiper, plover, or snipe, that frequent the shores of coastal 

or inland waters.

SLAMM—Sea Level Affecting Marsh Management 

Sound Professional Judgment—A finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with principles of 

sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and resources, and adherence to 

the requirements of the Refuge Administration Act and other applicable laws. 

Species—A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable characteristics, and that can 

interbreed and produce young. A category of biological classification. 

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. 

Strategy—A specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to meet 

unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Stratigraphy—The study of rock strata, especially the distribution, deposition, and age of sedimentary 

rocks.

Suffrutescent—Having a stem that is woody only at the base; somewhat shrubby.

Tidal Prism—The difference between the mean high-water volume and the mean low-water volume of an 

estuary.

Threatened Species—Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and one that has been designated as a threatened 

species in the Federal Register by the Secretary of the Interior. Threatened species are afforded protection 

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 A-9

Trust Resources—Those resources for which the Service has been given specific responsibilities under 

Federal law. These include migratory birds, interjurisdictional fishes (fish species that may cross state lines), 

federally listed threatened or endangered species, some marine mammals, and lands owned by the Service. 

Upland—An area where water normally does not collect and where water does not flow on an extended 

basis. Uplands are non-wetland areas.

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 and 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. 

Wading Bird—A long-legged bird, such as a crane, heron, or stork, that frequents shallow water, especially 

in search of food.

Waterfowl—A group of birds that include ducks, geese, and swans (belonging to the order Anseriformes). 

Watershed—The entire land area that collects and drains water into a river or river system. 

Wetland—Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at 

or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification wetlands must 

have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly 

hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is 

saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of the year (from 

USFWS Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States).

Wilderness Review—The process we use to determine if 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 or not 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). 

Wildlife—All nondomesticated animal life; included are vertebrates and invertebrates. 

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 also will consider these other uses in the preparation of refuge CCPs; however, the 

six priority public uses always will take precedence.

Appendix B: Visitor Services Plan

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 B-1

VISITOR SERVICES PLAN

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

November 2008

Region 8

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
B-2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX B

Table Of Contents

Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ B-3

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... B-4

Brief History...................................................................................................................................................... B-4

Local Setting...................................................................................................................................................... B-4

Visitor Service Standards ................................................................................................................................ B-6

Section A: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................................B-6

Welcome and Orient Visitors ........................................................................................................................... B-6

Hunting History and Opportunities at the Refuge....................................................................................... B-9

Provide Quality Fishing Opportunities ........................................................................................................ B-11

Provide Quality Wildlife Observation and Photography............................................................................ B-12

Provide Quality Environmental Education and Interpretation Opportunities ...................................... B-16

Manage for Other Recreational Use Opportunities ................................................................................... B-19

Communicate Key Issues with Off-Site Audiences..................................................................................... B-19

Refuge Outreach, Volunteers, and Partnerships......................................................................................... B-19

Other Applicable Visitor Services Programs .............................................................................................. B-20

Youth Conservation Corps......................................................................................................................... B-20

Refuge Law Enforcement......................................................................................................................... B-21

Concession Operations............................................................................................................................... B-22

Fee Programs.............................................................................................................................................. B-22

Other ............................................................................................................................................................ B-22

Section B: Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge.................................................................................B-22

Introduction and Brief History ..................................................................................................................... B-22

Castle Rock Environmental Education and Outreach Goals ............................................................... B-23

Castle Rock Environmental Education and Outreach Objective......................................................... B-24

Implementing the Plan................................................................................................................................... B-25

Essential Staffing Needs ........................................................................................................................... B-25

Table of Projects, Costs.................................................................................................................................. B-25

Partnership Funding and Resources ....................................................................................................... B-25

Compatibility Determinations ....................................................................................................................... B-25

NEPA Document/Decision Document.......................................................................................................... B-25

ESA Section 7 Consultations ......................................................................................................................... B-25

Appendices

Appendix B–1: Humboldt Bay NWR Brochure ......................................................................................... B-24

Figures

Figure B–1: Visitor Services Alternative—Salmon Creek and Hookton Slough Unit.......................... B-26

Figure B–2: Visitor Services Alternative—Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes Units.................................... B-27

Table

Table B–1: NWR System 6 Priority Uses at Humboldt Bay NWR—15 Year Projection.......................B–8
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 B-3

Summary

The purpose of the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex’s (refuge) visitor services program 

is to foster understanding and instill in refuge visitors appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants and their 

conservation. This will be accomplished by providing the public with safe, high-quality, appropriate, and 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation and education programs and activities. In 1997 Congress passed 

the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act (Improvement Act) which clearly states that on national 

wildlife refuges, wildlife comes first. The 1997 Improvement Act also identified six wildlife-dependent 

priority public use activities and programs that are compatible with the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. These uses include: environmental education and interpretation, wildlife photography, 

wildlife observation, hunting and fishing.

This Visitor Services Plan (VSP) was prepared based on these guidelines. With the adoption and 

implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and this step-down plan, all visitor service 

activities and programs on the refuge would be in conformance with national guidelines and would ensure 

that all visitor activities are compatible with the refuges’ overarching wildlife mission and purposes. During 

the winter of 2006 a Visitor Services Review was conducted for the refuge. The Visitor Services Review 

evaluated the status of all refuge visitor services programs at that time and suggested changes and guidance 

that were incorporated into this document.

The purpose of the VSP is to establish priorities and identify improvements which will guide the refuge 

visitor services program over the next fifteen years. A visitor services goal, objectives and strategies have 

been identified within the CCP (Chapter 3 of the CCP). A Waterfowl Hunt Plan and a Sport Fishing Plan 

have also been prepared (Appendices to the CCP). This VSP addresses all compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses on the refuge including environmental education and interpretation, wildlife photography, 

wildlife observation (which includes non-motorized boating), hunting and fishing. 

Visitors enjoying the Shorebird Loop Trail at Humboldt Bay NWR’s Salmon Creek Unit. 

 Photo: USFWS
B-4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX B

Introduction

See Chapter 1 of the CCP

Brief History

See Chapter 1 of the CCP

Significant Features

See Chapter 1 of the CCP

Primary Refuge Resource Management Goals and Objectives

See Chapter 5 of the CCP

Local Setting

Community Description

See Chapter 3 of the CCP

Local Economy

See Chapter 3 of the CCP

Demographics

See Chapter 3 of the CCP

Visitor Data

See Chapter 3 of the CCP

Travel Links

The major transportation route in the vicinity of the refuge is Highway 101. Many small paved county roads 

provide for local transportation. These, and Highway 101, provide access to refuge visitor contact stations 

and parking lots. There are currently no alternative transportation systems that provide access to refuges, 

however the refuge is a participant in planning for a system of regional biking and walking trails. 

Visitor Services Opportunities (off-refuge)

Eel River Wildlife Area (California Department of Fish and Game)

The Eel is California’s third largest river and carries ten percent of California’s yearly runoff. The Eel 

is important to coastal dunes because it carries tremendous amounts of sediments that form the building 

materials of dunes. The Eel is federally classified as a wild and scenic river. The Eel River delta can be 

explored from Crab County Park and the Eel River Wildlife Area, accessed four miles west of Loleta, at the 

end of Cannibal Island Road.

Eel River Wildlife Area is home to the threatened western snowy plover. In the Wildlife Area vehicles are 

restricted to the wave slope (wet sand) and the back dune road. Dogs must be on a leash between March 1st 

and September 30th.

South Spit Cooperative Management Area (Bureau of Land Management, California Department of Fish 

and Game, Humboldt County, US Fish and Wildlife Service)

Located at the end of Table Bluff Road 5 miles west of Loleta, the area is open from one hour before sunrise 

until one hour after sunset, with earlier opening during waterfowl season. Equestrian use is limited to the 

west side of jetty road and vehicle access is restricted to the waveslope, not to exceed 15 miles per hour. The 

south spit is also home to the threatened western snowy plover, and has restrictions for vehicles and dogs.

Headwaters Forest Reserve

On March 1, 1999, the Headwaters Forest and surrounding lands, totaling 7,500 acres in central Humboldt 

County, were acquired from private owners by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The Headwaters Forest 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 B-5

Reserve is set aside to protect and preserve the ecological and wildlife values in the area, particularly the 

stands of old-growth redwoods that provide habitat for the threatened marble murrelet, and the stream 

systems that provide habitat for threatened Coho salmon. Public access is available to the north end of the 

reserve along the Elk River County Road, approximately six miles southeast of Eureka. To get there; take 

Highway 101 to the Elk River Road exit. Turn right on Elk River Road. The county road ends at the reserve 

boundary where signs provide information for visitors. A parking area is available inside the reserve.

Elk River Wildlife Sanctuary (California Department of Fish and Game)

The Elk River is Humboldt Bay’s largest tributary and is a spawning ground for salmon, steelhead and 

coastal cutthroat trout. A sand spit began to form at the river’s mouth in 1930 and now extends over a mile 

into Humboldt Bay. A parking area off Hilfiker Lane, west of Highway 101, provides access to trails through 

100 acres of restored riparian woodland, freshwater marsh, saltmarsh, and dunes. Please stay on trails to 

avoid impacts to endangered plants and sensitive resources.

Fay Slough Wildlife Area (California Department of Fish and Game)

This 484 acre wildlife management area is located 1.5 miles north east of Eureka, off Hwy 101. This 

previously grazed land has been restored to coastal and seasonal wetlands. Egrets and herons are 

now common in this riparian habitat. The site is open to hunting during waterfowl season and wildlife 

observation year round.

Mad River Wildlife Area (California Department of Fish and Game)

Located a half mile west of Arcata off of Samoa Blvd., this area consists of 547 acres of agricultural land and 

restored coastal wetland, with many sloughs. Egrets, herons, mink and weasel are found here. Mad River 

Wildlife area is open to hunting during waterfowl season and wildlife observation year round.

Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary (City of Arcata)

The City of Arcata’s unique wastewater treatment facility, marsh, and wildlife sanctuary attracts 

approximately 150,000 visitors per year. Arcata’s wastewater treatment plant is an example of a 

community’s involvement in environmental politics, innovative uses of land, and applications of appropriate 

technology in a small urban community. The Arcata Wastewater Treatment Plant combined with the Arcata 

Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary has multiple uses, including wastewater treatment, recreation, wildlife 

habitat, education, and research.

Samoa Dunes (Bureau of Land Management)

This 300 acre park allows visitors to take advantage of a wide variety of recreational activities, including 

hiking, surfing, fishing, sightseeing, beachcombing, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, picnicking, and 

birdwatching. When walking in the recreation area visitors should be aware of off road vehicle riding areas.

Humboldt Coastal Nature Center (Friends of the Dunes)

Plans are currently underway to transform the ocean and bay view property formerly known as the Stamps 

House into a “gateway to the dunes.” Featuring an interpretive nature center, restrooms, ample parking, 

and a marked trail system, the Humboldt Coastal Nature Center will provide the community with an easy 

point of entry to the coastlands and dune trails that will connect to Ma-le’l and Lanphere Dunes to the 

north, and Manila Community Services Dunes to the south. The linked trail system will provide visitors with 

access to approximately 1,000 acres of coastal dune habitats, and the nature center, and an adjacent loop 

trail, will be wheelchair accessible.

Boating and non-motorized boating opportunities in Humboldt Bay

Recreational boating opportunities are available for watercraft ranging from the smallest canoes and kayaks 

to the largest sailboats and yachts. Improved non-motorized boat launching facilities are located throughout 

Humboldt Bay. Canoes and kayaks are popular for exploring the salt marshes that ring Humboldt Bay. In 

addition to the improved non-motorized boat launching facilities, there are several launch areas that are 

appropriate for canoes and kayaks around Humboldt Bay. A public canoe/kayak launch area is located at 

Woodley Island Marina. In addition, canoe and kayak rentals, sales and lessons are also available at Woodley 

Island.
B-6 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX B

Visitor Services Standards

The Service Manual (605 FW 1, Section 1-7) provides Service policies, strategies and requirements for 

management of wildlife-dependent recreation programs within the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(Refuge System).

The Service Manual (605 FW 1, Section 1.6) states: the Refuge System provides a unique opportunity to 

ensure that we approach our compatible wildlife-dependent recreation programs from the perspective of 

the Refuge System mission and goals. We believe wildlife-dependent recreation that comports well with the 

following criteria will continue to meet the needs and desires of refuge visitors. To ensure continued visitor 

satisfaction with our wildlife-dependent recreation programs, we incorporate public input using visitor 

satisfaction surveys, feedback given in person or other instruments, including input during the development 

of the CCP and VSP, that help us define and evaluate wildlife-dependent recreation programs at Humboldt 

Bay NWRC. We develop our wildlife-dependent recreation programs in consultation with State fish and 

wildlife agencies and stakeholder input based on the following criteria:

• Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities;

• Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior;

• Minimizes or eliminates conflict with fish and wildlife populations or habitat goals or objectives in an 

approved plan;

• Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation;

• Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners;

• Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the public;

• Promotes resource stewardship and conservation;

• Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural resources and our 

role in managing and conserving these resources;

• Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife;

• Uses facilities that are accessible to people and blend into the natural setting; and

• Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs.

Section A: Humboldt Bay NWR

Welcome and Orient Visitors

We will assure that our refuge is welcoming, safe and accessible. We will provide visitors with clear 

information so they can easily determine where they can go, what they can do, and how to safely and 

ethically engage in recreational and educational activities. Facilities will meet the quality criteria defined 

in 605 FW 1, Section 1.6 of the Service Manual. We will treat visitors with courtesy and in a professional 

manner.

Welcome and Orient Visitors Goals/Objectives

Our Visitor Services goal is to:

Provide public with safe, high-quality wildlife-dependent recreation and volunteer opportunities to enhance 

public appreciation and understanding of fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats of Humboldt Bay and associated 

watersheds.

Welcome and Orient Visitors Strategies

1. Improve directional signage on refuge entrance road and parking lot.

2. Create new interpretive areas along entrance road to welcome and orient visitors.

3. Improve signage on buildings and trails to better welcome and orient visitors.

Current Program

In compliance with the policies governing National Wildlife Refuges, Humboldt Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge (HBNWR) is a welcoming, safe, and accessible facility. We provide visitors with clear information 

so they can easily determine where they can go, what they can do, and how to safely and ethically engage in 

recreational and educational activities. The facilities found on Humboldt Bay NWR are high-quality, clean, 

well-maintained, and accessible. We treat visitors with courtesy and in a professional manner.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 B-7

The Richard J. Guadagno Headquarters and 

Visitor Center (Visitor Center), headquarters 

for the Humboldt Bay NWR Complex, is 

located just off the Interstate Highway 

101, exit 696. Refuge signs are visible on 

the interstate from both the southern and 

northern approach.

Once inside the refuge gates visitors drive 

approximately 1⁄2 mile before they initially 

see several buildings (the former refuge 

headquarters, refuge staff housing) and 

then come to a paved parking area and the 

Visitor Center. It is not compatible with 

overall resource management and visitor 

safety to have a separate auto tour route 

at Humboldt bay NWR. However, wildlife 

viewing opportunities are often available to 

visitors as they drive on the refuge entrance 

road. An interpretive pullout is provided on 

the entrance road just past the cattle guard 

to view geese and other wildlife. Once at the 

Visitor Center parking lot, visitors are drawn 

into the building by a breezeway and wildlife 

viewing deck. Refuge volunteers continue to develop native 

landscaping in the area around the facilities. Just to the west of 

the entrance is a small garden memorial dedicated to Richard 

J. Guadagno, the former refuge manager that was killed on 

September 11, 2001 aboard Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

Inside the Visitor Center (open 7 days per week, 8am to 5pm, 

except Federal holidays), visitors are greeted by refuge volunteers 

and/or staff who work the reception area. The volunteers are 

knowledgeable about the refuge and welcome visitors. This 

personal touch helps the visitor feel welcome and also provides 

them with information about what to see and do at the refuge, or 

in the surrounding area. The Visitor Center also has an attractive 

series of dioramas which display a sample of the habitats, wildlife 

and plants found in the South Bay and Dune Units and at Castle 

Rock NWR. In addition, there is a large viewing room that 

looks out over a seasonal wetland supplied with spotting scopes 

for observing wildlife as well as a large screen TV for viewing 

FWS (and other) feature films. This room can be reserved for meetings and also has one corner called 

the “Fledgling Fort”. This area has been outfitted by the Friends of Humboldt Bay NWR (FHBNWR), 

and dedicated as a space for smaller children to read, do art, or take part in other pertinent environmental 

education and interpretation activities. 

 

Two brochures directly relating to the refuge are available at the front desk. The general refuge brochure 

is informative, attractive, and meets Service standards (Appendix A). It provides visitors with information 

on local ecology, a list of things to do and see on the refuge along with refuge maps. The second brochure 

is a list of fish, wildlife and plants found in the Humboldt Bay area. The refuge also maintains a current 

and informative web site. Many other brochures are available inside the Visitor Center relating to local 

activities, invasive weeds and maps of water trails and hiking trails found in the Humboldt Bay area.

Also visible from the parking lot is an old hunting clubhouse and beyond that a large old barn. The old 

hunting clubhouse is in need of restoration but was one of the oldest clubs in the state of California. The 

barn is architecturally interesting and is regularly the subject of artists and photographers. 

Entrance to Richard J. Guadagno Headquarters and 

Visitor Center. Photo: USFWS

Memorial dedicated to former refuge 

manager, Richard J. Guadagno. 

 Photo: USFWS
B-8 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX B

Proposed Changes

There are plans for improved directional signage, an improved refuge entrance area that will include a 

gate, turn around area for large vehicles with trailers, and additional orientation signage and information. 

Additions to the Richard J. Guadagno Visitor Center will include an entrance sign at the apex of the 

breezeway entrance and orientation, informational and interpretive panels in the breezeway, viewing deck 

and boardwalk areas. Future plans would add a small bookstore to the Visitor Center and call for the 

installation of a video camera that would feed live wildlife footage back to the large screen TV in the viewing 

room.

Plans currently call for conversion of the old hunting clubhouse into an interpretive “Historic Hunt Cabin” 

with exhibits focused on early land management, the waterfowling history of Humboldt Bay, and the role 

that waterfowl management has played in conservation both locally and nationally. The refuge staff is 

evaluating the potential and costs of using part of the old barn for Environmental education/interpretation 

or maintaining it in a functional state into the future. Currently the barn is in need of maintenance and is 

used for the storage of refuge equipment.

The Ma-le’l Dunes Unit (acquired in 2005) is proposed to open to the public in 2008-2009 with the 

implementation of the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit Cooperative Management Area Access Plan (Appendix B). 

This unit will provide opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and 

interpretation, hunting and fishing.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Visitation is monitored by several systems. A network of traffic and trail counters records both types of use 

at the units of highest visitation. A record of visitors per day is kept at the Visitor Center. This information 

is entered into a computer database kept current each month. School visitation numbers, off-site outreach, 

multipurpose room use by the community and special events attendance records are all recorded into 

separate computer databases.

Table B–1. NWR System 6 Priority Uses at Humboldt Bay NWR—15 Year Projection

Category of Use Current Use Anticipated Use5 % Increase

Waterfowl Hunting 1,500 1,800 20%

 Salmon Creek Unit 1 1,100 1,200 9%

 All Other Units 400 600 50%

Fishing 2 200 250 25%

Wildlife Observation/ Photography 3 20,000 35,000 75%

Environmental Education/ Interpretation 4 2,200 4,400 100%

Footnotes: 

1

 Maximum capacity is approximately 3600 hunters per season

2

 Fishing opportunities are relatively few and use is light; mainly for sharks at very high tides

3

 Population growth and increased lands/facilities should justify

4

 500 students per year in field trip visits, 1100 visitors per year for special events, 600 visitors per year for 

guided walks

5

 15-year projection of estimated anticipated use in 2024

 

* All numbers are approximate estimates 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 B-9

New waterfowl hunter check station and parking area 

constructed in 2005. Photo: USFWS

Hunting History and Opportunities at the Refuge

Hunting is a wildlife-dependent recreational use and, when compatible, an appropriate use of resources in 

the Refuge System. Humboldt Bay NWR’s hunting program will meet the quality criteria defined in the 

Visitor Services Standards above and will be carried out in a manner consistent with State laws, regulations, 

and management plans. Waterfowl hunting has taken place on the refuge since establishment in 1971 and 

on the Salmon Creek Unit since 1988, when it was acquired. The capacity for hunters at Salmon Creek Unit 

under current operations in approximately 1100 hunters per year. We really have no cost effective way to 

reliably estimate the amount of hunting that takes place on other refuge units.

Hunt Program Goals

• Provide a quality wildlife-dependent recreational experience, using a renewable natural resource.

• Promote hunter education and ethics through information and enforcement of hunting regulations and 

compliance with compatibility determinations.

• Provide mobility-impaired hunters accessible blinds and a quality experience.

• Promote designated hunts and educational opportunities for youth hunters.

Hunt Program Objectives

• Within 15 years maintain and improve existing waterfowl, coot, common moorhen and snipe hunting 

program to accommodate a minimum of 1,200 hunter opportunities per year on the Salmon Creek Unit 

and continue waterfowl, coot, common moorhen and snipe hunting on Table Bluff, Eureka Slough, and 

Jacoby Creek Units as well as Egret Island, Teal Island, and Hookton Slough, concurrent with state 

regulations.

• Improve information and outreach of existing regulations. 

• Open limited areas of the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit to waterfowl, coot, common moorhen and snipe hunting and 

retrieval and provide two additional junior-only hunting days on the Salmon Creek Unit. 

Rationale

The existing (1990) Humboldt Bay NWR Sport Hunting Plan has been revised concurrently with the 

preparation of the Humboldt Bay NWR Complex’s CCP (Appendix C).

Hunting is one of the six priority public uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997. Currently waterfowl hunting regulations on the Salmon Creek Unit are temporally less 

permissive than State hunting regulations, but otherwise identical. Hunting on the Salmon Creek Unit 

is permitted from legal shoot time to 3 p.m. on Tuesdays and Saturdays of the regular waterfowl hunting 

season (usually the third weekend in October through the last weekend in January). Waterfowl, coot, 

common moorhen and snipe hunting is 

permitted on the Table Bluff, Eureka Slough, 

and Jacoby Creek units, including Egret 

Island, Teal Island and Hookton Slough, 

concurrent with state regulations. In the 

best professional judgment of the Humboldt 

Bay NWR Manager, restricting the number 

of days per week that hunting occurs on 

the Humboldt Bay NWR maintains a high 

quality hunting experience. Upland game 

(except snipe) and big game hunting is not 

permitted on the Humboldt Bay NWR due to 

the small size of potential hunt areas, safety 

issues, and likelihood for conflicts with other 

priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

recognized by the Improvement Act. 

After multiple discussions with hunters 

and their representatives, the following 

adjustments will help balance public use 

goals at the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit. Hunting 

will be allowed on the portion of Fernstrom-
B-10 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX B

Root Islands owned by the Service, but no permanent blind construction is permitted. Areas of Ma-le’l 

Island within the Service’s jurisdiction, adjacent to Fernstrom-Root Island and the Viqhul Trail, will only 

be open to retrieval of downed waterfowl, not active waterfowl hunting. Lastly, educational materials on 

hunting and the rights of all refuge wildlife-dependent recreation user groups will be posted at the Ma-le’l 

Dunes Unit to avoid conflicts between different user groups. Portions of the recently acquired Ma-le’l Dunes 

Unit adjacent to the Mad River Slough, while privately owned, were hunted for waterfowl, coot, and snipe 

prior to acquisition by the Service, so the refuge will be opening portions of these areas to hunting and/or 

retrieval from adjacent areas that are open to hunting. 

Limited youth only hunting opportunities in the Humboldt Bay area and the high quality of waterfowl 

hunting on the Salmon Creek Unit justifies the addition of two days for junior (age 16 and under) only hunts. 

In addition, allowing less experienced junior hunters to learn hunting skills outside of the regular hunting 

times will avoid impacts on the quality of the hunting experience for regular, more experienced hunters. 

Potential Hunting Strategies

1. Maintain current sport hunting program as described in the updated Humboldt Bay NWR Waterfowl 

Hunt Plan.

2. Continue to fund and use MOUs with Federal, State and local agencies for law enforcement support.

3. Follow necessary procedures to permit waterfowl hunting on portions of the island salt marsh areas of 

the recently acquired Ma-le’l Dunes Unit.

4. Add two junior only waterfowl hunt days per season at the Salmon Creek Unit.

5. Improve interpretation and outreach, especially on Salmon Creek, Hookton Slough, Jacoby Creek, and 

Ma-le’l Dunes Units to make sure that where hunting and other wildlife dependent visitor uses come 

together, all users are aware and all uses are managed for maximum mutual compatibility.

6. Conduct daily bag checks (i.e., verify number and species of waterfowl) – which will promote compliance 

with regulations and to keep biological data on species harvest.

7. Improve hunt program record keeping by improving harvest record card.

8. Improve directional signs in the hunt area on the Salmon Creek Unit.

9. Create new maps of hunting areas to improve accuracy and improve the quality of the hunting 

experience and the efficiency of the hunting system. 

10. Increase staffing of hunter check station, to a minimum of two individuals per hunt day (Humboldt Bay 

NWR staff, temporary hires/contractors, or volunteers) to best manage refuge hunt.

11. Modify hunting pit blinds to prevent stranding of wildlife.

12. Post additional boundary signs on the Eureka Slough Unit, the Jacoby Creek Unit, the Table Bluff Unit, 

Egret Island, Teal Island, and Hookton Slough. 

13. Enforce boat in only regulations on Humboldt Bay NWR land on the Eureka Slough Unit (ESU) and 

the Jacoby Creek Unit in order to meet USFWS safety standards.

14. Work with CDFG, HBHRCD and USFWS Solicitor’s Office to clarify legal jurisdiction of over-water 

hunting in bay sloughs and salt marsh islands.

15. Seek funding for a new FTE Visitor Services Assistant/Volunteer Coordinator position to assist in 

planning and implementing projects. 

16. Increase law enforcement on the Humboldt Bay NWR, especially during waterfowl season, by contract 

or through support from other Service law enforcement staff.

Current Program

See Chapter 3 of the CCP

Proposed Changes

See Waterfowl Hunt Plan (Appendix C of the CCP)

Monitoring and Evaluations

See Waterfowl Hunt Plan (Appendix C of the CCP)
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 B-11

Fisherman at the Hookton Slough non-motorized boat 

dock. Photo: Shannon Smith

Provide Quality Fishing Opportunities

Sport fishing (fishing) is a wildlife-dependent 

recreational use and, when compatible, an 

appropriate use of resources in the Refuge 

System. Fishing programs will meet the quality 

criteria defined in the Visitor Services Standards 

above and be carried out in a manner consistent 

with State laws, regulations and management 

plans as well as refuge specific regulations.

Fishing Objectives

• Maintain existing sport fisheries program. 

Provide fishing opportunities at the Ma-le’l 

Dunes Unit.

• Collaborate with CDFG and other local agencies 

and private entities to increase awareness of 

fishing and shellfishing opportunities on the 

Humboldt Bay NWR and/or in Humboldt Bay.

Rationale 

The existing (1990) Humboldt Bay NWR Sport Fishing Plan has been revised concurrently with the 

preparation of the Humboldt Bay NWR Complex’s CCP (Appendix D).

Fishing is one of the six priority public uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997. Most local fishing occurs in freshwater areas that are not within the refuge boundaries. 

Limited fishing does occur for sharks, rays, and shellfish on Humboldt Bay NWR. Shell fishing is most 

popular on South Bay mudflats. Many other freshwater and saltwater fishing areas are located nearby to 

the Humboldt Bay NWR.

While fishing opportunities on the Humboldt Bay NWR are limited, fishing is a priority wildlife dependent 

recreational use recognized by the Improvement Act and additional outreach may promote its use by the 

public.

Potential Fishing Strategies

1. Maintain current fishing program as described in the updated Humboldt Bay NWR Sport Fishing Plan.

2. Continue to fund and use MOUs with Federal, State and local agencies for law enforcement support.

3. Incorporate elements of the Service’s initiatives (e.g., Connecting People with Nature).

4. Enhance outreach and education on fishing regulations and opportunities on Humboldt Bay NWR.

5. Increase signage at allowable sport fishing sites.

6. Advertise and participate in events which promote fishing (the Service’s initiatives (e.g., CDFG free 

fishing day, FWS fishing days).

7. Conduct outreach at pertinent events, such as Harbor District Maritime Expo.

8. Increase law enforcement on the Humboldt Bay NWR by contract or hiring a seasonal law enforcement 

officer.

Current Program

See Chapter 3 of the CCP

Proposed Changes

See Sport Fishing Plan (Appendix D of the CCP)

Monitoring and Evaluations

See Sport Fishing Plan (Appendix D of the CCP)
B-12 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX B

Provide Quality Wildlife Observation 

and Photography

Visitors of all ages and abilities will have an 

opportunity to observe and photograph key wildlife 

and habitat on the refuge when it is compatible with 

the refuges purposes. Viewing wildlife in natural or 

managed environments should foster a connection 

between visitors and the natural environment.

Wildlife Observation and Photography Goal

To provide the public (especially children) with 

accessible, safe, high-quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities to enhance the public’s 

appreciation and understanding of Humboldt 

Bay’s fish, wildlife, plants, habitats and associated 

watersheds.

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Objectives

• Within 15 years provide 35,000 annual wildlife 

observation and photography visitor opportunities 

by land and water trails (see Table B-1).

• Within 15 years provide 1.5 miles (entire Shorebird Loop Trail) of wheelchair accessible trail. 

• Provide a total of 3.5 miles of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant trail at Salmon Creek (1.5 

miles), Hookton Slough (1.5 miles), and 

Ma-le’l Dunes (.5 mile) units.

• Within 2 years, implement all phases of the Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area Access Plan 

which includes: an expanded trail system, interpretive panels, a viewing deck, a volunteer caretaker, and 

restrooms at the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit. The majority of these improvements will be acquired through a 

grant from the California Coastal Conservancy.

Rationale

Wildlife observation and photography are two of the six priority public uses identified in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Despite a small staff and a refuge of relatively small 

size, all six priority public uses are made available at Humboldt Bay NWR. With few exceptions, the vast 

majority of wildlife species found on the refuge can be viewed and/or photographed from existing trails and/

or blinds. A common comment from the public at this and many other refuges is, “The trails you have are 

great but we would like to hike/bike/drive around the rest of the refuge”. While this desire to “see the rest 

of the refuge” is understandable, it is often not compatible when considered cumulatively with all other 

actions occurring on the refuge. Managers need to clarify for the public the distinction between managed 

wildlife-dependent recreation and the (public’s) perception of all areas of the refuge being open. 

Similar to national trends, there is a large and growing desire for wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities on the Humboldt Bay NWR. If additional staff and project resources are available, the refuge 

could provide increased opportunities for wildlife observation and photography from refuge facilities, if 

compatible.

When coordinating with oyster growers on water quality concerns related to non-motorized boating on Mad 

River Slough, the Service will also coordinate with non-motorized boating groups and/or individuals, such as 

kayakers, that have expressed an interest in these discussions.

Potential Wildlife Observation and Photography Strategies

1. Maintain existing Visitor Services Programs and infrastructure, making all as fully accessible as 

possible. Include completion and upgrading of interpretive exhibits, panels, and signage plans. 

2. Work with Friends Groups and other partners to develop and implement FWS Initiatives (Connecting 

People with Nature, Schoolyard Habitats and Birding Initiatives).

The trails in the Lanphere Dunes Unit pass near 

fragile forest habitats and out onto the foredune 

complex. Guided tours help visitors understand the 

ever changing ecosystem. Photo: © Yvonne Everett
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 B-13

3. Develop wheelchair access out to the 

kiosk on the Salmon Creek Unit and 

on the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit Tsoutsgish 

Trail.

4. Continue to collaborate with Friends 

Groups and other partners to 

provide wildlife observation day use 

opportunities.

5. Continue to work with local and 

national wildlife photography groups 

(and individuals) to improve wildlife 

photography day use opportunities 

on the refuge, including a fully 

accessible photo blind.

6. Install a wildlife camera on the 

Salmon Creek Unit which will 

provide opportunities for “live 

action” wildlife observation from the 

closed portion of the refuge back 

to a large screen TV at the Visitor 

Center.

7. Monitor and assess disturbance caused by different public uses on Humboldt Bay NWR to both develop 

a baseline of use and provide the best possible management direction regarding existing and proposed 

future uses.

8. Work with partners to fully implement Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area Access Plan.

9. Work with HBHRCD, Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA) and Humboldt Bay boating groups 

to produce an assessment of needs for safe, compatible boating experiences (including the proposed bay 

trail(s)) on or adjacent to the refuge and then implement recommendations.

10. Work with same groups on producing guidelines and doing outreach to boating community on avoiding 

impacts (especially disturbance) to natural resources on and around the bay.

11. Provide both signage and brochures explaining the need to maintain high water quality, how/where to 

properly dispose of waste, and the need to be good stewards of the bay.

12. Assess opportunities to increase seasonal day use hiking on the Salmon Creek Unit around the hunt 

area or other areas which are normally closed to the public. 

13. Work with CA Coastal Conservancy, HBHRCD, Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA), City of 

Arcata, Humboldt County, and groups interested in the “Trail Around the Bay” to assess the potential 

and compatibility of a bay trail(s)) on or adjacent to the refuge. 

14. Seek funding for a new FTE Visitor Services Assistant position to assist in planning and implementing 

projects.

15. Increase law enforcement on the Humboldt Bay NWR by contract or hiring a seasonal law enforcement 

officer. 

16. Assess need to implement a fee collection program. 

Current Program

One of the main goals of Humboldt Bay NWR is to provide all sectors of the public with quality wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography opportunities. Wildlife can usually be seen while traveling down 

the entrance drive to refuge headquarters. Once at headquarters, a universally accessible deck and short 

boardwalk attached to the Richard J. Guadagno Visitor Center provides a wildlife observation area for all 

visitors, including those with severe mobility challenges. The Shorebird Loop Trail (1.7 miles round trip) 

adjacent to the Visitor Center is level and consists of gravel and packed dirt. The trail provides visitors 

with wildlife viewing and photography opportunities and features an observation kiosk and interpretive 

panels. The trail is open during Visitor Center hours seven days per week. The trail passes along seasonal 

freshwater wetlands, eventually leading to a permanent brackish pond and the eastern edge of Hookton 

Slough. A spur trail from the Shorebird Loop Trail leads to the refuge’s permanent photography blind. The 

photography blind is open seasonally, depending on water conditions. Reservations are required for the 

photography blind. Visitors use the refuge website to obtain availability and reservation information for 

the photography blind. Additionally, numbered posts along the trail correspond to a trail guide developed 

by the Friends of Humboldt Bay NWR. The trail guide provides additional historical, biological and 

View from Visitor Center deck towards the Shorebird Loop 

Trail and Table Bluff. Photo: USFWS
B-14 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX B

regional information to visitors. Trail guides, wildlife lists, and plant lists are available at the Visitor Center. 

Binoculars and a “Discovery Pack” are also available for checkout. Discovery packs include identification 

guides for plants, animals, tracks and scat, binoculars, magnifying glasses and a field notebook.

The Hookton Slough Unit is open daily from sunrise to sunset. The 1.5 mile trail (one way) starts in 

the parking area and follows the south bank of Hookton Slough. Visitors pass along grasslands, marsh, 

freshwater, saltwater, and mudflat habitats. The trail is level, graveled, and has interpretive panels. Maps 

of a boating trail that leads through Hookton Slough to South Bay can be found inside the Humboldt Bay 

NWR brochure. A boat dock for use by non-motorized boats is available to the public at Hookton Slough. 

There are also vault style restrooms at the parking lot. Trail maps for the Salmon Creek and Hookton units 

are available on the refuge website and in the Visitor Center (Appendix C).

 

The Lanphere Dunes Unit is accessible only by permit or guided tours. This unit of the refuge has guided 

walks led once a month by the Friends of the Dunes. Refuge staff also leads walks when time permits. 

There are four hiking trails at the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit of the refuge. This first is the Tsoutsgish Trail. The 

Tsoutsgish Trail extends 2,800 feet north from the Ma-le’l North parking area along a berm that once held 

an old railroad line on the edge of the Mad River Slough. It serves as the entry route to a forest loop and 

beach access trails found throughout the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit. Trail maps for Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes 

units are available on the refuge website and in the Visitor Center (Appendix D). Improvements along this 

trail (taken from the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit Cooperative Management Agreement (MDUCMA) will include:

• Preliminary upgrade which will include trail clearing and grubbing to a 3’ minimum width, and an 8’ 

overstory clearance.

• ADA accessibility upgrade to the trail.

• Installation of “bio-engineered” erosion control measures to protect the berm and the installation of 

benches and a wetland view deck. 

To accommodate ADA accessibility, along the Tsoutsgish Trail, typical design requirements will be based on 

CalDAG 2000 and should include:

• 48-inches minimum trail width, which may be reduced to 36-inches in areas where significant site 

disruption would otherwise occur.

• Minimum 60 inches x 60 inches passing/rest area at minimum 200 feet apart, or two rest areas for every 

400 feet.

• Hard surfaces such as asphalt, natural emulsion pavement or concrete.

• Trail gradients maximum running slope 5 percent and cross gradient 2 percent.

• One ADA accessible parking space should be provided at trail parking lot.

• Maintain 36-inch clearance between gates or bollards.

The Kimuk (meaning whale in Wiyot) Trail, is a proposed new trail that will extend from the Tsoutsgish 

Trail up a large dune, past a dune overlook, over open sand and nearshore dunes, to the beach. It passes 

through the corner of Ma-le’l South/BLM property, a portion of Humboldt Bay wallflower populations, and 

nearshore dunes densely vegetated with European beachgrass.

The Kimuk Trail will include the following improvements:

• The trail will be marked with trail markers at appropriate sight distances for clear trail delineation, as 

discussed in the signing section.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 B-15

The Dap (meaning “spruce roots” in 

Wiyot) Loop, consists of portions of an 

existing trail through the forest that will 

loop northward from the Tsoutsgish Trail. 

The Dap Loop will include the following 

improvements:

• At the Dap Loop trailhead steps and rail 

will be installed to ease access to Ma-le’l 

Dunes Cooperative Management Area 

and eliminate erosion potential.

• Along the Dap Loop approximately 150 

feet of steps and rail will be installed to 

replace a dilapidated wooden staircase.

• The trail that leads to the bank of 

Iron Creek will be decommissioned in 

order to eliminate impact to salt marsh 

vegetation.

The Viqhul (meaning salal berry in Wiyot) 

trail is an existing spur trail extending 

from the Dap Loop to the northwest to 

an open clearing next to the salt marsh. The trail is relatively flat and no significant improvements are 

planned.

The Hout (meaning surfish in Wiyot) Trail, will be an open dune trail to the beach that extends from the 

forested Dap Trail. The trail will ascend a large dune, descend to nearshore dunes, and cross a seasonal 

wetland where it will continue over the primary dune system to the beach. Hikers can return to the forest 

by following this trail in reverse or by walking south on the beach strand for approximately 1,000 feet to a 

marked trail that re-enters the foredunes and returns to the Ma-le’l North parking area via the Kimuk Trail. 

The set of trails could also be hiked in reverse by starting at the Kimuk Trail. The Hout Trail may include 

the following improvements:

• A new, less steep forest exit, or forest egress, will be delineated at the Hout trailhead and cable steps will 

be installed to enhance access up the dune and out of the forest.

• The trail will be marked with trail markers at appropriate sight distances for clear trail delineation, as 

discussed in the signing section. In particular, a marker will be placed north of the large dune that is 

visible from the top of the forest dune egress steps.

A small puncheon-style footbridge will be installed in the foredunes across the seasonal wetland. 

Proposed Changes

See Proposed Wildlife Observation and Photography strategies for proposed changes.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Vehicle and trail counters on the refuge assist in monitoring the number of visitors monthly. Docents at 

the Visitor Center also keep track of visitors to the Salmon Creek Unit daily. The Visitor Center is staffed 

seven days a week by staff and volunteers. Staff and volunteers engage visitors in conversations that help 

evaluate the wildlife viewing facilities and program. Also, question and comments from our website visitors 

help assess our wildlife viewing program.

Visitors learn to paint shorebird and duck silhouettes at the 

Humboldt Visitor Center during Family Fun Days. 

Photo: Shannon Smith
B-16 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX B

Provide Quality 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation 

Opportunities

Environmental Education and 

Interpretation Objectives

• Within 15 years provide 

wildlife-dependent educational 

opportunities for at least 8 

school or community groups 

per month and 35,000 annual 

visitor opportunities for 

interpretive experiences on 

and off refuge to foster public 

awareness and appreciation 

of the natural heritage of 

the north coast (see Table 

B-1). The current program 

includes 3 walks monthly at 

Salmon Creek Unit and 1 walk 

monthly at both Lanphere 

Dunes Unit and Ma-le’l Dunes 

Unit. With the addition of a 

1/2 time FTE, 8 groups per month is reasonable goal.

• Develop a “Children’s Outdoor Exploration Area” at the Salmon Creek Unit to provide unstructured 

environmental education opportunities for children.

• Within 3 years complete the Salmon Creek “Historic Hunt Cabin.”

• Assess feasibility for an on-site environmental education outdoor classroom facility on the Salmon Creek 

Unit.

Rationale

Environmental education and interpretation are two of the six priority visitor uses identified in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Humboldt Bay NWR provides a unique opportunity 

for the local community to experience pristine dune habitats, native bay habitats, and wildlife in proximity 

to an urban area with multiple educational institutions. Refuge-based environmental educational and 

interpretive activities can also be integrated into both indoor and outdoor classroom curricula. Interpretive 

activities can introduce the public to habitat management activities and familiarize them with the 

conservation efforts that protect local natural resources. The activities currently offered at the refuge are 

primarily the result of collaboration with refuge Friends groups and volunteer efforts, which we will seek to 

enhance. 

If additional staff and project resources are available, the refuge will work with Friends groups, volunteers 

and others to provide additional environmental education and interpretation opportunities to foster 

public awareness and appreciation of Humboldt Bay and north coast’s unique natural heritage; which 

will ultimately help to fulfill the purposes for which the refuge was established. The refuge will look 

at opportunities to implement existing (Junior Duck Stamp, The Nature of Learning, Project WILD, 

Shorebird Sister Schools, etc.) and new (Children in Nature, Schoolyard Habitats) environmental education 

and interpretation initiatives from the Service and others. 

Potential Environmental Education and Interpretation Strategies

1. Maintain existing Visitor Services Programs and infrastructure, including completion and upgrading of 

interpretive exhibits, panels, and signage plans

2. Maintain, improve, and keep updated refuge website to provide information on refuge complex history, 

management, visitor service opportunities and current events.

3. Continue to offer guided bird walks by Friends of the Humboldt Bay NWR (FHBNWR) every other 

week and Audubon Society once per month.

Volunteer leads an environmental education program on the Dunes. 

Photo: Andrea Pickart
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 B-17

4. Continue to offer Humboldt State University and College of the Redwoods professors, high school 

classes, and other local citizens’ access to the Salmon Creek, Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes Units for 

guided and self-guided educational tours and study.

5. Continue to offer Friends of the Dunes guided natural history walks on the Dunes Units (once per 

month).

6. Continue to coordinate with the Friends of the Dunes (FOD), which leads a restoration work day one 

time per month on MDU or LDU and for their annual Spring Breakaway event.

7. Continue to coordinate with Friends of the Dunes for the annual lupine bash, work to involve additional 

partners (particularly North Coast Chapter of California Native Plant Society).

8. Continue to participate in interpretive events both on the refuge and off (ex. Aleutian Goose Fly-Off, CA 

Waterfowl Outdoor Adventure Day, CA State Fair, Humboldt County Fair, Godwit Days, ACG Festival, 

NWR Week, etc.).

9. Continue to offer a seasonal lecture series (3-6 per year) that interprets pertinent natural and cultural 

resources. 

10. Continue to offer occasional presentations to community groups and college/university classes (four to 

six per year).

11. Continue to offer a self-guided trail guide, produced by FHBNWR, on the SCU.

12. Build on existing Outdoor Youth Days event and offer multi-day programs during the summer (i.e., Day 

Camp, Jr. Ranger/Naturalist, over-night experiences, etc.).

13. Work with refuge Friends Groups to locate and develop a “Children’s Outdoor Exploration Area” at the 

Salmon Creek Unit to provide “unstructured” EE/I opportunities for children. 

14. Work with the Regional Office, AFWO, and Friends Groups to develop/implement environmental 

education programs that could include: Junior Duck Stamp, Schoolyard Habitats, Nature of Learning, 

Bay to Dunes, Shorebird Sister Schools, Salmon Creek Watershed Education, and others.

15. Work with AFWO and two schools in the bay area to develop pilot Schoolyard Habitat Projects. 

16. Complete the “Historic Hunt Cabin”, which will interpret the history of the Salmon Creek Unit and how 

it came to be, refuge development, and the historic role of waterfowl management in Humboldt Bay 

NWR and the Refuge System.

17. Develop interpretive outreach for the public about the historical support hunters and fishermen have 

provided for the refuge system and conservation.

18. Assess feasibility of conversion of the barn or construction of a new covered outdoor structure for 

environmental education wet lab type activities.

19. Investigate finding grants and/or community assistance to acquire rain gear for use by K-12 visitors and 

facilitate visitation by economically challenged members of the community (i.e., shuttle buses/vans, etc.).

20. Develop an off refuge wildlife presentation for K-12.

21. Develop traveling trunks of educational materials for use by staff and/or Friends on and off-site.

22. Facilitate teacher training workshops so that teachers can lead environmental education field trips.

23. Create a curriculum that corresponds to California state education standards to cultivate an 

appreciation for refuge resources. 

24. Design training guide for volunteer docents who would like to lead environmental education activities.

25. Provide for additional program assistance through trained volunteers, friends, interns, grant funding, 

and other partnerships.

26. Develop and implement greening policies and then interpret greening activities completed on the 

refuge.

27. Seek funding for permanent full-time Information and Education Specialist and Volunteer Coordinator 

positions to assist in planning and implementing projects.

Current Environmental Education Program

Currently the refuge offers pre-scheduled classroom visits, drop-in classroom visits and field trips to local 

school districts. School groups to the refuge can choose to have a self- guided or tour guided by refuge staff 

and volunteers. Schools can also choose from a variety of environmental education options, including hands 

on projects or experiments designed by refuge staff and local educators and media materials developed by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Tours and educational walks are also led on the Lanphere Dunes Unit. Additionally, an environmental 

education curriculum called Bay to Dunes has been developed by the Friends of the Dunes, a Friends group 

of Humboldt Bay NWR. This curriculum is taught in area elementary schools when funds allow. The 

environmental education and outreach services of the refuge will continue to expand with the addition of 

full-time environmental education staff in the future. 
B-18 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX B

Bureau of Land Management Chief Ranger Jeff Knisley 

checks a youth hunter’s bag at Humboldt Bay NWR.

Photo: Sean Brophy

Current Interpretation Program

Humboldt Bay NWR offers many special 

events throughout the year to interpret 

key resources and issues to the general 

public. These include the Aleutian Goose 

Fly-Off and Family Fun Weekend, Outdoor 

Adventure Day in partnership with the 

California Waterfowl Association and 

National Wild Turkey Federation, the 

Annual Youth Hunt Day in partnership 

with California Waterfowl Association, 

National Wildlife Refuge Week events 

and Earth Day. In addition, the refuge 

offers a series of quarterly talks called 

“Friday Nights at the Refuge.” A variety 

of speakers present on a diversity of topics 

related to natural resource management. 

The refuge has also developed outreach 

materials both in the visitor center and on 

the refuge website to familiarize visitors 

with key wildlife and issues relating to the 

refuge such as a featured species of the 

month, “Nature’s Calendar”, track plate and touch box exhibits and interpretational exhibits. 

Staff and volunteers of the refuge also lead tour groups regularly and provide on site assistance and 

information for all facets of interpretation of the refuge’s resources and management. Refuge brochures 

and handouts containing information on the refuge, watchable wildlife, hunting, environmental education, 

photography and fishing programs are utilized by visitors. A variety of videos about the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the National Wildlife Refuges System are available upon request. Development of a video 

highlighting the story of the Aleutian Cackling Goose, a key species of the refuge, is also underway. Refuge 

related information is also provided at annual local festivals and events such as the Aleutian Goose Festival 

and Godwit Days.

Proposed Changes

If additional staff and project resources are available, the refuge should provide additional environmental 

education and interpretation opportunities to foster public awareness and appreciation of the unique natural 

heritage of the Humboldt Bay and north coast area, which will ultimately help to fulfill the purposes for 

which the refuge was established.

The refuge will work with schools and colleges to integrate environmental concepts and concerns into 

structured educational activities. These refuge-lead or education-conducted activities are intended 

to actively involve students or others in first-hand activities that promote discovery and fact-finding, 

develop problem solving skills, and lead to personal involvement and action. Refuge staff will promote 

environmental education that is aligned to the current Federal, State and local standards, is curriculum 

based, meets the goals of school districts adopted instructional standards, and provides interdisciplinary 

opportunities that link the natural world with all subject areas. The environmental education program will 

be managed in accordance with Service Manual 605 FW 6 Environmental education.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The reservation and application process to schedule an Environmental Education and Interpretation 

visit assists refuge staff in monitoring the environmental education programs. The application (available 

in paper copy and on the refuge web site) records the name of the school, teacher, and date, educational 

goals for the visit, arrival and departure time, number of students and adults, grade level, items requested 

for loan, and requested environmental education activities. Teacher feedback assists with managing the 

environmental education and interpretation programs. Sign-in sheets for tours led by staff and volunteers 

monitor the level of interpretation provided. Annual on and off refuge events are monitored by refuge staff 

recording the event and number of participants and are recorded in both an outreach log and an annual 

report. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 B-19

Manage for Other Recreational Use Opportunities

We may allow other recreational uses that support or enhance wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

minimally conflict with any of the wildlife-dependent recreational uses when we determine they are 

both appropriate and compatible. We will allow uses that are legally mandated to occur due to special 

circumstances (606 FW 1).

Communicate Key Issues with Off-Site Audiences

Effective outreach depends on open and continuing communication and collaboration between the refuge 

and its many publics. Effective outreach involves determining and understanding the issues, identifying 

audiences, listening to stakeholders, crafting messages, selecting the most effective delivery techniques, and 

evaluating effectiveness. If conducted successfully, the results achieved will further refuge purposes and the 

Refuge System mission.

Proposed Changes

Non wildlife-dependent uses are not currently allowed on the refuge. Bicycling is allowed only on the main 

refuge entrance road at the Salmon Creek Unit and the entrance road at Ma-le’l Dunes Unit.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The refuge will monitor and evaluate the outreach program by following the guidance of the National 

Outreach Strategy: A Master Plan. A media list for outreach activities is updated annually. Refuge 

outreach activities, including number of participants, are recorded in an outreach log. Refuge staff 

networks with local chambers of commerce, civic organizations, educational systems and many partners 

including the Friends of Humboldt Bay NWR, Friends of the Dunes, California Waterfowl Association, the 

Audubon Society and others to discuss outreach options and ideas. Suggestions are also taken from the 

refuge website.

Refuge Outreach, Volunteers, and Partnerships

Volunteer and Friends organizations fortify refuge staffs with their gifts of time, skills, and energy. They 

are integral to the future of the Refuge System. Where appropriate, refuge staff will initiate and nurture 

relationships with volunteers and Friends organizations and will continually support, monitor and evaluate 

these groups with the goal of strengthening important refuge activities and programs. The National 

Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 strengthens 

the Refuge System’s role in developing effective partnerships with various community groups. Whether 

through volunteers, Friends organizations, or other important partnerships in the community, refuge 

personnel will seek to make the refuge an active community member, giving rise to a stronger Refuge 

System.

Outreach, Volunteer and Partnership Objective

• Over 15 years refuge staff will collaborate with Friends groups and other regional partners to annually 

host at least two regionally based environmental education field trips, workshops, seminars, or study 

courses and refuge staff will take a local leadership role in developing and strengthening partnerships.

Rationale 

Part of the mission of the Service is, working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats. Staff at the Humboldt Bay NWR realizes that all wildlife, plants, and habitats on 

the refuge are part of an interdependent ecosystem that extends beyond the refuge boundaries. Providing 

outreach to the public and developing partnerships is the best way to manage the Humboldt Bay ecosystem 

for the benefit of all. Additionally, when the public and partners are not aware of the refuge and its role 

in local, regional, and national conservation they are less likely to value, appreciate, or advocate for the 

resources on the refuge. 

If additional staff and project resources are available, the Humboldt Bay NWR should provide additional 

environmental education and outreach to contribute to protecting the Humboldt Bay ecoregion.
B-20 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX B

Potential Volunteer and Partnership Strategies (From Visitor Services Alternatives

1. With Friends, volunteers, and staff continue to participate in interpretive events on the refuge (for 

example, ACG Fly-Off and Family Fun Weekend, CA Waterfowl Outdoor Adventure Day, etc.). 

2. With Friends, volunteers, and staff continue to participate in off-site interpretive events (California 

State Fair, Godwit Days, ACG Festival).

3. Continue to involve volunteers in a variety of refuge programs to strengthen ties with the community.

4. Incorporate elements of FWS Initiatives (Connecting People with Nature and Birding Initiatives). 

5. Work with Friends to develop and implement Friends Groups priority projects for the refuge 

(Children’s Outdoor Exploration Area, bookstore, etc.).

6. Pursue funding for permanent full-time Information and Education Specialist and Volunteer 

Coordinator positions to assist in planning and implementing projects to strengthen and enlarge the 

volunteer services program, and to provide effective training and program management of the program 

for a corps of 50-100 volunteers.

Current Program

The Friends and volunteers of Humboldt Bay NWR enrich refuge staff with their gift of time, skills and 

energy. Humboldt NWR is affiliated with two official friends’ organizations: Friends of Humboldt Bay NWR 

and Friends of the Dunes. The Friends of Humboldt Bay NWR, a relatively new organization, was formed 

in 2006. They work primarily at the Salmon Creek Unit of Humboldt Bay NWR and provide a multitude 

of services including greeting visitors at the visitor center, providing information about the refuge, and 

assisting the office staff and field personnel. The organization also leads several environmental education 

programs at the refuge and provides outreach into the community at local fairs and events.

Friends of the Dunes (FOD) was established in the mid-1970s to help conserve Lanphere Dunes, an 

area which did not become part of the refuge until 1997. FOD coordinates a number of conservation and 

restoration programs for all dune areas around the bay, including the provision of educational walks once a 

month on the dune units of Humboldt Bay NWR.

Humboldt Bay NWR also hosts an active roster of approximately 100 volunteers that assist with biological, 

environmental education, interpretive, wildlife observation, hunting, maintenance, outreach events and 

refuge activities. Additional individuals are signed up for one-time events such as Brush-Up Day of the 

hunting areas and the Outdoor Adventure Day.

The refuge has also formed strategic partnerships with the Sheriff Work Alternative Program (SWAP), the 

California Conservation Corps (CCC) and the Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) to provide maintenance 

work including facilities maintenance, habitat management and invasive weed removal.

Proposed Changes

If additional staff and project resources are available, the refuge should provide additional environmental 

education and outreach to contribute to protection of the Humboldt Bay ecoregion.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Volunteers are monitored through both an application process that enables refuge staff to match requested 

volunteer projects by refuge staff with volunteer interests and expertise. Volunteers may participate in 

specific work projects, special events or on specific days/hours. Each volunteer records their hours daily on 

time sheets, which are entered into the computer program “VolunteerWorks3.0 TM”. This program allows 

staff to generate monthly and annual volunteer evaluation reports.

Other Applicable Programs

Youth Conservation Corps

The Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) is a well-balanced work-learn-earn program that develops an 

understanding and appreciation in participating youth of the Nation’s environment and heritage. The 

YCC program will be administered in accordance with Public Law 93-408 and an interagency Letter of 

Cooperation. It is administered by the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National 

Park Service. YCC offers gainful summer employment to youth 15-19 years of age for approximately 

eight weeks. The organization and management of individual YCC projects will be governed by program 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 B-21

objectives, budget limitations, and guidelines established by the Service, see Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual Part 141. Within these objectives, limitations and guidelines, individual program operations, public 

information and community relations concerning YCC will be the responsibility of the Host Site Supervisor, 

who will be the Assistant Refuge Manager.

YCC Objectives

The stated purpose of the YCC is to further the development and maintenance of the natural resources 

of the United States by America’s youth and, in doing, to prepare them for the ultimate responsibility of 

maintaining and managing these resources for the American people.

There are three equally important objectives as reflected in the law:

1. Accomplish needed conservation work on public lands.

2. Provide gainful employment for young males and females from all social, economic, ethnic, and racial 

classifications.

3. Develop an understanding and appreciation in the participating youth of the Nation’s natural 

environment and heritage.

The objectives are accomplished in a manner that provides the YCC crew member with an opportunity 

to acquire increased self-discipline. YCC crew members learn work ethics, how to relate to peers and 

supervisors, and how to build lasting cultural bridges with youth from other backgrounds.

 

Current Program

A YCC crew has been maintained each summer at the refuge since the program was first implemented on 

the refuge during the summer of 2002. The crew of 4 to 6 is supervised by one crew leader. During the 

eight week program, enrollees complete maintenance, construction, and invasive plant management projects 

and receive training and exposure to various conservation principles and issues.

Proposed Changes

None

Monitoring and Evaluation

At the end of each YCC program the crew leader prepares a YCC Crew Report detailing work projects 

completed, hours spent on projects and evaluates the program.

Refuge Law Enforcement 

Visitor safety is a key issue in providing high quality wildlife-dependent recreation programs. Visitor safety 

at refuges is a high priority when developing compatible wildlife-dependent recreation programs. We use 

environmental education and interpretive programs to alert visitors to safety issues.

Refuge Law Enforcement Objectives

Continue to provide a safe environment for visitors, protect refuge resources, and ensure compliance with 

regulations through effective law enforcement.

Rationale:

An increasing number of refuge facilities and visitors necessitate an adequate level of safety and security 

through a law enforcement presence. Illegal activities, such as vandalism and illegal dumping, are present 

on refuge lands where there are public activities. A strict law enforcement program and the support of 

refuge partners is necessary to provide a safe, welcoming environment for visitors and staff. A well planned 

and coordinated program will be necessary to successfully address these concerns.

Refuge Law Enforcement Strategies

1. Continue to develop MOUs with various agencies to improve coordination, improve safety and 

coordinate efforts in areas of special concerns.

2. Increase law enforcement on the Humboldt Bay NWR by contract or hiring a seasonal law enforcement 

officer.

3. Provide public education and signage as part of law enforcement programs and provide a sufficient level 

of law enforcement from various agencies to address these issues.
B-22 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX B

4. Refuge staff will work closely with CDFG game wardens and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

rangers from surrounding public lands.

5. Annually maintain boundary, closed area, and other public use signs.

Current Program

Currently, there is no full-time nor duel-function refuge officer assigned to Humboldt Bay NWR. An MOU 

established in FY2007 with BLM provides for ~100 hours annually for law enforcement assistance to the 

refuge. A FWS zone law enforcement officer is located at Sacramento NWR and the Klamath Basin NWRC 

occasionally provides law enforcement coverage upon special request. The Humboldt County Sheriff ’s 

Department and officers from Humboldt State University also provide some coverage in case of emergency. 

Additionally, both CDFG and NOAA Fisheries Service provide wildlife law enforcement coverage on an 

opportunistic basis. 

Proposed Changes

Increase law enforcement on the Humboldt Bay NWR, especially during waterfowl season, by contract or 

by hiring a seasonal law enforcement officer.

Monitoring and Evaluation

All law enforcement activities during the hunting season are recorded in a law enforcement log. An annual 

meeting between all law enforcement partners is held at the refuge to evaluate the law enforcement program.

Concession Operations 

There are currently no concession operations at Humboldt Bay NWR. The Friends of Humboldt Bay NWR 

plan to eventually install a bookstore in the Richard J. Guadagno Headquarters and Visitor Center.

Fee Programs

The Service is one of four Federal land management agencies (Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of 

Land Management, National Park Service, and National Forest Service), directed by Congress in 1996, 

to implement or expand fee collection sites as part of a program to explore the feasibility to better offset 

costs to administer recreation on public lands. In 2004, Congress passed the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act which allows the government to charge a fee for recreation use of public lands managed 

by the Service, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest 

Service.

A Recreational Use permit, operated under the Recreation Fee Program, is required at Salmon Creek Unit. 

The fee is used to fund the staff required to maintain a high quality managed hunt, in compliance with the 

Federal Lands Recreation enhancement Act of 2004. The fee is reduced by 50 percent for permanently 

disabled hunters and hunters over the age of 62. No fee is charged for hunters 16 and under.

Other

In “Fulfilling the Promise” the Service (USFWS 1999) identified the need to forge new and non-traditional 

alliances and strengthen existing partnerships with States, Tribes, non-profit organizations and academia 

to broaden citizen and community understanding of and support for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The Service recognizes that strong citizen support benefits the Refuge System. Involving citizen groups 

in refuge resource and management issues and decisions helps managers gain an understanding of public 

concerns. Partners yield support for refuge activities and programs, raise funds for projects, are activists 

on behalf of wildlife and the Refuge System, and provide support on important wildlife and natural resource 

issues.

SECTION B: Castle Rock NWR

Introduction and Brief History

Approximately eighty miles north of Humboldt Bay, Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge (CRNWR) lies 

about a half mile offshore from Crescent City, California. Castle Rock NWR is part of the Humboldt Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex). Purchased in 1979 from the Nature Conservancy, Castle 

Rock NWR is only 14 acres in size, but is critical to the survival of several hundred thousand seabirds each 

year. Castle Rock rises 335 feet above sea level with a grassy slope, two large inlets, and cliffs that are 

important to nesting seabirds in the summer. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 B-23

Castle Rock. Photo © Stan Harris

The cliffs provide nesting habitat for one of the largest breeding populations (~100,000) of common murres 

on the Pacific coast. Ten other species of seabirds also nest here, including three species of cormorants, 

pigeon guillemots, Cassin’s and rhinoceros auklets, Leach’s and fork-tailed storm-petrels, and tufted puffins. 

Because many of these bird species nest in burrows and crevices and are primarily nocturnal, they avoid 

predation by western gulls that also nest on the island. Castle Rock NWR is also a key roost site for up to 

20,000 Aleutian cackling geese each winter and spring. Finally, Castle Rock NWR serves as an important 

haul out (resting site) for marine mammals, including harbor seals, northern elephant seals (both bear pups 

there), and California and Steller sea-lions.

Castle Rock NWR is closed to the public to prevent disturbance to the seabirds, their habitat, and marine 

mammals. The birds and mammals of Castle Rock can best be seen in the early morning hours with a 

spotting scope from Pebble Beach Drive.

Castle Rock NWR Environmental Education and Outreach Goals

Provide high quality environmental education and information to the public regarding the ecology and 

sensitivity of the wildlife of Castle Rock NWR. Methods should include an existing web cam which is 

available online, as well as more traditional methods on the mainland including interpretive panels, 

brochures, and outreach to local communities and schools.

Rationale

Standard visitor service programs are inappropriate for Castle Rock NWR due to the potential for sensitive 

wildlife disturbance and the general inaccessibility of the island itself. However, by working collaboratively 

with Humboldt State University (HSU), the National Park Service (NPS), the US Coast Guard (USCG), 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) which manages adjacent islands as part of the California Coastal 

National Monument, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), local tribes, agencies, 

schools, and individuals we can still effectively and efficiently reach interested audiences and provide 

educational and interpretive messages about the natural resources of Castle Rock NWR. 
B-24 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX B

Castle Rock NWR Environmental Education and Outreach Objective

Over the 15 year life of the CCP, Complex staff will coordinate environmental education and interpretation 

programs on the seabird, marine mammal, and Aleutian cackling geese populations that use Castle Rock 

NWR with that of larger State, Regional, and other California Current System seabird programs. Within 

three years Complex staff will collaborate with National and State organizations to develop and provide 

additional environmental education, interpretation, and outreach to K-12 school groups, community groups, 

and individuals about Castle Rock NWR. Complex staff will also participate in at least 2 community events 

annually.

Proposed Castle Rock NWR Environmental Education and Outreach Strategies

1. Continue collaboration with Humboldt State University, National Park Service, and the United States 

Coast Guard to provide the seabird web-cam online.

2. Conduct outreach to educate the public, develop stewardship, and ultimately help protect the natural 

resources of Castle Rock NWR and integrate outreach with other programs.

3. Develop age group specific educational outreach DVDs based on webcam recordings.

4. Develop a brochure on Castle Rock’s natural resources and how to protect seabird and marine mammal 

populations that use Castle Rock NWR.

5. Increase signage and distribute flyers to educate kayakers, the fishing community, and other users 

to the risk of disturbance, the potential impact on seabirds and marine mammals and the illegality of 

trespass or disturbance to wildlife. 

6. Develop informational flyers specific to the Castle Rock NWR and distribute to Redwood State and 

National Park visitors center, local chambers of commerce and other tourism information locations.

7. Work with community partners (e.g., College of the Redwoods, Marine Mammal Center, and Siskiyou 

Field Institute) to provide educational interpretive field trips and courses using Castle Rock NWR to 

showcase wildlife, seabird and marine mammal ecology.

8. Work with partners to provide educational and interpretive information for their excursions around 

Castle Rock.

9. Coordinate with local tribal entities to provide interpretation of traditional uses of Castle Rock NWR as 

appropriate.

10. Collaborate with Redwood National and State Parks to increase environmental education and 

community outreach (e.g., newsletters, web sites, campfire talks).

Current Program

With current staffing levels, Complex staff is only able to participate in one community event associated 

with Castle Rock NWR each year. A combination of Complex volunteers and permanent, seasonal, and 

temporary staff participate in the Aleutian Cackling Goose Festival annually and will continue to do so. 

Proposed Changes

Within two years staff will develop new environmental education and interpretation partnerships that will 

allow participation in two events annually. Staff will coordinate environmental education and interpretation 

programs on species that use Castle Rock NWR with that of larger State, Regional, and other CCS seabird 

programs. Staff will also work with community partners to provide educational interpretive field trips and 

courses using Castle Rock NWR to showcase wildlife, seabird and marine mammal ecology. 

Within three years Staff will collaborate with partners to develop and provide additional environmental 

education, interpretation, and outreach to K-12 school groups, community groups, and individuals. They will 

also coordinate with local tribal entities to provide interpretation of traditional uses of Castle Rock NWR as 

appropriate.

Monitoring and Evaluation

An outreach log is maintained for all activities relating to outreach and environmental education on the 

Complex; including Castle Rock NWR. No systems are currently in place to monitor visitor use of the 

observation area overlooking the refuge.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 B-25

Implementing the Plan

Essential Staffing Needs

See Chapter 4 of the CCP.

Table of Projects, Costs

See Chapter 6 of the CCP.

Partnership Funding and Resources

See Chapter 4 of the CCP.

Compatibility Determinations

See Appendix F of the CCP.

NEPA Document/Decision Document

See Appendix E of the CCP.

ESA Section 7 Consultations

See Appendix I of the CCP.

Appendices

Appendix B-1: Humboldt Bay NWR Brochure 

Find the brochure at http://www.fws.gov/humboldtbay/brochure.pdf
B-26 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX B

Figure B–1. Visitor Services Alternative—Salmon Creek and Hookton Slough Units

!"$

!©

!@ !i

!^

!| !l !_ !i

_

_

!\

!°

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! !

£¤101

Controlled

Waterfowl

Hunt Area

Hookton Rd

!\

Ranch Rd

Hookton

Slough

Trail

Shorebird

Loop

Trail

Salmon Creek and

Hookton Slough Units

Figure B-1. Visitor Services

! ! Water Trail

Wheelchair Accessible Trail

Open to hunting

!° Outdoor Exploration Area

!@ Visitor Center & Office

!© Hunt Check Station & Parking

!^ Interpretive Kiosk

!\ Photo blind

!l Fishing Dock

!| Non-Motorized Boat Launch

!i Parking

!_ Restroom

_ Gate

Refuge Lands

0 0.125 0.25 0.5

Miles ±

Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service include all lands

and waters with an elevation greater than "mean higher

high water" or 7.06 NGVD.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 B-27

Figure B–2. Visitor Services Alternative—Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes Units. 

!@

d

!\

!l

!i

!F

!_ !5

!i

Fernstrom

Root

Island

Ma-le'l

Island

 ̄

Lanphere and

Ma-le'l Dunes Units

Figure B-2. Visitor Services !l Fishing Access

!F Kiosk

d Lanphere Gate

!@ Office

!i Parking

!5 Picnic Area

!_ Restroom

!\ Wetland Observation Deck

Existing Trails

Proposed Trails

Roads

Proposed Wheelchair Accessible Trail

Hunting Permitted

Retrieval Zone

0 0.125 0.25 0.5

Miles

Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service include all lands

and waters with an elevation greater than "mean higher

high water" or 7.06 NGVD.
B-28 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX B
Appendix C: Waterfowl Hunt Plan

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 C-1

WATERFOWL HUNT PLAN

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt County, California

November 2008

Youth Hunters at the Salmon Creek Unit of Humboldt Bay NWR. Photo: USFWS
C-2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX C

I. Introduction

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge (HBNWR) is located in Humboldt County, California, with refuge 

units within and adjacent to Humboldt Bay and associated watersheds (Figure C-1). The approved refuge 

boundary is roughly defined by Hookton Road on the south, Mad River County Park on the north, Highway 

101 and Mad River Slough on the east, and the Pacific Ocean on the west (Figure C-1). Topography in the 

general region of Humboldt Bay is characterized by steep mountains and narrow valleys, which are typical 

of the coast ranges of northern California. Most of these uplands are covered by dense forests of redwood 

and Douglas-fir. Humboldt Bay consists of three primary sections: Arcata Bay in the north, Entrance Bay 

the middle and South Bay. Below are brief descriptions of each section as described in the Humboldt Bay 

Management Plan (HBHRCD 2007):

Arcata Bay

Arcata Bay is bounded by the Samoa Peninsula and the North Spit to the west; the Arcata Marsh and 

Wildlife Sanctuary, Arcata Bottoms, and City of Arcata to the north; Bayside Bottoms and Bracut areas to 

the east; and the City of Eureka and Woodley Island to the south. Arcata Bay covers ~ 13 square miles and 

is ~ 5.8 miles at its longest and 4.3 miles at its widest points. This portion of the bay is generally shallow, 

with over half of the area exposed at low tides. These tidal flats are incised by several deeper channels, as 

well as numerous shallow channels. Most of the mud-silt bottom of Arcata Bay is exposed on average low 

tides, creating habitat for foraging shorebirds.

Entrance Bay

Entrance Bay is ~ 5 miles long and generally less than a mile wide. It is bounded by the North Spit on the 

west, Arcata Bay to the north, the City of Eureka and Elk River Spit and wetlands to the east. It includes 

Woodley Island and Indian Island and the City of Eureka waterfront. Entrance Bay, with a mostly sand 

bottom, lacks the expansive mudflats found in Arcata Bay and South Bay.

South Bay

South Bay covers ~ 7 square miles and is ~ 4 miles at its longest and 2.5 miles at its widest points. It is 

bounded by the South Spit on the west side, Entrance Bay on the north, lands and waters of the Humboldt 

Bay National Wildlife Refuge (HBNWR) on the southeast, and Table Bluff to the southwest. Like Arcata 

Bay, much of the South Bay is occupied by broad expanses of tidal flats incised by numerous small, shallow 

channels and one deep-water channel which serves the Fields Landing and King Salmon areas and is 

maintained for navigation. South Bay supports eelgrass over much of its silt bottom, with the higher 

elevations of the east and south sides exposing bare (or algae covered) mudflats on most low tides.

In 1971, the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge was established to conserve important habitat for the 

great diversity of animals and plants that occur in the Humboldt Bay area. Humboldt Bay NWR has several 

different units totaling almost 3,500 acres. These units consist of a mixture of mudflats, estuarine eelgrass 

meadows, salt marsh, brackish marsh, seasonally flooded freshwater wetlands, riparian wetlands, streams, 

coastal dunes, and forest. These habitats support over 316 species of birds and 40 species of mammals. The 

refuge also provides habitat for ~ 100 species of fish and marine invertebrates, many of which contribute to 

sport and commercial fisheries, including steelhead, Coho and Chinook salmon, and Dungeness crab. 

Concentrations of migratory waterbirds, especially shorebirds, occur in the fall, winter, and spring. In 

winter, it is not unusual for over 100,000 birds to use Humboldt Bay as a feeding or resting site. Key habitats 

for these waterbird concentrations are eelgrass beds and extensive mudflats. These also make the bay an 

important spawning, nursery, and feeding area for fish and other marine life. Complimentary to the bay 

habitats are thousands of acres of seasonal wetlands (mostly former tidal wetlands that have been diked off 

for over a century). 

Endangered or threatened species include: brown pelican, snowy plover, Chinook and Coho salmon, 

steelhead, tidewater goby, Humboldt Bay wallflower, and beach layia. The Lanphere Dunes and Ma-le’l 

Dunes Units protect endangered and rare plants within rare dune plant communities. The refuge contains 

one of very few dune systems in which the underlying processes are intact.

The Humboldt Bay watershed is considered the most important wintering waterfowl habitat between San 

Francisco Bay and the Columbia River (PCJV 2004). Many species of waterfowl use habitats on Humboldt 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 C-3

Bay NWR, particularly 

for resting and foraging 

during their annual 

migrations. Seasonally 

common waterfowl that 

use Humboldt Bay NWR 

and nearby wetlands and 

agricultural short-grass 

pastures during migration 

include: northern pintail, 

northern shoveler, 

American wigeon, greenwinged teal, mallard, 

bufflehead, scaup, tundra 

swan, Pacific brant, 

Aleutian and cackling 

geese, and non-native 

Western Canada geese, 

which were introduced 

to the area in the 1980s. 

Larger, seasonally 

common waterfowl such 

as Pacific brant, Canada 

geese, and cackling geese 

are highly valued by sport 

hunters and by wildlife watchers alike. This refuge has also been described as one of the most important 

areas in the United States south of Alaska for Pacific brant. This is especially true during the spring when the 

bay is a key staging area for more than 60 percent of the flyway Pacific brant population prior to their return 

to arctic nesting grounds. Similarly, the northcoast of California and southern coast of Oregon are key spring 

staging areas for the growing population of Aleutian cackling geese.

The refuge is a focal point for humans and wildlife. Currently, visitors may tour the Salmon Creek Unit of 

the refuge, including the Shorebird Loop Trail and Richard J. Guadagno Headquarters and Visitor Center 

from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Federal holidays excepted. The Hookton Slough Unit, including the Hookton 

Slough Trail and Non-Motorized Boat Ramp, is open 7 days a week from sunrise to sunset. Special tours and 

other environmental education programs are available on request. More than 25,000 people visit the refuge 

annually. The refuge hosts a variety of special events such as the Goose Flyoff and Family Fun Weekend, the 

California Waterfowl Association (CWA) Outdoor Adventure Day and is a partner in Godwit Days. There are 

many opportunities for wildlife-dependent uses at the refuge, including wildlife observation, environmental 

education and interpretation, waterfowl hunting, wildlife photography, and fishing.

The purpose of this hunt plan is to outline how the hunting program is operated at Humboldt Bay NWR. 

In addition, this plan documents how the refuge will provide safe hunting opportunities, while minimizing 

conflicts with other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses.

Humboldt Bay NWR will have parts of eight units open to hunting under this plan: Ma-le’l Dunes 

(Fernstrom-Root Island), Jacoby Creek, Eureka Slough, Table Bluff, White Slough (Egret Island), Hookton 

Slough (Teal Island), and Salmon Creek (Figure C-1). All units associated with Humboldt Bay are potentially 

hazardous due to deep mud, volatile wind conditions, underwater hazards, and changing tides. Caution 

should be used when hunting any unfamiliar areas of the bay or the refuge. Only safe, reliable boats should 

be used. Possession of all boater safety gear required by the United States Coast Guard is mandatory to use 

a boat in any refuge units. The Service is continually seeking ways to improve safety. In response to a public 

comment received on the Draft CCP/EA, the refuge staff has considered and plans to install a “throw rope” 

or other device near hunt blinds 3, far 5, 7. The purpose of the rope would be for visitors to have a means of 

self-rescue available in the event that they become stuck in the mud.

Hunting of waterfowl, coots, common moorhens and snipe is currently permitted only in designated areas 

of the refuge and is governed by Federal and State regulations. The Sport Hunting Decision Document 

Package that currently dictates all hunting occurring within HBNWR was approved February 27, 1990. 

A young hunter enjoys a hunt with his father and dog at the Salmon Creek 

Unit. Photo: USFWS
C-4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX C

II. Conformance with Statutory Authorities

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge was established by authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of February 16, 1929, as amended, and the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 

March 16, 1934, as amended. The purpose of Humboldt Bay NWR is to protect and enhance wetland 

habitats in and adjacent to Humboldt Bay for a wide variety of migratory waterbirds, especially Pacific 

brant. National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, laws and international treaties. Relevant 

guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 

1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 provides guidelines and directives for the 

administration and management of all areas in the NWRS. The Act also defines six wildlife-dependent 

priority public uses, including hunting, that refuges should strive to provide when compatible with the 

purposes of the refuge and the mission of the NWRS. A strong historical precedent for hunting on refuge 

lands exists as much of the lands and waters acquired by the refuge were hunted for migratory birds prior to 

FWS acquisition. One of the major contributors to the National Wildlife Refuge System has been the Federal 

Duck Stamp Program, among the most successful conservation programs ever initiated. Waterfowl hunters 

are required to purchase a duck stamp to hunt waterfowl. More than 1.5 million stamps are sold each year. 

Over the years, sales of duck stamps have led to the purchasing of over five million acres of wildlife habitat 

for the NWRS. Hunting is permitted in accordance with State and Federal regulations and seasons to ensure 

that it will not interfere with the conservation of other wildlife and fish and their habitats. 

The Office of Migratory Bird Management sets the general frameworks through their annual regulations 

permitting the hunting of migratory birds. The individual States set seasons within those frameworks. If 

necessary, the Service develops regulations that may be more restrictive that State hunting regulations in 

order to protect resources on a refuge-by-refuge basis, termed “refuge-specific regulations” (i.e., species or 

days hunted). Otherwise, the Service observes State regulations on all refuges open to hunting. 

The estimated annual cost to administer the hunt program is $8,500. Within the annual HBNWR budget the 

necessary funds are available for this work. The refuge also participates in the Recreational Fee Program, 

which offsets some costs of the hunting program. Therefore, the hunting of migratory ducks, geese, coots, 

common moorhens and snipe is in compliance with the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as 

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee), the Refuge 

Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k), and all other governing statutory authorities. 

The State of California has legislatively granted to the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation 

District (HBHRC District) jurisdiction over areas below mean higher high water or elevation 7.06 NGVD 

(3.15 feet above mean sea level). Therefore, at this writing, hunting on the sloughs and in the tidallyinfluenced lands below 3.15 mean sea level is within the HBHRC District’s jurisdiction. Areas above 3.15 

mean sea level are within the refuge’s jurisdiction.

III. Statement of Objectives

The goal of the National Wildlife Refuge System is: To provide the general public with a quality wildlifeoriented recreational experience and an opportunity to utilize a renewable natural resource. The objectives 

of the Humboldt Bay NWR Waterfowl Hunt Plan are to:

1. Provide a quality wildlife-dependent recreational experience, using a renewable natural resource.

2. Promote hunter education and ethics through information and enforcement of hunting regulations and 

compliance with compatibility determinations.

3. Promote mobility-impaired access by providing designated mobility-impaired accessible blinds. 

4. Promote opportunities for youth and junior hunters by providing designated hunts for youth and junior 

hunters.

For the goals of HBNWR as established by the refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) see Chapter 

5 of the CCP.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 C-5

Therefore, with existing staff and resources, the hunt program would contribute to CCP Goal 5 by providing 

safe, high quality hunting opportunities without impeding the ability of the refuge to achieve remaining 

refuge goals. This plan would allow waterfowl hunting on designated refuge units under State waterfowl 

regulations as well as regulations set by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service specifically for HBNWR. In 

addition, hunter education, ethics, and opportunities for youth and mobility-impaired hunters are emphasized 

as part of the refuge hunt program.

IV. Assessment

Pacific flyway waterbirds migrating along the coast use Humboldt Bay as a feeding and resting area during 

fall, winter and spring. Humboldt Bay is a key spring staging area for arctic–bound Pacific brant, which feed 

almost entirely on eelgrass south of their breeding grounds and are therefore limited to areas on the flyway 

which provide this habitat. Humboldt Bay is also a key spring staging area for tens of thousands of Aleutian 

cackling geese, which utilize the pasturelands found on Humboldt Bay NWR and surrounding lands. 

Based on decades of winter waterfowl survey data; the combined dabbling and diving duck numbers in the 

Humboldt Bay area range from 10,000 to 40,000 from fall through spring. Species which occur in the greatest 

numbers are American wigeon, bufflehead, green-winged teal, scaup, scoters, and northern pintail. Coots 

and snipe are also seasonally abundant in the area, while common moorhens are listed in local field guides as 

“accidental occurrences”.

Are wildlife populations present in numbers sufficient to sustain optimum population levels for 

priority refuge objectives other than hunting?

Yes, wildlife populations are present in sufficient numbers to sustain optimum population levels for priority 

refuge goals other than hunting (See Section III for a list of refuge goals). The refuge harvest regulations 

follow those set by the State, which are in turn set within Federal guidelines.

Under Federal law established by international treaties with Canada, Mexico and other countries with whom 

the United States of America share migratory birds, the Service has ultimate responsibility for regulating 

migratory bird hunting nationwide. The Service establishes frameworks that govern all migratory bird 

hunting in the United States through a regulatory process that begins each year in January and includes 

public consultation. Within the boundaries established by those frameworks, State wildlife commissions have 

the flexibility to determine season length, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting.

Resident and migratory birds, wildlife and fish would be minimally impacted by the hunt program because 

of the limited days hunting occurs on the refuge and the percentage of refuge lands closed to hunting and 

other uses. Other effects considered within the context of the refuge hunt program include such things as: 

disturbance to non-hunted species, take of non-target species, presence of lead from historic hunting, and 

crowding of birds into closed zones causing disease. While all of these issues may have had substantive 

effects on waterfowl at different locations around the country at one time or another, none of these issues 

taken separately or cumulatively has ever had a significant impact on local wintering waterfowl populations. 

This is likely due to the large diversity and spread of wetlands in the area from Eel River to Mad River which 

allows birds ample habitat to distribute themselves in.

Therefore, a waterfowl hunt can be sustained that does not impact populations of resident and other 

migratory birds, wildlife and fish and allows the refuge to contribute to the goals listed in Section III.

Is there competition for habitat between target species and other wildlife?

Possibly; while each species occupies a certain niche, there is a finite amount of space available to satisfy 

various habitat requirements for water, food, cover, and roosting areas. Management of seasonal and 

permanent wetlands is currently guided by the goals and management objectives of the CCP. These goals 

and objectives would ensure that habitats would be managed to provide for a diverse number of species 

including waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wading birds.

Are there unacceptable levels of predation by target species on other wildlife forms?

No, some waterfowl species feed on fish and invertebrates as well as plant seeds and tubers, but it is not 

likely that they feed at levels that impact other wildlife on the refuge.
C-6 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX C

V. Description of Hunting Program

The hunt program at Humboldt Bay NWR is small compared to many other National Wildlife Refuges in 

California such as Sacramento NWRC or Tule Lake NWR. However, Humboldt Bay NWR provides a unique 

public land hunting opportunity for the citizens of California and Humboldt County in general and specifically 

for the cities of Eureka, Arcata and Fortuna. The lottery draw type of hunt offered at the Salmon Creek 

Unit of HBNWR is different than the other public lands open to hunting in the area, which are currently 

managed as free-roam hunt areas. During the 2006/2007 hunting season a total of 1187 hunters took 2967 

ducks at the Salmon Creek Unit of the refuge for a 2.5 bird average. The refuge maintained a greater than 

two birds per hunter average for the 2001 to 2006 hunting seasons, indicating a high quality hunt. The three 

most commonly harvested species at the Salmon Creek Unit are green-winged teal, American wigeon and 

northern shoveler. Western Canada geese, Aleutian cackling geese and cackling geese are all also regularly 

harvested at the Salmon Creek Unit but in much smaller numbers. Use and harvest data is not available for 

other areas on the refuge open to hunting.

The refuge also allows hunting at the Jacoby Creek, Eureka Slough, Table Bluff, South Bay, and Salmon 

Creek Units; as well as the White Slough/Egret Island, Hookton Slough/Teal Island areas in South Bay; 

totaling 840 acres. Under this plan, the portions of Fernstrom-Root Island owned by FWS would be opened 

to hunting; totaling 10 acres. Therefore, ~25 percent of the properties owned by the Service is or will be 

open to hunting. The remaining lands owned by the refuge are not suitable for a hunting program because 

they are: located too close to residential areas or highway/freeway areas, used as sanctuary areas or are 

currently open or planned for other priority wildlife-dependent visitor uses including wildlife observation, 

environmental education, interpretation, and photography. Listed below are brief descriptions of each refuge 

unit open to hunting:

North (Arcata) Bay Units

Ma-le’l Dunes Unit (Fernstrom-Root Island)

Fernstrom-Root Island is a 10 acre island in Mad River Slough consisting of high salt marsh. Mad River 

Slough is north of Highway 255 and lies between the dunes and the Arcata Bottoms. Mad River Slough is 

navigable water and therefore overwater hunting is permitted. Areas of Ma-le’l Island within the Service’s 

jurisdiction, south of Fernstrom-Root Island, are designated as retrieval only areas. The islands are 

accessible by boat only and FWS only owns part of the island. The area receives light to moderate use during 

the early part of the waterfowl season. 

Jacoby Creek Unit

Jacoby Creek Unit is ~ 73 acres located in northeastern Arcata Bay south of the Arcata Marsh. It is 

characterized by mudflat and tidally influenced salt marsh habitat. The dominant plants found in the salt 

marsh habitats of Humboldt Bay are Spartina (Spartina densiflora) and pickleweed (Salicornia spp.). The 

Jacoby Creek Unit includes the mouth of Jacoby Creek. Jacoby Creek Unit is hunted most frequently during 

the early waterfowl season, when birds are attracted to the freshwater coming out of the creek. During the 

latter half of the waterfowl season hunting pressure is generally low.

Eureka Slough Unit

Eureka Slough is ~ 86 acres of undiked salt marsh and mudflat in southeastern Arcata Bay. The area is 

difficult to access and receives very little hunting pressure throughout the season.

South Bay Areas and Units

White Slough Unit/Egret Island

White Slough is diked on both sides, with very little cover on either shore in South Bay. Egret Island is a two 

acre low salt marsh island. This island is boat access only and is inundated by high tides on a regular basis. 

The area also includes several other small salt marsh islands. The majority of the White Slough Unit is diked 

and the dikes and all areas landward of the dikes are closed to hunting due to the proximity of Highway 101. 

The open water area is difficult to safely access and to navigate at low tides. The area receives moderate 

hunting pressure during the early part of the hunting season.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 C-7

Salmon Creek Unit

The hunt area at Salmon Creek is ~ 320 acres and consists of a mixture of short-grass pastures, seasonal and 

permanent freshwater wetlands, brackish wetlands and numerous brackish sloughs. Salmon Creek features 

a regulated, spaced blind hunting program and is part of the Recreation Fee Permit program. Salmon Creek 

receives the most hunting pressure of all the refuge units. 

The Salmon Creek hunt program can currently accommodate a maximum of 60 hunters in the field at one 

time, with potential for 120 hunters or more during a hunt day with 100 percent blind re-fills. Blinds areas 

may have one or more standup blinds, pit blinds, or both. Hunting occurs from 15 blind areas, separated to 

ensure a safe hunting experience.

Hookton Slough Unit/Teal Island

The area of Hookton Slough bayward of the dikes is navigable water and is open to hunting on overwater 

hunting days (see California Department of Fish and Game Regulations for definition of overwater hunting 

days). The area consists of a deep 

tidal channel with steep dikes on 

both sides, several salt marsh 

islands, and remnant dikes of Teal 

Island in South Bay. Teal Island is 

not a true island; rather it consists 

only of the remnants of an exterior 

dike built around the historical salt 

marsh island. The dike consists 

of rapidly eroding bay mud and in 

some places dense coyote brush 

(Baccharis pilularis). There are 

also several low marsh islands 

created by dense mats of Spartina 

associated with Teal Island. Most 

hunting occurs from the dike. 

Teal Island receives moderate 

hunting pressure during the entire 

waterfowl season. The mainland 

dikes and all areas landward are 

closed to access from the slough. 

Hookton Slough receives light 

hunting pressure during the entire 

waterfowl season. 

Table Bluff Unit

Table Bluff is an ~160 acre unit consisting of mudflat and a muted tidal marsh. Located in the southwest 

corner of South Bay, a breached dike and an adjacent shoreline grading from dune to brackish marsh make 

the area difficult to access by boat or on foot. The channels that lead to the area are impassable by foot 

during high tide. The area receives light hunting pressure throughout the season.

South Bay Unit

This unit consists of tidal flats and eelgrass primarily in areas west and north of Teal Island and immediately 

west of the north end of the White Slough Unit. Most of South Bay is prime habitat for Pacific brant as it is 

covered with eelgrass, their primary food. Most brant hunting takes place either from the bay shoreline of 

South Spit (which is owned by CDFG but managed by BLM), or out on the bay itself on overwater hunt days 

by hunters using scull or layout boats. The brant season is generally occurs during the month of November.

A. Areas of the refuge that support populations of target species:

All hunted species are found in appropriate habitats throughout the refuge. Waterfowl feed, loaf, and rest 

on the refuge primarily from fall through spring with some species nesting during spring and summer. 

The most common breeding waterfowl on the refuge are Western Canada geese, mallards, and gadwall. 

Waterfowl utilize the managed permanent and seasonal wetlands, flooded pastures, ponds, sloughs, intertidal 

mudflats, salt marsh and other bay habitats found throughout all the units of the refuge.

Youth hunters enjoying the morning hunt. Photo: USFWS
C-8 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX C

B. Areas to be newly opened to the public:

1. Fernstrom-Root Island

Hunting on the portions of Fernstrom-Root Island owned by FWS will be opened to hunting according to 

this plan. Fernstrom-Root Island is located in Mad River Slough north of Ma-le’l Island and the water pipe 

crossing (Figure C-4). Areas of Ma-le’l Island within the Service’s jurisdiction, adjacent to Fernstrom-Root 

Island and the Viqhul Trail will be open for retrieval only. The HBHRCD has jurisdiction over areas below 

mean higher high water or elevation 7.06 NGVD (3.15 feet above mean sea level). Therefore, hunting on the 

sloughs and in the tidally-influenced lands below 3.15 mean sea level is within the HBHRCD’s jurisdiction. 

Areas above 3.15 mean sea level are within the refuge’s jurisdiction.

2. Salmon Creek Unit

There is currently a regularly scheduled youth hunt every year after the end of the regular waterfowl season 

in concurrence with California state regulations. The event is very well attended and adult hunters help out 

in many different ways, from guiding youth hunters whose parents have no hunting experience to cooking 

breakfast for youth hunters returning from the field. In order to increase opportunity for youth hunters, the 

refuge will open a youth hunt in concurrence with State regulations following the close of waterfowl season 

and extending for one day. Youth hunters must be 15 years of age or younger and accompanied by a nonhunting adult 18 years of age or older.

The refuge will also open two junior hunts. The junior hunts will occur during the regular waterfowl season 

on the last Thursday in December and the first Thursday in January, aligning with the regular holiday school 

break to maximize junior hunter opportunities at the refuge. Junior hunt days will be managed similar to 

the existing youth hunt held at the end of the regular season. This measure will help maintain a high quality 

hunt and prevent conflicts with other wildlife dependent recreation uses. Junior hunts will be open to hunters 

16 years of age or under possessing a valid junior hunting license. All hunters age 16 or younger must be 

accompanied by a non-hunting adult 18 years of age or older. All 16 year old hunters with a junior hunting 

license are required to have in possession a signed Federal duck stamp.

C. Species to be taken, hunting periods:

The waterfowl hunt program at HBNWR takes place during the normal State waterfowl hunting season, 

typically from the third weekend in October to the last weekend in January as set by the State Commission in 

accordance with Federal guidelines. Shooting is permitted from 1⁄2 hour before Eureka legal shoot time until 

3:00 p.m. at the Salmon Creek Unit, and 1⁄2 hour before Eureka legal shoot time until sunset at all other units 

open to hunting. Only ducks, geese, coots, common moorhens and snipe are permitted to be taken. Common 

duck species include American wigeon, green-winged teal, northern shoveler, northern pintail, mallard, 

bufflehead, greater and lesser scaup, scoters, ruddy duck and gadwall. Common goose species include 

Western Canada, cackling and Aleutian cackling geese.

D. Justification for permit, if one is required:

A permit is required at Salmon Creek Unit to monitor hunter use, levels of waterfowl harvest and to collect a 

fee. The fee is used to fund the staff required to maintain a high quality managed hunt.

E. Procedures for consultation and coordination with the State:

The following procedures are done:

Refuge staff meets with CDFG, BLM and FWS managers and wardens before and after hunt season to 

discuss the hunting season and possible improvements for the coming year.

The State Lands Commission has determined that all tide and submerged lands, as well as navigable 

rivers and sloughs, are impressed with the Common Law Public Trust. The Public Trust is a sovereign 

public property right held by the State or its delegated trustee for the benefit of all the people in the State. 

Jurisdiction over most of Hookton Slough has been legislatively delegated by the State to the Humboldt 

Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District (HBHRCD). The HBHRCD’s management boundary 

extends to “mean higher high water”. That is, the refuge has jurisdiction over areas within the refuge 

boundary that are above the elevation of “mean higher high water” (3.15 feet above mean sea level or 7.06 

feet NGVD). The HBHRCD has jurisdiction over water and lands below “mean higher high water”.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 C-9

F. Methods of control and enforcement:

The following methods are used to control and enforce hunting regulations:

• Hunt area boundary signs will be posted at all units.

• At the Salmon Creek Unit hunters are assigned a spaced blind and must hunt within a designated “blind 

zone.” Blind zones are both described in written terms and shown on a map in a document provided to all 

hunters at the check station, the refuge web site and in the Visitor Center.

• Humboldt Bay NWR has produced a brochure and a map that clearly illustrates hunt areas. The map 

and brochure is available at the Richard J. Guadagno Headquarters and Visitor Center, the hunter check 

station and the refuge website.

• Hunters are randomly checked by a cooperative of law enforcement agencies (FWS, BLM, CDFG) for 

compliance with State and Federal laws as well as refuge-specific regulations.

• A hunter check station is located on the Salmon Creek unit and staffed by refuge staff, volunteers and/or 

California Waterfowl Association (CWA) staff/volunteers to conduct the lottery draw, assist hunters, and 

monitor the hunt.

G. Funding and staffing requirements:

Administering the hunt program at Salmon Creek Unit requires staff to randomly select hunters through a 

lottery draw system, check in hunters, record harvest data, prepare and construct blinds prior to the season, 

enforce regulations, monitor impacts to other wildlife and ensure safety. The orientation/hunter check-in and 

administering of the hunt requires the Wildlife Biology Aide to work about 8 hours for every hunt day. An 

estimated annual expense of $6,000 is required to pay the Wildlife Biology Aide.

Estimated annual costs include ~ $6,000 to fund the Visitor Services/Wildlife Biology Aide position, $4,000 

for other staff and law enforcement, $2,000 to maintain roads and trails and improve the hunt area (signs) and 

$500 for Hunt Area habitat improvement for a total estimated annual expenditure of $12,500. Due to the high 

costs of this program, the refuge participates in the Recreational Fee Program, which results in an average 

yearly fee collection of $3,700 from ~ 1000 refuge hunters.

H. Consideration of mobility-impaired hunters:

Providing opportunities for mobility-impaired hunters is one of the goals of the waterfowl hunting program at 

the refuge. Specifically, the program:

• Provides a blind area accessible to mobility-impaired hunters on the Salmon Creek Unit for the exclusive 

use of mobility-impaired persons and their hunting partners.

• Ensures parking areas leading to blinds are accessible for persons in wheelchairs, or using walkers.

• Provides a discounted permit fee for mobility-impaired hunters.

• A “mobility impaired hunter” is defined as any person who has been issued a “DMV Disabled license 

plate, or a permanent parking placard identification card,” or a valid “Mobility Impaired Disabled Persons 

Motor Vehicle Hunting License” (FG Form 1460). The blue plastic “Disabled Parking Placard” may not be 

substituted for the required “Identification card” which bears the name of the mobility impaired person. 

Disabled hunters must provide the registration certificate for DMV issued disabled license plates.

VI. Measures Taken to Avoid Conflicts With Other Management Objectives

The hunt program as outlined was designed to minimize or eliminate any conflicts with other management 

objectives. These objectives include providing the public with other wildlife-dependent opportunities such 

as wildlife observation and photography, and providing habitat for other wetland-dependent species such as 

shorebirds, grebes, non-hunted migratory waterfowl, raptors and Federal and State special status species 

such as the brown pelican.

A. Biological Conflicts

The current and proposed hunt plan is designed to minimize or avoid potential biological conflicts with other 

wetland-dependent species through education, monitoring, and limiting hunt days and times. Potential 

biological conflicts include flushing other migratory and resident birds from areas being hunted or the take of 

non-target species either by mistake or willfully. Portions of the Salmon Creek, Hookton Slough and White 

Slough Units are closed to provide waterfowl secure resting areas where they are not hunted. Portions of 

the Hookton Slough and White Slough Units are not open to hunting due to proximity of homes, public roads, 

trails or sanctuary areas. Hunting on the Jacoby Creek and Eureka Slough Units is limited to boat access to 

that area bayward of posted signs due to an absence of other safe access routes, proximity of public roadways 

and to prevent damage to sensitive salt marsh plants.
C-10 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX C

The portions of the refuge being opened to the hunting of migratory birds through this plan are not typically 

used by Pacific brant. The only federally listed species that may be affected by hunting is the endangered 

brown pelican. However, brown pelicans rarely use the units where hunting occurs and take due to hunter 

identification mistakes is very unlikely. Therefore, impacts on threatened and endangered species would be 

minimal.

International treaties for conservation of migratory birds mandate that protecting and maintaining overall 

populations be given a higher priority than harvesting of waterfowl. The Fish and Wildlife Service, State 

wildlife agencies, academic institutions, and federal and provincial governments in Canada have long-term 

cooperative programs that monitor breeding population status, harvest levels, production, migration, and 

other parameters utilized for regulating harvests. The process of regulating waterfowl harvests involves 

a lengthy sequence of public involvement and decision-making by the Service, State wildlife agencies, and 

the Canadian and Mexican governments during the regulatory cycle. The process involves assessment of 

waterfowl populations, publication of Federal Register notices, and numerous meetings by Waterfowl Flyway 

Councils and the Service Regulations Committee. It culminates in regulations being set at the flyway level 

(season lengths, daily bag limits, and outside dates for the earliest opening and latest closing dates for a 

hunting season) and special regulations at the State level (e.g., split seasons, harvest zones, special seasons, 

area closures) which are in turn followed by the NWRS when administering hunt programs.

B. Public Use Conflicts

The waterfowl hunting program is organized to have minimal to no impact on other public uses at the refuge 

by implementing the following measures:

• Public uses on the entire refuge, especially the Salmon Creek Unit, are zoned both temporally and 

spatially during the entire hunting season to avoid conflict and provide for public safety.

• Signage and brochures indicate hunt area boundaries.

• Only pedestrian traffic is allowed for all but mobility-impaired hunters going to and from hunting blinds at 

Salmon Creek Unit.

• Dogs used for retrieving waterfowl must remain in control of the owner at all times.

• Many portions of the refuge are open year round to other wildlife-dependent uses such as wildlife 

observation, photography, fishing, environmental education and interpretation.

• Cease fire is set at 3:00 p.m. at the Salmon Creek Unit, providing the non-hunting public times when no 

hunting or shooting is occurring at the refuge during hunt days.

• The refuge will post educational materials on hunting and avoiding conflict between user groups at the Male’l Dunes north boat ramp.

VII. Conduct of the Hunt

A. Refuge-Specific Hunting Regulations (All Units)

The hunting of geese, ducks, coots, common moorhens and snipe during the waterfowl season as determined 

by the State on designated areas of the refuge is subject to the following conditions:

• Hunters must possess a valid hunting license, an affixed State duck stamp, a signed Federal duck stamp 

and an affixed Harvest Information Program (HIP) stamp.

• All hunters age 17 and under must be accompanied by an legally responsible adult aged 18 or over.

• Hunting hours will coincide with California State Regulations, except at the Salmon Creek Unit where 

hunting hours end at 3:00 p.m.

• Non-Toxic shot is required on all refuge units. Shot size is restricted to no larger than “T” for steel shot 

and “BB” for all other non-toxic shot.

• No person may build or maintain fires.

• When not hunting, dogs must be in vehicles or on a leash and kept under control at all times. Dogs are not 

allowed to enter closed areas for any reason.

• Hunters may use only portable blinds or temporary blinds constructed of natural materials. Hunters must 

dismantle or remove all temporary blinds from the refuge after each days hunt.

• Vehicle parking is permitted only in designated areas.

• Hunters must remove all decoys, shotshell casings, personal equipment and refuse from the refuge 

following each day’s hunt. Littering is unlawful and will be prosecuted.

• Possession or use of alcohol is prohibited on National Wildlife Refuges

• All weapons must be unloaded to and from the hunting area.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 C-11

B. Unit- Specific Regulations

1. Salmon Creek Unit

Hunting at the Salmon Creek Unit generally occurs two days per week, Tuesday and Saturday from 1⁄2 

hour before sunrise until 3:00 p.m. during the entire regular hunting season. During check in hunters will 

receive a daily hunting permit. The hunting permit must be in possession of the hunter while in the field, and 

hunters must return their permits and report hunting results at the check station by 4:30 p.m. 

Use of hunting dogs for retrieval of birds is allowed and strongly encouraged, however dogs must be under 

control of their owners at all times. Failure to follow any State, Federal or refuge-specific regulations may 

result in eviction from the refuge or a citation. 

A mobility-impaired (“disabled”) blind is available for mobility-impaired hunters. A “mobility-impaired 

(disabled) hunter” is defined as: Any person who has been issued a “DMV Disabled license plate, or a 

permanent parking placard identification card,” or a valid “Mobility Impaired Disabled Persons Motor 

Vehicle Hunting License” (FG form 1460). The blue plastic “Disabled Parking Placard” may not be 

substituted for the required “Identification card” which bears the name of the mobility-impaired person. 

Disabled hunters must provide the registration certificate for DMV issued disabled license plates.

Hunting is permitted from designated blind zones (Figure C-3, Table C-1). Free roam hunting is not allowed. 

Hunters are required to remain within designated blind zones, except for retrieving downed birds. Hunters 

may possess and use, while in the field, no more than 25 shells per hunter, per day. Firearms must be 

unloaded while being transported between parking areas and hunting sites. A firearm is deemed loaded 

when there is a live cartridge or shell in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited 

to, the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm. (Penal Code & 12031(g).).

2. Teal Island Area

Teal Island is open to hunting Wednesdays, Saturdays, Sundays, holidays and the opening and closing days 

during the prescribed open season as per Section 3681 of the California Fish and Game code (Figure C-2). 

Teal Island is designated as boat in access only. Hunting is permitted from the dikes or from a boat blind. 

Teal Island may not be accessed for hunting from the Hookton Slough boat dock to conserve the integrity of 

refuge closed zones adjacent to Hookton Slough. Fields Landing is the nearest public boat launch.

3. Hookton Slough Area

Hookton Slough is open to hunting Wednesdays, Saturdays, Sundays, holidays and the opening and closing 

days during the prescribed open season as per Section 3681 of the California Fish and Game code. Hookton 

Slough is designated as boat in access only (Figure C-2). Retrieval is not allowed in the Salmon Creek Unit. 

Boat access for hunting is not allowed from the Hookton boat dock; Fields Landing is the nearest public 

entry point. No shooting is allowed within 150 yards of Hookton non-motorized boat dock. All other areas of 

Hookton Slough Unit are closed to hunting.

4. White Slough/Egret Island Area

This area is open to hunting Wednesdays, Saturdays, Sundays, holidays and the opening and closing days 

during the prescribed open season as per Section 3681 of the California Fish and Game Code. White Slough 

and Egret Island are designated as boat in access only; Fields Landing is the nearest public boat launch. 

Hunting and retrieval are allowed on all of the salt marsh islands but access and hunting is not allowed on 

any of the dikes and lands inside the dikes (Figure C-2). Retrieval is not allowed in the Salmon Creek Unit. 

Shooting is not allowed within 150 yards of Highway 101 or Tompkins Hill Road.

5. Table Bluff Unit

Table Bluff Unit is open to free roam hunting 7 days a week (Figure C-2). Hunters may access the area 

either by boat or by walking in.

6. South Bay Unit

The South Bay Unit is open to hunting concurrent with overwater hunt days as described in CDFG 

Regulations.
C-12 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX C

7. Eureka Slough Unit

The Eureka Slough Unit is open to free roam hunting 7 days a week, but the property is boat in access only 

(Figure C-4). Woodley Island Marina or the boat launch behind the Target store, located in east Eureka, are 

the nearest public boat launches.

8. Jacoby Creek Unit

Jacoby Creek is open to free roam hunting 7 days a week, but the property is designated as boat in access 

only. No parking is allowed on FWS property. No trespass onto the banks of Jacoby Creek is permitted 

(Figure C-4). Parking along Highway 101 is not recommended and the FWS assumes no responsibility or 

liability for hunters that choose to park along Highway 101. The Arcata Marsh has the closest public boat 

launching point.

9. Fernstrom-Root Island (Ma-le’l Dunes Unit)

Fernstrom-Root Island is open to hunting 7 days a week. Hunting but no blind construction is allowed on the 

portion of the Fernstrom-Root Island owned by FWS. Areas of Ma-le’l Island under the Service’s jurisdiction 

are is designated as retrieval only areas (Figure C-4). Hunters can access Mad River Slough from the boat 

ramp on Lanphere Road and from Samoa Boulevard to reach Fernstrom-Root Island. 

10. General Regulations

California Department of Fish and Game Code 3681: Interpretation—This Fish and Game Code allows for 

hunting in any manner below the incoming or outgoing tidewaters edge or from any blind, boat, floating 

device, island, islet or exposed tidal flat on the waters of Humboldt Bay, including all rivers, streams and 

sloughs emptying into the bay on Wednesday, Saturdays, Sundays, Federal holidays, and the opening and 

closing days of the season.

C. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Hunt

Most hunters support the expansion and continued existence of a hunting program within the Humboldt Bay 

NWR. Hunting and fishing have strong traditional use in the Humboldt Bay area. During the comment 

period for the CCP in February 2007 a number of opinions from the public were heard. The majority of the 

comments received supported increasing access to the refuge and opening as much of the refuge to hunting 

as possible. There was also some opposition to allowing existing or additional hunting on the refuge.

D. Hunter Application and Registration Procedures at Salmon Creek Unit

A permit is required to hunt at the Salmon Creek Unit. The refuge check station opens two hours before 

Eureka legal shoot time. A random drawing for available permits takes place at the check station 11⁄2 hours 

prior to shoot time before each daily hunt. Hunters must be present to be eligible for the draw. The refuge’s 

controlled waterfowl hunt is operated under the Recreation Fee Program. The permit fee for hunters 

between the ages of 16 and 61 is currently $5.00 per person or $10.00 per blind, whichever is greater. There 

is no fee for junior hunters (age 16 and under), but they must be accompanied by an adult who will assume 

legal responsibility of the junior hunter. Holders of Golden Age (62 and older) or Golden Access (disabled) 

Passports pay half price. 

E. Description of Hunter Selection Process at Salmon Creek Unit

1. Sign in procedure:

Waterfowl hunters or groups of hunters are required to sign in at the check station in order to participate in 

that day’s hunt. To sign in, hunters must clearly write the first and last names of all persons in their hunting 

party (up to four people) on a 4x6 draw application card and turn the card in to the check station attendant. 

When the card is turned in the hunters will be given a corresponding number which will be used in the 

random lottery draw for available hunting blinds. Hunters must be present in order to participate in the 

lottery draw.

When the lottery draw is complete and the numbers are posted in the order they were drawn, the check 

station attendant will begin filling blinds and checking in hunters in the order of the lottery draw. These 

numbers are also used to prioritize re-filling blinds. Hunters must present a filled out permit card and their 

hunting license to the check station attendant. The permit must have the assigned blind number written on 

the permit to be valid. Hunters must have an affixed State duck stamp, an affixed HIP program stamp and 

be in possession of a Federal duck stamp signed by the hunter in order to hunt. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 C-13

2. Joining up:

The first fifteen (15) lottery numbers drawn may join with any other of the first fifteen (15) draws as long as 

there are no more than four (4) hunters per blind.

Waterfowl hunters or groups of hunters chosen after the first fifteen (15) must wait until their number is 

called in order to pair with other hunters. The check station attendant will continue to call numbers until all 

blinds are occupied. Once all blinds are occupied, no more numbers will be called.

3. Re-filling:

At 10:00 AM the check station attendant will assign priority numbers for re-filling available blinds based on 

the morning random draw and those present. Hunters must be present in order to maintain their position 

from the morning draw. If a hunter was not present at the morning draw they would sign in according to the 

“sign in procedures” listed above in Section A. Hunters would then be given a re-fill number after all other 

priority hunters have either taken a blind or declined to accept a blind.

When a blind has been vacated by all hunters and those hunters have checked out with the check station 

attendant, the blind is available to be re-filled. Re-fill #1 has the option of taking the blind or not taking the 

blind without losing position in line. If re-fill #1 does not take an available blind, the choice goes to priority 

two with the same options, so on and so forth. 

F. Media Selection for Announcing and Publicizing the Hunt Plan

The hunt plan will be announced in the media as part of the refuge CCP process, and will be released as an 

amendment to the HBNWR CCP.

G. Description of Hunter Orientation

Orientation at the Salmon Creek Unit consists of a verbal announcement to hunters 10 minutes before the 

lottery draw on the morning of the hunt, providing a list of refuge-specific regulations, safety procedures, 

sign in procedures, and a detailed map of the hunt area. The check station attendant remains on hand to 

answer any questions regarding the locations of assigned blinds. Hunters may also call a message detailing 

exact draw and shoot times for the next hunt day, bird averages for the previous hunt day and current hunt 

area habitat conditions.

Hunters may also attend the “Blind Brush-Up Day” at the Salmon Creek Unit, held prior to the hunt season. 

This allows hunters to tour the hunt area while preparing blinds for the upcoming waterfowl season. There is 

no orientation for hunting at the other refuge units, but hunters can contact staff at the Richard J. Guadagno 

Headquarters and Visitor Center with any questions they may have. A suggestion box is provided at the 

hunt check station in addition to periodic meetings to gather input from the public on the hunting program at 

Humboldt Bay NWR.

 

H. Hunter Requirements

Hunters are required to comply with all State, Federal and refuge-specific regulations. Refuge-specific 

regulations are available on the refuge website and copies are available at the Richard J. Guadagno 

Headquarters and Visitor Center and hunter check station on hunt days.

VIII. References

Pacific Coast Joint Venture (PCJV). 2004. Pacific Coast Joint Venture (PCJV), Northern California 

Component, Strategic Plan Update. 

Humboldt Bay Management Plan, HBHRCD Draft Environmental Impact Report April, 2006.
C-14 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX C
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 C-15

Figure C–1: General location and overview map of the Humboldt Bay NWR.

EUREKA

ARCATA

Arcata

Bay

Pacific

Ocean

£¤101

255

South

Bay

Lanphere

Dunes

Unit

Ma-le'l

Dunes

Unit

Jacoby

Creek

Unit

Eureka

Slough

Unit

Indian

Island

Unit

White

Slough

Tab Unit le

Bluff

Unit

Salmon

Creek

Unit

Hookton

Slough

Unit

South

Bay

Unit

Approved Boundary

 ̄

Humboldt Bay

National Wildlife Refuge

OR

NV

CA

Area of Enlargement

Figure C-1. Location Map

1 0.5 0 1 Miles

Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service include all lands

and waters with an elevation greater than "mean higher

high water" or 7.06 NGVD.
C-16 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX C

Figure C–2: Location and boundary map of hunting areas on the southern units of Humboldt Bay NWR.

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! !

!

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!@ !i

!|!l I* !i

_

_

Teal

Island

Hookton Slough

White Slough

Salmon Creek UnitControlled Hunting Area

No Boat-In Access

No Trespassing on Levees

Ranch Rd

£¤101

Hookton Rd

Hookton

Slough

Unit

White

Slough

Unit

 ̄

Figure C-2. Hunting Access

South Humboldt Bay Units

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

! ! Water Trail

Controlled Hunting Area

Closed to Hunting

!@ Visitor Center & Office

_ Gate

!l Fishing Dock

!| Non-Motorized Boat Launch

!i Parking

I* Restroom

Open to Hunting

(Boat Access Only)

Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service include all lands and waters with

an elevation greater than "mean higher high water" or 7.06 NGVD.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 C-17

Figure C–3: Map of the hunting area at Salmon Creek Unit.

") IA

!(

s®

s® ")

!(

")!(

")

!(

")

")

")

!(

!(

")

") ")

")

!(

!(

")

")

") !(

!(

")

Retrieval Area

Check

Station

H!

Visitor

Center

Teal

Island

Boat

access

only

Hookton Slough

White Slough

Humboldt Bay

Salmon

Creek

Unit

9

9

7 7

6

4

4

5

5

3

3

8 8

2

2

1

1

13

12

12 10

11

11

11

14

 ̄

Figure C-3. Salmon Creek Unit Hunt Area

Humboldt Bay

National Wildlife Refuge

0 0.125 0.25

Miles

Zone Boundary

Retrieval Area Signs

s® Disabled Blind

!( Pit Blind

") Stand-up Blind

IA Hunting Check Station

Trails

Retrieval Zone

Note: Tide lands and waterways under the

jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service include all lands and waters with an

elevation greater than "mean higher high

water" or 7.06 NGVD.
C-18 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX C

Figure C–4: Location and boundary map of hunting areas on the northern units of Humboldt Bay NWR.

Open to Hunting (Boat Access Only)

Retrieval Area

Closed to Hunting

Figure C-4. Hunting Access

North Humboldt Bay Units

Boat-In

Access

Retrieval

Only

Boat-In

Access

Boat-In

Access

Jacoby

Creek

Unit

Eureka

Slough

Unit

Lanphere

Dunes

Unit

Ma-le'l

Dunes

Unit

0.5 0.25 0 0.5

Miles  ̄ Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service include all lands and waters with an

elevation greater than "mean higher high water" or 7.06 NGVD.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 C-19

Table C–1: Blind types at the Salmon Creek Unit hunt area

Appendix D: Sport Fishing Plan

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 D-1

Fisherman at Hookton Slough Boat Dock Photo: USFWS

SPORT FISHING PLAN

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge

November 2008
D-2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX D

I. Introduction

A. Physical Environment

Humboldt Bay is situated 280 miles north of San Francisco and 85 miles south of the Oregon border (Figure 

D-1). Topography in the general region of Humboldt Bay is characterized by steep mountains and narrow 

valleys, which are typical of the coast ranges of northern California. Most of these uplands are covered by 

dense forests of redwood and Douglas-fir.

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge (HBNWR) is located in Humboldt County, California, with refuge 

units within and adjacent to Humboldt Bay and associated watersheds. The approved refuge boundary is 

roughly defined by Hookton Road on the south, Mad River County Park on the north, Highway 101 and Mad 

River Slough on the east, and the Pacific Ocean on the west (Figure D-1). Humboldt Bay lies on a narrow 

coastal plain. It is one of the few naturally protected harbors found in California. Humboldt Bay measures 

from 1⁄2 to 4 miles wide and 14 miles long. Humboldt Bay is an open lagoon system protected from the ocean 

by two long sand spits except for a narrow entrance channel permanently kept open by dredging and rock 

jetties. Four creeks and several sloughs, draining approximately 288 square miles, flow directly into the bay. 

The total surface water areas of the bay are 26.5 square miles at high tide and 7.8 square miles at low tide. 

The tidal range at the bay entrance is about 6.4 feet. Two major rivers, the Mad and the Eel, bound the area 

on the north and south, respectively, and flow directly into the ocean. The countryside adjacent to the bay is 

relatively flat with rolling terraces.

Humboldt Bay consists of three primary sections: Arcata Bay in the north, Entrance Bay in the middle and 

South Bay. Below are brief descriptions of each section as described in the Humboldt Bay Management 

Plan (HBHRCD 2007):

Arcata (North) Bay

Arcata Bay is bounded by the Samoa Peninsula and the North Spit to the west; the Arcata Marsh and 

Wildlife Sanctuary, Arcata Bottoms, and City of Arcata to the north; Bayside Bottoms and Bracut areas 

to the east; and the City of Eureka and Woodley Island to the south. Arcata Bay covers approximately 13 

square miles and is approximately 5.8 miles at its longest and 4.3 miles at its widest points. This portion of 

the bay is generally shallow, with over half of the area exposed at low tides. These tidal flats are incised by 

several deeper channels, as well numerous shallow channels. Most of the mud-silt bottom of Arcata Bay is 

exposed on average low tides, creating habitat for foraging shorebirds.

Entrance Bay

Entrance Bay is approximately five miles long and generally less than a mile wide. It is bounded by the 

North Spit on the west, Arcata Bay to the north, the City of Eureka and Elk River Spit and wetlands to the 

east. It includes Woodley Island, Indian Island and the City of Eureka waterfront. Entrance Bay, with a 

mostly sand bottom, lacks the expansive mudflats found in Arcata Bay and South Bay.

South Bay

South Bay covers approximately 7 square miles and is approximately four miles at its longest and 2.5 miles 

at its widest points. It is bounded by the South Spit on the west side, Entrance Bay on the north, lands 

and waters of the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge (HBNWR) Complex on the southeast, and Table 

Bluff to the southwest. Like Arcata Bay, much of the South Bay is occupied by broad expanses of tidal flats 

incised by numerous small, shallow channels and one deep-water channel which serves the Fields Landing 

and King Salmon areas and is maintained for navigation. South Bay supports eelgrass over much of its silt 

bottom, with the higher elevations of the east and south sides exposing bare mudflats on most low tides.

In 1971, the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge was established to conserve important habitat for the 

great diversity of animals and plants that occur in the Humboldt Bay area. Humboldt Bay NWR has several 

different units totaling almost 3,500 acres. These units consist of a mixture of mudflats, estuarine eelgrass 

meadows, salt marsh, brackish marsh, seasonally flooded freshwater wetlands, riparian wetlands, streams, 

coastal dunes, and forest. These habitats support over 316 species of birds and 40 species of mammals. The 

refuge also provides habitat for ~ 100 species of fish and marine invertebrates, many of which contribute to 

sport and commercial fisheries, including steelhead, Coho and Chinook salmon, and Dungeness crab. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 D-3

Concentrations of migratory waterbirds, especially shorebirds, occur in the fall, winter, and spring. In 

winter, it is not unusual for over 100,000 birds to use Humboldt Bay as a feeding or resting site. Key habitats 

for these waterbird concentrations are eelgrass beds and extensive mudflats. These also make the bay an 

important spawning, nursery, and feeding area for fish and other marine life. Complimentary to the bay 

habitats are thousands of acres of seasonal wetlands (mostly former tidal wetlands that have been diked off 

for over a century). 

Endangered or threatened species include: brown pelican, snowy plover, Chinook and Coho salmon, 

steelhead, tidewater goby, Humboldt Bay wallflower, and beach layia. The Lanphere Dunes and Ma-le’l 

Dunes Units protect endangered and rare plants within rare dune plant communities. The refuge contains 

one of very few dune systems in which the underlying processes are intact.

The Humboldt Bay watershed is considered the most important wintering waterfowl habitat between San 

Francisco Bay and the Columbia River (PCJV 2004). Many species of waterfowl use habitats on Humboldt 

Bay NWR, particularly for resting and foraging during their annual migrations. Seasonally common 

waterfowl that use Humboldt Bay NWR and nearby wetlands and agricultural short-grass pastures during 

migration include: northern pintail, northern shoveler, American wigeon, green-winged teal, mallard, 

bufflehead, scaup, tundra swan, Pacific brant, Aleutian and cackling geese, and non-native Western Canada 

geese, which were introduced to the area in the 1980’s. Larger, seasonally common waterfowl such as Pacific 

brant, Canada geese, and cackling geese are highly valued by sport hunters and by wildlife watchers alike. 

This refuge has also been described as one of the most important areas in the United States south of Alaska 

for Pacific brant. This is especially true during the spring when the bay is a key staging area for more 

than 60% of the flyway Pacific brant population prior to their return to arctic nesting grounds. Similarly, 

the northcoast of California and southern coast of Oregon are key spring staging areas for the growing 

population of Aleutian cackling geese.

II. Conformance with Statutory Authorities

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge was established by authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of February 16, 1929, as amended, and the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 

March 16, 1934, as amended. The purpose of the refuge is to protect and enhance wetland habitats in and 

adjacent to Humboldt Bay for a wide variety of migratory waterbirds, especially Pacific brant. National 

Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the 

purposes of an individual refuge, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) policy, laws, and international treaties. 

Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge 

Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 provides guidelines and directives for the 

administration and management of all areas in the NWRS. The Act also defines six wildlife-dependent 

priority public uses, including sport fishing, which refuges should strive to provide when compatible with 

the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the NWRS. Prior to refuge acquisition, sport fishing access 

was by private boat only. Land access was not available to the general public. Therefore, a historical 

precedent for sport fishing on refuge lands exists as some of the lands and waters acquired by the refuge 

were utilized for sport fishing prior to refuge acquisition and public access to sport fishing opportunities will 

be increased through this plan. Sport fishing is permitted in accordance with State, Federal and refugespecific regulations to ensure that it will not interfere with the conservation of fish and other wildlife and 

their habitats. 

The State of California has legislatively granted to the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and 

Conservation District (HBHRC District) jurisdiction over areas below mean higher high water or elevation 

7.06 NGVD (3.15 feet above mean sea level). Therefore, fishing in the sloughs and land areas below 3.15 

mean sea level are under the HBHRC District’s jurisdiction. Areas above 3.15 mean sea level are within the 

refuge’s jurisdiction.
D-4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX D

III. Statement of Objectives

The goal of the National Wildlife Refuge System is: To provide the general public with a quality wildlifeoriented recreational experience and an opportunity to utilize a renewable natural resource. The objectives 

of the Humboldt Bay NWR Sport fishing Plan are to:

1. Provide a quality wildlife-dependent recreational experience, using a renewable natural resource.

The goals of HBNWR as established by the Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) are to:

1. Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance estuarine and palustrine wetland habitats representative of the 

Humboldt Bay area to benefit their associated native fish, wildlife, plants, and special status species.

2. Conserve and restore globally rare dune and dune forest habitats, associated native plant and animal 

species and support recovery of threatened, endangered, and endemic species dependent upon these 

rare habitats.

3. Promote long term viability of the Humboldt Bay estuarine and dune ecosystems through ecosystem 

based management coordinated with both public and private partners around the bay.

4. Provide public with safe, high-quality wildlife-dependent recreation and volunteer opportunities to 

enhance public appreciation and understanding of fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats of Humboldt Bay 

and associated watersheds.

5. In cooperation with tribal representatives identify and protect cultural resources on the Humboldt Bay 

NWR.

Therefore, the Sport Fishing Plan will contribute to refuge goal number four (see above) without impeding 

the ability of the refuge to achieve remaining refuge goals. This plan will allow sport fishing on designated 

refuge units under State regulations as well as regulations set by the Fish and Wildlife Service specifically 

for HBNWR.

IV. Assessment of Resource

Sport fishing in Humboldt Bay is a popular form of recreation. Well established fisheries for perch, smelt, 

salmon, rockfish, crabs and clams provide for local enthusiasts as well as tourists. A complete listing of all 

fish found in Humboldt Bay is located in Appendix K.

All of Humboldt Bay including that portion of Salmon Creek on the refuge provides habitat for Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) listed threatened steelhead, Coho, and Chinook salmon. Endangered tidewater gobies 

are also found in estuaries and up to 1km (0.6 mi) upstream. Coastal cutthroat trout are a State Species of 

Special Concern.

Declines in salmon stocks on the north coast have resulted in sharply reduced or closed seasons and shifts 

in fishing effort to other species. Fisheries gaining rapidly in popularity are Dungeness crab (Cancer 

magister), leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata), California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), and various 

species of clams. Sport fishing within Humboldt Bay accounts for more than 30,000 angler-days each year. 

Most of the sport fishing in South Humboldt Bay occurs on the South Jetty and at Buhne’s Point.

Historically, the four major tributaries of Humboldt Bay were popular trout fishing streams. Elk River, 

Freshwater Creek, Salmon Creek, and Jacoby Creek held resident populations of cutthroat trout. Steelhead 

and salmon augmented the fishermen’s catch. Current observations indicate occasional localized sport 

fishing on these streams. Cutthroat trout were planted in lower Freshwater Creek in 1992 to enhance the 

fishery. No sport fishing is allowed on Jacoby Creek or Salmon Creek within the refuge boundaries. Sport 

fishing on both creeks is limited to private properties upstream from the refuge. A fishery management 

plan was completed for Humboldt Bay NWR in September 1992.

V. Description of Sport Fishing Program 

A. Areas Opened

Public sport fishing will continue to be permitted on navigable waters of Humboldt Bay that fall within 

the existing refuge boundary. Most sport fishing in Humboldt Bay will occur from boats on navigable 

waters. Sport fishing will also continue to be permitted from the Hookton Slough boat dock and off 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 D-5

the Hookton Slough trail, west of the 

designated parking lot. This area 

is known as the “Hookton Slough 

Shoreline Fishing Trail” (Figure D-2). 

Sport fishing will be opened to the public 

at the end of the Tsoutsgish Trail trail 

(end of railroad berm) at the Ma-le’l 

Dunes Unit. Boaters can also access 

Mad River Slough from the boat ramp 

on Lanphere Road or from Samoa 

Blvd. All others areas within the refuge 

remain closed to sport fishing (Figure 

D-3).

B. Procedures for Coordination with 

State

The California Department of Fish and 

Game (CDFG) will be consulted if any 

changes are planned in the refuge sport 

fishing program. For seasons, limits, 

and fishery-related species to be taken, 

sportfishers should refer to State of California Sportfishing Regulations. 

Additionally, refuge staff meets with CDFG, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and FWS managers 

and wardens before and after each hunting season to discuss the hunting season and possible 

improvements for the coming year. During this meeting, any issues arising from the sport fishing 

program will be discussed.

C. Methods of Enforcement

Refuge staff patrols public sport fishing areas on the refuge as part of their normal duties. Law 

enforcement officers with CDFG, BLM, and FWS will continue to enforce all applicable laws within their 

authority.

D. Funding and Staffing Requirements

The costs of managing the sport fishing program are minimal, and consist primarily of posting and 

maintaining “Public Fishing Area” signs and including sport fishing information in the refuge brochure 

and website. Necessary funds are available for this work within the annual budget of Humboldt Bay 

NWR. Because of the relatively light opportunity and pressure from sport fishing there will be no 

facilities developed or managed specifically for the use of anglers.

VI. Measures Taken to Avoid Conflict with Other Objectives

A. Biological Conflicts

The non-tidally influenced areas (dikes and seasonal wetlands) will be closed to sport fishing to provide 

disturbance-free resting and foraging areas for migratory birds. Anglers will be monitored on an 

opportunistic basis to determine if any wildlife disturbance is occurring. The sport fishing program will 

not affect any threatened or endangered species.

B. Public Use Conflicts

Sport fishing at Humboldt Bay NWR is not expected to have any adverse effects on refuge resources or 

to conflict with any other visitor activities.

C. Administrative Conflicts

At this time no administrative conflicts are anticipated.

Kayakers using the Hookton Slough non-motorized boat 

launch to access Hookton Slough and South Bay. Photo: USFWS
D-6 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX D
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 D-7

Figure D–1: General location and overview map of the Humboldt Bay NWR.

EUREKA

ARCATA

Arcata

Bay

Pacific

Ocean

£¤101

255

South

Bay

Lanphere

Dunes

Unit

Ma-le'l

Dunes

Unit

Jacoby

Creek

Unit

Eureka

Slough

Unit

Indian

Island

Unit

White

Slough

Tab Unit le

Bluff

Unit

Salmon

Creek

Unit

Hookton

Slough

Unit

South

Bay

Unit

Approved Boundary

 ̄

Humboldt Bay

National Wildlife Refuge

OR

NV

CA

Area of Enlargement

Figure D-1. Location Map

1 0.5 0 1 Miles

Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service include all lands

and waters with an elevation greater than "mean higher

high water" or 7.06 NGVD.
D-8 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX D

Figure D–2: Public fishing areas on the southern units of Humboldt Bay NWR.

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!@ !i

!| !l I* !i

_

_

Teal

Island

Hookton Slough

White Slough

Fishing Access

Salmon

Creek

Unit

Hookton

Slough

Unit

Hookton Rd

Ranch Rd

£¤101

 ̄

Figure D-2. Public Fishing Areas

Salmon Creek and

Hookton Slough Units

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

! ! Water Trail

Hookton Slough Fishing Trail

Shorebird Loop Trail

!| Non-Motorized Boat Launch

!l Fishing Dock

!@ Visitor Center & Office

_ Gate

!i Parking

I* Restroom

Refuge Lands

Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service include all lands

and waters with an elevation greater than "mean higher

high water" or 7.06 NGVD.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 D-9

Figure D–3: Public fishing areas on the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit of Humboldt Bay NWR.

Refuge Lands

Tsoutsgish Trail

!| Non-Motorized Boat Access

!l Fishing Access

!\ Wetland Observation Deck

!F Kiosk

_ Lanphere Gate

!@ Office

!i Parking

!5 Picnic

!_ Restroom

Figure D-3. Public Fishing Areas

Lanphere and

Ma-le'l Dunes Units

0.2 0.1 0 0.2

Miles  ̄

!@

_

!\

!l

!i

!F

!_ !5

!i

!|

Lanphere

Dunes

Unit

Lanphere Road

Ma-le'l

Dunes

Unit

Fishing Access

Non-Motorized

Boating Access

Ma d R iver S lou gh

Samoa Blvd

Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service include all lands

and waters with an elevation greater than "mean higher

high water" or 7.06 NGVD.

Appendix E: Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for the Humboldt Bay NWR Complex 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-1

Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

for the Humboldt Bay NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Prepared By:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Pacific Southwest Region 

Refuge Planning

2800 Cottage Way, W-1832

Sacramento, CA 95825-1846

and

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

1020 Ranch Rd.

Loleta, CA 95551-9633 

July 2009

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-3

Table of Contents for Humboldt Bay NWR Complex CCP Final Environmental 

Assessment

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action...............................................................................................E-7 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................E-7

 Proposed Action..............................................................................................................................................E-7

 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ...........................................................................................E-7

 Project Area ....................................................................................................................................................E-7

 Decisions to be Made......................................................................................................................................E-8

 Issues and Challenges Identification ...........................................................................................................E-8

 Public Involvement.........................................................................................................................................E-8

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System .............................................E-9

 Humboldt Bay NWR Purposes ....................................................................................................................E-9

 Humboldt Bay NWR Goals...........................................................................................................................E-9

 Castle Rock NWR Purposes .......................................................................................................................E-10

 Castle Rock NWR Goals..............................................................................................................................E-10

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action..................................................................E-11 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................E-11

HUMBOLDT BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE..........................................................................E-11

 Current Management of Humboldt Bay NWR........................................................................................E-11

 Features Common to All Alternatives for Humboldt Bay NWR...........................................................E-11

 Alternative A for Humboldt Bay NWR: No Action.................................................................................E-27

 Alternative B for Humboldt Bay NWR.....................................................................................................E-31

 Alternative C for Humboldt Bay NWR: Preferred Alternative ............................................................E-37

 Management Actions Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis as Part of 

 Humboldt Bay NWR Alternatives.............................................................................................................E-42

CASTLE ROCK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE..............................................................................E-44

Current Management of Castle Rock NWR .................................................................................................E-44

 Features Common to All Alternatives for Castle Rock NWR................................................................E-44

 Alternative A for Castle Rock NWR: No Action......................................................................................E-44

 Alternative B for Castle Rock NWR .........................................................................................................E-44

 Alternative C for Castle Rock NWR: Preferred Alternative.................................................................E-45

 Proposed Action Criteria.............................................................................................................................E-45

Chapter 3. Affected Environment..........................................................................................................E-47

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................E-48 Overview of the NEPA Analysis Parameters ...........................................................................................E-48

HUMBOLDT BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE..........................................................................E-49

 Soils ...... .........................................................................................................................................................E-49

 Common to All Alternatives...................................................................................................................E-49

 Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................................................................E-50

 Alternative B............................................................................................................................................E-50

 Alternative C: Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................E-51

 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................................E-52

 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................E-52

 Common to All Alternatives...................................................................................................................E-52

 Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................................................................E-53

 Alternative B............................................................................................................................................E-53

 Alternative C: Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................E-53

 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................................E-54

 Air Quality .....................................................................................................................................................E-54

 Common to All Alternatives...................................................................................................................E-54

 Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................................................................E-54
E-4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

 Alternative B............................................................................................................................................E-55

 Alternative C: Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................E-55

 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................................E-56

 Plant Communities .......................................................................................................................................E-56

 Common to All Alternatives...................................................................................................................E-56

 Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................................................................E-56

 Alternative B............................................................................................................................................E-57

 Alternative C: Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................E-58

 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................................E-59

 Fish and Wildlife...........................................................................................................................................E-60

 Common to All Alternatives...................................................................................................................E-60

 Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................................................................E-66

 Alternative B............................................................................................................................................E-68

 Alternative C: Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................E-71

 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................................E-74

 Special Status Species..................................................................................................................................E-74

 Common to All Alternatives...................................................................................................................E-75

 Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................................................................E-75

 Alternative B............................................................................................................................................E-75

 Alternative C: Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................E-77

 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................................E-78

 Invasive Species............................................................................................................................................E-78

 Common to All Alternatives...................................................................................................................E-78

 Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................................................................E-78

 Alternative B............................................................................................................................................E-78

 Alternative C: Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................E-78

 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................................E-79

Visitor Services..................................................................................................................................................E-79

 Visitor Services – Wildlife Observation and Photography, Environmental Education and 

 Interpretation ...............................................................................................................................................E-79

 Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................................................................E-79

 Alternative B............................................................................................................................................E-79

 Alternative C: Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................E-79

 Visitor Services – Hunting ..........................................................................................................................E-80

 Common to All Alternatives...................................................................................................................E-80

 Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................................................................E-80

 Alternative B............................................................................................................................................E-80

 Alternative C: Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................E-80

Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................................E-80

 Common to All Alternatives...................................................................................................................E-81

 Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................................................................E-81

 Alternative B............................................................................................................................................E-81

 Alternative C: Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................E-81

 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................................E-81

Effects on the Social and Economic Environment........................................................................................E-82

 Common to All Alternatives ..................................................................................................................E-82

 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................................E-82 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .........................................................................E-82

Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement 

 of Long-term Productivity ..........................................................................................................................E-82

Indian Trusts Assets .........................................................................................................................................E-83

Environmental Justice......................................................................................................................................E-83

Growth-Inducing Impacts ................................................................................................................................E-84

Related Projects, Programs, Environmental Assessments.........................................................................E-84

Consultation and Coordination........................................................................................................................E-84
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-5

CASTLE ROCK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE..............................................................................E-84

 Castle Rock NWR Wildlife..........................................................................................................................E-84

 Common to All Alternatives...................................................................................................................E-84

 Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................................................................E-85

 Alternative B............................................................................................................................................E-85

 Alternative C: Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................E-85

 Castle Rock NWR Special Status Species ................................................................................................E-85

 Common to All Alternatives...................................................................................................................E-85

 Castle Rock NWR Environmental Justice ...............................................................................................E-85

 Common to All Alternatives...................................................................................................................E-85

Environmental Assessment References ..............................................................................................E-87 

Enviornmental Assessment Appendices .............................................................................................E-90

Appendix 1: Conservation Measures..................................................................................................................E-92

Tables

Table E-1. Summary of Alternatives: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge.........................................E-14

Table E-2. Summary of Alternatives: Castle Rock NWR...............................................................................E-46

Table E-3. Herbicides that May be Used to Control Invasive Plants on Humboldt Bay NWR.................E-51

Table E-4. 5-Year Hunt Program Summary, Humboldt Bay NWR................................................................E-62

Figures

Figure E-1. Location Map....................................................................................................................................E-96

Figure E-2. Habitat Management Alternatives, Salmon Creek Unit............................................................E-97

Figure E-3. Habitat Management Alternatives, Hookton Slough Unit ........................................................E-98

Figure E-4. Habitat Management Alternatives, Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes Units.................................E-99

Figure E-5. Habitat Management Alternatives, Table Bluff Unit...............................................................E-100

Figure E-6. Habitat Management Alternatives, White Slough Unit...........................................................E-101

Figure E-7. Visitor Services Alternatives, Salmon Creek and Hookton Slough Units .............................E-102

Figure E-8. Visitor Services Alternatives, Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes Units.........................................E-103

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-7

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

Introduction

This environmental assessment (EA) evaluates the environmental effects of three alternatives for managing 

the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex), which includes the Humboldt Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Castle Rock NWR. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

will use this EA to solicit public involvement in the refuge planning process and to determine whether 

implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) will have a significant effect on the quality 

of the human environment. This EA is part of the Service’s decision-making process in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Proposed Action

The Service proposes to implement Alternative C as the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Humboldt 

Bay and Castle Rock NWRs, as described in this EA. Alternative C is described in more detail in Chapter 

5 (Complex Vision, Goals, and Objectives) of the CCP. The Service examined a range of management 

alternatives. Specific details regarding the preferred alternative and the other alternatives that were 

evaluated are provided in Chapter 2 of this EA. Of these, Alternative C represents the Service’s proposed 

action. However, the final decision can be any of the alternatives, and may reflect a modification of certain 

elements of any alternative analyzed based on consideration of public comment. Of the alternatives 

evaluated, Alternative C appears to best achieve the purpose, vision, and goals for the refuges, while also 

appropriately addressing the major issues and relevant mandates identified for each refuge during the CCP 

process.

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

There is a need for written guidance on refuge operations, wildlife and habitat management, and visitor 

services to help ensure consistency among management of the refuge, year-to-year operations, and the 

refuge’s purposes. The Proposed Action, the CCP, provides guidance for conducting general refuge 

operations, wildlife and habitat management, habitat enhancement and restoration, and visitor services. The 

CCP is intended to ensure that management actions are consistent with the purposes for which the refuges 

were established, the mandates of the Refuge System, and the refuges’ goals and objectives. The purpose of 

the Proposed Action is to describe the desired future conditions of Humboldt Bay and Castle Rock NWRs 

over the next 15 years and provide guidance for achieving those conditions. 

The CCP:

• Sets a long term vision for the refuges;

• Establishes management goals, objectives, and strategies for the refuges;

• Provides the refuges with a 15-year management plan for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their related habitats;

• Defines compatible public uses;

• Develops a plan that, when fully implemented, will achieve refuge purposes, help fulfill the mission of the 

system, and maintain and, where appropriate, restore ecological integrity;

• Communicates the Service’s management priorities for the refuges to the public; and

•Provides a basis for budget needs to support staffing, operations, maintenance, and capital improvements.

The development of the CCP is also required to fulfill legislative obligations of the Service. The National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), requires that every refuge or related complex of refuges 

have a CCP in place within 15 years of the Improvement Act’s enactment. The NEPA requires that an 

EA or environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared to accompany the CCP to evaluate the effects 

of different alternatives that meet the goals of the refuges and identifies the Service’s proposed action for 

implementing the CCP.

Project Area

The Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which includes Humboldt Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge (Humboldt Bay NWR) and Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge (Castle Rock NWR), is located on 

the northern coast of California.
E-8 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Humboldt Bay NWR is located on Humboldt Bay, the largest bay between San Francisco Bay and Coos 

Bay, Oregon, near the cities of Eureka and Arcata. In 1971, the refuge was established to conserve coastal 

habitats for a great diversity of animals and plants, especially migratory birds. In later years, the refuge 

added the Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes Units, to help conserve the most pristine remaining dune ecosystem 

on the west coast of the United States. 

The Humboldt Bay NWR boundary consists of 9,502 acres (3,379 acres owned in fee title) of: freshwater, 

brackish, and salt marsh; agricultural wetlands, intertidal mudflats; eelgrass beds, as well as some of the 

most pristine dune habitats in the western United States. 

Castle Rock NWR is a 14-acre nearshore island located in Del Norte County, California, less than a mile 

northwest of Crescent City consisting primarily of rock, with sparse vegetation. Castle Rock NWR hosts 

one of the largest and most diverse assemblages of breeding seabirds on the Pacific coast, provides a critical 

roost for thousands of Aleutian cackling geese prior to their transoceanic migration, and provides resting 

sites for seals and sea-lions. 

See Figure E-1. Location Map for Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

Decisions to be Made

Based on the analysis documented in the draft EA, the Regional Director must determine the type and 

extent of management and visitor access that will occur on the refuge and whether the selected management 

alternative would have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

The planning team recommends Alternative C to the Regional Director. The accompanying draft CCP was 

developed for implementation based on this recommendation.

Issues and Challenges Identification

The Service identified issues, concerns and opportunities through early planning discussions and the public 

scoping process. The scoping process officially began on January 29, 2007, when the Service published a 

Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP in the Federal Register (Vol. 72, No. 18, p. 4020). The first planning 

update was distributed in January 2007 to interested stakeholders that had been identified through other 

prior planning processes, to further solicit public input. A full discussion of the planning process and issues 

raised can be found in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 of the CCP, respectively. 

The planning team helped to further define the issues and challenges. The core planning team includes 

Service employees from the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex and the California and 

Nevada Region, Refuge Planning.

Public Involvement

The first planning update was sent to 220 interested stakeholders announcing the public scoping meetings, 

and asking for comments on issues to be addressed in the CCP. An issues workbook was also distributed to 

the mailing list and at public meetings to help focus public input on issues relevant to the CCP. 

Three public scoping meetings were held on February 13, 15, and 17, 2007, in Del Norte and Humboldt 

counties to receive public input on the Complex’s CCP and associated NEPA document. Each public 

scoping meeting consisted of a presentation by Service staff on the CCP/NEPA process, a presentation on 

the history of the refuges, questions and answers, and documentation of public comments. The majority of 

each public meeting was spent documenting public comments.

The planning staff has incorporated public input received in response to these updates and workshops 

into the CCP and EA; a summary of major issues and challenges is included in Chapter 4 of the CCP 

and a summary of public scoping comments is included in Appendix M: Public Involvement Process for 

the Humboldt Bay NWR Complex CCP/EA and Appendix R: Responses to Comments on the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. The original comments are available 

for review in planning administrative files at the California and Nevada Region, Refuge Planning office, in 

Sacramento, California. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-9

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

The mission of the Service is working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the primary 

Federal agency responsible for managing migratory birds, endangered plants and animals, certain marine 

mammals, and inter-jurisdictional fish. The responsibility to conserve our nation’s fish and wildlife 

resources is shared with other Federal agencies, State and Tribal governments.

As part of this responsibility, the Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). 

The Refuge System is the largest system of lands in the world dedicated to the conservation of fish and 

wildlife. Operated and managed by the Service, it currently includes over 500 refuges with a combined 

area of more than 94 million acres. The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network 

of lands and waters for the consideration, 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.

The refuges are managed as part of the Refuge System in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997, and other relevant legislation, Executive Orders, regulations, and policies. Chapter 1 of the CCP 

summarizes many relevant Acts, regulations, and policies and describes the goals of the Refuge System.

Humboldt Bay NWR Purposes

Humboldt Bay NWR was established under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, 

the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

According to these authorities, Humboldt Bay NWR’s purposes are:

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(a)(4) and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural 

resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...”16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-1 and “...

the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms 

and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act 

[16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-460k-4], as amended)

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species .... or (B) 

plants ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)

Humboldt Bay NWR Goals

Goal 1. Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance estuarine and palustrine wetland habitats representative 

of the Humboldt Bay area to benefit their associated native fish, wildlife, plants, and special status species.

Goal 2. Conserve and restore globally rare dune and dune forest habitats, associated native plant and 

animal species and support recovery of threatened, endangered, and endemic species dependent upon these 

rare habitats.

Goal 3. Conserve and restore all refuge habitats through the prevention and control of invasive plants and 

animals.

Goal 4. Promote long-term viability of the Humboldt Bay estuarine and dune ecosystems through 

ecosystem-based management (including endangered and threatened species management across 

boundaries) coordinated with both public and private partners around the Bay.
E-10 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Goal 5. Provide the public (and especially children) with accessible, safe, high-quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities to enhance public appreciation and understanding of fish, wildlife, plants, and 

habitats of Humboldt Bay and associated watersheds.

Goal 6. In cooperation with tribal representatives, identify and protect tribal cultural resources on the 

Humboldt Bay NWR. In addition, assess and manage the refuge’s more recent cultural resources and 

structures.

Castle Rock NWR Purposes

Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge was established under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973. 

According to this authority, Castle Rock NWR’s purpose is:

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species .... or (B) 

plants ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)

Castle Rock NWR Goals

Goal 1. Protect and maintain habitats for migratory birds and marine mammals, with an emphasis on 

seabirds, and Aleutian cackling geese.

Goal 2. Provide high quality environmental education, interpretive information, and outreach to the public 

highlighting the ecology and sensitivity of the wildlife of Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-11

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Introduction

This chapter describes three alternatives for managing the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex (Complex), which includes the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Castle 

Rock NWR: Alternative A (No Action), Alternative B, and Alternative C (Preferred Alternative). 

These alternatives are described below. Figures E-2 through E-8 show a graphical representation of 

the alternatives described below. Two of the three alternatives presented in this chapter are “action 

alternatives” that would involve a change in the current management of the Complex. Under Alternative 

A, the No Action alternative, the Service would continue managing the Complex as it currently does. The 

Service’s preferred alternative is Alternative C. 

HUMBOLDT BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Current Management of Humboldt Bay NWR 

For a complete description of the current management practices, please see Current Management of 

Humboldt Bay NWR and Current Management of Castle Rock NWR sections in Chapter 1 of the CCP. 

Features Common to All Alternatives for Humboldt Bay NWR

Agricultural Grassland Maintenance

The Humboldt Bay NWR would continue to allow grazing and haying, through cooperative land 

management agreements with local ranchers, to maintain short-grass pasture habitat for migratory birds. 

Pasture soil pH would continue to be monitored every 3 to 5 years, and lime would be added as needed. 

In addition, refuge staff would continue to conduct seasonally appropriate mowing (outside of nesting 

season) in areas where grasslands merge into wetland plant communities. Mowing would continue to be 

used throughout the Salmon Creek Unit, along wetland edges where haying is not feasible, to maintain 

grasslands and to control non-native thistle (Cirsium spp.) and other weeds.

Invasive Plant Management

Invasive plants are having an ever increasing negative effect on refuge habitats (and adjacent private 

lands), and must be managed if future greater habitat losses are to be avoided. Although an Integrated 

Pest Management (IPM) plan has not yet been developed for the Humboldt Bay NWR, the refuge staff will 

continue to manage non-native invasive plant species by using IPM strategies (including a combination of 

mechanical, chemical, biological, and cultural means of managing invasives). If herbicides are used to control 

invasive species on the refuge, a Pesticide Use Proposal will be filed for each herbicide prior to use.

Throughout the refuge, staff will control non-native dense-flowered cordgrass (Spartina densiflora) in 

salt marsh and freshwater and brackish marsh through a combination of manual and mechanical methods. 

In addition, staff will work with Federal, State and local partners to eradicate Spartina densiflora in the 

greater Humboldt Bay area, which is a high priority project of the West Coast Governors Agreement. 

Refuge staff would continue to control and eradicate invasive plants in freshwater and brackish marsh 

on all Humboldt Bay NWR units. Upland invasive plants common to all units that need to be controlled 

include thistles, bristly oxtongue (Picris echioides), English ivy (Hedera helix), Himalayan blackberry 

(Rubus discolor) and false bindweed (Calystegia sylvatica). On the Hookton Slough Unit, restoration 

activities would include an emphasis on controlling newly established populations of marsh lotus (Lotus 

uliginosus), water iris (Iris pseudacorus), woodland ragwort (Senecio sylvaticus), reed canarygrass 

(Phalaris arundinacea), and Australasian fireweed (Erechtites glomerata). On the Table Bluff Unit, refuge 

staff would eradicate or control invasive plants, particularly bullthistle (Cirsium vulgare) and Australasian 

fireweed (Erechtites glomerata). refuge staff would also eradicate or control invasive species identified as 

early detection species in the Volunteer Invasive Species Mapping Program; reed canarygrass, Harding 

grass (Phalaris aquatica), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), Andean pampas grass (Cortaderia 

jubata), and shortstalk false bindweed (Calystegia sylvatica). Refuge staff would use a combination of 

mechanical and chemical methods to remove non-native trees (including Eucalyptus globulus), such as 

cutting a tree at the base and then using a stump grinder or painting the stump with a Service-approved 

herbicide to prevent re-sprouting. 
E-12 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Refuge staff will implement large-scale experiments to determine the best methods of controlling or 

eradicating dune swale invasive plant species including rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), 

pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium), bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), and hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum 

hyssopifolium). These large-scale (0.5- to 1-acre) control experiments would involve the use of methods 

such as flaming, controlled burning, and mowing.

Refuge staff will continue to monitor and control invasive species such as English ivy, Francheti cotoneaster 

(Cotoneaster franchetii), and English holly (Ilex aquifolium) in coniferous dune forest, using a variety of 

manual and chemical methods, in coordination with partners such as the California Conservation Corp, the 

California Department of Forestry, and others. In some cases the staff may use the herbicide glyphosate to 

remove native poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) plants, to be able to safely access and control nonnative invasive plant species.

Herbicides that may be used, by refuge staff, to control invasive plants on the Humboldt Bay NWR 

include: Rodeo (glyphosate), Roundup pro (glyphosate), Roundup pro concentrate (glyphosate), Milestone 

(aminopyralid), Garlon 3A (triclopyr TEA salt, triethylamine, ethanol), and Crossbow (2,4,d , triclopyr). 

Prior to any herbicides being used to control invasive species on Humboldt Bay NWR, a Pesticide Use 

Proposal will be filed for each herbicide and associated surfactants. Pesticides will only be used in 

compliance with labeling instructions. In addition, refuge staff will also coordinate with Friends of the 

Dunes, which leads a monthly work day on the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit, and other volunteer groups.

Planting Native Plant Species

The refuge will enhance riparian swamp habitat by planting appropriate native, understory plant 

communities. Newly planted vegetation in riparian habitat would be protected from deer browsing with 

individual wire cages or similar exclusion devices. The refuge will increase populations of native dunegrass 

(Leymus mollis) on foredune communities, and will seek to develop a cooperative agreement with adjacent 

private land owners to collect native dune grass propagules.

Re-Introducing Endangered Plant Species

The refuge will develop partnerships to collect Humboldt Bay wallflower (Erysimum menziesii ssp. 

eurekense) seeds from the south spit and staff will use the south spit seeds to re-introduce Humboldt Bay 

wallflowers to the Table Bluff Unit where the wallflower is no longer present. In addition, the refuge will 

move seeds from occupied to unoccupied areas of wallflower habitat on the Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes 

Units. All work with endangered plants will be pursuant to required permits and results will be monitored.

Levee Maintenance and Water Management

The refuge will continue to provide basic maintenance to all levees and raise low points of levees on 

the White Slough Unit to facilitate future salt marsh restoration. In addition, the refuge will conduct 

maintenance repairs on the 2 existing White Slough tidegates. The refuge will continue with standard 

wetland management and maintain hydrologic connection where necessary to minimize the potential for fish 

stranding and mosquito production on all diked units. 

Implementation of the Salmon Creek Delta Restoration

The refuge will continue to adaptively manage the implementation of Phase I of the Salmon Creek 

Restoration plan. NEPA compliance for Phase I of the Salmon Creek Restoration was previously completed 

(USFWS 1992). The refuge will continue the process of returning 1,500 linear feet of Salmon Creek and 

approximately 100 acres of lower Salmon Creek to tidal influence. Adaptive management of this restoration 

project will be coordinated with the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Ecological Services program and NOAA’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service. Adaptive management may include augmentation of tide gate function 

to maximize anadromous fish passage. Adaptive management would be informed by monitoring species’ 

use of habitats, any changes in channel cross-sections, changes in sediment transport, and changes in water 

quality. Upon completion of Phase II of the Salmon Creek Delta Restoration project, PCFWWRA will 

submit a summary report, including water quality findings, to CDFG and the refuge.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-13

Monitoring

The refuge will continue with partners to monitor the use of Salmon Creek and Hookton Slough by 

salmonids, tidewater gobies, and amphibians. The refuge will establish a permanent tidal elevation station 

near the mouth of Salmon Creek on Hookton Slough to quantify tidal change over time in relation to tide 

gate function. The refuge and their partners would also seek to monitor for any potential impacts of Salmon 

Creek restoration on eelgrass beds in the South Bay. 

The refuge staff will continue regular monitoring of rare and endangered plants and plant communities 

including beach layia (Layia carnosa), Humboldt Bay owl’s clover (Castilleja ambigua ssp. 

Humboldtiensis), Point Reyes’ birds beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris), and pink sand verbena 

(Abronia umbellata ssp. breviflora). The refuge will also monitor for snowy plovers where appropriate.

Visitor Services – Environmental Education and Interpretation

The refuge will maintain wheelchair accessibility of the Richard J. Guadagno Visitor Center and associated 

boardwalk out to the kiosk. The refuge would continue to coordinate with Friends of the Humboldt Bay 

NWR volunteers and Audubon volunteers who offer guided bird walks on the refuge units; Friends of the 

Dunes staff who would continue to offer guided natural history walks on the Lanphere Dunes Unit and the 

Ma-le’l Dunes Unit (once per month each) and who lead a restoration work day once per month on the Male’l Dunes Unit; and host class tours on the dunes units. The refuge would complete the South Bay Historic 

Hunt Cabin as an interpretive exhibit on the Salmon Creek Unit. The refuge would also offer some special 

annual guided walks, environmental education and interpretation for events such as the Aleutian Goose 

Flyoff and National Wildlife Refuge Week. 

All existing interpretive exhibits and panels on refuge units would be maintained. Refuge staff would 

continue to offer occasional presentations to community groups (four to six per year) at the Visitors Center 

and to allow up to 12 community groups to use the Visitors Center for meetings annually. The refuge will 

continue to seek funding for a full-time Visitor Services Assistant. If it is possible to hire a new volunteer 

coordinator, that person would develop volunteer services and training with a target of managing a 

100-person volunteer corps. 

Visitor Services - Hunting

Refuge staff will begin a program of regular, daily bag checks to verify the number and species of waterfowl 

harvested by hunters. Law enforcement will also be increased on the refuge, particularly during the 

waterfowl season, by contract or through support from other Service law enforcement staff. Hunting pit 

blinds at the Salmon Creek Unit will be modified to prevent stranding of wildlife. The refuge will install 

improved directional signs in the hunt area of the Salmon Creek Unit, and post additional boundary signs 

on the Eureka Slough Unit, Jacoby Creek Unit, Table Bluff Unit, Egret Island, Teal Island, and Hookton 

Slough. 

Cultural Resource Management

The Service will identify, inventory, evaluate, and nominate to the National Register sites eligible for 

the National Register under Criteria A-D in consultation with the aforementioned tribal Governments. 

The refuge will work with the California and Nevada Regional Archeologist to ensure compliance with 

National Historic Preservation Act and to assess the long-term viability and cost of (restoring, maintaining, 

removing, or demolishing) several old refuge structures including the barn and bunkhouse at Salmon 

Creek and the quarters at Lanphere Dunes. Additional environmental compliance documentation would be 

completed as required by NEPA.
E-14 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Issue Area Alternative A

(No Action Alternative)

Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred Alternative)

Goal 1. Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance estuarine and palustrine wetland habitats representative 

of the Humboldt Bay area to benefit their associated native fish, wildlife, plants, and special status 

species.

Salmon Creek Delta 

Restoration

Adaptively manage 60 acres 

of Salmon Creek overflow 

and 50 acres adjacent to the 

main channel 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative B

Monitor species, sediment 

transport in Salmon Creek

Within 3 years excavate 

1,500 linear feet of Salmon 

Creek into a natural 

channel

Within 5 years excavate 

500 linear feet to connect 

the new channel to salmon 

rearing habitat in Cattail 

Creek

N/A Implement Phase II of the 

Salmon Creek Restoration 

Project excavating historic 

channel

Same as Alternative B

N/A Construct off-channel 

estuarine wetlands and 

side-channels for salmonid 

rearing habitat

Same as Alternative B

N/A Replant riparian vegetation 

on sides of new channel to a 

minimum width of 100 feet

Same as Alternative B

N/A Install a fish screen or 

other appurtenances in the 

new channel

Same as Alternative B and 

secure large woody debris 

within Hookton Slough

N/A Use excavated material for 

salt marsh restoration or 

dike maintenance

Same as Alternative B

Salt Marsh Habitat Manage 313 acres of 

existing salt marsh

Same as Alternative A and 

restore a total of 125 acres 

to native salt marsh

Same as Alternative B and 

restore a total of 235 acres 

to native salt marsh

N/A On WSU, restore 35 

acres to native salt marsh 

(included in 125-acre total)

On WSU, restore an 

additional 45 acres to native 

salt marsh (included in 235-

acre total)

N/A On HSU, restore 90 acres 

on HSU to native salt 

marsh (included in 125-acre 

total)

On HSU, restore an 

additional 90 acres to native 

salt marsh (included in 235-

acre total)

On WSU, repair dike to 

allow for restoration and 

remove remaining dike on 

west side of TBU

Same as Alternative A On TBU, restore 100 acres 

of overflow to native salt 

marsh (included in 235-acre 

total)

Table E-1. Summary of Alternatives: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

NOTE: Acreages and linear footage distances indicated in the alternative descriptions are approximate. 

Acronyms used in the Summary of Alternatives are listed as a footnote at the bottom of the table. All 

actions are scheduled for completion within the life of the CCP (15 years) unless otherwise noted.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-15

Issue Area Alternative A

(No Action Alternative)

Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred Alternative)

N/A If feasible, raise tidal 

elevation of 60 acres of 

existing mudflat on Salmon 

Creek Overflow with clean 

fill and plant with native 

or propagated salt marsh 

vegetation

Same as Alternative B, and 

raise an additional 40 acres 

on lower Salmon Creek 

(total of 100 acres)

Freshwater and Brackish 

Marsh Habitat (FBM

On HSU, maintain 150 

acres; on TBU maintain 25 

acres; and on SCU maintain 

and enhance 630 acres of 

seasonal FBM

Same as Alternative A and 

on HSU and SCU enhance 

100 of the 680 acres of 

FBM within 7 years

N/A

N/A On TBU, restore 13 acres 

of pasture vegetation to 

FBM within 7 years

Same as Alternative B

On WSU, repair perimeter 

dike within 2 years 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

On WSU, north and west 

areas, maintain 50 acres of 

FBM

On WSU, restore 4 acres 

of FBM

On WSU, maintain 7acres 

of FBM

N/A On WSU east area, enhance 

14 acres of FBM

N/A

On SCU, maintain and 

enhance 270 acres of shortgrass pasture

On SCU and HSU, 

maintain and enhance 

270 acres of grassland 

and restore 130 acres of 

wetland areas to shortgrass pasture to improve 

ACG habitat

On SCU and HSU, 

maintain and enhance 

270 acres of grassland 

and enhance 100 acres of 

wetland areas to shortgrass pasture to improve 

ACG habitat

On HSU, maintain 

hydrologic flushing 

to minimize mosquito 

breeding habitat

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Continue to use a CLMA to 

manage grasslands through 

a combination of grazing, 

mowing, and haying

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Continue soil testing in 

short-grass pasture and 

add lime when necessary to 

raise soil pH

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Continue seasonally 

appropriate mowing to 

maintain short-grass 

habitat and control thistle

On SCU, use seasonally 

appropriate mowing to 

promote short-grass 

species favorable to ACG 

Same as Alternative B

Promote plant communities 

that support ACG by 

seeding if needed

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A
E-16 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Issue Area Alternative A

(No Action Alternative)

Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred Alternative)

N/A On SCU, enhance 

inundation through 

construction of low 

contour interior levees to 

create independent water 

management areas near 

duck ponds and in floodgate 

pasture 

Same as Alternative B and 

install a low contour levee 

on SCU to impound water 

to enhance FBM 

N/A On HSU, in far eastern 

and western areas manage 

for FBM while managing 

central portion as shortgrass pasture and FBM 

Same as Alternative B 

except on HSU implement 

a restoration plan that 

allows muted tidal 

exchange to east and west 

areas while allowing for fish 

passage, salmonid rearing 

and tidewater goby habitat; 

and partial tidal restoration 

in central area

N/A Work with Caltrans to reroute Chism Creek so that 

it enters west WSU area 

rather than directly into 

the Bay

Same as Alternative B

N/A On HSU, middle portion 

use mowing and/or grazing 

to promote short-grass 

species favorable to ACG

N/A

N/A N/A On SCU, enhance drainage 

in short-grass areas to 

create more favorable 

conditions for grass and 

ACG

N/A N/A On SCU, remove interior 

dikes around Headquarters 

unit and adjacent to Long 

Pond to enhance wetland 

values

Riparian Swamp Habitat On SCU, maintain 35 acres 

of existing riparian swamp 

habitat and on the east side 

of WSU, re-vegetate an 

additional 6 acres 

Same as Alternative A and: Same as Alternative B

N/A Within 15 years replace 20 

acres of non-native trees 

with native riparian swamp 

vegetation 

Same as Alternative B

Enhance riparian swamp 

habitat by planting native 

under story plants and 

providing protection 

against deer browse

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-17

Issue Area Alternative A

(No Action Alternative)

Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred Alternative)

N/A If feasible, implement 

cooperative agreements to 

remove non-native trees 

and assist with native 

plantings

Same as Alternative B

Eelgrass and Mudflat 

Habitat 

Participate in ongoing 

partnerships to conserve 

and manage eelgrass and 

mudflat habitat for longterm health

Same as Alternative A and 

create new partnerships 

to conserve and manage 

mudflat/eelgrass habitat for 

long-term health

Same as Alternative B

Monitor eelgrass beds for 

potential effects of Salmon 

Creek restoration

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Continue partnership with 

the HBEBM program 

for eelgrass and mudflat 

habitat

Pursue additional 

funding for research and 

conservation through 

Service’s coastal program 

to contribute to HBEBM 

program

Same as Alternative B

N/A Pursue an MOU with 

HBHRCD and CDFG to 

conserve inter-tidal areas 

within the refuge boundary

Same as Alternative B

Floodplain Management Manage Humboldt Bay 

NWR floodplain consistent 

with local, State and 

Federal guidelines

Same as Alternative A and: Same as Alternative B

Continue to maintain all 

existing levees and conduct 

repairs to maintain function

Within 10 years, work 

toward achieving the 

relevant water quality 

objectives in Section 3 of 

the North Coast Basin Plan 

for the benefit of fish and 

wildlife resources

Same as Alternative B

Implement habitat 

improvement strategies 

so that they do not worsen 

local or regional flooding, 

water quality, or erosion

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

 N/A Develop a long-term water 

quality monitoring program 

for nonpoint sources of 

pollution entering the 

Humboldt Bay NWR

N/A

 N/A With partners, develop a 

long-term water quality 

monitoring program 

to document effects of 

sediment flushing from 

Salmon Creek on eelgrass 

beds in southern Humboldt 

Bay

Same as Alternative B
E-18 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Issue Area Alternative A

(No Action Alternative)

Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred Alternative)

Goal 2. Conserve and restore globally rare dune and dune forest habitats, associated native plant and 

animal species and support recovery of threatened, endangered, and endemic species dependent upon 

these rare habitats. 

Dune Mat/Foredune 

Grassland 

On LDU, maintain 125 

acres of dune mat/foredune 

grassland 

Same as Alternative A and: Same as Alternative B and:

N/A On all suitable parts of 

the LDU, MDU, and 

TBU restore native dune 

mat/foredune grassland 

communities

Same as Alternative B

N/A N/A On LDU, create ongoing 

experimental dune blowouts to assess effects on 

plants

On MDU, TBU, and part 

of LDU, re-introduce HB 

wallflower 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Continue research on and 

monitor HB wallflower 

populations on HBNWR

Same as Alternative A 

and conduct research 

on cryptogamic mat and 

interactions between it and 

endemic insects

Same as Alternative B

Seek agreements with 

adjacent landowners to 

assist them in managing 

populations of the HB 

wallflower and beach layia 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

N/A Inventory wildlife 

(including invertebrates) 

species in dune mat/

foredune grassland habitats

Same as Alternative B

Dune Swale On LDU, MDU and TBU, 

maintain 67 acres of dune 

swale habitat 

ON LDU, MDU and TBU, 

restore 67 acres of dune 

swale habitat and:

Same as Alternative B 

except within 10 years 

N/A Inventory wildlife 

(including invertebrates) 

species in dune swale 

habitats

Same as Alternative B 

except within 10 years

Dune Riparian/Swamp On the MDU and LDU, 

maintain 33 acres of dune 

riparian/swamp 

On the MDU and LDU, 

maintain and restore 33 

acres of dune riparian/

swamp within 10 years

Same as Alternative B 

except within 5 years

N/A Inventory wildlife 

(including invertebrates) 

in dune riparian swamp 

habitat

Same as Alternative B and 

on MDU and LDU after 

wildlife inventory enhance 

dune riparian/swamp

N/A Conduct continued research 

on neo-tropical migrant 

birds with partners

Same as Alternative B
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-19

Issue Area Alternative A

(No Action Alternative)

Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred Alternative)

Coniferous Dune Forest On the MDU and LDU, 

maintain and restore 180 

acres of coniferous dune 

forest 

Same as Alternative A and: Same as Alternative B and:

N/A Within 10 years, restore 

MDU forest margins to 

native coniferous dune 

forest 

Within 5 years, restore 

MDU forest margins to 

native coniferous dune 

forest 

Restore plant communities 

by removing and 

revegetating little-used 

trails throughout the forest

Same as Alternative A 

except within 10 years

Same as Alternative A 

except within 5 years 

N/A Pursue funding for 

partners to research 

coniferous dune forest 

ecology including tree 

wind-fall events

Same as Alternative B

N/A Pursue funding for 

partners to research neotropical migrant birds

Same as Alternative B

N/A Inventory wildlife 

(including invertebrates) 

of coniferous dune forest 

habitats

Same as Alternative B

N/A N/A Grow or identify local 

sources for restoration 

plant materials

Goal 3: Conserve and restore all refuge habitats through the prevention and control of invasive plants 

and animals.

General Invasive Species 

Management Program 

Actions

On TBU, work with the 

refuge invasives program 

and/or YCC and CDF 

to remove all species of 

invasive plants 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Monitor and strategically 

remove invasive plants as 

resources permit

Expand the existing 

volunteer program to 

control high priority target 

invasive plants

Same as Alternative B and:

Coordinate with volunteer 

and partners to control 

invasive plants on HBNWR 

and adjacent lands

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

N/A N/A Develop a Hazard Analysis 

and Critical Control 

Point Plan to prevent 

establishment of new 

invasive species
E-20 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Issue Area Alternative A

(No Action Alternative)

Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred Alternative)

Participate in local weed 

management area group 

that coordinates invasive 

plant management 

programs among 20 

organizations

Same as Alternative A 

and pursue grant funding 

for partner invasive plant 

control program and 

implement if feasible

Same as Alternative B

N/A N/A Create and implement an 

IPM step-down plan for the 

entire Humboldt Bay NWR

N/A N/A Pursue grant funding to 

contract for invasive plant 

removal and implement if 

feasible

Salmon Creek Delta 

Restoration and Salt 

Marsh Habitat

Finalize IPM plan for 

invasive plant management 

plan

Same as Alternative A 

and control high priority 

target plant species to 

a maintenance level of 

ongoing control

Same as Alternative B 

and eradicate Spartina 

from HBNWR and work 

with partners on plan to 

eradicate from Humboldt 

Bay area

Freshwater and Brackish 

Marsh (FBM)

On HSU, maintain 150 

acres of FBM through 

control of invasive plants

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Riparian Swamp Habitat Remove 20 acres of nonnative trees

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Use IPM techniques to 

control the spread of nonnative trees

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Eelgrass and Mudflat 

Habitat

Continue partnerships for 

monitoring and research on 

invasive species that may 

affect eelgrass

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Dune Swale Implement large-scale 

eradication experiments 

on invasive plants in dune 

swale habitat 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Dune Riparian/Swamp Work with volunteers to 

complete forest invasive 

plants removal from dune 

riparian/swamp

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Monitor and treat new 

occurrences of forest 

invasive plants from dune 

riparian/swamp

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Coniferous Dune Forest Survey for and control 

invasive plants as resources 

permit

Same as Alternative A and 

pursue funding to bring 

all dune riparian/swamp 

invasives to a maintenance 

stage 

Same as Alternative B
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-21

Issue Area Alternative A

(No Action Alternative)

Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred Alternative)

Work with YCC, CCC, 

CDF, partners, and 

volunteers to complete 

removal of invasive plants 

in coniferous dune forest

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Goal 4: Promote long-term viability of the Humboldt Bay estuarine and dune ecosystems through 

ecosystem-based management coordinated with both public and private partners around the bay.

Ecosystem Management Continue participation 

on ecosystem based 

management collaborations

Same as Alternative A and: Same as Alternative B, 

except:

N/A Within 5 years devote 

an additional 1/4 FTE 

to serve an increased 

role in ecosystem-based 

management collaborations

Within 2 years devote 

an additional 1/4 FTE 

to serve an increased 

role in ecosystem-based 

management collaborations

N/A Create a combined AFWO/

NWR position to work on 

conservation partnerships 

and ecosystem based 

outreach

Same as Alternative B

Special Status Species 

(Humboldt Bay wallflower 

and beach layia)

Support recovery efforts 

of the HB wallflower and 

beach layia on Humboldt 

Bay NWR through 

restoration of 14 acres on 

MDU and 22 acres on TBU

Same as Alternative A and: Same as Alternative B, 

except: within 5 years 

reintroduce HB wallflower 

and beach layia to 

unoccupied habitat at LDU 

(35 acres) and restored 

habitat at MDU and LDU

N/A Work with partners to 

protect South Spit, Elk 

River Spit, Samoa airport, 

and unprotected Manila 

populations of Humboldt 

Bay wallflower and beach 

layia

Same as Alternative B

N/A Work with AFWO to 

implement the Coastal 

Plants Recovery Plan on 

and off Humboldt Bay 

NWR

Same as Alternative B

N/A N/A Within 10 years, pursue 

protection of 22 acres 

existing and 30 acres 

potential (restorable) 

habitat within approved 

refuge boundary 

N/A N/A Once protected carry out 

restoration of habitats and 

re-introduce populations of 

native endangered plants 
E-22 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Issue Area Alternative A

(No Action Alternative)

Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred Alternative)

Re-introduce HB wallflower 

on MDU, part of LDU, and 

on TBU 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Seek coop. agreements 

with adjacent landowners 

to assist them in managing 

populations of the HB 

wallflower and beach layia 

on private lands

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Use existing methods to reintroduce wallflowers Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

N/A Work with City of Eureka 

and CDFG to develop 

access and interpretive 

infrastructure to reduce 

trampling of ESA-listed 

plants

Same as Alternative B

N/A Work with partners to 

monitor Elk River and 

South Spit population of 

HB wallflower

Same as Alternative B

N/A Work with partners to 

protect South Spit and Elk 

River Spit populations, of 

ESA-listed plants from 

deer browsing, trampling, 

and other human impacts

Same as Alternative B

N/A Work with partners (City of 

Eureka to increase habitat 

at EDPA and Samoa 

airport populations

Same as Alternative B

N/A Work with FOD, MCSD to 

increase viability of Manila 

populations

Same as Alternative B

N/A N/A Pursue protection of 

remaining habitat for 

ESA-listed species within 

the HBNWR approved 

boundary through 

cooperative agreements, 

easements, donations, or 

acquisition

Goal 5. Provide public with accessible, safe, high-quality wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities to 

enhance public appreciation and understanding of fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats of Humboldt Bay 

and associated watersheds.

Visitor Services - 

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography

Provide 20,000 annual, 

safe wildlife observation 

and photography visitor 

opportunities by land and 

water trails

Provide 30,000 annual, 

safe wildlife observation 

and photography visitor 

opportunities by land and 

water trails

Provide 35,000 annual, 

safe wildlife observation 

and photography visitor 

opportunities by land and 

water trails
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-23

Issue Area Alternative A

(No Action Alternative)

Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred Alternative)

Maintain 2 miles of dune 

units trails 

On SCU, improve to 

wheelchair accessible 0.25 

mile of existing trail from 

parking lot to kiosk to 

increase wildlife viewing 

opportunities

On SCU, improve to 

wheelchair accessible 

1.5 miles of existing trail 

(Shorebird Loop trail)

N/A On MDU, improve to 

wheelchair accessible 0.25 

mile of existing trail to the 

overlook (Railroad Berm 

trail)

On MDU, improve to 

wheelchair accessible 

0.5 mile of existing trail 

(Railroad Berm trail) 

N/A N/A On HSU, improve to 

wheelchair accessible 

1.5 miles of exiting trail 

(Hookton Slough trail)

Maintain wheelchair 

accessibility of visitor 

center and associated 

boardwalk

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Increase law enforcement 

on the refuge by contract 

or by support from other 

Service law enforcement 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

N/A Install a wildlife camera 

with feed back to the 

Visitor Center

Same as Alternative B

N/A Offer seasonally guided 

hikes through otherwise 

closed trails

Same as Alternative B

N/A Increase seasonal hiking 

opportunities around the 

hunt area by improving 

trails

N/A

N/A Add a non-motorized boat 

launch at the Ma-le’l Dunes 

Unit, if feasible

N/A

N/A On SCU, add wheelchair 

accessible photo blind

Same as Alternative B

Visitor Services - 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation

Maintain wildlifedependent educational 

opportunities for 4 school 

or community groups per 

month 

Maintain wildlifedependent educational 

opportunities for 6 school 

or community groups per 

month 

Maintain wildlifedependent educational 

opportunities for 8 school 

or community groups per 

month 

Offer 20,000 annual 

visitor opportunities for 

interpretive experiences 

on HBNWR lands and off 

refuge 

Offer 30,000 annual 

visitor opportunities for 

interpretive experiences 

on HBNWR lands and off 

refuge

Offer 35,000 annual 

visitor opportunities for 

interpretive experiences 

on HBNWR lands and off 

refuge

Offer guided natural 

history walks on LDU and 

MDU (once per month)

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A
E-24 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Issue Area Alternative A

(No Action Alternative)

Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred Alternative)

Coordinate with FOD, 

which leads a restoration 

work day once per month 

on MDU

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Continue to host class tours 

on LDU and MDU

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

N/A Facilitate teacher training 

so teachers could lead 

environmental education 

field trips

Same as Alternative B

N/A Work with school 

districts to implement 

new Schoolyard Habitats 

Program 

Same as Alternative B 

Complete the South Bay 

Historic Hunt Cabin

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

N/A Construct or convert the 

SCU barn into a covered 

outdoor structure for 

environmental education 

activities 

Same as Alternative B

N/A Assist schools in visiting 

refuges (arranging shuttle 

busses, etc.)

Same as Alternative B

N/A Expand the outdoor youth 

day to a multi-day event 

Same as Alternative B

N/A On SCU establish a 

children’s outdoor 

exploration area 

(“connecting people with 

nature”)

Same as Alternative B

Visitor Services - 

Outreach/Friends and 

Partners 

Collaborate with regional 

partners to host at 

least 1 regionally based 

environmental education 

field trip, workshop, 

seminar, or study course 

each year

Collaborate with regional 

partners to host at 

least 2 regionally based 

environmental education 

field trip, workshop, 

seminar, or study course 

each year

Same as Alternative B

Visitor Services - Hunting Maintain existing 

waterfowl, coot and snipe 

hunting program to 

accommodate 1,200 hunter 

day use opportunities per 

year on SCU

Same as Alternative A, and: Same as Alternative A and 

implement 2008 Waterfowl 

Hunt Plan (Appx. C): open 

limited areas of the MDU 

to waterfowl, coot, and 

snipe hunting and retrieval 

and provide 2 additional 

youth only hunting days on 

SCU
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-25

Issue Area Alternative A

(No Action Alternative)

Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred Alternative)

N/A Provide additional 

undisturbed area for 

wildlife and reduce 

potential for hunter/

nonhunter conflicts by 

closing Teal Island and 

Hookton Slough areas to 

overwater hunting

N/A

Increase law enforcement 

on the HBNWR by contract 

or by support from other 

Service law enforcement

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Modify pit blinds to prevent 

stranding of wildlife

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Post additional boundary 

signs on ESU, JCU,TBU, 

Egret Island, Teal Island, 

and HSU

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Visitor Services - Fishing Maintain existing sport 

fisheries program

Same as Alternative A and: Implement 2008 Sport 

Fishing Plan (Appx. D)

N/A Increase signage at 

allowable sport fishing sites 

and outreach

Same as Alternative B

Goal 6. In cooperation with tribal representatives, identify and protect tribal cultural resources on 

the Humboldt Bay NWR. In addition, assess and manage refuge’s more recent cultural resources and 

structures.

Cultural Resources 

Management

Continue managing for 

and conserving HBNWR 

cultural resources in 

coordination with the 

Wiyot Tribe, Blue Lake 

Rancheria, Bear River 

Band of Rohnerville 

Rancheria and the FWSs 

Regional Archaeologist

Create and implement a 

basic Cultural Resources 

Management capability 

at HBNWR to respond 

to basic compliance 

requirements

Same as Alternative A

Within 10 years, work 

with the Wiyot Tribe, Blue 

Lake Rancheria, and Bear 

River Band of Rohnerville 

Rancheria to develop 

an MOU for resource 

management issues and 

address at-risk cultural 

places

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Incorporate cultural 

resource values, issues, and 

requirements into design 

and implementation of the 

other habitat, wildlife, and 

public use activities and 

strategies conducted by the 

HBNWR

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A
E-26 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Issue Area Alternative A

(No Action Alternative)

Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred Alternative)

N/A Develop and implement 

a plan to survey the 

refuge for both previously 

recorded and newly 

identified cultural resources

Same as Alternative B

N/A Assess costs to keep barn 

and other structures on 

SCU and LDU in use

Same as Alternative B

Cultural Resources 

Management - 

Partnerships

Continue current level 

of cultural resources 

interpretation

Within 5 years develop, 

in partnership with the 

Wiyot Tribe, Blue Lake 

Rancheria, Bear River 

Band of Rohnerville 

Rancheria and other 

preservation partners, a 

cultural resources overview 

of the HBNWR

Same as Alternative B

N/A Develop interpretive 

displays on the 

Headquarters Unit 

(SCU) that illustrate 

traditional dwellings, 

various subsistence 

strategies and traditional 

and contemporary lifestyle 

of local American Indian 

tribes

Same as Alternative B

Cultural Resources 

Management - 

Coordination 

Work with the Wiyot Tribe, 

Blue Lake Rancheria, Bear 

River Band of Rohnerville 

Rancheria to restore 

habitats of important native 

plants and to harvest native 

plant foods (for traditional 

non-commercial purposes) 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Review and reissue, if 

appropriate, any special 

use permits for traditional 

activities such as plant 

collecting for basket 

weaving

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

N/A = Not applicable to and not included in that Alternative.

ACG=Aleutian cackling goose; HB=Humboldt Bay; HBNWR = Humboldt Bay NWR; HSU=Hookton Slough 

Unit; LDU=Lanphere Dunes Unit; MDU=Ma-le’l Dunes Unit; SCU=Salmon Creek Unit; TBU=Table Bluff Unit; 

WSU=White Slough Unit. 

Acreages indicated in the alternative descriptions that follow are approximate.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-27

Alternative A for Humboldt Bay NWR: No Action 

Under Alternative A, the refuge would continue to be managed as it has been in the recent past (see 

Chapter 3 of the CCP). The focus of the refuge would remain the same: to provide enhancement, 

restoration, and management of a diversity of wetland and upland habitats for the benefit of all of the 

natural resources that those habitats help sustain. The refuge would continue to provide wildlife dependent 

recreation opportunities, including hunting, wildlife observations and photography, environmental education 

and interpretation, and hunting. Existing staffing and funding levels would remain approximately the same. 

In addition to actions described above in Features Common to All Alternatives for Humboldt Bay NWR, 

Alternative A would include the following. Figures E-2 through E-6 show graphical representations of the 

areas affected for each of the habitat management alternatives. The Summary of Alternatives table, above, 

provides a comparison of the actions in each alternative. 

Salmon Creek Delta Restoration

Under Alternative A, the refuge would adaptively manage 60 acres of Salmon Creek overflow and 50 

acres adjacent to the main channel to meet the goals of Phase I of the Salmon Creek Restoration project. 

Adaptive management includes monitoring species and sediment transport in Salmon Creek. The 

monitoring results would then be used to guide management activities. 

Salt Marsh Habitat 

Under Alternative A, the refuge would:

• manage 313 acres of existing coastal salt marsh habitat

• repair the dike at White Slough Unit to allow for planned restoration and 

• remove the remaining dike on east side of Table Bluff Unit

Freshwater and Brackish Marsh Habitat (FBM)

Under Alternative A, the refuge would:

• continue to maintain all levees and conduct minimal repairs of existing levees as needed to maintain their 

functionality; levee work would be done by refuge staff or contractors

• on the White Slough Unit, the refuge would repair the perimeter dike within 2 years and passively 

maintain 50 acres of freshwater and brackish marsh in the northern and western areas 

• on the Hookton Slough Unit, maintain 150 acres of freshwater and brackish marsh through control of 

invasive plant species 

• on the Hookton Slough Unit, maintain hydrologic flushing to minimize mosquito breeding habitat 

• on the Table Bluff Unit, maintain 25 acres of brackish and freshwater marsh 

• on the Salmon Creek Unit, the refuge would maintain and enhance 630 acres of seasonal freshwater and 

brackish marsh primarily through management and control of invasive plants. 

• on the Salmon Creek Unit, the refuge would continue to maintain and enhance 270 acres of short-grass 

pasture through control of invasive species, seeding, application of lime, and grazing, as needed. 

• continue to use a cooperative land management agreement to manage grasslands through a combination 

of grazing, mowing, and haying

• continue soil testing and add lime when necessary to raise soil pH

• continue seasonally appropriate mowing to maintain short-grass pasture and control thistle

• promote plant communities that support Aleutian cackling geese by seeding, if needed

Riparian Swamp Habitat

Under Alternative A, the refuge would:

• on the east side of the White Slough Unit, manage 35 acres of existing riparian swamp habitat and revegetate an additional 6 acres with riparian swamp vegetation 

• continue selective removal of 20 acres of non-native trees, including eucalyptus (over a 5-year period), 

Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress trees. The refuge would only remove non-native trees as variable 

staff and funding resources permit. This would result in removal of non-native trees within the life of the 

CCP (15 years). 

• continue to work with volunteer groups or partners to complete small-scale plantings of native vegetation 

in areas where non-native trees are removed

• enhance riparian swamp habitat by planting native under story plants and providing deer browse 

protection on new plantings
E-28 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Eelgrass and Mudflat Habitat

Under Alternative A, the refuge would:

• continue to participate in ongoing partnerships to conserve and manage eelgrass and mudflat habitat for 

the long-term health of the bay

• monitor potential effects to eelgrass beds from the ongoing Salmon Creek Restoration project

• continue partnership with the HBEBM program for eelgrass and mudflat habitat

Floodplain Management 

Under Alternative A, the refuge would:

• continue to manage the Humboldt Bay NWR floodplain land in a manner consistent with local, State, and 

Federal guidelines; and flood management, sediment, and erosion control and water quality objectives

• continue to maintain all levees and would conduct minimal repairs of existing levees as needed to maintain 

their functionality 

• implement habitat improvement strategies in a manner that does not worsen local or regional flooding, 

water quality, or erosion

Dune Mat/Foredune Grassland Habitat

Under Alternative A, the refuge would:

• on the Lanphere Dunes Unit, maintain 125 acres of dune mat/foredune grassland plant communities 

• on the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit, part of Lanphere Dunes Unit, and on Table Bluff Unit, re-introduce Humboldt 

Bay wallflower

• continue research and monitoring of Humboldt Bay wallflower populations on the Humboldt Bay NWR

• seek cooperative agreements with adjacent landowners to assist them in managing populations of the 

Humboldt Bay wallflower and beach layia

• continue monitoring and re-introductions, as described above in Features Common to All Alternatives 

Dune Swale

Under Alternative A, the refuge would:

• on the Lanphere Dunes, Ma-le’l Dunes, and Table Bluff Units, maintain 67 acres of dune swale plant 

communities 

Dune Riparian/Swamp 

Under Alternative A, the refuge would:

• on the Ma-le’l and Lanphere Dunes Units, maintain a total of 33 acres of dune riparian/swamp habitat

Coniferous Dune Forest 

Under Alternative A, the refuge would:

• on the Ma-le’l and Lanphere Dunes Units, maintain 180 acres of coniferous dune forest habitat

• within 15 years, restore native plant communities to remove casual human trails throughout the coniferous 

forest

Invasive Species (Integrated Pest Management)

Under Alternative A, the refuge would implement the following management activities (actions are listed by 

general program actions or by habitat type below).

General Invasive Species Management Program Actions

• on Table Bluff Unit, work with the refuge invasives program and/or YCC and CDF to remove all species 

of invasive plants

• monitor and strategically remove invasive plants as resources permit

• continue coordination and collaboration with volunteers and partners from organizations such as the 

Friends of the Dunes, Friends of the Humboldt Bay NWR, the Fortuna Creeks Project, CCC, and CDF to 

control invasive plants on Humboldt Bay NWR and adjacent lands 

• participate in the Humboldt-Del Norte County Weed Management Area group that coordinates and 

implements invasive plant management programs among 20 agencies and organizations
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-29

Salmon Creek Delta and Salt Marsh Habitat:

• finalize and implement an invasive plant management (IPM) plan

Freshwater and Brackish Marsh:

• on Hookton Slough Unit, maintain 150 acres of freshwater and brackish marsh through the control of 

invasive plants

Riparian Swamp Habitat:

• remove 20 acres of non-native trees from riparian swamp habitat 

• use a combination of mechanical and chemical (IPM) techniques to control the spread of non-native trees

Eelgrass and Mudflat Habitat:

• continue partnerships for monitoring and research on invasive species that may affect eelgrass

Dune Habitats

• implement large-scale eradication experiments on existing invasive plants in the dune swale plant 

community

• work with volunteers to complete removal of forest invasive plants from the dune riparian/swamp

• monitor and treat new occurrences of forest invasive plants from the dune riparian swamp

• survey for and control of new occurrences of forest invasive plants as resources permit

• work with YCC, CCC, CDF, partners, and volunteers to complete removal of invasive plants in the 

coniferous dune forest

Ecosystem Management

Under Alternative A, the refuge would continue to coordinate participation with many partners to assure 

that habitat and species management efforts on Humboldt Bay NWR support those of related Humboldt 

Bay ecosystem-based management collaborations, as staff time and resources permit. 

Special Status Species (Humboldt Bay wallflower and beach layia)

Under Alternative A, the refuge would continue to support recovery efforts for the Humboldt Bay 

wallflower and beach layia on the Humboldt Bay NWR through the following.

• complete habitat restoration on 14 acres of Ma-le’l Dunes Unit and 22 acres on Table Bluff Unit 

• reintroduce the wallflower and layia to Ma-le’l Dunes and Table Bluff Units, and part of Lanphere Dunes 

Unit

• seek to develop cooperative agreements with adjacent landowners to assist them in managing populations 

of the Humboldt Bay wallflower and beach layia on privately owned lands

• use existing methods to re-introduce wallflowers

Visitor Services - Wildlife Observation and Photography

Figures E-7 and E-8 show a graphical representation of the Visitor Services features described in the 

alternatives. 

Under Alternative A, the refuge would continue to maintain current opportunities for wildlife observation 

and photography. The refuge would: 

• provide for up to 20,000 annual, safe wildlife observation and photography visitor opportunities on 

Humboldt Bay NWR by land and water trails 

• maintain 2 miles of trails on the Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes Units

• on Salmon Creek Unit, maintain wheelchair accessibility to the Richard J. Guadagno Office and Visitor 

Center and associated boardwalk

• increase law enforcement on the refuge by contract or support from other Service law enforcement staff

Visitor Services - Environmental Education and Interpretation

Environmental education and interpretation opportunities on the Humboldt Bay NWR would continue to be 

offered by refuge staff and volunteers. For Alternative A, the refuge would: 

• maintain wildlife-dependent educational opportunities for 4 school or community groups per month. 

• offer up to 20,000 annual visitor opportunities for interpretive experiences on and off refuge lands 

• offer guided natural history walks once per month on Lanphere Dunes Unit and Ma-le’l Dunes Unit
E-30 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

• coordinate with Friends of the Dunes, which leads a restoration work day once per month on Ma-le’l 

Dunes Unit

• continue to host class tours on Lanphere Dunes Unit and Ma-le’l Dunes Unit

• complete the South Bay Historic Hunt Cabin

• conduct a variety of outreach efforts including a volunteer services program 

Visitor Services – Outreach/Friends and Partners

For Alternative A, the refuge would collaborate with regional partners to host at least 1 regionally based 

environmental education field trip, workshop, seminar, or study course each year

Visitor Services - Hunting

For Alternative A, the refuge would continue to be managed consistent with the existing the 1990 Humboldt 

Bay NWR Sport Hunting Plan, with no changes. Over the life of the CCP, the refuge would maintain the 

existing waterfowl, coot, and snipe hunting program to accommodate 1,200 hunter day use opportunities per 

year on the Salmon Creek Unit. 

• increase law enforcement on the Humboldt Bay NWR by contract or through support from other Service 

law enforcement staff

• modify pit blinds to prevent stranding of wildlife

• post additional boundary signs on Eureka Slough Unit, Jacoby Creek Unit, Table Bluff Unit, Egret 

Island, Teal Island, and Hookton Slough Unit

Visitor Services - Fishing

For Alternative A, the fishing on the refuge would continue to be managed consistent with the existing 1992 

Humboldt Bay NWR Fishery Management Plan, with no changes. The existing sports fisheries program 

would be maintained. 

Most fishing in Humboldt Bay occurs from boats on navigable waters. Currently, boaters can access Mad 

River Slough from the existing boat ramp on Lanphere Road or from Samoa Boulevard. Fishing will also 

continue to be permitted from the Hookton Slough boat dock and off the Hookton Slough trail, west of the 

designated parking lot. This area is known as the “Hookton Slough Shoreline Fishing Trail”. A California 

fishing license is required to fish on Hookton Slough, even from the dock because the dock does not quality 

as a “public fishing pier” under State of California Sport Fishing Regulations. Refuge staff estimates that 

100 to 250 people anglers visit the refuge each year, including families often with children who also fish. 

Fishing on the refuge is primarily for species in the shark family and most successful with a high tide. 

Alcohol is banned on the refuge and therefore is not allowed at fishing locations. The non-tidally influenced 

areas (dikes and seasonal wetlands) will be closed to fishing to provide disturbance-free resting and foraging 

areas for migratory birds. Anglers will be monitored on an opportunistic basis to determine if any wildlife 

disturbance is occurring. Refuge staff will respond appropriately to observed disturbances to fulfill the 

multiple purposes of the refuge. Shell fishing is not allowed on the refuge. Refuge staff directs visitors 

inquiring about shell fishing (for clams) to go to more productive locations off-refuge. 

As with hunting, these designated fishing areas are subject to Federal and State fishing laws and 

regulations. For seasons, limits, and other restrictions, refer to the State of California Sport Fishing 

Regulations.

Cultural Resources - Management

For Alternative A, the refuge would:

• continue managing for and conserving Humboldt Bay NWR’s cultural resources by consulting with 

the Wiyot Tribe, Blue Lake Rancheria, Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, and the Service’s 

California and Nevada Regional Archaeologist to collect relevant cultural resource background 

information prior to conducting projects 

• work with Wiyot Tribe, Blue Lake Rancheria, and Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria to develop a 

Memorandum of Understanding for resource management issues

• incorporate cultural resource values, issues, and requirements into design and implementation of the 

other habitat, wildlife, and public use activities and strategies conducted by the Humboldt Bay NWR
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-31

Cultural Resources - Education

For Alternative A, the refuge would:

• continue current levels of cultural resources interpretation at Humboldt Bay NWR

Cultural Resources - Coordination

For Alternative A, the refuge would:

• work with Wiyot Tribe and Blue Lake Rancheria and Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria on 

projects to restore habitats of culturally important native plants and to harvest native plant foods (for 

traditional, non-commercial purposes) 

• review and reissue, if appropriate, any special use permits for traditional activities such as plant collecting 

for basket weaving

Alternative B for Humboldt Bay NWR

Figures E-2 through E-6 show graphical representations of the areas affected for each of the habitat 

management alternatives. The Summary of Alternatives table, above, provides a comparison of the actions 

in each alternative. 

Salmon Creek Delta Restoration

In addition to completing actions described under Alternative A, within 3 years of CCP approval, the refuge 

would also implement Phase II of the Salmon Creek Restoration project. The goal of the Salmon Creek 

Restoration Project is to restore estuarine habitat (associated plant communities) and function. The project 

objectives include: 1) Relocate upper reach of Salmon Creek channel within the refuge, which currently 

flows through a ditch. The new channel would be in the upper reach of a new tidally influence area and 

include a stable channel form, complexity and sinuosity, large wood, and efficient routing of sediment and 

flood waters; 2) Construct off-channel estuarine wetlands and side-channels in upper reach for salmonid 

rearing habitat and channel maintenance; and 3) Screen existing high-flow water diversion to eliminate 

stranding.

For Alternative B, the refuge would:

• relocate a reach of the Salmon Creek channel that currently flows through a linear ditch (from the refuge 

boundary to the first diversion structure) into a natural, meandering channel. Restoring this reach to a 

meandering channel would include excavation and restoration plantings on approximately 1,500 linear feet 

of the historic Salmon Creek channel that has been filled in, allowing the creek to more efficiently route 

sediment and flood waters. The new channel would be in the upper reach of a new tidally influenced area 

and include a stable channel form, complexity and sinuosity

• use excavated material on the refuge for salt marsh restoration or dike maintenance 

• replant native, riparian forest vegetation on the sides of the new channel, to a minimum width of 100 feet 

• install a fish screen in the newly excavated channel to reduce fish stranding, as needed

Salt Marsh Habitat

In addition to actions described under Alternative A, the refuge would restore historic, natural processes to 

portions of the Humboldt Bay NWR. For Alternative B, the refuge would:

• on the White Slough Unit, restore 35 acres of native salt marsh by removing existing dikes on the White 

Slough Unit and using the dike material and other appropriate, local fill material to raise the White Slough 

Unit elevation. 

• on the Salmon Creek Overflow marsh plain, raise 60 acres to create additional salt marsh and to restore 

the tidal prism. If feasible, the refuge would raise areas of the White Slough Unit and Salmon Creek 

overflow marsh plain through a multi-step process. Prior to adding clean fill soil, native salt marsh plants 

would be salvaged and approximately 12 inches of topsoil would be removed from the site. The topsoil and 

salvaged plants would be stored on the Humboldt Bay NWR. Once topsoil had been removed, fill material 

would be spread on the marsh plain to raise the elevation of the plain. After fill material is placed to raise 

the marsh plain, the topsoil would be spread on top of the fill material. Finally, the salvaged native salt 

marsh plants and additional native plants would be used to vegetate the raised marsh plain. 
E-32 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Also for Alternative B, the refuge would restore through adaptive management a total of 125 acres of native 

salt marsh including: 

• on White Slough Unit, restore 35 acres to native salt marsh

• on Hookton Slough Unit, restore 90 acres to native salt marsh

• raise tidal elevations of 60 acres of existing mudflat with clean fill, and plant with native or propagated salt 

marsh vegetation

Freshwater and Brackish Marsh Habitat (FBM)

For Alternative B, the refuge would:

• within 2 years, on the White Slough Unit, repair the perimeter dike (as in Alternative A), but maintain 23 

acres of FBM in the north and west areas of the White Slough Unit (instead of 50 acres as in Alternative 

A)

• on White Slough Unit, restore 4 acres of FBM

• work with Caltrans to de-channelize Chism Creek so that it enters the west area of the White Slough Unit 

rather than directly flowing through a diversion ditch into Humboldt Bay

• within 7 years, at the east and west ends of Hookton Slough Unit, enhance and restore 80 acres of 

freshwater and brackish marsh 

• within 7 years, on Salmon Creek Unit, enhance and restore 20 acres of freshwater and brackish marsh 

• on Salmon Creek Unit use seasonally appropriate mowing to restore 92 acres of wetland areas to 

encourage growth of short-grass species favorable to Aleutian cackling goose 

• on middle portion of Hookton Slough Unit, use seasonally appropriate mowing to restore 38 acres of 

wetland areas to encourage growth of short-grass species favorable to Aleutian cackling goose 

• on the Hookton Slough Unit, enhance native grasslands through seeding and other cultivation activities, 

such as mowing and controlling invasive plants

• use existing water control structures to allow muted tidal exchange and to allow fish passage in the 

eastern and western areas of the Hookton Slough Unit 

• on Hookton Slough Unit and Salmon Creek Unit, maintain and enhance 270 acres of grassland and restore 

130 acres of wetland areas to short-grass pasture to improve Aleutian cackling goose habitat

• on the Salmon Creek Unit, construct low contour interior levees to create independent water management 

areas to increase wetlands

• within 7 years, on the Table Bluff Unit, maintain 25 acres of freshwater and brackish marsh 

• on the Table Bluff Unit, restore 13 acres of short-grass pasture vegetation to brackish marsh by removing 

invasive species such as thistle (Cirsium spp.) and invasive fireweed (Erechtites sp.) and controlling nonnative pasture grasses such as common velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus); then planting native brackish marsh 

species such as dune rush (Juncus lesuerii), and Lyngbye’s sedge (Carex lyngbei)

Riparian Swamp Habitat

For Alternative B, the refuge would conduct the same management actions for riparian swamp habitat as 

that described under Alternative A, except that under Alternative B the work would be done within 5 years 

(instead of in 15 years as in Alternative A). For Alternative B, the refuge would: 

• within 5 years, replace 20 acres of non-native trees with riparian swamp vegetation native to the area 

• implement a cooperative agreement with interested parties to remove non-native trees and assist with the 

new plantings 

• within 5 years, enhance and restore 14 acres of riparian swamp habitat in the eastern area of the White 

Slough Unit 

Eelgrass and Mudflat Habitat

For Alternative B, the refuge would conduct the same management actions for eelgrass and mudflat habitat 

as that described under Alternative A, and:

• participate in ongoing and explore new partnerships to conserve and manage eelgrass and mudflat habitat 

for long-term health 

• pursue a memorandum of understanding with the Humboldt Bay Harbor Recreation and Conservation 

District and the California Department of Fish and Game to conserve inter-tidal areas within the 

approved refuge boundary 

• pursue additional funding for research and conservation through the Service’s coastal program to 

contribute to HBEBM program
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-33

Floodplain Management 

For Alternative B, the refuge would conduct the same floodplain management as that described under 

Alternative A and, in addition, the refuge would: 

• within 10 years, work toward achieving the relevant water quality objectives as described in Section 3 

of the North Coast Basin Plan objectives for the benefit of fish and wildlife resources North Coast Basin 

Plan (NCRWQCB 2007) objectives for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries. 

•develop a long-term water quality monitoring program for nonpoint sources of pollution from off-refuge 

entering the Humboldt Bay NWR

• with partners, develop a long-term water quality monitoring program to document effects of sediment 

flushing from Salmon Creek on eelgrass beds in southern Humboldt Bay.

Dune Mat/Foredune Grassland Habitat

For Alternative B, the refuge would conduct the same management actions for dune mat/foredune grassland 

habitat as that described under Alternative A, and in addition, the refuge would:

• on all suitable areas of the Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes Units restore native dune mat/foredune grassland 

communities 

• within 5 years, on Table Bluff Unit, restore native dune mat/foredune grassland on 10 acres 

• inventory wildlife (including invertebrate) species in dune mat/foredune grassland habitats. 

• conduct research on cryptogamic mat and interactions between it and endemic insects 

Dune Swale Habitat

For Alternative B, the refuge would:

• within 10 years, on the Lanphere and Ma-le’l Units, restore and maintain a total of 67 acres of dune swale 

plant communities as follows:

46 acres on Lanphere Dunes Unit 

21 acres on Ma-le’l Dunes Unit

• within 10 years, on Table Bluff Unit restore 25 acres of dune swale 

• inventory wildlife (including invertebrate) species in dune swale habitats 

Dune Riparian/Swamp Habitat

For Alternative B, the refuge would:

• within 10 years, on the Ma-le’l and Lanphere Dunes Units, restore 33 total acres of riparian swamp 

habitat 

• inventory wildlife (including invertebrate) species, in dune riparian/swamp habitat 

• continue to collaboration with partners to conduct research on neo-tropical, migrant birds 

Coniferous Dune Forest Habitat

For Alternative B, the refuge would:

• on the Ma-le’l and Lanphere Dunes Units, maintain 180 acres of coniferous dune forest habitat

• within 10 years, restore Ma-le’l Dunes Unit forest margins dominated by European beach grass to native 

coniferous forest communities 

• within 10 years, restore native plant communities to remove casual human trails throughout the coniferous 

forest (instead of within 15 years under Alternative A) 

• pursue funding and collaborate with Humboldt State University to conduct research on coniferous dune 

forest ecology including tree wind-fall events

• pursue funding and continue research on neo-tropical migrant birds by partners 

• inventory wildlife species, including invertebrates, that utilize coniferous dune forest habitat 

Ecosystem Management

For Alternative B, the refuge would:

• within 5 years, increase collaboration in Humboldt Bay ecosystem management to serve an increased role 

in ecosystem based management over the life of the CCP (15 years) 

• coordinate with the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (AFWO) and combine efforts to work on conservation 

partnerships and ecosystem based outreach 
E-34 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Special Status Species (Humboldt Bay wallflower and beach layia)

For Alternative B, (as with Alternative A), the refuge would continue to support recovery efforts for the 

Humboldt Bay wallflower (wallflower) and beach layia (layia), on Humboldt Bay NWR, through restoration 

of 14 acres of Ma-le’l Dunes habitat and restoration of 22 acres of Table Bluff habitat. In addition, for 

Alternative B, the refuge would:

• work with partners to protect populations of Humboldt Bay wallflower and beach layia on the South Spit, 

Elk River Spit, Samoa airport, and the Manila layia 

• work with the Service’s AFWO Ecological Services Program to implement the Coastal Plants Recovery 

Plan on and off Humboldt Bay NWR 

• work with City of Eureka and CDFG to develop access and interpretive infrastructure to reduce 

trampling of Federally protected plants

• work with partners to implement monitoring of Elk River and South Spit population of Humboldt Bay 

wallflower

• work with partners to protect South Spit and Elk River Spit populations of Federally-protected plants 

from deer browsing, trampling, and other human impacts

• work with partners (City of Eureka) to increase habitat for Federally protected plant species at EDPA 

and Samoa airport populations

• work with FOD, MCSD to increase viability of Manila populations of Federally-protected plants

Invasive Plant Species (Integrated Pest Management)

For Alternative B, over the life of the CCP (15 years from approval), the refuge would implement and 

expand Alternative A and the existing volunteer invasive plant control program to achieve a maintenance 

level of control of high priority target invasive plants species. The refuge would implement the following 

management activities (actions are listed by general program actions or by habitat type below).

General Invasive Species Management Program Actions:

• on Table Bluff Unit, work with the refuge invasives program and/or YCC and CDF to remove all species 

of invasive plants

• monitor and strategically remove invasive plants as resources permit and

• expand the existing volunteer program to control high priority target invasive plants 

• continue coordination and collaboration with volunteers and partners from organizations such as the 

Friends of the Dunes, Friends of the Humboldt Bay NWR, the Fortuna Creeks Project, CCC, and CDF to 

control invasive plants on Humboldt Bay NWR and adjacent lands 

• participate in the Humboldt-Del Norte County Weed Management Area group that coordinates and 

implements invasive plant management programs among 20 agencies and organizations and 

• pursue grant funding for a partner invasive plant control program and implement, if feasible

Salmon Creek Delta and Salt Marsh Habitat:

• finalize and implement an invasive plant management (IPM) plan and

• control high priority target plant species to a maintenance level of ongoing control

Freshwater and Brackish Marsh:

• on Hookton Slough Unit, maintain 150 acres of freshwater and brackish marsh through the control of 

invasive plants

Riparian Swamp Habitat:

• remove 20 acres of non-native trees from riparian swamp habitat 

• use a combination of mechanical and chemical (IPM) techniques to control the spread of non-native trees

Eelgrass and Mudflat Habitat:

• continue partnerships for monitoring and research on invasive species that may affect eelgrass

Dune Habitats:

• implement large-scale eradication experiments on existing invasive plants in the dune swale plant 

community

• work with volunteers to complete removal of forest invasive plants from the dune riparian/swamp

• monitor and treat new occurrences of forest invasive plants from the dune riparian/swamp
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-35

• survey for and control of new occurrences of forest invasive plants as resources permit and pursue 

funding to bring all riparian/swamp invasives to a maintenance level of control

• work with YCC, CCC, CDF, partners, and volunteers to complete removal of invasive plants in the 

coniferous dune forest

Visitor Services - Wildlife Observation and Photography

Figures E-7 and E-8 show a graphical representation of the Visitor Services features described in the 

alternatives. 

For Alternative B, the refuge would:

• provide for up to 30,000 annual, safe wildlife observation and photography visitor opportunities on 

Humboldt Bay NWR by land and water trails 

• on Salmon Creek Unit, improve 0.25 mile of exiting trail to wheelchair accessible trail from the parking lot 

to the kiosk to provide additional accessible wildlife viewing opportunities from trails

• on Ma-le’l Dunes Unit, improve 0.25 mile of exiting trail to wheelchair accessible trail to the overlook to 

provide additional accessible wildlife viewing opportunities from trails

• install a wildlife camera with feed back, which would provide additional opportunities for wildlife 

observation from closed portions on the Humboldt Bay NWR to a large screen television at the Visitor 

Center 

• increase the number of seasonally guided hikes offered through otherwise closed trail areas (led by staff 

or volunteer docents) and increase seasonal hiking day use opportunities around the Humboldt Bay NWR 

hunt area by improving trails 

• add a non-motorized boat launch at the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit, if feasible

• on Salmon Creek Unit, add a wheelchair accessible photo blind by improving the existing kiosk 

To ensure that water quality is not adversely affected, the Service would implement the following measures 

as part of the alternative. The refuge will continue consultations with CDPH, HBHRCD, oyster growers, 

and non-motorized boating groups regarding water quality. The plan currently calls for vault toilets to be 

installed at the parking area at the north end of Ma-le’l Road in compliance with all Federal, State and local 

water quality and sanitation requirement to protect water quality. Further, the refuge would install signage 

and distribute brochures that explain the need to maintain water quality, proper disposal of waste, and 

the need to be responsible neighbors. The Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area caretaker would 

patrol the shoreline of the Mad River Slough on a regular basis and properly dispose of any trash and waste. 

During the installation of the non-motorized boat launch, implementation of conservation measures (best 

management practices) and compliance with all applicable environmental regulations, including the Clean 

Water Act, would ensure that water quality is not adversely affected. 

Visitor Services - Environmental Education and Interpretation

Under Alternative B, to expand upon current environmental education and interpretation opportunities, the 

refuge would:

• maintain and offer wildlife-dependent educational environmental education opportunities for 6 school or 

community groups per month 

• offer opportunities for up to 30,000 annual visitor opportunities for interpretive experiences on Humboldt 

Bay NWR lands and off refuge 

• offer guided natural history walks once per month on Lanphere Dunes Unit and Ma-le’l Dunes Unit

• coordinate with Friends of the Dunes, which leads a restoration work day once per month on Ma-le’l 

Dunes Unit

• continue to host class tours on Lanphere Dunes Unit and Ma-le’l Dunes Unit

• facilitate teacher training workshops so that teachers could independently lead environmental education 

field trips on Humboldt Bay NWR 

• work with school districts in Humboldt and Del Norte counties to implement a new national program 

called Schoolyard Habitats

• complete the South Bay Historic Hunt Cabin

• either construct an environmental education building large enough for up to 30 people, convert the Salmon 

Creek Unit barn into an environmental/cultural resources education building, or make use of another 

existing refuge structure 

• assist school groups in visiting Humboldt Bay NWR through chartering (i.e., shuttle buses, etc.) or 

providing similar transportation 
E-36 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

• expand the annual outdoor youth day to an overnight multi-day event 

• the Salmon Creek Unit in the vicinity of the Richard J. Guadagno Visitor Center, establish a children’s 

outdoor exploration (“discovery”) area to offer an additional opportunity for children to “connect with 

nature”

Visitor Services – Outreach/Friends and Partners 

For Alternative B, the refuge would:

• collaborate with regional partners to host at least 2 regionally based environmental education field trips, 

workshops, seminars, or study courses each year

Visitor Services - Hunting

For Alternative B, the refuge would:

• continue to offer hunting opportunities on Humboldt Bay NWR as described in Alternative A and 

• provide additional undisturbed areas for wildlife and reduce the potential for hunter/nonhunter conflicts 

by closing Teal Island and Hookton Slough areas to overwater hunting of waterfowl, coot, and snipe. 

Visitor Services - Fishing

For Alternative B, the refuge would:

• offer fishing opportunities on Humboldt Bay NWR as described in Alternative A. 

• collaborate with CDFG and other local agencies and private entities to increase awareness of fishing 

opportunities on Humboldt Bay NWR through increased signage at all allowable sport fishing sites and 

public outreach.

Cultural Resources - Management

Under Alternative B, the refuge would:

• create and implement a basic cultural resources management capability at Humboldt Bay NWR to 

respond to the basic compliance requirements

• within 10 years, work with Wiyot Tribe, Blue Lake Rancheria, and Bear River Band of Rohnerville 

Rancheria to develop a Memorandum of Understanding for resource management issues and inventory, 

evaluation and treatment of at-risk cultural places on the Complex

• incorporate cultural resource values, issues, and requirements into design and implementation of the 

other habitat, wildlife, and public use activities and strategies conducted by the Humboldt Bay NWR

• develop and implement a plan to survey the refuge for newly identified cultural resources

• assess the safety and maintenance costs to keep the barn and other old structures on Salmon Creek and 

Lanphere Dunes Units in use 

Cultural Resources - Education

Under Alternative B, the refuge would: 

• within 5 years develop, in partnership with the Wiyot Tribe, Blue Lake Rancheria and Bear River Band 

of Rohnerville Rancheria and other preservation partners, a cultural resources overview of the Humboldt 

Bay NWR

• either construct an environmental education building large enough for up to 30 people or convert the 

Salmon Creek Unit barn into an environmental/cultural resources education building (same as described 

under Visitor Services – Environmental Education, for Alternative B, above, due to dual function) 

• develop interpretive displays on the Headquarters Unit that illustrate traditional dwellings, various 

subsistence strategies, the overall lifestyle of local American Indian tribes, and the contemporary tribal 

communities and cultural activities

Cultural Resources - Coordination

Under Alternative B, cultural resources coordination would be identical to those described in Alternative A. 

For Alternative B, the refuge would also:

• work with Wiyot Tribe and Blue Lake Rancheria and Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria on 

projects to restore habitats of culturally important native plants and to harvest native plant foods (for 

traditional, non-commercial purposes) 

• review and reissue, if appropriate, any special use permits for traditional activities such as plant collecting 

for basket weaving
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-37

Alternative C for Humboldt Bay NWR: Preferred Alternative

Figures E-2 through E-6 show graphical representations of the areas affected for each of the habitat 

management alternatives. The Summary of Alternatives table, above, provides a comparison of the actions 

in each alternative. 

Salmon Creek Delta Restoration

In addition to completing actions described in Alternative B, under Alternative C, within 5 years of CCP 

approval, the refuge would also excavate 500 linear feet to connect the new channel to off-channel salmonid 

rearing habitat (in Cattail Creek) and seek approvals to secure placement of large woody debris within 

Hookton Slough estuary to provide salmonids and other estuarine fish more natural conditions that include 

both feeding areas and refuge from predators. 

Salt Marsh Habitat

For Alternative C, the refuge would implement all of the salt marsh habitat management strategies 

described in Alternative B and, in addition, restore 235 acres of the 313 acres of salt marsh existing on 

Humboldt Bay NWR. The refuge would restore 235 acres to native and/or muted salt marsh habitat as 

follows:

• restore 45 acres on the White Slough Unit 

• restore 90 acres on the Hookton Slough Unit 

• restore 100 acres on the Table Bluff Unit 

• raise tidal elevation of a total of 100 acres of existing mudflat on or near Salmon Creek Overflow with clean 

fill and plant with native or propagated salt marsh vegetation (raising 40 more acres than Alternative B)

Freshwater and Brackish Marsh Habitat

All pasture lands at Humboldt Bay NWR were formerly salt marsh before they were diked. After the salt 

marshes were diked, they became freshwater and brackish marsh (FBM) habitat. FBM can be improved 

as Aleutian cackling goose habitat by increasing and/or improving short-grass pasture vegetation. Under 

Alternative C, the refuge would implement some of the same strategies for FBM as in Alternative B and, in 

addition, for Alternative C, the refuge would implement the following.

• within 2 years, on White Slough Unit repair perimeter dike 

• on White Slough Unit, maintain 7 acres FBM 

• within 7 years, on Table Bluff Unit restore 13 acres of short-grass pasture to brackish marsh, using the 

same strategies described under Alternative B, by removing invasive species such as thistle (Cirsium

spp.) and invasive fireweed (Erechtites sp.) and controlling non-native pasture grasses such as common 

velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus); then planting native brackish marsh species such as dune rush (Juncus 

lesuerii), and Lyngbye’s sedge (Carex lyngbei)

• on Salmon Creek Unit, maintain 270 acres of short-grass pasture and of the 270 acres enhance 100 acres 

for Aleutian cackling goose and other species through control of invasives, seeding, liming, and grazing

• on the Salmon Creek Unit, enhance drainage in short-grass areas to create more favorable conditions for 

grass and Aleutian cackling goose

• on Salmon Creek Unit, remove interior dikes around Headquarters and adjacent to Long Pond to enhance 

wetland values

• on Salmon Creek Unit, install a low contour levee to impound water to enhance FBM

• on the Hookton Slough Unit, implement a restoration plan that allows for muted tidal influence to central 

and east areas, while allowing for fish passage, salmonid rearing and tidewater goby habitat 

• on Hookton Slough Unit, maintain approximately 80 acres of FBM

Riparian Swamp Habitat 

Under Alternative C, riparian swamp habitat management actions would be identical to those described in 

Alternative B, as follows.

• on the east side of the White Slough Unit, manage 35 acres of existing riparian swamp habitat and revegetate an additional 6 acres with riparian swamp vegetation 

• continue selective removal of 20 acres of non-native trees, including eucalyptus (over a 5-year period), 

Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress trees. The refuge would only remove non-native trees as variable 

staff and funding resources permit. This would result in removal of non-native trees within the life of the 

CCP (15 years) 

• continue to work with volunteer groups or partners to complete small-scale plantings of native vegetation 

in areas where non-native trees are removed
E-38 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

• enhance riparian swamp habitat by planting native under story plants and providing deer browse 

protection on new plantings

• within 15 years, replace 20 acres of non-native trees with riparian swamp vegetation native to the area 

• implement a cooperative agreement with interested parties to remove non-native trees and assist with the 

new plantings 

• within 5 years, enhance and restore 14 acres of riparian swamp habitat in the eastern area of the White 

Slough Unit 

Eelgrass and Mudflat Habitat 

Under Alternative C, eelgrass and mudflat habitat management actions would be identical to those 

described in Alternative A plus Alternative B, as follows.

• continue to participate in ongoing partnerships and explore new partnerships to conserve and manage 

eelgrass and mudflat habitat for the long-term health of the bay

• monitor potential effects to eelgrass beds from the ongoing Salmon Creek Restoration project

• continue partnership with the HBHRCD and HBEBM program for continued research into the ecology of 

eelgrass, algae, and mudflat habitats

• pursue a memorandum of understanding with the Humboldt Bay Harbor Recreation and Conservation 

District and the California Department of Fish and Game to conserve inter-tidal areas within the 

approved refuge boundary 

• pursue additional funding for research and conservation through the Service’s coastal program to 

contribute to HBEBM program

Floodplain Management 

Under Alternative C, floodplain management actions would be identical to those described in Alternative B, 

as follows.

• continue to manage the Humboldt Bay NWR floodplain land in a manner consistent with local, State, and 

Federal guidelines; and flood management, sediment, and erosion control and water quality objectives

• continue to maintain all levees and would conduct minimal repairs of existing levees as needed to maintain 

their functionality 

• implement habitat improvement strategies in a manner that does not worsen local or regional flooding, 

water quality, or erosion

• within 10 years, work toward achieving the relevant water quality objectives as described in Section 3 

of the North Coast Basin Plan objectives for the benefit of fish and wildlife resources North Coast Basin 

Plan (NCRWQCB 2007) objectives for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries 

• with partners such as HBHRCD, develop or continue a long-term water quality monitoring program to 

document effects of sediment flushing from Salmon Creek on eelgrass beds in southern Humboldt Bay

Dune Mat/Foredune Grassland Habitat

Under Alternative C, dunemat/foredune grassland management actions would include all of those actions 

described in Alternative A and in Alternative B, as follows. 

• on the Lanphere Dunes Unit, maintain 125 acres of dune mat/foredune grassland plant communities 

• on the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit, part of Lanphere Dunes Unit, and on Table Bluff Unit, re-introduce Humboldt 

Bay wallflower

• continue research and monitoring of Humboldt Bay wallflower populations on the Humboldt Bay NWR

• seek cooperative agreements with adjacent landowners to assist them in managing populations of the 

Humboldt Bay wallflower and beach layia

• continue monitoring and native plantings (re-introductions), as described above in Features Common to 

All Alternatives 

• on all suitable areas of the Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes Units restore native dune mat/foredune grassland 

communities 

• within 5 years, on Table Bluff Unit, restore native dune mat/foredune grassland on 10 acres 

• inventory wildlife (including invertebrate) species in dune mat/foredune grassland habitats 

• conduct research on cryptogamic mat and interactions between the mat and endemic insects 

• create ongoing experimental dune blow-outs to mimic natural disturbance and to assess the impacts on 

existing plant communities and special status plants on the Lanphere Dunes Unit. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-39

Dune Swale Habitat

Under Alternative C, the refuge would restore and maintain dune swale plant communities as described 

in Alternative B; however, under Alternative C all restoration work would be completed within 10 years 

(instead of within 15 years as in Alternative B).

On the dunes units restore and maintain a total of 67 acres of dune swale plant communities as follows:

• within 10 years, on Lanphere Dunes Unit, restore and maintain 46 acres of dune swale

• within 10 years, on Ma-le’l Dunes Unit, restore and maintain 21 acres of dune swale 

and

• within 10 years, on Table Bluff Unit, restore 25 acres of dune swale habitat

• inventory wildlife (including invertebrates) species in dune swale habitat 

• re-vegetate dune swales with native, local plants as needed 

Dune Riparian/Swamp Habitat

Under Alternative C, the refuge would restore dune riparian/swamp habitat as described in Alternative B, 

as follows; however, under Alternative C restoration work would be completed over a 5-year period (instead 

of over 10 years as in Alternative B). In addition, under Alternative C the refuge would begin to implement 

strategies to enhance dune riparian/swamp habitat, on the Ma-le’l and Lanphere Dunes Units, once the 

refuge gains a more comprehensive understanding of plant and animal species that inhabit dune riparian/

swamp habitat. To enhance dune riparian/swamp habitat, native dune riparian/swamp species would be 

planted where invasive plants were removed or gaps in native vegetation exist and are vulnerable to reinfestation by invasives, as appropriate.

• within 5 years, on the Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes Units, restore 33 total acres of dune riparian/swamp 

habitat 

• inventory wildlife (including invertebrate) species, in dune riparian/swamp habitat 

• continue to collaboration with partners to conduct research on neo-tropical, migrant birds 

Coniferous Dune Forest Habitat

Under Alternative C, the refuge would:

• within 5 years, restore Ma-le’l Dunes Unit forest margins dominated by European beach grass to native 

coniferous forest communities (instead of within 10 years as in Alternative B or within 15 years in 

Alternative A) 

• within 5 years, restore native plant communities to remove casual human trails throughout the coniferous 

forest (instead of within 10 years as in Alternative B or within 15 years in Alternative A) 

• pursue funding and collaborate with Humboldt State University to conduct research on coniferous dune 

forest ecology including tree wind-fall events

• pursue funding and continue research on neo-tropical migrant birds by partners 

• inventory wildlife species, including invertebrates, that utilize coniferous dune forest habitat

• grow or identify local sources for restoration plant materials

Ecosystem Management

Under Alternative C, the refuge would engage in ongoing ecosystem management activities as described 

under Alternative B. However, within 2 years the refuge would devote additional staff time to serve an 

increased role in ecosystem based management collaborations for a 15 year period.

Special Status Species (Humboldt Bay wallflower and beach layia)

Under Alternative C, the refuge would implement the same special status species management actions as 

described under Alternative B and, in addition, the refuge would: 

• within 5 years, reintroduce Humboldt Bay wallflower and beach layia to unoccupied habitat at Lanphere 

Dunes Unit (35 acres) and restored habitat at Ma-le’l Dunes Unit

• within 10 years, protect an additional 22 acres of land currently populated with Humboldt Bay wallflower 

(wallflower) and beach layia (layia) within the approved refuge boundary 

• within 10 years, protect 30 acres of potentially restorable habitat within the approved refuge boundary 

• once protected, carry out restoration of habitats and re-introduce populations of native endangered plants 

• pursue protection of remaining habitat for Federally-protected species within the Humboldt Bay NWR 

approved boundary through cooperative agreements, easements, donations, or acquisition
E-40 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

The actions and effects analysis for the Federally listed salmonids and tidewater goby are discussed under 

the Salmon Creek Delta Restoration sections for each alterative.

Invasive Species (Integrated Pest Management)

Under Alternative C, over the life of the CCP (15 years from approval), the refuge would implement all of 

Alternative B and expand management to include the additional actions as noted below. The refuge would 

implement the following management activities (actions are listed by general program actions or by habitat 

type).

General Invasive Species Management Program Actions:

• if feasible, eradicate Spartina densiflora from Humboldt Bay NWR and work with regional partners to 

develop and implement a plan to eradicate Spartina densiflora from the greater Humboldt Bay area

• on Table Bluff Unit, work with the refuge invasives program and/or YCC and CDF to remove all species 

of invasive plants

• monitor and strategically remove invasive plants as resources permit and expand the existing volunteer 

program to control high priority target invasive plants 

• continue coordination and collaboration with volunteers and partners from organizations such as the 

Friends of the Dunes, Friends of the Humboldt Bay NWR, the Fortuna Creeks Project, CCC, and CDF to 

control invasive plants on Humboldt Bay NWR and adjacent lands 

• participate in the Humboldt-Del Norte County Weed Management Area group that coordinates and 

implements invasive plant management programs among 20 agencies and organizations 

• pursue grant funding for a partner invasive plant control program and implement, if feasible 

• develop a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan to prevent establishment of new invasive 

species

• create and implement an IPM step-down plan for the entire Humboldt Bay NWR

• pursue grant funding to contract out invasive plant removal and implement, if feasible

Salmon Creek Delta and Salt Marsh Habitat:

• finalize and implement an invasive plant management (IPM) plan and

• Control high priority target plant species to a maintenance level of ongoing control

Freshwater and Brackish Marsh:

• on Hookton Slough Unit, maintain 150 acres of freshwater and brackish marsh through the control of 

invasive plants

Riparian Swamp Habitat:

• remove 20 acres of non-native trees from riparian swamp habitat 

• use a combination of mechanical and chemical (IPM) techniques to control the spread of non-native trees

Eelgrass and Mudflat Habitat:

• continue partnerships for monitoring and research on invasive species that may affect eelgrass

Dune Habitats:

• implement large-scale eradication experiments on existing invasive plants in the dune swale plant 

community

• work with volunteers to complete removal of forest invasive plants from the dune riparian/swamp

• monitor and treat new occurrences of forest invasive plants from the dune riparian swamp

• survey for and control of new occurrences of forest invasive plants as resources permit 

• pursue funding to bring all riparian/swamp invasives to a maintenance level of control

• work with YCC, CCC, CDF, partners, and volunteers to complete removal of invasive plants in the 

coniferous dune forest

Visitor Services - Wildlife Observation and Photography

Figures E-7 and E-8 show a graphical representation of areas of Visitor Services features described in the 

alternatives. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-41

Under Alternative C, the refuge would expand upon current opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography as described in Alternative B by implementing the following actions. 

• provide for up to 35,000 annual, safe wildlife observation and photography visitor opportunities on 

Humboldt Bay NWR by land and water trails 

• on the Salmon Creek Unit, expand wheelchair access on trails to include the entire Shorebird Loop Trail 

(1.5 miles) to increase wildlife viewing opportunities 

• on Ma-le’l Dunes Unit, expand wheelchair access on trails to include the entire Railroad Berm Trail (0.5 

miles) to increase wildlife viewing opportunities 

• on the Hookton Slough Unit, expand wheelchair access on trails to include the entire Hookton Slough 

Trail (1.5 miles) to increase wildlife viewing opportunities

• on Salmon Creek Unit, maintain wheelchair accessibility to the Richard J. Guadagno Office and Visitor 

Center and associated boardwalk

• increase law enforcement on the refuge by contract or support from other Service law enforcement staff

• install a wildlife camera with feed back, which would provide additional opportunities for wildlife 

observation from closed portions on the Humboldt Bay NWR to a large screen television at the Visitor 

Center 

• increase the number of seasonally guided hikes offered through otherwise closed trail areas (led by staff 

or volunteer docents) and increase seasonal hiking day use opportunities around the Humboldt Bay NWR 

hunt area by improving trails. 

• on Salmon Creek Unit, add a wheelchair accessible photo blind by modifying the existing kiosk

Visitor Services - Environmental Education and Interpretation

Under Alternative C, the refuge would: 

• offer environmental education opportunities for 8 school or community groups per month 

• offer opportunities for up to 35,000 annual visitor opportunities for interpretive experiences on Humboldt 

Bay NWR lands and off refuge 

• offer guided natural history walks once per month on Lanphere Dunes Unit and Ma-le’l Dunes Unit

• coordinate with Friends of the Dunes, which leads a restoration work day once per month on Ma-le’l 

Dunes Unit

• continue to host class tours on Lanphere Dunes Unit and Ma-le’l Dunes Unit

• facilitate teacher training workshops so that teachers could independently lead environmental education 

field trips on Humboldt Bay NWR 

• work with school districts in Humboldt and Del Norte counties to implement a new national program 

called Schoolyard Habitats

• complete the South Bay Historic Hunt Cabin

• either construct an environmental education building large enough for up to 30 people or convert the 

Salmon Creek Unit barn into an environmental/cultural resources education building, or make use of 

another existing refuge structure 

• assist school groups in visiting Humboldt Bay NWR through chartering (i.e., shuttle buses, etc.) or 

providing similar transportation 

• expand the annual outdoor youth day to an overnight multi-day event 

• the Salmon Creek Unit in the vicinity of the Richard J. Guadagno Visitor Center, establish a children’s 

outdoor exploration (“discovery”) area to offer an additional opportunity for children to “connect with 

nature”

Visitor Services – Outreach/Friends and Partners 

Under Alternative C, the refuge would offer opportunities identical to those described in Alternative B, as 

follows.

• collaborate with regional partners to host at least 2 regionally based environmental education field trips, 

workshops, seminars, or study courses each year

Visitor Services - Hunting

Under Alternative C, the refuge would implement the 2008 Draft Waterfowl Hunt Plan (see Appendix C) 

and, in addition, the refuge would: 

• open limited areas of the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit to waterfowl, coot, and snipe hunting and/or retrieval and 

offer 2 additional youth only hunting days on the Salmon Creek Unit
E-42 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Visitor Services - Fishing

Under Alternative C, the refuge would implement the 2008 Draft Sport Fishing Plan (see Appendix D of the 

CCP). This 2008 Plan: 

• offer fishing opportunities on Humboldt Bay NWR as described in Alternative A (maintains existing 

fishing opportunities) and 

• collaborate with CDFG and other local agencies and private entities to increase awareness of fishing 

opportunities on Humboldt Bay NWR through increased signage at all allowable sport fishing sites and 

public outreach as described in Alternative B and

• creates additional fishing opportunities to the public at the end of the Tsoutsgish Trail (end of the railroad 

berm) at the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit 

Cultural Resources - Management

Under Alternative C, the refuge would:

• continue managing for and conserving Humboldt Bay NWR’s cultural resources by consulting with the 

Wiyot Tribe, Blue Lake Rancheria, Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, and the Service’s Pacific 

Southwest Regional Archaeologist to collect relevant cultural resource background information prior to 

conducting projects 

• within 10 years, work with Wiyot Tribe, Blue Lake Rancheria, and Bear River Band of Rohnerville 

Rancheria to develop a Memorandum of Understanding for resource management issues and inventory, 

evaluation and treatment of at-risk cultural places on the Complex.

• incorporate cultural resource values, issues, and requirements into design and implementation of the 

other habitat, wildlife, and public use activities and strategies conducted by the Humboldt Bay NWR

• develop and implement a plan to survey the refuge for both previously recorded and newly identified 

cultural resources

Cultural Resources - Education

Under Alternative C, cultural resources education actions would be identical to those described in 

Alternative B, as follows. 

• within 5 years develop, in partnership with the Wiyot Tribe, Blue Lake Rancheria and Bear River Band 

of Rohnerville Rancheria and other preservation partners, a cultural resources overview of the Humboldt 

Bay NWR

• either construct an environmental education building large enough for up to 30 people, convert the 

Salmon Creek Unit barn into an environmental/cultural resources education building, or make use of 

another existing refuge structure (same as described under Visitor Services – Environmental Education/

Interpretation, for Alternative B, above, due to dual function) 

• develop interpretive displays on the Headquarters Unit that illustrate traditional dwellings, various 

subsistence strategies, the overall lifestyle of local American Indian tribes, and contemporary tribal 

communities and cultural activities

Cultural Resources - Coordination

Under Alternative C, cultural resources coordination actions would be identical to those described in 

Alternative B (which is also identical to Alternative A), as follows.

• work with Wiyot Tribe and Blue Lake Rancheria and Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria on 

projects to restore habitats of culturally important native plants and to harvest native plant foods (for 

traditional, non-commercial purposes) 

• review and reissue, if appropriate, any special use permits for traditional activities such as plant collecting 

for basket weaving

Management Actions Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis as Part of Humboldt Bay 

NWR Alternatives 

During the public scoping period, many alternative actions for managing the refuges were suggested. 

Many of these suggestions were consistent with refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System 

and influenced the action alternatives. Some of the public suggestions for refuge uses were found to be 

not appropriate, through an appropriate use determination, and were removed from further consideration. 

Others actions were found to be infeasible for the reasons described below. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-43

Dog Walking

The public suggested that dog walking should be allowed on the Humboldt Bay NWR. This activity was 

found to be not appropriate because the presence of dogs is disruptive to wildlife and some dogs can also 

disturb other visitors engaging in wildlife-dependent activities. Therefore, dogs, both on a leash and off, are 

not appropriate on the refuge.

Dog Field Training

The public suggested that the refuge should allow hunting dog field training on the Humboldt Bay NWR. 

This activity was found to be not appropriate because the field training would be unnecessarily disruptive to 

wildlife and could not be adequately managed with available staff time and resources. 

Creating a 2-3 Week Day Camp for Grades K through 12 Students 

The public suggested that the refuge should offer a 2- to 3-week summer day camp for kindergarten 

through 12th grade students on Humboldt Bay NWR. This activity was found to be not appropriate due to 

limitations on staff time and inadequate facilities to manage a 2–3 week day camp.

Camping

The public suggested that camping should be allowed on the Humboldt Bay NWR. This activity was found 

to be not appropriate because camping would pose an unacceptable risk to cultural resource sites and 

disturbance to wildlife.

Bicycling

The public suggested that the Humboldt Bay NWR should allow bicycling on walking trails and dune 

units. Currently, bicycling is only allowed on the entrance road, along with other forms of mechanical 

transportation. Bicycling was found to be not appropriate for two primary reasons. The dune units 

preserve fragile ecosystems and impacts from bicycles on dune unit plant communities would be severe. 

Bicycling on walking trails would be unnecessarily disruptive to wildlife and to other visitors engaging 

in wildlife-dependent activities such as wildlife observation. Bicycling will continue to be allowed on the 

paved entrance road at the Salmon Creek Unit and the entrance road at Ma-le’l Dunes Unit, along with 

other forms of mechanical transportation. Bicycling on all other parts of the refuge was found to be not 

appropriate because it could disturb wildlife and other visitors. 

Potential for Larger Scale Salt Marsh/Estuary Restoration

Large scale salt marsh/estuary restoration including breaching of diked areas is being done (or proposed) 

elsewhere at multiple places on Humboldt Bay (McDaniel Slough) and other locations on the west coast 

(including the Nisqually NWR near Olympia, Washington; Nestucca Bay and Bandon on the Oregon coast; 

and in San Francisco Bay). The Service considered potential salt marsh/estuarine restoration opportunities 

at Humboldt Bay NWR on a larger scale than what is included in the Draft EA, including dike breaching 

on the Salmon Creek Unit. However, in all of these large scale restorations in other areas, there was one 

common factor that does not currently exist at the Salmon Creek Unit: agency ownership of adjacent lands 

and/or infrastructure that would be susceptible to impacts by flooding. In addition to this key factor, the 

refuge does not currently have the necessary information on hydrology, topography, and sea level rise 

that would inform a decision this significant. It is anticipated that this information will be being gathered 

relatively soon for future decision-making processes all around the bay. Therefore, larger scale salt marsh/

estuary restoration was eliminated from further consideration in this EA.

Salt Marsh Restoration at Teal Island

Prior to being diked in the 1960s, Teal Island historically supported about 90 acres of salt marsh habitat. 

Since failure of the tidegates during the 1960s and 1970s, the earthen dikes have been deteriorating due to 

erosion from wave wash. There are now large sections where the former dikes are no longer present. Teal 

Island now has daily tidal flows; and with the exception of one 100 square-foot area of non-native salt marsh, 

the area formerly contained by dikes is currently all mudflat. To reestablish salt marsh vegetation on Teal 

Island, fill material would be required to raise the elevation of the island. Due to the cost and logistics of 

importing enough fill material to raise the elevation of Teal Island and projected sea level rise due to climate 

change, the feasibility of restoring salt marsh on Teal Island is unlikely at this time. For the aforementioned 

reasons, salt marsh restoration at Teal Island was not carried forward for detailed consideration in this EA. 

If a change in circumstances (such as availability of dredge spoil) warrants reconsideration in the future, a 

proposal could be evaluated at that time.
E-44 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

CASTLE ROCK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Current Management of Castle Rock NWR 

Castle Rock NWR Management and Monitoring

Because Castle Rock NWR is rich with sensitive wildlife species and fragile habitat only very limited access 

for research, monitoring, and management can be allowed while fulfilling the purposes for which the Castle 

Rock NWR was established. Limited, remote observation of Castle Rock NWR has been allowed for 

research purposes. The refuge collaborates with partners such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Humboldt State University, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the 

Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (AFWO) to conduct photo surveys of birds and marine mammals utilizing 

Castle Rock NWR and associated habitat. The refuge works with partners from Humboldt State University 

to maintain a remote, automatic camera on Castle Rock NWR that can be viewed by the public over the 

internet on a seasonal basis. Interpretive panels highlighting Castle Rock NWR wildlife are located on 

Pebble Beach Drive in Crescent City, adjacent to the shore overlooking Castle Rock NWR. 

For a complete description of the current management practices, please see “Current Management of 

Castle Rock NWR” in Chapter 1 of the CCP. 

Features Common to All Alternatives for Castle Rock NWR

Monitoring Seabirds and Marine Mammals

The refuge would continue to collaborate with partners such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Humboldt State University, CDFG, and the AFWO to continue photographic surveys of 

birds and marine mammals utilizing Castle Rock NWR habitat. Surveys would continue to be conducted 

both aerially and by remote camera to help determine population estimates of wildlife using Castle Rock 

NWR habitat. 

Alternative A for Castle Rock NWR: No Action 

Habitat Management

Under Alternative A, Castle Rock NWR would continue to be protected from disturbance. Periodic visits 

to the island would continue to be conducted to maintain a remote, seabird viewing camera. Any visits to 

the island to maintain remote viewing equipment would occur outside of seabird and pinniped breeding 

seasons. Additional surveys for terrestrial plants and wildlife, beyond birds and marine mammals, would be 

conducted every 5 years.

Special Designation

Under Alternative A, Castle Rock NWR would continue to be designated as a National Wildlife Refuge and 

would not be recommended for any special designations.

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Under Alternative A, environmental education and interpretation efforts for Castle Rock NWR and its 

wildlife and habitat would be coordinated with that of larger State, Regional, and other California Current 

System seabird programs. The California Current System, which extends from Baja Mexico to British 

Columbia, is a complex and extremely productive system of currents, counter currents, undercurrents 

and other oceanographic processes, such as upwelling, that supports millions of breeding and seasonally 

migrating seabirds. Over the life of the plan, partnerships might expand and the refuge staff would continue 

to participate in at least one annual community event, typically the Aleutian Cackling Goose Festival. 

Alternative B for Castle Rock NWR

Habitat Management

Under Alternative B, habitat management would be the same as Alternative A except that seabird and 

marine mammal monitoring and research would only be allowed to occur from off-island. 

Special Designation

Under Alternative B, Castle Rock NWR would continue to be designated as a National Wildlife Refuge and 

would not be recommended for any special designations.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-45

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Under Alternative B, environmental education and interpretation would be the same as under Alternative 

A. In addition, within 5 years refuge staff would collaborate with National and State organizations to 

develop and provide additional outreach to students, community groups, and others and participate in an 

additional three community events annually. The refuge staff would coordinate with local tribal entities, 

BLM, NPS, CDFG, and Del Norte County to provide interpretation of traditional uses of Castle Rock 

NWR.

Alternative C for Castle Rock NWR: Preferred Alternative

Habitat Management

Under Alternative C, habitat management would be the same as Alternative A except that refuge staff 

and associated researchers would assess the potential to experiment with various options for seabird 

habitat restoration by assessing possibilities for excluding Aleutian cackling geese from certain key habitat 

locations. 

Special Designation

Under Alternative C, Castle Rock NWR would be recommended for Wilderness designation based on the 

Wilderness Inventory presented in Appendix G. As required by the Wilderness Act, a legislative EIS would 

be prepared to analyze the effects of the action.

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Under Alternative C, environmental education and interpretation would be the same as under Alternative 

A and within 3 years refuge staff would collaborate with National and State organizations to develop and 

provide additional outreach to students, community groups, and others and participate in an additional 

two community events annually. The refuge staff would coordinate with local Tribal entities to provide 

interpretation of traditional uses of Castle Rock NWR.

Proposed Action Criteria

The planning policy that implements the Improvement Act of 1997 requires the Service to select a preferred 

alternative that becomes its proposed action, as required by NEPA. The written description of this 

proposed action is effectively the draft CCP. Alternative C is the proposed action for the refuge because it 

best meets the following criteria:

• achieves the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;

• achieves the purposes of both refuges in the Complex;

• provides guidance for achieving the each refuge’s vision and 15-year goals;

• maintains and restores the ecological integrity of the habitats and populations on each of the refuges;

• addresses the important issues and challenges identified during the scoping process;

• addresses the legal mandates of the Service and the Refuge System; and

• is consistent with the scientific principles of sound fish and wildlife management and listed species 

recovery.

The preferred alternative was identified based on the analysis presented in the Draft CCP/EA, which may 

be modified following the completion of the public comment period based on comments received from other 

agencies, tribal governments, non-governmental organizations, or individuals.
E-46 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Table E-2. Summary of Alternatives: Castle Rock NWR

Issue Area Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C(Preferred Alternative)

Goal 1. Protect and maintain habitats for migratory birds marine mammals, with an emphasis on 

seabirds, and Aleutian cackling geese.

Habitat 

Management

Monitor seabirds and marine 

mammals through aerial photo 

surveys and by maintaining a 

remote camera on island

Same as Alternative A but: Same as Alternative A but: 

Experiment with exclusions 

for ACG

Same as Alternative A N/A

N/A Monitoring and remote 

research would only be allowed 

off-island

Conduct surveys every 5 years 

for fauna and flora including: 

amphibians, invertebrates, 

rare and invasive plants

N/A Evaluate options for remote 

monitoring of seabirds and 

ACG on CRNWR

Assess potential to experiment 

with habitat restoration by 

excluding ACG from key 

locations

Wilderness Manage CRNWR under 

current designation

Do not recommend CRNWR 

for Wilderness designation

Recommend CRNWR for 

Wilderness designation and 

prepare required EIS

Goal 2. Provide high quality enviornmental education, interpretive information, and outreach to 

the public highlighting the ecology and sensitivity of the wildlife of Castle Rock National Wildlife 

Refuge.

Environmental 

Education and 

Interpretation

Coordinate environmental 

education and interpretation 

with State, regional and CCS 

seabird programs

Same as Alternative A and in 

addition: 

Same as Alternative A and: 

N/A Within 5 years, collaborate 

with National and State 

organizations to provide 

outreach to students, 

community groups, and others. 

Within 3 years, collaborate 

with National and State 

organizations to provide 

outreach to students, 

community groups, and others.

Refuge staff would continue 

to participate in at least 1 

community event annually.

Refuge staff would participate 

in an additional 3 community 

events annually.

Refuge staff would participate 

in an additional 2 community 

events annually.

N/A Coordinate with local tribal 

entities, BLM, NPS, CDFG, 

and Del Norte County to 

provide interpretation of 

traditional uses of Castle Rock 

NWR.

Coordinate with local 

tribal entities to provide 

interpretation of traditional 

uses of Castle Rock NWR.

N/A = Not applicable to and not included in that Alternative; ACG=Aleutian cackling goose; CCS = California 

Current System; CRNWR=Castle Rock NWR; EIS = Environmental Impact Statement.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-47

Chapter 3. Affected Environment

Chapter 3 of the CCP provides a detailed description of the affected environment for the Humboldt Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge and the Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge.
E-48 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences

Overview of the NEPA Analysis Parameters

This chapter analyzes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects expected to occur from the implementation 

of each of the alternatives described in Chapter 2. The analysis is organized by each aspect of the 

environments described in Chapter 3, including physical, biological, social, and economic resources. The 

purpose of the analysis is to provide the context and intensity of the impacts of the action, such that a 

determination of significance can be made by the decision-makers. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires mitigation measures to be identified and discussed 

for adverse impacts to habitats, wildlife, or the human environment. While the purpose of the CCP is to 

develop a management plan for the refuge that maintains and improves the quality of habitat available 

for fish and wildlife, and improves the visitor’s experience; implementation of the plan may result in 

temporary adverse effects to soil, water quality, or air quality. Therefore, the Service is including a number 

of conservation measures as an integral part of the implementation of the preferred alternative. These 

conservation measures will further minimize any adverse effects from implementation. For a description of 

the conservation measures, see Appendix 1 to the EA. 

In describing the significance of impacts, the Service defers to the Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulations implementing NEPA at 40 CFR 1508.27.

“Significantly” as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity: 

Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society 

as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies 

with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would 

usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short-and long-term 

effects are relevant. 

Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one 

agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. 

Significance of impacts to the human environment determines whether preparation of an EIS is warranted. 

Thus, an EA provides a discussion of the magnitude of the impacts within the context of the situation for 

each impact topic.

The context of the action alternatives is the Humboldt Bay area (for Humboldt Bay NWR actions) and the 

adjacent coastline and waters surrounding the island of Castle Rock NWR (for Castle Rock NWR actions).

Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, is a continuation of current management practices; it serves 

as the baseline against which Alternatives B and C are compared. Discussion of the action alternatives 

(Alternatives B and C) follow each discussion of the No Action Alternative (Alternative A). Cumulative 

effects are discussed at the end of the section for each resource. Cumulative impacts to the environment 

would result when the incremental impact of an action is added to other, closely related past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Many of the effects related to restoration of Salmon Creek are discussed and analyzed as part of the 

Environmental Assessment prepared for the Humboldt Bay NWR in 1992 (USFWS 1992). This document 

is hereby incorporated by reference. It is available for review at the Humboldt Bay NWR Complex 

Headquarters office. Summaries of the effects are reflected in the discussions that follow under each 

resource type.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-49

HUMBOLDT BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Soils

Common to All Alternatives

Habitat Management Activities

Standard habitat management activities; including mowing, disking, tilling, prescribed fire, grazing, 

and irrigation; may have some effect on soils. Pesticides (including herbicides) are also used for habitat 

management. The effects of habitat management activities and pesticide use are discussed below. 

Under all alternatives, the refuge would continue to maintain and enhance 270 acres of agricultural 

grasslands (pasture) for Aleutian cackling goose habitat. Soil disturbance for maintenance activities would 

be expected to be temporary and localized during periodic mowing, plowing, and incorporating applications 

of lime to increase productivity. The amount of dust from mowing, plowing and other maintenance activities 

is expected to be negligible because of the high soil moisture levels at the refuge and the Humboldt Bay 

vicinity, particularly in the springtime when the management activities would primarily be performed. 

When periodic plowing is needed, it would be done infrequently (less than 20 acres per year) and in the 

spring when soil moisture is high. Pastureland soils are plowed one field at a time in late April, prior to 

seeding. Cattle grazing may also be used to maintain cover of emergent vegetation in seasonal wetland 

impoundments (agricultural wetland). Grazing pressure would be surveyed periodically and cattle removed 

prior to compaction or erosion. Management activities that involve soil disturbance may temporarily 

increase erosion rates in the project area. These maintenance activities are comparable in scope to those 

performed on neighboring agricultural lands, but may not be conducted in the same season. 

No adverse effects to soils are anticipated from fertilizers. The refuge does not apply fertilizer to all 

pasturelands in any one year because the amount of fertilizer that would be effective would be cost 

prohibitive for these large acreages (hundreds of acres). If used, fertilizers are applied sparingly and in 

accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations to avoid potentially adverse effects to water quality 

(effects to water quality are discussed in the section below). In accordance with recommendations by the 

manufacturer and the University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) livestock/natural resources 

advisor, lime is applied to pasturelands on the refuge to balance the pH of the soil. Adding lime is done to 

balance soil pH and improve productivity for pasture vegetation. Since pH levels in the area are low (5.0 

to 6.0), the application of lime to pasturelands is a common practice used by ranchers locally and regionally 

to raise soil pH. The UCCE livestock/natural resources advisor recommends the application of lime at 3.0 

to 3.5 tons per acre to improve productivity of pasturelands by raising the pH; lime may be applied at this 

rate every 2 years (Bowers pers. comm.). The refuge typically applies lime at this recommended rate every 

3 to 5 years. The refuge applies lime in the late summer or early fall, well in advance of the heavy rains 

typical for the north coast in November. The rates and frequency of lime application done by the refuge 

on pasturelands is a widely accepted practice throughout the county and the State to improve vegetation 

productivity without any known adverse effects to soils. The effects to soils from lime application are 

expected to be minor, localized, and wholly beneficial to the management of agricultural grasslands. 

Based on the rates, frequency, and seasonal timing of maintenance activities on the refuge, the Service has 

concluded that maintenance activities that disturb the soil are expected to result in an overall beneficial 

effect to agricultural grassland soils in all alternatives. 

Pesticides/Surfactants

Refuge maintenance activities periodically include the use of Service-approved pesticides. 

Service-approved pesticides would be used with all alternatives. Pesticide Use Proposals (PUP) are 

required for pest management activities on lands owned or managed by the Service. PUPs specify 

the appropriate and safe use of pesticides and require that the pesticide use is also in compliance with 

applicable State pesticide laws and regulations. A PUP is prepared for all pesticides use on the refuge. 

This approach includes a detailed evaluation of the proposed pesticide use noting environmental hazards, 

efficacy, vulnerability of the target pest, and the State-issued Certified Pesticide Applicators’ identification 

number for proposed use of any restricted use pesticides. In addition, the refuge’s use of integrated pest 

management strategies (selecting from mechanical, biological, cultural and chemical management methods) 

results in minimizing the use of pesticides and subsequently, leads to minor effects on soils.
E-50 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Under all alternatives, the refuge would continue to periodically use Service-approved aquatic herbicides 

including: Rodeo (glyphosate), AquaMaster and Remedy; and terrestrial herbicides such as Roundup 

pro (glyphosate) and Roundup pro concentrate (glyphosate), and 2, 4-D to control invasive plants on 

the Humboldt Bay NWR. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Rodeo, Roundup pro, and Roundup pro 

concentrate is considered non-mobile in soils and sediments because it rapidly and strongly adheres to 

soil particles and degrades in the soil. Glyphosate is moderately persistent in the soil. Glyphosate has no 

known effect on soil microorganisms. Glyphosate is highly adsorbed on most soils especially those with high 

organic content. The compound is so strongly attracted to the soil that little is expected to leach from the 

applied area. Microbes are primarily responsible for the breakdown of the product. The time it takes for half 

of the product to break down (half-life) ranges from 1 to 174 days. Because glyphosate is so tightly bound 

to the soil, little is transferred by rain or irrigation water. One estimate showed less than 2 percent of the 

applied chemical was lost to runoff (USFS 1984). The herbicide could move when attached to soil particles 

in erosion run-off. In water, glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to suspended organic and mineral matter and is 

broken down primarily by microorganisms also. Its half-life in pond water ranges from 12 days to 10 weeks. 

(Cornell University 1994)

Triclopyr is not strongly adsorbed to soil particles, has the potential to be mobile, and is fairly rapidly 

degraded by soil microorganisms. Concentrations of 500 ppm had no apparent effects on the growth of 

common soil microorganisms. Triclopyr was tested but not found in a host of groundwater sites throughout 

the country (Williams et al. 1988). The half-life of triclopyr in soil is from 30 to 90 days, depending on soil 

type and environmental conditions, with an average of about 46 days. The half-life of one of the breakdown 

products (trichloro-pyridinol) in 15 soil types (similar to those at the refuge) ranged from 8-279 days with 12 

of the tested soils having half-lives of less than 90 days. Longer half-lives occur in cold or arid conditions.

The World Health Organization (1984) concluded that 2, 4-D does not accumulate or persist in the 

environment. The primary degradation mechanism is microbial metabolism, but mineralization and possibly 

photolysis may also play a role. The average half-life of 2, 4-D is 10 days (Tu et al. 2001). 

Based on the above information and the Service’s PUP requirements, the Service has concluded that the 

use of these PUP-regulated herbicides would result in no adverse effects to soils and soil microorganisms on 

and near the refuge for all alternatives. 

Alternative A: No Action

Factors that could affect soils, including maintenance activities, pesticide use, soil compaction and soil 

erosion are not expected to change with Alternative A. Since 1971, when the refuge was established, the 

pasturelands have remained productive and supported cattle and wildlife. Based on the analysis in the 

section Common to All Alternatives and above, the Service has concluded that no changes to soils and no 

adverse effects are anticipated with Alternative A, the continuation of current management and restoration 

activities. 

Alternative B

As part of Alternative B, the refuge would excavate and restore approximately 1,500 linear feet of Salmon 

Creek into a meandering channel. The volume of excavated soil is estimated at 10,000 cubic yards. These 

restoration activities are expected to have generally localized effects. Alternative B also proposes to raise 

35 acres of the White Slough Unit and 90 acres of Salmon Creek overflow marsh plain (a total of 125 acres). 

The soil excavated from the meandering channel would be used to raise the marsh plain, so no imported soil 

is needed. The effects of action Alternative B on soils are expected to be localized within the 125 acres of the 

salt marsh habitat as described below. 

The first step in the salt marsh restoration process would be to remove approximately 12 inches of exiting 

topsoil and native marsh plants for storage on the refuge. After the topsoil and plants have been salvaged, 

clean fill soil would be spread on the marsh plain to raise the elevation. After the fill soil is placed, the 

salvaged and stockpiled native topsoil would be spread on top of the fill material. The heavy (earth moving) 

equipment that is used to place fill and replace topsoil is expected to cause some temporary and localized 

soil compaction. Alternative B also proposes either conversion of the existing barn near the Visitor Center 

or new construction of a covered outdoor structure for environmental education activities. Soils that will 

be directly beneath the foundation of a new structure (a foot-print of approximately 1,000 square feet) are 

required to be compacted for stability of the structure.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-51

For construction activities related to the Salmon Creek restoration, salt marsh restoration, and the 

environmental education structure, conservation measures would be required as part of the construction 

contracts to minimize the extent and severity of soil compaction and erosion. Earth moving activities could 

result in large areas of bare soil that could be subject to erosion during the rainy season (November through 

April); however, the requirement of conservation measures is expected to minimize soil erosion. Excavation 

of 1,500 linear feet of creek, restoration of 125 acres of salt marsh, or construction of the environmental 

education facility each could be completed within 1 construction season (the drier months of 1 calendar 

year); 1 year of construction activities within the 15-year period of analysis (“life of the CCP”) or relatively 

short-term. Erosion due to flowing water is expected to be short-term, minor and localized because earth 

moving would occur primarily during months with less precipitation, the terrain is relatively flat, and the 

refuge would employ conservation measures to minimize soil erosion. For a description of conservation 

measures, refer to Appendix 1 to this EA.

Because conservation measures would be employed to mitigate soil erosion and compaction due to 

maintenance activities, Salmon Creek restoration activities, and construction (or conversion) of an education 

building and raising Salmon Creek overflow marsh plain, any adverse effects to soils are expected to be 

temporary and localized. Based on the climatic conditions at the refuge and use of conservation measures 

to mitigate any potential adverse effects to soils, the Service has concluded that adverse effects to soils are 

anticipated to be greater than Alternative A (the no action alternative), but minimal with Alternative B. 

Alternative C: Preferred Alternative 

The effects of Alternative C to soils are expected to be similar to those described under Alternative B except 

that an additional 500 linear feet of creek profile would be excavated to connect the new meandering Salmon 

Creek channel to salmonid rearing habitat (Cattail Creek) and 110 acres more are being restored to salt 

marsh habitat (as compared to Alternative B). The volume of excavated soil is estimated at 2,000 cubic 

yards, which would be used to raise the salt marsh plain. These restoration activities are expected to have 

generally localized effects. The effects of Alternative C on soils are expected to be localized on portions the 

total of 235 acres of salt marsh on the refuge. Only portions of the salt marsh restoration would be restored 

Table E-3. Herbicides that May be Used to Control Invasive Plants on Humboldt Bay NWR

Herbicide Active ingredient(s) Target invasive plant Ecotoxicology 

(from manufacturer’s MSDS*)

Rodeo, 

AquaMaster

glyphosate harding grass, reed canary 

grass, bind weed, poison 

oak**

practically non-toxic to aquatic organisms on 

an acute basis

Roundup pro glyphosate fennel moderately toxic to fish, slightly toxic to 

aquatic invertebrates, slightly toxic to 

green algae, practically non-toxic to: birds, 

arthropods, earthworms 

Roundup pro 

concentrate

glyphosate fennel same as for Roundup pro

Milestone aminopyralid Canada thistle not toxic to bees and non-toxic to aquatic 

organisms on an acute basis, practically nontoxic to birds on

an acute or dietary basis

Garlon 3A triclopyr TEA salt, 

triethylamine, ethanol 

Himalayan blackberry slightly toxic to aquatic organisms on an 

acute basis

*MSDS - A Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) is required under the US Dept. of Labor’s Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard. The MSDS is a detailed informational document 

prepared by the manufacturer or importer of a hazardous chemical. It describes the physical and chemical properties 

of the product. MSDSs contain useful information such as flash point, toxicity, procedures for spills and leaks, and 

storage guidelines. Information included in a Material Safety Data Sheet aids in the selection of safe products

**Poison oak is a target invasive plant where its occurrence prevents safe treatment of English ivy.
E-52 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

at any one time; not all 235 acres would be restored at once. Excavation of the additional 500 linear feet and 

restoration of an additional 110 acres of salt marsh for Alternative C may take an additional construction 

season (a total of 2 calendar years, but construction activities would not be done in wet weather in the 

winter); 2 years of construction activities within the 15-year period of analysis or relatively short-term. 

As with Alternative B, conservation measures would be required and employed throughout restoration 

and construction activities. The Service has concluded that although more acreage is being restored in 

Alternative C, because conservation measures would be employed to mitigate soil erosion and compaction, 

any adverse effects to soils are expected to be temporary and localized. Based on the climatic conditions at 

the refuge and use of conservation measures to mitigate any potential adverse effects to soils, the Service 

has concluded that adverse effects to soils are anticipated to be to be minimal under Alternative C but 

greater than Alternative A (the no action alternative) or Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects

Refuge management activities including mowing, disking, tilling, prescribed fire, grazing, herbicide/

pesticide treatments, and irrigation are done when necessary on applicable units as stated in the 

descriptions of alternatives. Restoration activities and the potential for associated soil compaction and soil 

erosion would occur sporadically during the 15-year period of analysis and only on applicable units. Based 

on this, the Service has concluded that the incremental contribution of refuge maintenance activities and 

restoration activities (from any alternative) to the regional cumulative impact on soils would be less than 

cumulatively considerable. 

Water Quality

Common to All Alternatives

Many bodies of water are located on the refuge including freshwater and brackish marshes, flooded 

pasturelands, sloughs, creeks, ponds (small impoundments of water), and the Humboldt Bay. All of these 

water bodies or drainages provide multiple benefits to fish and wildlife (see the Fish and Wildlife section 

below for a discussion of benefits). The quality of the refuge’s and adjacent water resources is of foremost 

importance to the refuge to uphold the Service’s conservation mission and the purposes for which the refuge 

was established (see Chapter 1). 

Habitat Management Activities

Standard habitat management activities; including mowing, disking, tilling, prescribed fire, grazing, and 

irrigation; are not expected to adversely affect water quality. Pesticides (including herbicides) are also used 

for habitat management. The effects of habitat management activities and pesticide (and their surfactants) 

use on water quality are discussed below. 

Under all alternatives, the refuge would continue to maintain and enhance 300 acres of agricultural 

grasslands (pasture) for Aleutian cackling goose habitat. Periodic plowing would be done infrequently 

(less than 20 acres per year). Pastureland soils are plowed one field at a time in late April, prior to seeding. 

Plowing is done in the spring when soil moisture is high and after the severe storm season, which reduces 

the potential for runoff and erosion of newly plowed soils. Therefore, the Service anticipates that there 

would be minimal soil erosion resulting from maintenance activities; and that would be temporary, and 

localized during periodic mowing and plowing. Cattle grazing may also be used to maintain cover of 

emergent vegetation in seasonal wetland impoundments (agricultural wetland). Grazing allotments would 

be surveyed periodically and grazing animals removed prior degradation of resources including erosion 

or degradation of drainages. Grazing is and will continue to be excluded from areas where grazing may 

adversely affect water quality. Riparian areas, ephemeral streams, and seeps, and habitat for rare and 

protected species would not be grazed. 

Refuge staff removes dense-flowered cordgrass from the salt marsh as part of their invasive plant species 

management activities. After refuge staff removes (uproots) the dense-flowered cordgrass from the salt 

marsh, the uprooted or dead plant material (biomass) is raked into piles and burned. Dense-flowered 

cordgrass is removed from about 50 acres at a time. While biomass piles and removal is concentrated in 

areas away from stream channels, these management actions can cause short-term turbidity in localized 

areas on the salt marsh plain. Associated turbidity is expected to dissipate without adversely affecting the 

water quality on the refuge or adjacent lands. Effects to air quality and fish and wildlife are discussed in 

those sections, below. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-53

Habitat management activities may also involve large earthmoving equipment that could result in the 

introduction of various contaminants, such as fuel oils, grease, and other petroleum products, either from 

direct contact between the equipment and the water or through surface runoff. Effects of contaminants on 

soils are discussed in that section above, and effects on fish or wildlife are discussed in the section on Fish 

and Wildlife, below. The refuge has established spill-prevention and countermeasure plans to protect water 

from contaminants. These plans include on-site handling criteria to avoid introducing contaminants into 

waterways. Staging, washing, and storage areas for equipment, construction materials, fuels, lubricants, 

solvents, and other possible contaminants are provided away from waterways. These criteria are a part of 

the conservation measures for protection of water quality. Conservation measures would be employed to 

avoid and minimize any potentially adverse effects to water quality on the refuge and in adjacent waters. 

(See Appendix 1 to the EA for a description of conservation measures.)

These conservation measures apply to pesticides (including herbicides and surfactants). Under all 

alternatives, for habitat maintenance in aquatic environments, the refuge would continue to use Serviceapproved aquatic herbicides including: Rodeo (glyphosate), AquaMaster, and Remedy periodically to control 

invasive plants on the Humboldt Bay NWR. In most cases, glyphosate will dissipate rapidly from natural 

water bodies through adsorption to the organic substances and inorganic clays, degradation and dilution 

(Folmar et al. 1979, Feng et al. 1990). See also the discussion of these herbicides in the Soils, Common to All 

Alternatives section within this chapter. 

With the implementation of measures to avoid contaminating water (the conservation measures), no adverse 

effects to water quality from the use of aquatic herbicides, other habitat management and restoration 

activities, or from compatible uses are anticipated with any of the alternatives. 

Alternative A: No Action

Factors that could affect water quality, such as rainfall runoff and recreational use, are not expected to 

change. The Service expects no adverse effects to the beneficial uses of water bodies on the refuge. The 

Service has concluded that no changes to water quality are anticipated and no adverse effects to water 

quality would result with Alternative A, the continuation of current management practices. 

Alternative B

Restoration of approximately 1,500 linear feet of Salmon Creek Restoration activities could result in 

temporary, short-term adverse effects to water quality due to the potential for increased turbidity from 

erosion, sedimentation, and the potential for incidental introduction of contaminants from earth-moving 

or other construction equipment. These potential effects would be minimized through conservation 

measures (see Appendix 1 of this EA). After restoration, with a fully functioning estuarine ecosystem, the 

Service expects a long-term beneficial effect of improved water quality to result from the proposed habitat 

restoration. The Service expects improvement and no adverse effects to water quality on and off of the 

refuge. 

Alternative B proposes the addition of a launch area at the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit for non-motorized boats and 

associated signage to inform the public about water quality requirements. The Service has noted that since 

water quality sampling was begun by the oyster growers in the mid-1970s, there has been increasing use of 

the Mad River Slough area (as well as the rest of the bay) by non-motorized boaters with no corresponding 

increase in required oyster harvest closures by CDPH; by inference, no decrease in water quality. Further, 

while the Ma-le’l dunes area was receiving substantially increased public use (when it was formerly open 

to the public during the period from 1990 to 1994) again, there was no increase in harvest closures. During 

that time of increased use from 1990 to 1994, there was an above-ground composting toilet in place. Adding 

a non-motorized boat launch may increase public use of the slough, but the amount of use a new nonmotorized boat launch would receive is speculative at this time. 

With implementation of the conservation measures, and compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Service 

has concluded that no adverse effects to water quality would result with Alternative B.

Alternative C: Preferred Alternative

Restoration of approximately 500 linear feet of Salmon Creek could result in temporary, short-term 

adverse effects to water quality due to the potential for increased turbidity due to erosion, sedimentation, 

and introduction of contaminants from equipment. As discussed in the Soils section above, these potential 
E-54 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

effects would be minimized through using conservation measures (see Appendix 1) during construction. 

The Service expects that long-term beneficial effects of improved water quality would result from habitat 

restoration. The refuge will continue consultations with CDPH, HBHRCD, the oyster growers, and nonmotorized boating groups regarding water quality. 

With implementation of the conservation measures, and compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Service 

has concluded that no adverse effects to water quality would result with Alternative C.

Cumulative Effects 

With conservation measures, no adverse effects to water quality are expected with any of the alternatives. 

After completion of restoration projects and several years for plant growth, restoration is expected to 

have a beneficial effect on water quality. Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that the 

incremental contribution from any alternative to the regional cumulative impact on water quality would be 

beneficial, but less than cumulatively considerable. 

Air Quality

Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives include maintaining or restoring agricultural grasslands (pasture land). Maintenance or 

management activities include periodically disking, mowing, plowing, dike repair, related vehicular traffic, 

and/or cattle grazing agricultural grasslands. The North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District 

(NCUAQMD) does not require permits for maintenance activities such as these or new construction. Soil 

disturbance from maintenance activities may result in temporary, short-term increases in fugitive dust 

(particulate matter less than 10 microns [PM10]) and tailpipe emissions of PM10 and nitrogen oxides (NOx) 

from the maintenance equipment. 

The amount of dust from mowing, plowing and other maintenance activities is expected to continue to be 

negligible because of the high soil moisture levels at the refuge and the Humboldt Bay vicinity, particularly 

in the springtime when the management activities would primarily be performed. When periodic plowing 

is needed, it would be done infrequently (less than 10 acres per year) and in the spring when soil moisture 

is high. Agricultural grassland or pastureland soils are plowed one field at a time in late April, prior to 

seeding. Therefore, fugitive dust from maintenance activities is expected to be low. Emissions from the 

maintenance equipment is expected to have a negligible effect on air quality because the equipment would 

be operated primarily during the spring, a time of year when the North Coast is in attainment of the EPA 

standards for these pollutants. 

Periodic controlled burning is occasionally used by the refuge for vegetation management and/or burning 

of brush piles. For example, refuge staff removes dense-flowered cordgrass from the salt marsh as part 

of their invasive plant species management activities. After the dense-flowered cordgrass is removed 

(uprooted from the mud or singed in place with backpack torches), the uprooted or dead plant material 

(biomass) is raked into piles and burned. Dense-flowered cordgrass is removed from about 50 acres at a 

time. Brushpiles also result from eucalyptus control. When periodic controlled burning is needed, the refuge 

coordinates with NCUAQMD, which monitors PM10 and other pollutant levels, and regulates prescriptive 

burning. Prescriptive burning directly affects PM10 levels. The NCUAQMD allows prescriptive burns 

on the refuge and elsewhere on the north coast when conditions and PM10 levels permit. Any potentially 

adverse effects to air quality from controlled burning of vegetation are mitigated through the timing 

and other requirements of the approved burn plans coordinated with the NCUAQMD. The increase in 

emissions at the refuge associated with maintenance activities would be negligible in comparison to the 

emissions from the adjacent Highway 101. Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that no 

adverse effects to air quality are anticipated from maintaining or restoring agricultural grasslands in any of 

the alternatives.

Alternative A: No Action

Factors that could affect air quality, such as disking, mowing, dike repair, and traffic would not change. 

The effects of these are discussed above. Based on the above, the Service has concluded that no changes 

to air quality are anticipated and effects to air quality are expected to be negligible with Alternative A, the 

continuation of current management actions.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-55

Alternative B

Alternative B may result in localized and temporary effects to air quality from heavy equipment operation 

during re-alignment of 1,500 linear feet of creek channel as part of the Salmon Creek Restoration project. 

Equipment could include a wheeled scraper (wheeled), a bulldozer or excavator (tracked) or other type of 

excavator, 1 or 2 dump trucks and workers’ vehicles. As part of raising the elevation of the salt marsh plain, 

placing fill and replacing topsoil is expected to result in temporary and localized increase in fugitive dust. 

The same types of earth moving equipment could be used to place the fill soil. Fugitive dust is expected 

during the use of heavy equipment, but it is expected to be minimal due to the high soil moisture on the 

refuge. Although the work must be done when the soil is dry enough to use the equipment effectively, 

construction would be done in the spring when the area is still in attainment with air quality requirements. 

Restoration work is expected to take 1 construction season (the drier months). 

Alternative B includes construction of a covered outdoor structure large enough for up to 30 people (up to 

1,000 square feet in area) for environmental education or conversion of the existing barn to accommodate 

this use. Also, Alternative B includes modifying 0.25-mile of trails to wheelchair accessible trails. Tailpipe 

emissions from construction equipment and worker trips to and from the job site could be expected to 

increase temporarily during construction. The increase would be temporary and localized and primarily 

during the spring when the area is in attainment.

If a new or remodeled environmental education structure or more accessible trails result in an increase 

in the number of visitors, it would not necessarily result in more vehicle trips. Under Alternative B, the 

refuge expects to increase visitor opportunities by 10,000 opportunities per year more than Alternative A 

(currently). Although more visitor opportunities are provided to the public, it is difficult to estimate how 

many more visitor trips will result from more opportunities being available. It is reasonable to assume that 

an increase in visitor use at the refuge may reflect visitors’ choosing the refuge as their destination rather 

than another location offering similar opportunities in the Humboldt Bay area. Therefore, an increase 

in visitor use at the refuge may not result in more vehicle trips in the area or in an increase in tailpipe 

emissions on and near the refuge. If there is an increase in tailpipe emissions associated with an increase 

in visitors, it would be negligible. Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that this minimal 

increase in emissions at the refuge associated with more vehicle trips by construction equipment or visitors 

is not expected to adversely affect the refuge resources or the ambient air quality.

The NCUAQMD does not require permits for maintenance activities or new construction. However, 

NCUAQMD does require permitting for remodeling, demolishing or renovating structures. If the Service 

determines that the existing barn will be renovated to accommodate the proposed environmental education 

facility or that other existing structures on Salmon Creek and Lanphere Dunes, a permit from the 

NCUAQMD and further analysis would be required to determine if contaminants are present and evaluate 

the environmental effects of renovating the barn.

Alternative C: Preferred Alternative

Alternative C includes restoration of approximately 10 acres of agricultural grasslands (pasturelands) to 

riparian swamp (3 acres) or salt marsh (7 acres of 45 acres total). Riparian swamp or salt marsh would 

require less (if any) maintenance activities than pastureland. A decrease in these activities is expected to 

result in a decrease in fugitive dust. Therefore, the Service expects that there would be a slight decrease in 

PM10 in the vicinity of the White Slough Unit.

Alternative C may result in localized and temporary effects to air quality from heavy equipment operation 

during re-alignment of 1,500 linear feet of creek channel plus excavation of an additional 500 linear feet 

of creek channel connecting the newly re-aligned channel to Cattail Creek as part of the Salmon Creek 

Restoration project. As with Alternative B, equipment could include a wheeled scraper (wheeled), a 

bulldozer or excavator (tracked) or other type of excavator, 1 or 2 dump trucks and workers’ vehicles. As 

part of raising the elevation of the salt marsh plain, placing fill and replacing topsoil is expected to result in 

temporary and localized increase in fugitive dust. The same types of earth moving equipment could be used 

to place fill. Fugitive dust is expected during the use of heavy equipment, but it is expected to be minimal 

due to the high soil moisture on the refuge. Although the work must be done when the soil is dry enough to 

use the equipment effectively, construction would be done in the spring when the area is still in attainment 
E-56 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

with air quality requirements. No more equipment would be needed, but with the additional 500 linear feet 

of excavation, Alternative C is expected to take a total of 2 construction seasons (work would occur during 

the drier months and not during the winter when soils are too wet for the equipment to work). 

Alternative C includes construction of a covered outdoor structure large enough for up to 30 people (up to 

1,000 square feet in area) for environmental education or conversion of the existing barn to accommodate 

this use. Also, Alternative C includes an increase in wheelchair accessible trails (0.50-mile more than 

Alternative A and 0.25-mile more than Alternative B). If more accessible trails result in an increase in 

the number of visitors, it would not necessarily result in more vehicle trips. Under Alternative B, the 

refuge expects to increase visitor opportunities by 15,000 opportunities per year more than Alternative A 

(currently). Although more visitor opportunities are provided to the public, it is difficult to estimate how 

many more visitor trips will result from more opportunities being available. It is reasonable to assume that 

an increase in visitor use at the refuge may reflect visitors’ choosing the refuge as their destination rather 

than another location offering similar opportunities in the Humboldt Bay area. Therefore, an increase 

in visitor use at the refuge may not result in more vehicle trips in the area or in an increase in tailpipe 

emissions on and near the refuge. If there is an increase in tailpipe emissions associated with an increase 

in visitors, it would be negligible. Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that this minimal 

increase in emissions at the refuge associated with more vehicle trips by construction equipment or visitors 

is not expected to adversely affect the refuge resources or the ambient air quality.

The NCUAQMD does not require permits for maintenance activities or new construction. However, 

NCUAQMD does require permitting for remodeling, demolishing or renovating structures. If the Service 

determines that the existing barn will be renovated to accommodate the proposed environmental education 

facility or that other existing structures on Salmon Creek and Lanphere Dunes, a permit from the 

NCUAQMD and further analysis would be required to determine if contaminants are present and evaluate 

the environmental effects of renovating the barn.

Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that this minimal increase in emissions at the refuge 

associated with more vehicle trips by construction equipment or visitors is not expected to adversely affect 

the refuge resources or the ambient air quality.

Cumulative Effects 

Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that the incremental contribution of habitat 

maintenance activities, construction of the features of the Salmon Creek Delta Restoration or the 

environmental education structure and any increase in visitors (from any alternative) to the regional 

cumulative impact on air quality would be less than cumulatively considerable. 

Plant Communities

Common to All Alternatives

Disking, mowing, chemical treatments, and cattle grazing would be used periodically to maintain cover of 

emergent vegetation in seasonal wetland impoundments (also known as agricultural wetland). The refuge 

would continue to use mechanical and chemical methods to control undesirable invasive plant species such 

as dense-flowered cordgrass (Spartina densiflora). The refuge would continue to mow and graze grassland 

habitat to provide short-grass pasture for use by Aleutian cackling geese and other species. 

Alternative A: No Action

After refuge staff removes dense-flowered cordgrass from the salt marsh through manual (digging) and 

mechanical (mowing, flaming) methods, the areas would then be re-vegetated with native species including 

salt grass (Distichlis spicata), pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), and minor jaumea (Jaumea carnosa). 

Non-native cordgrass can have many negative effects on Humboldt Bay NWR habitats and associated 

species including: competing with and displacing native salt marsh plant communities; converting intertidal 

mudflat to non-native salt marsh; decreasing shorebird foraging habitat; and filling in channels and altering 

marsh hydrology. Therefore, re-vegetating the salt marsh with native species is expected to allow native 

salt marsh plant communities to recover; decrease the loss of mudflat; increase shorebird foraging habitat; 

and allow channels to remain clear of vegetation and functional for longer periods of time. Although ongoing invasive plant species management activities are expected to continue to improve the habitat quality 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-57

or value of the plant communities on the refuge, reducing or eliminating invasive plants would not convert 

the plant community to another type of community. The Service has concluded that there would be no 

changes to the total acreages of existing plant communities and no adverse effects would be anticipated with 

Alternative A, the no action alternative. 

Alternative B

Salmon Creek Delta Restoration

Alternative B also includes planting riparian vegetation on the sides of the new 1,500 linear-foot channel 

to a minimum width of 100 feet (150,000 square feet or 3.4 acres). These plantings of riparian vegetation 

would convert 3.4 acres of primarily non-native short-grass pasture to riparian habitat (increasing the total 

acreage of riparian swamp on refuge lands by 3.4 acres and decreasing the acreage of short-grass pasture 

commensurately). This additional riparian habitat would offset any that might be lost due to increased tidal 

influence in lower Salmon Creek.

Salt Marsh Habitat

Restoration activities on Salmon Creek Unit would convert mudflat to salt marsh habitat, as it was 

historically. The restoration of 125 acres of mudflat to salt marsh would increase the total acreage of salt 

marsh on refuge lands from 313 acres to 438 acres (a 40 percent increase) Salt marsh contributes invaluable 

nutrients to the estuarine ecosystem; provides valuable habitat for fish and wildlife; filters out pollutants; 

and buffers adjacent lands from flood tides and storms. Salt marshes provide habitat for fish, invertebrates, 

many shorebirds, and some waterbirds. In addition, salt marshes likely provide habitat for the endangered 

tidewater goby; several species of threatened salmonids; and eulachon, a CDFG California Species of 

Special Concern. Because of extensive diking, the Humboldt Bay estuary has sustained significant losses of 

salt marsh, primary productivity, and natural hydrology resulting in changes to sedimentation, deposition, 

currents, habitat for estuarine plant and animal species, and water quality. Restoring mudflat to historic 

salt marsh is considered beneficial to the refuge and to the region because salt marsh is a threatened habitat 

type in Humboldt Bay and throughout the United States. The Service expects that by increasing and 

improving the salt marsh plant community on the refuge, it would result in the long-term, local and regional 

beneficial effects described above. 

Freshwater and Brackish Marsh (FBM) 

Alternative B includes restoring 130 acres of FBM to short-grass pasture to improve Aleutian cackling 

goose habitat (increasing the total acreage of short-grass pasture on refuge lands by 130 acres and 

decreasing the acreage of FBM commensurately). Allowing cattle grazing on the central portion of the 

Hookton Slough Unit will promote the growth of short-grass pasture. Providing more short-grass pasture 

on the refuge is expected to increase the intensity of Aleutian cackling goose use on the refuge and reduce 

the intensity of goose use on the adjacent private pasturelands. Units managed by the refuge as short-grass 

pasture are still considered and managed as seasonal freshwater marsh, supporting other species in addition 

to Aleutian cackling goose. Therefore, although the species composition of the pastureland or marsh may 

change slightly to favor short-grass species, the freshwater marsh plant community or any other plant 

community would not change. The Service expects that by increasing and improving short-grass species 

in the FBM plant communities on the refuge, it would result in the long-term, local and regional beneficial 

effects described above. 

Riparian Swamp Habitat

Alternative B includes replacing 20 acres of non-native trees with riparian swamp species over the course of 

5 years. The restoration of 20 acres of non-native trees to riparian swamp would increase the total acreage 

of riparian swamp habitat on refuge lands from 105 acres to 125 acres. 

Riparian habitat is very rare now compared to what existed historically in the Humboldt Bay area. This 

diverse vegetative community provides valuable travel corridors for wildlife and habitat supporting 

biological integrity and environmental health on the refuge. Riparian forests provide rich habitat for a wide 

variety of plant species, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and especially migrating and nesting songbirds, 

and improve conditions for fish by contributing nutrients, shade, and cover to streams. Therefore, the 

Service expects that by increasing and improving the riparian swamp plant community on the refuge, it 

would result in long-term, local and regional beneficial effects described above. 
E-58 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Dune Habitats (including dune mat/foredune grassland, dune swale, dune riparian/swamp, and 

coniferous dune forest)

Alternative B includes various restoration and enhancement activities on the dune habitats at Humboldt 

Bay NWR. The refuge includes over 400 acres of dune habitats. 

The dune mat habitat on the Humboldt Bay NWR is some of the most pristine habitat of its type on the west 

coast of the United States, containing native plant communities that are globally declining. Foredune plant 

communities are globally rare and the Lanphere Dunes represent some of the most pristine dunes left in 

the United States. As with other rare dune habitats, pristine dune swales are rare on the west coast of the 

United States, occurring only north of the central coast in California (Pickart and Barbour 2007). Given the 

rarity of dune swale habitat and its value to wildlife, restoration of native plant species is necessary for the 

maintenance of the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the dune ecosystem as well as 

to protect many California Species of Special Concern. 

Coniferous dune forest is also a globally declining habitat type. It supports many of Humboldt Bay NWR’s 

mammal species, including the rare white-footed vole, a CDFG California Species of Special Concern 

(CDFG 2007). Several CDFG California Bird Species of Special Concern also use coniferous dune forest 

habitat including Cooper’s hawk, yellow warbler, osprey, and black-capped chickadee. Coniferous dune 

forest provides habitat for several species of amphibians and reptiles. Many plant species such as sugar 

stick (Allotropa virgata), spotted coral-root (Corallorhiza maculata), calypso orchid (Calypso bulbosa), and 

twayblade (Listera cordata), are uncommon close to the coast, and have been found only in a few locations 

in the coniferous dune forest habitat. Maintaining and restoring healthy native plant communities in the 

coniferous dune forest contributes greatly to the overall biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of the refuge and surrounding area. 

Based on the uniqueness and rarity of dune habitats, the Service expects that restoration of dune habitats 

would result in long-term, local, regional, and globally beneficial effects. There would be no change in 

acreage of dune plant communities as a result of Alternative B.

Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that there would be beneficial changes to the plant 

communities at the Humboldt Bay NWR and no adverse effects would be anticipated with Alternative B. 

Alternative C: Preferred Alternative

Salmon Creek Delta Restoration

Alternative C includes the same Salmon Creek Restoration activities as Alternative B. The effects to plant 

communities from the Salmon Creek Delta Restoration are the same as described in Alternative B; planting 

riparian vegetation on the sides of the new 1,500 linear-foot channel to a minimum width of 100 feet (150,000 

square feet or 3.4 acres). These plantings of riparian vegetation would convert 3.4 acres of primarily nonnative short-grass pasture to riparian habitat (increasing the total acreage of riparian swamp on refuge 

lands by 3.4 acres and decreasing the acreage of short-grass pasture commensurately). 

Alternative C also includes an additional 500 linear feet of creek profile would be excavated to connect the 

new meandering Salmon Creek channel to salmonid rearing habitat (Cattail Creek). 

Alternative C does not include plantings of riparian vegetation along the 500 linear feet; however, the 

Service expects that recruitment of riparian species would occur along the new creek profile. The Service 

expects that this would result in the conversion of some non-native short-grass pasture to riparian habitat; 

slightly increasing the total acreage of riparian swamp on refuge lands by a negligible acreage and 

decreasing the acreage of short-grass pasture commensurately. Although the actual surface area of such 

recruitment may be small in acreage, the Service expects that the increase in riparian habitat would be 

beneficial to the species dependent on riparian habitat (see Appendix K). 

Salt Marsh Habitat

Alternative C includes restoring an additional 38 acres of salt marsh on Hookton Slough Unit, 60 acres on 

Table Bluff Unit, and 45 acres on White Slough Unit. Increasing salt marsh habitat would be expected 

to further increase invaluable nutrients to the estuarine ecosystem; provide valuable habitat for fish and 

wildlife; filter out pollutants; and buffer adjacent lands from flood tides and storms. Alternative B provides 

143 acres more of salt marsh restoration than Alternative B. The additional acres of salt marsh restoration 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-59

with Alternative C would increase salt marsh habitat for fish, invertebrates, many shorebirds, and some 

waterbirds. In addition, it may provide habitat for the endangered tidewater goby; several species of 

threatened salmonids; and eulachon, a CDFG California Species of Special Concern. Because of extensive 

diking, the Humboldt Bay estuary has sustained significant losses of salt marsh, primary productivity, and 

natural hydrology resulting in changes to sedimentation, deposition, currents, habitat for estuarine plant 

and animal species, and water quality. Restoring mudflat to historic salt marsh is considered beneficial 

to the refuge and to the region because salt marsh is a threatened habitat type in Humboldt Bay and 

throughout the United States. Therefore, the Service expects that by increasing and improving the salt 

marsh plant community on the refuge, it would result in the long-term, local and regional beneficial effects. 

Additional restoration activities on White Slough, Hookton Slough, and Table Bluff Unit overflow would 

convert an additional 110 acres of mudflat to salt marsh habitat (a total of 235 acres). The restoration of 235 

acres of mudflat to salt marsh would increase the total acreage of salt marsh on refuge lands from 313 acres 

to 548 acres (75 percent more salt marsh). With Alternative C, more than 60 acres of mudflat on Salmon 

Creek Overflow would be raised to restore the tidal prism and create additional salt marsh. This is expected 

to provide additional beneficial effects (relative to Alternative B) by improving water quality and increasing 

salt marsh habitat.

Based on the analysis presented under Alternative B and above, the Service has concluded that there would 

be beneficial changes to the plant communities at the Humboldt Bay NWR and no adverse effects would be 

anticipated with Alternative C. 

Freshwater and Brackish Marsh

Alternative C includes construction of a low contour dike that allows muted tidal exchange north of the dike 

(see Figure E-3).

Riparian Swamp Habitat

The effects of Alternative C on riparian swamp habitat would be the same as under Alternative B, except 

3 acres of short-grass pasture habitat would be restored to riparian swamp habitat. As in Alternative B, 

Alternative C includes replacing 20 acres of non-native trees with riparian swamp species over the course of 

5 years. 

Riparian habitat is very rare now compared to what existed historically in the Humboldt Bay area. This 

diverse vegetative community provides valuable travel corridors for wildlife and habitat supporting 

biological integrity and environmental health on the refuge. Riparian forests provide rich habitat for a wide 

variety of plant species, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and especially migrating and nesting songbirds, 

and improve conditions for fish by contributing nutrients, shade, and cover to streams. Therefore, the 

Service expects that by increasing and improving the riparian swamp plant community on the refuge, it 

would result in long-term, local and regional beneficial effects described above. 

Dune Habitats (including dune mat/foredune grassland, dune swale, dune riparian/swamp, and 

coniferous dune forest)

The effects of Alternative C on dune habitats would be the same as under Alternative B except for: dune 

swale, dune riparian/swamp, and coniferous dune forest, the restoration the effects would be expected to 

occur 5 years earlier because the actions would be implemented 5 years earlier.

Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that there would be beneficial changes to the plant 

communities at the Humboldt Bay NWR and no adverse effects would be anticipated with Alternative C. 

Cumulative Effects 

The Service has concluded that incremental contribution of Alternative C to the regional cumulative impact 

on plant communities would be less than cumulatively considerable except for the dune mat/foredune 

grasslands and dune riparian swamp habitat. Pristine examples of the dune plant communities are rare 

on the west coast of North America. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of proposed restoration and 

enhancement actions on dune mat/foredune grassland and dune riparian swamp plant communities are 

expected to be cumulatively beneficial to plant communities. 
E-60 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Fish and Wildlife 

Common to All Alternatives

Existing habitats will be either maintained or restored. Some management activities will lead to a habitat 

changing from one type to another, which in general will result in gains to some habitats and species and 

losses for others. Any disturbance to wildlife species due to restoration is likely to be temporary while these 

activities occur. Motile species are expected to move away from areas being disturbed, and they or their 

progeny are likely to return to the site when restoration activity ceases. While a small number of individual 

animals may be harmed through refuge operations such as restoration activities, in general, fish and wildlife 

populations are expected to benefit from actions taken by refuge staff because that is the purpose and goal 

of these activities. The effects of hunting on wildlife are also discussed within this section, below. 

The invasive non-native dense-flowered cordgrass can have many adverse effects on Humboldt Bay NWR 

habitats and their associated wildlife species including decreasing shorebird foraging habitat. Strategies for 

managing and reducing invasive species are analyzed in more detail above in the Plant Communities section. 

Removal of invasive species and re-vegetating salt marsh with native species is expected to allow native salt 

marsh plant communities to recover, increase shorebird foraging habitat and decrease the need for clearing 

vegetation from the channels. After refuge staff removes (uproots) the dense-flowered cordgrass from the 

salt marsh, the uprooted or dead plant material (biomass) is raked into piles and burned. Dense-flowered 

cordgrass is removed from about 50 acres at a time. These management actions can cause short-term 

turbidity in localized areas. These actions and any associated turbidity would not occur in fish spawning 

areas. Effects to water and air quality are discussed in those sections, above. Because invasive species 

management activities are done to improve habitat values on the refuge, the Service has concluded that 

invasive species management would have beneficial effects on fish and wildlife.

Guided by this goal and the expertise of the refuge staff, and the technical expertise of the Service’s Arcata 

Fish and Wildlife Office and the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Service has concluded that the longterm effects of any of the management alternative on fish and wildlife are expected to be generally beneficial 

for native species using the refuge. Effects on species protected by the Federal and State Endangered 

Species Acts are discussed in the Special Status Species section, below.

Salmon Creek Delta Restoration

This restoration project would fulfill goals set forth in the 1989 Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

Management Plan. The Salmon Creek Unit consists of about 1,350 acres and the proposed restoration area 

encompasses approximately 197 acres of diked freshwater and muted tidal wetland habitats. The refuge 

will continue to adaptively manage the implementation of Phase I of the Salmon Creek Restoration project. 

NEPA compliance was completed for Phase I of the Salmon Creek Restoration project in a separate NEPA 

document (USFWS 1992). Phase I is expected to benefit fish and other estuarine dependent species, some 

passerine birds, and some species of other wildlife and plants. A riparian component is included in the 

restoration plan. 

Adaptive management of this restoration project is coordinated with the Arcata Fish and Wildlife office’s 

Ecological Services program and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service). Adaptive management may include augmentation of tide gate 

function to maximize anadromous fish passage and placement of large woody debris in channels. Adaptive 

management would be informed by monitoring species’ use of habitats, any changes in channel crosssections, changes in sediment transport, and changes in water quality. 

Salmon Creek historically had large runs of Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and anadromous 

steelhead (O. mykiss). In addition, Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) and coastal cutthroat (O. clarki 

clarki) trout were historically found throughout the watershed. Although the stream continues to 

support populations of all four native anadromous salmonid species, their populations are believed to have 

dramatically declined over the past 150 years due to human-caused changes throughout the watershed. 

Coastal populations of Chinook, Coho, and steelhead are Federally listed as threatened species. In addition, 

the Hookton Slough area is habitat for the Federally threatened tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). 

Mammals associated with the area include river otter, black-tailed deer, grey fox, striped skunk, and 

raccoon. Other small rodents and mammals are associated with this area of the refuge as well. The marsh 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-61

habitats of the refuge are used by geese, ducks, other waterbirds such as herons and egrets, and shorebirds, 

such as marbled godwits and willets. Amphibians that occur in the local area include the rough-skinned 

newt (Taricha granulose), pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla), and northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora 

aurora). These amphibians are associated with the various freshwater wetland habitats on the Humboldt 

Bay NWR and breed in freshwater ponds near Salmon Creek (see Appendix K of the CCP for species list). 

Monitoring

The refuge will continue with partners to monitor the use of Salmon Creek and Hookton Slough habitats 

by salmonids, tidewater gobies, amphibians, and passerine birds. The refuge will establish a permanent 

tidal elevation station on Hookton Slough to quantify tidal change over time and tide gate function. The 

refuge will coordinate with partners to monitor for any potential effects from the Salmon Creek restoration 

activities on eelgrass beds. See also the discussion of monitoring during hunting, below.

Hunting

Monitoring is expanded upon during hunting season when the refuge staff conducts hunters’ bag checks. 

The refuge staff conducts daily bag checks to verify the number and species of waterfowl harvested to 

promote compliance with regulations and allow the refuge to keep biological data on species harvest to 

further assessment of cumulative impacts. The effects of hunting are discussed below.

This section includes the anticipated direct and indirect effects of hunting on wildlife species. Hunting 

would be allowed in each of the proposed alternatives. Hunting is a compatible public use and a wildlife 

management tool that can be used to help manage wildlife populations. Some wildlife disturbance will occur 

during the hunting seasons. Proper zoning and regulations will be designated to minimize any negative 

impacts to wildlife populations and other public visitors using the refuge.

Direct effects of hunting include mortality, wounding, and disturbance (DeLong 2002). Hunting can alter 

behavior (i.e., foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife (Owens 1977, 

Raveling 1979, White-Robinson 1982, Thomas 1983, Madsen 1985, Bartelt 1987, Cole and Knight 1990). 

There also appears to be an inverse relationship between the numbers of birds using an area and hunting 

intensity (DeLong 2002). In Connecticut, lesser scaup were observed to forage less in areas that were 

heavily hunted (Cronan 1957). In California, the numbers of northern pintails on Sacramento NWR Refuge 

non-hunt areas increased after the first week of hunting and remained high until the season was over in 

early January (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). Following the close of hunting season, ducks generally 

increased their use of the hunt area; however, use was lower than before the hunting season began. Humancaused disturbances to wildlife that are associated with hunting includes loud noises and rapid movements, 

such as those produced by shotguns and boats powered by outboard motors. This disturbance, especially 

when repeated over a period of time, can cause waterfowl to change food habits, feed only at night, lose 

weight, or desert feeding areas (Madsen 1995, Wolder 1993).

These impacts can be reduced by the presence of adjacent sanctuary areas where hunting does not occur 

and birds can feed and rest relatively undisturbed. Sanctuaries, or non-hunt areas, have been identified as 

the most common solution to disturbance problems caused from hunting (Havera et al. 1992). Prolonged 

and extensive disturbances may cause large numbers of waterfowl to leave disturbed areas and migrate 

elsewhere (Madsen 1995, Paulus 1984). In Denmark, hunting disturbance effects were experimentally 

tested by establishing two sanctuaries (Madsen 1995). Over a 5-year period, these sanctuaries became two 

of the most important staging areas for coastal waterfowl. Numbers of dabbling ducks and geese increased 

4 to 20 fold within the sanctuary (Madsen 1995). Thus, sanctuary and non-hunt areas are very important to 

minimize disturbance to waterfowl populations to ensure their continued use of the refuges. 

Intermittent hunting can be a means of minimizing disturbance, especially if rest periods in between 

hunting events are weeks rather than days (Fox and Madsen 1997). It is common for refuges to manage 

hunt programs with non-hunt days. At Sacramento Refuge, 3 to 16 percent of pintails were located on 

hunted units during non-hunt days, but were almost entirely absent in those same units on hunt days 

(Wolder 1993). In addition, northern pintails, American wigeon, and northern shovelers decreased time 

spent feeding on days when hunting occurred on public shooting areas, as compared to non-hunt days 

(Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). However, intermittent hunting may not always greatly reduce hunting 

impacts. 

The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is California’s lead agency for management of 
E-62 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

fish, wildlife, and native plants - collectively called “wildlife.” CDFG has trustee responsibility for the 

conservation and management of wildlife for the benefit and enjoyment of the public.

Resident game species are protected on refuges by both Federal and State laws and regulations to ensure 

that harvest rates do not negatively impact populations. The following table contains a summary of hunting 

seasons and bag limits for 2002-2007 for the game species on Humboldt Bay NWR.

Table E-4. 5-Year Hunt Program Summary, Humboldt Bay NWR

Hunt Season 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007

Permits Issued 481 843 1074 1255 1187

Fees Collected 1,972.50 3,533.50 4,715.00 5,651.50 4,815.00

Adult Hunters 380 669 900 1120 1037

Junior Hunters 78 140 124 98 118

Disabled Hunters 23 34 50 37 32

Refilled N/A N/A 246 163 247

Hunters Turned Away 485 762 777 933 842

Hunters 481 843 1057 1255 1187

Harvested Birds 901 1641 1829 2481 2218

Bird Average 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.9

Green-winged Teal 311 654 625 845 974

Wigeon 270 460 650 553 746

Shoveler 212 332 393 332 380

Pintail 75 131 139 245 298

Mallard 33 64 57 105 84

Goose (Aleutian) N/A N/A 65 274 240

Goose (Western) N/A N/A 230 127 166

Wildlife populations on the refuge are able to sustain hunting and also support other wildlife-dependent 

priority uses. To manage the populations to support hunting, the refuges adopt harvest regulations set 

by the State within Federal framework guidelines. The regulatory procedures that govern harvest are 

described in the section below.

By its very nature, hunting has very few positive effects on the target species while the activity is 

occurring. However, the Service has concluded that hunting has given many people a deeper appreciation 

of wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of conserving wildlife habitat, which has ultimately 

contributed to the Refuge System mission. In addition, hunters have contributed tens of millions of dollars 

towards the purchase and conservation of hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat. Furthermore, a goal of 

Humboldt Bay NWR is to provide visitors of all ages an opportunity to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Of key concern to the refuge is to offer a safe and quality program and ensure adverse effects are minimal.

Recreational hunting will remove individual animals, but does not negatively affect wildlife populations. To 

assure that populations are sustainable, the California Fish and Game Commission, in consultation with 

the CDFG, annually review the population censuses to establish season lengths and harvest levels. Each 

year the refuge staff conducts habitat management reviews of each unit on the refuge to evaluate habitat 

conditions and visitor service activities. The Service has concluded that, to date, wildlife population levels 

are sustainable and that the areas on the refuge that are closed to hunting activities provide adequate 

sanctuaries for wildlife. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-63

Harvest Management - Regulatory Procedures

Waterfowl populations throughout the United States are managed through an administrative process known 

as flyways, of which there are four (Pacific, Central, Mississippi and Atlantic) in the U.S. Humboldt Bay is 

within the Pacific Flyway (see Figure 1, in the CCP). The review of the policies, processes and procedures 

for waterfowl hunting are covered in the following documents.

NEPA considerations by the Service for hunted migratory game bird species are addressed by the 

programmatic document, ‘‘Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual 

Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88–14),’’ filed with the Environmental 

Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. The Service published a Notice of Availability in the Federal 

Register on June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582) and the Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). 

Annual NEPA considerations for waterfowl hunting frameworks are covered under a separate NEPA 

documentation. Further, in a notice published in the September 8, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 53776); the 

Service announced its intent to develop a new Supplemental EIS for the migratory bird hunting program. 

Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, as announced in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register 

notice (71 FR 12216).

Because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds 

are closed unless specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually promulgates 

regulations (50 CFR Part 20) establishing the Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks. The frameworks are 

essentially permissive in that hunting of migratory birds would not be permitted without them. Thus, in 

effect, Federal annual regulations both allow and limit the hunting of migratory birds.

The Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks provide season dates, bag limits, and other options for the 

States to select that should result in the level of harvest determined to be appropriate based upon Serviceprepared annual biological assessments detailing the status of migratory game bird populations. In North 

America, the process for establishing waterfowl hunting regulations is conducted annually. In the United 

States, the process involves a number of scheduled meetings (Flyway Study Committees, Flyway Councils, 

Service Regulations Committee, etc,) in which information regarding the status of waterfowl populations 

and their habitats is presented to individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. 

In addition, public hearings are held and the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to 

allow public comment. 

For waterfowl, these annual assessments include the Breeding Population and Habitat Survey, which is 

conducted throughout portions of the United States and Canada, and is used to establish a Waterfowl 

Population Status Report annually. In addition, the number of waterfowl hunters and resulting harvest are 

closely monitored through both the Harvest Information Program (HIP) and Parts Survey (Wing Bee). 

Since 1995, such information has been used to support the adaptive harvest management (AHM) process for 

setting duck-hunting regulations. Under AHM, a number of decision-making protocols render the choice 

(package) of pre-determined regulations (appropriate levels of harvest), which comprise the framework 

offered to the States that year. California’s Fish and Game Commission then selects season dates, bag 

limits, shooting hours and other options from the Pacific Flyway package. Their selections can be more 

restrictive, but can not be more liberal than AHM allows. Thus, the level of hunting opportunity afforded 

each State increases or decreases each year in accordance with the annual status of waterfowl populations.

Waterfowl - Flyway Analysis 

As a result of the recent regulations, the estimated average annual duck harvest for the Pacific Flyway is 

2.5 million birds, which represents approximately 18 percent of the estimated average annual U.S. harvest 

of 14 million ducks (USFWS 2005). The estimated average annual goose harvest for the Pacific Flyway is 

383,091, which represents 10.8 percent of the estimated annual U.S. harvest of over 3.5 million geese. 

For comparison, in 2005, the breeding duck population estimate for those areas surveyed (California, 

Oregon, Nevada, Utah and Washington) in the Pacific Flyway was 1,097,276 birds, which was a 22.7 percent 

increase from the 2004 average (USFWS 2005). The estimated average duck breeding population for these 

areas from 1994 to 2005 was approximately 1.10 million birds. Furthermore, by itself the 2007 Midwinter 

Waterfowl Survey Index for ducks wintering in California was approximately 4,000,000. These numbers 

serve to demonstrate the relative importance of these areas (especially California) in the Pacific Flyway for 
E-64 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

wintering waterfowl, rather than for waterfowl production. In fact, the vast majority of waterfowl wintering 

and subsequently harvested in California and throughout the Pacific Flyway come from breeding grounds to 

the north.

Waterfowl - Regional Analysis

The estimated breeding duck population in California in 2005 was 618,241 birds, which was a 49 percent 

increase from the 2004 estimate (USFWS 2005). The average estimated breeding duck population for 

California from 1990 to 2005 was 605,263 birds. Mallards generally comprise more than half of each year’s 

breeding population estimate. In addition to mallards, an estimated few thousand breeding Western 

Canada Geese can be added to comprise a general picture of the magnitude of California’s waterfowl 

reproduction on an annual basis. In contrast, the Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey index for California totals 4 

million ducks and 1 million geese in recent years, further illustrating the relative importance of California’s 

overall wintering waterfowl capacity within the Pacific Flyway.

Annual harvest estimates for California indicate that approximately 1.5 million ducks and 130,000 geese 

have been harvested in recent years by some 65,000 waterfowl hunters (based on Federal Duck Stamp 

sales) (USFWS 2005).

For Humboldt County, where the refuge is located, the estimated duck harvest was 15,713. The goose 

harvest for Humboldt County was 5,750. The estimated number of duck and goose hunters for Humboldt 

County in 2004 was 917 and 1,066 respectively. The harvest of common snipe (Gallinago delicate) in the 

county was 124, and there are no estimates for American coots (Fulica americana) (coots) and common 

moorhens (Gallinula chloropus) (moorhen) (CDFG 2006).

Waterfowl - Local Analysis

Waterfowl harvest is tracked at the refuge by collecting information at the refuge hunting check station. In 

2005 to 2006, 1,255 hunters at the refuge harvested 2,481 birds (2,080 ducks, 401 geese), with an average of 

1.8 birds/hunter. Under Alternative A, effects of waterfowl harvest are expected to be similar to previous 

years. Harvest would be less under Alternative B, and slightly more under Alternative C.

Waterfowl - Conclusion

The hunting of waterfowl in the United States is based upon a thorough regulatory setting process that 

involves numerous sources of waterfowl population and harvest monitoring data. As a result of the 

regulatory options produced (AHM) in recent years, California hunter’s estimated harvest of nearly 1.5 

million ducks is approximately 12 percent of the total U.S. harvest of 12.3 million and 55 percent of the 

Pacific Flyway’s 2.65 million harvest estimates (USFWS 2005). The comparative numbers for the estimated 

goose harvest yield percentages of 4.1 percent and 33 percent of the U.S. and Pacific Flyway totals, 

respectively. Furthermore, some forty CDFG administered public hunt areas allow take of approximately 

12 to 15 percent and 7 percent of California’s estimated duck and goose harvest, respectively. In California, 

the refuge represents nearly 0.14 and 0.27 percent of all ducks and geese harvested, respectively (PFDB 

2007). Because the percentage of all ducks and geese harvested on the refuge is a fraction of the CDFG 

allowable percentages, the Service has concluded that the effects of hunting on the refuge on these 

populations to be negligible. Although the percentage of waterfowl harvested at the refuge is low, the 

refuge takes additional steps to protect waterfowl populations by providing sanctuary areas and maintaining 

a program of intermittent hunt days. Maintaining these restrictions means that opening limited areas of 

the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit and providing two additional youth only hunt days at the Salmon Creek Unit as 

proposed under the preferred alternative would have only a negligible effect on waterfowl populations.

Based on this analysis, the Service has concluded that hunting associated with each of the alternatives 

would not have an adverse effect on local, regional, or Pacific Flyway waterfowl populations. 

Wilson’s snipe - Regional Analysis

Wilson’s snipe, formally called common snipe (Gallinago delicate), is particularly well camouflaged with a 

striped head and back, white belly, and rusty tail. They are usually only seen when flushed from the edge of 

a marsh or pond. In flight they are fast and erratic. 

Wilson’s snipe is found throughout the United States. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 

2001) population estimates for snipe are two million. They breed from northern Alaska and Canada south 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-65

to the southwestern and northeastern United States and winter throughout much of the United States, all 

of Central America, the Caribbean, and northern South America. Snipe are fairly common from October 

to April on wet meadow and short, emergent wetland habitats throughout much of California. They are a 

year-round resident in parts of northeastern California (Airola 1980). 

The 2006 Hunter Survey (CDFG 2006) reported a statewide harvest of 13,260 snipe with 124 birds 

harvested in Humboldt County. During 2005, the number of snipe hunters statewide was 1,512 with 74 

hunters reported for Humboldt County (CDFG 2006).

Wilson’s Snipe - Local Analysis

The refuge has no information on the numbers of snipe taken on the refuge. California State game 

regulations allow snipe hunting to occur the third Saturday in October extending for 107 days. Bag 

limits for snipe are eight birds per day. Snipe harvest rates are not expected to change significantly over 

time under any of the alternatives, because the hunting program will not change much over any of the 

alternatives – under the preferred alternative the refuge will open Ma-le’l Dunes Unit to snipe hunting, but 

the refuge staff does not anticipate a high demand for snipe hunting on the newly opened unit, due to their 

presence on small islands that are accessible by boat only, and through discussions with hunters.

Wilson’s snipe - Conclusion

The Service has concluded that hunting associated with each of the alternatives will not have an adverse 

effect on local populations or statewide populations of Wilson’s snipe. 

Coot and Common Moorhen - Regional and Local Analysis

No regional or local data is available from the State Department of Fish and Game for either the coot or 

the common moorhen. California State game regulations allow a daily bag limit of 25 birds of either species 

(mixed or separate) per day. 

Coot - Conclusion

The refuge has no information on the numbers of coot taken on the refuge. The Service does not expect coot 

harvest rates to change significantly over the life of the CCP (15 years) under any of the alternatives. 

Common Moorhen - Conclusion 

The refuge has no information on the numbers of common moorhen taken on the refuge. The Service does 

not expect common moorhen harvest rates to change significantly over the life of the CCP (15 years) under 

any of the alternatives. Common moorhens are not that common to the refuge, as they are listed in local 

field guides as “accidental occurrences”. 

Effects of Hunting on Other Non-hunted Wildlife Species

Hunted species and other wildlife will possibly compete for habitat. While each species occupies a unique 

niche, there is only a finite amount of space available to satisfy various habitat requirements of water, 

food, cover, breeding, roosting, and fawning areas. So, while individuals of a species compete for habitat 

within the species niche, most species occupy space to the exclusion of many other species. Hunted 

species (waterfowl, coot, common moorhen, pheasant, and snipe) generally do not prey on other species 

at unacceptable levels. Harvesting these species would not result in a substantial decrease in biological 

diversity on the refuges.

Hunting is a highly regulated activity and generally takes place at specific times and seasons (dawn, fall 

and winter) when the game animal is less vulnerable. Hunting is an appropriate wildlife management tool 

that can be used to manage game populations. Although, some wildlife disturbance to non-hunted wildlife 

will occur during the hunting seasons, proper zoning, regulations, and refuge seasons will be designated to 

minimize any adverse effects to wildlife populations using the refuges.

Human disturbance associated with hunting includes loud noises and rapid movements, such as those 

produced by shotguns. This disturbance, especially when repeated over a period of time, may compel 

waterfowl to change food habits, feed only at night, lose weight, or desert feeding areas (Wolder 1993, 

Madsen 1995). Presumably these same behavioral changes may occur by non-hunted wildlife species as a 

result of hunting-related noises and movements.
E-66 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

These indirect impacts are not significant on the refuges since they can be reduced by the availability of 

adjacent sanctuary areas where hunting does not occur, and both hunted and non-hunted wildlife can feed 

and rest relatively undisturbed. Sanctuaries or non-hunt areas have been identified as the most common 

solution to disturbance problems caused from hunting (Havera et al. 1992). 

Biological conflicts (all alternatives) would be minimized by applying the following management practices:

• Proper hunting zoning and regulations will be designated to minimize adverse effects to wildlife.

• The check station will process the hunters entry to and exit from the Salmon Creek Unit hunting area

• Federally approved non-toxic shot will be used for all hunting to help minimize the possibility of lead 

poisoning.

• No hunting will be allowed during the breeding season. Hunting will be allowed only during designated 

seasons for waterfowl and upland game birds.

• The areas closed to hunting activities will provide adequate sanctuaries for wildlife.

• Law enforcement presence will help minimize excessive harvest and other infractions (illegal use of lead 

shot, take of non-game species, littering, etc.).

• Firearms are permitted on the refuge for public hunting under the provisions of 50 CFR part 32. Persons 

may carry unloaded firearms on the refuges that are dismantled or cased in vehicles (50 CFR 27.42).

• ESA, section 7 consultations with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service will be completed to determine 

effects of the CCP on special status species/designated critical habitat on the refuges. The refuge will 

implement the conservation measures identified during section 7 consultation.

• The refuge will provide information in refuge kiosks about preventing the spread of invasive terrestrial 

and aquatic plant species.

Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that harvesting of hunted species (waterfowl, coot, 

common moorhen, and snipe) would not result in a substantial decrease in biodiversity or adversely affect 

populations of hunted or non-hunted species.

Fishing

Because the demand for fishing is expected to remain light, fishing areas are limited on the refuge, and 

multiple other fishing opportunities are available within 15 minutes from the refuge and throughout the 

Humboldt Bay area, the Service has concluded that fishing on the refuge would have no adverse effects on 

fish or wildlife populations.

Alternative A: No Action

Under Alternative A, current management of the refuge would continue unchanged. The refuge would 

continue to provide high quality habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds through 

intensive habitat management activities. Other wildlife species would also benefit from the current 

management plan. These species include raptors, songbirds, and other migratory and resident fish and 

wildlife. The refuge’s visitor services program, including the hunting program, would also continue 

unchanged. Overall there will be a positive effect on wildlife from the current habitat management plan. 

Hunting

Alternative A would continue the existing hunt program; therefore, harvest levels are expected to remain 

similar to previous years. The effects of hunting with Alternative A would be as described under the 

Common to All Alternatives section, above. As stated above, the Service does not anticipate adverse impacts 

to non target wildlife populations due to hunting.

Fishing

Alternative A has no changes proposed to the existing fishing plan and fishing would continue to be 

managed by the State of California. Alternative A would allow public sport fishing to continue as it does 

now within the refuge boundary. Because the demand for fishing is expected to remain light fishing areas 

are limited on the refuge, and multiple other fishing opportunities are available within minutes from the 

refuge and throughout the Humboldt Bay area, the Service has concluded that fishing on the refuge under 

Alternative A would have no adverse effects on fish or wildlife populations.

Salmon Creek Delta Restoration

Under Alternative A, Phase II of the Salmon Creek Restoration Plan will not be occurring. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-67

Salt Marsh Habitat

Alternative A states that the refuge will maintain 313 acres of existing coastal salt marsh habitat. The salt 

marsh provides habitat for fish, invertebrates, many shorebirds, and some waterbirds. The salt marsh 

provides habitat for the endangered tidewater goby; several species of threatened salmonids; and eulachon, 

a California Species of Special Concern currently under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Without 

improved habitat, salmonid use of the project area would not increase and may continue to decline. This 

action would also provide additional benefits to other wildlife species that use salt marsh and brackish marsh 

habitat. A complete list of species that use this habitat is included in Appendix K.

Freshwater and Brackish Marsh

Maintenance of existing freshwater and brackish marsh is outlined in Alternative A. Short-grass pasture 

will be enhanced for use by Aleutian cackling goose population. Soil testing and pH maintenance will be 

ongoing. These two habitat types help sustain a variety of waterfowl, shorebirds, passerines, and wading 

birds, as well as the raptors that prey upon them and other animals. In addition, otters, weasels, frogs, 

salamanders, and invertebrates use freshwater marsh habitat. Sloughs lined by brackish marsh are used 

by threatened salmonids and endangered tidewater gobies. Without improved habitat, salmonid use of the 

project area would not increase and may continue to decline. This action will not provide additional benefits 

to other wildlife species that use salt marsh and brackish marsh habitat.

Riparian Swamp Habitat

With Alternative A, within the life of the CCP, refuge staff would continue to maintain 35 acres of existing 

riparian swamp habitat and continue to plant native riparian swamp vegetation in portions of agricultural 

wetlands. Over a 5-year period, the refuge would also selectively remove 20 acres of non-native eucalyptus 

trees. The riparian swamp is a diverse vegetative community that provides valuable travel corridors for 

wildlife and habitat supporting biological integrity and environmental health on the refuge. Riparian forests 

provide rich habitat for a wide variety of plant species, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and especially 

migrating and nesting songbirds, and improve conditions for fish by contributing nutrients, shade, and cover 

to streams. These actions would benefit all wildlife that use these habitats. For a list of species and their 

primary habitat types, please see Appendix K.

Dune Habitats (including dune mat/foredune grassland, dune swale, dune riparian/swamp, and 

coniferous dune forest)

Under Alternative A, the refuge would maintain 125 acres of dune mat/foredune grassland, maintain 67 

acres of dune swale, maintain 33 acres of dune riparian/swamp habitat, and maintain and restore 180 

acres of coniferous dune forest plant communities. While dune mat/foredune grasslands are known to be 

rich habitats wildlife, the lack of adequate information on wildlife use of this habitat makes it difficult to 

prioritize management of this habitat when compared with other management needs of the refuge.

 

Dune swales provide valuable habitat for several species of reptiles and amphibians including the northern 

red-legged frog, a California Species of Special Concern (SSC). Several bird SSC also use dune swale 

habitat including black-capped chickadee, yellow warbler, and Cooper’s hawk. Many mammal species also 

use this habitat for foraging and cover, as well as for breeding by small mammals. Given the rarity of dune 

swale habitat and its value to wildlife, removal of invasive plant species and restoration of native plant 

species is necessary for the maintenance of the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of 

the dune ecosystem as well as to protect many California Species of Special Concern. A list of species that 

would benefit from increasing this habitat type is included in Appendix K. 

Dune riparian/swamp habitat provides valuable habitat for several species of reptiles and amphibians. 

Many species of migratory birds use dune riparian/swamp habitat; as well as several SSC bird species 

including: Vaux’s swift, willow flycatcher, yellow-breasted chat, and a CESA-listed threatened bird, the bank 

swallow. The SSC yellow warbler is a bird that nests in this habitat type. Many mammals also make use of 

dune riparian/swamp habitat for foraging, cover, and breeding. Maintaining and restoring this habitat will 

contribute to the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of these rare dune habitat types. 

Currently there are no adequate surveys of plants and wildlife species, including invertebrates, that are 

resident or migratory inhabitants of riparian/swamp habitats on the dune units. While riparian swamps 

are known to be rich habitats for wildlife, the lack of adequate information on wildlife use of dune riparian/

swamp habitat makes it difficult to estimate impacts from refuge management activities. Some wildlife 
E-68 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

will be temporarily displaced while restoration work is being done, but return after work is complete and 

humans leave the area. However, some individuals, particularly plants and invertebrates may be harmed 

during restoration activities. With the use of conservation measures, (Appendix 1) overall, populations 

of species that use dune habitats (listed in Appendix K) would benefit from the restoration portion of 

Alternative A. 

Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that overall, because of proposed restoration 

activities, beneficial effects to fish and wildlife are anticipated with Alternative A, which continues the 

current habitat management, hunting, and fishing programs. 

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, habitat management and restoration will be increased over alternative A to provide 

a greater level of benefit to waterfowl, other wetland-dependent birds, other migratory birds, and resident 

fish and wildlife. Food and cover production, water quality, and overall habitat availability based on annual 

abundance and migratory patterns will be optimized. Relative to Alternative A, the number and frequency 

of surveys would be increased to monitor a more comprehensive list of fish and wildlife species and the 

habitat upon which they depend. Examples would include a greater level of monitoring for the abundance/

distribution of waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, neo-tropical migrants, fish and water quality, vegetation in all 

habitat types, aquatic and terrestrial insects, and other species or habitat communities. This will allow for 

more detailed information to further refine and improve management of the refuge.

Overall, this alternative will have additional positive impacts on wildlife compared to Alternative A, as 

there are additional restoration and improvement goals. As described in the section in Plant Communities, 

Alternative B would allow mowing and/or cattle grazing on the central portion of the Hookton Slough Unit, 

which should promote short-grass pasture favored by Aleutian cackling geese and associated species. In 

conjunction with the existing hazing program, providing more short-grass pasture on the refuge is expected 

to increase the presence of Aleutian cackling goose use on the refuge and reduce the intensity of goose use 

on adjacent private pastureland.

Hunting

Alternative B provides additional undisturbed area for wildlife and reduces potential for hunter/nonhunter 

conflicts by closing Teal Island and Hookton Slough areas to overwater hunting. As stated under the 

Common to All Alternatives section on hunting, the Service does not anticipate adverse impacts to non 

target wildlife populations due to hunting. 

Fishing

Alternative B is similar to Alternative A, but includes increased signage and outreach. Placing additional 

signage at the refuge would include digging post holes and associated minor construction involved with 

installing signs. No additional impacts to fish would occur because all work would be done on existing trails 

or developed facilities. There would be no work in the water. Because of the relatively limited opportunity 

for fishing, there will be no facilities developed or managed specifically for the use of anglers. Fishing is not 

expected to increase significantly with increased signage and outreach, Because the demand for fishing is 

expected to remain light, fishing areas are limited on the refuge, and multiple other fishing opportunities are 

available within minutes from the refuge and throughout the Humboldt Bay area, the Service has concluded 

that fishing on the refuge under Alternative B would have no adverse effects on fish or wildlife populations.

Salmon Creek Delta Restoration

Alternative B includes Phase II of the Salmon Creek Restoration, which includes:

• Relocation of the reach of Salmon Creek channel within the refuge that currently flows through a linear 

ditch. A new channel will be constructed in the upper reach of tidal influence, and include a stable channel 

form, historic habitat complexity and sinuosity, and improved routing of sediment and flood waters. 

• Construct off-channel estuarine wetlands and side-channels in upper reach for salmonid rearing habitat 

and channel maintenance.

• Screen existing high-flow water diversion to eliminate stranding.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-69

Relocation of Salmon Creek to restore the sinuosity involves replacing a straightened channel section 

and creating one that is more sinuous. The excavation of the 1,500 linear foot channel would be done “in 

the dry”; the only work in the water involves removing the plugs to connect the new channel section to 

the existing creek, thus replacing the straightened channel with one that is meandering and “natural” in 

function and appearance. 

The off-channel estuarine wetlands and side-channels would also be constructed in the dry, until opening 

them up to Salmon Creek.

Earth removed from these excavations will be used to raise the Salmon Creek overflow marsh, and some 

areas of the White Slough Unit. Prior to raising the elevation of the marsh, plants and topsoil will be 

salvaged (removed and stored in a manner to ensure viability for transplanting). After the existing salt 

marsh vegetation is salvaged from the restoration site, approximately 12 inches of topsoil would be removed 

from the site. The native topsoil is saved to retain the native soil micronutrients and soil organisms. The 

stockpiled topsoil and salvaged plants would be stored as near as possible to the salt marsh restoration 

area on Humboldt Bay NWR lands. Topsoil stockpile locations would be placed at least 100 feet away from 

a body of water and protected from erosion to avoid loss of soil and runoff. Conservation measures would 

be required as part of the restoration activities to protect water quality and avoid soil compaction in areas 

outside of the restoration area. Once topsoil had been removed, clean, appropriate fill material would be 

spread on the marsh plain to raise the elevation of the plain. The Service expects that the estimated 10,000 

to 12,000 cubic yards of soil excavated to create the meandering creek channel for the proposed Phase II of 

Salmon Creek Restoration project on the refuge would be the source of the fill soil. After the fill material is 

placed to raise the marsh plain, the stockpiled topsoil would be spread on top of the fill material. Finally, the 

salvaged native salt marsh plants and additional native plants would be used to revegetate the raised marsh 

plain. 

Phase II of the Salmon Creek Restoration project will result in the direct adverse impact to amphibians, 

insect, and other small instream and riparian fauna in the immediate project area. Small mammals and 

other less mobile life forms, which use the area, may suffer direct mortality. Indirect adverse impacts will 

include a reduction of insect, amphibian, and other aquatic flora and fauna in the immediate vicinity, and 

downstream of, the project reach resulting from increased sediment loads caused by restoration activity. 

Conservation measures will be used to minimize sediment loads and other impacts. 

The Salmon Creek restoration activities involve earthmoving equipment that could introduce various 

contaminants, such as fuel oils, grease, and other petroleum products, either directly from equipment or 

indirectly through surface runoff. Contaminants could temporarily adversely affect fish and wildlife if 

the following conditions occur: accidental spill of construction-related or hazardous materials, increased 

sedimentation or erosion, Effects to water quality from an accidental spill of construction-related or 

hazardous materials, and increased sedimentation or erosion, are included in the Water Quality section. 

The conservation measures to avoid or minimize adverse affects to water quality will also avoid or minimize 

adverse affects to fish and wildlife (see Appendix 1). 

Direct benefits of the Salmon Creek Restoration include restoring habitat for salmonids and other fish 

species to habitat which had become less diverse, with higher velocity due to unnatural causes, and is 

expected to reduce fish strandings during high water events. Indirect benefits include: 1) creating instream 

and side channel habitat complexity to provide escape cover for juvenile salmonids and other aquatic 

species; 2) increasing stream bank stability, leading to decreased sedimentation to the stream and lower 

levels of turbidity and aggradation – increasing the extent of suitable salmonid spawning areas and survival 

of fry and smolts, 3) enhanced survival of riparian vegetative cover, which promotes cleaner, colder water; 

increasing survival of young salmonids; 4) creation of pools, backwater areas, and side channels – which 

provide habitat as refugia from current velocity and temperature extremes. For a discussion of effects on 

salmonids and the tidewater goby, please see the section on Special Status Species, below.

Salt Marsh Habitat

In addition to what is detailed in Alternative A, Alternative B proposes to restore of 90 acres of salt marsh 

habitat on the Hookton Slough Unit, and 35 acres on the White Slough Unit. Restoration of this habitat 

may harm some species during the restoration phase, but will be a long-term benefit overall. Efforts to 
E-70 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

minimize fish and wildlife disturbance will be employed, such as using the conservation measures found 

in Appendix 1, timing to avoid nesting birds, and surveys before any activities that have the potential to 

disturb fish and wildlife. The salt marsh provides habitat for fish, invertebrates, many shorebirds, and 

some waterbirds. The salt marsh provides habitat for the endangered tidewater goby; several species of 

threatened salmonids; and eulachon, a California Species of Special Concern currently under the Federal 

ESA. 

Some wildlife will be temporarily displaced while restoration work is being done, but return after work 

is complete and humans leave the area. However, some individuals, particularly plants and invertebrates 

may be harmed during restoration activities. With the use of conservation measures (Appendix 1), overall, 

populations of species that use salt marsh would benefit from the restoration of salt marsh habitat included 

in Alternative B is included in Appendix K.

Freshwater and Brackish Marsh

In addition to what is detailed in Alternative A, Alternative B proposes to improve 100 acres of freshwater 

brackish marsh on the SCU and HSU. On the TBU, 13 acres of pasture vegetation will be restored to 

brackish marsh within 7 years. Maintenance of freshwater brackish marsh on the WSU would be reduced 

from Alternative A’s 50 acres to 23 acres under Alternative B. Water management would be improved 

through the construction of interior levees on the SCU. All proposed work is designed for and is expected 

to benefit wildlife species in the long-term. These two habitat types help sustain a variety of waterfowl, 

shorebirds, passerines, and wading birds, as well as the raptors that prey upon them and other animals. In 

addition, otters, weasels, frogs, salamanders, and invertebrates use freshwater marsh habitat. Sloughs lined 

by brackish marsh are used by threatened salmonids and endangered tidewater gobies. A complete list of 

species that use these habitats is included in Appendix K.

As described above in the Plant Communities section (under Alternative B), allowing cattle grazing on the 

central portion of the Hookton Slough Unit is expected to promote short grass pasture favored by Aleutian 

cackling geese and associated species. In conjunction with the existing hazing program, providing more 

short grass pasture on the refuge is expected to increase the intensity of Aleutian cackling goose use on 

the refuge and reduce the intensity of goose use on adjacent private pastureland. The expected increase 

of goose use on the refuge is anticipated to be a beneficial effect for the geese and the region, with no 

anticipated adverse effects to fish and other species of wildlife on the refuge. 

Riparian Swamp Habitat

Under Alternative B, the refuge staff would manage 35 acres of existing riparian swamp habitat and 

continue to plant native riparian/swamp vegetation in portions of agricultural wetlands. The refuge 

would also remove 20 acres of non-native tree within 5 years instead of 15 years. This diverse vegetative 

community provides valuable travel corridors for wildlife and habitat supporting biological integrity and 

environmental health on the refuge. Riparian forests provide rich habitat for a wide variety of plant species, 

mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and particularly migrating and nesting songbirds; and improve conditions 

for fish by contributing nutrients, shade, and cover to streams. By eliminating non-native trees and planting 

native vegetation, native species would have more available food and cover, which would result in a beneficial 

effect to native species. See Appendix K for a list of these species.

Dune Habitats (including dune mat/foredune grassland, dune swale, dune riparian/swamp, and 

coniferous dune forest)

Under Alternative B, the refuge would conduct the same management actions for dunemat/foredune 

grassland habitat as that described under Alternative A, except the actions would involve restoration in 

addition to maintenance. For dune swale habitat, over a 15 year period, the refuge would not only maintain, 

but also restore 67 acres of dune swale. For dune riparian/swamp habitat, within 10 years, the refuge would 

restore 33 total acres of dune riparian/swamp. The refuge would conduct the same management actions for 

coniferous dune forest habitat as that described under Alternative A. In addition, within 10 years the refuge 

would restore Ma-le’l Dunes Unit forest margins dominated by European beach grass to native coniferous 

forest communities. 

As explained in more detail in the section describing the alternatives, Alternative B includes various 

research on the dune mat; an inventory of wildlife in the dune mat/foredune grassland and dune riparian/

swamp; and research by partners on neo-tropical birds and coniferous dune forest ecology. Wildlife 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-71

inventories and research data would allow the refuge to gain a more comprehensive understanding of 

animal species that utilize riparian swamp, dune mat/foredune grassland, and dune swale habitats on the 

Ma-le’l and Lanphere Dunes Units. Currently there are no adequate surveys of wildlife species (besides 

birds) that are resident or migratory inhabitants of dune riparian/swamp habitats on the dune units. While 

riparian swamps are known to be rich habitats for wildlife, the lack of adequate information on wildlife use 

of dune riparian/swamp habitat makes it more challenging for the refuge staff to determine the effects of 

restoration. With the data and information from the aforementioned research and inventories, the Service 

expects that it would better inform decision-making for all habitat management activities; improving all 

aspects of habitat management. Increased research is expected to benefit all native species that use the 

refuge.

Dune swales provide valuable habitat for several species of reptiles and amphibians including the northern 

red-legged frog, a SSC. Several bird SSC also use dune swale habitat including black-capped chickadee, 

yellow warbler, and Cooper’s hawk. Many mammal species also use this habitat for foraging and cover, 

as well as for breeding by small mammals. Dune riparian forest/swamp habitat provides valuable habitat 

for several species of reptiles and amphibians. Many species of migratory birds use dune riparian/swamp 

habitat; as well as several SSC bird species including: Vaux’s swift, willow flycatcher, yellow-breasted 

chat, and a CESA listed threatened bird, the bank swallow. The SSC yellow warbler is a bird that nests in 

this habitat type. Many mammals also make use of dune riparian/swamp habitat for foraging, cover, and 

breeding. Maintaining and restoring this habitat will contribute to the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of these rare dune habitat types. Given the rarity of dune swale habitat and its value 

to wildlife, removal of invasive plant species and restoration of native plant species is necessary for the 

maintenance of the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the dune ecosystem as well as 

to protect many California Species of Special Concern. Species that would benefit from increasing the dune 

habitats are listed in Appendices J and K.

Some wildlife will be temporarily displaced while restoration work is being done, but return after work 

is complete and humans leave the area. However, some individuals, particularly plants and invertebrates 

may be harmed during restoration activities. With the use of conservation measures (Appendix 1), overall, 

populations of species that use dune habitats would benefit from the restoration included in Alternative B. 

The Service anticipates that the eliminating the European beach grass will benefit native species that use 

these habitats. Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that although there will be some 

short term displacement and harm to fish and wildlife individuals, long term beneficial effects to fish and 

wildlife populations are anticipated with Alternative B. 

Alternative C: Preferred Alternative

 Alternative C would provide the greatest benefit to fish and wildlife due to the increased restoration and 

improvement goals over Alternative B. Alternative C would provide the greatest benefit especially to 

listed fish and wildlife species (as discussed in the Special Status Species section, below). An active pasture 

management program on this refuge focuses on providing short-grass habitat preferred by Aleutian 

cackling geese during their wintering period from fall through early spring. Refuge grasslands are grazed 

and mowed during the goose “off-season” (May-October) in order to maintain the grass species composition 

and vegetation in the condition that the geese respond to during their use period (November-April). 

Hunting

Alternative C is similar to Alternative A and opens limited areas of the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit to waterfowl, 

coot, and snipe hunting and retrieval and provides 2 additional youth only hunting days on the Salmon 

Creek Unit. For a further discussion of the effects of hunting, please see the section on Hunting, under 

Common to All Alternatives, above..

Fishing

Alternative C includes adoption of the Draft Sport Fishing Plan, Humboldt Bay NWR (USFWS, 2008) 

(Appendix D). Fishing is not expected to change substantially or increase with the 2008 Sport Fishing 

Plan, Because the demand for fishing is expected to remain light, fishing areas are limited on the refuge, 

and multiple other fishing opportunities are available within minutes from the refuge and throughout the 

Humboldt Bay area, the Service has concluded that fishing on the refuge under Alternative C would have no 

adverse effects on fish or wildlife populations.
E-72 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Salmon Creek Delta Restoration

Alternative C (as with Alternative B), includes Phase II of the Salmon Creek Restoration, which includes:

• Relocation of the reach of Salmon Creek channel within the refuge that currently flows through a linear 

ditch. A new channel will be constructed in the upper reach of tidal influence, and include a stable channel 

form, historic habitat complexity and sinuosity, and improved routing of sediment and flood waters. 

• Construct off-channel estuarine wetlands and side-channels in upper reach for salmonid rearing habitat 

and channel maintenance.

• Screen existing high-flow water diversion to eliminate stranding.

Relocation of Salmon Creek to restore the sinuosity involves replacing a straightened channel section 

and creating one that is more sinuous. The excavation of the 1,500 linear foot channel would be done “in 

the dry”; the only work in the water involves removing the plugs to connect the new channel section to 

the existing creek, thus replacing the straightened channel with one that is meandering and “natural” in 

function and appearance. 

The off-channel estuarine wetlands and side-channels would also be constructed in the dry, until connecting 

them up to Salmon Creek.

Earth removed from these excavations will be used to raise the Salmon Creek overflow marsh, and some 

areas of the White Slough Unit. Prior to raising the elevation of the marsh, plants and topsoil will be 

salvaged (removed and stored in a manner to ensure viability for transplanting). After the existing salt 

marsh vegetation is salvaged from the restoration site, approximately 12 inches of topsoil would be removed 

from the site. The native topsoil is saved to retain the native soil micronutrients and soil organisms. The 

stockpiled topsoil and salvaged plants would be stored as near as possible to the salt marsh restoration 

area on Humboldt Bay NWR lands. Topsoil stockpile locations would be placed at least 100 feet away from 

a body of water and protected from erosion to avoid loss of soil and runoff. Conservation measures would 

be required as part of the restoration activities to protect water quality and avoid soil compaction in areas 

outside of the restoration area. Once topsoil had been removed, clean, appropriate fill material would be 

spread on the marsh plain to raise the elevation of the plain. The Service expects that the estimated 10,000 

to 12,000 cubic yards of soil excavated to create the meandering creek channel for the proposed Phase II of 

Salmon Creek Restoration project on the refuge would be the source of the fill soil. After the fill material is 

placed to raise the marsh plain, the stockpiled topsoil would be spread on top of the fill material. Finally, the 

salvaged native salt marsh plants and additional native plants would be used to revegetate the raised marsh 

plain. 

Phase II of the Salmon Creek Restoration project will result in the direct adverse impact to amphibians, 

insect, and other small instream and riparian fauna in the immediate project area. Small mammals and 

other less mobile life forms, which use the area, may suffer direct mortality. Indirect adverse impacts will 

include a reduction of insect, amphibian, and other aquatic flora and fauna in the immediate vicinity, and 

downstream of, the project reach resulting from increased sediment loads caused by restoration activity. 

Conservation measures will be used to minimize sediment loads and other impacts. 

The Salmon Creek restoration activities involve earthmoving equipment that could introduce various 

contaminants, such as fuel oils, grease, and other petroleum products, either directly from equipment or 

indirectly through surface runoff. Contaminants could temporarily adversely affect fish and wildlife if 

the following conditions occur: accidental spill of construction-related or hazardous materials, increased 

sedimentation or erosion, effects to water quality from an accidental spill of construction-related or 

hazardous materials, and increased sedimentation or erosion, are included in the Water Quality section. 

The conservation measures to avoid or minimize adverse affects to water quality will also avoid or minimize 

adverse affects to fish and wildlife (see Appendix 1). 

Direct benefits of the Salmon Creek Restoration include restoring habitat for salmonids and other fish 

species to habitat which had become less diverse, with higher velocity due to unnatural causes, and is 

expected to reduce fish strandings during high water events. Indirect benefits include: 1) creating instream 

and side channel habitat complexity to provide escape cover for juvenile salmonids and other aquatic 

species; 2) increasing stream bank stability, leading to decreased sedimentation to the stream and lower 

levels of turbidity and aggradation – increasing the extent of suitable salmonid spawning areas and survival 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-73

of fry and smolts, 3) enhanced survival of riparian vegetative cover, which promotes cleaner, colder water; 

increasing survival of young salmonids; 4) creation of pools, backwater areas, and side channels – which 

provide habitat as refugia from current velocity and temperature extremes. For a discussion of effects on 

salmonids and the tidewater goby, please see the section on Special Status Species, below.

In addition to the effects described above, Alternative C includes excavation of approximately 500 feet of 

channel to connect the new channel to off-channel salmonid rearing habitat (in Cattail Creek) and securing 

large woody debris within Hookton Slough would increase available salmonid rearing and shaded riverine 

aquatic habitat, which is expected to provide beneficial effects to salmonid and tidewater goby habitat. The 

placement of the large woody debris will be from the bank/dike, and will not involve machinery driving in 

the water. These proposed actions will further improve salmonid and other fisheries habitat, as well as 

improve riparian and instream habitat for other species. 

Salt Marsh Habitat

Under Alternative C, the salt marsh habitat would increase by 10 acres on the White Slough Unit over 

Alternative B due to restoration. A 37-acre increase of restored salt marsh (relative to Alternative B) would 

occur on the Hookton Slough Unit. One hundred acres of salt marsh habitat would be restored on the Table 

Bluff Unit. Though there will be minimal short term impacts to species using the salt marsh, all proposed 

work is designed for and is expected to benefit wildlife species in the long-term. The salt marsh provides 

habitat for fish, invertebrates, many shorebirds, and some waterbirds. The salt marsh provides habitat for 

the endangered tidewater goby; several species of threatened salmonids; and eulachon, a California SSC on 

the watch list because of reduced distribution. A complete list of species that use this habitat type and are 

expected to benefit from the restoration of salt marsh habitat is included in Appendix K.

Freshwater and Brackish Marsh

Under Alternative C, the refuge will implement a restoration plan that allows for partial tidal restoration 

in central area, with muted tidal influence to east and west areas, while allowing for fish passage, salmonid 

rearing and tidewater goby habitat on the Hookton Slough Unit. On Salmon Creek Unit, enhanced drainage 

in short-grass areas would create more favorable conditions for grass and Aleutian cackling geese. Interior 

dike removal around Headquarters unit and adjacent to Long Pond on SCU will enhance wetland values. A 

low contour levee near duck ponds on SCU will be created to impound water. All proposed work is designed 

for and is expected to benefit wildlife species in the long-term, but there will be minor short term impacts 

to less motile species, primarily small mammals, amphibians, and invertebrates. These two habitat types 

help sustain a variety of waterfowl, shorebirds, passerines, and wading birds, as well as the raptors that 

prey upon them and other animals. In addition, shorebirds, waterfowl, otters, weasels, frogs, salamanders, 

and invertebrates use freshwater marsh habitat. Sloughs lined by brackish marsh are used by threatened 

salmonids and endangered tidewater gobies. All species that use these habitats are expected to benefit from 

restoration activities in the long term. A complete list of species that use this habitat type and are expected 

to benefit from the restoration of freshwater and brackish marsh is included in Appendix K.

Riparian Swamp Habitat

The refuge would implement the same management actions for riparian/swamp habitat as those described 

under Alternative B. In addition, the refuge would revegetate an additional 14 acres of the eastern portion 

of the White Slough Unit with native riparian/swamp vegetation. If the railroad authority declines to open 

their tidegates, refuge staff would implement restoration of riparian/swamp habitat on the northern 16 

acres of the White Slough Unit. This diverse vegetative community provides valuable travel corridors for 

wildlife and habitat supporting biological integrity and environmental health on the refuge. Riparian forests 

provide rich habitat for a wide variety of plant species, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and especially 

migrating and nesting songbirds, and improve conditions for fish by contributing nutrients, shade, and cover 

to streams. See Appendix K for a complete list of species that will benefit.

Dune Habitats (including dune mat/foredune grassland, dune swale, dune riparian/swamp, and 

coniferous dune forest)

Dunemat/foredune grassland management actions would include all of those actions described under 

Alternative B. The refuge would restore and maintain dune swale plant communities, as described under 

Alternative B, however all restoration work would be completed within 10 years. The refuge would restore 

dune riparian/swamp habitat as described under Alternative B, and restoration work would be completed 
E-74 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

over a ten year period also. The refuge would conduct the same restoration and maintenance actions for 

coniferous dune forest habitat as those described under Alternative B. In addition, within 5 years, the 

refuge would restore European beach grass-dominated dunes on Ma-le’l Dunes Unit forest margins to 

coniferous forest. Dune swales provide valuable habitat for several species of reptiles and amphibians 

including the northern red-legged frog, a California Species of Special Concern (SSC). Several bird SSC 

also use dune swale habitat including black-capped chickadee, yellow warbler, and Cooper’s hawk. Many 

mammal species also use this habitat for foraging and cover, as well as for breeding by small mammals.

Dune riparian forest/swamp habitat provides valuable habitat for several species of reptiles and amphibians 

including the northern red-legged frog, a California SSC. Many species of migratory birds use dune 

riparian/swamp habitat; as well as several SSC bird species including: Vaux’s swift, willow flycatcher, yellowbreasted chat, and a CESA listed threatened bird, the bank swallow. The SSC yellow warbler is a bird that 

nests in this habitat type. Many mammals also make use of dune riparian/swamp habitat for foraging, cover, 

and breeding. Maintaining and restoring this habitat will contribute to the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of these rare dune habitat types.

Currently there are no adequate surveys of plants and wildlife species, including invertebrates, that are 

resident or migratory inhabitants of riparian/swamp habitats on the dune units. While riparian swamps are 

known to be rich habitats for wildlife, the lack of adequate information on wildlife use of dune riparian and 

swamp habitat makes it difficult to assess the impacts of restoration on wildlife in the area. See Appendix K 

for a list of species that will benefit.

Some wildlife will be temporarily displaced while restoration work is being done, but return after work 

is complete and humans leave the area. However, some individuals, particularly plants and invertebrates 

may be harmed during restoration activities. With the use of conservation measures (Appendix 1), overall, 

populations of species that use salt marsh would benefit from the restoration of salt marsh habitat included 

in Alternative B is included in Appendix K. Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that 

although there will be some short term displacement and harm to fish and wildlife individuals, long term 

beneficial effects to fish and wildlife populations are anticipated with Alternative C. 

Cumulative Effects 

The Service has concluded that the effects of any of the alternatives on the regional cumulative impact on 

fish and wildlife in general would be cumulatively positive, but less than cumulatively considerable. 

Special Status Species

The northern California Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of the Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), 

the California coastal ESU of the Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), the northern California ESU of the 

steelhead (O. mykiss), and the Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the North American green 

sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) are listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act, 

as amended. The refuge’s Salmon Creek is considered habitat for and is used by the migratory salmon 

and steelhead. The green sturgeon is present in Humboldt Bay. The Hookton Slough area is habitat for 

the Federally listed as endangered tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). And, the tidewater goby 

uses areas of Salmon Creek on the refuge. The Federally listed as endangered Humboldt Bay wallflower 

(Erysimum menziesii ssp. Eurekense) and beach layia (Layia carnosa) grow at Lanphere Dunes and 

Ma-le’l Dunes Units of the refuge. Other Federally listed species that are known to use the Humboldt Bay 

NWR are: the Federally listed as threatened Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), the coastal population 

of the Western Snowy Plover (Pacific Coastal Population) (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), and marbled 

murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). Although the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 

is included in the Humboldt County list of Federally listed as threatened species, there is no habitat for this 

bird on the refuge and it does not occur on the refuge. Several listed arthropods appear on the Humboldt 

County list of Federally protected species, but they do not use the refuge. 

Endangered Species Act, section 7 consultation was conducted with the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office and 

NOAA Fisheries Service. The results of the consultation are included in Appendix I of the CCP/EA.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-75

Common to All Alternatives

After refuge staff removes (uproots) the dense-flowered cordgrass from the salt marsh, the uprooted or 

dead plant material (biomass) is raked into piles and burned. Dense-flowered cordgrass removal is done 

on about 100 acres at a time. These management actions can cause short-term turbidity in localized areas. 

These actions and any associated turbidity would not occur near habitat for listed fish. Effects to water and 

air quality are discussed in those sections, above. 

The refuge plans to introduce Humboldt Bay Wallflower and beach layia to 35 acres of unoccupied habitat 

at Lanphere Dunes Unit and to restored habitat at Ma-le’l Dunes and Table Bluff Units. The restoration 

work is done by hand in currently unoccupied habitat so the Service anticipates that there will be no adverse 

effects to either vegetation or wildlife. Dune restoration is expected to benefit the western snowy plover as 

well. A complete list of species, including special status species, that use the habitats listed below is included 

in Appendix K. A list of locally occurring special status species is provided in Appendix L.

Alternative A: No Action

Salmon Creek Delta Restoration

Increasing natural estuarine functions to the lower end of Salmon Creek should help to restore habitat 

important to listed (and other) fish species. Truly functional estuarine habitat around Humboldt Bay is rare. 

Ongoing work on Phase I of the Salmon Creek restoration project has and will continue to improve fish 

passage, water quality, and sediment and flood flow transport. 

Salt Marsh Habitat

Chinook salmon, tidewater goby, eulachon, longfin smelt, Coho salmon, steelhead trout, and coastal 

cutthroat trout would all benefit from increasing salt marsh habitat. Some species use these habitats 

temporarily before migrating to the estuary, and all benefit from the food base the salt marsh provides. 

Alternative A will maintain 313 acres of salt marsh habitat, which would continue to benefit these species.

Freshwater and Brackish Marsh

Chinook salmon, tidewater goby, eulachon, longfin smelt, Coho salmon, steelhead trout, and coastal 

cutthroat trout would all benefit from increasing freshwater brackish marsh habitat also, as long as there 

is a hydrologic connection of these habitats with the estuary. Some species use these habitats temporarily 

before migrating to the estuary, and all benefit from the food base the marsh provides. Alternative A will 

maintain 630 acres of seasonal freshwater brackish marsh habitat, 50 acres at the Hookton Slough Unit, and 

50 acres at the White Slough unit, which would continue to benefit these species.

Dune Habitats (including dune mat/foredune grassland, dune swale, dune riparian/swamp, and 

coniferous dune forest)

Alternative A includes on-going recovery, introduction, re-introduction, and assistance actions for the 

protection of Humboldt Bay wallflower and beach layia, which help to ensure the continued existence of 

these species.

Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that short term impact will be overshadowed by the 

long term beneficial effects to special status species anticipated with Alternative A. 

Alternative B

Salmon Creek Delta Restoration

The Federally protected salmonids and the tidewater goby use areas of Salmon Creek. Upon completion of 

consultation with AFWO and NOAA Fisheries Service, all restoration activities will be in compliance with 

the Federal ESA (ESA). Phase II of the Salmon Creek Restoration project would restore about 1,500 linear 

feet of former creek channel; and increase estuarine and off-channel rearing habitat for salmonids and 

tidewater gobies. A fish screen or other measures may be needed to allow seasonal flooding to be directed 

to other refuge wetlands without impacts to anadromous or resident fish species, since Federally-protected 

salmonids and the tidewater goby may use Salmon Creek. In compliance with the ESA, construction 

activities similar to those in Alternative B have been allowable in or near habitat for ESA-listed species 

when the listed species are expected not to be present or present only in very low numbers. Terms and 
E-76 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

conditions to protect listed species will be determined during ESA consultation. The refuge would use 

the material excavated to create the realigned Salmon Creek to raise the elevation of the Salmon Creek 

overflow marsh plane to create additional salt marsh and to restore the tidal prism. See the discussion 

under Salt Marsh Habitat, below. 

Salt Marsh Habitat

As described above, the refuge would use the excavated material from the Salmon Creek Restoration 

project to raise the elevation of the Salmon Creek overflow marsh plane to create additional salt marsh 

and to restore the tidal prism. This is expected to provide beneficial effects (relative to Alternative A) by 

improving water quality and increasing juvenile salmonid and tidewater goby habitat. Alternative B adds 

the restoration of 125 acres of salt marsh habitat which would directly or indirectly benefit Chinook salmon, 

tidewater goby, eulachon, longfin smelt, Coho salmon, steelhead trout, and coastal cutthroat trout. Creating 

more marsh habitat (fresh to salt) will create more rearing area, better water quality, increased forage, and 

ease the transition from fresh to saltwater for the anadromous species. The refuge would also place local fill 

material to raise the tidal elevation of 60 acres of mudflat on Salmon Creek overflow. 

Freshwater and Brackish Marsh

In addition to what is depicted in Alternative A, Alternative B states that approximately 100 acres would 

be improved on the Salmon Creek Unit and Hookton Slough Unit, 13 acres would be restored to brackish 

marsh on TBU, but maintenance of fresh water brackish marsh would be reduced on the White Slough Unit 

from 50 acres maintained to 23 acres maintained. For freshwater marsh, this means modifying existing 

ponds and providing a larger overflow drainage ditch to seasonal wetlands. For brackish marsh, this would 

entail excavating portions of the marsh to mimic the pre disturbance appearance of old aerial photographs 

of the area. As standard operating procedures, conservation measures would be employed, as would a 

biological survey of the area before excavation occurs. 

These two habitat types help sustain a variety of waterfowl, shorebirds, passerines, and wading birds, as 

well as the raptors that prey upon them and other animals. In addition, otters, weasels, frogs, salamanders, 

and invertebrates use freshwater marsh habitat. Sloughs lined by brackish marsh are used by threatened 

salmonids and endangered tidewater gobies. A complete list of species, including special status species that 

use these habitats is included in Appendix K. This would still be beneficial in the long term for fishes that 

use this habitat, for reasons listed above in the salt marsh habitat section.

Dune Habitats (including dune mat/foredune grassland, dune swale, dune riparian/swamp, and 

coniferous dune forest)

The refuge would continue to support recovery efforts for the Humboldt Bay wallflower (wallflower) and 

beach layia (layia), on Humboldt Bay NWR, through restoration of 14 acres of Ma-le’l Dunes habitat and 

restoration of 22 acres of Table Bluff habitat. Within 5 years, the refuge would reintroduce the wallflower 

and the layia to 35 acres of unoccupied habitat at Lanphere Dunes and restored habitat at Ma-le’l and 

Lanphere dunes. The refuge staff would also work with partners to protect wallflower and layia populations 

on the South Spit, Elk River Spit, the airport, and the Manila Dunes. The refuge would also work with the 

Service’s Ecological Services Program to implement the Coastal Plants Recovery Plan (USFWS 1998).

Refuge staff will maintain and restore ~180 acres of coniferous dune forest habitat on the MDU and LDU 

restoring coniferous dune forest margins to native coniferous forest communities which will enhance habitat 

for many special status species. 

Dune swales provide valuable habitat for several species of reptiles and amphibians including the northern 

red-legged frog, a California Species of Special Concern (SSC). Several bird SSC also use dune swale 

habitat including black-capped chickadee, yellow warbler, and Cooper’s hawk. Many mammal species also 

use this habitat for foraging and cover, as well as for breeding by small mammals.

Dune riparian forest/swamp habitat provides valuable habitat for several species of reptiles and amphibians 

including the northern red-legged frog, a California Species of Special Concern (SSC). Many species of 

migratory birds use dune riparian/swamp habitat; as well as several SSC bird species including: Vaux’s 

swift, willow flycatcher, yellow-breasted chat, and a CESA listed threatened bird, the bank swallow. The 

SSC yellow warbler is a bird that nests in this habitat type. Maintaining and restoring this habitat will 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-77

contribute to the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of these rare dune habitat types.

Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that, although there may be some short term 

impacts, in the long term, beneficial effects to special status species are anticipated with Alternative B.

Alternative C: Preferred Alternative 

Salmon Creek Delta Restoration

Alternative C would provide the greatest benefit to fish and wildlife, especially listed species, due to the 

increased restoration and improvement goals over Alternative B. Listed salmonids, tidewater goby, and 

other estuarine dependent species would likely benefit from the modifications proposed for lower Salmon 

Creek and the Hookton and White Slough Units. Use of these areas by species that are freshwater marsh 

dependent will decline. 

Under Alternative C, the refuge would implement all of the Salmon Creek and salt marsh restoration 

strategies described under Alternative B, and the effects previously described for Alternative B would be 

expected. In addition, as part of Alternative C, excavation of approximately 500 feet of channel to connect 

the new channel to off-channel salmonid rearing habitat (in Cattail Creek) and securing large woody debris 

within Hookton Slough would increase available salmonid rearing and shaded riverine aquatic habitat, which 

is expected to provide addition beneficial effects to salmonids. Also with Alternative C, the refuge would 

coordinate with the North Coast Railroad Authority to open tide gates on the north end of the White Slough 

Unit. As a result, the Service anticipates increased tidal flow and flushing, which is expected to provide 

additional beneficial effects (relative to Alternative B) to estuarine dependent species such as tidewater goby. 

Salt Marsh Habitat

Within 15 years, the refuge would manage 313 acres of existing salt marsh and restore 235 acres to native 

salt marsh communities. Areas that would be restored to salt marsh include: 100 acres on the Table Bluff 

Unit, 45 acres on the White Slough Unit, and 90 acres on the Hookton Slough Unit. The refuge would 

implement all of the salt marsh habitat management strategies described under Alternative B. These 

additions will provide the greatest direct and indirect benefits to Chinook salmon, tidewater goby, eulachon, 

longfin smelt, Coho salmon, steelhead trout, and coastal cutthroat trout. Creating more marsh habitat 

(fresh to salt) will create more rearing area, better water quality, increased forage, and ease the transition 

from fresh to saltwater for the anadromous species. The complete list of species, including special status 

species, typically found in this habitat is in Appendix K.

Freshwater and Brackish Marsh

At Hookton Slough Unit, 270 acres will be enhanced and restored creating of a continuum of saltwater to 

freshwater habitats within 10 years. This restoration will provide the greatest direct and indirect benefits 

to Chinook salmon, tidewater goby, eulachon, longfin smelt, Coho salmon, steelhead trout, and coastal 

cutthroat trout. Benefits to other species such as shorebirds and waterfowl will also be realized. Creating 

more marsh habitat (fresh to salt) will create more rearing area, better water quality, increased forage, 

and ease the transition from fresh to saltwater for the anadromous species. The complete list of species, 

including special status species, typically found in this habitat is found in Appendix K.

Dune Habitats (including dune mat/foredune grassland, dune swale, dune riparian/swamp, and 

coniferous dune forest)

The refuge would implement the same special status species management actions as described under 

Alternative B, both on and off refuge lands. In addition to Alternative B actions, the Service would pursue 

protection of an additional 22 acres of land currently populated with Humboldt Bay wallflower (wallflower) 

and beach layia. The Service would also pursue protection of 30 acres, which could be restored to wallflower 

and layia habitat.

The coniferous dune forest habitat and dune riparian swamp habitat would have the same restoration goal 

as Alternative B, but the timeline would be reduced from 10 years to 5. Dune riparian forest/swamp habitat 

provides valuable habitat for several species of reptiles and amphibians including the northern red-legged 

frog, a California Species of Special Concern (SSC). Many species of migratory birds use dune riparian/

swamp habitat; as well as several SSC bird species including: Vaux’s swift, willow flycatcher, yellow-breasted 

chat, and a CESA listed threatened bird, the bank swallow. The SSC yellow warbler is a bird that nests in 

this habitat type.
E-78 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Dune swales provide valuable habitat for several species of reptiles and amphibians including the northern 

red-legged frog, a SSC. Several bird SSC also use dune swale habitat including black-capped chickadee, 

yellow warbler, and Cooper’s hawk. Many mammal species also use this habitat for foraging and cover, as 

well as for breeding by small mammals.

Maintaining and restoring this habitat will contribute to the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of these rare dune habitat types.

Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that short term impacts will be overshadowed by the 

long term beneficial effects to special status species anticipated with Alternative C. 

Cumulative Effects 

The incremental contribution of any of the alternatives to the regional cumulative impact on special status 

species would be less than cumulatively considerable except for cumulatively beneficial effects on the Coho 

salmon, Chinook salmon, northern California steelhead, tidewater goby, Humboldt Bay wallflower, and 

beach layia.

Invasive Species

Common to all Alternatives

The effects of controlling and/or reducing invasive species on soils, water quality, plant communities, fish 

and wildlife, and special status species resources are analyzed in those sections above. 

Refuge maintenance activities to control or reduce invasive species include the use of Service-approved 

pesticides in all alternatives. Pesticide Use Proposals (PUPs) are required for pesticide use on lands owned 

or managed by the Service. Based on the information on PUPs and the analysis of effects of pesticide use 

discussed earlier in this chapter under the Soils and Plant Communities sections, the Service has concluded 

that the use of these PUP-regulated herbicides would result in decreasing the extent (vegetative cover 

area) of invasive species, which is expected to increase the quality of the habitat on and off the refuge and, 

therefore, benefit wildlife and all plant communities on and off of the refuge for each of the alternatives. 

Management of invasive species is expected to improve the quality of all habitat types on and off of the 

refuge. Therefore, these management actions are expected to be beneficial to plant communities, fish and 

wildlife both locally and regionally. More detail about the benefits of improved habitat quality is provided in 

the sections on Plant Communities and the section on Fish and Wildlife, above.

Alternative A: No Action

Ongoing monitoring and removal of invasive plant species; large-scale eradication experiments on dune 

swale invasive species; finalizing the Salmon Creek Unit invasive plant management plan; and participating 

in the local weed management area’s coordination group are expected to improve the quality of all habitat 

types on and off of the refuge. As a result of invasive species management actions, the Service has 

concluded that beneficial effects to fish, wildlife and their habitat are anticipated with Alternative A.

Alternative B

In addition to all of the activities in Alternative A, Alternative B includes expansion of the existing program 

to monitor and remove high priority target invasive species; controlling these high priority target invasive 

species to a maintenance level of control; and pursuing grant funding for partners program for invasive 

plant control. As compared to Alterative A, all of the aforementioned activities are expected to provide 

additional habitat quality improvement on and off of the refuge. As a result of these additional invasive 

species management actions, the Service has concluded that Alternative B would provide additional 

beneficial effects to fish, wildlife and their habitats (as compared to Alternative A).

Alternative C: Preferred Alternative 

In addition to all of the measures in Alternatives A and B, Alternative C includes a significant focus on 

assisting with the eradication of Spartina densiflora in the greater Humboldt Bay area; development of 

a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan to prevent establishment of new invasive species; an 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-79

additional contract for invasive plant control; creation and implementation of an IPM step-down plan for the 

refuge; and grant funding for yet another contract for invasive plant removal. As a result of these additional 

invasive species management actions, the Service has concluded that Alternative C would provide the 

greatest beneficial effects to fish, wildlife and their habitats (as compared to both Alternatives A and B).

Cumulative Effects 

The incremental contribution of any of the alternatives to the regional cumulative impact of invasive species 

is expected to be less than cumulatively considerable due to the vast extent of invasive species on the north 

coast, but beneficial overall to native plant communities, fish, and wildlife locally. 

Visitor Services

The refuge would be open to wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education and interpretation). Areas of exclusive use for non-hunting wildlife-dependent 

recreation users would be provided under each alternative. 

Visitor Services – Wildlife-Dependent Observation and Photography, 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Alternative A: No Action

Under Alternative A, current management, the Service would maintain current refuge visitor services and 

facilities. Wildlife dependent recreation opportunities would continue at current levels, including hunting, 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, interpretation, and volunteer activities. 

Alternative A provides opportunities for up to 20,000 visits annually. While the opportunities are provided, 

that does not determine the number of actual visitors that would use the refuge. The Service expects that 

visitor use at the refuge would stay approximately the same as it is now under Alternative A, the No Action 

Alternative. 

Alternative B

Alternative B provides opportunities for up to 30,000 visits annually (up to 10,000 more visits annually 

than Alternative A). Alternative B would also include construction of an environmental education building 

large enough for up to 30 people or conversion of the Salmon Creek Unit barn into an environmental/

cultural resources education building and provide more accessible trails on the refuge. Whether the refuge 

chooses to construct a new facility or convert the old barn into an environmental education facility and 

more accessible trails, these would increase visitor opportunities at the refuge. Although more visitor 

opportunities are provided to the public, it is difficult to estimate how many more visitor trips will actually 

result from more opportunities being available. A new or remodeled environmental education structure 

and/or more accessible trails may result in an increase in the number of visitors at the refuge. These 

additional facilities may result in visitors choosing the refuge as their destination rather than another 

location offering similar opportunities in the Humboldt Bay area. The Service expects that a net increase in 

visitor use at the refuge may occur under Alternative B, as compared to the No Action Alternative A. 

Alternative C: Preferred Alternative 

Alternative C provides opportunities for up to 35,000 visits annually (up to 15,000 more visits annually than 

Alternative A and up to 5,000 more than Alternative B). Alternative C would also include construction of an 

environmental education building large enough for up to 30 people or conversion of the Salmon Creek Unit 

barn into an environmental/cultural resources education building and provide more accessible trails on the 

refuge. As described in Alternative B, above, a new or remodeled environmental education structure and/

or more accessible trails may result in an increase in the number of visitors at the refuge. These additional 

facilities may result in visitors choosing the refuge as their destination rather than another location offering 

similar opportunities in the Humboldt Bay area. The Service expects an net increase in visitor use at the 

refuge may occur under Alternative C, as compared to the No Action Alternative A. 
E-80 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Visitor Services – Hunting

The refuge would be open to wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education and interpretation). Areas of exclusive use for hunting and non-hunting wildlifedependent recreation users would be provided under each alternative. 

Common to All Alternatives

Although timing of wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation 

activities overlap with hunting activities, they occur in geographically distinct areas on the refuge. 

Additionally, hunting and non-hunting recreation are further separated by time of day and seasons. For 

example, hunting is not allowed during certain hours of the day on hunt days and some days of the week are 

non-hunt days. See Alternative C and the 2008 Waterfowl Hunt Plan (Appendix C to the CCP) for details 

about physical distance and time buffers. 

Alternative A: No Action

The existing waterfowl, coot and snipe hunting program to accommodate 1,200 hunter day use opportunities 

per year on Salmon Creek Unit is expected to have no adverse effect on refuge resources, as discussed 

in the Fish and Wildlife section, above. The modification of the pit blinds to prevent stranding of wildlife 

is expected to be transparent to hunters and have no effect on hunters or their hunting experience. The 

increase in law enforcement on the Humboldt Bay NWR through contract or through support from other 

Service law enforcement staff is expected to improve the organization and implementation of hunt activities 

and reduce violations, resulting in an improved hunting experience for visitors. The posting of additional 

boundary signs on the Elkhorn Slough Unit, Jacoby Creek Unit, Table Bluff Unit, Egret Island, Teal Island 

and Hookton Slough Unit is expected to reduce confusion and access violations, improving the hunting 

experience for visitors. 

Alternative B

Alternative B is the same as Alternative A except that it provides additional undisturbed area for wildlife 

and reduced potential for hunter/non-hunter conflicts by closing Teal Island and Hookton Slough areas to 

overwater hunting. Alternative B has a small net decrease in hunting area as compared to the No Action 

Alternative A.

Alternative C: Preferred Alternative

Alternative C is the same as Alternative A except that it implements the 2008 Waterfowl Hunt Plan 

(Appendix C to the CCP), which opens limited areas of the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit to waterfowl, coot, and snipe 

hunting and retrieval and increases the youth-only hunt days by 2 days per year on the Salmon Creek Unit. 

Alternative C has a small net increase in hunting area as compared to the No Action Alternative A.

Cultural Resources

Preserving the culture and history of the nation’s past are the goals of regulations that include the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Antiquities Act of 1906, Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1979, 

and Historic Sites Act of 1935. The NHPA regulations (Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Section 800 

[36 CFR 800]) require that Federal agencies seek information, as appropriate, from the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), Indian tribes, and 

other individuals and organizations likely to have knowledge of, or concerns with, historic properties in the 

potentially affected area. These organizations and individuals are integral in identifying issues related to the 

proposed project’s potential effects on historic properties. Similar State regulations protect archeological, 

paleontological, and historical sites and specifically provide for identification. Cultural resources defined 

within the framework of these regulations include archeological sites, historic sites, and traditional cultural 

properties associated with the values of Native Americans and other cultural groups.

Actions that physically disturb a site, alter its setting, or introduce elements out of character with the site 

may constitute an adverse affect. If a site is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places 

(National Register), any type of physical damage results in a permanent loss of information that reduces the 

understanding of the site’s contribution to the past.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-81

Current records identify 44 cultural resource sites on and immediately adjacent to Humboldt Bay NWR. 

The sites have been documented at various levels of detail by a number of archaeologists and historians over 

the decades. None of the sites have been specifically relocated or inventoried for the CCP. Site boundaries 

and land status haven not been confirmed. Nevertheless the existing records indicate that cultural resources 

occur on the uplands and at high tide shoreline locations on the refuge. The sites include prehistoric and 

historic Native American villages, fishing sites, and other resource collection and processing locations. The 

recorded sites also include historic American logging, ranching, fishing, and related industrial residential 

and recreational locations. 

Only 10 percent of the Humboldt Bay NWR has been systematically surveyed for the presence of cultural 

resources. Most of the known and recorded cultural resource sites owe their documentation to a specific 

field investigation designed to find cultural resources. It is reasonable to assume that future surveys for 

cultural resources will locate and document previously undocumented prehistoric and historic cultural sites.

Common to all Alternatives

The refuge will comply with all applicable regulations and statutes regarding cultural resources. In 

consultation with the SHPO and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (if applicable), the Service will 

evaluate the eligibility of cultural resources, traditional cultural properties and unique archeological 

resources on the refuge.

The process of identifying and mitigating potential adverse effects to cultural resources listed or eligible 

to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places is found in 36CFR800. As individual projects 

generated by the CCP come forward, the Service will exercise Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) including consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and 

the pertinent Tribes, in accordance with the programmatic agreement with the SHPO and the Service. 

Alternative A: No Action

Alternative A includes continuing to manage and conserve Humboldt Bay NWR cultural resources on 

a project-by-project basis in coordination with the Service’s Regional 1 Archaeologist. There would be 

no change in effects on cultural resources. Under the No Action alternative, the Service would continue 

to exercise Section 106 of the NHPA to eliminate or minimize adverse effects to cultural resources as it 

presently does. 

Alternative B

Alternative B includes implementing a cultural resources management capability at Humboldt Bay 

NWR to respond to basic compliance requirements by greater use of contractors or an increase in refuge 

staff capability. Alternative B proposed the construction of a covered outdoor structure large enough for 

up to 30 people (up to 1,000 square feet in area) for environmental and cultural resources education or 

conversion of the existing Salmon Creek Unit barn to accommodate this use. Construction of a new building 

or modification or demolition of existing old structures on the Salmon Creek and Lanphere Dunes Unit 

would be a Federal undertaking that requires compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Potential adverse 

effects to cultural resources will be fully determined when specific and detailed project construction plans 

are available. The Service will exercise Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act including 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and the pertinent Tribes to determine if the 

undertaking will have an affect on historic properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places. If so, the Service will take measures to avoid, eliminate, or minimize adverse effects.

Alternative C: Preferred Alternative 

The effects of Alternative C on cultural resources are the same as those described for Alternative B.

Cumulative Effects 

The overall cumulative effect of Alternative B or Alternative C is to increase protection, enhancement, and 

interpretation of cultural resources on the Humboldt Bay NWR. 
E-82 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Effects on the Social and Economic Environment

This section discusses the direct and indirect economic effects on the regional economy of implementing the 

various alternatives presented for the Humboldt Bay NWR. Economic or social changes resulting from an 

action are considered to produce significant effects if the changes result in a substantial adverse physical 

change in the environment. 

Common to All Alternatives 

Aleutian cackling goose (ACG) use in Humboldt County has increased to the point where local ranchers are 

suffering losses of forage consumed by geese and therefore unavailable to livestock (Nelson pers. comm.)

(Mini, 2005). The exact amount of financial loss by local ranchers has not been well quantified, but a current 

(2008) study is seeking to do so (Nelson pers. comm.). 

The action Alternatives B and C both provide increased opportunities for visits to the refuge annually and 

may increase visits to the refuge. If an increase in visits to the refuge occurs or if there is a net increase 

in visitors to the area, this could benefit the local economy and local employment if visitors utilize local 

businesses such as gas stations, markets, and restaurants. Additionally, the increased visitation provides an 

opportunity for public education, which can foster value for these native habitats. None of the alternatives 

would result in any direct or indirect adverse physical change in the environment. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternatives B and C, less than 2 percent of the refuge’s fee title lands that are currently goose 

habitat are proposed to be restored to other habitat types. This reduction is relatively small as compared 

to the entire acreage of goose habitat in the area. Improved management of existing pastures should 

offset this small reduction in ACG habitat. The incremental contribution of any of the alternatives to the 

cumulative regional impact on the social and economic environment is expected to be less than cumulatively 

considerable. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

NEPA Section 102(C)(v) (CEQ Regulations Part 1502.16) requires Federal agencies to consider any 

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources with would be involved in the proposed action 

should it be implemented. 

Alternative B includes the proposed construction of an environmental education structure near the 

Headquarters. Alternatives B and C includes a program-level feature that would involve realignment of 

the Salmon Creek channel. These construction activities would involve the consumption of nonrenewable 

natural resource such as soil, cement, and petroleum for fuel. The resources used in facilities construction 

and site preparation, transportation of construction materials, excavation, and disposal of excess excavated 

materials (unsuitable for fill), would be permanently committed to the project. 

Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-term Productivity

NEPA Section 102(C)(iv) (CEQ Regulations Part 1502.16) requires Federal agencies to disclose the 

relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement 

of long-term productivity. The Service expects that the proposed alternatives would lead to long-term 

productivity through the life of the CCP (15 years). This discussion focuses on the tradeoffs between shortterm environmental costs and long-term environmental benefits. 

Any adverse effects on or near the refuge due to construction are expected to be temporary, short-term 

(during construction), and localized. The National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) System is the only network of 

Federal lands dedicated specifically to wildlife conservation. Refuges support more than 700 types of birds, 

220 different mammals, 250 reptiles, and more than 200 kinds of fish. The Humboldt Bay NWR Complex 

was created and authorized by Congress for use as sanctuary for migratory birds; as waterfowl production 

areas; for the development, advancement, management, and resources, for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-83

oriented recreation, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or 

threatened species under FESA. For more information on refuge purposes, please refer to that section in 

Chapter 1 of the CCP. The mission of the Refuge System is “...to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant 

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

Americans” (1997 Improvement Act). The long-term environmental benefits of the action alternatives to the 

NWR System are expected to outweigh the short-term environmental costs at the refuge.

Indian Trusts Assets

Indian trust assets (ITAs) are legal interests in assets that are held in trust by the United States 

Government for Federally recognized Indian tribes or individuals. The trust relationship usually stems 

from a treaty, Executive Order, or act of Congress. The Secretary of the Interior is the trustee for the 

United States on behalf of federally recognized Indian tribes. “Assets” are anything owned that holds 

monetary value. “Legal interests” means there is a property interest for which there is a legal remedy, 

such a compensation or injunction, if there is improper interference. Assets can be real property, physical 

assets, or intangible property rights, such as a lease, or right to use something. ITAs can not be sold, leased 

or otherwise alienated without the United States’ approval. Trust assets may include lands, minerals, and 

natural resources, as well as hunting, fishing, and water rights. Indian reservations, Rancherias, and public 

domain allotments are examples of lands that are often considered trust assets. In some cases, ITAs assets 

may be located off trust land. 

The Service shares the Indian trust responsibility with all other agencies of the Executive Branch to protect 

and maintain ITAs reserved by or granted to Indian tribes, or Indian individuals by treaty, statute, or 

Executive Order. 

There are no tribes possessing legal property interests held in trust by the United States in the lands or 

natural resources related to the alternatives.

The Table Bluff Rancheria is approximately 0.5 mile to the west of the Hookton Slough Unit of the 

refuge. The refuge is at a lower elevation than the Table Bluff Rancheria. The Rohnerville Rancheria is 

approximately 1.25 miles to the east of the Hookton Slough Unit of the refuge. Both Rancherias are higher 

in elevation than the refuge lands. The Rancherias are separated from the refuge by rolling, hilly terrain; 

refuge lands do not drain onto the Rancherias. Because the Service will continue to comply with the Native 

American Policy, the Service has concluded that none of the alternatives would adversely affect the Table 

Bluff Rancheria or the Rohnerville Rancheria, and anticipates no adverse effects to ITAs with any of the 

alternatives.

Environmental Justice

Research was conducted by California’s Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide 

Regulation to quantify dissipation and off-site movement of forestry herbicides on resident plants. The 

results of the research was intended to help determine if California Indians gathering and processing plant 

materials from outside herbicide treatment areas are at risk from pesticide exposure. The concern is that 

the use of herbicides may result in disproportionate exposure to Native people due to their potentially 

higher rate of consumption of edible native fish and wildlife species and potentially higher rate of exposure 

to native plant species for cultural. The results indicated that large variation exists between the number of 

weeks to reach the non-detectable level for each of the 4 plants tested, ranging from 4 to 130 weeks. The 

results also showed a general decline trend in concentration over time purposes (CEPA et al. 2003). The 

research also documented some off-site movement of the herbicide applications monitored; glyphosate and 

liquid hexazinone were detected at 24-30 meters form the edge of the herbicide treatment area. Although 

the conclusions from this study are not specified in the results, the Service is aware of the potential human 

health risks of overexposure to pesticides and the potential for contamination of plants and water by off-site 

movement of herbicides. The Service follows all applicable state and Service pesticide laws and regulations 

to ensure that unintentional and potentially adverse effects from pesticide applications are avoided to 

protect California Indian gatherers, other refuge visitors, refuge staff, and refuge resources. 
E-84 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Appendix F includes the Compatibility Determination for Plant Gathering for Humboldt Bay NWR. 

Tribal representatives are required to obtain a special use permit issued by the Refuge Manager for plant 

gathering and access. Access is regulated to ensure protection of habitat during critical periods of use by 

various species. Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility of plant gathering with refuge purposes 

include a review of plant gathering activities as part of an annual coordination with tribal representatives. 

For more information, see the aforementioned Compatibility Determination in Appendix F.

Based on the highly regulated and judicious use of pesticides on the refuge combined with the strategies 

6.1 3, 6.1.13, 6.3.2, 6.3.3; and the conservation measures in Appendix 1 to this EA, the Service has concluded 

that no minority and low-income populations or communities would be disproportionately affected with 

any of the alternatives. Further, the Service has concluded that no disproportionately high and no adverse 

human health effects would result from any of the alternatives.

Growth-Inducing Impacts

None of the alternatives would affect human settlement or development. Therefore, the Service has 

concluded that no growth-inducing impacts are expected to result from any of the alternatives.

Related Projects, Programs, Environmental Assessments

A related project, mentioned in the body of this EA, is the 1992 Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, 

Final Environmental Assessment for Habitat Restoration and Enhancement, June 1992. This document 

was prepared by the Service to address Phase I of the Salmon Creek Restoration plan. In addition, the 

Service continues to consult with the NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) 

on the proposed Phase II of the Salmon Creek Restoration plan under Section 7 of the Federal ESA, as 

amended.

Consultation and Coordination

The Humboldt Bay NWR has conducted informal consultation with the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 

(AFWO) of the Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Federal ESA, as amended, as well 

as the CDFG. In compliance with section 7 of the Federal ESA, as amended, the Service has requested 

concurrence from both the AFWO and NOAA Fisheries Service with our determination that the actions in 

Alternative C may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect listed species under their jurisdiction. See 

also the Special Status Species section of this EA, Appendix I (Compliance with Section 7 of the Federal 

Endangered Species Act), and Appendix L (Locally Occurring Special Status Species).

CASTLE ROCK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Castle Rock NWR Plant Communities and Wildlife

Common to All Alternatives 

Refuge staff would continue to collaborate with partners such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Humboldt State University, and the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office to continue 

photographic surveys of birds and marine mammals utilizing Castle Rock NWR habitat. Surveys would 

continue to be conducted both aerially and by remote camera to create population estimates of wildlife using 

Castle Rock NWR habitat. 

Under all alternatives, Castle Rock NWR would remain closed to the public. Due to the sensitivity of 

wildlife and their habitat on Castle Rock NWR, disturbance is required to be kept to a minimum for any 

action performed by refuge staff on Castle Rock NWR. However, visitation to the island for any purpose is 

highly likely to cause at least minimal disturbance to some wildlife or their habitat. This disturbance can 

be greatly mitigated by method and timing (date and time of day) of access, and it is the requirement for 

any refuge (approved) actions to factor these considerations in to any planned work. Both aerial and boat 

survey work can also cause disturbance, but again also be mitigated by appropriate survey distances.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-85

Alternative A: No Action

Additional surveys for terrestrial plants and wildlife at Castle Rock NWR, beyond birds and marine 

mammals would be conducted every 5 years outside any seabird and pinniped breeding seasons. Surveys 

will likely be conducted remotely. All personnel that access the island will be well trained wildlife biologists 

briefed on the impacts they could make if they deviate from the survey protocol. Based on using primarily 

remote monitoring and infrequent and mitigated site visits by trained biologists, the Service has concluded 

that although minimal disturbance may occur, no adverse effect to plants and wildlife would occur due to 

refuge management actions.

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, habitat management at Castle Rock NWR would be the same as Alternative A. Based 

on using primarily remote monitoring and infrequent and mitigated site visits by trained biologists, the 

Service has concluded that although minimal disturbance may occur, no adverse effects to plants and wildlife 

populations would occur due to refuge management actions.

Alternative C: Preferred Alternative

The Castle Rock NWR would be recommended for wilderness designation. This designation should not 

change the way the island is managed, as human access to the island is already and would continue to 

be strictly limited and mitigated as described above under Common to All Alternatives. If a wilderness 

designation were approved for Castle Rock NWR, the Service would not expect the designation to afford 

the refuge greater protections initially because the refuge is already closed to the public. However, 

designation could be used as a filter to screen proposed projects. No adverse affects to plant communities or 

wildlife are expected as a result of wilderness designation. Based on using primarily remote monitoring and 

infrequent and mitigated site visits by trained biologists, the Service has concluded that although minimal 

disturbance may occur, no adverse effects to plants and wildlife would occur due to refuge management 

actions. These precautions would remain with wilderness designation. 

There is no commercial or sport fishing on Castle Rock, and wilderness designation will not alter that. 

Currently, there is no conflict with the Crescent City airport, and although there can be restrictions of 

airspace over some wilderness areas, they are not common and often voluntary. At this time, the Service 

does not expect that the proposed Crescent City airport plans would be in conflict with a recommendation 

for wilderness designation, as the birds are accustomed to existing airport traffic and are expected to 

continue to be present. The Service expects that potentially adverse effects to plant communities and 

wildlife are and would continue to remain minimal, however, the Wilderness Act requires that an EIS 

be prepared to analyze the effects of a recommendation for wilderness designation. The EIS would be 

prepared within the life of the CCP, within 15 years of CCP approval.

Castle Rock NWR Special Status Species

Common to All Alternatives

The following special status species are found at Castle Rock NWR: rhinoceros auklet, tufted puffin, 

double-crested cormorant, fork-tailed storm-petrel, brown pelican, and Steller (northern) sea-lion. 

Due to the remoteness and the conservative approach of refuge management in all the alternatives, 

special status species using Castle Rock NWR would be protected from disturbance. Any attempt 

to land on Castle Rock NWR by refuge staff would be timed to reduce adverse effects to special 

status species and seabirds. Work performed by refuge staff is designed to benefit the species that 

inhabit the island. All personnel accessing the island are trained in methods to reduce and minimize 

disturbance to the habitat and wildlife. See also Appendix I (Compliance with Section 7 of the Federal 

Endangered Species Act), and Appendix L (Locally Occurring Special Status Species).

Castle Rock NWR Environmental Justice

Common to All Alternatives

Like many other seabird islands within the Refuge System, Castle Rock is so rich with sensitive wildlife 

species and fragile habitat it cannot accommodate direct public access and still fulfill the purposes for 
E-86 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

which it was established. Due to the sensitivity of wildlife and their habitat on Castle Rock NWR, this 

rocky, 14-acre island is closed to the public. Because the refuge would remain closed to the public under 

all alternatives, the Service has concluded that no minority and low-income populations or communities 

would be disproportionately affected with any of the alternatives. The Service has concluded that no 

disproportionately high and no adverse human health or environmental effects would result from any of the 

alternatives.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-87

Environmental Assessment References 

Airola, D.A., ed. 1980. California wildlife habitat relationships program: Northeast Interior Zone. Vol III. 

Birds. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., Lassen Natl. For., Susanville. 590pp.

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2nd ed. 

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA.

Bartelt, G.A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family groups in 

east central Wisconsin. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:517-522.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2006. Report of the 2006 Game Take Hunter Survey. Sacramento, 

CA. 20 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2007. California Wildlife: Conservation Challenges 

(California Wildlife Action Plan). http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habitats/WDP/report.html

California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA), Department of Pesticide Regulation, Environmental 

Monitoring Branch; Center for Analytical Chemistry, California Department of Food and Agriculture. 

2003. Dissipation and Offsite Movement of Forestry Herbicides in Plant of Importance to Native 

Americans in California National Forests. Bulletin of Environmental Contaminate Toxicology 71:354-

361, Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 

Cole, D.N., and R.L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Utah State 

University, Logan, Utah.

Cronan, J.M. 1957. Food and feeding habits of the scaups in Connecticut waters. Auk 74(4):459-468.

DeLong, A. 2002. Managing Visitor Use & Disturbance of Waterbirds. A Literature Review of Impacts and 

Mitigation Measures.

Feng, J.C., D.G. Thompson, and P.E. Reynolds. 1990. Fate of glyphosate in a Canadian forest watershed: 1. 

Aquatic residues and off target deposit assessment. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 38: 1110-

1118.

Folmar, L.C., H.O. Sanders, and A.M. Julin. 1979. Toxicity of the herbicide glyphosate and several of 

its formulations to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Archives of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology 8: 269-278.

Forest Service (1984). Pesticide Background Statements, Vol. I Herbicides. United States Dept. of 

Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 633.

Fox, A.D., and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds 

in Europe: implications for refuge design. J. Appl. Ecol. 34:1-13.

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk 

Pool, Mississippi River. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20:290-298.

Heitmeyer, ME., and D. G. Raveling. 1988. Winter resource use by three species of dabbling ducks in 

California. Dept. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, Univ. of Calif., Davis. Final Report to Delta Waterfowl 

and Wetlands Research Center, Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, Canada. 200pp.

Humboldt Bay Watershed Advisory Committee and The Natural Resources Services Division of Redwood 

Community Action Agency (HBWAC, RCAA). 2005. Humboldt Bay Watershed Salmon and Steelhead 

Conservation Plan. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game and the California 

Coastal Commission.
E-88 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, Denmark. 

Biol. Conserv. 33:53-63.

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74.

Moyle, Peter B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California, Revised and Expanded. University of California Press, 

Berkeley, CA.

National Research Council (NRC). 2004. NRC review of a 2003 Exposure and Human Health 

Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds. 

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB). 2007. Water Quality Control Plan for 

the North Coast Region.

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14.

Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands Association (PCFWWA), Michael Love and Associates, Graham 

Matthews and Associates. 2003. Lower Salmon Creek Delta Salmonid Habitat Enhancement 

Opportunities. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Humboldt County, CA.

Pacific Flyway Data Book. 2007. Waterfowl Harvest and Status, Hunter Participation and Success in the 

Pacific Flyway and United States. 121 pp.

Paulus, S.L. 1984. Activity budgets of nonbreeding gadwalls in Louisiana. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:371-380.

Pickart, A.J., and M.G. Barbour. In press. Beach and Dune. In: M. G. Barbour, T. Keeler-Wolf, and A. 

Schoenherr, eds. Terrestrial Vegetation of California, 3rd edition. Univerisity of Caifornia Press. 

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

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference to control 

of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252.

Thayer, G.W., T.A. McTigue, R.J. Salz, D.H. Merkey, F.M. Burrows, and P.F. Gayaldo. 2005. Science-Based 

Restoration Monitoring of Coastal Habitats. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, MD.

Thomas, V.G. 1983. Spring migration: the prelude to goose reproduction and a review of its implication. 

In Fourth Western Hemispheric Waterfowl and Waterbird Symposium, ed., H. Boyd. 73-81. Ottawa, 

Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Final Environemental 

Assessment for Habitat Restoration and Enhancement, June 1992. 

Williams, W.M., P.W. Holden, D.P. Parsons and M.N. Lorber. Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base: 1988 

Interim Report. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs.

Fox, A.D. and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in 

Europe: implications for refuge design. J. Appl. Ecol. 34:1-13.

Tu, M., C. Hurd, and J.M. Randall. 2001. Weed Control Methods Handbook, The Nature Conservancy. 

http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/products/handbook/methods-handbook.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Final 

Environmental Assessment for Habitat Restoration and Enhancement, June 1992. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-89

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Seven Coastal Plants and the Myrtle’s Silverspot Butterfly 

Recovery Plan. USFWS Region 1, Portland, OR. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. 2005 Pacific Flyway Data Book: Waterfowl Harvest and 

Status, Hunter Participation and Success, and Certain Hunting Regulations in the Pacific Flyway and 

United States. Compiled by R.E. Trost and M.S. Drut. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius 

newberryi). USFWS, Pacific Region, Portland, OR.

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and salt marsh feeding of wintering brant geese in Essex. Wildfowl 33:113-

118.

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, 

California. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State Univ., Arcata. 62pp.

World Health Organization. 1984. 2, 4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2, 4-D), Environmental Health Criteria 

29. United Nations Environmental Programme, Geneva. 151pp.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc29.htm

Personal Communications

Bowers, A. UC Davis Agricultural Extension. Personal Communication to Sandy Osborn, USFWS, August 

6, 2008. 

McClelland, Marty. McClelland Consulting. Personal Communication to David Bergendorf, USFWS, 

March 15, 2007. 

Nelson, E.T. USFWS. Personal Communication to Sandy Osborn, USFWS, June 2, 2008.
E-90 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Environmental Assessment Appendices

APPENDIX 1: Conservation Measures

Conservation measures or Best Management Practices (BMPs) are designed to reduce adverse impacts 

to fish, wildlife, and plant species and their critical habitats. Appropriate BMPs must be executed by all 

project coordinators. BMPs are listed by main project categories, but in practice overlaps do exist among 

the categories. Individual BMPs are subject to becoming more stringent or additional BMPs instituted if 

restoration activities are changed. 

General BMPs for all Project Categories:

1. Follow all terms and conditions in regulatory permits and other official project authorizations to 

eliminate or reduce adverse impacts to any endangered, threatened, or sensitive species or their critical 

habitats.

2. Complete restoration activities at individual project sites in a timely manner. This will reduce 

disturbance and/or displacement of fish and wildlife species in the immediate project area. 

3. Significant modifications to an approved work plan must be reviewed and approved by appropriate 

agency personnel and the landowner(s) before the work can be carried out or continued. 

4. Unobstructed fish passage must be provided at all times during any restoration activity.

5. Use existing roadways or travel paths for access to project sites.

6. Avoid the use of heavy equipment and techniques that will result in excessive soil disturbances or 

compaction of soils, especially on steep or unstable slopes.

7. Vehicles and machinery must cross streams at right angles to the main channel whenever possible.

8. Excavation or transport equipment/machinery should be limited in capacity, but sufficiently sized to 

complete required restoration activities. Equipment and machinery coming in contact with water shall 

be inspected daily and cleaned of grease, oil, petroleum products or other contaminants.

9. Streams, riparian zones, and wetlands must not be used as staging or refueling areas. Equipment must 

be stored, serviced, and fueled away from aquatic habitats or other sensitive areas.

10. Native vegetation must be planted on disturbed sites. Native vegetation should be salvaged from areas 

where ground disturbances will be occurring on projects. Salvaged vegetation should then be replanted 

after the completion of project activities. The use of nonnative vegetation will be strictly limited. 

Vegetative planting techniques must not cause major disturbances to soils and slopes. Hand planting 

is the preferred technique for all plantings. Plantings must occur during the optimal seasonal growth 

period for the respective plant species involved. Vegetation growth should also be enhanced by bank 

sloping/grading, seedbed and site preparations, mulching, or fertilizing.

11. Boulder and rock materials used for restoration projects must come from non-streambed and nonwetland sources. Conifer and hardwood timber stands must not be specifically harvested to supply 

woody materials for any restoration activity, unless the harvest is part of an approved silvicultural 

operation. Boulder, rock, and woody materials must be collected during appropriate seasonal periods to 

reduce soil and slope disturbances.

12. A written contingency plan must be developed for all project sites where hazardous materials (e.g., 

pesticides, herbicides, petroleum products) will be used or stored. Appropriate materials/supplies 

(e.g., shovel, disposal containers, absorbent materials, first aid supplies, clean water) must be available 

on site to cleanup any small scale accidental hazardous spill; this action will protect the environment, 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-91

project workers, and the public from direct contact with hazardous materials. Hazardous spills must be 

reported. Emergency response, removal, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials must be done 

in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous materials and petroleum 

products shall be stored in approved containers or chemical sheds, and be located at least 100 feet from 

surface water in an area protected from runoff.

13. The evaluation of herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer use must include the accuracy of applications, 

effects on target and non-target species, and the potential impacts to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. 

Treatments for the control or removal of invasive plants in riparian/wetland areas must be limited 

to hand or wick applications by qualified personnel. Apply chemicals during calm, dry weather and 

maintain unsprayed buffer areas near aquatic habitats and other sensitive areas. Chemical applications 

must be avoided where seasonal precipitation or excess irrigation water is likely to wash residual 

toxic substances into waterways. Consider persistence, soil/water mobility, toxicity, and plant uptake 

when selecting appropriate chemicals. All chemicals should be handled in strict accordance to label 

specifications. Proper personal protection (e.g., gloves, masks, clothing) must be used by all applicators. 

Obtain a copy of the material safety data sheet (MSDS) from the chemical manufacturer for detailed 

information on each chemical to be used. Refer to appropriate federal and state regulations concerning 

the use of chemicals. Chemicals must only be considered when other treatments would be ineffective or 

cannot be applied.

14. Sedimentation and erosion controls must be implemented on all project sites where the implementation 

of restoration activities will result in soil and/or slope disturbances. Soil and slope stabilization control 

structures/techniques must be bio-engineered to the extent possible. Structures/techniques must be 

placed and/or anchored appropriately to prevent adverse impacts to down slope habitats. Revegetate 

disturbed areas with native vegetation as soon as possible. Control structures/techniques may include, 

but are not limited to, silt fences, hay bale structures, seeding by hand and hydro-seeding, jute mats, 

and coconut logs. Contact the local state forester, state extension service agent, or Soil and Water 

Conservation District for information or assistance on control structures/techniques. NOTE: This 

requirement refers to all sediment and erosion control measures addressed in the following project 

categories.

15. Staging and stockpile areas must be located on or immediately beside the project area whenever 

possible. Sediment and erosion controls must be implemented around all stockpiled material and 

disturbed project sites to prevent the introduction of pollutants into water sources. This will reduce the 

disturbance and displacement potentials to fish and wildlife species in the surrounding areas.

16. Excess excavated materials removed during the completion of a restoration activity must be disposed 

of properly and/or stabilized to eliminate future environmental problems. Salvage of boulders, rock, 

and fill material is encouraged for use on nearby roads or other projects. Vegetation not salvaged will 

be removed to a county approved disposal site or chipped and composted off site to prevent spread 

of noxious weeds. If specific uses are not available for project spoils, they will be placed in upland 

areas, and contoured, with the assistance of an environmental engineer, to blend into the surrounding 

landscape. Under no circumstances will disposal sites be located in riparian, wetland, or floodplain 

areas unless used for dike construction. Dike construction would take place only to 1) restore historic 

hydrology when modifications on adjacent ownerships prevent re-contouring or use of other methods 

to restore the historic physical condition, or 2) prevent flooding of adjacent landowners’ properties not 

involved in the project. Sedimentation and erosion controls must be implemented to prevent adverse 

impacts to down slope habitats. Disposal sites should be revegetated with native vegetation as soon as 

possible. 

17. Project coordinators must ensure that all waste resulting from the completion of a project is removed 

and disposed of properly before work crews vacate the project site.

18. Structures containing concrete or wood preservatives must be cured or dried before they are placed in 

streams, riparian zones, or wetlands. Wet concrete or runoff from cleaning tools that have wet concrete 

slurry or lye dust must never enter aquatic habitats. Runoff control measures must be employed, such 

as hay bales and silt fences, until the risk of aquatic contamination has ended.
E-92 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

19. Monitoring is required during project implementation and for at least one year following project 

completion to ensure that restoration activities implemented at individual project sites are functioning 

as intended and do not create unintended consequences to fish, wildlife, and plant species and their 

critical habitats or adversely impact human health and safety. Corrective actions, as appropriate, must 

be taken for potential or actual problems.

20. Brightly-colored construction fencing shall be installed around isolated special status plants to avoid 

disturbance.

21. An environmental education program shall be presented to all construction personnel to brief them on 

the status of the special status species and the penalty for not complying with these requirements.

Instream Habitat Restoration BMPs:

1. Instream restoration activities must occur during appropriate times as determined by the California 

Department of Fish and Game and comply with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidelines 

for placement of large wood in streams, stream-road crossings, fish passage improvements. .

2. Large woody debris and boulders used for instream structures need to be appropriately sized, 

anchored, and/or placed to eliminate or reduce the movement of these materials during high flow events. 

Size standards must be determined by hydrologists, biologists, or other qualified professionals and 

should be based on individual stream reaches and their associated seasonal discharge rates. Durable 

wood and rock materials should be used for instream structures. 

3. Installed instream or streambank structures altering hydrologic flow regimes must not impact adjacent 

or down stream properties or manmade structures. 

4. Temporary coffer dams built as a part of a project must use materials from non-streambed and nonwetland sources that are free of fines. Upon project completion, coffer dams must be feathered out in 

the streambed.

5. Adequate fish screening or other measures shall be installed and maintained to eliminate or reduce 

fish emigration into water distribution systems as required by the NMFS. All off-channel livestock 

watering systems must adhere to this requirement.

6. Heavy equipment must have limited access to the streambeds and streambanks. Instream construction 

activities must be minimized to reduce sedimentation rates, channel instability, and aquatic habitat 

impacts. 

7. Soil and/or slope disturbances along stream channels should be eliminated or reduced wherever 

possible. Undisturbed vegetated buffer zones must be retained along stream channels to reduce 

sedimentation rates, channel instability, and aquatic habitat impacts. 

Riparian/Wetland and Upland/Forest Restoration BMPs:

1. Bank stabilizing vegetation removed or altered because of restoration activities must be replanted with 

native vegetation and protected from further disturbance until new growth is well established. Native 

shrubs and trees should also be included in the reclamation of disturbed sites. Waste organic materials 

(e.g., discarded lumber, woody vegetation) must not be used to stabilize soils and slopes in disturbed 

areas. Metal refuse or debris (e.g., petroleum containers, car bodies) must not be used for streambank 

protection; this violates both state and federal regulations. Also, broken asphalt and tires must not be 

used due to potential seepage of petroleum and other toxic chemicals. Concrete is not recommended for 

bank stabilization projects. Do not use instream materials (e.g., stream debris and gravels) to replace 

or restore eroded streambanks. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-93

Stabilization projects should employ bioengineering methods to the greatest extent possible.

2. Sedimentation and erosion controls must be implemented on site at all times during wetland restoration 

or creation activities to maintain the water quality of adjacent water sources.

3. Restoration activities that require prescribed burning of slash material or invasive vegetation must 

be planned and managed to maximize the benefits and reduce the detrimental effects of burns. Slash 

control and disposal must also be completed in a way that reduces the occurrence of debris from 

entering stream channels. Reduce the potential for very hot burns to conserve litter layers and 

eliminate or reduce the development of hydrophobic soil conditions. Develop plans for rapid site 

revegetation. Always consider nonburning alternatives whenever possible. Fire suppression equipment 

must always be located at the immediate project site during prescribed burnings. 

4. Slash materials should be gathered by hand or with light machinery to reduce soil disturbances and 

compaction of soils. Avoid accumulating or spreading slash in upland draws, depressions, intermittent 

streams, and springs. Slash control and disposal activities should be conducted in a way that reduces 

the occurrence of debris in streams. These practices will eliminate or reduce debris torrents, 

avalanches, flows, and slides.

5. Use the appropriate timber yarding system during silvicultural operations to eliminate or reduce soil 

disturbances and compaction of soils.

6. Retain or develop snags on project sites for cavity dependent wildlife species whenever possible. 

7. Abandoned and decommissioned roadways must be revegetated. Compacted road surfaces will be tilled 

to promote vegetation establishment and growth. Ensure that drainage patterns on these roadways will 

not result in increased sedimentation rates or erosion to down slope habitats. Drainage improvements 

should be constructed and stabilized before the rainy season. Install water energy dissipators (e.g., 

water bars and rolling dips) along roadways and on all cross drain outfalls. Do not sidecast excavated 

road materials, and avoid accumulating or spreading these materials in upland draws, depressions, 

intermittent streams, and springs. Road entrances closed by tanking or ditching must have the 

excavated/disturbed areas stabilized as soon as possible. 

8. Purchase seedlings from reputable suppliers or growers. Hardwood and conifer seedlings should be 

stored, handled, and planted properly. Seeds used to grow seedlings should have been collected in an 

area where the environmental conditions (e.g., elevation and range) closely match those on project 

sites; refer to a tree seed zone map and ensure that every purchased box or bag of seedlings are clearly 

marked with the seed zone and elevation. Reduce seedling competition by clearing grasses, forbs, and 

woody shrubs from around each seedling for a minimum distance of three feet. Employ the proper 

methods to protect seedlings from animal, insect, and environmental damages. Periodically examine 

planted seedlings for damages and diseases. Contact your local state forester or extension service 

agent for additional information or assistance.

9. Retain the appropriate amount of down and decaying woody debris to provide for wildlife habitats and 

nutrient recycling. Project coordinators should be aware of potential wildfire hazards in project areas 

because of retained woody debris. 

10. Fall trees away from streams, riparian zones, and wetlands whenever possible. Tree falling on steep 

slopes should not be done or done in an appropriate manner to avoid damage to surrounding vegetation 

and soils. Employ the proper yarding technique on project sites to eliminate or reduce soil disturbances 

and compaction of soils. 

11. Fence designs (e.g., wire type and wire spacing) and installations should not restrict the movement of 

any wildlife species; limit the use of woven wire fences whenever possible. The quality and durability 

of fencing materials must meet or exceed the intended management objectives. Fences must not be 

constructed in areas where natural barriers restrict livestock movements. Refer to the Bureau of Land 

Management fencing handbook (BLM 1989) for additional information. 
E-94 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

12. Livestock crossings and off-channel livestock watering facilities must not be located in areas where 

compaction and/or damage may occur to sensitive soils, slopes, or vegetation due to congregating 

livestock. Livestock fords across streams must be appropriately rocked to stabilize soils/slopes and 

prevent erosion. Do not use crushed rock to stabilize fords. Fords should be placed on bedrock or 

stable substrates whenever possible.

13. Silvicultural activities (e.g., herbicide treatment, thinning, and harvesting) should be limited or 

restricted on steep slopes and highly erodible soils to prevent accelerated soil erosion and increased 

sedimentation rates.

14. Fill material used on project sites must be from nonstreambed and nonwetland sources that are free 

of fines. Deposition of materials must not violate state or federal regulations, standards, or guidelines 

as set forth by local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or other 

regulatory agencies.

Fish Passage Improvement BMPs:

1. The dimensions, slopes, jump heights, water depths, and seasonal flows in fishways must be adequate 

to pass the intended fish species and life stages at critical migration periods. Provide fish resting areas, 

as necessary, within the fishways, and maintain appropriate entrance flows to attract fish. Restrict fish 

access to inappropriate areas to prevent fish morbidity and mortality. 

2. Culverts and bridges, whether for livestock or vehicle access, must be sized to pass at least a normal 

seasonal high flow and designed to provide unobstructed fish passage at all times. Bridge abutments 

must be designed and installed in a way that does not alter stream flows or channel stability. Do not 

backfill culverts or bridge abutments with vegetation, debris, or mud. Abutments should be properly 

protected (e.g., rock armored) to prevent future scouring actions and erosion hazards. All culvert 

passage projects must be consistent with the NMFS “Culvert Passage Guidelines” Bridge designs and 

installations must conform to all federal and state standards.

3. Installed culverts should be aligned to stream flows and positioned at or below stream grades. Culvert 

inlets and outfalls should be properly protected (e.g., rock armored) to prevent future scouring actions 

and erosion hazards. Use appropriate culvert lengths and install culverts at proper slopes (less than 1% 

slope gradient) to aid fish passage. Install baffles inside culverts, as a last resort necessity, to reduce 

flow velocities. Open-bottom and arch culverts are the preferred culvert types to be used if existing 

culverts are to be replaced. A single large culvert is preferred over using several smaller culverts at 

individual stream crossings.

4. Develop maintenance schedules for culvert and bridge installations to ensure they remain in proper 

functioning condition. Install trash/debris racks, as necessary, to prevent blockage or damage to these 

structures. These racks must be installed and maintained in such as manner that fish are easily able to 

pass through them at any time.

5. Appropriate sediment and erosion controls must be implemented as they apply to specific fish passage 

structures. Revegetate bare soils with native vegetation as soon as possible to prevent sedimentation 

and erosion hazards.

6. All fish screening projects must be consistent with the NMFS “Juvenile Fish Screen Criteria,” and all 

intake screening projects must be consistent with NMFS “Pump Intake Screen Guidelines.”

7. Fish passage structural designs (i.e., culverts and fishways) must be submitted to the NMFS, through 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to obtain design approvals prior to the installation of the structures.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-95

Air Quality BMPs:

1. All disturbed areas shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, approved chemical 

stabilizer/suppressant, tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.

2. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition 

activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions by applying water or by pre-soaking.

3. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from the surface of outdoor storage 

piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions using sufficient water or 

approved chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
E-96 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Figure E-1: Location Map.

EUREKA

ARCATA

Arcata

Bay

Pacific

Ocean

£¤101

255

South

Bay

Lanphere

Dunes

Unit

Ma-le'l

Dunes

Unit

Jacoby

Creek

Unit

Eureka

Slough

Unit

Indian

Island

Unit

White

Slough

Tab Unit le

Bluff

Unit

Salmon

Creek

Unit

Hookton

Slough

Unit

South

Bay

Unit

Approved Boundary

 ̄

Humboldt Bay

National Wildlife Refuge

Figure E-1. Location Map

1 0.5 0 1 Miles

CRESCENT

CITY

Castle

Rock

NWR

OR

CA

Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service include all lands

and waters with an elevation greater than "mean higher

high water" or 7.06 NGVD.

Areas Enlarged
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-97

Figure E-2: Habitat Management Alternatives, Salmon Creek Unit.

(/

à

à

101

Ranch Rd

Hookton

uol S hg

Hookton Rd

(/

à

à

Ranch Rd

Hookton Rd

101

Hookton

l S uo hg

(/

à

à

Salmonid

rearing

habitat

Hookton

l S uo hg

Ranch Rd 101

S

alm

o

n

Cre

e

k

U

nit

Figure E-2. H

a

bitat M

anage

m

ent Alternativ

es

Alternativ

e

A (N

o

A

ction) Alternativ

e

B

Alternativ

e

C (Preferred Alternativ

e)

Phase I RestorationPhase II RestorationSalmonid Rearing HabitatSalmon Creek

Freshwater Marsh Enhancement Opportunities

à

Existing Tide GateRefuge RoadsRefuge Lands

Pond 5

Pond 1

Pond 5

Pond 1

Pond 5

Pond 1

Hookton Road

Hookton Road

Hookton Road

Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service include all lands and waters with an

elevation greater than "mean higher high water" or 7.06 NGVD.

Scale 1:30,000

0 1 0.5

Miles  ̄
E-98 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Figure E-3: Habitat Management Alternatives, Hookton Slough Unit.

Maintain:-26 acres of salt marsh

-150 acres of freshwater and brackish marsh

-51 acres of short-grass pasture

Teal

Island

TealIsland

TealIsland

0 0.5 0.25

Miles  ̄

Restore:-Within 7 years, 80 acres of freshwater/brackish

marsh and 38 acres of short-grass pasture

-Within 15 years, 90 acres of salt marsh

Same as Alternative B and

-Construct a low contour dike

-Within 15 years, restore 38

additional acres of salt marsh

H

o

o

kto

n

Slo

u

g

h

U

nit

Alternativ

e

C (Preferre

d

Alternativ

e) Alternativ

e

B

Figure E-3. H

a

bitat M

ana

g

e

m

ent Alternativ

es

Alternativ

e

A (N

o

A

ction)

!

! Low Contour Dike

Refuge LandsSalt Marsh/Brackish/Freshwater Marsh TransitionBrackish Marsh (Native)Brackish Marsh (Non-Native)

Salt MarshFreshwater MarshRiparian SwampShort-Grass Pasture (Non-Native)

Scale 1:27,000

Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service include all lands and waters with an

elevation greater than "mean higher high water" or 7.06 NGVD.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-99

Figure E-4: Habitat Management Alternatives, Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes Units.

Maintain:114 acres of dune mat habitat33 acres of dune riparian/swamp habitat

67 acres of dune swale habitat

Mimic naturaldisturbance;create duneblowouts

Restore duneswale habitat

Enhance marginsof coniferousforest

Restore duneriparian/swamp

Restore duneriparian/swamp

Enhance marginsof coniferousforest

Restore duneswale

0 0.5 0.25

Miles  ̄

Refuge LandsBeachgrassBrackish Marsh

Coniferous Dune ForestDune Mat/Foredune GrasslandDune Swale

Freshwater MarshDune Riparian/SwampSalt Marsh

Restore:-Within 10 years, 33 acres dune riparian/swamp

and enhance margins of coniferous dune forest

-Within 15 years, 67 acres of dune swale

Restore:-Within 5 years, 33 acres of dune riparian/swamp

and enhance margins of coniferous dune forest

-Within 10 years, 67 acres of dune swale-Within 15 years, mimic natural disturbance in

dune mat and enhance dune/riparian swamp

L

a

n

p

h

ere

a

n

d

M

a-le'l D

u

n

e

s

U

nits

Alternativ

e

C (Preferred Alternativ

e) Alternativ

e

B

Alternativ

e

A (No Action)

Figure E-4. Habitat Management Alternatives

Scale 1:30,000

Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service include all lands and waters with an

elevation greater than "mean higher high water" or 7.06 NGVD.
E-100 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Figure E-5: Habitat Management Alternatives, Table Bluff Unit.

Maintain:-35 acres existing salt marsh

-25 acres freshwater and brackish marsh

-11 acres dune mat/foredune grassland

-25 acres dune swale

Remove remaining dike

Remove dike

Same as Alternative A and restore:

-Within 5 years,10 acres dune mat

-Within 7 years, 13 acres short-grass

pasture to brackish marsh

-Within 15 years, 25 acres dune swale

Same as Alternative B and restore:

-Within 10 years, 25 acres dune swale

-Within 15 years, a total of 100 acres

to native salt marsh

Ta

ble

Bluff U

nit

Alternativ

e

C (Preferre

d

Alternativ

e) Alternativ

e

B

Figure E-5. H

a

bitat M

ana

g

e

m

ent Alternativ

es

Alternativ

e

A (N

o

A

ction)

Short-grass pasture restored to brackish marshDune Mat/Foredune GrasslandShort -Grass PastureDune SwaleShrub Swale

Freshwater Marsh (Native)Brackish Marsh (Native)Salt MarshRiparian SwampRefuge Lands

Scale 1:22,000

0 0.5 0.25

Miles  ̄ Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service include

all lands and waters with an elevation greater than "mean higher high water" or 7.06 NGVD.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-101

Figure E-6: Habitat Management Alternatives, White Slough Unit.

Maintain:

-11 acres existing salt marsh

-50 acres of brackish marsh

-2 acres of riparian swamp

Restore 6 acres of riparian swamp

Repair the perimeter dike within 2 years

Maintain dike

until marsh

is restored

Repair

perimeter

dike

Same as Alternative A and restore:

-35 acres of salt marsh

-4 acres of brackish marsh

Maintain:-an additiional 23 acres of brackish marsh

Same as Alternative B and restore:

-45 acres native salt marsh

-3 acres of riparian swamp

Maintain:-7 acres of brackish marsh

W

hite

Slo

u

g

h

U

nit

Alternativ

e

C (Preferre

d

Alternativ

e) Alternativ

e

B

Figure E-6. H

a

bitat M

ana

g

e

m

ent Alternativ

es

Alternativ

e

A (N

o

A

ction)

Refuge LandsSalt Marsh/Brackish Marsh /Freshwater Marsh TransitionBrackish Marsh (Native)Brackish Marsh (Non-Native)

Salt MarshRiparian SwampShort-Grass Pasture

0 0.5 0.25

Miles

 ̄ Scale 1:18,000

Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service include all lands and waters with an

elevation greater than "mean higher high water" or 7.06 NGVD.
E-102 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX E

Figure E-7: Visitor Services Alternatives, Salmon Creek and Hookton Slough Units.

! ! !

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!©

!i!@

!^

!i

!|

!_!l

_

_

!\

$!"

Ranch Rd

Hookton Rd

101 Hu

nt Area

! ! !

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!©

!i

!@

!^

!i

!|

!_!l

_

_

!\

$!"

!\

Ranch Rd

Hookton Rd

Add 0.25 MilesWheelchair Accessible Trailand Photo Blind

Hu

nt Area 101

Remove Teal Isfrom hunting

! ! !

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

$!"

!©

!i!@

!^

!i

!|

!_!l

_

_

!\

!°

!\

OutdoorExplorationArea

Hookton R

R

d

anch Rd

Hu

nt Area

101

Add 1.5 milesWheelchairAccessible Trail

Add 1.5 milesWheelchair Accessible Trailand Photo Blind

Hookton Slough TrailWheelchair Accessible TrailShorebird Loop Trail

! ! Water Trail

Removed from hunt areaOpen to hunting

!@

Visitor Center & Office

!© Hunt Check Station & Parking!^ Interpretive Kiosk!\ Photo blind!l Fishing Dock

!| Non-Motorized Boat Launch!i Parking!_ Restroom

_ Gate

Refuge Lands

S

alm

o

n

Cre

e

k

a

n

d

H

o

o

kto

n

Slo

u

g

h

U

nits

Figure E-7. Visitor S

ervices

Alternativ

es

Alternativ

e

A (N

o

A

ction) Alternativ

e

B

Alternativ

e

C (Preferred Alternativ

e)

Scale 1:40:000

0 1 0.5

Miles  ̄ Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service include all lands and waters with an

elevation greater than "mean higher high water" or 7.06 NGVD.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 E-103

Figure E-8: Visitor Services Alternatives, Lanphere and Ma-le’l Dunes Units.

!@

d

!\

!l

!i

!F

!5

!_

!i

Retrievalarea Retrieval

Area

Area opento hunting

Proposednew trails

0.5 mileswheelchairaccessibletrail

Ma-le'lIsland

Fernstrom

Root

Island

!@

d

!\

!l

!i

!F

!5

!_

!i

Fernstrom-Root

Island

Ma-le'lIsland

!@

d

!\

!l

!i

!F

!5

!_

!i

Area opento hunting

Retrievalarea

0.25 mileswheelchairaccessible trail

Ma-le'lIsland

Fernstrom

Root

Island

0 0.5 0.25

Miles  ̄

L

a

n

p

h

ere

a

n

d

M

a-le'l D

u

n

e

s

U

nits

Alternativ

e

C (Preferred Alternativ

e) Alternativ

e

B

Alternativ

e

A (N

o

Action)

Figure E-8. Visitor Service Alternatives !\

Wetland Observation Deck

!l Fishing Access!F Kiosk

d Lanphere Gate

!@ Office!i Parking

!5 Picnic Area!_ Restroom

Refuge LandsExisting TrailsProposed TrailsRoads

Proposed Wheelchair Accessible TrailRetrieval AreaHunting Permitted

Scale 1:30,000

Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service include all lands

and waters with an elevation greater than "mean higher

high water" or 7.06 NGVD.

Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-1

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Refuge Name: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

County and State: Humboldt County, California

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Humboldt Bay NWR was established under the authority of The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, 

The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and The Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Refuge Purpose(s):

According to these authorities, Humboldt Bay NWR’s purposes are:

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) (Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Stamp Act)

“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(a)(4) and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural 

resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-1 and “...

the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms 

and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act 

[16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-460k-4], as amended)

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species ....or (B) 

plants ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)

National Wildlife Refuge System 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 Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-ee]).

Compatibility Determination for Environmental Education and Interpretation for 

Humboldt Bay NWR
F-2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

Description of Use(s):

Environmental education and interpretation are those activities which seek to increase the public’s 

knowledge and understanding of wildlife and its associated ecology and contribute to the conservation of 

such wildlife. The Humboldt Bay NWR (refuge) proposes to enhance existing environmental education by 

strengthening existing partnerships with area schools, universities, conservation groups and the refuge 

support groups (Friends of Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge and Friends of the Dunes). 

The refuge currently offers traditional environmental education activities (teacher-led or staff-led on-site 

field trips), annual interpretive events, guided natural history walks, etc. The refuge currently provides 

wildlife-dependent educational opportunities for four school or community groups per month and 20,000 

annual visitor opportunities for interpretive experiences on refuge property to foster public awareness and 

appreciation of wildlife and their habitats around Humboldt Bay. Within 15 years, the refuge expects to 

provide wildlife-dependent educational opportunities for at least 8 school or community groups per month 

and 35,000 annual visitor opportunities for interpretive experiences on and off refuge to foster public 

awareness and appreciation of the natural heritage of the north coast. The current program includes 3 

walks monthly at Salmon Creek Unit and 2 walks monthly at Lanphere Dunes Unit. Ma-le’l Dunes Unit is 

yet to open, but should add at least 1 walk. With the addition over then next 15 years of a 1/2 time FTE, 3.7 

miles of accessible trails, the Historic Hunt Cabin and the Children’s Outdoor Exploration area, 8 school or 

community groups receiving wildlife-dependent educational opportunities is reasonable goal.

The refuge Visitor’s Center has interpretive panels that provide information on wildlife and their respective 

habitats. There is also a children’s area called the “Fledgling Fort” in the Visitor Center that contains 

nature-centered activities and a seasonal “Children’s Outdoor Exploration Area” for children to explore 

nature in an unstructured way. Several educational and conservation organizations utilize the refuge for 

educational purposes. Some of these include the Audubon Society, groups from College of the Redwoods, 

Humboldt State University, and local elementary and high schools.

A self-guiding interpretive pamphlet is available at the refuge visitor’s center that provides historic and 

natural history information corresponding to numbered locations along the Shorebird Loop Trail on the 

Salmon Creek Unit.

Availability of Resources:

Presently, there is adequate funding and staff to meet the current needs for the environmental education 

and interpretation program at the existing visitation rate. The refuge staff has seen increased demand for 

environmental education and interpretation experiences. Area schools are requesting hands-on nature 

activities that emphasize particular topics concerning the environment to provide students with a well 

rounded refuge experience. In anticipation of increased use in this area, a part-time permanent Visitor’s 

Service Assistant was funded in 2008. The refuge will continue to pursue various areas of matching funding 

for this position in order to make it full-time. 

 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-3

Facilities

Material/Facility

Proposed Explanation of Need

Cost 1

 annual cost

2

 one time cost

Education materials and

supplies

Various materials are required annually to 

implement existing environmental education 

programs 

 $3K1

Acquire additional and maintain existing 

interpretive

panels

Acquire additional and Update existing 

interpretive panels and signs to facilitate 

education and interpretive programs. 

$50K2

Complete the “Historic Hunt Cabin” Will interpret the recent history of the Salmon 

Creek Ranch, refuge development, and the 

role waterfowling at the ranch, refuge, and bay 

played in local conservation efforts. 

$100K2

Establish outdoor environmental

education structure for lab activities

 Will allow students/visitors to explore the 

ecology of the refuge in a lab setting and in 

inclement weather 

$50K2

Establish ‘Discovery Area’ on refuge 

in accordance w/ Children in Nature 

Initiative

Allows for a place on the refuge where children 

can use all their senses to explore nature.

$10K2

3.7 miles of accessible trails Increase accessibility for 6 priority uses under 

Americans with Disabilities Act

$50 K2

Total Construction Cost for Facilities

Annual Cost

$260K

$3K

Staffing

Position Involvement FTE Annual Cost

Project Leader General oversight of programs & budget 0.1 $12K

Assistant Refuge Manager Periodic on-site oversight, occasional 

monitoring of program activities 0.2 $20K

Maintenance Worker Facilities maintenance 0.1 $10K

Visitor Services Assistant

Coordinate and provide oversight of

environmental education programs and

assist in interpretive plan design. 0.5 $20K 

Total FTEs and

Costs for Staffing .8 $62K

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

The use of on-site, hands-on action-oriented activities by groups of up to 50 students and teachers (the 

maximum group size the refuge can accommodate to ensure a quality environmental education experience 

for all students) to accomplish environmental education objectives may impose a short-term, low level 

impact on the sites used for these activities. These low level impacts may include trampling of vegetation 

and temporary disturbance to wildlife species in the immediate vicinity. It is not anticipated that such 

impacts would be permanent or long-lasting because these activities take place on established trails or areas 

close to the Visitor’s Center where wildlife is already somewhat habituated to human activities. 
F-4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

The presence of humans will disturb wildlife causing temporary displacement without long-term effects on 

individuals or populations. Some species will avoid the areas people frequent, while others will seemingly be 

unaffected by the presence of humans. 

Activities related to environmental education and photography can have negative impacts to wildlife by 

altering wildlife behavior, reproduction, and distribution. The response of wildlife to human activities 

includes: site departure (Owen 1973, Burger 1981, Henson and Grant 1991, Klein 1993), use of suboptimal 

habitat (Erwin 1980, Williams and Forbes 1980), altered behavior (Burger 1981, Morton et al. 1989, Havera 

et al. 1992, Klein 1993), and increase in energy expenditure (Morton et al. 1989, Belanger and Bedard 1990). 

McNeil et al. (1992) found that many waterfowl species avoid disturbance by feeding at night instead of 

during the day. The location of recreational activities impacts species in different ways. Miller et al. (1998) 

found that nesting success was lower near recreational trails, where human activity was common, than at 

greater distances from the trails. A number of species have shown greater reactions when pedestrian use 

occurred off trail (Miller et al. 1998). 

For songbirds, Gutzwiller et al. (1997) found that singing behavior of some species was altered with low 

levels of human intrusion. Pedestrian travel can impact normal behavioral activities, including feeding, 

reproductive, and social behavior. Studies have shown that ducks and shorebirds are sensitive to pedestrian 

activity (Burger 1981, 1986). Resident waterbirds tend to be less sensitive to human disturbance than 

migrants, and migrant ducks are particularly sensitive when they first arrive (Klein 1993). In areas where 

human activity is common, birds tolerated closer approaches than in areas receiving less activity.

Environmental education activities can affect wildlife resources positively and negatively. A positive 

effect of public involvement in these priority public uses will be a better appreciation and more complete 

understanding of the refuge wildlife and habitats. Pedestrian travel has the potential of impacting 

shorebird, waterfowl, and other migratory bird populations feeding and resting near the trails and on 

beaches during certain times of the year. Human disturbance to migratory birds has been documented in 

many studies. However, the overall effects to wildlife should not be significant, because public use is allowed 

on only a small portion of the refuge lands. 

Public Review and Comment:

Environmental education and interpretation were discussed at two public meetings held in conjunction 

with the Comprehensive Conservation Plan process. To initiate the CCP process, a Notice of Intent 

was published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2007. Written comments were solicited from the 

public about the refuge’s operations including public use programs such as environmental education and 

interpretation. Five CCP planning updates and one planning workbook were prepared to summarize the 

progress of the CCP and to discuss issues related to the planning process. This compatibility determination 

was submitted for public review and comment as an appendix to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. No 

comments were received on this compatibility determination.

Determination (check one below):

___ Use is Not Compatible

__X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Activities are held on existing trails, pull-off areas and gardens where human presence is frequent and 

wildlife are minimally affected by the presence of humans. Periodic opportunistic evaluation of sites, 

programs and general public use are held to assess if objectives are being met and the resource is not being 

degraded. If evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts begin to appear, it may be necessary to temporarily 

close a trail or site.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-5

As the need increases, the refuge will recruit volunteers or interns to assist with providing environmental 

education and interpretation tours. Prospective groups interested in guided wildlife-dependent 

environmental education at the refuge are currently required to submit a field trip application, available in 

the refuge visitor center, by fax, and on the refuge website. Applications are reviewed and trips developed 

based on conversation between Visitor Services staff and applicants to provide a detailed trip plan to 

maximize the effectiveness and enjoyment of each trip for user groups. Staff discusses trail etiquette, 

including ways to reduce wildlife disturbance, with teachers during the pre-trip planning conversations and 

with students upon their arrival at the refuge during their welcome session.

Sign replacement and installation along public trails and access points will be prioritized to prevent visitors 

from entering sensitive areas.

Justification:

The National Wildlife Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-57) identifies six legitimate and appropriate 

uses of wildlife refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation. Where these uses have been determined compatible, they are to receive enhanced 

consideration over other uses in planning and management.

These uses have been determined compatible because environmental education and interpretation will not 

materially interfere with or detract from unit purposes. The continuation of these programs will support 

the refuge goal of fostering a broader understanding of the value of wildlife conservation. The level of 

use for environmental education and interpretation is moderate. The associated disturbance to wildlife is 

temporary and minor. Under those conditions, the staff does not expect them to materially interfere with or 

detract from the mission of the System or diminish the purposes for which the refuge was established; nor 

do we expect them to cause significant adverse effects on refuge resources or cause undue administrative 

burden. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only)

_____X_______Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

____________Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

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

_____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:

Belanger, L., and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow 

geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36.

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation. 

21:231-241.

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern 

United States. Environmental Conservation. 13:123-130.
F-6 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

Erwin, R. M. 1980. Breeding habitat by colonially nesting water birds in 2 mid-Atlantic U.S. 

regions under different regimes of human disturbance. Biological Conservation. 

18:39-51.

Gutzwiller, K.J., R.T. Wiedenmann, and K.L. Clements. 1997. Does human intrusion alter the 

Seasonal timing of avian song during breeding periods? Auk. 114:55-65.

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl 

on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 20:290-298.

Henson, P.T., and A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding

behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 19:248-257.

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin. 21:31-39.

McNeil, R., P. Drapeau, J.D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurrence and adaptive significance

of nocturnal habitats in waterfowl. Biological Review. 67:381-419.

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird

communities. Ecological Applications. 8(1) 162-169.

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American 

black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:401-410.

Owen, M. 1973. The management of grassland areas for wintering geese. Wildfowl. 24:123-130.

Williams, G.J., and E. Forbes. 1980. The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied Brant 

geese and widgeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl. 31:151-157.

Refuge Determination for Environmental Education and Interpretation for Humboldt Bay NWR:

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ___________________

 (Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader

Approval: ______________________________________ ___________________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ___________________ 

 (Signature) (Date)

Assistant Regional 

Director - Refuges: ______________________________________ ___________________

 (Signature) (Date)
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-7

Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation and Photography for 

Humboldt Bay NWR

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Refuge Name: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

County and State: Humboldt County, California.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Humboldt Bay NWR was established under the authority of The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, 

The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and The Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

According to these authorities, Humboldt Bay NWR’s purposes are:

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) (Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Stamp Act)

“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(a)(4) and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural 

resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-1 and “...

the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms 

and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act 

[16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-460k-4], as amended)

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species ....or (B) 

plants ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)

National Wildlife Refuge System 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 Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-ee]).

Description of Use(s):

The Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) would continue to provide opportunities for wildlife 

observation and photography, two of the six priority uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. If found 
F-8 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

compatible, priority uses are to receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses. (16 U.S. C. 

668dd-668ee, as amended by Pub.L. 105-57; 111 Stat 1252).

Wildlife observation and photography would be limited to the established trail systems of the Humboldt Bay 

NWR, and the Visitor Center, photo blind, the Children’s Outdoor Exploration Area at the Salmon Creek 

Unit, and the Lanphere Dunes and Ma-le’l Dunes . 

The refuge is located along the Pacific Flyway, providing valuable habitat to migratory birds. The Salmon 

Creek and Hookton Slough Units currently have 3.0 miles of trails traversing through a diversity of wildlife 

habitat. Tidal flats, salt marsh and freshwater marshes are all components of these units. Birds from 

waterfowl, shorebirds, hawks, sparrows and warblers to deer, otters, and harbor seals are just a sample of 

the wildlife that uses these habitats. Within 15 years, the refuge expects to provide 35,000 annual wildlife 

observation and photography visitor opportunities by land and water trails and to provide 3.0 miles of 

wheelchair accessible trail (the entire Shorebird Loop and Hookton Slough Trails). The Hookton Slough 

Unit is open daily sunrise to sunset and the Salmon Creek Unit is open every day from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 

PM. 

There are ~4.0 miles of trails in the North Bay units, Lanphere Dunes and Ma-le’l Dunes. These units 

contain globally rare vegetation types, coastal coniferous forest, sand dune, and beach habitats and offer 

the public a unique opportunity for nature recreation. Within 15 years, the refuge expects to provide a 

total of 0.5 miles of accessible trail at the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit and implement all phases of the Ma-le’l Dunes 

Cooperative Management Area Access Plan which includes: an expanded trail system, interpretive panels, 

a viewing deck, a volunteer caretaker, and restrooms at the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit. The majority of these 

improvements will be acquired through a grant from the California Coastal Conservancy. The Lanphere 

Dunes Unit is open by permit only. The Ma-le’l Dunes Unit will be opened to the public as soon as the Male’l Dunes Cooperative Management Agreement is approved.

The two priority uses would be conducted much as they are at this time. They would be allowed only on 

designated trails and at the photo blind and proposed Children’s Outdoor Exploration Area. Permitted 

uses are only allowed on designated trails or other public use locations. Walking off-trail can harm sensitive 

vegetation and/or disturb wildlife. “Closed Area” signs mark areas closed to public entry. Entry on all or 

portions of specific areas may be temporarily suspended by posting upon occasions of unusual or critical 

conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public safety.

Providing access for wildlife observation and photography will allow public access and enjoyment of scenic 

views and an array of wildlife including waterfowl, other migratory birds, wetland and salt marsh plants 

and resident wildlife and dune and coastal ecosystem plants and wildlife. These areas provide opportunities 

for wildlife enjoyment not usually available on adjacent private land. Refuge visitors will better understand 

the challenges facing our wildlife and wild lands resources, what effects the public can have on wildlife 

resources, and learn more about the Service’s role in conservation. People will better understand the 

biological facts underlying our management programs, and why wildlife and wild lands are important. 

These two priority uses will provide opportunities for the public to observe wildlife habitats firsthand and 

learn about wildlife and wild lands at their own pace in an unstructured environment. Photographers will 

gain opportunities to photograph wildlife and natural habitats. Those opportunities can result in increased 

publicity and advocacy for Service programs. 

Availability of Resources:

To continue accommodating public use at the current level would not require a significant increase in 

maintenance or visitor service staff expenditures. Using a combination of automatic trail counters, hand 

counting at the Salmon Creek Unit Visitor Center, and indirect methods, monitoring indicates that current 

public use is no more than 50 visitors at any one time on the refuge, except for during special events. Staff 

time associated with administration of these uses is related to maintaining trails, kiosks, gates, signs, 

providing information to the public about the use, conducting visitor surveys, analyzing visitor use patterns, 

and monitoring the effects of the use on refuge resources. Staff and or volunteers would administer the 

program and would monitor the effects of public access. Through a cooperative agreement, Rangers with 

the Bureau of Land Management will conduct law enforcement activities to provide for visitor safety 

and resource protection. New funding provided in 2008 allows for a part time permanent staff position 

dedicated to Visitor Services and Outreach, which will significantly assist refuge efforts in providing these 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-9

priority public uses. In addition, there are funds in an existing contract to provide additional improvements 

in signage, interpretation, and existing facilities to help accommodate these uses.

Maintenance of trails and facilities are costs related to accommodating these uses. The major portion of 

the funds needed to support the two priority uses are salaries for staff to maintain the trails and to provide 

protection and monitoring; additional funds are needed for maintenance materials and other supplies. At the 

Salmon Creek and Hookton Slough Units there are restrooms that are maintained and open year-round for 

public users of the trail system. Additionally, there are kiosks, interpretive panels, displays, and brochures 

at the Salmon Creek and Hookton Slough Units that provide important information on refuge resources, 

management and rules to help the users have an enjoyable, safe experience while at the refuge. The kiosks 

receive regular maintenance and brochure replenishment. It is estimated that approximately one day 

per week is spent at each location conducting routine maintenance, trail clearing, and general upkeep and 

one day per week is spent on general public assistance for these activities. The CCP prescribes additional 

visitor facilities and activities, some of which are covered under other compatibility determinations. 

The estimated cost of constructing and maintaining these structures is detailed below. However, the 

development of many of the strategies in the CCP is dependent upon receiving adequate funding and 

staffing. The refuge will continue to manage these activities at current levels until this funding is made 

available.

Facilities

Material/Facility

Proposed Explanation of Need

Cost

annual cost 1

one time cost 2

Special equipment, facilities, or 

improvements & maintenance

Scopes, binoculars, brochures, 

handouts, special events 

$5001

Trails, panels, kiosks, Visitor Center 

& photo blinds 

Maintenance (mowing, gravel, etc) $2,0001 

Construction of photo blind for mobilityimpaired individuals $5,0002 

Total Annual Cost for Facilities $2,5001

Staffing

Position Involvement FTE Annual Cost

Project Leader General oversight of programs & budget 0.2 $16,000

Assistant Refuge Manager Periodic on-site oversight and monitoring 

of program activities

0.2 $10,000

Maintenance Worker Facilities maintenance 0.1 $10,000

Visitor Services Assistant Coordinate and provide oversight of 

Wildlife observation and photography 

programs

0.2 $10,000 

Total FTEs and

Costs for Staffing

0.7 $46,000

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Wildlife observation and photography can affect wildlife resources positively and negatively. A positive 

effect of public involvement in these priority public uses will be a better appreciation and more complete 

understanding of the refuge wildlife and habitats. Pedestrian travel has the potential of impacting 

shorebird, waterfowl, and other migratory bird populations feeding and resting near the trails and on 

beaches during certain times of the year. Human disturbance to migratory birds has been documented in 

many studies. However, the overall effects to wildlife should not be significant, because most of the refuge 

lands will experience minimal public use.
F-10 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

The presence of humans will disturb wildlife causing temporary displacement without long-term effects on 

individuals or populations. Some species will avoid the areas people frequent, while others will seemingly be 

unaffected by the presence of humans. 

Activities related to wildlife observation and photography can have negative impacts to wildlife by altering 

wildlife behavior, reproduction, and distribution. The response of wildlife to human activities includes: site 

departure (Owen 1973, Burger 1981, Henson and Grant 1991, Klein 1993), use of suboptimal habitat (Erwin 

1980, Williams and Forbes 1980), altered behavior (Burger 1981, Morton et al. 1989, Havera et al. 1992, 

Klein 1993), and increase in energy expenditure (Morton et al. 1989, Belanger and Bedard 1990). McNeil 

et al. (1992) found that many waterfowl species avoid disturbance by feeding at night instead of during the 

day. The location of recreational activities impacts species in different ways. Studies have shown that ducks 

and shorebirds are sensitive to pedestrian activity (Burger 1981, 1986). Resident waterbirds tend to be less 

sensitive to human disturbance than migrants, and migrant ducks are particularly sensitive when they first 

arrive (Klein 1993). Miller et al. (1998) found that nesting success was lower near recreational trails, where 

human activity was common, than at greater distances from the trails. A number of species have shown 

greater reactions when pedestrian use occurred off trail (Miller et al.1998). 

For songbirds, Gutzwiller et al. (1997) found that singing behavior of some species was altered by low 

levels of human intrusion. Pedestrian travel can impact normal behavioral activities, including feeding, 

reproductive, and social behavior. In areas where human activity is common, birds tolerated closer 

approaches than in areas receiving less activity.

People can be vectors for invasive plants by moving seeds or other propagules from one area to another. 

Once established, invasive plants can out-compete native plants, thereby altering habitats and indirectly 

impacting wildlife. The threat of invasive plant establishment will always be an issue requiring annual 

monitoring and treatment when necessary. Our staff will work at eradicating invasive plants and educating 

the visiting public.

Impacts may be considered insignificant when analyzed alone, but may be considered important when they 

are evaluated cumulatively. The refuge’s principal concern is repeated disruptions of resting, foraging, or 

nesting birds. Staff knowledge and regular observations of the affected areas show no apparent evidence 

that these two priority wildlife-dependent uses cumulatively affect the wildlife resource adversely. However, 

it will be important for refuge staff to monitor these (and other) uses and if necessary respond with 

management actions to conserve wildlife resources.

Refuge staff, in collaboration with volunteers and researchers, will monitor and evaluate the effects of 

these priority uses to discern and respond to any adverse effects to wildlife or habitats. Monitoring costs 

are associated with and included in biological strategies rather than herein for wildlife observation and 

photography. Based on the best knowledge of managers, no additional adverse effects are expected from 

providing these two priority uses.

Public Review and Comment:

Wildlife observation and photography were discussed at two public meetings held in conjunction with the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan process. To initiate the CCP process, a Notice of Intent was published 

in the Federal Register on January 29, 2007. Written comments were solicited from the public about the 

refuge’s operations including public use programs such as wildlife observations and photography. Three 

CCP planning updates and one planning workbook were prepared to summarize the progress of the CCP 

and to discuss issues related to the planning process. This compatibility determination was submitted for 

public review and comment as an appendix to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental 

Assessment for the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. No comments were received on this 

compatibility determination.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-11

Determination (check one below):

_ Use is Not Compatible

__X_ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Access is limited to walking on designated trails, beach, public roads, and parking lots between sunrise 

and sunset daily.

2. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

3. Harassment of wildlife or excessive damage to vegetation is prohibited.

4. Information on the impacts of disturbance to wildlife and habitat will be made available to the public on 

a consistent and ongoing basis. Regulations and wildlife friendly behavior (e.g. requirements to stay on 

designated trails, no dogs, etc.) will be described in brochures and posted at the Visitor’s Station.

5. Biological inventories will be conducted to provide baseline information for measuring change. If 

monitoring and evaluation of the area indicate that there is significant impact or reduction in wildlife 

use, appropriate action can be taken to restore compatibility, including modifying or discontinuing the 

use.

6. Signs will be posted at areas closed to the public. Adequate areas would be designated as wildlife 

sanctuary with no or limited public use activities to provide high quality habitat for feeding, resting, and 

nesting.

Justification:

The National Wildlife Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-57) identifies six legitimate and appropriate 

uses of wildlife refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation. Where these uses have been determined compatible, they are to receive enhanced 

consideration over other uses in planning and management.

These uses have been determined compatible because wildlife viewing and photography will not materially 

interfere with or detract from unit purposes. The continuation of these programs will support the refuge 

goal of fostering a broader understanding of the value of wildlife conservation. The level of use for wildlife 

observation and photography is moderate compared with many other refuges in California. The associated 

disturbance to wildlife is temporary and minor. Under those conditions, the staff does not expect them to 

materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the System or diminish the purposes for which the 

refuge was established; nor do we expect them to cause significant adverse effects on refuge resources or 

cause undue administrative burden. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only)

_____X______ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

____________ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

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

_____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
F-12 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

References Cited:

Belanger, L., and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36.

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation. 21:231-241.

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United 

States. Environmental Conservation. 13:123-130.

Erwin, R. M. 1980. Breeding habitat by colonially nesting water birds in 2 mid-Atlantic U.S. regions under 

different regimes of human disturbance. Biological Conservation. 18:39-51.

Gutzwiller, K.J., R.T. Wiedenmann, and K.L. Clements. 1997. Does human intrusion alter the Seasonal 

timing of avian song during breeding periods? Auk. 114:55-65.

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk 

Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 20:290-298.

Henson, P.T., and A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding behavior. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 19:248-257.

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 21:31-

39.

McNeil, R., P. Drapeau, and J.D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurrence and adaptive significance of nocturnal 

habitats in waterfowl. Biological Review. 67:381-419.

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications. 8(1) 162-169.

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black ducks in 

winter. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:401-410.

Owen, M. 1973. The management of grassland areas for wintering geese. Wildfowl. 24:123-130.

Williams, G.J., and E. Forbes. 1980. The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied Brant geese and 

widgeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl. 31:151-157.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-13

Refuge Determination for Wildlife Observation and Photography for Humboldt Bay NWR:

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ___________

 (Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence:

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Assistant Regional 

Director - Refuges: _____________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date)

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-15

Compatibility Determination for Recreational Boating for Humboldt Bay NWR

Use: Recreational Boating

Refuge Name: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

County and State: Humboldt County, California.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Humboldt Bay NWR was established under the authority of The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, 

The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and The Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

According to these authorities, Humboldt Bay NWR’s purposes are:

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) (Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Stamp Act)

“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(a)(4) and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural 

resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-1 and “...

the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms 

and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act 

[16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-460k-4], as amended)

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species ....or (B) 

plants ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)

National Wildlife Refuge System 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 Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966)

Description of Use(s):

The Humboldt Bay NWR (refuge) proposes to continue to allow motorized and non-motorized recreational 

boating in all bay waters including Hookton Slough, White Slough, Mad River Slough and Humboldt 
F-16 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

Bay. Recreational boating use addressed in this compatibility determination is for motorized and nonmotorized boats, including kayaks and canoes. Although boating is not a wildlife-dependent public use, it 

does facilitate other wildlife-dependent uses such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography and 

environmental education.

The Hookton Slough Unit non-motorized boat launch is currently open to public use daily from sunrise to 

sunset. Permits are not required from the refuge for this public use. There are several staff guided canoe/

kayak trips each year. There are also boat launches off the refuge on Lanphere Road and Samoa Highway 

where the roads cross Mad River Slough that are continuously open. Boat accessibility to the sloughs and 

Humboldt Bay is often determined by the tides. 

Canoeing and kayaking use of the bay and sloughs have increased significantly in this area and recreational 

boating allows the public to observe wildlife and habitats from a unique vantage point. The refuge has an 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant non-motorized boat launch at the Hookton Slough Unit 

which provides access to natural areas of Humboldt Bay to the mobility impaired public.

Availability of Resources:

The following funding/annual cost would be required to administer and manage boating activities as 

described above:

Facilities

Material/Facility Proposed Explanation of Need Cost (approximate)

Maintenance of non-motorized 

boat launch at Hookton Slough 

Unit

Necessary to provide safe and functional 

facility

$500 annually

Signage/Outreach Inform public on appropriate use, safety, 

and habitat protection, brochures, 

interpretive displays

$250 annually

Total: $750 annually

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Humboldt Bay NWR provides crucial foraging and resting habitat for wintering migratory birds, including 

waterfowl, shorebirds, seabirds, and other waterbirds. Recreational boating affects their use of refuge and 

other bay waters. Boating activity, both motorized and non-motorized, can alter distribution, reduce use 

of particular habitats or entire areas by waterfowl and other birds, alter feeding behavior and nutritional 

status, and cause premature departure from areas (Knight and Cole 1995). More sensitive species may 

find it difficult to secure adequate food or loafing sites as their preferred habitat becomes fragmented and 

recreation-related disturbances increase (Skagen et al. 1991, Pfister et al. 1992). During migration and 

wintering Pacific brant can be considered obligate feeders on eelgrass. Because of this and the fact that 

there are relatively few locations along the Pacific coastline which sustain large eelgrass beds, Humboldt 

Bay is one of the three most important locations on the U.S. west coast for brant. Approximately 60% 

of the Pacific flyway brant population spends some period of time each year at Humboldt Bay. Because 

the majority of brant use occurs between January and mid-April when the weather is fairly severe, it is 

expected that disturbance will be minimal because few recreational boaters are on the bay at that time. 

Another species with the potential to be impacted by boaters are the double-crested cormorants that 

nest in a colony along the remaining dike on the northeast side of Teal Island. However, aerial survey 

data collected on this colony in recent years does not indicate any decline in nests or total numbers of 

cormorants.

A third species that could be impacted is the harbor seal. Harbor seals haulout and bear their pups on bay 

tideflats, often adjacent to large channels. Harbor seals are afforded protection under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-17

Canoes and kayaks can cause significant disturbance effects based on their ability to penetrate into 

shallower areas of a marsh or estuary (Speight 1973, Knight and Cole 1995). Canoes or slow-moving boats 

have been observed to disturb great blue herons (Vos et al. 1985). Huffman (1999) found that non-motorized 

boats within 30 meters of the shoreline in south San Diego Bay caused all wintering waterfowl to flush 

between the craft and shore. However, compared to motorboats, canoes and kayaks appear to have less 

disturbance effects on most wildlife species (Huffman 1999, DeLong 2002). The overall effects to wildlife 

should not be significant, because we expect most of the refuge lands will experience relatively light public 

use. However, monitoring should be done to: 1) establish a baseline of non-motorized boat use on different 

areas of the bay which either do or are expected to receive the highest use, and 2) compare with previous 

data collected on brant and harbor seal use of South Bay.

Public Review and Comment:

To initiate the CCP process, a Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on January 29, 

2007. Written comments were solicited from the public about the refuge’s operations including public use 

programs such as wildlife observations and photography. The shellfish growers, Humboldt Bay Harbor 

Recreation and Conservation District (HBHRCD), and California Department of Public Health expressed 

concerns over water quality during the public scoping for the CCP/EA. Five CCP planning updates and 

one planning workbook were prepared to summarize the progress of the CCP and to discuss issues related 

to the planning process. This compatibility determination was submitted for public review and comment as 

an appendix to the Draft CCP/EA for the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The shellfish 

growers, HBHRCD, the California Coastal Commission, Humboldt County Department of Environmental 

Health (DPH), and the Environmental Protection Agency are included on the CCP/EA mailing list and 

received notification of availability of the Draft CCP/EA for review and comment. Two shellfish growers 

submitted comments about potential impacts (increased potential for contamination) to water quality by 

potentially increased numbers and/or concentrations of boaters, particularly in the lower Mad River Slough 

area where their operations are concentrated. The California Department of Public Health also submitted 

comments on the Draft CCP/EA regarding water quality and non-motorized boating. The comments are 

addressed in Appendix S. Due to the aforementioned water quality concerns and elevation at mid and lower 

tides, the Mad River Slough site was not a priority location for a boat ramp. A boat ramp at Ma-le’l Dunes 

is not proposed as a part of the CCP or the Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area and Public Access 

Plan. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

_X_ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Monitoring of boating activities and associated effects on waterfowl (especially brant), waterbirds, other 

migratory birds, and harbor seals will be conducted to compare against previous use data for brant and 

harbor seals. Monitoring data will be used by the refuge to evaluate impacts.

2. Coordination with other agencies such as the CA Dept. of Fish and Game, CA Dept. of Public Health, 

Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District and shellfish growers as well as boating 

groups such as Explore North Coast and other interested businesses and individuals regarding issues 

such as water quality and disturbance. 

3. Environmental interpretive displays/brochures will be developed to educate the public about the 

potential effects of boating on sensitive habitats, wildlife and water quality.

5. Boaters must abide by the State boating regulations. 

Justification:

Boating itself is not considered wildlife-dependent recreation, but many wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities (fishing, waterfowl hunting, environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife observation/
F-18 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

photography) are associated with boating. Providing opportunities for wildlife-dependent priority 

public uses would contribute toward fulfilling provisions under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act as amended in 1997. Although boating has a potential to impact wetlands and wildlife, 

implementing the prescribed measures listed in the Stipulations section will minimize these impacts. It is 

anticipated that an adequate amount of estuary habitat would be available to the majority of waterfowl and 

other wetland birds because some high wildlife use areas will be closed to boating, and boating regulations 

would be maintained and enforced. Thus, it is anticipated that birds will find sufficient food resources 

and resting places such that their abundance and use of the refuge will not be measurably lessened, the 

physiological condition and production of waterfowl and other waterbirds will not be impaired, their 

behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall status will not 

be impaired. The refuge will also implement a monitoring program to help assess disturbance effects on 

wildlife and habitat. Improved outreach and educational information for refuge visitors involved in activities 

associated with boating would also help to reduce the impacts associated with boating activities.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date: 

_________ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

_____X___ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

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

_____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:

DeLong, A. 2002. Managing Visitor Use and Disturbance of Waterbirds. A Literature Review of Impacts 

and Mitigation Measures.

Huffman, K. 1999. San Diego South Bay survey report-effects of human activity and water craft on 

wintering birds in South San Diego Bay. USFWS report.

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. in Wildlife and Recreationists R.L. 

Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, (eds.). Island Press, Covelo, California.

Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on Shorebirds at a 

migration staging area. Biological Conservation. 60:115-126.

Skagen, S.K., R.L. Knight, and G.H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbances of an avian scavenging guild. 

Ecological Applications. 1:215-225.

Speight, M.C.D. 1973. Outdoor recreation and its ecological effects: a bibliography and review. University 

College London, England, Discussion Papers in Conservation 4. 35pp.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-19

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). January 2009. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Refuge Planning, California 

and Nevada Region, USFWS, Sacramento, CA and Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

USFWS, Loleta, CA. Appendix E.

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human disturbance 

in north central Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22.

Refuge Determination for Recreational Boating for Humboldt Bay NWR:

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ___________

 (Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ___________

 (Signature) (Date)

 

Assistant Regional ______________________________________ ____________

Director - Refuges (Signature) (Date)

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-21

Use: Waterfowl hunting

Refuge Name: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

County and State: Humboldt County, California.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Humboldt Bay NWR was established under the authority of The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, 

The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and The Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

According to these authorities, Humboldt Bay NWR’s purposes are:

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) (Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Stamp Act)

“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(a)(4) and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural 

resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-1 (Refuge 

Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-460k-4], as amended) 

“...the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under 

the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-2 (Refuge 

Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-460k-4], as amended)

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species ....or (B) 

plants ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)

National Wildlife Refuge System 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 Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee]).

Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting for Humboldt Bay NWR
F-22 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

Description of Use(s):

The Humboldt Bay NWR proposes to continue to provide opportunities for waterfowl hunting, one of 

the six priority uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1966 (16 U.S. C. 668dd-668ee) as amended by The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub.L. 105-57; 111 Stat 1252). The Refuge System Administration Act identifies 

hunting as one of the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses to be facilitated in the Refuge System, and 

the Act encourages the Service to provide opportunities for the public to enjoy them. Hunting has been a 

traditional form of recreation around Humboldt Bay for generations. The hunt program at Humboldt Bay 

NWR is small compared to many other federal wildlife refuges in California such as Sacramento NWRC or 

Tule Lake NWR. However, Humboldt Bay NWR provides a unique public land hunting opportunity for the 

citizens of Humboldt County in general and specifically for the cities of Eureka, Arcata and Fortuna. The 

high quality hunting resulting from a lottery draw for designated blinds offered at the Salmon Creek Unit of 

HBNWR is different than the other public lands open to hunting in the area, which are managed as freeroam hunt areas. During the public scoping period for the CCP (January 29 – March 15, 2007) the majority 

of the comments received about the hunt program supported stable or increased hunting opportunities at 

the refuge.

Hunting on the refuge has occurred traditionally in White Slough, Eureka Slough, Jacoby Creek, Teal 

Island and Table Bluff Units, and the controlled hunt area of the Salmon Creek Unit. Concurrent with 

implementation of the Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Agreement, on the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit 

hunting will be allowed on 10 acres of the Fernstrom-Root Island and retrieval will be allowed on the areas 

of Ma-le’l Island within the Service’s jurisdiction. 

The waterfowl hunt program at HBNWR takes place during the normal State waterfowl hunting season, 

typically lasting 100 to 107 days, usually from the third weekend in October to the last weekend in January 

as set by the State Commission in accordance with Federal guidelines. Hunting would continue to follow the 

State waterfowl season. The hunting program would be conducted at the following areas:

Salmon Creek Unit

Hunting at the Salmon Creek Unit occurs two days per week, Tuesday and Saturday from 1⁄2 hour before 

sunrise until 3:00 PM during the entire regular hunting season. During check in hunters will receive a daily 

hunting permit for their blind. Hunting blinds are selected using a lottery draw occurring 1 and 1/2 hours 

before legal shooting time on the morning of each hunting day. The hunting permit must be in possession of 

the hunter while in the field, and hunters must return their permits and report hunting results at the check 

station by 4:30 PM. 

Teal Island 

Teal Island is open to hunting Wednesdays, Saturdays, Sundays, holidays and the opening and closing days 

during the prescribed open season as per Section 3681 of the California Fish and Game code. Teal Island 

is designated as boat in access only. Hunting is permitted from the levees or from a boat blind. Teal Island 

may not be accessed for hunting from the Hookton Slough non-motorized boat dock; Fields Landing is the 

nearest public boat launch.

Jacoby Creek Unit

Jacoby Creek is open to free roam hunting 7 days a week, but the property is designated as boat in access 

only. No parking is allowed on FWS property. No trespass onto the banks of Jacoby Creek is permitted. 

Parking along Highway 101 is not recommended and the FWS assumes no responsibility or liability for 

hunters that choose to park along Highway 101. The Arcata Marsh has the closest public boat launching 

point.

Eureka Slough Unit

The Eureka Slough Unit is open to free roam hunting 7 days a week, but the property is boat in access only. 

Woodley Island Marina or the launch behind Target department store are the nearest public boat launches.

Table Bluff Unit

Table Bluff Unit is open to free roam hunting 7 days a week. Hunters may access the area either by boat or 

by walking in.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-23

White Slough/Egret Island Unit

This area is open to hunting Wednesdays, Saturdays, Sundays, holidays and the opening and closing days 

during the prescribed open season as per Section 3681 of the California Fish and Game code. White Slough 

and Egret Island are designated as boat in access only; Fields Landing is the nearest public boat launch. 

Hunting and retrieval are allowed on all of the salt marsh islands but access and hunting is not allowed on 

any of the dikes and lands inside the dikes. Retrieval is not allowed in the Salmon Creek Unit. Shooting is 

not allowed within 150 yards of Highway 101 or Tompkins Hill Road.

Hookton Slough Unit

Hookton Slough is open to hunting Wednesdays, Saturdays, Sundays, holidays and the opening and closing 

days during the prescribed open season as per Section 3681 of the California Fish and Game code. Hookton 

Slough is designated as boat in access only. Boat access for hunting is not allowed from the Hookton Slough 

non-motorized boat dock; Fields Landing is the nearest public entry point. No shooting is allowed within 

150 yards of the Hookton Slough non-motorized boat dock. All other areas of Hookton Slough Unit are 

closed to hunting.

Fernstrom-Root Island (Ma-le’l Dunes Unit)

Concurrent with the implementation of the Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Agreement, 

Fernstrom-Root Island will be open to hunting 7 days a week. Hunting but no blind construction is allowed 

on the portion of the Fernstrom-Root Island owned by the Service. Areas of Ma-le’l Island within the 

Service’s jurisdiction are designated as retrieval only areas. Hunters can access Mad River Slough from the 

boat ramp on Lanphere Road and from Samoa Boulevard to reach Fernstrom-Root Island.

Hunting would be permitted in accordance with State and Federal regulations and seasons. The specific 

hunter registration and selection process is as follows: 

Hunter Application and Registration Procedures at Salmon Creek Unit

A permit is required to hunt at the Salmon Creek Unit. The refuge check station opens 2 hours before 

Eureka legal shoot time. A random drawing for available permits takes place at the check station 1 1⁄2 hours 

prior to shoot time before each daily hunt. Hunters must be present to be eligible for the draw. The refuge’s 

controlled waterfowl hunt is operated under the Recreation Fee Program. Junior hunters (age 17 and 

under) must be accompanied by an adult who will assume legal responsibility of the junior hunter. 

Description of Hunter Selection Process at Salmon Creek Unit

Sign in procedure:

Waterfowl hunters or groups of hunters are required to sign in at the check station in order to participate in 

that day’s hunt. Hunters must be present to participate in the lottery draw.

When the lottery draw is complete and the numbers are posted, the check station attendant will begin filling 

blinds and checking in hunters in the order of the lottery draw. These numbers are also used to prioritize 

re-filling blinds. Hunters must present a completed permit card and their hunting license to the check 

station attendant. The permit must have the assigned blind number written on the permit to be valid. 

Hunters must have an affixed State duck stamp, an affixed HIP program stamp and be in possession of a 

Federal duck stamp signed by the hunter in order to hunt. 

Joining up:

The first fourteen (14) lottery numbers drawn may join with any other of the first fourteen (14) draws as 

long as there are no more than four (4) hunters per blind. Waterfowl hunters or groups of hunters chosen 

after the first fourteen (14) must wait until their number is called in order to pair with other hunters. The 

check station attendant will continue to call numbers until all blinds are occupied. Once all blinds are 

occupied, no more numbers will be called.

Re-filling:

The check station attendant will assign priority numbers for re-filling available blinds based on the morning 

random draw and those present. Hunters must be present in order to maintain their position from the 

morning draw. If a hunter was not present at the morning draw they would sign in according to the “sign in 

procedures”. Hunters would then be given a re-fill number after all other priority hunters have either taken 

a blind or declined to accept a blind.
F-24 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

When a blind has been vacated by all hunters and those hunters have checked out with the check station 

attendant, the blind is available to be re-filled. Re-fill one has the option of taking the blind or not taking the 

blind without losing position in line. If re-fill one does not take an available blind, the choice goes to priority 

two with the same options, so on and so forth. 

Use of hunting dogs for retrieval of birds is allowed and strongly encouraged, however dogs must be under 

control of their owners at all times. Failure to follow any State, Federal or refuge-specific regulations may 

result in eviction from the refuge or a citation. 

A mobility-impaired (“disabled”) blind is available for mobility-impaired hunters. A “mobility-impaired 

hunter” is defined as: Any person who has been issued a “DMV Disabled license plate, or a permanent 

parking placard identification card,” or a valid “Mobility Impaired Disabled Persons Motor Vehicle Hunting 

License” (FG form 1460). The blue plastic “Disabled Parking Placard” may not be substituted for the 

required “Identification card” which bears the name of the mobility-impaired person. Disabled hunters must 

provide the registration certificate for DMV issued disabled license plates.

Hunting is permitted from designated blind zones. Free roam hunting is not allowed. Hunters are required 

to remain within designated blind zones, except for retrieving downed birds. Hunter may take their 

firearms while retrieving downed birds, but no active hunting is allowed when outside of the designated 

blind zone. Firearms must be unloaded while being transported between parking areas and hunting sites. 

A firearm is deemed loaded when there is a live cartridge or shell in, or attached in any manner to, the 

firearm, including, but not limited to, the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm. 

(Penal Code & 12031(g)).

Hunter Procedures at Other Refuge Units

Procedures at other units are free roam hunting in accordance with State regulations and unit specific 

refuge regulations as described above and in the Humboldt Bay NWR Sport Hunting Plan (Appendix C of 

the CCP).

Availability of Resources:

The estimated annual cost to administer the hunt program is $25,500. Within the annual refuge budget the 

necessary funds are available for this work. The refuge also participates in the Recreational Fee Program, 

which offsets some costs of the hunting program. 

To regulate the hunting activities on the refuge the following staffing and equipment would be required:

Equipment

Type of Equipment Explanation of Need Cost

Pit blind modification Prevent strandings of wildlife $500

Modify harvest record card Improve hunt program record keeping $500

Sign posting/improvement Educate public $1,000

Maps/brochures Improve interpretation and outreach $1,000

Total Cost for Equipment (one-time cost) $3,000
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-25

Staffing

Position Involvement FTE Cost

Project Leader General oversight & budget 0.05 $2.5K

Assistant Refuge Manager Periodic on-site oversight 0.05 $2.5K

Heavy Equipment Operator Hunt Area management/maintenance 0.05 $2.5K

Visitor’s Service Assistant Planning and implementation

of Hunt Program

.2 $5K

Law Enforcement Officer 0.05 $2.5K

Temporary hire Staff hunt check station 0.2 $7.5K

Total FTEs and

Costs for Staffing

.6 $25.5K

Based on the refuge’s current staffing level, adequate staff to patrol and monitor waterfowl hunting activity 

on the refuge is available to support the proposed use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

The hunting of geese, ducks, coots, common moorhens, and snipe would be allowed under the refuge’s Hunt 

Program. Direct effects of hunting include mortality, wounding, and disturbance (DeLong 2002). Hunting 

can alter behavior (i.e. foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife (Owens 

1977, Raveling 1979, White-Robinson 1982, Thomas 1983, Bartelt 1987, Madsen 1985, and Cole and Knight 

1990). There also appears to be an inverse relationship between the numbers of birds using an area and 

hunting intensity (DeLong 2002). In Connecticut, lesser scaup were observed to forage less in areas that 

were heavily hunted (Cronan 1957). In California, the numbers of northern pintails on Sacramento Refuge 

non-hunt areas increased after the first week of hunting and remained high until the season was over in 

early January (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). Following the close of hunting season, ducks generally 

increased their use of the hunt area; however, use was lower than before the hunting season began. Human 

disturbance associated with hunting includes loud noises and rapid movements, such as those produced by 

shotguns and boats powered by outboard motors. This disturbance, especially when repeated over a period 

of time, compels waterfowl to change food habits, feed only at night, lose weight, or desert feeding areas 

(Madsen 1995, Wolder 1993).

These impacts can be reduced by the presence of adjacent sanctuary areas including adjacent wetlands 

and pastures, the White Slough, Hookton Slough and Salmon Creek Unit Closed Zones, and the Ma-le’l 

Dunes Unit closed zones where hunting does not occur and birds can feed and rest relatively undisturbed. 

Sanctuaries or non-hunt areas have been identified as the most common solution to disturbance problems 

caused from hunting (Havera et. al 1992). Prolonged and extensive disturbances may cause large numbers 

of waterfowl to leave disturbed areas and migrate elsewhere (Madsen 1995, Paulus 1984). In Denmark, 

hunting disturbance effects were experimentally tested by establishing two sanctuaries (Madsen 1995). 

Over a 5-year period, these sanctuaries became two of the most important staging areas for coastal 

waterfowl. Numbers of dabbling ducks and geese increased 4 to 20 fold within the sanctuary (Madsen 1995). 

Thus, sanctuary and non-hunt areas are very important to minimize disturbance to waterfowl populations to 

ensure their continued use of the refuges. 

Intermittent hunting can also be a means of minimizing disturbance, especially if rest periods in between 

hunting events are weeks rather than days (Fox and Madsen 1997). It is common for refuges to manage 

hunt programs with non-hunt days. At Sacramento Refuge, 3-16 percent of pintails were located on hunted 

units during non-hunt days, but were almost entirely absent in those same units on hunt days (Wolder 1993). 

In addition, northern pintails, American wigeon, and northern shovelers decreased time spent feeding 

on days when hunting occurred on public shooting areas, as compared to non-hunt days (Heitmeyer and 

Raveling 1988). The intermittent hunting per week at Sacramento Refuge results in lower pintail densities 

on hunt areas during non-hunt days than non-hunt areas (Wolder 1993). However, intermittent hunting may 

not always greatly reduce hunting impacts. 
F-26 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

Hunting is a highly regulated activity, and generally takes place at specific times and seasons (fall and 

winter) when the game animals are less vulnerable. Managed and regulated hunting will not reduce species 

populations to levels where other wildlife-dependent uses will be affected.

Hunting is an appropriate wildlife management tool that can be used to manage wildlife populations. Some 

wildlife disturbance will occur during the hunting seasons. Proper zoning, regulations, and restrictions of 

days hunted per week at some units from the State regulations will be designated to minimize any negative 

impacts to wildlife populations using the refuges. Harvesting permitted species would not result in a 

substantial decrease in biological diversity on the refuge.

Through a quality hunting program, the public can gain a deeper appreciation of wildlife and an enhanced 

understanding of the importance of conserving habitat, which ultimately contributes to the Refuge System 

mission. A priority for the refuge is to offer a safe and enjoyable hunting program and to minimize any 

potential adverse impacts.

Hunting will have a number of short-term impacts on refuge resources. Three impacts we expect are minor 

damage to vegetation, increased amounts of litter, and some minor disturbance to wildlife by dogs used for 

retrieval purposes. Other wildlife may be present and hunting will disturb some of them. The impacts will 

be minor given the percentage of refuge lands open to hunting is only approximately 20 percent; hunters are 

spaced apart and restricted in their movements at the Salmon Creek Unit, which receives the most impact; 

and the limiting of hunting days to two per week at the Salmon Creek Unit and three per week at the 

Hookton Slough and White Slough Units.

Recreational hunting will remove individual animals, but does not typically have a significant negative effect 

on wildlife populations. To ensure that populations are sustainable, the Service, state wildlife agencies, 

and federal and provincial governments in Canada have long-term cooperative programs that monitor 

breeding-population status, harvest levels, production, migration, and other parameters utilized for 

regulating waterfowl harvests, managing the populations at the flyway level (rather than refuge by refuge). 

The process of regulating harvests involves a lengthy sequence of public involvement and decision making 

and participation by the Service, state wildlife agencies, and the Canadian and Mexican governments. It 

culminates in regulations being set at the flyway level (season lengths, daily bag limits, and outside dates for 

the earliest opening and latest closing dates for a hunting season) and special regulations at the state level 

(e.g., split seasons, harvest zones, special seasons, area closures).

The Service does not expect waterfowl hunting to have an adverse effect on the long-term sustainability of 

migratory bird populations that are hunted. All of the specific regulatory decisions on hunting migratory 

birds are revisited annually and the regulations are adjusted based on the observed status and trends of the 

species/population at issue. Thus, changes in species status due to hunting and factors other than hunting 

(e.g., climate change, disease, catastrophic weather events) would be taken into account and addressed in 

the subsequent year’s hunting regulations. Therefore, the Service has concluded that waterfowl hunting on 

NWRs does not constitute a significant cumulative effect on waterfowl populations.

Based on the above, the anticipated waterfowl harvest from the refuge hunting program will have negligible 

cumulative effects on overall populations of waterfowl and other non-target species. An adequate amount of 

non-hunting areas will be maintained to support current refuge waterfowl populations and to withstand the 

cumulative effects of off-refuge hunting programs. 

The proposed hunt program is intended to minimize conflicts with other wetland-dependent species (e.g. 

special status species) through education, monitoring and limiting hunt days and times. Potential biological 

conflicts include flushing other migratory and resident birds from areas being hunted or the take of nontarget species either by mistake or willfully. Minor adverse impacts to wildlife or habitats are anticipated 

from dogs used for retrieval since they will be under the control of their owners at almost all times. 

Because Humboldt Bay is a shared waterway, conflicts may arise among hunters and recreational boaters or 

anglers. However conflicts among those users should be minimal. Hunting, including the sound of gunfire, 

does disturb some of our residential neighbors and other refuge users, but we attempt to mitigate that by 

outreach and by restricting the days and times when we permit hunting. We work with other local, state, 

and federal law enforcement organizations to provide an increased presence during the hunting season.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-27

Public Review and Comment:

Waterfowl hunting was discussed at two public meetings held in conjunction with the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan Process. To initiate the CCP process, a Notice of Intent was published in the Federal 

Register on January 29, 2007. Written comments were solicited from the public about the refuge’s 

operations including public use programs such as wildlife observations and photography. Five CCP 

planning updates and one planning workbook were prepared to summarize the progress of the CCP and to 

discuss issues related to the planning process. This compatibility determination was submitted for public 

review and comment as an appendix to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. No comments were received on 

this compatibility determination. Hunting-related comments on other parts of the Draft CCP/EA and 

appendices are addressed in Appendix S.

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

_X_ Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Waterfowl hunting programs have been conducted for many years and the special regulations, restrictions, 

and general operations have been structured to ensure compatibility. If the monitoring described under 

Availability of Resources indicates that this use materially interferes with or detracts from fulfillment of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purposes of the refuge, we would curtail or eliminate 

the use. The hunting of geese, ducks, coots, common moorhens and snipe during the waterfowl season as 

determined by the State on designated areas of the refuge is subject to the following conditions:

1. Hunters must possess a valid hunting license, an affixed State duck stamp, a signed Federal duck stamp 

and an affixed Harvest Information Program (HIP) stamp.

2. Hunting hours will coincide with California State Regulations.

3. Non-Toxic shot is required on all refuge units. Shot size is restricted to no larger than “T” for steel shot 

and “BB” for all other non-toxic shot.

4. Only firearms meeting California State regulations and Department of Fish and Game Regulations 

relating to waterfowl hunting (DF&G Code Section 507 (a)) are permitted.

5. No person may build or maintain fires.

6. When not hunting, dogs must be in vehicles or on a leash and kept under control at all times. Dogs are 

not allowed to enter closed areas for any reason.

7. Hunters may use only portable blinds or temporary blinds constructed of natural materials. Hunters 

must dismantle or remove all blinds from the refuge after each days hunt. No cutting or removal of 

vegetation for blind construction or for making trails is permitted.

8. Vehicle parking is permitted only in designated areas.

9. Hunters must remove all decoys, shotshell casings and other personal equipment from the refuge 

following each day’s hunt. Littering is unlawful.

10. Possession or use of alcohol is prohibited on National Wildlife Refuges.

11. The refuge will annually review all hunting activities and operations to ensure compliance with all 

applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

12. Refuge specific hunting information will be available via brochures and the refuge website.
F-28 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

13. The refuge staff will monitor hunting activity in the field to assure that it does not interfere with other 

wildlife-dependent uses.

14. Commercialized guiding is not allowed.

15. Access is by foot or boat only. Bicycles or other conveyances are not allowed. Mobility impaired 

hunters should consult with the Refuge Manager for allowed conveyances.

Justification:

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-57) identifies six legitimate 

and appropriate uses of wildlife refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. Where these uses have been determined compatible, they are 

to receive enhanced consideration over other uses in planning and management.

Migratory waterfowl hunting will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established.

The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, which established inviolate sanctuaries, was amended by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. This amendment authorized up to 40 percent 

of an area acquire for a migratory bird sanctuary to be opened to migratory bird hunting. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only)

_____X______ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

____________ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

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

_____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:

Bartelt, G.A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family groups in 

east central Wisconsin. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:517-522.

Cole, D.N., and R.L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Utah State 

University, Logan, Utah.

Cronan, J.M. 1957. Food and feeding habits of the scaups in Connecticut waters. Auk 74(4):459-468.

DeLong, A. 2002. Managing Visitor Use & Disturbance of Waterbirds. A Literature Review of Impacts and 

Mitigation Measures.

Fox, A.D., and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds 

in Europe: implications for refuge design. J. Appl. Ecol. 34:1-13.

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk 

Pool, Mississippi River. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20:290-298.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-29

Heitmeyer, M.E., and D.G. Raveling. 1988. Winter resource use by three species of dabbling ducks in 

California. Dept. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, Univ. of Calif., Davis. Final Report to Delta Waterfowl 

and Wetlands Research Center, Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, Canada. 200pp.

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization o f pink-footed geese in West Jutland, Denmark. 

Biol. Conserv. 33:53-63.

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74.

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14.

Paulus, S.L. 1984. Activity budgets of nonbreeding gadwalls in Louisiana. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:371-380.

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference to control 

of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252.

Thomas, V.G. 1983. Spring migration: the prelude to goose reproduction and a review of its implication. 

In Fourth Western Hemispheric Waterfowl and Waterbird Symposium, ed., H. Boyd. 73-81. Ottawa, 

Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service.

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and salt marsh feeding of wintering brent geese in Essex. Wildfowl 33:113-

118.

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, 

California. M. S. Thesis, Humboldt State Univ., Arcata. 62pp.

Refuge Determination for Waterfowl Hunting for Humboldt Bay NWR:

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ___________

 (Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ _____________

 (Signature) (Date) 

Assistant Regional ______________________________________ _____________

Director - Refuges: (Signature) (Date)

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-31

Use: Fishing

Refuge Name: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

County and State: Humboldt County, California.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Humboldt Bay NWR was established under the authority of The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, 

The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and The Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

According to these authorities, Humboldt Bay NWR’s purposes are:

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) (Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Stamp Act)

“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(a)(4) and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural 

resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-1 (Refuge 

Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-460k-4], as amended) 

“...the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under 

the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-2 (Refuge 

Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-460k-4], as amended)

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species ....or (B) 

plants ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)

National Wildlife Refuge System 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 Wildlife 

Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-ee])

Compatibility Determination for Fishing for Humboldt Bay NWR
F-32 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

Description of Use(s):

Sport fishing (hereafter refered to as “fishing”) is currently allowed on the Humboldt Bay NWR (refuge). 

The Service proposes to continue to allow fishing, which is one of the six priority uses of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1966 (16 U.S. 

C. 668dd-668ee) as amended by The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub.L. 

105-57; 111 Stat 1252). The Refuge System Administration Act identifies fishing as one of the six wildlifedependent recreational uses to be facilitated in the Refuge System, and the Act encourages the Service to 

provide opportunities for the public to enjoy them. 

Public fishing will continue to be permitted on navigable waters of Humboldt Bay that fall within the 

existing refuge boundary. Most fishing in Humboldt Bay will occur from boats on the navigable waters. 

Fishing will also be permitted from the outer levee of the Hookton Slough Unit, west of the designated 

parking lot. This area is known as the “Hookton Slough Shoreline Fishing Trail. 

Under the Preferred Alternative (Alternative C), in the CCP, we would increase fishing opportunities for 

visitors by providing fishing access at the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit. Fishing would be opened to the public at the 

Ma-le’l Dunes Unit at the end of the railroad berm trail, for pedestrian access only. Boaters can also access 

Mad River Slough from the existing boat launch points on Lanphere Road or from Samoa Blvd. These 

points are not on refuge property. 

Fishing will follow the California Department of Fish and Game’s Ocean Sport Fishing Regulations. Fishing 

will be allowed at the Hookton Slough Unit along the Hookton Slough Shoreline Fishing Trail during 

daylight hours. Fishing at the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit will be allowed during daylight hours. 

Fishing would be conducted in accordance with refuge regulations that apply to all visitors: e.g., no littering, 

no pets, no feeding or disturbing wildlife or venturing into closed areas. Game fish species to be allowed 

for legal take will include all native and introduced species listed in the California Ocean Sport Fishing 

Regulations. Fishing will be permitted in accordance with State and Federal regulations to ensure it will 

not interfere with conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats.

1. Fishing is permitted on designated areas of Humboldt Bay NWR subject to the following conditions:

2. Fishing from the designated Hookton Slough Shoreline Fishing Trail and Hookton Slough nonmotorized boat dock is permitted during daylight hours only.

3. Only the use of pole and line or rod and reel is permitted while fishing on the refuge.

4. Fishing at Ma-le’l Dunes is pedestrian access only, during daylight hours.

5. Use or possession of alcohol is prohibited on refuge property, as is littering.

Availability of Resources:

The costs of managing the fishing program are minimal, and consist primarily of posting and maintaining 

“Public Fishing Area” signs and including fishing information in the refuge brochure and website. 

Necessary funds are available for this work within the annual budget of the refuge. There will be no 

facilities developed or managed specifically for the use of anglers.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Fishing as a solitary and stationary activity tends to be less disturbing to wildlife than hunting or boating 

(Tuite et al. 1983). Fishing may result in increased problems with vandalism and litter such as discarded 

monofilament line and tackle. Other potential impacts of fishing from motorized boats are the spills of 

gasoline and motor oil, the release of toxic fumes into the water, and litter that may injure wildlife species.

Sport fish also provide food for many wildlife species, including terns, gulls, wading birds, osprey, and 

waterfowl. The amount of angling that occurs on refuge waters is not likely to reduce the prey base for 

those species significantly. The removal of adult fish that prey on forage fish similar to those eaten by bird 

species may reduce competition for prey, but the removal of adult fish of breeding age may reduce the 

amount of forage fish (i.e., fewer sport fish fry and juveniles available for fish-eating birds).
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-33

Public Review and Comment:

Fishing was discussed at two public meetings held in conjunction with the Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan process. To initiate the CCP process, a Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on 

January 29, 2007. Written comments were solicited from the public about the refuge’s operations including 

public use programs such as wildlife observations and photography. Five CCP planning updates and one 

planning workbook were prepared to summarize the progress of the CCP and to discuss issues related the 

planning process. This compatibility determination was submitted for public review and comment as an 

appendix to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Humboldt 

Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. No comments were received on this compatibility determination.

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

_X_ Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Fishing will be permitted at Humboldt Bay NWR with the following stipulations:

• Littering regulations will be strictly enforced; 

• Use or possession of alcohol while fishing will be prohibited;

• Parking areas, roads, and related access facilities will be maintained as necessary to ensure public safety 

and to prevent erosion or habitat damage;

• No building or maintaining of fires will be permitted on the refuge;

• Anglers using boats on the refuge (motorized boats launched from access points around the bay other 

than the Hookton Slough non-motorized boat dock and non-motorized boats) must abide by the boating 

stipulations described in the State and Coast Guard regulations on boating;

• Fishing will be allowed during daytime hours only;

• Opportunistic monitoring of fishing program and enforcement by Bureau of Land Management Rangers 

will encourage compliance with regulations.

The Refuge Manager will have the authority to close certain areas during critical wildlife use periods and 

cancel any activities deemed necessary to fulfill refuge purposes or ensure visitors’ safety. Sensitive nesting 

areas will be protected from disturbance by visitors with signs and barriers. Visitors will be directed away 

from areas where major habitat restoration or management projects are under way. 

Justification:

Fishing is a priority wildlife-dependent visitor use provided for in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. By facilitating this use on the refuge, we hope to increase the visitors’ knowledge 

and appreciation of fish and wildlife, which may lead to increased public stewardship of wildlife and their 

habitats on the refuge. Increased public stewardship will support and complement the Service’s actions 

in achieving the refuge’s purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. This program 

as described is determined to be compatible and will not conflict with the national policy to maintain the 

biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the refuge.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date: 

_____X______ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

____________ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 
F-34 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

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

_____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:

Tuite, C.H., M. Ownen, and D. Paynther. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at Llangorse 

Lake and Talybont Resevoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63

Refuge Determination for Fishing for Humboldt Bay NWR:

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ___________

 (Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

 

Assistant Regional ______________________________________ ____________

Director - Refuges (Signature) (Date)
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-35

Compatibility Determination for Grazing and Haying for Humboldt Bay NWR

Use: Grazing and Haying

Refuge Name: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

County and State: Humboldt County, California.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established under the authority of The Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 1929, The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and The Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

According to these authorities, Humboldt Bay NWR’s purposes are:

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) (Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Stamp Act)

“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(a)(4) and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural 

resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-1 and “...

the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms 

and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act 

[16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-460k-4], as amended)

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species ....or (B) 

plants ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)

National Wildlife Refuge System 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 Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee]).

Description of Use(s):

The use is grazing and haying. It is not a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System under 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) as amended by 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Although not a priority use, managing a 
F-36 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

certain amount of vegetation at the Humboldt National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) through grazing and haying 

provides habitat in the form of water, food, cover, breeding areas, rearing areas, and sanctuary for a variety 

of wildlife including migratory birds, waterfowl and shorebirds. Diked areas of the Salmon Creek Unit were 

primarily used for cattle production from about the turn of the century until 1988. Grazing of the shortgrass pasture areas provides habitat primarily for the recently increasing population of Aleutian cackling 

geese, as well as American wigeon, tundra swans, and many species of shorebirds.

The Service proposes to continue to use grazing and/or haying as a tool for vegetation and wildlife habitat 

management in the short-grass pasture areas of the Salmon Creek Unit. Grazing and/or haying may be 

conducted periodically (seasonally) each year. The specified time is determined by the refuge and the 

cooperator to meet target habitat conditions. Currently the refuge has an agreement with two cooperators 

to operate on the Salmon Creek Unit.

Grazing (by cattle) and haying would be conducted annually for a specified period (i.e., seasonally) to 

manage vegetation for native plant and wildlife habitat. The timing is somewhat dictated by growing 

conditions and other factors but is generally from late April/early May through October.

Grazing and haying are administered with cooperator(s) under a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperative 

Land Management Agreement (CLMA). The CLMA serves as an annual grazing/haying plan and 

states provisions for habitat objectives, expected wildlife benefits, and operating rules, regulations, and 

reporting requirements. The CLMA prescribes expected habitat conditions (vegetation height), livestock 

turn-in/turn-out dates and Animal Unit Months (AUM). The grazing plan has built-in flexibility due to 

the uncertainties of annual and seasonal precipitation and climate, flooding, and the consequent effect on 

vegetation growth. This is to insure that expected conditions are met and that refuge vegetation is neither 

over-grazed nor under-grazed, both conditions result in degraded habitat. Because conditions change 

during the course of a season, regular monitoring by refuge staff is required.

Availability of Resources:

The grazing and haying program is administered by refuge staff who identify the desired objectives of the 

program, prepare the CLMA, and provide coordination for cooperators as well as compliance monitoring. 

The cooperator is generally responsible for the cost of installation and/or maintenance of all range 

improvements associated with program activities. Refuge operational funds are currently available through 

the Service budget process to administer this program.

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

Grazing by native wildlife species has long occurred in the California landscape where it has shaped its 

botanical and zoological resources (Edwards 1992; Edwards 1996). Currently, livestock grazing is an 

important method of vegetation management (Barry 2003; Griggs 2000). The grazing/haying program 

results in both long and short term impacts, both negative and positive. Negative impacts to wildlife 

resources can result from: trampling or mowing of desirable vegetation and/or wildlife, disturbances to 

ground nesting species, fencing that may restrict the movement of large animals, the introduction of nonnative or invasive plan species seeds or propagules, and soil compaction especially during wet periods. 

Adverse impacts can be mitigated by moving equipment slowly, so most wildlife moves away from oncoming 

equipment, and using single wire fencing, which wildlife can easily go under or over.

Conversely, short and long term positive impacts to refuge habitat and wildlife can result from a well 

managed grazing/haying program. Primary benefits associated with the grazing/haying program include: 

an overall reduction of undesirable, non-native vegetation, the creation and maintenance of short-cropped 

foraging habitat for wintering and migratory birds, especially Aleutian cackling geese, swans and 

shorebirds. 

Overall, seasonal grazing/haying would improve plant species composition and structure so that short-term 

impacts to wildlife and habitat would be mitigated by long-term benefits to refuge vegetation and overall 

wildlife habitat quality. Therefore, there would be a net long-term benefit to habitat for migratory birds and 

resident deer herds.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-37

Public Review and Comment:

To initiate the CCP process, a Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on January 29, 

2007. In February 2007, three scoping meetings were held, one in Crescent City, one in Eureka, and one in 

Bayside to receive input from the public on issues related to the management of the Humboldt Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge. Five CCP planning updates and one planning workbook were prepared to summarize the 

progress of the CCP and to discuss issues related to the planning process. This compatibility determination 

was submitted for public review and comment as an appendix to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex.No 

comments were received on this compatibility determination. No comments were received on this 

compatibility determination.

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

___X__ Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. The Cooperator will operate under the terms and conditions of a Cooperative Land Management 

Agreement. This document provides the necessary information and assistance from the refuge to determine 

periods of use and stocking rates. 

2. Refuge staff will set the value of grazing/haying so as to reflect current fair market values, monitor 

Cooperator compliance, and maintain complete files on all grazing/haying activities.

3. Grazing/haying would not be allowed in sensitive natural or cultural areas.

4. All cooperators shall secure a signed special use permit for refuge cooperators assisting Humboldt Bay 

NWR in habitat and land management. 

5. The annual agreement between the cooperating parties shall include a description of how the special use 

meets the management objectives of the refuge.

6. Grazing is conducted in accordance with the special use permits, which include special conditions that 

specify timing of grazing, location(s) of grazing, stocking densities, types of livestock permitted, access 

locations, predator management restrictions, and personnel and equipment allowed. The specific conditions 

may vary annually due to differences in objectives, habitat conditions, and weather.

7. Cooperators are required to arrive with clean equipment free of exotic plant or animal matter that 

may introduce invasive species to the refuge. Refuge staff may inspect livestock home pasture sites for 

the presence of weed species and may require a 48-hour quarantine with certified weed-free feed prior to 

livestock arrival at the refuge.

Justification:

This program as described is determined to be compatible. Based upon impacts described in the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2009), it is determined 

that grazing and haying within the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, as described herein, will not 

materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission 

of the Refuge System. Refuge livestock grazing and haying by cooperators will directly support refuge 

goals, objectives and management plans and activities. Fish, wildlife, plants and their habitat will improve 

through vegetation management which will result in short-term and long-term reductions of non-native 

invasive species, increases in biomass and improved foraging conditions for migratory birds and local 

deer herds. Consequently, the livestock grazing and haying program would maintain biological integrity, 

diversity and environmental health. The wildlife-dependent, priority public uses (wildlife viewing and 

photography, environmental education and interpretation, fishing and hunting) would also benefit as a result 

of improved habitat conditions for wildlife associated with the grazing program. In our opinion grazing and 
F-38 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

haying will not conflict with the national policy to maintain biological diversity, integrity, and environmental 

health of the refuge.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date:

___________ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

_____X_____Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

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

_____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:

Barry, S. 2003. Using planned grazing to manage for native grasslands. Pages 1-10, in Section 14, Grazing. 

Techniques and Strategies for Using Native Grass and Graminoids in Revegetation and Restoration. 

California Native Grass Association.

Edwards, S.W. 1992. Observations on the prehistory and ecology of grazing in California. Fremontia 

20(1):3-11.

Edwards, S.W. 1996. A rancholabrean-age, latest Pleistocene bestiary for California botany. The Four 

Seasons 10(2):5-34.

Griggs, F.T. 2000. Vina Plains Preserve: eighteen years of adaptive management. Fremontia 27(4) & 18(1): 

48-51.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). January 2009. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Refuge Planning, California 

and Nevada Region, USFWS, Sacramento, CA and Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

USFWS, Loleta, CA.

Refuge Determination for Grazing and Haying for Humboldt Bay NWR:

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ___________

 (Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Assistant Regional

Director – Refuges: ______________________________________ ____________ 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-39

Compatibility Determination for Mosquito Control for Humboldt Bay NWR

Use: Mosquito Control (Integrated Pest Management [IPM])

Refuge Name: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

County and State: Humboldt County, California.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established under the authority of The Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 1929, The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and The Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

According to these authorities, Humboldt Bay NWR’s purposes are:

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) (Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Stamp Act)

“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(a)(4) and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural 

resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-1 and “...

the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms 

and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act 

[16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-460k-4], as amended)

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species ....or (B) 

plants ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)

National Wildlife Refuge System 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 Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee]).

Description of Use(s):

The use is mosquito management, which includes surveillance, and if warranted, control. It is not a 

priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System under the National Wildlife Refuge System 
F-40 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997.

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge will follow the National Wildlife Refuge System and Regional 

Mosquito Management policies and continue coordinating with Humboldt County to survey for and control 

mosquitoes. Humboldt County’s Department of Public Health has responsibility for mosquito management 

but is not a mosquito abatement district. Five mosquito species are known to inhabit the Humboldt 

Bay National Wildlife Refuge and surrounding areas. These mosquitoes breed in and inhabit salt and 

freshwater marshes, riparian areas, and man-made objects (old tires, water troughs, backyard ponds etc.). 

Adult mosquitoes appear as early as April and persist until late summer, depending on the species. The 

majority of information in this compatibility determination was found in Best Management Practices for 

Mosquito Control on California State Properties, released in June 2008 by the California Department of 

Public Health (CDPH). Additional information can be found in the Central Valley Joint Venture Technical 

Guide to Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in Managed Wetlands, June 2004, prepared by 

the Central Valley Joint Venture’s Mosquito Working Group.

Culex tarsalis – This species transmits West Nile Virus (WNV), Western Equine Encephalitis (WEE), and 

St. Louis Encephalitis (SLE), but is not the most common species found in the county.

Culesita particeps – This species is not considered to be an important health concern or vector.

Aedes increptus, Aedes dorsalis, and Aedes vexan – There are 24 species of Aedes mosquitoes in California, 

including these three. As a group these mosquitoes are the most aggressive. They lay single eggs on 

intermittently flooded surfaces including all wetland types. The eggs are resistant to drying out and can 

remain dormant but viable for at least three years.

Mosquito management on the Humboldt Bay NWR is addressed through an integrated pest management 

approach in which the refuge coordinates with the county to manage the overall environmental health of 

adjacent communities while minimizing impacts to refuge trust resources.

The current procedures for implementing mosquito management on this refuge involve water management. 

From the standpoint of mosquito production there are two types of wetlands on the refuge. Most wetlands 

are seasonal, meaning they dry up in late spring or early summer. These wetlands rarely produce 

mosquitoes during this time because they typically are dry before water temperatures are warm enough 

to produce mosquitoes and “flood-up” occurs well after “mosquito season” is done in mid-October. Other 

wetlands on the refuge are estuarine or tidal in nature. The key to preventing estuarine wetlands from 

producing an extraordinary amount of salt marsh mosquitoes is making sure there is good hydrologic 

connection in these areas and that tidegates don’t leak or when they do they are fixed quickly. This allows 

fish and other predators that come in with the tidal flow to eat mosquito larvae before they become adults.

In a natural salt marsh, some mosquitoes are always produced because during extreme high tides, generally 

some water gets into isolated areas for a long enough period (10-14 days) for mosquito production to occur. 

Because almost all marsh on the refuge is behind tidegates, refuge staff has to be vigilant about monitoring 

refuge wetlands during summer and fall and making sure mosquito production stays at a minimal level.

While there are always going to be some mosquitoes produced on the refuge, staff and adjacent landowners 

are well aware when an extraordinary situation arises and then refuge staff consults with the county and 

deals with the situation accordingly.

Public concern over human health issues related to mosquito-borne disease has intensified with the advance 

of West Nile Virus across the United States. To address mosquito management, a phased response 

strategy has been developed for implementation on refuges in the Pacific Southwest Region. This strategy 

encourages an integrated pest management approach that incorporates habitat and best management 

practices to reduce the need for and use of insecticides on refuges, while also ensuring that legitimate 

human, fish, and wildlife health concerns are addressed. To implement this phased response strategy, the 

current procedures for managing mosquitoes on this refuge will be augmented to better identify thresholds 

for mosquito treatment and will present specific responses to various conditions encountered in the field. If 

mosquito population monitoring and disease surveillance (implemented by the County) indicate that human 

health thresholds are exceeded, the use of larvacides and/or adulticides will be considered by the County 

and the Project Leader. 

Human health thresholds are described in Humboldt County Health Department’s 2007 West Nile Virus 

Monitoring and Response Plan. Threshold Level Three (out of 3 levels): Epidemic Conditions includes a 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-41

Level Three Action (out of 3 actions) with steps the County will take when considering chemical applications 

of chemical adulticide mosquito sprays as needed to protect human health. 

According to the Division of Environmental Health, each year Humboldt County enters the threshold Level 

Two. Each year, due to complaints about nuisance mosquitos, the County looks to sources and agencies 

such as the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge to control mosquitos by maintenance of flood gates [and 

water management techniques]; the County’s best method of control is by controlling [water levels that 

affect] the larval stage (Metcalfe pers. comm.).

Two larvicide compounds that could be used to manage mosquitoes on the refuge include: Bti (Bacillus 

thuringienensis israelensis) and Altosid (methoprene). Both are larvicides intended to control mosquitoes 

in wetlands prior to their emergence as adults. Bti is used primarily to control early stage larvae and is 

available in liquid and granular formulations. Altosid is used on later stage mosquito larvae and is available 

in liquid, briquette and pellet formulations. Both compounds are highly specific to mosquito larvae.

Availability of Resources

Refuge operational funds are currently available through the Service budget process to administer this 

program. Because of the relative rarity of a mosquito “outbreak” indicating health risk in Humboldt 

County, the county does not have a mosquito abatement district, nor does it generally spray adulticides for 

control.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Anticipated positive impacts of a mosquito control program at the Humboldt Bay NWR include the 

following:

• The minimization of health risk to adjacent landowners and refuge visitors caused by mosquitoes.

Potential negative impacts of a mosquito control program include the following:

• Lethal effects on non-target water-borne invertebrates and potential non-lethal effects to fish and wildlife 

of Bti and Altosid, should they need to be used.

• Temporary disturbance to wildlife species in the area.

Positive impacts can be maximized and negative impacts can be minimized through:

• Maintenance of good hydrologic connection in estuarine wetlands

• Appropriate monitoring and immediate response

Public Review and Comment

We published this determination for review concurrently with our comprehensive conservation plan (CCP). 

This use was discussed at two public meetings held in conjunction with the Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan Process. To initiate the CCP process, a Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on 

January 29, 2007. Written comments were solicited from the public about the refuge’s operations including 

public use programs. Five CCP planning updates and one planning workbook were prepared to summarize 

the progress of the CCP and to discuss issues related to the planning process. The public review and 

comment period of the draft plan and associated environmental assessment offered additional opportunities 

for comments. This compatibility determination was submitted for public review and comment as an 

appendix to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Humboldt 

Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. A comment was received regarding the description of the human 

health threshold for use of pesticides. In response, references were added to page F-40-41.

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible

_X_Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations
F-42 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Special Use Permit conditions will stipulate that all control work will be carried out in conformance with 

pre-approved USFWS Pesticide Use Proposals, and existing and future USFWS policies on mosquito 

management.

2. All applications of pesticides/biological agents must be coordinated and approved by the Refuge Manager 

to avoid conflicts with fish and wildlife species, Refuge management activities, and public use.

3. Refuge staff will be present during any applications of pesticides/biological agents for mosquito 

abatement.

4. Larva monitoring sites will be limited to open water areas on the edges of ponds or other water bodies 

to minimize potentially adverse effects to the tidewater goby. Adult mosquito monitoring will occur on 

adjacent upland sites along existing service roads. 

5. Prior to any application of pesticides/biological agents, the Humboldt County Health Department or other 

agency proposing the application shall provide a map and dip net counts to and obtain verbal approval from 

the Project Leader or Deputy Project Leader. 

6. At the end of the permitting period, the Humboldt County Health Department or other agency 

responsible for the pesticide application shall provide the Project Leader with a written list of all pesticides/

biological agents used (if any), and the location(s), date(s) and quantities of each that were applied.

Justification:

Mosquito management would be implemented on this refuge in accordance with the guidance provided for 

the Pacific Southwest Region by the Regional Office in March 2003 and consideration of Best Management 

Practices for Mosquito Control on California State Properties, released by the California Department 

of Public Health in June 2008 (http://cdph.ca.gov or http://westnile.ca.gov). This guidance for mosquito 

management incorporates a phased-response strategy developed to manage mosquitoes in a manner that 

is compatible with refuge purposes and uses the best available science while minimizing impacts to fish and 

wildlife, which is consistent with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Mosquito management 

proposed for this refuge would also address legitimate human, fish, and wildlife health concerns. 

Implementing mosquito control in accordance with the stipulations presented above would therefore not 

materially interfere with the ability to achieve the wildlife management goals established for this refuge.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date:

___________ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

_____X_____ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

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

_____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:

Metcalfe, K. Humboldt County Division of Environmental Health. Personal Communication to Sandy 

Osborn, USFWS, April 21, 2009.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-43

Refuge Determination for Mosquito Control for Humboldt Bay NWR:

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ___________

 (Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Assistant Regional: ______________________________________ ____________

Director - Refuges (Signature) (Date)

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-45

Compatibility Determination for Plant Gathering for Humboldt Bay NWR

Use: Plant Gathering

Refuge Name: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

County and State: Humboldt County, California

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Humboldt Bay NWR was established under the authority of The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, 

The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and The Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Refuge Purpose(s):

According to these authorities, Humboldt Bay NWR’s purposes are:

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) (Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Stamp Act)

“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. 

Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of 

servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural 

resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-1 (Refuge 

Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-460k-4], as amended) 

“...the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under 

the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-2 (Refuge 

Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-460k-4], as amended)

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species ....or (B) 

plants ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)

National Wildlife Refuge System 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 Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee])
F-46 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

Description of Use(s):

The gathering of plants at Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge by Native Americans would be a new 

use at the refuge. Gathering plants is not one of the 6 legislated uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. However, the use of refuge lands for plant gathering is considered to be of vital importance 

to Native American cultural groups such as the California Indian Basketweavers Association. Native 

Americans have historically gathered plant materials around Humboldt Bay. Plants are gathered for a 

variety of uses; medicinal, ceremonial, food resources, and utilitarian or artistic purposes. Plants gathered 

for traditional uses may include California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), Evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium 

ovatum), Willows (Salix sp.) and Thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus). Plants are gathered during various 

seasons. Special use permits will be issued by the refuge for plant gathering and access regulated to ensure 

protection of critical habitat during key wildlife use periods. 

Availability of Resources:

No additional resources will be needed to support this use. Adequate funding and staff are available to 

manage this use within the existing refuge budget.

 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Anticipated impacts from this use are minor damage to vegetation and disturbance to wildlife. No longterm or cumulative impacts are expected on wildlife or habitat.

Immediate responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from behavioral changes including nest 

abandonment or change in food habits, physiological changes such as elevated heart rates due to flight, 

or even death (Knight and Cole 1995). The long term effects are more difficult to assess but may include 

altered behavior, vigor, productivity or death of individuals; altered population abundance, distribution, or 

demographics; and altered community species composition and interaction.

According to Knight and Cole (1991), there are three categories of wildlife responses to human disturbance: 

1) avoidance; 2) habituation; and 3) attraction. The magnitude of the avoidance response may depend on a 

number of factors inducing the type, distance, movement pattern, speed, and duration of the disturbance, 

as well as the time of day, time of year, weather; and the animal’s access to food and cover, energy demands, 

and reproductive status (Knight and Cole 1991; Gabrielsen and Smith 1995). The level of disturbance to 

wildlife will vary depending on the season, but is considered to be low overall. The gathering of berries and 

other plant materials that occurs from late summer through fall will have little or no impact on migratory or 

nesting birds.

Plant gathering can also have adverse impacts on vegetation and soil conditions. Plant gatherers can alter 

habitats by trampling vegetation, compacting soil, and increasing the potential for erosion (Liddle 1975; 

Hendee et al. 1990). Impacts to habitat and wildlife associated with plant gathering on the refuge are 

minimal. The amount of plant material being harvested is small enough not to constitute any meaningful 

impact on habitat. Gathering of new plant growth in springtime, herbs for medicinal/ceremonial purposes 

and willow twigs and bark for basket weaving may coincide with the use of the refuge by migratory 

waterfowl. However, because gathering activities are limited by the amount of material required, adverse 

impacts are also expected to be limited and negligible.

Public Review and Comment:

To initiate the CCP process, a Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on January 29, 

2007. Written comments were solicited from the public about the refuge’s operations including public 

use programs such as environmental education and interpretation. Five CCP planning updates and one 

planning workbook were prepared to summarize the progress of the CCP and to discuss issues related to 

the planning process. This compatibility determination was submitted for public review and comment as an 

appendix to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Humboldt 

Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. No comments were received on this compatibility determination.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-47

Determination (check one below):

___ Use is Not Compatible

_X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

In order to accommodate access to the refuge for plant gathering and ensure minor impact to habitats and 

wildlife, the following measures will be taken:

1. Plant gathering activities will be reviewed as a part of annual coordination with tribal representatives. 

If monitoring by the refuge reveals that impacts are negatively affecting wildlife or habitat, then 

permittees will be required to adjust their activities to avoid impacts. Adjustments may include 

reductions in harvest, changes in timing of gathering, or reductions in numbers of visitors or frequency 

of visitors.

2. The Refuge Manager has the authority to close areas within the refuge during sensitive 

wildlife use periods and cancel any collecting activities deemed necessary to fulfill 

refuge purposes or ensure visitor safety. Sensitive nesting areas will be protected from 

disturbance by visitors with signs and barriers. Visitors will be directed away from areas 

where major habitat restoration or management projects are in progress.

Justification:

One of the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) is providing the public an understanding 

and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology, wildlife habitat and the human role in the environment. The 

Service strives to provide priority visitor uses when compatible with the purpose and goals of the refuge 

and the mission of the System. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identifies 

environmental education and interpretation as priority public uses for National Wildlife Refuges. 

The Native American Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service state that the Service will provide 

reasonable access to Service managed lands for exercising ceremonial, medicinal, and traditional activities 

recognized by the Service and by Native American governments. The Service will permit these uses if the 

activities are consistent with treaties, judicial mandates, or Federal and tribal law and are compatible with 

the purposes for which the lands are managed. 

Although plant gathering is not a wildlife-dependent recreational use, it is an activity that contributes to 

environmental education and awareness. An understanding of plant ecology is essential to sustainable plant 

harvesting, thus this activity helps to educate participants about Humboldt Bay habitats while supporting 

their cultural practices. Accordingly, the Service has determined that the proposed plant gathering by 

Native Americans for cultural purposes is a compatible refuge purpose.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only)

___________ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

_____X_____ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 
F-48 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

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

_____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:

Gabrielson, G.W., and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 95-107 in 

R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwill, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence through management and 

research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372pp.

Hendee, J.C., G.H. Stankey, and R.C. Lucas. 1990. Wilderness Management. North American Press, 

Golden, CO.

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands in Transactions of 

the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 56:238-247.

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in R.L. Knight and 

K.J. Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence through management and research. 

Island Press, Washington, DC.

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural ecosystems. 

Biol. Conserv. 7:17-36.

Refuge Determination for Plant Gathering for Humboldt Bay NWR:

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ___________

 (Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date)

Assistant Regional

Director - Refuges: ______________________________________ _____________

 (Signature) (Date)
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-49

Compatibility Determination for Research for Humboldt Bay NWR

Use: Research

Refuge Name: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

County and State: Humboldt County, California

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established under the authority of The Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 1929, The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and The Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

According to these authorities, Humboldt Bay NWR’s purposes are:

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) (Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Stamp Act)

“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(a)(4) and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural 

resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-1 and “...

the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms 

and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act 

[16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-460k-4], as amended)

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species ....or (B) 

plants ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)

National Wildlife Refuge System 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 Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-ee])

Description of Use(s):

The use is research on refuge resources. It is not a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) as 

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
F-50 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

The location of the research will vary by project. Usually a research project is limited to a particular habitat 

type, plan, or wildlife species. On occasion, research projects may encompass an assemblage of habitat 

types, plants or wildlife. Refuge management will limit the locations of research to those areas of the refuge 

necessary to conduct any specific, scientific research projects that require it.

The timing of the research will depend on the project. Refuge management may allow scientific research 

on the refuge throughout the year. A research project could be short-term in design, requiring one or 

two visits over the course of a few days. Others could be multi-year studies that require daily visits to the 

study site. The timing of each research project will be limited to the minimum required to complete it. If 

a research project overlaps a refuge hunting season, special precautions or limitations may be required to 

ensure the safety of researchers or staff.

The methods of a research project will depend on the project. We will evaluate the methods of each 

research project before allowing it on the refuge. Research, inventory and information collection activities 

on the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge that are directly related to the conservation of fish and 

wildlife resources which involve negligible animal mortality, disturbance or habitat destruction, and no 

introduction of either exotic organisms or contaminants will be considered, as will those research activities 

which seek to increase the public’s knowledge and understanding of fish and wildlife resources. Research 

activities will typically be conducted by University or College professors, students, and other professional 

resource biologists.

The purposes of research are to further the understanding of the natural resources and improve the 

management of those resources on the refuges or in the System. Refuge management will assign priority to 

research applicable to wildlife, habitat, or public use management on or near the refuges of the Complex.

At the Humboldt Bay NWR (refuge), the refuge manager has issued special use permits (SUPs) for such 

research as:

• Studies on various species of fish, wildlife and plants

• Mapping of invasive species and rare plants

• Studies on water quality and hydrology

We will encourage and support research and management studies on refuge lands that improve and 

strengthen our natural resource management decisions. The refuge manager will encourage and assign 

priority to research that:

• Relates to approved refuge objectives, clearly improves land management, and promotes adaptive 

management.

• Enables better management of the Nation’s biological resources. This could include research which 

may not relate directly to refuge-specific objectives, but would contribute to the broader enhancement, 

protection, use, preservation or management of populations of fish, wildlife and plants, and their natural 

diversity in the region or flyway.

• Is generally considered important to agencies of the Department of Interior, particularly the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the Refuge System, and State Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

• Addresses important management issues or demonstrates techniques for managing species or habitats.

Research evaluation criteria will include, but not be limited to, the following:

• Research that will contribute to specific refuge management issues will be given higher priority over other 

research requests.

• Research that will conflict with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management programs will not be 

granted.

• Research projects that can be accomplished off-refuge are less likely to be approved.

• Research that causes undue disturbance or is intrusive will likely not be granted. Level and type of 

disturbance will be carefully evaluated when considering a request.

• Refuge evaluation will determine if any effort has been made to minimize disturbance through study 

design, including considering adjusting location, timing, scope, study methods, number of study sites, etc.

• If staffing or logistics make it impossible for the refuge to monitor researcher activity in a sensitive area, 

the research request may be denied, depending on the specific circumstances.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-51

• The length of the project will be considered and agreed upon before approval. Projects will be reviewed 

annually.

Availability of Resources:

Staff time spent reviewing research proposals and administering permits will be minimal. In most cases, a 

research project may require one to four hours of staff time to coordinate all aspects of a project, including 

review of the proposal, issuing a Special use Permit, coordinating access to the refuge, and reviewing 

project results. Currently, refuge staff spends an average of 40 hours a year working full time on research 

projects. Adequate funding and staff exist to manage research projects within the current refuge budget. 

Researchers will be required to furnish their own materials and supplies. Supplies and staff time associated 

with cooperative studies involving the refuge and other agencies or universities should be covered by 

appropriate refuge/joint funds. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

Disturbance to wildlife and vegetation by researchers could occur through observation, a variety of 

wildlife capture techniques, banding, and accessing the study area by foot or vehicle. Many studies have 

demonstrated adverse effects of human disturbances, including researcher activity on wildlife species. 

For example, Tremblay and Ellison (1979) documented that visits to black-crowned night-heron colonies 

just before or during laying provoked abandonment of newly constructed nests or either predation of 

eggs or abandonment of eggs followed by predation. In some instances, investigator disturbance cause 

mortality of young. Ellison and Cleary (1978) studied the double-crested cormorant to assess the influence 

of investigators visiting colonies during the breeding season. They discovered the frequent visits caused 

nest abandonment, predation by gulls, and discouraged late nesting birds from settling in disturbed 

experimental colonies. Human presence can affect foraging behavior such as location, duration, and time of 

day (Burger and Gochfield 1991). It is possible that direct or indirect mortality could result as a byproduct 

of research activities. The objective is always to conduct the research in a fashion such that potential 

adverse impacts are likely to be outweighed by the knowledge gained about the resource(s).

However, not all research activities negatively affect a species or its habitat. Fredrick and Collopy (1989) 

found no differences in reproductive parameters in nests of tricolored herons visited frequently (16 times) 

to those visited infrequently (7 times). Parsons and Burger (1982) reported no differences in black-crowned 

night heron chick weight between chicks which were handled every two days and those which were handled 

once during the study.

Studies suggest that the adverse effects of human disturbance are species specific (Gutzwiller et al. 

1998). Thus different species are affected by human presence in specific factors such as timing, location 

and duration (Gutzwiller and Stanley 1999). Knowing what factors disrupt a species, the probability of 

disturbing that species during research can be decreased. For instance, Ellison (1989) and Buckley and 

Buckley (1976) provided management guidelines to minimize disturbance to colonial nesting waterbirds 

by the general public and investigators. By restricting disruptive activities and monitoring researchers, 

impacts are expected to be minimal.

Public Review and Comment:

We published this determination for review concurrently with our comprehensive conservation plan (CCP). 

This use was discussed at two public meetings held in conjunction with the Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan process. To initiate the CCP process, a Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on 

January 29, 2007. Written comments were solicited from the public about the refuge’s operations including 

public use programs. Five CCP planning updates and one planning workbook were prepared to summarize 

the progress of the CCP and to discuss issues related to the planning process. The planning updates have 

been distributed to a large number of individuals and organizations representing interested members 

of the public, conservation organizations, hunting, fishing and boating organizations, public agencies, 

municipalities, special districts, Tribes, and adjoining property owners. The public review and comment 

period of the draft plan and associated environmental assessment offered additional opportunities for 

comments. No comments were received on this compatibility determination.
F-52 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

Determination (check one below):

_ Use is Not Compatible

__X_ Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. We will require all researchers to submit a detailed research proposal following Service policy in the 

Service Refuge Manual Chapter 4, section 6 (USFWS 1982). The refuge must receive at least 60 days 

to review proposals before research starts. If the collection of wildlife is involved, researchers must 

give the refuge 90 days to review their proposal. We will assign priority and approve proposals based on 

their need, benefit, compatibility, and funding required.

2. We will issue SUPs for all research. Each SUP will list the conditions the refuge manager determines 

necessary to ensure compatibility, and identify a schedule for progress reports and the submittal of a 

final report or scientific paper. 

3. We may ask regional refuge biologists, other Service divisions, State agencies or non-governmental 

organizations and biologists to provide additional review and comment on any research proposal.

4. We will require all researchers to obtain appropriate state and federal permits.

5. Activities will be held where minimal impact will occur.

6. Refuge staff will monitor researcher activities for potential impacts to the refuge resources and for 

compliance with the conditions in the SUP. Researchers will be required to allow refuge staff to 

accompany researchers at any time to assess potential impacts and to insure adherence to the SUPs. We 

may terminate any research project at any time for non-compliance with the SUP conditions, or modify, 

redesign, relocate or terminate it, if the refuge manager determines that it is causing unanticipated 

adverse impacts on wildlife, wildlife habitat, approve priority public uses, or other refuge management 

activities.

Justification:

The program as described in the 2009 Draft CCP/EA is determined to be compatible (USFWS 2008). 

Scientific research will comply with the stipulations listed, and will not interfere with the primary purposes 

for which the refuge was established. We encourage approved research to further understanding of refuge 

natural resources. Research conducted will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the 

System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. Research will directly benefit and support 

refuge goals, objectives and management plans and activities. Fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats 

will improve through the application of knowledge gained from research. Biological integrity, diversity 

and environmental health would benefit from research conducted on natural resources at the refuge. The 

wildlife-dependent priority public uses would also benefit as a result of increased biodiversity from improved 

restoration and management plans and activities associated with monitoring and research investigation that 

address specific restoration and management questions.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date:

_____ ______ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

______X_____ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-53

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

_____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:

Buckley, P., and F. Buckley. 1976. Guidelines for the protection and management of colonially nesting 

waterbirds. North Atlantic Regional Office. NPS. Boston, MA 54 pp.

Burger, J., and M. Gochfield. 1991. Human activity influence and diurnal and nocturnal foraging of 

Sanderlings. Condor. 93: 259-265.

Ellison, R.M. 1989. Responses to human intruders by birds nesting in colonies: Experimental Results and 

management guidelines. Col. Waterbirds 12(1):104-108.

Frederick, R.B., and M.W. Collopy. 1989 Researcher disturbance in colonies of wading birds: Effects of 

frequency of visit and egg-marking on reproductive parameters. Col. Waterbirds. 12(2):152-157.

Gutzwiller, K.J., and H.A. Stanley. 1999. Spatial extent of human-intrusion effects on Subalpine bird 

distributions. Condor: 101:378-389

Gutzwiller, K.J., H.A. Marcum, H.B. Harvey, J.D. Roth, and S.H. Anderson. 1998. Bird tolerance to human 

intrusion in Wyoming montane forests. Condor:100 519-527.

Parsons, K.C., and J. Burger. 1982. Human disturbance and nestling behavior in black-crowned night 

herons. Condor 84: 184-187.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1982. National Wildlife Refuge System – Refuge Manual Dept. of 

Interior USFWS, Washington, D. C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). January 2009. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Refuge Planning, California 

and Nevada Region, USFWS, Sacramento, CA and Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

USFWS, Loleta, CA.

Tremblay, J., and L.N. Ellison. 1979. Effects of human disturbance on breeding of Black-crowned night 

herons. Auk 96:364-369.
F-54 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

Refuge Determination for Research for Humboldt Bay NWR:

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ___________

 (Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date)

Assistant Regional: ______________________________________ ____________

Director - Refuges (Signature) (Date)
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-55

Compatibility Determination for Research for Castle Rock NWR

Use: Research

Refuge Name: Castle Rock NWR, Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

County and State: Del Norte, California.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established under the authority of The Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 1929, The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and The Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

According to these authorities, Castle Rock NWR’s purposes are:

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

“... as Waterfowl Production Areas subject to... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c) (Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Stamp Act)

“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(a)(4) and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural 

resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-1 and “...

the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms 

and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act 

[16 U.S.C. §§ 460k-460k-4], as amended)

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species ....or (B) 

plants ...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission (System):

“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 Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C.668dd-ee])

Description of Use(s):

The use is research on refuge resources. Research is an ongoing use at the Castle Rock NWR (refuge), and 

the Service proposes to continue this use. Although it is not a priority public use of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-
F-56 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

668ee) as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, information gained 

from research can improve management of the refuge and resources.

This refuge is somewhat unique in that it is an island. This necessarily precludes public access and many 

research options because of the potential for damaging seabird nesting habitat by breaking through the 

surface into burrows, disturbance to marine mammals and seabirds, as well as substantial safety issues 

of getting on and off the island. Over 100,000 common murres normally nest on this refuge. They start 

arriving on the rock as early as January/February and in most years are there until their chicks depart 

sometime in July/early August. From ~January through early April there are ~20,000 Aleutian geese 

which roost on the island at night. In addition, marine mammals, including the Federally listed threatened 

Stellar’s Sea-lion also use the island. 

The location of the research on the island will vary by project. Usually a research project is limited to a 

particular habitat type or wildlife species. On occasion, research projects may encompass an assemblage of 

habitat types, plants or wildlife. We will limit the locations of research to those areas of the refuge necessary 

to conduct any specific, scientific research projects that require it and do not cause an incompatible amount 

of disturbance.

The conditions outlined in the stipulations section will also dictate timing of any research. We may allow 

remote scientific research (i.e., data gathered from cameras or other remote sensing devices placed on the 

island or gathered from a plane or a boat, throughout the year. A research project could be short-term in 

design, requiring one or two visits over the course of a few days. The timing of each research project must 

be evaluated against potential impacts to resources and will be limited to the minimum required to complete 

it. 

The methods of a research project will depend on the project. We will evaluate the methods of each 

research project before allowing it on the refuge. Research, inventory and information collection activities 

on the Castle Rock NWR must be directly related to the conservation of wildlife resources which involve 

negligible animal mortality, disturbance or habitat destruction, and not allow introduction of either exotic 

organisms or contaminants. Research activities will be conducted by professional resource biologists, 

university professors, students, or other qualified personnel as determined by the refuge manager. 

The purposes of research are to further the understanding of the natural resources and improve the 

management of those resources on the refuges or in the System. We will assign priority to research 

applicable to wildlife, habitat, or public use management on or near the refuges of the Complex.

At Castle Rock NWR, the refuge manager has issued special use permits (SUPs) for such research as 

gathering population inventory and baseline data for seabirds and marine mammals.

We will encourage and support research and management studies on refuge lands that improve and 

strengthen our natural resource management decisions. The refuge manager will encourage and assign 

priority to research that:

• Relates to approved refuge objectives, clearly improves land management, and promotes adaptive 

management;

• Enables better management of the Nation’s biological resources. This could include research which 

may not relate directly to refuge-specific objectives, but would contribute to the broader enhancement, 

protection, use, preservation or management of populations of fish, wildlife and plants, and their natural 

diversity in the region or flyway; 

• Is generally considered important to agencies of the Department of Interior, particularly the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the Refuge System, and State Fish and Wildlife Agencies; and 

• Addresses important management issues or demonstrates techniques for managing species or habitats.

Research evaluation criteria will include, but not be limited to, the following:

• Research that will contribute to specific refuge management issues will be given higher priority over other 

research requests.

• Research that will conflict with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management programs will not be 

granted.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-57

• Research projects that can be accomplished off-refuge are less likely to be approved.

• Research which causes undue disturbance or is intrusive will likely not be granted. Level and type of 

disturbance will be carefully evaluated when considering a request.

• Refuge evaluation will determine if any effort has been made to minimize disturbance through study 

design, including considering adjusting location, timing, scope, study methods, number of study sites, etc.

• If staffing or logistics make it impossible for the refuge to monitor researcher activity in a sensitive area, 

the research request may be denied, depending on the specific circumstances.

• The length of the project and review periods will be considered and agreed upon before approval. 

Availability of Resources:

Adequate funding and staff exist to manage research projects within the current refuge budget. Staff 

time includes review of the proposal, issuing a Special use Permit, coordinating access to the refuge, and 

reviewing project results. Currently, the refuge Manager spends an average of 80 hours a year working full 

time on research projects conducted in collaboration with university researchers. Researchers will likely 

be required to furnish their own materials and supplies. Supplies and staff time associated with cooperative 

studies involving the refuge and other agencies or universities will be covered by appropriate refuge/joint 

funds. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

Disturbance to wildlife, vegetation and substrate by researchers could occur through observation, a variety 

of wildlife capture techniques, banding, and access to and departure from the study area. Disturbance 

to island dependent animals can have greater impacts because they have limited area to escape to and 

they typically occur in higher densities. In addition, where you have thousands of birds nesting in close 

proximity, one bad event at a key time and/or location can cause significant abandonment, predation and/

or mortality. Many studies have demonstrated adverse effects of human disturbances, including researcher 

activity on wildlife species. For example, Tremblay and Ellison (1979) documented that visits to blackcrowned night-heron colonies just before or during laying provoked abandonment of newly constructed 

nests or either predation of eggs or abandonment of eggs followed by predation. In some instances, 

investigator disturbance cause mortality of young. Ellison and Cleary (1978) studied the double-crested 

cormorant to assess the influence of investigators visiting colonies during the breeding season. They 

discovered the frequent visits caused nest abandonment, predation by gulls, and discouraged late nesting 

birds from settling in disturbed experimental colonies. Human presence can affect foraging behavior such 

as location, duration, and time of day (Burger and Gochfield 1991). It is possible that direct or indirect 

mortality could result as a byproduct of research activities. The objective is always to conduct the research 

in a fashion such that potential adverse impacts are likely to be outweighed by the knowledge gained about 

the resource(s).

However, not all research activities negatively affect a species or its habitat. Fredrick and Collopy (1989) 

found no differences in reproductive parameters in nests of tricolored herons visited frequently (16 times) 

to those visited infrequently (7 times). Parsons and Burger (1982) reported no differences in black-crowned 

night heron chick weight between chicks which were handled every two days and those which were handled 

once during the study.

Studies suggest that the adverse effects of human disturbance are species specific (Gutzwiller et al. 

1998). Thus different species are affected by human presence in specific factors such as timing, location 

and duration (Gutzwiller and Stanley 1999). Knowing what factors disrupt a species, the probability of 

disturbing that species during research can be decreased. For instance, Ellison (1989) and Buckley and 

Buckley (1976) provided management guidelines to minimize disturbance to colonial nesting waterbirds 

by the general public and investigators. By restricting disruptive activities and monitoring researchers, 

impacts are expected to be minimal.

Public Review and Comment:

We published this determination for review concurrently with our comprehensive conservation plan (CCP). 

This use was discussed at two public meetings held in conjunction with the Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan process. To initiate the CCP process, a Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on 

January 29, 2007. Written comments were solicited from the public about the refuge’s operations including 
F-58 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

public use programs. Five CCP planning updates and one planning workbook were prepared to summarize 

the progress of the CCP and to discuss issues related to the planning process. The planning updates have 

been distributed to a large number of individuals and organizations representing interested members 

of the public, conservation organizations, hunting, fishing and boating organizations, public agencies, 

municipalities, special districts, Tribes, and adjoining property owners. This compatibility determination 

was submitted for public review and comment as an appendix to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. No 

comments were received on this compatibility determination.

Determination (check one below):

_ Use is Not Compatible

__X_ Use is Compatible With Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

We will require all researchers to submit a detailed research proposal following Service policy included in 

the Service’s Refuge Manual, Chapter 4, section 6 (USFWS 1982). The refuge must receive at least 90 days 

to review proposals before research starts. We will assign priority and approve proposals based on their 

need, benefit, compatibility, and funding required.

We will issue SUPs for all research conducted. Each SUP will list the conditions the refuge manager 

determines necessary to ensure compatibility, and identify a schedule for progress reports and the submittal 

of a final report or scientific paper.

We may ask regional refuge biologists, other Service divisions, state agencies or non-governmental 

organizations and biologists to provide additional review and comment on any research proposal.

We will require all researchers to obtain appropriate state and federal permits.

Activities will be held where minimal impact will occur.

Refuge staff will monitor researcher activities for potential impacts to the refuge and for compliance with 

the conditions in the SUP. Refuge staff will be free to accompany researchers at any time to assess potential 

impacts and to insure SUPs are adhered to. We may terminate any research project at any time for noncompliance with the SUP conditions, or modify, redesign, relocate or terminate it, if the refuge manager 

determines that it is causing unanticipated adverse impacts on wildlife, wildlife habitat, approve priority 

public uses, or other refuge management activities.

Justification:

The program as described in the CCP and EA is compatible. Scientific research will comply with the 

stipulations listed, and will not interfere with the primary purposes for which the refuges were established. 

We encourage approved research to further understanding of refuge natural resources. Research 

conducted will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the System or the purposes for 

which the refuges were established. Research will directly benefit and support refuge goals, objectives 

and management plans and activities. Fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats will improve through the 

application of knowledge gained from research. Biological integrity, diversity and environmental health 

would benefit from research conducted on natural resources at the refuge. The wildlife-dependent 

priority public uses would also benefit as a result of increased biodiversity from improved restoration and 

management plans and activities associated with monitoring and research investigation that address specific 

restoration and management questions.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 F-59

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date:

_____ ______ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

______X_____ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

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

_____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:

Buckley, P. and F. Buckley. 1976. Guidelines for the protection and management of colonially nesting 

waterbirds. North Atlantic Regional Office. NPS. Boston, MA 54 pp.

Burger, J. and M. Gochfield. 1991. Human activity influence and diurnal and nocturnal foraging of 

Sanderlings. Condor. 93: 259-265.

Ellison, R. M. 1989. Responses to human intruders by birds nesting in colonies: Experimental Results and 

management guidelines. Col. Waterbirds 12(1):104-108.

Frederick, R. B. and M. W. Collopy. 1989 Researcher disturbance in colonies of wading birds: Effects of 

frequency of visit and egg-marking on reproductive parameters. Col. Waterbirds. 12(2):152-157.

Gutzwiller, K. J. and H. A. Stanley. 1999. Spatial extent of human-intrusion effects on Subalpine bird 

distributions. Condor: 101:378-389

Gutzwiller, K. J., H. A. Marcum, H. B. Harvey, J. D. Roth, and S. H. Anderson. 1998. Bird tolerance to 

human intrusion in Wyoming montane forests. Condor:100 519-527.

Parsons, K. C. and J. Burger. 1982. Human disturbance and nestling behavior in black-crowned night 

herons. Condor 84: 184-187.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1982. National Wildlife Refuge System – Refuge Manual Dept. of 

Interior USFWS, Washington, D.C.

Tremblay, J. and L. N. Ellison. 1979. Effects of human disturbance on breeding of Black-crowned night 

herons. Auk 96:364-369.
F-60 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX F

Refuge Determination for Research for Castle Rock NWR:

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ___________

 (Signature) (Date)

Refuge Manager/

Project Leader

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date)

Assistant Regional: ______________________________________ ____________

Director - Refuges (Signature) (Date)
Appendix G: Wilderness Review for Humboldt Bay NWR 

and Castle Rock NWR

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 G-1

Wilderness Review for Humboldt Bay NWR and Castle Rock NWR

Wilderness Review Process

The purpose of a wilderness review is to identify and recommend for Congressional designation National 

Wildlife Refuge System (System) lands and waters that merit inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System (NWPS). Wilderness reviews are a required element of CCPs and are conducted in 

accordance with the refuge planning process outlined in 602 FW 1 and 3, including interagency and tribal 

coordination, public involvement and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. 

There are three phases to a wilderness review: inventory, study, and recommendation. The wilderness 

inventory identifies those lands within the refuge that might have wilderness character and satisfy the 

definition of wilderness. Each unit must be roadless and be either greater than 5,000 acres; a roadless 

island of any size; or less than 5,000 acres but of sufficient size to be practicably managed as wilderness. 

The inventory preliminarily classifies each unit of land that meets these requirements as a wilderness study 

area (WSA).

The wilderness study further evaluates each WSA for values, resources, and uses to determine if each 

one merits recommendation from the Service to the Secretary of the Interior as wilderness. The 

recommendation phase consists of forwarding or reporting recommendations for wilderness designation 

from the Director through the Secretary and the President to Congress in a wilderness study report. 

This appendix summarizes the wilderness inventory for Humboldt Bay NWR and Castle Rock NWR.

Inventory Criteria 

The wilderness inventory is a broad look at the planning area to identify WSAs. These are roadless areas 

that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness identified in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. 

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby 

recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man 

himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an 

area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent 

improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural 

conditions, and which: (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with 

the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient 

size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain 

ecological, geological or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” 

A WSA must appear natural, provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation, meet 

the size criteria, and may provide other supplemental values. The process for identification of roadless 

areas and islands in the Complex and application of the wilderness criteria are described in the following 

sections. 

Identification of Roadless Areas and Roadless Islands 

Identification of roadless areas and roadless islands required gathering and evaluating land status maps, 

land uses, road inventory data, and aerial photographs for the Complex. “Roadless” refers to the absence of 

improved roads suitable and maintained for public travel by means of motorized vehicles primarily intended 

for highway use. Only lands currently owned by the Service in fee title are discussed in this inventory. 
G-2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX G

Evaluation of the Naturalness Criteria 

In addition to being roadless, a WSA must meet the naturalness criteria. Section 2(c) defines wilderness as 

an area that “... generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint 

of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” The area must appear natural to the average visitor rather than 

“pristine.” The presence of historic landscape conditions is not required. An area may include some human 

impacts provided they are substantially unnoticeable in the unit as a whole. Significant human-caused 

hazards, such as the presence of unexploded ordnance from military activity, and the physical impacts of 

refuge management facilities and activities are also considered in evaluation of the naturalness criteria. An 

area may not be considered unnatural in appearance solely on the basis of the “sights and sounds” of human 

impacts and activities outside the boundary of the unit.

Evaluation of Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 

In addition to meeting the size and naturalness criteria, a WSA must provide outstanding opportunities 

for solitude or primitive recreation. The area does not have to possess outstanding opportunities for both 

solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation and does not need to have outstanding opportunities on 

every acre. Further, an area does not have to be open to public use and access to qualify under this criteria; 

Congress has designated a number of wilderness areas in the Refuge System that are closed to public 

access to protect resource values. 

Opportunities for solitude refer to the ability of a visitor to be alone and secluded from other visitors 

in the area. Primitive and unconfined recreation means non-motorized, dispersed outdoor recreation 

activities that are compatible and do not require developed facilities or mechanical transport. These 

primitive recreation activities may provide opportunities to experience challenge and risk, self reliance, and 

adventure.

These two “opportunity elements” are not well defined by the Wilderness Act but, in most cases, can be 

expected to occur together. However, an outstanding opportunity for solitude may be present in an area 

offering only limited primitive recreation potential. Conversely, an area may be so attractive for recreation 

use that experiencing solitude is not an option. 

Evaluation of the Size Criteria 

Roadless areas or roadless islands meet the size criteria if any one of the following standards apply:

■ An area with over 5,000 contiguous acres. State and private lands are not included in making this acreage 

determination. 

■ A roadless island of any size. A roadless island is defined as an area surrounded by permanent waters or 

that is markedly distinguished from the surrounding lands by topographical or ecological features.

■ An area of less than 5,000 contiguous federal acres that is of sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition and of a size suitable for wilderness management. 

■ An area of less than 5,000 contiguous federal acres that is contiguous with a designated wilderness, 

recommended wilderness, or area under wilderness review by another federal managing agency such as 

the Forest Service, NPS, or Bureau or Land Management. 

Evaluation of Supplemental Values 

Supplemental values are defined by the Wilderness Act as “...ecological, geological, or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value.” These values are not required for wilderness but their 

presence should be documented.

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Humboldt Bay NWR) contains a total of 3,379 discontinuous 

acres, owned in fee title by the Service. The largest Service-owned segment of contiguous land at Humboldt 

Bay NWR consists of 1,602 acres, with the next largest being 580 acres. It is bordered by Highway 101 

and communities on the east, by the Humboldt Bay on the west, and is largely surrounded by agricultural 

lands on the south and north. Most of the surrounding agricultural lands were converted from salt marsh, 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 G-3

via construction of a large levee separating south Humboldt Bay lands from tidal influence by the 1910s to 

1920s. Other dikes and channels were constructed to control and spread Salmon Creek and other unnamed 

creeks. Northern dune units of the Humboldt Bay NWR are in a fairly pristine state, with the Lanphere 

Dunes being the most pristine, relative to other preserved dune ecosystems on the west coast of the United 

States. Humboldt Bay NWR does contain features of scientific, educational, scenic, and historical value. 

However, Humboldt Bay NWR does not meet the overall criteria for a wilderness study area because:

■ most of the Humboldt Bay NWR has been impacted by man;

■ most of HBNWR does not offer outstanding opportunities for primitive or unconfined recreation or 

solitude; and 

■ it does not encompass 5,000 contiguous acres. 

Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge

Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge (Castle Rock NWR) is a 14-acre rocky island approximately 1⁄2 mile 

offshore of Crescent City, California. Castle Rock is primarily affected by the forces of nature with any 

imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable. The island is road-less with no permanent structures, 

and it contains unique California north coastal ecological features of great value. Table G-1 summarizes the 

findings from the wilderness inventory.

Due to the sensitivity of Castle Rock NWR’s wildlife and habitats to disturbance, it would be inconsistent 

with the Castle Rock NWR’s purpose to allow public visitation of the island, and Castle Rock NWR is 

permanently closed to public visitation. However, lack of public use has not prevented other National Wildlife 

Refuges from receiving wilderness designation from Congress. Congress has designated several National 

Wildlife Refuge System wilderness areas which are closed to public use to conserve wildlife and fragile 

habitats. Designated wilderness areas that are permanently closed to the public include the following:

■ Farallon Wilderness 

■ Imperial Refuge Wilderness 

■ Oregon Islands Wilderness 

■ Passage Key Wilderness 

■ Pelican Island Wilderness 

■ Three Arch Rocks Wilderness 

■ Vieques Wilderness 

■ Washington Islands Wilderness 

■ West Sister Island Wilderness 

■ Wisconsin Islands Wilderness

Table G-1. Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Evaluation

Refuge 

Unit and 

Acreage

(1) has at least 

5,000 acres of 

land or is of 

sufficient size to 

make practicable 

its preservation 

and use in an 

unconfined 

condition, or is a 

roadless island

(2) generally 

appears to have 

been affected 

primarily by the 

forces of nature, 

with the imprint 

of man’s work 

substantially 

unnoticeable

(3a) has 

outstanding 

opportunities 

for solitude

OR

(3b) has 

outstanding 

opportunities 

for primitive 

and unconfined 

type of 

recreation;

(4) contains 

ecological, 

geological or 

other features 

of scientific, 

educational, 

scenic, or 

historical 

value

Parcel 

qualifies 

as a 

wilderness 

study area 

(meets 

criteria 1, 

2, and 3a or 

3b)

Castle 

Rock 

NWR

Yes, 14 acre 

roadless island

Yes, although it 

does have remote 

operated cameras 

and solar array 

for powering the 

camera.

Yes, although 

closed to the 

public

Yes, although 

closed to the 

public

Yes Yes
G-4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX G

Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Study

Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge was found to possess the required wilderness characteristics defined 

by the Wilderness Act, and is further evaluated through the refuge planning process to determine its 

suitability for designation, management, and preservation as wilderness. Considerations in this evaluation 

included:

■ Quality of wilderness values

■ Evaluation of resource values, public uses, and associated management concerns; and

■ Capability for management as wilderness or “manageability.”

This information provides a basis to compare the impacts of a range of management alternatives and 

determine the most appropriate management direction for the WSA.

Evaluation of Wilderness Values

The following information considers the quality of the WSAs’ mandatory and supplemental wilderness 

characteristics.

Naturalness

Castle Rock NWR covers approximately 14 acres and is 235 feet high at its peak off of the coast of Crescent 

City, California. Castle Rock is primarily affected by the forces of nature with any imprint of man’s work 

substantially unnoticeable. It is a roadless island with no permanent structures, and it contains unique 

California north coastal ecological features of great ecological value. 

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive Recreation

Castle Rock has outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, but because it provides 

habitat for so many sensitive birds and mammals, it is closed to public access. Periodic visits to the island 

are conducted only by Complex staff and academic researchers accompanied by staff, to install and maintain 

remote sensing wildlife cameras or to conduct other forms of monitoring and research. The island has 

typically been reached with the aid of a U.S. Coast Guard piloted helicopter. The island is 1/2 mile south of 

the flight path of aircraft to and from the Del Norte Airport, and under the current conditions does not seem 

to disturb the wildlife. A remote viewing site and interpretive panels are provided on shore immediately 

adjacent to Castle Rock NWR on Pebble Beach Drive in Crescent City, California. From the remote viewing 

location, visitors can see seabirds in flight and resting pinnipeds.

Kayaking, jet skiing and other recreational boating is common around Castle Rock NWR, but landing is not 

permitted.

Quality of Supplemental Values

Castle Rock NWR offers outstanding ecological values with features of scientific, educational, and scenic 

interest. Castle Rock NWR’s habitat features include relatively deep topsoil, vegetated terraces, sheer rock 

cliffs, talus slopes, as well as protected sandy beach and reef habitat. These features allow it to support one 

of the largest populations of nocturnal cavity nesting seabirds in California and one of the most important 

colonies of common murres on the Pacific coast (Carter et al. 1992, USFWS 2005). It is one of only five 

sites in the California Current System that supports more than 100,000 nesting seabirds. One species of 

shorebird, the black oystercatcher, also nests at Castle Rock NWR. The island is important to non-breeding 

seabirds as well. It serves as a communal roost for thousands of brown pelicans during migration, and has 

become one of the most important resting sites on the northern California coast for federally listed species, 

such as the threatened Steller sea-lion and the brown pelican. Several California Species of Special Concern 

that utilize Castle Rock NWR include the tufted puffin, fork-tailed storm-petrel, and double-crested 

cormorant.

Four species of pinnipeds occur regularly at Castle Rock NWR and its associated reef. Two seals, the 

elephant seal and harbor seal breed at Castle Rock NWR. The island represents the northernmost colonial 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 G-5

site in the Pacific Ocean where elephant seals regularly and successfully breed. In addition, Castle Rock 

NWR is part of one of the largest haul-outs for California sea-lion in northern California and a key haul-out 

for a local breeding population of the federally endangered Steller sea-lion. 

Management Alternatives

Alternative A (Current Management)

Under Alternative A (the “No Action” Alternative), management of Castle Rock NWR would continue 

unchanged. The Complex works with partners from Humboldt State University, the NPS, and the U.S. 

Coast Guard to maintain a remote, automatic camera on Castle Rock NWR that can be viewed by the public 

over the internet. This project is designed to study the abundance and health of the populations of seabirds 

nesting on Castle Rock. While some species like common murres nest on rock ledges and can be observed 

through aerial photography; other species, such as rhinoceros auklets, Cassin’s auklets, and leach’s storm 

petrels, are nocturnal and burrow into the soft soil making aerial observation impossible. These burrowing 

species can make tunnels up to six-feet long, into the soft and fragile ground. Any human disturbance on 

the surface can simply and easily crush and destroy the underground nest of these seabirds.

 

Castle Rock would continue to be managed by the Complex as it is now. The Complex staff would only land 

on Castle Rock NWR as necessary for research as determined by the Castle Rock NWR manager and staff/

contractors with specific knowledge of the Castle Rock NWR’s ecology. Research would continue to take 

place from off the island via plane or boat, or by remote sensing cameras placed on the island during periods 

of low wildlife use. Through the use of video cameras as a remote sensing technique, the biologists are able 

to gather data on relative abundance, burrow use, attendance and departure, nesting chronologies, and 

breeding behavior of seabird species on Castle Rock.

Alternative B

Alternative B would entail surveys for flora and fauna, and continued efforts to improve research with 

remote controlled recording devices. The refuge staff will be participating in at least two community events 

annually, with increased educational outreach and interpretation, and increased coordination with tribal 

entities.

Under Alternative B, the Service would not recommend a Wilderness designation for Castle Rock NWR.

Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative C would entail restricting any monitoring and research to off-island, recommending Castle Rock 

NWR for wilderness designation, and completing the associated legislative environmental impact statement. 

A Wilderness Management Plan would need to be written, with a minimum requirement analysis performed 

for each planned administrative action because of this recommendation. 

The Complex staff would only land on Castle Rock NWR as necessary for research as determined by the 

Castle Rock NWR manger and staff/contractors with specific knowledge of the Castle Rock NWR’s ecology. 

Research would continue to take place from off the island via plane or boat, or by remote sensing cameras 

placed on the island during periods of low wildlife use. Through the use of video cameras as a remote 

sensing technique, the biologists are able to gather data on relative abundance, burrow use, attendance and 

departure, nesting chronologies, and breeding behavior of seabird species on Castle Rock.

The refuge staff will be participating in at least three community events annually, with increased educational 

outreach and interpretation, and increased tribal coordination. 

Under Alternative C, the Service would recommend a Wilderness designation for Castle Rock NWR and 

complete the associated environmental impact statement at a later date.
G-6 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX G

Evaluation of Manageability and Other Resource Values and Uses

Wilderness designation and management of Castle Rock NWR would be fully compatible with current

and proposed refuge management, and none of the resource values identified above would be foregone or

adversely affected as a result of designation. Castle Rock NWR can be managed to preserve its wilderness 

character in perpetuity, recognizing that a “minimum requirement analysis” and “minimum tool” approach 

will be required. There are no valid existing private rights, or mineral rights, in this WSA.

Existing and proposed public uses and refuge management activities within the WSA is consistent with 

Wilderness Act and current Service wilderness management policy in the Refuge Manual (6RM8). None 

of the current or expected refuge management activities or public uses would diminish the wilderness 

character. These include scientific research, resource monitoring, and environmental education. 

Recommendation

In summary, wilderness designation and management of Castle Rock NWR would be fully compatible 

with current and proposed refuge management, and none of the resource values identified above would 

be forgone or adversely affected as a result of designation. Within the next 15 years, the Refuge Complex 

plans to submit a recommendation for wilderness designation to the Director for approval and commits to 

prepare a legislative environmental impact statement (pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act) that 

supports the recommendation.
Appendix H: Supplemental Legal and Policy Guidance

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 H-1

Supplemental Legal and Policy Guidance

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

Statutory authority for Service management and associated habitat management planning on units of 

the NWRS is derived from the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Refuge 

Administration Act), which was significantly amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). Section 4(a)(3) of the Refuge Improvement 

Act states, “With respect to the National Wildlife System [NWRS], it is the policy of the United States 

that – (A) each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of the System, as well as the specific purposes 

for which that refuge was established...” The Refuge Improvement Act also states that the “...purposes of 

the refuge and purposes for each refuge mean the purposes specified in or derived from law, proclamation, 

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

establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit.”

The Refuge Administration Act, as amended, clearly establishes wildlife conservation as the core NWRS 

mission. House Report 105-106, accompanying the Refuge Improvement Act, states “...the fundamental 

mission of our System is wildlife conservation...wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” 

In contrast to some other systems of federal lands which are managed on a sustained-yield basis for 

multiple uses, the NWRS is a primary-use network of lands and waters. First and foremost, refuges are 

managed for fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. In addition, units of the NWRS are legally closed to 

all public access and use, including economic uses, unless and until they are officially opened through an 

analytical, public process called the refuge compatibility process. With the exception of refuge management 

activities which are not economic in nature, all other uses are subservient to the NWRS’ primary wildlife 

management responsibility and they must be determined compatible before being authorized. 

The Refuge Improvement Act provides clear standards for management, use, planning, and growth of the 

NWRS. Its passage followed the promulgation of Executive Order 12996 (April 1996), “Management of 

Public Uses on National Wildlife Refuges”, reflecting the importance of conserving natural resources for 

the benefit of present and future generations of people. The Refuge Improvement Act recognizes that 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation, when determined to be compatible with the mission of the 

System and purposes of the Refuge, are legitimate and appropriate public uses of the Refuge System. 

Section 5 (C) and (D) of the Refuge Improvement Act states “compatible wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses are the priority general public uses of the Refuge System and shall receive priority consideration 

in planning and management; and when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent 

recreational use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated, subject to such 

restrictions or regulations as may be necessary, reasonable, and appropriate.”

The Refuge Improvement Act also directs the Service to maintain adequate water quantity and quality to 

fulfill the NWRS mission and refuge purposes, and to acquire, under state law, water rights that are needed 

for refuge purposes.

Appropriate Use Policy

This policy describes the initial decision process the refuge manager follows when first considering whether 

or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find a use is appropriate before 

undertaking a compatibility review of the use. An appropriate use, as defined by the Appropriate Use Policy 

(603 FW 1 of the Service Manual), is a proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the 

following four conditions:
H-2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX H

■ The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act.

■ The use contributes to the fulfilling of the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals 

or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the 

Improvement Act was signed into law.

■ The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations.

■ The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11 (603 FW 1 of the Service Manual).

If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or modify the use as expeditiously 

as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will deny the use without determining 

compatibility. If a use is determined to be an appropriate refuge use, the refuge manager will then 

determine if the use is compatible (see Compatibility section below). Although a use may be both 

appropriate and compatible, the refuge manager retains the authority to not allow the use or modify the 

use. Uses that have been administratively determined to be appropriate are the six wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation) and take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

This CCP includes a review of appropriateness and compatibility of existing refuge uses and planned future 

uses in Appendix F.

Compatibility Policy

Lands within the NWRS are different from other multiple use public lands in that they are closed to all 

visitor uses unless specifically and legally opened. The Improvement Act states that “. . . the Secretary 

shall not initiate or permit a new use of a Refuge or expand, renew, or extend an existing use of a Refuge, 

unless the Secretary has determined that the use is a compatible use and that the use is not inconsistent 

with public safety.” The Improvement Act also states that “. . . compatible wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation) 

are the priority general public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in Refuge 

planning and management.”

In accordance with the Improvement Act, the Service has adopted a Compatibility Policy (603 FW 2) that 

includes guidelines for determining if a use proposed on a national wildlife refuge is compatible with the 

purposes for which the refuge was established. A compatible use is defined in the policy as a proposed 

or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a national wildlife refuge that, based 

on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

NWRS mission or the purposes for which the Refuge was established and contributes to the maintenance 

of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. The Policy also includes procedures for 

documentation and periodic review of existing refuge uses.

When a determination is made as to whether a proposed use is compatible or not, this determination is 

provided in writing and is referred to as a compatibility determination. An opportunity for public review 

and comment is required for all compatibility determinations. For compatibility determinations prepared 

concurrently with a CCP or step-down management plan, the opportunity for public review and comment is 

provided during the public review period for the draft plan and associated National Environmental Policy 

Act document. The Refuge has completed compatibility determinations for 10 uses. These compatibility 

determinations will be finalized with the CCP. The compatibility determinations prepared in association 

with the CCP/EA are provided in Appendix F. 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy

Section 4(a)(4)(B) of the Refuge Improvement Act states, “In administering the System, the Secretary 

shall...ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained 

for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans...” This legislative mandate represents 

an additional directive to be followed while achieving refuge purposes and the NWRS mission. The Act 

requires the consideration and protection of a broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, plant, and habitat resources 

found on a refuge. Service policy guiding implementation of this statutory requirement provides a refuge 

manager with an evaluation process to analyze his/her refuge and recommend the best management 

direction to prevent further degradation of environmental conditions; and, where appropriate, and 

in concert with refuge purposes and NWRS mission, to restore lost or severely degraded resource 

components. Within the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3[3.7B]), 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 H-3

the relationships among biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; NWRS mission; and refuge 

purposes are explained as follows, “...each refuge will be managed to fulfill refuge purpose(s) as well as 

to help fulfill the System mission, and we will accomplish these purpose(s) and our mission by ensuring 

that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of each refuge are maintained and where 

appropriate, restored.”

When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, Refuge Managers will use sound 

professional judgment to determine their refuge’s contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field 

experience, an understanding of the refuge’s role within an ecosystem, and the knowledge of refuge 

resources, applicable laws and best available science, including consultation with resource experts both 

inside and outside of the Service.

The priority visitor uses of the NWRS are not in conflict with this policy when they have been determined 

to be compatible. The directives of this policy do not envision or necessitate the exclusion of visitors or the 

elimination of visitor use structures from refuges; however, maintenance and/or restoration of biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health may require spatial or temporal zoning of visitor use programs 

and associated infrastructures. General success in maintaining or restoring biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health will produce higher quality opportunities for providing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses.

Draft Wilderness Stewardship Policy Pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964

This policy updates guidance on administrative and public activities on wilderness and proposed wilderness 

within the NWRS. The purpose of the policy is to prescribe how the Service: “...preserves the character 

and qualities of designated wilderness while managing for the refuge establishing purpose(s), maintains 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation, and conducts 

minimum requirements analyses before taking any action that may impact wilderness character.”

The policy emphasizes recreational uses that are compatible and wilderness-dependent. The policy 

clarifies conditions upon which generally prohibited uses (motor vehicles, motorized equipment, mechanical 

transport, structures, and installations) may be necessary for wilderness protection. It confirms that: “...

we will generally not modify habitat, species population levels, or natural ecological processes in refuge 

wilderness unless doing so maintains or restores ecological integrity that has been degraded by human 

influence or is necessary to protect or recover threatened or endangered species.”

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

This Draft CCP and associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document has been prepared 

consistent with the requirements of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations 

(40 CFR Secs. 1500 et seq.), and the Department of Interior’s NEPA procedures (Department Manual, Part 

516).

Cultural Resources

In 1994 the Service formalized a policy for consultation with Native American Tribes, including during 

planning. Specifically the policy requires that “The Service will involve Native American governments in 

all Service actions that may affect their cultural or religious interests, including archaeological sites. The 

Service will be guided in this respect by such legislation as the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 

the National Historic Preservation Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and 

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. The Service will take appropriate precautions to ensure that 

locations of protected sites remain confidential.

In March 2003, the President issued Executive Order 13287 to reaffirm our nation’s commitment to 

preserving heritage resources while assessing Federal land management agencies’ approaches to overseeing 

and managing these important assets. 

In its broadest sense the Executive Order seeks to: 

■ Provide leadership in preserving America’s heritage by actively advancing the protection, enhancement, 

and contemporary use of the historic properties managed by the Federal Government. 

■ Promote intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships for the preservation and use of historic 

properties. 
H-4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX H

■ Direct Federal agencies to increase their knowledge of historic properties under their care and enhance 

the management of these assets. 

■ Encourage agencies to seek partnerships with State, tribal, and local governments and the private 

sector to make more efficient and informed use of their resources for economic development and other 

recognized public benefits. 

■ Better combine historic preservation and nature tourism by directing the agencies to assist in local and 

regional tourism programs and historic properties that are a significant feature of many State and local 

programs.

Environmental Justice

On February 11, 1994, the President issued Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) which directs the US 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that agencies analyze environmental effects on minority 

and low-income communities. The purpose of the executive order is to avoid the disproportionate placement 

of any adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts resulting from Federal actions and policies 

on minority and low-income populations. 
Appendix I: Compliance with Section 7 of the Federal Endangered 

Species Act

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 I-1

Type Scientific Name Common Name Category Critical 

Habitat

Documented on 

HBNWR?

Plants

Erysimum menziesii

(only ssp. eurekense

found on refuge)

Menzies’ wallflower 

(ssp. eurekense 

= Humboldt Bay 

wallflower)

E N Y

Layia carnosa beach layia E N Y

Lilium occidentale western lily E N N

Invertebrates

* Haliotis cracherodii black abalone E N N

Fish

* Acipenser medirostris green sturgeon, 

Southern DPS

T Y Y

Eucyclogobius 

newberryi

tidewater goby E P Y

* Oncorhynchus kisutch S. OR/N. CA Coho 

salmon 

T Y Y

* Oncorhynchus mykiss Northern California 

steelhead 

T Y Y

* Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

CA coastal Chinook 

salmon 

T Y Y

* Thaleichthys pacificus eulachon, Southern 

DPS

PT N Y

Birds

Brachyramphus 

marmoratus

marbled murrelet T P N

Charadrius 

alexandrinus nivosus

Western snowy 

plover

T

Coccyzus americanus yellow-billed cuckoo 

(Western DPS)

C N Y

Pelecanus occidentalis brown pelican E N Y

Strix occidentalis 

caurina

northern spotted owl T Y N

Mammals

* Balaenoptera borealis sei whale E N N

* Balaenoptera musculus blue whale E N N

* Balaenoptera physalus fin whale E N N

* Eumetopias jubatus Steller (=northern) 

sea-lion 

T Y N

Table 1. Federal Endangered Species Act Protected Species Lists for Humboldt Bay NWR and Castle Rock NWR

Federally Threatened and Endangered Species in Humboldt County
I-2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX I

Type Scientific Name Common Name Category Critical 

Habitat

Documented on 

HBNWR?

Martes pennanti 

pacifica

Pacific fisher C N N

* Megaptera novaengliae humpback whale E N N

* Physeter 

macrocephalus

sperm whale E N N

Federally Threatened and Endangered Species in Humboldt County (continued)
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 I-3

Type Scientific Name Common Name Category Critical 

Habitat

Documented 

on CRNWR?

Plants

Arabis macdonaldiana McDonald’s rockcress 

E N N

Lilium occidentale western lily E N N

Invertebrates

Haliotis cracherodii black abalone E N N

Polites mardon mardon skipper C N N

Speyeria zerene 

hippolyta

Oregon silverspot 

butterfly 

T Y N

Fish

* Acipenser medirostris green sturgeon, 

Southern DPS

T Y Y

Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby E P N

* Oncorhynchus kisutch S. OR/N. CA Coho 

salmon 

T Y N

* Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

CA coastal Chinook 

salmon 

T Y N

* Thaleichthys pacificus eulachon, Southern 

DPS

PT N Y

Reptiles

* Caretta caretta loggerhead turtle T N N

* Chelonia mydas (incl. 

agassizi)

green turtle T N N

* Dermochelys coriacea leatherback turtle E Y N

* Lepidochelys olivacea olive (=Pacific) 

ridley sea turtle 

T N N

Birds

Brachyramphus 

marmoratus

marbled murrelet T P nearby waters

Charadrius 

alexandrinus nivosus

western snowy 

plover 

T P N

Coccyzus americanus western yellowbilled cuckoo 

C N N

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle delisted N N

Pelecanus occidentalis brown pelican E N Y

Phoebastris albatrus short-tailed 

albatross 

E N N

Strix occidentalis 

caurina

northern spotted 

owl 

T Y N

Mammals

* Balaenoptera borealis sei whale E N N

* Balaenoptera musculus blue whale E N N

Federally Threatened and Endangered Species in Del Norte County
I-4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX I

Type Scientific Name Common Name Category Critical 

Habitat

Documented 

on CRNWR?

* Balaenoptera physalus fin whale E N N

* Eumetopias jubatus Steller (=northern) 

sea-lion 

T Y Y

Martes pennanti pacifica Pacific fisher C N N

* Megaptera novaengliae humpback whale E N N

* Physeter macrocephalus sperm whale E N N

(PE) Proposed Endangered Proposed in the Federal Register as being in danger of extinction 

(PT) Proposed Threatened Proposed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

(E) Endangered Listed in the Federal Register as being in danger of extinction 

(T) Threatened Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

(C) Candidate which may become a proposed species 

Critical Habitat Y = Designated, P = Proposed, N = None Designated 

 * Denotes a species Listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service

Federally Threatened and Endangered Species in Del Norte County (continued)
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 I-5
I-6 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX I
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 I-7
I-8 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX I
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 I-9

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Pacific Southwest Region

In Reply Refer to: 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2606

 80230 Sacramento, California 95825-1846

May 4, 2009

Clarence Hostler

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Fisheries 

1655 Heindon Road

Arcata, CA 95521

Subject: Request for Initiation of Section 7 Consultation

Dear Mr. Hostler,

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is requesting initiation of formal consultation 

pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended. We request:

1. Confirmation from NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service that the species listed below

correctly reflects the listed species under your jurisdiction that may be affected by the proposed 

action.

2. Concurrence from NMFS with our determination that the actions described in the CCP may 

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the: northern California evolutionarily significant 

unit (ESU) of the Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch); California coastal ESU of the Chinook 

salmon (O. tshawytscha); northern California ESU of the steelhead (O. mykiss); southern distinct 

population segment (DPS) of the North American green sturgeon (Acipsenser medirostris); and 

the Steller (northern) sea-lion (Eumetopias jubatus). All 5 species are listed as threatened under 

the Federal ESA. 

The enclosed document entitled Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex (CCP/EA), the feasibility 

report: Lower Salmon Creek Delta Salmonid Habitat Enhancement Opportunities and the 

previous consultation with your office (151422SWR2005AR00792: KM, dated June 30, 2006)

include the data and analysis upon which we have based our determination of effects. 

3. Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended, 

we also request concurrence from NMFS with our determination that the actions described in the 

CCP may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the essential fish habitat (EFH) for Pacific 

salmon, Pacific groundfish, and coastal pelagic species.

4. Finally, we request the opportunity to review your draft biological opinion prior to 

completion of the consultation process.
I-10 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX I

The CCP/EA is programmatic in nature, with the long term restoration effects being the goal, 

short term effects are minimized by the extensive conservation measures provided in Appendix 

E, pages E-88 to E-93.

In the CCP/EA, we evaluated the effects of the proposed 15-year plan for the general 

management, maintenance, and public use activities. We believe the activities outlined in the 

CCP will lead to long-term benefits to threatened and endangered species. Phase 2 of the 

Salmon Creek restoration is described in more detail with Alternative C found in the Lower 

Salmon Creek Delta Salmonid Habitat Enhancement Opportunities, which we have included. 

We are enclosing a page with the elements needed for a consultation, and where these elements 

are found in the CCP/EA. In addition, we are coordinating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service - Arcata Field Office on the species under their jurisdiction. 

Should you or your staff have questions, please contact Richard Smith at (916) 414-6502 or via 

email at richard_smith@fws.gov. 

Sincerely,

Mark Pelz

Chief, Refuge Planning

Enclosures
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 I-11

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Pacific Southwest Region

In Reply Refer to: 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2606

 80230 Sacramento, California 95825-1846

May 4, 2009

To: Randy Brown, Acting Field Supervisor, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office

Arcata, California

From: Mark Pelz, Chief, Refuge Planning, Region 8

Sacramento, California

Subject: Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation

We are requesting your concurrence with our findings in the attached Intra-agency Section 7 

Evaluation for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for 

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex (CCP/EA). 

The CCP/EA is programmatic in nature, with the long term restoration effects being the goal, 

short term effects are minimized by the extensive conservation measures provided in Appendix 

E, pages E-88 to E-93.

We evaluated the proposed general management, maintenance, and public use activities in the 

CCP/EA and believe the activities outlined in the CCP will lead to long-term benefits to 

threatened and endangered species. Phase 2 of the Salmon Creek restoration is described in 

more detail with Alternative C of the Lower Salmon Creek Delta Salmonid Habitat Enhancement 

Opportunities report, which we have included. 

Previous consultations with the Refuge and the Arcata Field Office include: 1-14-2005-2612, 

dated May 9, 2005, and 1-14-2004-2556, dated July 20, 2006. In addition, we are consulting with 

the Arcata office of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration – Fisheries on 

the species under their jurisdiction.

We are enclosing a page with the elements needed for a consultation, and where these elements 

are found in the CCP/EA.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions regarding this 

request or the CCP/EA, please call Richard Smith of my staff at (916) 414-6502 or via email at 

richard_smith@fws.gov.

Enclosures
I-12 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX I

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM 

Originating Person: Richard Smith

Telephone Number: (916) 414-6502

Date: 5/4/09 

I. Region: 8

II. Service Activity (Program):

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP)

III. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Listed species and/or their critical habitat within the action area:

Threatened and Endangered Species List for Humboldt Bay NWR National Wildlife Refuge.

Threatened and Endangered Species in Humboldt County

TYPE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON 

NAME

CATEGORY CRITICAL 

HABITAT

DOCUMENTED 

ON HBNWR?

Plants

Erysimum menziesii

(only ssp. eurekense

found on refuge)

Menzies' 

wallflower E N Y

Layia carnosa beach layia E N Y

Fish

Eucyclogobius 

newberryi tidewater goby E P Y

Birds

Brachyramphus 

marmoratus

marbled 

murrelet T P N

Pelecanus 

occidentalis brown pelican E N Y

Strix occidentalis 

caurina

northern spotted 

owl T Y N

Mammals

Martes pennanti 

pacifica Pacific fisher C N N

Threatened and Endangered Species List for Castle Rock NWR National Wildlife Refuge.

Threatened and Endangered Species in Del Norte County

TYPE SCIENTIFIC 

NAME

COMMON 

NAME

CATEGORY CRITICAL 

HABITAT

DOCUMENTED 

ON CRNWR?

Plants

Arabis 

macdonaldiana

McDonald's 

rock-cress E N N

Lilium occidentale western lily E N N
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 I-13

Invertebrates

Polites mardon mardon skipper C N N

Speyeria zerene 

hippolyta

Oregon 

silverspot 

butterfly T Y N

Fish

Eucyclogobius 

newberryi tidewater goby E P N

Birds

Brachyramphus 

marmoratus

marbled 

murrelet T P Y

Charadrius 

alexandrinus 

nivosus

western snowy 

plover T P N

Coccyzus 

americanus

Western yellowbilled cuckoo C N N

Pelecanus 

occidentalis brown pelican E N Y

Phoebastris 

albatrus

short-tailed 

albatross E N N

Strix occidentalis 

caurina

northern spotted 

owl T Y N

Mammals

Martes pennanti 

pacifica Pacific fisher C N N

B. Proposed critical habitat within the action area:

tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) proposed critical habitat

marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) proposed critical habitat

western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) proposed critical habitat

C. Candidate species within the action area:

Pacific fisher (West coast distinct population) (Martes pennanti pacifica) (C)

Mardon skipper butterfly (Polites mardon) (C)

Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) (C)

D. Include species/habitat occurrence on a map.

Please see pages 8, 10, 35, 38, 55, 68, & 89 of the CCP.

IV. Geographic area or station name and action: 

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Comprehensive Conservation Plan

V. Location (attach map):
I-14 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX I

Please see page 32 of the CCP. 

A. Ecoregion Number and Name:

KLAMATH/CENTRAL PACIFIC COAST ECOREGION (#2)

B. County and State: 

Humboldt and Del Norte Counties, California

C. Section, township and range (or latitude and longitude):

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town:

Headquarters is 4.5 miles from Loleta, CA. 

Other nearby towns include Arcata and Eureka.

E. Species/habitat occurrence:

Humboldt Bay NWR – pages 31-54 

Castle Rock NWR – pages 67-81

VI. Description of proposed action (attach additional pages as needed):

Refuge Complex Goals, Objectives, and Strategies – pages 95-121

Management Plan Implementation – pages 121-130

VII. Determination of effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in items 

III. A, B, and C (attach additional pages as needed):

CCP, Humboldt Bay NWR - Appendix E, pages E-59 to E-60, E-70 to E-74, and E-76 to E-77.

 

Salmon Creek Restoration design elements found on pages 68-70 of the Lower Salmon Creek 

Delta Salmonid Enhancement Opportunities Report

Castle Rock NWR – Appendix E, pages E-83 to E-84

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

Conservation Measures - Appendix E, pages E-88 to E-93

VIII. Effect Determination and response requested: [* = optional].

A. Listed species/designated critical habitat:

 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 I-15

Determination Response Requested

May affect, but is not likely to adversely effect

Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) Concurrence

Menzies' wallflower (Erysimum menziesii [ssp. eurekense]) (E) Concurrence

Beach layia (Layia carnosa) (E) Concurrence

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) (T) Concurrence 

Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) (T) Concurrence

Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) (E) Concurrence

McDonald's rock-cress (Arabis macdonaldiana) (E) ___Concurrence

Western lily (Lilium occidentale) (E) ___Concurrence

Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) (T) Concurrence 

short-tailed albatross (Phoebastris albatrus) (E) Concurrence

Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) (T) Concurrence

B. Proposed critical habitat:

Determination Response Requested

May affect, but no adverse modification of proposed critical habitat

Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) (E), PCH *Concurrence

Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) (T), PCH *Concurrence

Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) (T), PCH *Concurrence

C. Candidate species:

Determination Response Requested

May affect, but is not likely to adversely effect

Pacific fisher (West coast distinct population) (Martes pennanti pacifica) (C) __ *Concurrence

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Western continental US) (Coccyzus americanus) (C) __ *Concurrence

Mardon skipper butterfly (Polites mardon) (C) __ *Concurrence

___________________________________ ________________

 Signature Date

Mark Pelz, Chief, Refuge Planning

Appendix J: Plant Lists

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 J-1 Humboldt Bay Flora Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Aceraceae Acer macrophyllum Pursh big leaf maple FS X N 

X

AgavaceaeCordyline australis Hook. F. cabbage tree FM, BM E AizoaceaeCarpobrotus chilensis (Molina) N.E. Br. 

sea fig DM X E 

X

Carpobrotus edulis (L.) N.E. Br. iceplant DM X E, I 

X

AlismataceaeAlisma lanceolatum With. lanceleaf water plantain FM X E Alisima plantago-aquatica L. water plantain FM X N AnacardiaceaeToxicodendron diversilobum Torrey & A. Gray (E. Greene)

poison oak CDF, RF X X N 

X

ApiaceaeAngelica lucida L. seacoast angelica BM X X N, C 

X

Anthriscus caucalis M. Bieb bur chevril DM X E Cicuta douglasii (DC.) J. Coulter & Rose 

western water hemlock FM X N 

Conium maculatum L. poison hemlock RF, AW X I XDaucus carota L. Queen Anne’s lace AW, DM X X I XDaucus pusillus Michaux American wild carrot DM, SW X X N 

X

Foeniculum vulgare Miller sweet fennel AW, FM, SW X X I XGlehnia littoralis (A. Gray) Miq. ssp. leiocarpa (Mathias) Hultén 

American silvertop DM X N, C 

X

Heracleum lanatum Michaux Heracleum maximum 

Bartram

cow parsnip FM, AW X N 

X

Hydrocotyle ranunculoides L.f. marsh pennywort FM X N 

X
J-2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX J Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Lilaeopsis occidentalis J. Coulter & 

Rose 

western lilaeopsis BM, SW X X N 

X

Oenanthe sarmentosa J.S. Presel water parsely FM, BM, FS, RF X N 

X

Sanicula arctopoides Hook. & Arn. footsteps of spring DM X X N Sanicula crassicaulis DC. Pacific sanicle CDF X N 

X

Torilis arvensis (Hudson) Link spreading hedge-parsley CDF X E ApocynaceaeVinca major L. bigleaf periwinkle DM, FM, CDF, DS X X E, I 

X

AquifoliaceaeIlex aquifolium L. English holly CDF X X E, I 

X

AraceaeLysichiton americanus Hultén & St. John 

yellow skunk cabbage RF, FS X N 

X

Zantedeschia aethiopica (L.) Sprengel 

callalily FM, DM, DS X X E, I

AraliaceaeHedera helix L. English ivy CDF, RF X X E, I 

X

AsteraceaeAchillea millefolium L. common yarrow DM, CDF, SW X X N 

X

Ambrosia chamissonis (Less.) E. Greene

beach-bur DM, DS X N 

X

Anaphalis margaritacea (L.) Benth. & Hook. 

pearly everlasting CDF, DM, SW X X N 

X

Anthemis arvensis L. corn chamomile DM E Anthemis cotula 

L. mayweed AW, FM X E, I 

X

Arctotheca calendula (L.) Levyns cape weed CDF,FS X X E,I Artemisia pycnocephala DC. coastal sagewort DM X N 

X

Aster chilensis Nees Symphyotrichum chilense 

(Nees) G.L. Nesom var. chilense

common California aster SW, BM, FM X N 

X
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 J-3 Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Baccharis douglasii DC. saltmarsh baccharis BM, FM X X N 

X

Baccharis pilularis DC. coyote brush DM, AW, BM, FM, 

FS, RF

X X X N 

X

Bellis perennis L. lawn daisy AW X E 

X

Bidens cernua L. var. cernua nodding beggartick FM, BM X N 

X

Chamomilla suaveolens (Pursh) Rydb. 

Matricaria discoidea D.C. pineapple weed AW, CDF, R X X E 

X

Chrysanthemum segetum L. Glebionis segetum (L.) 

Fourr.

corn chrysanthemum DM X E, I 

Cichorium intybus L. chicory AW X E Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Canada thistle AW X E, I 

X

Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. bullthistle SW, DM, AW, FM X E, I 

X

Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. Canada horseweed DM, CDF, AW X X E, I 

X

Conyza floribunda Kunth asthmaweed CDF, DM, AW X X E 

X

Cotula australis (Sieber) Hook. f. Australian waterbuttons DM, DS X E Cotula coronopifolia L. brass buttons BM, SM X X E 

X

Crepis capillaris (L.) Wallr. hawksbeard AW X E,I Erechtites glomerata (Poiret) DC. cutleaf burnweed DM, SW, FM, DS, 

RF, CDF 

X X E, i 

X

Erechtites minima (Poiret) DC. coastal burnweed CDF, DM, BM, FM, 

DS, RF

X X E, I 

X

Erigeron glaucus Ker-Gawler seaside daisy DM, DS X N 

X

Euthamia occidentalis Nutt. western flat-topped 

goldenrod

FM X 

N

X

Gnaphalium purpureum L. Gamochaeta purpurea (L.) 

Cabrera

purple cudweed DM X N 

X

Gnaphalium palustre Nutt. western marsh cudweed SW, DM, AW X X N 

X

Gnaphalium ramosissimum Nutt. Pseudognaphalium 

ramosissimum (Nutt.) Anderb.

pink cudweed CDF X 

N

X
J-4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX J Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Gnaphalium stramineum Kunth. Pseudognaphalium 

stramineum (Kunth) Anderb.

cotton-batting plant DM, SW, AW X X N 

X

Grindelia stricta DC. var. stricta coastal gumplant SM, BM X N 

X

Hesperevax sparsiflora (A. Gray) E. Greene var. brevifolia 

shortleaf dwarf-cudweed DM X N, C 

Hieracium albiflorum Hook. white hawkweed CDF X N 

X

Hypochaeris glabra L. smooth cat’s ear FM, DM, SW X X E 

X

Hypochaeris radicata L. rough cat’s ear DM, CDF, AW X X E 

X

Jaumea carnosa (Less.) A. Gray marsh jaumea SM X N 

X

Layia carnosa (Nutt.) Torrey & A. Gray 

beach layia DM X N, C 

X

Leontodon taraxacoides (Villars) Mérat ssp. taraxacoides 

lesser hawkbit SW, DM, BM, FM, 

DS, AW 

X X E, I

X

Lessingia filaginifolia (Hook & Arn.) Corethrogyne filaginifolia 

(Hook & Arn.) Nutt var.californica

California sand-aster DM X N 

X

Leucanthemum vulgare Lam. oxe-eye daisy FM, DM, AW X X E, I 

X

Madia sativa Molina coast tarweed SW, BM, DM X X N 

X

Petasites frigidus (L.) Fries var. palmatus (Aiton) Cronq. 

coltsfoot RF X N 

Picris echioides L. bristly oxtongue FM, CDF, AW X X E, I 

X

Senecio vulgaris L. old man of spring DM, DS X E 

X

Senecio elegans L. purple ragwort DM, DS X E, I 

X

Senecio jacobaea L. tansy ragwort BM X X E,I Senecio mikanioides Walp. Delairea odorata Lem. Cape ivy DM, FS X X E Senecio sylvaticus L. woodland ragwort CDF, AW X X E, I

X

Silybum marianum (L.) Gaetner milkthistle AW X E, I Solidago canadensis 

L. ssp. elongata 

(Nutt.) Keck 

meadow goldenrod BM X N 

X
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 J-5 Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Solidago spathulata DC. ssp. spathulata dune goldenrod DM, CDF X N 

X

Soliva sessilis Ruiz & Pavon field burnweed DM, CDF X E, I Sonchus asper ssp. asper (L.) Hill spiny sow-thistle AW, DS, CDF X E, I 

X

Sonchus oleraceus L. common sow thistle DM, AW X X E, I 

X

Tanacetum camphoratum Less. dune tansy DM X N 

X

Taraxacum officinale Wigg. red-seeded dandelion AW X E 

X

AzollaceaeAzolla filiculoides Lam. Pacific mosquito fern FM, SW, OW X N 

X

Azolla mexicana C. Presl Mexican mosquito fern OW, FM X N 

X

BetulaceaeAlnus rubra Bong. red alder RF, FS, SW X N 

X

BoraginaceaeAmsinckia spectabilis Fischer & C. Meyer var. spectabilis 

seaside fiddleneck DM X X N 

X

Borago officinalis L. common borage AW X E Cryptantha leiocarpa (Fischer & C. Meyer) E. Greene 

coastal cryptantha DM X N 

X

Myosotis discolor Pers. forget-me-not AW, FM X E Symphytum asperum Lepchin rough comfrey AW X E BrassicaceaeBarbarea vulgaris R. Br. common wintercress AW X E Brassica rapa L. common mustard AW, FM X E, I

X

Cakile edentula (Bigelow) Hook. American sea rocket DM X E 

X

Cakile maritima Scop. European sea rocket DM X E 

X

Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medikus shepherd’s purse DM, DS, AW X X E 

X

Cardamine oligosperma Torrey & Gray 

bitter cress DM, AW, DS, SW X X N 

X
J-6 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX J Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Coincya monensis (L.) Greuter & 

Burdet 

star-mustard DM X E,I 

Draba verna L. small fruiting spring 

draba

 DM, SW X X N 

Erysimum menziesii (Hook) ssp. eurekense R.A. Price 

Humboldt Bay wallflower

DM X N, C 

X

Hirschfeldia incana (L.) Lagr.-Fossat shortpod mustard DM, AW X X E,I 

X

Lepidium nitidum Torrey & A. Gray var. nitidum 

shining pepperweed DM X N 

X

Lobularia maritima (L.) Desv. sweet alyssum DS X E Raphanus raphanistrum L. wild radish DM, AW, RF X X E 

X

Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum (L.) Hayek 

Nasturtium officinale W.T. Aiton

water cress FM, RF X N 

Sisymbrium officinale L. hedge mustard AW, CDF X X E, I 

X

CallitrichaceaeCallitriche heterophylla (Pursh) var. bolanderi (Hegelm.) Fassett 

water starwort DS, AW, FM X X N 

Callitriche stagnalis Scop. pond water-starwort OW, FM X E CaprifoliaceaeLinnaea borealis L. var. longiflora Torrey

Linnaea borealis L. ssp.longiflora (Torrey) Hultén

twin flower CDF X 

N planted

Lonicera hispidula Douglas var. vacillans A. Gray 

pink honeysuckle CDF, RF X N 

X

Lonicera involucrata (Richardson) Banks var. ledebourii (Eschsch.) Zabel

coast twinberry CDF, FS, RF X X N 

X

Sambucus racemosa L. red elderberry RF, CDF, FS X X N 

X

CaryophyllaceaeCardionema ramosissimum (J. A. weinm.) Nelson & J.F. Macbr. 

sandmat DM, DS X N 

X
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 J-7 Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Cerastium glomeratum Thuill. sticky chickweed DM, DS, SW, AW, FM X X E 

X

Polycarpon tetraphyllum (L.) L. four-leaved manyseed DM X E Sagina decumbens (Elliot) Torrey & Gray ssp. occidentalis (S. Watson) G. Crow 

western pearlwort SW X N 

X

Sagina procumbens L. birdeye pearlwort AW X E Silene gallica L. common catchfly DM X E 

X

Spergula arvensis L. ssp. arvensis spurry DM, DS, FM X X 

E

Spergularia canadensis (Pers.) G. Don var. occidentalis R. Rossbach 

western sand-spurrey BM, SM X X N, C 

X

Spergularia marina (L.) Griseb. Spergularia salina (L.) 

(Griseb.) J. Presl & C. Presl 

salt marsh sand spurrey SM, BM, AW X X N 

X

Spergularia macrotheca (Hornem.) Heynh. var. macrotheca 

sticky sand spurrey SM, SW X X N 

X

Spergularia rubra (L.) J.S. Presl. & C. Presl. 

red sand spurry BM, AW X E 

Stellaria nitens Nutt. northern starwort BM, SW X N 

X

Stellaria longipes Goldie. var. longipes

meadow starwort FM X N 

Stellaria media L. Villars common chickweed AW, DM, FM, DS, 

SW 

X X E 

X

ChenopodiaceaeAtriplex leucophylla (Moq.) D. Dietr. beach salt bush DM, SM X X N Atriplex patula 

L. spear saltbush BM, SM X N 

X

Atriplex triangularis Willd. Atriplex prostrata Bouchér 

ex DC.

triangle oracle BM, SM, AW X X E, I 

X

Chenopodium album L. lamb’s quarters DM, CDF, BM X X E, I 

X

Chenopodium ambrosioides L. Mexican tea R, CDF X X E, I 

X

Chenopodium foliosum (Moench) Asch. 

leafy goosefoot BM, AW X X E, I 
J-8 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX J Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Salicornia bigelovii Torrey dwarf saltwort SM X 

N range 

extension

Salicornia virginica L. Sarcocornia pacifica 

(Standl.) A.J. Scott 

common pickleweed SM, BM, AW X X N 

X

ConvolvulaceaeCalystegia soldanella (L.) R. Br. beach morning-glory DM X N 

X

Calystegia silvatica (Kit.) griseb. ssp.disjuncta Brummitt

shortstalk false bindweed RF, FS, AW X E, I 

X

Convolvulus arvensis L. field bindweed AW, FM X E 

X

CrassulaceaeCrassula connata (Ruiz Lopez & Pavon) 

sand pygmy-weed DM N 

X

CucurbitaceaeMarah oreganus (Torrey & A. Gray) Howell 

coast wild-cucumber CDF, RF X X N 

CupressaceaeCupressus macrocarpa Gordon Monterey cypress CDF, AW, DM X X E 

X

Thuja plicata D. Don red cedar RF X N CuscutaceaeCuscuta salina Engelm. var. major Yuncker

saltmarsh dodder SM, BM X X N 

X

CyperaceaeCarex cusickii Mackenzie Cusick’s sedge FS X N Carex deweyana Schwein. ssp. leptopoda (Mackenzie) Calder & R. Taylor 

Carex leptopoda Mack. Dewey’s taper-fruit 

sedge 

CDF N 

Carex lyngbyei Hornem Lyngbye’s sedge BM, SM X X N, C 

X

Carex obnupta L. Bailey slough sedge SW, FM X N 

X

Carex pansa L. Bailey sand-dune sedge SW, DM X X N 

X
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 J-9 Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Cyperus eragrostis Lam. tall flatsedge FM, SW, BM, DM, R X X X N 

X

Eleocharis macrostachya Britton common spikerush SW, FM X N 

X

Eleocharis pachycarpa Desv. broad-fruit spikerush FM X E Eleocharis parvula (Roemer & Schultes) Link 

small spikerush FM X N C 

Scirpus acutus Bigelow var. occidentalis (S. Watson) Beetle 

Schoenoplectus acutus (Muhl. ex Bigelow) A Löve & D. Löve var. occidentalis(S. Watson) S.G. Sm.

hard-stemmed tule FM, BM X X N 

X

Scirpus americanus Pers. Schoenoplectus 

americanus (Pers.) Volkart ex Schinz & R. Keller

bulrush FM, BM X X N 

Scirpus cernuus (Roemer & Schultes) Vahl. 

Isolepis cernua (Vahl) Roem. & Schult.

low clubrush SW, FM, BM, SM X X N 

X

Scirpus microcarpus C. Presl small-fruited bulrush FM, RF X N 

X

Scirpus maritimus L. Schoenoplectus maritimus 

(L.) Lye

seacoast bulrush BM X X N 

X

Scirpus pungens Vahl Schoenoplectus pungens 

(Vahl) Palla var. badius (J. Presl & C. Presl) S.G. Sm.

three-square FM, BM

X

X

N

X

Scirpus robustus Pursh Schoenoplectus robustus 

(Pursh) M.T. Strong

sturdy bulrush BM X X N 

DennstaedtiaceaePteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn var. pubescens L.

western bracken fern CDF, DM, DS X N 

X

DipsicaceaeDipsacus fullonum L. wild teasel AW, FM X E, I DryopteridaceaeDryopteris arguta (Kaulf.) Maxon coastal wood fern RF, FM, FS X N 

X

Polystichum munitum (Kaulf.) C. Presl 

sword fern CDF, RF X X N 

X
J-10 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX J Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Equisetaceae

Equisetum arvense L. common horsetail FM, RF X N Equisetum laevigatum A. Braun smooth scouring-rush RF, SW X N Equisetum telmateia Ehrh. ssp. Braunii (Milde) R.L.Hauke 

giant horsetail FM, RF, AW, CDF X X N 

X

EricaceaeAllotropa virgata A. Gray sugar-stick CDF X N 

X

Arbutus menziesii Pursh Pacific madrone CDF X N 

X

Arctostaphylos columbiana Piper hairy manzanita CDF X N 

X

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Sprengel 

bearberry CDF, DM X N 

X

Arctostaphylos 

x media E. Greene hybrid manzanita CDF X N 

X

Chimaphila umbellata (L.) Bartram pipsissewa CDF X N 

X

Erica lusitanica Rudolphi Spanish heath FM/FS X E,I Gaultheria shallon Pursh salal CDF X N 

X

Pyrola picta Smith white-veined 

wintergreen

CDF X 

N

X

Vaccinium ovatum Pursh evergreen huckleberry CDF, FS X X N FabaceaeAcacia dealbata Link silver wattle FS, CDF X X E, I Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link scotch broom CDF, RF, FS, DS, 

SW 

X X E, I 

X

Genista monspessulana (L.) L. Johnson 

French broom FS X E, I 

Lathyrus latifolius (L.) perennial sweet pea BM, DM X X E Lathyrus littoralis (Nutt.) Endl. silky beach pea DM X N Lathyrus palustris L. marsh pea FS, FM X N, C Lathyrus vestitusNutt.var. vestitus hillside pea CDF X 

N

X

Lotus corniculatus L. bird’s-foot trefoil FM, SW, AW X E, I 

X
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 J-11 Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Lotus formosissimus E. Greene coastal lotus FM, FS X N Lotus micranthus Benth. small-flowered lotus DM, SW X X 

N

X

Lotus purshianus (Benth.) Clements & E.G. Clements var. purshianus 

Lotus unifoliatus (Hook) Benth. var. unifoliatus

American bird’s-foot trefoil

SW, DM X X N 

X

Lotus uliginosus Schk. Lotus pedunculatus Cav. big trefoil AW, FM X E, I

X

Lupinus arboreus Sims yellow bush lupine DM, DS X E,I 

X

Lupinus bicolor Lindley miniature lupine DM X N 

X

Lupinus littoralis Douglas seashore lupine DM X N 

X

Lupinus polyphyllus Lindley var. polyphyllus

bigleaf lupine AW X N 

Lupinus rivularis Lindley riverbank lupine AW, DM, DS X X N 

X

Medicago polymorpha 

L. bur-clover DS, BM, DM X X E 

X

Melilotus alba Medikus Melilotus officinalis (L.)

Lam. 

yellow sweetclover DM, DS, AW X E 

X

Melilotus officinalis (L.) Pall. yellow sweetclover DM. DS, AW X E 

X

Trifolium arvense L. rabbitfoot clover DM, DS X E Trifolium campestre Schreber hop clover DM, DS X E Trifolium dubium Sibth. shamrock DM, DS, CDF, AW X X E, I Trifolium fragiferum L. strawberry clover AW X E, I 

X

Trifolium glomeratum L. clustered clover CDF X E 

X

Trifolium hirtum All. rose clover DM, DS X E Trifolium macraei Hook. & Arn. Macrae’s clover DM X N 

X

Trifolium microcephalum Pursh small-headed clover DM X N 

X

Trifolium microdon Hook. & Arn. thimble clover DM X N 

X

Trifolium pratense L. red clover AW

X

E

X

Trifolium repens L. white clover AW, SW X E, I 

X

Trifolium subterraneum L. subterranean clover SW, AW X E, I 

X

Trifolium wormskioldii Lehm. coast clover SW, AW, FM X N 

X

Vicia benghalensis L. purple vetch DM, DS, BM X X X E, I 

X
J-12 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX J Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Vicia gigantea Hook. Vicia nigricans Hook. & 

Arn. ssp. gigantea (Hook.) Lassetter & C.R. Gunn.

giant vetch FS, RF X N 

X

Vicia hirsuta (L.) S.F. Gray hairy vetch CDF, DM, DS X E 

X

Vicia sativa L. ssp. sativa spring vetch FM, RF X E Vicia sativa L. ssp. nigra (L.) common vetch AW, DM X 

E

X

Vicia villosa Roth ssp. villosa hairy vetch CDF X E, I 

X

GarryaceaeGarrya elliptica Lindley coast silk tassel CDF X N 

X

GentianaceaeCentaurium davyi (Jepson) Abrams Davy’s centaury BM X N Centaurium muehlenbergii (Griseb.) Muhlenberg’s centaury FM, SW X N 

X

GeraniaceaeErodium botrys (Cav.) Bertol. long-beaked filaree DS, DM X E Erodium cicutarium (L.) L’Hér. red-stemmed filaree AW, DM X X E Geranium dissectum 

L. cutleaf geranium AW X E 

X

Geranium molle L. dove’s-foot geranium AW, DM, DS X X E Geranium robertianum L. Robert’s geranium RF, FS X E, I GrossulariaceaeRibes divaricatum Douglas var. pubiflorum Koehne

spreading gooseberry CDF X N 

X

Ribes laxiflorum Pursh trailing black currant CDF X N 

X

Ribes sanguineum Pursh var. glutinosum (Benth) 

pink-flowering currant CDF, FS, RF X X N 

X

GuttiferaeHypericum anagalloides Cham. & Schdl. 

tinker’s penny AW, FM X N 

Hypericum perforatum L. common St. Johnswort DM, DS, BM X X X E, I 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 J-13 Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Hippuridaceae Hippuris vulgaris L. common mares-tail FM X N Hydrocharitaceae Egeria densa Planchon Brazilian elodea OW X E, I Iridaceae Crocosmia xcrocosmiiflora (Burb. & Dean) N.E. Br. monbretia DM, DS, FM X X E, I Iris douglasiana Herbert Douglas Iris CDF, FM X X N Iris germanica L. var. florentina (L.) Dykes orris-root DS X E Iris pseudacorus L. water iris FM X E Sisyrinchium bellum S. Watson blue-eyed grass FM X N Sisyrinchium californicum (Ker Gawler) Dryander California golden-eyed grass SW, FM X N 

X

JuncaceaeJuncus ambiguus Guss. saline toad rush BM, SM, X X N Juncus articulatus L. joinleaf rush FM X 

N

Juncus balticus Willd. Juncus arcticus Willd. ssp.

littoralis (Engelm.) Hultén

Baltic rush SM, BM X X N 

Juncus bolanderi Engelm. Bolander’s rush AW, FM X N 

X

Juncus breweri Engelm. Brewer’s rush SW, DM X X N 

X

Juncus bufonius L. var. bufonius toad rush SW, AW, FM X N 

X

Juncus bufonius L. var. occidentalis F.J. Herm 

western toad rush DM, SW X X N 

X

Juncus effusus L. var. brunneus Engelm. 

bog rush AW, FM X N 

X

Juncus effusus L. var. pacificus Fern. & Wieg. 

Pacific Bog Rush AW X N 

X

Juncus ensifolius Wikstrom three-stamened rush AW, FM X N 
J-14 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX J Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Juncus falcatus E. Meyer var. 

falcatus 

sickle-leafed rush SW X N 

X

Juncus gerardii Loisel. salt-meadow rush SM X 

E

Juncus lesueurii Bolander salt rush BM, SM X X N 

X

Luzula comosa E. Meyer common wood-rush CDF, DM, DS X N 

X

Luzula subcongesta (S. Watson) Jepson 

Donner wood rush CDF, DM N 

X

JuncaginaceaeLilaea scilloides (Poiret) Hauman flowering quillwort SM, BM X N Triglochin concinna var. concinna Burtt Davy 

Triglochin maritima L. arrow-grass SM X N 

X

Triglochin maritima L. seaside arrow-grass BM, SM X X N 

X

Triglochin striata Ruiz Lopez & Pavon 

three-ribbed arrow-grass BM, FM X N 

X

LamiaceaeLamium purpureum L. purple dead-nettle FM, DM, DS X X E 

X

Mentha pulegium L. pennyroyal SW, AW, FM X E, I 

X

Prunella vulgaris L. ssp. vulgaris self-heal AW X E Satureja douglasii (Benth.) Briq. yerba buena CDF X N 

X

Stachys chamissonis Benth. coast hedge-nettle RF, FS X N 

X

Stachys ajugoides Benth. var. rigida Jepson & Hoover 

Stachys rigida Nutt. ex Benth. var. rigida

rigid hedge-nettle FM, BM, RF, SW, 

AW

 X N 

X

LemnaceaeLemna minuscula Herter Lemna minuta Kunth least duckweed OW, FM X N 

X

LiliaceaeAllium triquetrum L. three-cornered leek FS, FM, DM X X E Allium unifolium Kellogg one-leaf onion CDF X 

N

X

Amaryllis belladonna L. belladonna lily DS, AW X X E Brodiaea coronaria (Salisb.) Engl. early harvest brodiaea DM, CDF X N 

X
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 J-15 Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Dichelostemma capitatum (Benth.) A.W. Wood blue dicks DM , CDF X N 

X

Dichelostemma congestum (Sm.) Kunth

fork-toothed ookow CDF X 

N

X

Fritillaria affinis (Schultes) Sealy var. affinis 

checker lily CDF X N 

X

Lilium occidentale western lily FS,FM

X

E

Maianthemum dilatatum (Alph. Wood) Nelson & J.F. Macbr. 

false lily of the vally CDF, RF X X N 

X

Muscari botryoides (L.) Miller common grape hyacinth CDF X E Narcissus pseudonarcissus daffodil AW, DS, SW X X E 

X

Triteleia hyacinthina (Lindley) E. Greene 

white brodiaea DM, CDF X N 

X

LinaceaeLinum bienne Miller narrow-leaved flax DM, FM, BM X X E LythraceaeLythrum hyssopifolium L. hyssop loosestrife SW, AW, FM X E, I 

X

MalvaceaeMalva neglecta Wallr. common mallow AW X E 

X

MyrtaceaeEucalyptus globulus Labill. blue gum RF, AW, CDF X E 

X

MyricaceaeMyrica californica Cham. Morella californica 

(Cham.) Wilbur 

wax myrtle CDF, RF, FS, SW X X N 

X

NyctaginaceaeAbronia latifolia Eschsch yellow sand verbena DM X N 

X

Abronia umbellata Lam. ssp. breviflora (Standley) Munz 

pink sand verbena DM X N, C 

X

Nymphaeaceae
J-16 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX J Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Nuphar luteum (L.) Sibth. & Sm. ssp.

polysepalum (Engelm.) E. Beal 

yellow pond-lily FM X N 

X

OnagraceaeCamissonia cheiranthifolia (Sprengel) Raim ssp. cheiranthifolia 

beach-primrose DM X N 

X

Camissonia strigulosa (Fischer & C. Meyer) Raven 

strigose sun-cup CDF, DM X N 

X

Clarkia davyi (Jespon) Harlan Lewis & M. Lewis 

Davy’s clarkia DM, DS X N 

X

Clarkia purpurea (Curtis) Nelson & J.F. Macbr ssp. quadrivulnera (Douglas) Harlan Lewis & M. Lewis

purple clarkia SW X N 

X

Epilobium angustifolium L. ssp.circumvagum Mosq. 

Chamerion angustifolium (L.) Holub ssp. circumvagum (Mosquin) Hoch

fireweed FM, RF X N 

X

Epilobium ciliatum Raf. ssp. watsonii (Barbey) P. Hoch & Raven 

Watson’s willowherb SW, FM, BM, AW X X N 

X

Fuchsia magellanica Lam. hardy fuchsia FS X E Oenothera glazioviana Micheli red-sepaled eveningprimrose DM, DS, FM X X E, I OphioglossaceaeBotrychium multifidum (S. Gmelin) Rupr. 

common grapefern FM, FS, SW X N 

X

OrchidaceaeCalypso bulbosa (L.) Oakes fairy slipper CDF X X N 

X

Corallorhiza maculata Raf. summer coral root CDF X N 

X

Goodyera oblongifolia Raf. rattlesnake plantain CDF X N 

X

Listera cordata (L.) heart-leaved twayblade CDF X N 

X

Piperia elegans (Lindley) Rydb. coast piperia SW, CDF X X N 

X

Piperia transversa Suksd. rein orchid CDF X N 

X
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 J-17 Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Spiranthes romanzoffiana Cham. hooded ladies-tresses SW, CDF X X N 

X

OxalidaceaeOxalis corniculata L. creeping woodsorrel FS, DS X X E 

X

Oxalis pes-caprae L. Bermuda buttercup DM, DS X E, I Oxalis rubra A. St. Hil. red oxalis DM, DS X E, I PapaveraceaeEschscholzia californica Cham. California poppy AW, DM X X N 

X

Fumaria officinalis (L.) fumitory AW X E Platystemon californicus Benth. cream cups DM, DS X N 

X

PinaceaeAbies grandis (Douglas) Lindley grand fir CDF, RF X X N 

X

Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carriere Sitka spruce CDF, FS, SW X X N 

X

Pinus contorta ssp. contorta Loudon Pinus contorta Douglas ex 

Louden var. contorta

shore pine CDF, SW X X N 

X

Pinus radiata D. Don Monterey pine AW, CDF X X E 

X

Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco var. menziesii 

Douglas-fir CDF X N 

X

PittosporaceaePittosporum tenuifolium Gaertner short-leaf box CDF X E, I 

X

PlantaginaceaePlantago coronopus L. cut-leaf plantain DM, SW X X E Plantago erecta E. Morris California plantain DM, SW, DS X X N 

X

Plantago lanceolata L. narrow-leaved plantain CDF, DM, AW X X E 

X

Plantago major L. common plantain SW, AW, FM X E Plantago maritima L. maritime plantain SM X N 

X

Plantago subnuda Pilger tall coastal plantain AW, SW, FM X 

N

Plumbaginaceae
J-18 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX J Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Armeria maritima (Miller) Willd. 

ssp. californica (Boiss.) 

California sea-pink DM, DS X N 

X

Limonium californicum (Boiss.) A.A. Heller 

western marsh-rosemary SM X N 

X

PoaceaeAgrostis exarata Trin. spike bentgrass AW, BM X N 

X

Agrostis hallii Vasey Hall’s bentgrass CDF X N 

X

Agrostis microphylla Steudel little-leaf bentgrass SW X N 

X

Agrostis stolonifera L. creeping bentgrass BM, AW, FM X E, I 

X

Agrostis viridis Gouan green bentgrass AW, BM X X E 

X

Aira praecox L. yellow hairgrass DM, DS, SW X X E, I 

X

Aira caryophyllea L. silver hairgrass DM, DS, SW X X E, I 

X

Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. short-awn foxtail FM X N 

X

Alopecurus geniculatus L. water foxtail FM, AW X N 

X

Alopecurus pratensis L. meadow foxtail AW X E Ammophila arenaria (L.) Link European beach grass DM, DS X E, I 

X

Anthoxanthum odoratum L. sweet vernal grass DM, DS, SW, AW, 

FS, CDF 

X X E, I 

X

Avena fatua L. wild oats AW, DM X E Avena sativa L. common oats AW X E 

X

Briza maxima L. big quaking grass DM, DS, SW X X E , I

X

Briza minor L. little quaking grass SW, FM X E Bromus carinatus Hook & Arn. var. carinatus

California brome DM, DS X N 

X

Bromus carinatus Hook & Arn. var. carinatus

mountain brome DM X N 

X

Bromus diandrus Roth ripgut brome DM, DS, SW X E, I 

X

Bromus hordeaceus L. soft chess DM, BM , SW X X X E, I 

X

Calamagrostis nutkaensis (C. Presl) Steudel 

reedgrass CDF, BM X X N 

X
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 J-19 Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Cortaderia jubata (Lemoine) Stapf jubata grass DM, SW, CDF, RF X X E, I 

X

Cortaderia selloana (Schultes) Asch & Graebner 

pampas grass DM X E, I 

Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. bermuda grass DM, DS, AW X X E, I Cynosurus echinatus L. dogtail grass DM, DS, CDF X E, I

X

Dactylis glomerata L. orchard-grass CDF, AW X X E, I 

X

Deschampsia cespitosa (L.) Beauv. ssp. holciformis (C. Presel) W.E. Lawrx 

Deschampsia holciformis J. Presl

coastal tufted hair-grass BM,SM X X N 

X

Distichlis spicata (L.) E. Greene saltgrass SM, BM, SW, AW X X N 

X

Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv. barnyard grass FM X E, I 

X

Elymus glaucus Buckley ssp. jepsonii (Burtt Davy) Gould 

Jepson’s blue wildrye CDF, AW X N 

Festuca arundinacea Schreber Schedonorus phoenix 

(Scop.) Holub

tall fescue FM, BM, AW X E, I 

X

Festuca occidentalis Hook. western fescue CDF X N 

X

Festuca rubra L. red fescue DM, CDF X N 

X

Glyceria elata (Nash) A. Hitchc. Glyceria striata (Lam.) 

Hitchc.

tall mannagrass FM X N 

X

Glyceria occidentalis (Piper) J.C. Nelson 

western mannagrass FM, RF X N 

X

Hierochloe occidentalis Buckley western sweetgrass CDF X N 

X

Holcus lanatus L. common velvetgrass AW, SW, FM, CDF X X E, I 

X

Hordeum brachyantherum Nevski ssp. brachyantherum 

meadow barley BM X N 

X

Hordeum jubatum L. foxtail barley BM, SM X X N 

X

Hordeum marinum Hudson ssp. gussoneanum (Parl.) Thell. 

Mediterranean barley AW, SM X X E 

Hordeum murinum L. ssp. glaucum (Stuedel) Tzvelev 

smooth barley DM X E 

Hordeum murinum L. ssp. murinum wall barley DM, DS X E 
J-20 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX J Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Leymus mollis (Trin.) Pilger ssp. 

mollis

dune wild-rye DM X N 

X

Leymus 

xvancouverensis (Vasey) 

Pilger 

Vancouver wild-rye AW, DM, BM X X X N 

X

Lolium multiflorum Lam. Lolium perenne L. ssp.

multiflorum (Lam.) Husnot 

Italian rye-grass AW, RF X E, I 

X

Lolium perenne L. perennial ryegrass AW, CDF X X E 

X

Parapholis incurva (L.) C.E. Hubb. curved sicklegrass SM X 

E

X

Parapholis strigosa (Dumort) C.E. Hubb. 

hairy sickle grass SM X E, I

X

Phalaris aquatica L. Harding grass FM, AW X E, I 

X

Phalaris arundinacea L. reed canarygrass FM, AW, RF, FS X E, I 

X

Phragmites australis (Cav.) Steudel common reed BM, SM X X E, I Pleuropogon californicus (Nees) Vasey 

semaphore grass AW X N 

Poa annua L. annual blue grass CDF, DM, DS, AW X X E 

X

Poa confinis Vasey coastline bluegrass DM X N 

X

Poa macrantha Vasey large-flowered sand-dune 

blue grass 

 DM X N 

X

Poa pratensis L. ssp. pratensis Kentucky blue grass CDF X E 

X

Polypogon interruptus Kunth ditch beard grass AW, FM X 

E

X

Polypogon maritimus Willd. Mediterranean beard 

grass 

SW, FM X E, I 

X

Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf. rabbitsfoot grass SW, FM X E, I 

X

Puccinellia nutkaensis (J.S. Presl.) Fern. & Weath. 

Alaska alkali grass SM X 

N

X

Spartina densiflora Brongn. dense-flowered 

cordgrass 

SM, BM X X E, I 

X

Torreyochloa pallida (J.S. Presl) Church var. pauciflora (J.S. Presl) J.I. Davis 

weak mannagrass FM X N 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 J-21 Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Trisetum canescens Buckley nodding oatgrass CDF X N 

X

Vulpia bromoides (L.) S.F. Gray brome fescue DM, DS X E, I

X

Vulpia myuros (L.) C. Gmelin six-weeks fescue CDF, R X E 

X

Zea mays L. corn AW X E PolemoniaceaeGilia millefoliata Fischer & C. Meyer dark-eyed gilia DM X N, C 

X

Navarretia squarrosa (Eschsch.) Hook. & Arn. 

skunkweed DM, AW X X N 

PolygonaceaeEriogonum latifolium Smith coast buckwheat DM X N 

X

Polygonum arenastrum Boreau Polygonum aviculare 

Linnaeus ssp. depressum (Meisner) Arcangeli

common knotweed AW X E 

Polygonum cuspidatum Sieb. & Zucc. Fallopia japonica 

(Houttuyn) Ronse Decraene

Japanese knotweed DM X E, I 

Polygonum hydropiperoides Michaux Persicaria hydropiperoides 

(Michaux) Small

water pepper FM X N 

X

Polygonum lapathifolium L. Persicaria lapathifolia 

(Linnaeus) Gray

willow weed FM, AW X N 

X

Polygonum paronychia Cham. & Schldl. 

beach knotweed DM, DS X N 

X

Polygonum persicaria L. Persicaria maculosa Gray lady’s thumb AW, FM, BM, RF X E, I 

X

Rumex acetosella L. sheep sorrel DM, DS,SW, CDF, 

RF 

X X E, I 

X

Rumex conglomeratus Murr. green dock AW X E 

X

Rumex crispus L. curly dock FM, SW, AW, BM X X E, I 

X

Rumex maritimus L. golden dock BM X X 

N

X

Rumex occidentalis S. Watson Rumex aquaticus L. var. 

fenestratus (Greene) Dorn 

western dock FM, BM X N 

X

Rumex pulcher L. fiddle dock AW X E 

X
J-22 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX J Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Rumex salicifolius J.A. Weinm.var. 

crassus (Rech.f.) J. Howell 

Rumex crassus Rechinger f.

willow-leaved dock SW, BM X X N 

X

Rumex salicifolius J.A. Weinm. var. transitorius (Rech.f.) J. Hickman 

Rumex transitorius Rechinger f

willow dock FM, BM X N 

X

PolypodiaceaeAthyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth var. cyclosorum Rupr. 

lady fern CDF, FS X X N 

X

Polypodium calirhiza S. Whitmore & A. R. Smith 

licorice fern CDF, DS X N 

X

Polypodium scouleri Hook. & Grev. leather-leaf fern CDF X N 

X

PortulacaceaeCalandrinia ciliata (Ruíz Lopez & Pavón) DC. 

red-maids DM, DS, SW X X N 

X

Claytonia exigua Torrey & A. Gray ssp. exigua 

little spring beauty DM, DS X N 

X

Claytonia perfoliata Willd. ssp. perfoliata 

miner’s lettuce DM, DS, RF X X N 

X

Claytonia rubra (Howell) Tidestrom ssp. depressa (A. Gray) John M. Miller & Chambers 

red-stemmed spring beauty 

DM X N 

X

PotamogetonaceaePotamogeton nodosus Poiret (x natans) 

long-leaved pondweed OW X N 

Potamogeton pectinatus L. Stuckenia pectinata (L.) 

Böerner 

fennel pondweed OW X N 

X

Ruppia maritima L. ditch grass SM, BM X N 

X

PrimulaceaeAnagallis arvensis L. scarlet pimpernel FM, DM, BM, SW X X X E Glaux maritima L. sea milk-wort BM, SM X X N 

X
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 J-23 Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Pteridaceae Pentagramma triangularis (Kaulf.) G. Yatskievych, M.D. Windham & E. Wollenweber ssp. triangularis gold-back fern CDF, DM X N 

X

RanunculaceaeRanunculus muricatus L. spiny buttercup AW X E Ranunculus repens L. creeping buttercup FM, RF, AW X E 

X

RhamnaceaeRhamnus purshiana DC. Frangula purshiana (DC.) 

Cooper

cascara CDF X N 

X

RosaceaeAphanes occidentalis (Nutt.) Rydb. Aphanes arvensis L. lady’s mantle DM, SW X X N Crataegus monogyna Jacq. hawthorn AW X E, I Cotoneaster franchetii Boiss. Francheti cotoneaster CDF X E, I 

X

Fragaria chiloensis (L.) Duchesne beach strawberry DM, CDF X N 

X

Holodiscus discolor (Pursh.) Maxim. oceanspray FS X N 

X

Malus fusca (Raf.) C. Schneider Oregon crabapple RF, CDF X X N 

X

Malus sylvestris Miller Malus pumila Mill. common apple CDF, FS X X E 

X

Oemleria cerasiformis (Hook. &Arn.) J.W. Landon 

oso berry RF X N 

X

Potentilla anserina L. ssp. pacifica (Howell) Rousi 

Argentina anserina (L.) Rydb.

silverweed SW, BM, FM X X N 

X

Rosa nutkana Presl var. nutkana Nootka rose CDF X 

N

X

Rubus discolor Weihe & Nees Rubus armeniacus Focke Himalaya-blackberry FS, SW, RF, AW, X E, I 

X

Rubus parviflorus Nutt. thimbleberry FS, RF X N 

X

Rubus spectabilis Pursh salmonberry RF, FS X N 

X

Rubus ursinus Cham. & Schdl. California blackberry CDF, RF, FS, DM, 

DS, SW 

X X N 

X

Spiraea douglasii Hook. Douglas’ spirea FM, FS, AW X N 
J-24 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX J Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Rubiaceae

Galium aparine L. common bedstraw CDF, RF, BM, FM, 

AW 

X X N 

X

Galium divaricatum Lam. Lamarck’s bedstraw FM X E 

X

Galium trifidum L. var. pacificum Wieg.

Galium trifidum L. ssp. columbianum (Rydb.) Hultén

three-petaled bedstraw BM X X N 

X

SalicaceaePopulus balsamifera L. ssp. trichocarpa (Torry & A. Gray) Brayshaw 

black cottonwood FS, RF X N 

Salix alba L. white willow FS X E, I Salix hookeriana Hook. coastal willow SW, FS, DS X X N 

X

Salix lucida Muhlenb. ssp. lasiandra(Benth.) E. Murray 

yellow willow FS, RF X N 

X

Salix sitchensis Bong. Coulter Willow FS X N SaxifragaceaeTellima grandiflora (Pursh) Lindley fringe cups RF X N 

X

Tolmiea menziesii (Pursh) Torrey & A. Gray 

pig-a-back plant RF X N 

ScrophulariaceaeBellardia trixago (L.) All. Mediterranean lineseed FM, DM X X E, I Castilleja ambigua Hook & Arn. ssp. humboldtiensis (Keck) Chuang & Heckard 

Humboldt Bay owl’sclover SM X X N, C 

X

Castilleja attenuata (A. Gray) Chuang & Heckard 

narrow-leaved owl’s clover 

DM X N 

X

Castilleja exserta (A.A. Heller) Chuang & Heckard ssp. latifolia (S. Watson) 

purple owl’s clover DM X N 

X
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 J-25 Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Cordylanthus maritimus Benth. ssp. palustris (Behr) Chuang & Heckard Point Reyes bird’s-beak SM X N, C 

X

Digitalis purpurea L. fox glove FM, DS X E, I Linaria canadensis (L.) Dum.-Cours. Nuttallanthus canadensis 

(L.) D.A. Sutton 

blue toad-flax DM X E 

X

Mimulus guttatus DC. common monkeyflower FM, AW, RF X N 

X

Parentucellia viscosa (L.) Caruel yellow glandweed SW, FM, AW X E, I 

X

Scrophularia californica Cham. & Schldl. 

California figwort DS, SW, CDF X X N 

X

Triphysaria eriantha (Benth.) Chuang & Heckard ssp. eriantha 

butter ‘n’ eggs DM X N 

Triphysaria versicolor Fischer & C. Meyer ssp. versicolor 

yellow owl’s clover AW X N 

Triphysaria pusilla (Benth.) Chuang & Heckard 

little owl’s clover DS, DM, CDF X N 

Veronica americana (Raf.) Schwein. American speedwell FM X N Veronica persica Poiret bird’s-eye speedwell AW X E 

X

SolanaceaeSolanum americanum Miller white nightshade FM, CDF X X N 

X

Solanum aviculare Forst. F. New Zealand nightshade CDF X E, I 

X

Solanum douglasii Dunal greenspot nightshade FS X N Solanum nigrum L. black nightshade CDF, AW, FM X X E, I 

X

TaxodiaceaeSequoia sempervirens (D. Don) Endl. coastal redwood AW, RF X N TyphaceaeSparganium eurycarpum Engelm. ssp. eurycarpum 

Sparganium eurycarpum Engelm.

bur-reed BM X X N 

X

Typha latifolia L. cattail SW, BM, FM X X N 

X
J-26 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX J Species Name Changes Common Name Habitat (specific) Habitat (broad) UD PW EW Status On Refuge Urticaceae

Urtica dioica L. ssp. gracilis (Aiton) Selander 

stinging nettle RF, AW, FM X N 

ValerianaceaePlectritis congesta (Lindley) A. DC. sea blush DM, SW, DS X X N 

X

Plectritis brachystemon Fischer & C. Meyer 

Plectritis congesta (Lindl.) DC. ssp. brachystemon (Fisch. & C.A. Mey.) Morey 

short-spur sea blush AW X N 

ZosteraceaeZostera japonica Aschers. & Graebn. Nanozostera japonica 

(Asch. & Graebn.) P. Toml. & U. Posl.

dwarf eelgrass MF X E, I 

Zostera marina L. eelgrass MF X N 

X

Status: Conservation concern (C); Exotic (E); Invasive (I); California Native (N); Broad Habitat: Upland dune (UD), Palustrine wetland (PW), Estuarine wetland (EW). Specific Habitat: Dune mat (DM), Dune scrub (DS), Dune swale (SW), Coniferous dune forest (CDF), Riparian forest (RF), Freshwater swamp (FS), Freshwater marsh (FM), Open water (OW), Brackish marsh (BM), Salt marsh (SM), Mudflat (MF) Agricultural wetland (AW). Revised from G. Leppig, and A. Pickart 2005. Vascular plants of Humboldt Bay Dunes and Wetlands Release 1.2. Unpublished document, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata, California. This vascular plant list for Humboldt Bay dunes and wetlands is still in progress. It is based on collections made by the authors primarily between 2001 and 2008. Please email comments to andrea_pickart@fws.gov or gleppig@dfg.ca.gov. Nomenclature follows the Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California (U.C. Press 1993). 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 J-27

Castle Rock NWR Flora

Species Common name CRNWR Habitat 

(see codes) Status 

Asteraceae

Achillea borealis ssp. arenicola (syn. 

Achillea millefolium spp. Arenicola)

common yarrow M N

Chamomilla suaveolens (syn. Matricaria 

matricarioides)

pineapple weed D E

Cotula coronopifolia brass buttons D E

Cirsium vulgare bull thistle D E, I

Erigeron glaucus seaside daisy NCS N

Lasthenia maritima (syn. Lasthenia 

minor ssp. maritima)

maritime goldfields NCS N

Sonchus oleraceus sow thistle D E

Apiaceae

Angelica hendersonii coast angelica NCS, CS N

Daucus carota Queen Anne’s lace D E

Brassicaceae

Cochlearia officinalis var. arctica Arctic spoonwort N C

Coronopus didymus lesser swine cress D E

Raphanus sativus wild radish D E

Caryophyllaceae

Spergularia macrotheca sand spurrey CS, NCS N

Stellaria media chickweed D E

Chenopodiaceae

Chenopodium album lamb’s quarters D E

Crassulaceae

Dudleya farinosa bluff lettuce CS, CSS N

Cyperaceae

Carex obnupta slough sedge CS N

Fabaceae

Trifolium wormskioldii coast clover V N

Juncaceae

Juncus lesueurii salt rush CS N

Lamiaceae

Stachys chamissonis coast hedge nettle NCS N

Plantaginaceae

Plantago lanceolata narrow leaved plantain D E

Poaceae

Bromus sp. brome many N

Calamagrostis nutkaensis Pacific reedgrass FW N
J-28 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX J

Species Common name CRNWR Habitat 

(see codes) Status 

Distichlis spicata salt grass G N

Poa annua annual blue grass D E

Polygonaceae

Rumex acetosella common sheep sorrel D E, I

Rumex crispus curly leaved dock D E

Polypodiaceae

Polypodium scouleri leather fern CP, CS N

Portulacaceae

Calandrinia ciliata red maids G N

Claytonia perfoliata miner’s lettuce CSS N

Scrophulariaceae

Synthyris reniformis snow queen F N

 

 

Status: Conservation concern (C); Exotic (E); Invasive (I); California Native (N); Presumed extirpated (PX). Habitat: 

Meadows (M), Disturbed areas (D), Northern Coastal Scrub (NCS), Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS), Coastal Strand (CS), 

Coastal Salt Marsh (CSM), Coastal Prairie (CP), Various communities (V), Freshwater wetland (FW), Grassland (G), 

Forest (F)

Compiled from John O. Sawyer’s list of “The Plants Recognized or Collected from Castle Rock, Del Norte, Co. CA.” 

Prepared October 16, 1984, Humboldt State University, Osborne (1972), and from collections by refuge staff in 2005. 

 
Appendix K: Wildlife Lists

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 K-1

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat

Class AMPHIBIA (amphibians)

Order ANURA (frogs and toads)

Family BUFONIDAE (true toads)

 western toad Bufo boreas d,ds

Family HYLIDAE (tree frogs and relatives)

 Pacific treefrog Pseudacris regilla r,fm

Family RANIDAE (true frogs)

 bullfrog Rana catesbeiana o,fm,r

 red-legged frog Rana aurora o,fm,r,ds

Order CAUDATA (salamanders) 

Family AMBYSTOMATIDAE (mole salamanders)

 northwestern salamander Ambystoma gracile r,g

Family DICAMPTODONTIDAE (Pacific giant salamanders)

 California giant salamander Dicamptodon ensatus c

Family PLETHODONTIDAE (lungless salamanders)

 ensatinas Ensatina sp. c

Family SALAMANDRIDAE (newts and salamanders)

 rough-skinned newt Taricha granulosa ds

Class REPTILIA (reptiles) 

Order SQUAMATA (lizards and snakes)

Family ANGUIDAE (alligator lizards and relatives)

 northern alligator lizard Elgaria coerulea r,d

Family BOIDAE (boas and pythons)

 coastal rubber boa Charina bottae g,r,c

Family COLUBRIDAE (Colubrids)

 western yellowbelly racer Coluber constrictor mormon r,g

 California kingsnake Lampropeltis getula californiae wide

 gopher snake Pituophis catenifer s,g

 western aquatic garter snake Thamnophis couchii r

 western terrestrial gartersnake (coast gartersnake) Thamnophis elegans 

(Thamnophis elegans terrestris)

r,c,d

 northwestern gartersnake Thamnophis ordinoides g,a

Reptiles and Amphibians

Wildlife Lists
K-2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX K

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat

 California red-sided gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis f,g,s,fm,d

 common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis s,fm

Family VIPERIDAE (vipers)

 northern Pacific (western) rattlesnake Crotalus oreganus oreganus c,g

Family SCINCIDAE (skinks)

 western skink Eumeces skiltonianus g,c,r

Family PHRYNOSOMATIDAE (North American spiny lizards) 

 western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis s,g

Order TESTUDINES (turtles) 

Family EMYDIDAE (box and water turtles)

 northern Pacific pond turtle Actinemys marmorata 

marmorata (syn. Clemmys 

marmorata marmorata)

ds

Habitats: b-beaches; bm - brackish marshes; c - coniferous forest; d - dunes; ds - dune swales; e- Eelgrass 

beds, Bay shores; fm - freshwater marshes; g - Agricultural grasslands; r - Riparian forests; sm - saltwater 

marshes; rb-Rocky beaches; m - mudflats ; o - Open water, lakes, creeks, ponds; om - open water marine; s - 

seasonal wetlands, mudflats, flooded fields; wide - Widespread, found in a variety of habitats 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 K-3

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat

Order ARTIODACTYLA (even-toed hoofed animals)

Family CERVIDAE (deer, moose, reindeer, elk)

 black-tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus r,s,g

Order CARNIVORA (meat-eaters)

Family CANIDAE (coyotes, dogs, foxes, jackals and wolves)

 coyote Canis latrans wide

 gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus g,r

Family ERETHIZONTIDAE (New World porcupines)

 North American porcupine Erethizon dorsatum wide

Family FELIDAE (cats)

 feral house cat Felis catus r,g,c

 bobcat Lynx rufus r,g,d

 mountain lion (cougar) Puma concolor r,c

Family MEPHITIDAE (skunks and stink badgers)

 striped skunk Mephitis mephitis wide

 western spotted skunk Spilogale gracilis rb,r,d

Family MUSTELIDAE (badgers, otters, weasels and relatives)

 river otter Lontra canadensis o,r

 long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata r,g,d

 American mink Mustela vison r

Family OTARIIDAE (fur seals and sea-lions)

 California sea-lion Zalophus californianus om,rb

Family PHOCIDAE (seals)

 harbor seal Phoca vitulina b,rb,om

Family PROCYONIDAE (coatis, raccoons, lesser pandas)

 ringtail Bassariscus astutus c,r

 raccoon Procyon lotor wide

Family URSIDAE (bears)

 American black bear Ursus americanus r,c

Order CETACEA (dolphins, porpoises, and whales)

Family PHOCOENIDAE (porpoises)

 harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena om 

Order CHIROPTERA (bats)

Family MOLOSSIDAE (free-tailed bats)

 lump-nosed bat (Rafinesque’s big-eared bat) Corynorhinus rafinesquei c

 big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus c

 California myotis Myotis californicus c

 long-eared bat (western long-eared myotis) Myotis evotis c

 fringed bat (fringed myotis) Myotis thysanodes unknown

Mammals
K-4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX K

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat

 hairy-winged myotis (long-legged myotis) Myotis volans r,c

 Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis c

Order DIDELPHIMORPHIA (American marsupials)

Family DIDELPHIDAE (opossums)

 Virginia opossum Didelphis virgiana r

Order INSECTIVORA (insect-eaters)

Family Soricidae (shrews)

 marsh shrew Sorex bendirii fm,s 

 Pacific shrew Sorex pacificus r,g

 Trowbridge’s shrew Sorex trowbridgii r,g

 vagrant shrew Sorex vagrans c

Family TALPIDAE (desmans, moles, and relatives)

 American shrew mole Neurotrichus gibbsii c

 coast mole Scapanus orarius g

 Townsend’s mole Scapanus townsendii g,r,c

Order LAGOMORPHA (pikas, hares and rabbits)

Family LEPORIDAE (hares and rabbits)

 black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus s,g,d,c

 brush rabbit Sylvilagus bachmani c

Order RODENTIA (gnawing mammals)

Family CRICETIDAE (New World rats and mice, voles, hamsters and relatives)

 white footed vole Arborimus albipes c

 California vole (California meadow mouse) Microtus californicus g,r

 long-tailed vole (long-tailed meadow mouse) Microtus longicaudus g,r

 creeping vole (Oregon meadow mouse) Microtus oregoni r

 dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes r

 deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus c,r,g

 western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis fm,s,g,c

Family GEOMYIDAE (gophers)

 Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae g

Family MURIDAE (Old World mice, rats)

 house mouse Mus musculus s,g,r

 black rat Rattus rattus s,g,r

Family SCIURIDAE (chipmunks, squirrels, marmots)

 northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus c,r 

 California (Beechey) ground squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi r,g

Habitats: a - Aerial, usually observed in flight; b-beaches; bm - brackish marshes; c - coniferous forest; d - dunes; 

ds - dune swales; e- Eelgrass beds, Bay shores; fm - freshwater marshes; g - Agricultural grasslands; r - Riparian 

forests; sm - saltwater marshes; rb-Rocky beaches; m - mudflats ; o - Open water, lakes, creeks, ponds; om - open 

water marine; s - seasonal wetlands, mudflats, flooded fields; wide - Widespread, found in a variety of habitats
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 K-5

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat Sp S F W Breeding Range?

Habitat 

Source

Order ANSERIFORMES (waterfowl) 

Family ANATIDAE (ducks, geese and swans)

 *wood duck Aix sponsa o,r o o o o yes BONA

 northern pintail Anas acuta g,s,fm,bm,m c r c c no BONA

 American wigeon Anas americana fm,r,s,bm c r c c no BONA

 *northern shoveler Anas clypeata fm,bm,sm,s c r c c no BONA

 green-winged teal Anas crecca o,fm c o c c no BONA

 *cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera s,fm u c u u yes BONA

 blue-winged teal Anas discors s,fm,bm u o o r no BONA

 eurasian wigeon Anas penelope s r o o yes BONA

 *mallard Anas 

platyrhynchos 

fm,s,g,o c c c c yes BONA

 *gadwall Anas strepera o,fm,bm u o u u no BONA

 greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons g,s o o o no BONA

 lesser scaup Aythya affinis o,s c o c c no BONA

 redhead Aythya americana sm,bm o r o u no BONA

 ring-necked duck Aythya collaris o,s o o o no BONA

 tufted duck Aythya fuligula o,s,om,fm,sm,bm r r r BONA

 greater scaup Aythya marila om,sm,bm c o c c no BONA

 canvasback Aythya valisineria o,s r r u u yes BONA

 bufflehead Bucephala albeola om,o,s c r c c no BONA

 common goldeneye Bucephala 

clangula 

om,o,s o o u no BONA

 barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala 

islandica 

om,o,s r no BONA

 Pacific brant Branta bernicla e,sm a u u c no BONA

 Pacific brant Branta bernicla 

nigricans

e,sm a u u c no BONA

*Moffit (Great Basin) 

Canada goose

Branta canadensis o,s,g a a a a no BONA

 Aleutian cackling goose Branta canadensis 

leucopareia

g,o,s c c c no BONA

 cackling goose Branta canadensis 

minima

om c u c no BONA

 snow goose Chen caerulescens o,s,g o o r no BONA

Birds
K-6 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX K

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat Sp S F W Breeding Range?

Habitat 

Source

 emperor goose Chen canagica om r no check w 

staff to 

confirm 

may be 

out of 

range

 Ross’ goose Chen rossii o,s,g o r r no BONA

 long-tailed duck (oldsquaw) Clangula hyemalis om,o r r o o no BONA

 tundra swan Cygnus 

columbianus 

o,s o o c no BONA

 harlequin duck Histrionicus 

histrionicus

e,b r r o no BONA

 hooded merganser Lophodytes 

cucullatus 

o,s o o o no BONA

 white-winged scoter Melanitta fusca om c r c c no BONA

 black scoter Melanitta nigra b o o u no BONA

 surf scoter Melanitta 

perspicillata 

b,m c r c a no BONA

 common merganser Mergus merganser o,s u u u u yes BONA

 red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator om,sm c c c no BONA

 *ruddy duck Oxyura 

jamaicensis 

fm,o c u c c yes BONA

Order APODIFORMES (swifts and hummingbirds) 

Family APODIDAE (swifts) 

 Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi r,c c c c r yes

 black swift Cypseloides niger g o r no

Family TROCHILIDAE (hummingbirds) 

 *Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna c,r c c c c yes

 Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae c r r r no

 rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus c r yes

 *Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin c,r c c c yes

 calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope c,r r r yes

Order CAPRIMULGIFORMES (nightbirds)

Famiy CAPRIMULGIDAE (nightjars)

 *common nighthawk Chordeiles minor d,g u u yes BONA

 common poorwill Phalaenoptilus 

nuttallii 

g r r yes BONA

Order CHARADRIIFORMES (shorebirds) 

Famiy ALCIDAE (puffins, murres, auklets, and relatives)

 marbled murrelet Brachyramphus 

marmoratus 

cf,rb o u u r yes BONA

 pigeon guillemot Cepphus columba rb,om u u u r yes BONA
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 K-7

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat Sp S F W Breeding Range?

Habitat 

Source

 rhinoceros auklet Cerorhinca 

monocerata 

om o o o o no BONA

 tufted puffin Fratercula 

cirrhata 

rb,om r r no BONA

 horned puffin Fratercula 

corniculata 

om r r r no BONA

 Cassin’s auklet Ptychoramphus 

aleuticus 

rb,om o o o o yes BONA

 ancient murrelet Synthliboramphus 

antiquus

om r no BONA

 common murre Uria aalge rb,om o c c o yes BONA

Family CHARADRIIDAE (plovers and lapwings)

 *snowy plover Charadrius 

alexandrinus 

b u o u u yes BONA

 mountain plover Charadrius 

montanus 

g r r no BONA

 semipalmated plover Charadrius 

semipalmatus 

b,m,g,sm c o c c no BONA

 *killdeer Charadrius 

vociferus 

m,g,s, c c c c yes BONA

Pacific golden-plover (syn. 

lesser golden-plover)

Pluvialis fulva s,g,b o u o no BONA

 black-bellied plover Pluvialis 

squatarola 

s,g,b c u c c no BONA

Family HAEMATOPODIDAE (oystercatchers)

 *black oystercatcher Haematopus 

bachmani 

rb,e r r r r yes BONA

Family LARIDAE (gulls and terns) 

 black tern Chlidonias niger o,s,a r r no BONA

 herring gull Larus argentatus rb,m u u u no

 California gull Larus californicus wide c c c c no

 mew gull Larus canus wide c r c c no

 ring-billed gull Larus 

delawarensis 

fm,g,s c c c c no

 glaucous-winged gull Larus glaucescens om,sm,br,m c u c c no

 Thayer’s gull Larus glaucoides om,rb o o o no

 Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni om,rb r c c r no

 glaucous gull Larus hyperboreus wide o no

 Bonaparte’s gull Larus 

philadelphia 

wide c o c o no

 Franklin’s gull Larus pipixcan wide r o r no

 western gull Larus occidentalis rb,m c c c c yes

 black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla om u u u no
K-8 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX K

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat Sp S F W Breeding Range?

Habitat 

Source

 long-tailed jaeger Stercorarius 

longicaudus

om o no BONA

 parasitic jaeger Stercorarius 

parasiticus 

om r r c r no BONA

 Pomarine jaeger Stercorarius 

pomarinus

om o r c r no BONA

 *Caspian tern Sterna caspia wide c u c c yes

 elegant tern Sterna elegans e u u no

 Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri fm,bm,sm u r c u no

 common tern Sterna hirundo om,e c r c no

 black tern Chlidonias niger fm,s,o,r r r no

 Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea om,b o no

 Sabine’s gull Xema sabini om r r no

Family RECURVIROSTRIDAE (avocets and stilts) 

 *black-necked stilt Himantopus 

mexicanus 

s,sm,g r r r r no BONA

 *American avocet Recurvirostra 

americana 

s,sm,g c r c c no BONA

Family SCOLOPACIDAE (sandpipers and phalaropes)

 *spotted sandpiper Actitis macularius o,b u u u u yes BONA

 surfbird Aphriza virgata rb,b,m c c c no BONA

 ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres rb,m,e u r u u no BONA

 black turnstone Arenaria 

melanocephala 

g,m,rb,sm c r c c no BONA

 sanderling Calidris alba m,rb,s c c c no BONA

 sharp-tailed sandpiper Calidris 

acuminata

g,m r no various

 dunlin Calidris alpina e,s,g,m a r a a no BONA

 Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii fm,s,b r u no BONA

 red knot Calidris canutus e u u r no BONA

 stilt sandpiper Calidris 

himantopus

br,sm,fm,m,s 0 no BONA

 western sandpiper Calidris mauri m,s a o a c no BONA

 pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos s,g,sm r u no BONA

 least sandpiper Calidris minutilla m,s,g,sm c o c c no BONA

 rock sandpiper Calidris 

ptilocnemis 

b,rb r r o no BONA

 semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla fm,sm,m,g o no BONA

 willet Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus 

g,sm,b,rb c u c c no BONA

 Wilson’s snipe Gallinago delicata g,s,fm no BONA
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 K-9

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat Sp S F W Breeding Range?

Habitat 

Source

 common snipe Gallinago 

gallinago

m c r c c no various

 wandering tattler Heteroscelus 

incanus 

rb,o u o u o no BONA

 short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus 

griseus

sm,m,s,g c r c u no BONA

 long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus 

scolopaceus 

fm,m,s,b c c c no BONA

 marbled godwit Limosa fedoa g,s a o a a no BONA

 whimbrel Numenius 

phaeopus 

rb,sm,b,g,m c o c u no BONA

 long-billed curlew Numenius 

americanus 

g,sm,m u o u u no BONA

 red phalarope Phalaropus 

fulicarius 

om o o no BONA

 red-necked phalarope Phalaropus 

lobatus

om,sm,bm,fm,o c r c no BONA

 Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus 

tricolor

m,om o r o no BONA

 ruff Philomachus 

pugnax 

g,s r no BONA

 lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes o,s,sm,fm,g,m o o c o no BONA

 greater yellowlegs Tringa 

melanoleuca 

s,g,sm,m c o c c no BONA

 solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria m,o,r o o no BONA

 buff-breasted sandpiper Tryngites 

subruficollis 

g r no BONA

Order CICONIIFORMES (storks, herons and relatives) 

Family ARDEIDAE (bitterns, herons and egrets) 

 *great egret Ardea alba fm,s,r c c c c yes BONA

 *great blue heron Ardea herodias fm,s,r c c c c yes BONA

 *American bittern Botaurus 

lentiginosus

fm,bm,s o o o o yes BONA

 *cattle egret Bubulcus ibis c r c c yes BONA

 *green heron Butorides 

virescens 

fm,r u u u o yes BONA

 *snowy egret Egretta thula fm,s,r c c c c yes BONA

 *black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax 

nycticorax 

fm,s,r c c c c yes BONA

Family CATHARTIDAE (vultures) 

 turkey vulture Cathartes aura a c c c u yes BONA

Family THRESKIORNITHIDAE (ibises) 

 white-faced ibis Eudocimus albus sg no BONA
K-10 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX K

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat Sp S F W Breeding Range?

Habitat 

Source

Order COLUMBIFORMES (pigeons) 

Family COLUMBIDAE (doves and pigeons)

 *rock pigeon Columba livia rb,g u u u u yes BONA

 *band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas 

fasciata

c,r c c c o yes BONA

 white-winged dove Zenaida asiatica r,g r no BONA

 *mourning dove Zenaida macroura g,c,r c c c u yes BONA

Order CORACIIFORMES (kingfishers and relatives) 

Family ALCEDINIDAE (kingfishers) 

 *belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon o,r c c c c yes BONA

Order FALCONIFORMES (diurnal birds of prey) 

Family ACCIPITRIDAE (osprey, kites, eagles and hawks) 

 *Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii r,c u u u u yes BONA

 sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus c,r c u c c yes BONA

 *red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis wide c c c c yes BONA

 *red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus r,c c c c c yes BONA

 rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus g,d u c no BONA

 ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis r,c r r o no BONA

 Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni r,s,g,d no BONA

 *northern harrier Circus cyaneus fm,s,g c u c c yes BONA

 *white-tailed kite Elanus leucurus wide yes BONA

 *bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

a o o o u no (islands 

off coast)

BONA

 *osprey Pandion haliaetus wide c c c u yes BONA

Family FALCONIDAE (falcons) 

 merlin Falco columbarius g,c,r u u u no BONA

 prairie falcon Falco mexicanus g o o no BONA

 peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus wide u o u u yes BONA

 *American kestrel Falco sparverius g,c,r c c c c yes BONA

Order GALLIFORMES (megapodes, curassows, pheasants, quails and relatives)

Family ODONTOPHORIDAE

 *California quail Callipepla 

californica 

g,c c c c c yes BONA

Order GAVIIFORMES (loons and divers)

Family GAVIIDAE (loons or divers)

 yellow-billed loon Gavia adamsii om r no BONA

 common loon Gavia immer om c u u c no BONA

 Pacific loon Gavia pacifica om c r c u no BONA

 red-throated loon Gavia stellata om c o c c no BONA
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 K-11

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat Sp S F W Breeding Range?

Habitat 

Source

Order GRUIFORMES (coots, cranes and rails)

Family GRUIDAE (cranes) 

 sandhill crane Grus canadensis s,g,m r r r no BONA

Family RALLIDAE

 *American coot Fulica americana fm,o,s,bm,sm c u c c yes BONA

 common moorhen Gallinula 

chloropus

fm,o r r r no BONA

 sora Porzana carolina fm,bm,sm,s,g u o u u no BONA

 *Virginia rail Rallus limicola fm,s,g c c c c yes BONA

Order PASSERIFORMES (perching birds)

Family AEGITHALIDAE (bushtits) 

 *bushtit Psaltriparus 

minimus 

c,r u u u u yes BONA

Family ALAUDIDAE (larks) 

 horned lark Eremophila 

alpestris 

g,d o o o no BONA

Family BOMBYCILLIDAE (waxwings) 

 *cedar waxwing Bombycilla 

cedrorum 

c,r,g c u c r yes

 Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla 

garrulus

r,c r no

Family CERTHIIDAE (creepers) 

 *brown creeper Certhia americana c,r u u u u yes

Family CINCLIDAE (dippers)

 *American dipper Cinclus mexicanus r r r r r yes BONA

Family CORVIDAE (jays, magpies and crows) 

 *western scrub-jay Aphelocoma 

californica 

c,r r yes BONA

 *American crow Corvus 

brachyrhynchos 

wide c c c c yes BONA

 *common raven Corvus corax wide c c c c yes BONA

 *Steller’s jay Cyanocitta stelleri c,r c c c c yes BONA

Family EMBERIZIDAE (towhees and sparrows) 

saltmarsh sharp-tailed 

sparrow

Ammodramus 

caudacutus

g,s,fm r r r no BONA

 grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus 

savannarum

g r r r yes BONA

 lark bunting Calamospiza 

melanocorys 

g,r r no BONA

 Lapland longspur Calcarius 

lapponicus 

g o o o no BONA

 chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus g r r no BONA
K-12 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX K

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat Sp S F W Breeding Range?

Habitat 

Source

 lark sparrow Chondestes 

grammacus 

r,g o r yes BONA

 *spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus c,r c c c c yes BONA

 *dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis c,g,r c c c c yes BONA

 swamp sparrow Melospiza 

georgiana 

wide o o o no BONA

 Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza 

lincolnii 

c,r u c u no BONA

 *song sparrow Melospiza melodia c,r c c c c yes BONA

 *savannah sparrow Passerculus 

sandwichensis 

g,r,c,sm c c c c yes BONA

 fox sparrow Passerella iliaca c u u u no BONA

 California towhee Pipilo crissalis r r r r yes BONA

 snow bunting Plectrophenax 

nivalis 

g,sm,d r r no BONA

 vesper sparrow Pooecetes 

gramineus 

g o r o r no BONA

 American tree sparrow Spizella arborea g,s,fm,r,c r r no BONA

 Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri c,r r r no BONA

 clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida g,r,c o r no BONA

 *chipping sparrow Spizella passerina g,r,c u u u yes BONA

 white-throated sparrow Zonotrichia 

albicollis 

r o o o no BONA

 golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia 

atricapilla 

r u u c no BONA

 *white-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia 

leucophrys 

g,c,r c c c c yes BONA

 Harris’s sparrow Zonotrichia 

querula

r,a r r r no BONA

Family FRINGILLIDAE (finches) 

 *lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria r c c c u yes BONA

 *American goldfinch Carduelis tristis g,r c c c c no BONA

 *house finch Carpodacus 

mexicanus 

g,r,c yes BONA

 *pine siskin Carduelis pinus c,r c c c c yes BONA

 *purple finch Carpodacus 

purpureus 

c,r c c c c yes BONA

 *evening grosbeak Coccothraustes 

vespertinus

c u u u u yes BONA

 *red crossbill Loxia curvirostra c u u u u yes BONA

Family HIRUNDINIDAE (swallows) 

 *barn swallow Hirundo rustica g,fm c c c r yes BONA
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 K-13

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat Sp S F W Breeding Range?

Habitat 

Source

 *cliff swallow Petrochelidon 

pyrrhonota 

g,r c c c yes BONA

 purple martin Progne subis c,r,fm o o yes BONA

 bank swallow Riparia riparia a,m o o no BONA

*northern rough-winged 

swallow

Stelgidopteryx 

serripennis 

c,r c c c yes BONA

 *tree swallow Tachycineta 

bicolor 

g,s,fm,bm,r c c c r yes BONA

 *violet-green swallow Tachycineta 

thalassina 

c,r c c c r yes BONA

Family ICTERIDAE (icterids) 

 *red-winged blackbird Agelaius 

phoeniceus 

wide c c c c yes BONA

 tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor fm,r r r r yes BONA

 bobolink Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus 

g,fm r r no BONA

 rusty blackbird Euphagus 

carolinus 

g r no BONA

 *Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus 

cyanocephalus 

wide c c c c yes BONA

 *hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus r o o o yes BONA

 *Baltimore oriole Icterus galbula r c c c r no BONA

 orchard oriole Icterus spurius g r r no BONA

 *brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater g,r,c c c c r yes BONA

 *western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta g c c c c yes BONA

 yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus 

g o o r no BONA

Family LANIIDAE (shrikes) 

 northern shrike Lanius excubitor wide o o o no BONA

 loggerhead shrike Lanius 

ludovicianus 

g,r,c r r r no BONA

Family MIMIDAE (mockingbirds and thrashers)

 northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos g,r,c yes BONA

 sage thrasher Oreoscoptes 

montanus 

g no BONA

Family MOTACILLIDAE (wagtails and pipits) 

 American pipit Anthus rubescens r,s,m c c c no BONA

Family PARIDAE (titmice) 

 *black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapilla r,c u u u u yes BONA

 mountain chickadee Poecile gambeli c,r r r no BONA

 *chestnut-backed chickadee Poecile rufescens c,r c c c c yes BONA
K-14 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX K

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat Sp S F W Breeding Range?

Habitat 

Source

Family PARULIDAE (warblers) 

 black-throated blue warbler Dendroica 

caerulescens 

r r no BONA

 bay-breasted warbler Dendroica 

castanea

c,r r r no BONA

 *yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica 

coronata 

c,r c u c c yes BONA

 yellow-throated warbler Dendroica 

dominica

c r no BONA

 prairie warbler Dendroica discolor c r r r no BONA

 blackburnian warbler Dendroica fusca c,r r no BONA

 magnolia warbler Dendroica 

magnolia 

c,g r r no BONA

 black-throated gray warbler Dendroica 

nigrescens 

c,r c c c r yes BONA

 *hermit warbler Dendroica 

occidentalis 

c u u u yes BONA

 palm warbler Dendroica 

palmarum 

r,c u u u no BONA

 chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica 

pensylvanica 

r r o r no BONA

 *yellow warbler Dendroica petechia r c c c r yes BONA

 blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata c,r r o no BONA

 cape may warbler Dendroica tigrina r,c r r no BONA

 townsend’s warbler Dendroica 

townsendi 

c,r c c c no BONA

 common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas r,c u u u r yes BONA

 yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens r,c o o o yes BONA

 black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia r,c o r o o no BONA

 Macgillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei c,r u u u yes BONA

 northern parula Parula americana c r r no BONA

 prothonotary warbler Protonotaria 

citrea 

fm,r r no BONA

 ovenbird Seiurus 

aurocapilla 

r,c r r no BONA

 northern waterthrush Seiurus 

noveboracensis 

r r o r no BONA

 American redstart Setophaga ruticilla r,c r r r r no BONA

 *orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata c,d,r c c c u yes BONA

 Tennessee warbler Vermivora 

peregrina

c,d o o o no BONA

 Nashville warbler Vermivora 

ruficapilla 

c,r c c c o no BONA
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 K-15

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat Sp S F W Breeding Range?

Habitat 

Source

 Virginia’s warbler Vermivora 

virginiae 

r r no BONA

 hooded warbler Wilsonia citrina c,r r r no BONA

 Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla r c c c r yes BONA

Family PASSERIDAE (Old World sparrows) 

 *house sparrow Passer domesticus g c c c c yes BONA

Family REGULIDAE (kinglets) 

 ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula c,r c c c no BONA

 golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa r,c c c c c yes BONA

Family SITTIDAE (nuthatches) 

 red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis c o r yes BONA

Family STURNIDAE (starlings) 

 *European starling Sturnus vulgaris wide a c a a yes BONA

Family SYLVIIDAE (gnatchatchers) 

 blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea r r r r r yes BONA

Family TIMALIIDAE (babbler) 

 wrentit Chamaea fasciata r,c c c c c yes BONA

Family TROGLODYTIDAE (wrens) 

 *marsh wren Cistothorus 

palustris 

fm c c c c yes BONA

 *house wren Troglodytes aedon r,c c c c r yes BONA

 *Bewick’s wren Thryomanes 

bewickii 

r c c c c yes BONA

 *winter wren Troglodytes 

troglodytes 

c,r,fm,s,o c c c c yes BONA

Family TURDIDAE (thrushes)

 hermit thrush Catharus guttatus c,r,g c c c yes BONA

 Swainson’s thrush Catharus 

ustulatus 

r c c c yes BONA

 varied thrush Ixoreus naevius c,r,g c c c c yes BONA

 Townsend’s solitaire Myadestes 

townsendi 

c,g r r no BONA

 mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides g,r r r no BONA

 western bluebird Sialia mexicana c,r o o yes BONA

 American robin Turdus 

migratorius 

r,c,g c c c c yes BONA

Family TYRANNIDAE (flycatchers) 

 *olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi c,r c c c yes BONA

 *western wood-pewee Contopus 

sordidulus 

r,c c c c yes BONA

 *pacific-slope flycatcher Empidonax 

difficilis 

c,r c c c yes BONA
K-16 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX K

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat Sp S F W Breeding Range?

Habitat 

Source

 least flycatcher Empidonax 

minimus

r r no BONA

 dusky flycatcher Empidonax 

oberholseri 

c,r r r yes BONA

 willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii r o o o no BONA

gray flycatcher Empidonax 

wrightii 

r,c r no BONA

 ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus 

cinerascens 

c,r o o r yes BONA

 *black phoebe Sayornis 

nigricans 

rb,r,g,o c c c c yes BONA

 Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya g r r r no BONA

 tropical kingbird Tyrannus 

melancholicus 

g o r no BONA

 eastern kingbird Tyrannus 

tyrannus 

wide r r r no BONA

 western kingbird Tyrannus 

verticalis

wide u u yes BONA

Family VIREONIDAE (vireos) 

 *warbling vireo Vireo gilvus wide c c c yes BONA

 *Hutton’s vireo Vireo huttoni c,r c c c c yes BONA

 red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus r,c r r no BONA

 *blue-headed vireo Vireo solitarius c,r u u u r yes BONA

Order PELECANIFORMES (pelicans, tropicbirds, cormorants and relatives)

Family FREGATIDAE (frigatebirds)

 magnificent frigatebird Fregata 

magnificens 

om r r no BONA

Family PELECANIDAE (pelicans)

 American white pelican Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos

o,r r r no BONA

 California brown pelican Pelecanus 

occidentalis 

californicus

om o c c o no BONA

Family PHALACROCORACIDAE (cormorants) 

 *double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax 

auritus 

om,o c c c c yes BONA

 pelagic cormorant Phalacrocorax 

pelagicus 

om c c c c yes BONA

 Brandt’s cormorant Phalacrocorax 

penicillatus

om c c c r yes BONA

Order PICIFORMES (woodpeckers and relatives) 

Family PICIDAE (woodpeckers) 

 *northern flicker Colaptes auratus r o o o o yes BONA
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 K-17

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat Sp S F W Breeding Range?

Habitat 

Source

 *pileated woodpecker Dryocopus 

pileatus 

r,c o o o o yes BONA

 acorn woodpecker Melanerpes 

formicivorus 

r,c r r yes BONA

 Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis r r no BONA

 *downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens r,c c c c c yes BONA

 *hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus r,c c c c c yes BONA

 red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus 

nuchalis 

c r r r yes BONA

 *red-breasted sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber c,r u u u u yes BONA

 yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus 

varius

c,r r r r no BONA

Order PODICIPEDIFORMES (grebes)

Family PODICIPEDIDAE (grebes)

 Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus 

clarkii 

om o o o yes BONA

 *western grebe Aechmophorus 

occidentalis 

om c u c c yes BONA

 horned grebe Podiceps auritus o,om c r c c no BONA

 red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena om,o u r u u no BONA

 eared grebe Podiceps 

nigricollis 

o,om c c c no BONA

 *pied-billed grebe Podilymbus 

podiceps

o,om u u u u yes BONA

Order PROCELLARIIFORMES (tube-nosed seabirds)

Family PROCELLARIIDAE (petrels and shearwaters)

 northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis om r o r no BONA

 pink-footed shearwater Puffinus creatopus om r r o r no BONA

 sooty shearwater Puffinus griseus om o o r r no BONA

 short-tailed shearwater Puffinus 

tenuirostris

om r r no BONA

Order STRIGIFORMES (owls) 

Family TYTONIDAE (typical owls)

 northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus c,r o o o o yes BONA

 long-eared owl Asio otus g,r,c r no BONA

 *short-eared owl Asio flammeus g,s,fm,sm,bm u o u c yes BONA

 burrowing owl Athene 

cunicularia 

g,d r r r r no unknown

 snowy owl Bubo scandiacus g,s,d,fm r r no BONA

 *great horned owl Bubo virginianus wide c c c c yes BONA

 *northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium 

gnoma 

c,r u u u u yes BONA
K-18 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX K

Common Name Scientific Name Primary 

Habitat Sp S F W Breeding Range?

Habitat 

Source

 *western screech-owl Megascops 

kennicottii 

r,c c c c c yes BONA

 spotted owl Strix occidentalis c o o yes BONA

 *barn owl Tyto alba wide c c c c yes BONA

Habitats: a - Aerial, usually observed in flight; b-beaches; bm - brackish marshes; c - coniferous forest; d - dunes; 

ds - dune swales; e- Eelgrass beds, Bay shores; fm - freshwater marshes; g - Agricultural grasslands; r - Riparian 

forests; sm - saltwater marshes; rb-Rocky beaches; m - mudflats ; o - Open water, lakes, creeks, ponds; om - open 

water marine; s - seasonal wetlands, mudflats, flooded fields; wide - Widespread, found in a variety of habitats 

 

Seasons: Sp - Spring, March through May; S - Summer, June through August; F - Fall, September through 

November; W - Winter, December through February 

 

Abundance: a - Abundant, expected to be observed 80 to 100 percent of the time in appropriate habitat; c - 

Common: 60 to 80 percent; u - Uncommon: 30 to 60 percent; o - Occasionally: 10 to 30 percent; r - Rare: 0 to 10 

percent; * - Birds known to nest locally; ! -Threatened/Endangered Species; # - Observed less than 10 times in 

the past 10 years

BONA: Birds of North America 

 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 K-19

Common name Scientific name Population Resilience* Population 

Res. data

Order ACIPENSERIFORMES (sturgeons and paddlefishes)

Family ACIPENSERIDAE (sturgeons)

 green sturgeon Acipenser medirostris Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years

FisBase

Order ANGUILLIFORMES (eels and morays) 

Family OPHICHTHIDAE (snake eels)

 yellow snake eel Ophichthus zophochir Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Order ATHERINIFORMES (silversides) 

Family ATHERINIDAE (neotropical silversides)

 topsmelt Atherinops affinis Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

jack silverside 

(jacksmelt)

Atherinopsis californiensis Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Order CARCHARHINIFORMES (ground sharks)

Family TRIAKIDAE (houndsharks)

 soupfin (tope) shark Galeorhinus galeus Very low, minimum population 

doubling time more than 14 years 

FisBase

 brown smoothhound Mustelus henlei Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

 leopard shark Triakis semifasciata Very low, minimum population 

doubling time more than 14 years 

FisBase

Order CHIMAERIFORMES (chimaeras) 

Family CHIMAERIDAE (shortnose chimaeras or ratfishes)

 Spotted ratfish Hydrolagus colliei Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

Order CLUPEIFORMES (herrings)

Family CLUPEIDAE (herrings, shads, sardines, menhadens) 

 American shad Alosa sapidissima Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

 Pacific herring Clupea pallasii Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Family ENGRAULIDAE (anchovies)

Californian 

anchoveta (northern 

anchovy)

Engraulis mordax Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Order GADIFORMES (cods)

Family GADIDAE (cods and haddocks) 

 Pacific tomcod Microgadus proximus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Fish
K-20 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX K

Common name Scientific name Population Resilience* Population 

Res. data

Order GASTEROSTEIFORMES (sticklebacks and seamoths) 

Family AULORHYNCHIDAE (tubesnouts) 

 tube-snout Aulorhynchus flavidus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Family GASTEROSTEIDAE (sticklebacks)

threespine 

stickleback

Gasterosteus aculeatus High, minimum population 

doubling time less than 15 months

FisBase

Order HEXANCHIFORMES (frill and cow sharks) 

Family HEXANCHIDAE (cow sharks) 

broadnose sevengill 

shark

Notorynchus cepedianus Very low, minimum population 

doubling time more than 14 years 

FisBase

Order LAMPRIDIFORMES (velifers, tube-eyes and ribbonfishes) 

Family TRACHIPTERIDAE (ribbonfishes)

 king-of-the-salmon Trachipterus altivelis Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

Order MYCTOPHIFORMES (lanternfishes) 

Family MYCTOPHIDAE (Lanternfishes) 

 northern lampfish Stenobrachius leucopsarus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 blue lanternfish Tarletonbeania crenularis Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Order OPHIDIFORMES (cusk eels) 

Family OPHIDIIDAE (brotulas and cusk eels)

 spotted cusk-eel Chilara taylori Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Order OSMERIFORMES (smelts) 

Family OSMERIDAE (smelts) 

 whitebait smelt Allosmerus elongatus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 surf smelt Hypomesus pretiosus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 night smelt Spirinchus starksi High, minimum population 

doubling time less than 15 months

FisBase

 longfin smelt Spirinchus thaleichthys Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Order PERCIFORMES (perch-likes) 

Family AMMODYTIDAE (sand lances)

 Pacific sand lance Ammodytes hexapterus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Family ANARHICHADIDAE (wolffishes)

 wolf-eel Anarrhichthys ocellatus Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 K-21

Common name Scientific name Population Resilience* Population 

Res. data

Family CENTROLOPHIDAE (medusafishes)

brown rudderfish 

(Medusafish)

Icichthys lockingtoni Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Family EMBIOTOCIDAE (surfperches)

 calico surfperch Amphistichus koelzi Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 redtail surfperch Amphistichus rhodoterus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 shiner perch Cymatogaster aggregata Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 striped seaperch Embiotoca lateralis Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 spotfin surfperch Hyperprosopon anale High, minimum population 

doubling time less than 15 months

FisBase

 walleye surfperch Hyperprosopon argenteum Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 silver surfperch Hyperprosopon ellipticum Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 white seaperch Phanerodon furcatus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

pile perch (pile 

seaperch)

Rhacochilus vacca Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years

FisBase

Family GOBIIDAE (gobies)

 arrow goby Clevelandia ios High, minimum population 

doubling time less than 15 months

FisBase

 blackeye goby Coryphopterus nicholsi Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi High, minimum population 

doubling time less than 15 months

FisBase

 bay goby Lepidogobius lepidus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Family LUVARIDAE (louvar)

 louvar Luvarus imperialis unknown FisBase

Family MORONIDAE (temperate basses)

FisBase

 striped bass Morone lineatus Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

Family PHOLIDAE (gunnels)

 penpoint gunnel Apodichthys flavidus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 saddleback gunnel Pholis ornata Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years

FisBase
K-22 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX K

Common name Scientific name Population Resilience* Population 

Res. data

Family SCIAENIDAE (drums or croakers) 

white weakfish 

(white seabass)

Atractoscion nobilis Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

 white croaker Genyonemus lineatus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years

FisBase

 cabezon Larimus breviceps High, minimum population 

doubling time less than 15 months

FisBase

Family SERRANIDAE (wreckfishes) 

 giant sea bass Stereolepis gigas Very low, minimum population 

doubling time more than 14 years 

FisBase

Family STICHAEIDAE (pricklebacks)

 high cockscomb Anoplarchus purpurescens Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

monkeyface 

prickleback

Cebidichthys violaceus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 decorated warbonnet Chirolophis decoratus Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

 giant wrymouth Cryptacanthodes giganteus unknown FisBase

 snake prickleback Lumpenus sagitta Very low, minimum population 

doubling time more than 14 years 

FisBase

Family STROMATEIDAE (butterfishes)

 Pacific pompano Peprilus simillimus High, minimum population 

doubling time less than 15 months

FisBase

Family TRICHODONTIDAE (sandfishes)

 Pacific sandfish Trichodon trichodon Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Order PETROMYZONTIFORMES (lampreys)

Family PETROMYZONTIDAE (lampreys)

 Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

Order PLEURONECTIFORMES (flatfishes) 

Family CYNOGLOSSIDAE (tonguefishes)

 California tonguefish Symphurus atricauda Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Family PARALICHTHYIDAE (large-tooth flounders) 

 Pacific sanddab Citharichthys sordidus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 speckled sanddab Citharichthys stigmaeus High, minimum population 

doubling time less than 15 months

FisBase

California flounder 

(California halibut)

Paralichthys californicus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Family PLEURONECTIDAE (righteye flounders)

 dover sole Microstomus pacificus Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 K-23

Common name Scientific name Population Resilience* Population 

Res. data

 starry flounder Platichthys stellatus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 butter sole Pleuronectes isolepis Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 English sole Pleuronectes vetulus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 c-o sole Pleuronichthys coenosus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 curlfin sole Pleuronichthys decurrens Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 Pacific sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Order RAJIFORMES (skates and rays) 

Family MYLIOBATIDAE (eagle and manta rays)

 bat eagle ray Myliobatis californica Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

Family RAJIDAE (skates) 

 big skate Raja binoculata Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

Family UROLOPHIDAE (round rays) 

 Haller’s round ray Urobatis halleri Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

Order SALMONIFORMES (salmons)

Family SALMONIDAE (salmonids)

 cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Order SCORPAENIFORMES (scorpionfishes and flatheads) 

Family AGONIDAE (poachers)

 pygmy poacher Odontopyxis trispinosa High, minimum population 

doubling time less than 15 months

FisBase

 tubenose poacher Pallasina barbata Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

pricklebreast 

poacher

Stellerina xyosterna Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Family COTTIDAE (sculpins)

 padded sculpin Artedius fenestralis Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 scalyhead sculpin Artedius harringtoni High, minimum population 

doubling time less than 15 months

FisBase
K-24 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX K

Common name Scientific name Population Resilience* Population 

Res. data

 bonehead sculpin Artedius notospilotus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 rosylip sculpin Ascelichthys rhodorus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 silverspotted sculpin Blepsias cirrhosus unknown FisBase

 sharpnose sculpin Clinocottus acuticeps High, minimum population 

doubling time less than 15 months

FisBase

 coastrange sculpin Cottus aleuticus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 prickly sculpin Cottus asper Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 buffalo sculpin Enophrys bison Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

 red irish lord Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus Very low, minimum population 

doubling time more than 14 years 

FisBase

 brown irish lord Hemilepidotus spinosus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Pacific staghorn 

sculpin

Leptocottus armatus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 sailfin sculpin Nautichthys oculofasciatus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 fluffy sculpin Oligocottus snyderi High, minimum population 

doubling time less than 15 months

FisBase

Family CYLOPTERIDAE (snailfishes)

 slipskin snailfish Liparis fucensis High, minimum population 

doubling time less than 15 months

FisBase

 showy snailfish Liparis pulchellus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 ringtail snailfish Liparis rutteri High, minimum population 

doubling time less than 15 months

FisBase

Family HEXAGRAMMIDAE (greenlings)

 kelp greenling Hexagrammos decagrammus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 rock greenling Hexagrammos lagocephalus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 lingcod Ophiodon elongatus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

 painted greenling Oxylebius pictus Medium, minimum population 

doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years 

FisBase

Family SCORPAENIDAE (rockfishes, rockcods and thornyheads)

 brown rockfish Sebastes auriculatus Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

 copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

 yellowtail rockfish Sebastes flavidus Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 K-25

Common name Scientific name Population Resilience* Population 

Res. data

 black rockfish Sebastes melanops Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

 vermillion rockfish Sebastes miniatus Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

 blue rockfish Sebastes mystinus Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

 bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

 grass rockfish Sebastes rastrelliger Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

Order SQUALIFORMES (bramble, sleeper and dogfish sharks) 

Family SQUALIDAE (dogfish sharks)

piked dogfish (spiny 

dogfish)

Squalus acanthias Very low, minimum population 

doubling time more than 14 years 

FisBase

Order STOMIIFORMES (lightfishes and dragonfishes) 

Family GONOSTOMATIDAE (bristlemouths)

benttooth 

bristlemouth

Cyclothone acclinidens High, minimum population 

doubling time less than 15 months

FisBase

Order SYNGNATHIFORMES (pipefishes and seahorses)

Family SYNGNATHIDAE (pipefishes and seahorses)

 bay pipefish Syngnathus leptorhynchus High, minimum population 

doubling time less than 15 months

FisBase

Order TETRAODONTIFORMES (puffers and filefishes) 

Family MOLIDAE (Molas or ocean sunfishes) 

 ocean sunfish Mola mola Low, minimum population doubling 

time 4.5 - 14 years 

FisBase

* Population Resilience Information from www.fishbase.org/

Appendix L: Locally Occurring Special Status Species

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 L-1

Locally Occurring Special Status Species

Taxon Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat 

Type

On 

HBNWR?

On 

CRNWR?

Amphibians Rana aurora 

aurora

Northern RedLegged FrogCA: SSC freshwater 

emergent 

wetland, 

riverine, wet 

meadow

yes, 

resident 

and 

common 

no

Birds Agelaius tricolor Tricolored 

BlackBirds

FED: BCC 

CA: SSC

freshwater 

emergent 

wetland, 

pasture

yes, 

migratory

no

Birds Ammodramus 

savannarum

Grasshopper 

sparrow

CA: SSC grasslands yes, 

migratory

no

Birds Asio flammeus Short-Eared Owl CA: SSC wide variety 

of habitats

yes, winter, 

possible 

breeding

no

Birds Asio otus Long-Eared Owl CA: SSC wide variety 

of habitats

yes, 

migratory

no

Birds Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle FED: BBC 

CA: Fully 

protected

wide variety 

of habitats

yes, 

migratory

no

Birds Athene 

cunicularia

Burrowing Owl CA: SSC 

FED: BCC

annual, 

perennial 

grassland

yes, 

migratory

no

Birds Brachyramphus 

marmoratus

Marbeled 

Murrelet

FED: 

Threatened 

CA: 

Endangered;

Critical 

Habitat

old growth 

forest, ocean

no in water 

only

Birds Branta bernicla Brant CA: SSC shallow bays 

and estuaries

Yes, winter no

Birds Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s Hawk CA: 

Threatened

annual, 

perennial 

grassland

yes, 

migratory, 

very rare

no

Birds Chaetura vauxi Vaux’s Swift CA: SSC riparian, also 

upland forest 

nesting, 

foraging in 

wide variety 

of habitats

yes, 

migratory

no
L-2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX L

Taxon Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat 

Type

On 

HBNWR?

On 

CRNWR?

Birds Charadrius 

alexandrinus 

nivosus

Western Snowy 

Plover (Coastal 

Population)

FED: 

Threatened, 

FED: BCC 

(full species) 

CA: SSC 

shoreline, 

dunes

yes, breed no

Birds Chlidonias niger Black Tern CA: SSC marine, 

estuarine, 

wet meadow 

yes, 

migratory, 

very rare

no

Birds Circus cyaneus Northern 

Harrier

CA: SSC wide variety 

of habitats

yes, breed no

Birds Coccyzus 

americanus

Western Yellowbilled CuckooFED: 

Candidate 

CA: 

Endangered

open 

woodlands, 

dense shrub 

layers

vagrant no

Birds Contopus cooperi Olive-Sided 

Flycatcher

FED: BCC

CA: SSC

Douglasfir forest, 

also found 

in other 

habitats

yes, breed no

Birds Cypseloides niger Black Swift FED: BCC 

CA: SSC

grasslands yes, 

migratory

no

Birds Dendroica 

petechia brewsteri

Yellow Warbler CA: SSC montane 

riparian, 

valley foothill 

riparian 

woodland

yes, breed no

Birds Elanus leucurus White-Tailed Kite CA: Fully 

Protected

freshwater, 

saline 

emergent 

wetland, 

annual 

grassland

yes no

Birds Empidonax 

traillii

Willow 

Flycatcher

CA: 

Endangered

montane 

riparian, 

valley foothill 

riparian 

woodland

yes, 

migratory

no

Birds Falco peregrinus 

anatum

American 

Peregrine Falcon

FED: BBC 

CA: Delisted, 

Fully 

Protected 

variety of 

habitats

yes, 

migratory

no

Birds Fratercula 

cirrhata

Tufted Puffin CA: SSC marine, 

offshore 

rocks

no yes, breed

Birds Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

Bald Eagle FED: 

Threatened 

FED: 

Delisted

CA: Delisted, 

Fully 

protected

wide variety 

of habitats

yes, breed no
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 L-3

Taxon Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat 

Type

On 

HBNWR?

On 

CRNWR?

Birds Icteria virens Yellow-Breasted 

Chat

CA: SSC valleyfoothill 

riparian

yes, 

migratory

no

Birds Lanius 

ludovicianus

Loggerhead 

Shrike

FED: BCC 

CA: SSC

wide variety 

of habitats

yes, 

migratory, 

very rare

no

Birds Melanerpes lewis Lewis’ 

Woodpecker

FED: BCC wide variety 

of habitats

yes, 

migratory, 

very rare

no

Birds Oceanodroma 

furcata

Fork-Tailed 

Storm-Petrel

CA: SSC marine, 

offshore 

rocks

no yes, breed

Birds Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos

American White 

Pelican

CA: SSC estuarine yes, 

vagrant

no

Birds Pelecanus 

occidentalis

Brown Pelican FED: 

Threatened 

CA: Fully 

Protected

marine yes, 

migratory

yes, 

migratory

Birds Phoebastris 

albatrus

Short-tailed 

Albatross

FED: 

Endangered

open ocean no migratory, 

in water 

only

Birds Progne subis Purple Martin CA: SSC wide variety 

of habitats

yes, 

migratory

no

Birds Ptychoramphus 

aleuticus

Cassin's Auklet FED: BCC 

CA: SSC

marine, 

offshore 

rocks

no yes

Birds Riparia riparia Bank Swallow CA: 

Threatened

valleyfoothill 

riparian

yes, 

migratory, 

very rare

no

Birds Sterna caspia Caspian Tern FED: BCC freshwater 

emergent 

wetland, 

marine, 

riverine, 

estuarine

yes, 

migratory

yes, 

migratory

Birds Strix 

occendentalis 

caurina

Northern 

Spotted Owl

FED: 

Threatened; 

Critical 

Habitat 

CA: SSC

forest, 

multicanopied

no no

Birds Synthliboramphus 

hypoleucus

Xantus’s 

Murrelet

FED: 

Candidate 

CA: 

Threatened

ocean, 

offshore 

islands

no very rare, 

in water 

only
L-4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX L

Taxon Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat 

Type

On 

HBNWR?

On 

CRNWR?

Fish Acipenser 

medirostris

North American 

Green Sturgeon

CA: SSC 

FED: 

Threatened 

Southern 

DPS; 

Proposed 

Critical 

Habitat for 

Southern 

DPS

riverine, 

marine, 

estuarine

yes, Bay no

Fish Eucyclogobius 

newberryi

Tidewater Goby FED: 

Endangered 

CA: SSC

riverine, 

estuarine

yes, breed no

Fish Lampetra 

tridentata

Pacific lamprey CA: SSC estuarine yes, 

ammocoetes 

in Salmon 

Creek

no

Fish Oncorhynchus 

clarki clarki

Coast Cutthroat 

Trout

CA: SSC marine, 

estuarine, 

riverine

yes, 

migratory

no

Fish Oncorhynchus 

kisutch

Coho Salmon - 

Southern Oregon 

/ Northern 

California ESU

CA, FED: 

Threatened

marine, 

estuarine, 

riverine

yes, 

migratory

no

Fish Oncorhynchus 

mykiss

SteelheadNorthern 

California ESU

FED: 

Threatened 

CA: SSC

marine, 

riverine, 

estuarine

yes, 

migratory

no

Fish Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

Chinook Salmon 

- California 

Coastal ESU

FED: 

Threatened

marine, 

riverine, 

estuarine

yes, 

migratory

no

Fish Spirinchus 

thaleichthys

Longfin Smelt CA: 

Threatened

estuarine, 

riverine

yes, Bay, 

Salmon 

Creek, 

Hookton 

Slough

no

Fish Thaleichthys 

pacificus

Eulachon, 

Southern DPS

FED:PT 

CA: SSC

marine, 

riverine, 

estuarine

yes, 

migratory

no

Mammals Arborimus albipes White-Footed 

Vole

CA: SSC redwood, 

Douglas 

fir, riparian 

forest

yes no

Mammals Eumetopias 

jubatus

Steller (northern) 

Sea-Lion

FED: 

Threatened

marine, 

offshore 

rocks

no yes

Plants Abronia umbellata 

ssp. brevifolia

Pink Sand 

Verbena 

CA: Special 

Plant

dune mat yes no

Plants Castilleja 

ambigua ssp. 

humboldtiensis

Humboldt Bay 

Owl’s Clover

CA: Special 

Plant

saline 

estuarine 

marsh

yes no
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 L-5

Taxon Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat 

Type

On 

HBNWR?

On 

CRNWR?

Plants Cordylanthus 

maritimus Benth. 

ssp. palustris 

Point Reyes 

Bird’s-beak

CA: Special 

Plant

saline 

estuarine 

marsh

yes no

Plants Erysimum 

menziesii ssp. 

eurekense 

Humboldt Bay 

Wallflower

FED: 

Endangered 

CA: 

Endangered

dune mat yes no

Plants Layia carnosa Beach Layia FED: 

Endangered 

CA: 

Endangered 

dune mat yes no

Reptiles Emys 

(=Clemmys) 

marmorata 

marmorata

Northwestern 

Pond Turtle

CA: SSC wide variety 

of habitats

yes no

Note: It is unknown at this time whether the species below exist on the NWR

Arthropods Icaricia icarioides 

missionensis

Mission Blue 

Butterfly

FED: 

Endangered

annual 

grassland

Arthropods Lycaeides 

argyrognomon 

lotis

Lotis Blue 

Butterfly

FED: 

Endangered

wet meadow

Amphibians Plethodon 

elongatus

Del Norte 

Salamander

CA: SSC wide variety 

of habitats

Arthropods Polites mardon Mardon Skipper FED: 

Candidate

annual 

grassland

Arthropods Speyeria zerene 

behrensii

Behren’s 

Silverspot 

Butterfly

FED: 

Endangered

closed-cone 

pine-cypress

Arthropods Speyeria zerene 

hippolyta

Oregon 

Silverspot 

Butterfly

FED: 

Threatened

perennial 

grassland, 

dunes

Arthropods Speyeria zerene 

myrtleae

Myrtle’s 

Silverspot 

Butterfly

FED: 

Endangered

dunes, 

coastal scrub

Arthropods Syncaris pacifica California 

Freshwater 

Shrimp

FED: 

Endangered, 

CA: 

Endangered

riverine

FED=listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act; CA=listed under the California Endangered Species 

Act; SSC=Species of Special Concern; BCC=Birds of Conservation Concern; DPS=Distinct Population 

Segment.
L-6 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX L

Listing Categories

California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Listing Codes: 

• CA: E State-listed as Endangered

• CA: T State-listed as Threatened

• CA: CE State candidate for listing as Endangered

• CA: CT State candidate for listing as Threatened

• CA: CD State candidate for delisting

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Codes: 

• FED: E Federally listed as Endangered

• FED: T Federally listed as Threatened

• FED: PE Federally proposed for listing as Endangered

• FED: PT Federally proposed for listing as Threatened

• FED: PD Federally proposed for delisting

• FED: C Federal candidate species (former Category 1 candidates)

• FED: SC Species of Concern – list established by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) effective 15 

April 2004

Other Codes: 

SSC: California Species of Special Concern. It is the goal and responsibility of the Department of Fish 

and Game to maintain viable populations of all native species. To this end, the Department has designated 

certain vertebrate species as “Species of Special Concern” because declining population levels, limited 

ranges, and/or continuing threats have made them vulnerable to extinction. More information is available on 

the Department’s web site at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/ssc/ssc.shtml. All of the Species of Special 

Concern reports are now available on-line:

Birds: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/info/bird_ssc.shtml.

Mammals: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/info/mammal_ssc.shtml.

Fish: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/info/fish_ssc.pdf.

Amphibians & Reptiles: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/info/herp_ssc.pdf.

Fully Protected: The classification of Fully Protected was the State’s initial effort to identify and provide 

additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. More information 

on Fully Protected species and the take provisions can be found in the Fish and Game Code, (birds at 

§3511, mammals at §4700, reptiles and amphibians at §5050, and fish at §5515). Additional information 

on Fully Protected fish can be found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1, 

Subdivision 1, Chapter 2, Article 4, §5.93. The category of Protected Amphibians and Reptiles in Title 

14 has been repealed. The Fish and Game Code is available online at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgibin/

calawquery?codesection=fgc. Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations is available at: http://ccr.oal.

ca.gov.

BCC: US Fish and Wildlife Service has designated Birds of Conservation Concern: The goal of the Birds 

of Conservation Concern 2002 report is to accurately identify the migratory and nonmigratory bird species 

(beyond those already designated as Federally threatened or endangered) that represent our highest 

conservation priorities and draw attention to species in need of conservation action. 

Vagrant: Visitor or vagrant. Those with very few records, and not expected but once in every 5 to 10+ 

years.

This report is available at: http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/BCC2002.pdf
Appendix M: Public Involvement Process for the Humboldt Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCP/EA

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 M-1

Public Involvement Process for the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex CCP/EA 

Advertisement of Public Scoping Meetings and Initiation of CCP/NEPA process

Prior to public scoping meetings the Complex issues a press release to many local media outlets including: 

local radio stations such as KHSU, KHUM , KSLUG, and KEKA; local newspapers such as the Eureka 

Times Standard, Eureka Reporter, Humboldt Beacon, Eco News, and the North Coast Journal; and local 

television stations such as FOX, ABC, NBC, and PBS (community calendar). Flyers advertising the public 

meetings were posted at community bulletin boards by members of the Service in January of 2007. A 

planning update was distributed to interested stakeholders that had been identified through other, prior 

Complex planning processes. Planning officially began when a Notice of Intent published in the Federal 

Register announcing the Service’s intent to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan and environmental 

assessment for the Complex (Vol. 72, No. 18, p. 4020). The Notice of Intent requested that the public submit 

comments on the CCP by March 15, 2007. An issues workbook was also distributed to the mailing list and at 

public meetings to help focus public input. 

Public Scoping Meetings

Three Public Scoping Meetings were held on February 13, 15, and 17, 2007 in Del Norte and Humboldt 

County to receive public input on the Complex comprehensive conservation plan and associated National 

Environmental Policy Act document. Each public scoping meeting consisted of a presentation by Service 

staff on the CCP/NEPA process, a presentation on the history of the Complex, questions and answers, and 

documentation of public comments. The majority of each public meeting was spent documenting public 

comments.

The first meeting was held on February 13, 2007 at the Del Norte Family Resource Center from 6:00 

pm–8:30 pm in Crescent City, California. Five members of the public attended the meeting as well as three 

members of the Service. The second meeting was held on February 15, 2007 at the College of the Redwoods 

from 5:30 pm–8:00 pm in Eureka, California. Approximately 23 members of the public attended (23 signed 

in) the meeting as well as nine members of the Service. The third meeting was held on February 17, 2007 at 

the Humboldt Area Foundation from 2:30 pm–5:00 pm in Bayside, California. Approximately 14 members 

of the public attended (14 signed in) the meeting as well as nine members of the Service. Members of the 

public attending the meetings were encouraged to also submit written comments by March 15, 2007. Copies 

of the Issues Workbook were distributed to interested stakeholders at the meetings.

Supplemental Request for Comments on Castle Rock NWR

Due to Castle Rock NWR’s seasonal popularity, primarily related to birding events, the Service attempted 

to obtain additional public comment on the CCP by distributing a planning update to members of the public 

attending the annual Aleutian cackling goose festival during the week of April 2, 2007. The second planning 

update encouraged the public to provide comments on the future management of Castle Rock NWR by May 

17, 2007.

Public Scoping Comments Received

A complete list of public comments received orally and in writing, during the public scoping process, are 

contained in Appendix M: Public Involvement Process. Hundreds of comments were received during the 

public scoping meetings, on a wide variety of Complex management topics. In total 14 completed issues 

workbooks were returned during the public scoping period. In total 13 letters or e-mails were received 

during the open comment period. In addition 3 sets of written comments were turned in during public 

meetings. 
M-2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX M

Summary of HBNWRC CCP Written Public Scoping Comments received during the 

open comment period from January 29 through March 15, 2007

In total 13 letters or e-mails were received during the open comment period. In addition 3 sets of written 

comments were turned in during public meetings. 

Comments and suggestions from agencies, tribes and the public:

Humboldt Bay NWR Biological Resources Management 

■ Increase short grass habitat for Aleutian cackling geese and other species (1 comment)

■ Use grazing animals, instead of machinery, to maintain pastoral lands (1 comment)

■ Willing to see White Slough go tidal, but Hookton Slough Unit should be freshwater marsh (1 comment)

■ Enhance existing properties for waterfowl (1 comment)

Humboldt Bay NWR Visitors Services

Hunting general

■ Educate hunters about the value of sportsmanship and ethics on the refuge (2 comments)

■ Initiate pre and post season hunting meetings (1 comment)

■ Update the Sport Hunting Management Plan (including recalculate the refuge acreage and re-evaluate 

the percentage of land presently open and closed to hunting, re-evaluate hunting of de-listed species) (1 

comment)

■ Enter into agreements with local and State agencies to enhance and protect sport hunting opportunities 

in and around Humboldt Bay (1 comment)

Hunting facilities/infrastructure

■ Create retrieval zone at blinds D, 2, 4 and 14 along hunting/ no hunting boundary (1 comment)

■ Improve blinds by adding more pit blinds and improving others (1 comment)

■ There should be less blinds and they should be spaced farther apart (1 comment)

■ Add a blind between #8 and #13 (1 comment)

■ Acquire and enhance new hunting properties (1 comment)

■ Want goose blinds/pits in eastern fields of Salmon Creek Unit (1 comment)

Hunting rules and regulations

■ Increase LE, particularly to count the shells brought in (3 comments)

■ Want season pass for hunting (3 comments)

■ Add one hunt day/allow hunting on Thursday (2 comments)

■ Allow hunting until sunset (2 comments)

■ Conduct draw the night before hunt day (2 comments)

■ Joining up should be allowed for the re-draw, provided all joining hunters were drawn in the morning (2 

comments)

■ The refill could be improved by allowing joining up with any card that was drawn at morning draw, this 

could bring in more $ and allow more hunting opportunity (2 comments)

■ Want improved opportunities for pairing up during redraw (1 comment)

■ A person should only be able to come for a chance to be drawn once per week (1 comment)

■ Eliminate the second refill drawing (1 comment)

■ Want review of D-blind draw rules (1 comment)

■ Expand the hunting area (1 comment)

■ Junior hunters should have a day a month or a day a week where only they are allowed to hunt (1 

comment)

Hunting Salmon Creek Unit

■ Overall Salmon Creek Unit drawn hunt is good (1 comment)
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 M-3

Hunting Hookton Slough Unit

■ Want hunting access from Hookton Slough dock (1 comment)

■ Provide hunting access to Hookton Slough off Toroni Rd. (1 comment)

■ On specific days close motorized boat access to Teal Island (Hookton Slough Unit access) and only allow 

non-motorized access (1 comment)

Hunting Jacoby Creek Unit

■ Want parking access at Jacoby Creek for hunting (1 comment)

■ Improve access at Jacoby Creek Unit or develop an appropriate non-motorized boat launch (1 comment)

Hunting Eureka Slough Unit

■ Improve hunter access at Eureka Slough, the location is suited to creation of non-motorized boat access 

(1 comment)

Dune Units facilities/infrastructure

■ May want to consider speed bumps for Ma-le’l access, but not as severe as Salmon Creek Unit speed 

bumps (1 comment)

■ Hiking trails of 3-6 foot width should only be used for Ma-le’l Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

accessible trails. Dune trails should be narrower, Class 4 trail designation, to preserve the integrity of 

the forest and dunes (1 comment)

■ Railings should be 48” high for the Ma-le’l view deck for liability reasons (1 comment)

Dune Units rules and regulations

■ Bikes going on the trail will be an ongoing issue for Ma-le’l (1 comment)

■ Ma-le’l north entry: do not allow RVs or trailers, only allow non-motorized boat launch (1 comment)

■ Consider contingency planning to close access based on actual or projected wind speeds detected on off 

shore buoys (1 comment)

■ If the caretaker is a FWS employee, towing procedures may be o.k., but if not it may be best for the 

caretaker to notify headquarters (1 comment)

■ Consider caretaker safety and training regarding towing of vehicles (1 comment)

■ Make open/close/tow times for Ma-le’l the same as for the South Jetty for ease of understanding (1 

comment)

Dune Units signage

■ Ma-le’l boundary signage: too much signage is intrusive, recommend having the primary standard by 

LOS (1 comment)

■ Redwood Gun Club entry: the “do not enter” sign is vague, noise from the gun club should be addressed 

in information provided to the public (1 comment)

■ Lanphere Dunes boundaries are not clearly marked (1 comment)

■ Rules for public use and dune unit boundaries should be clearly posted and maintained (1 comment)

■ The boundary between Ma-le’l South and Ma-le’l North must be clearly posted because dogs are only 

allowed in the South (1 comment)

■ Fences would be a clear boundary (1 comment)

Humboldt Bay NWR Cultural Resources Management

■ The CCP should recognize and protect Wiyot cultural resources as mandated under Section 110 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (1 comment)

■ Include separate provisions for the protection of cultural resources, including archaeological and 

traditional cultural properties (1 comment)

■ The refuge should employ a professional archaeological assessment of identified properties in 

consultation with Tribal representatives and develop procedural language to allow flexible management 

practices (1 comment) 

■ Acknowledge all Service regulatory responsibilities under the NHPA in CCP drafts (1 comment)

■ Clarify the historic status determination for the Jacoby Creek hunting shack [under criteria A, broad 

patterns of history] (1 comment)

■ The Humboldt National Wildlife Refuge is located within the ancestral and current territory of the 

Wiyot Tribe (1 comment)
M-4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX M

■ Many historic Wiyot village sites are located within the boundaries of the refuge (1 comment)

■ Should make provisions to consider a transfer of lands such that the Wiyot Tribe may acquire refuge 

property located on Indian Island (1 comment)

■ Consider co-management of lands within the refuge boundaries held sacred by the Wiyot Tribe, when 

appropriate (includes Indian Island lands and potentially other refuge lands) (1 comment)

■ Coordinate with the Wiyot Tribe regarding the protection of sensitive cultural resources located on 

property owned by the refuge (1 comment)

■ Coordinate management and monitoring of species valuable to the Wiyot Tribe for subsistence and 

cultural purposes (1 comment)

■ Coordinate with the Wiyot Tribe on refuge-scale and watershed-scale activities that may affect property 

held by the Wiyot Tribe and the resources valued by the Tribe (ie. water quality, cultural resource 

protection, habitat improvement, etc.) (1 comment)

Humboldt Bay NWR General Comments

■ Want continued access to islands in Mad River Slough (1 comment)

■ Leave white refuge signs in place and post greed boundary signs down the middle of the [Mad River] 

slough so that we can retrieve dead or wounded ducks (1 comment)

■ Promote science based, service learning programs for 5th – 8th grade children on the refuge (1 

comment) 

Castle Rock NWR Biological Resources Management

■ The best way to manage Castle Rock NWR seabirds is to stay away from them (1 comment)

Castle Rock NWR Community Outreach

■ Consider additional posters at Point St. George in conjunction with the Point St. George working group 

(1 comment)

■ Informational flyers specific to Castle Rock should be developed and distributed to Redwood State and 

Nat’l Park visitors center, the Chamber of Commerce, through the Humboldt NWR and other locations 

(1 comment)

■ Provide excursions, field trips, and courses using CRNWR to showcase wildlife concepts (1 comment) 

Castle Rock NWR signage

■ Signs should be posted along Pebble Beach Drive and at Anchor Way, in Crescent City Harbor, to 

educate kayakers and other users to the risk of disturbance, the potential impact on seabirds, and 

illegality of trespass or flushing wildlife (1 comment)

■ Review content of signs along Pebble Beach Drive and possibly add new ones (1 comment)

Castle Rock NWR Research Comments

■ Should fund a study to quantify sources, frequency and severity of disturbance [of seabirds and 

pinnipeds] on Castle Rock NWR (1 comment)

■ Review the impact of research activities on Castle Rock NWR resources (1 comment)

■ Continue photo surveys by remote camera for colony counts (1 comment)

■ Monitor disturbance by staff landing on the island via a remote observer (1 comment)

■ Additional remote sensing projects should be encouraged (ex. high resolution and thermal imaging aerial 

photography) (1 comment)

■ Conduct on site flora and invertebrate surveys during the winter to avoid impacts to other wildlife (1 

comment) 

■ The remote camera feed should be available to the public (1 comment)
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 M-5

Summary of HBNWRC CCP Verbal Comments Received During the Public Scoping 

Meetings on February 13, 15, 17, 2007.

Meeting #1 was held on 2/13/07 at the Del Norte Family Resource Center from 6:00-8:30 pm in Crescent 

City -5 members of the public attended the meeting as well as 3 USFWS staff (Eric Nelson, David 

Bergendorf and Amy Kocourek).

Meeting #2 was held on 2/15/07 at the College of the Redwoods from 5:30-8 pm in Eureka, CA 

-Approximately 23 members of the public attended (23 signed in) the meeting as well as 9 USFWS staff 

(Eric Nelson, Shannon Smith, Andrea Pickart, Patti Clifford, Steve Lewis, Dominic Bachman, Amy 

Kocourek, Emily Jenniings and David Bergendorf).

Meeting #3 was held on 2/17/07 at the Humboldt Area Foundation from 2:30-5 pm in Bayside, CA 

-Approximately 14 members of the public attended (14 signed in) the meeting as well as 9 USFWS staff 

(Eric Nelson, Shannon Smith, Andrea Pickart, Patti Clifford, Steve Lewis, Dominic Bachman, Amy 

Kocourek, Emily Jennings and David Bergendorf).

Comments and suggestions from the public follow:

Castle Rock NWR

Castle Rock NWR Biological Resources/Habitat Protection

■ The refuge should look into rare salamanders that may occur on Castle Rock and the genetic importance 

of potential island populations [the Nature Conservancy may have some records].

■ Should protect Castle Rock from watercraft disturbance, such as sea kayaks (speaker has witnessed 

flushing of birds and marine mammals by watercraft and people walking on the reef).

Castle Rock NWR Environmental Interpretation

Castle Rock NWR Facilities/infrastructure

■ Transportation funds might be available for improvements including interpretive signage. 

■ The county (local transportation district) could apply for TEA21funds including restrooms, parking and 

interpretive signage.

■ Need interpretive displays that connect the public (ie. Visitors) with Castle Rock and encourage 

“destination” visits to Castle Rock as well as raising awareness and understanding of the resources.

■ Could develop a kiosk for Castle Rock, but it should not be immediately on the beach side (would be an 

eye sore).

■ Should add interpretive panels that talk about Castle Rock related rules and how to prevent wildlife 

disturbance. 

■ Interpretive signs should be at Pebble Beach drive.

Castle Rock NWR Interpretive Activities

■ Should explore using volunteers for interpretation (ex. Summer interns that could stay on local public 

lands such as state park land). Some students from Humboldt County might be interested.

■ Most visitors find their own way to the Castle Rock area (they drive by) so the interpretive programs 

should be static and self-guided.

Castle Rock NWR Wildlife Observation/Photography

■ Should research high powered remote sensing tools that can allow observation of wildlife at Castle Rock 

without disturbing the wildlife.

■ Garth Reef is a good place for Castle Rock observation.

Castle Rock NWR Community Outreach

■ Should develop a brochure for Castle Rock.

■ Should develop a display for the Crescent City visitors center.
M-6 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX M

■ A Castle Rock brochure could clearly indicate rules that apply to watercraft near Castle Rock and the 

brochures could be distributed to surf shops, etc.

■ Should coordinate strategies of education vs. law enforcement with local organizations (ex. Articles in 

local papers, research who is actually disturbing wildlife so that that demographic can be targeted with 

an appropriate message).

■ Point St. George and Castle Rock should integrate their interpretive programs (Point St. George is Del 

Norte County land).

■ Should team up with Pebble Beach (county managed) for interpretive signage integration.

■ Should team up with Redwood Park (Martha McClure-county supervisor) for interpretive signage 

integration.

Castle Rock NWR Potential Conflicts with Other Landowners

■ Need data on the impact of overflights on birds at Castle Rock and need to clarify what are the 

regulations for overflights.

■ Should try to avoid conflicts such as goose/plane conflicts if the planes are taking off while geese are in 

flight.

Castle Rock NWR Cultural Resources

■ Smith River Rancheria has a good cultural resources historian, Loren Bommelyn, who may be able to 

supply information on native American use of Castle Rock.

■ Research the Del Norte Airport expansion plan and get involved with that planning process. The airport 

expansion plan should also be addressed in the CCP.

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt Bay NWR Biological Resources/Habitat

Humboldt Bay NWR Aleutian cackling goose habitat management

■ Maintain short grass, geese areas (seem to be doing a good job).

■ Idea: Use burning to attract Aleutian cackling geese (experiment with this technique to compare 

burning with grazing and haying).

■ If Aleutians (cackling geese) were here pre-European the native Americans may have been burning to 

maintain their habitat.

Humboldt Bay NWR Wetland management/restoration

■ Maintain as much fresh water marsh habitat on the Salmon Creek Unit (there is not enough fresh water 

marsh habitat on the refuge).

■ (maintain) drainage so neighbors and highway 101 are not flooded.

■ Cooperative agreement with Arkleys to extend restoration up channel and deal with overbank flooding.

■ (conduct) More restoration of tidal areas on southern units for fish habitat and salt marsh.

Humboldt Bay NWR Biological Surveys and monitoring

■ Be sure to incorporate mammal population surveys and monitoring, especially with vegetation surveys.

Humboldt Bay NWR Invasive species management

■ Control Spartina at Eureka slough and Jacoby Creek using weed eaters (get a bigger propane tank).

Humboldt Bay NWR Agricultural wetland management

■ (should use) More grazing and less haying because of loss of clover.

Humboldt Bay NWR Other species management

■ Re-introduce elk.

■ Model the deer population, there may be too many.

■ Use the HBWAC salmonid conservation plan.

■ Do endangered species management to address sloughs beyond our boundary.

■ More management of Table Bluff Unit.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 M-7

Humboldt Bay NWR Hunting/Fishing Management

Humboldt Bay NWR Hunting facilities/infrastructure

■ (should) Have pit tanks instead of blinds, take out the blinds.

■ Expand the parking lot and/or expand the entrance road (when there are many people on the refuge they 

park on the roadside) for safety.

■ Expand parking toward the eucalyptus trees as well as expanding the road in that area.

■ The Salmon Creek hunting unit should have a call box and there should be a second call box next 

to the disabled blind (the call box should connect to the refuge office or to an outside line in case of 

emergencies).

■ Make sure blind #12 and #13 are not in the same line of fire.

■ Blind #10 needs a pond for the early season.

■ Pits need new lids (too many frogs and other wildlife are stranded in them).

■ Pits should be bailed before (the) season.

■ Teal island (is) too close to (the) walking trail, Hookton trail and the Y blind is too near (the) trail for 

shooting.

■ Hookton slough access encourages hunters to come in illegally.

■ (should) Make Salmon Creek Unit parking area safer.

■ Plant native vegetation around blinds (ex. willows, coyote brush) using volunteers.

■ Re-design blinds so doors are positioned better & hunters can get their faces close to the front of the 

blind. Build up the ground so blinds are dry and native vegetation could survive (ex. #11 is a good 

example).

■ Provide parking at Jacoby Creek cabin.

■ Improve access at Eureka slough and provide a boat launch. (Possibly provide only non-motorized boats 

and cooperate with Target to build the launch).

■ Improve and enhance hunter opportunities and access at White Slough, such as a launch for nonmotorized boats.

■ Improve and enhance hunter opportunities and access at Table Bluff, such as a bridge across the slough.

Humboldt Bay NWR Hunting rules and regulations

■ Consider a HBNWR season hunting pass.

■ Would like to see an annual use pass for hunting and other consumptive uses.

■ Have a refuge hunting season pass instead of day pass and charge $35-$50 for the pass.

■ (need a) Better spatial division between hunting vs. non-hunting. 

■ Should have waterfowl hunting on Mad River Slough and nearby islands (this area has traditionally been 

hunted, especially by physically fit hunters).

■ Refuges should be user friendly (for consumptive users, ex. Hunting [waterfowl] and fishing [clamming, 

crabbing, trolling]).

■ (it is) not logical to use the excuse of bird disturbance for no access to the lower marsh for birder(s).

■ (should) Hold Salmon Creek Unit lottery draw the night before (for hunt program).

■ Make it so that a representative from the whole party could submit a group card for the lottery the night 

before, with a morning sweat line.

■ Draw for both hunt days on one evening, such as Friday night for both Saturday and Tuesday hunts.

■ Clarify legal access and hunting use at Jacoby Creek Unit.

■ Provide walk on, free-roam hunting at Jacoby Creek Unit.

■ Find out if launching behind Target is legal.

■ Facilitate and improve hunting opportunities.

■ Improve hunter access at existing areas.

■ Consider controlled hunting access at Hookton Slough (i.e. for non-motorized boats only).

■ Do not exclude hunter use at Hookton due to perceived user group conflict.

Manage controlled hunt of Teal Island and Hookton Slough through access at Hookton and regulated use 

(i.e. non-motorized boats).

■ Increase refuge area available for hunting access.

■ Consider allowing faxed or mailed cards for evening draw (to) accommodate hunters from out of area. 

■ Update sport hunting decision document package (i.e., update land status, Aleutian cackling geese and 

other species status, and percentage of land for hunting).
M-8 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX M

Humboldt Bay NWR Arguments to Limit Hunting/Fishing

■ A person who lives 3 miles away would like to see hunting stopped. He hears shots all the way up the 

valley.

■ Hunting and environmental education are mutually exclusive.

■ Hunting devalues the asset that the refuge is.

■ Should decrease hunt opportunities to allow other uses to increase.

■ Hunting is not a valid management of migratory bird (populations), alternatives include compensating 

farmers, grass selection and developing more refuges.

■ Would like to see the refuge as an actual refuge from hunting and harassment (no hunting should be 

allowed).

■ Give wildlife a safe haven (on the refuge).

■ Focus more on environmental education and less on hunting.

■ Increase priority of education and observation vs. hunting.

Humboldt Bay NWR Environmental Education and Interpretation

Humboldt Bay NWR Environmental Education

■ Offer salt marsh focused environmental education.

■ Have an area to dip net and explore the salt marsh, brackish marsh and fresh marsh.

■ Highlight similarities and differences of organisms and habitats.

■ Write up each field trip program and gather teacher feedback.

■ Refuge should provide materials to sample invertebrates (ex. Dip nets, kick nets) and a key to 

invertebrates (ex. Stoneflies, mayflies, damselflies, dragonflies).

■ (offer) Natural history, natural resources, habitat, flora/fauna, education/interpretation – (Emphasize 

interconnectedness).

■ Educate the public on the flora and fauna to inform them about the whole ecosystem.

■ (the refuge) Should have a hunting information kiosk in the visitors center

■ Focus on environmental education.

Humboldt Bay NWR Interpretation

■ Have more interpretation about what management is going on at the refuge.

■ (offer) Natural history, natural resources, habitat, flora/fauna, education/interpretation – (Emphasize 

interconnectedness).

■ Help the public understand through interpretation, how hunter groups have helped the refuge and 

wildlife through financial contributions.

■ (should offer) Interpretation about hunters targeting neck marked geese.

■ Expand the interpretation on vegetation types and habitats in the visitors center.

■ Nothing in the visitors center is about hunting.

Humboldt Bay NWR Community Outreach

■ Increase understanding of volunteer program opportunities.

■ (should have) Improved coordination with state wardens.

■ (should have) Coordination with Manila Community Services District (MCSD).

■ (should have) Coordination with the Friends of the Dunes purchase of the Stamps property.

■ Educate Manila community (about) rare and important species.

■ Educate public about access possibilities at Ma-le’l.

■ (the) Refuge should educate public about how duck stamps/hunting/fishing taxes fund conservation of 

wildlife.

■ Educate non-hunters about what hunters do besides hunt (ie. Fund conservation [for] refuges).

■ Have a forum where students working on the refuge present their research findings.

■ Dominic should give a talk on his research and others.

■ Do outreach about existing partnerships (ie. Agriculture community and Aleutian goose working group.

■ Make research from Humboldt State University, etc. available such as online and in a research library.

■ Incorporate more research at the junior high and high school levels.

■ Identify projects (that) kids would be excited to research.

■ Establish relationship with K-12 schools to develop fundable programs.

■ Create boating programs and water quality studies with kids in mind.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 M-9

Humboldt Bay NWR Website

■ Have vegetation maps on (the refuge) website showing different vegetation types.

■ (should develop a) Newsletter to communicate research and update the website with research results.

Humboldt Bay NWR Wildlife Observation and Photography

■ Create a less visible photoblind, such as a pit blind.

■ Create additional photoblind(s) for other light or other scenery.

■ More emphasis should be placed on wildlife observation.

Humboldt Bay NWR Policy/Law Enforcement Comments

■ (should have) More law enforcement on the Salmon Creek unit.

■ (there are) Too many dogs off leash in the parking lot with no enforcement.

■ At hunting check stations have more regulations about bag limits and have that information discussed 

every Saturday before the hunt.

■ (should install a) Security, surveillance camera at the Hookton Slough Unit parking lot.

■ Hire refuge law enforcement.

■ Charge everyone a daily entrance fee (ex. Birdwatchers, walkers), (but) let a hunting and fishing license 

be a waiver.

■ (there should be) No entrance fee. Keep something free for people to enjoy (No entrance fee makes the 

refuge accessible to people of all income levels).

■ Educate (the) public to keep dogs on leash and allow dogs in the Ma-le’l Dunes unit. 

■ Refuge should not present duck stamp/hunting/fishing taxes as the only funding of conservation (refuge 

is supported by taxes from public, donations as well as duck stamps).

Humboldt Bay NWR Non-Wildlife Dependent Recreation

■ Create kayak access site at Table Bluff.

■ Establish a paddle in access site for overnight (camping) use.

■ Establish a 2-3 week day camp for kids (see Maggy H.).

■ Develop kayak access at Ma-le’l.

■ More kayak access on S areas (Table Bluff Unit).

■ Consider dogs on leashes as seasonally appropriate on Hookton or another Salmon creek unit. 

■ Provide a doggy bag station (re-use plastic newspaper bags).

■ Maintain quality of kayak launch and restrooms at Hookton (unit).

■ Would like to see dog training (field trials for hunting dogs).

■ Consider mosquito management and (management’s impact) on neighbors.

■ (want to know) What will be done to control (exclude) dog access at the Ma-le’l Unit.

Humboldt Bay NWR Signage

■ Can not read property line signs (ex. Jacoby Creek, Eureka, Wiggins tract [currently it is poorly 

marked]).

■ Improve signs on the refuge property.

■ Should mark (sign) foot access corridors for the Jacoby Creek Unit and other parts of the refuge.

■ Put up a “No free roam” (hunting) sign in the Salmon Creek Unit hunting area

■ Blinds need to be re-signed.

Humboldt Bay NWR Cultural Resources Management

■ Restore the historic Ranch House and Barn as a part of the heritage of Humboldt County.

■ Be sure all cultural resources are considered.

■ Make sure the CCP complies with the National Historic Preservation Act.

■ Make preservation of the hunting shack at the Jacoby Creek Unit a high priority as well as the McBride 

barn (including the historic landscaping).

■ The Jacoby Creek Unit hunting shack was found to be a significant historic property under the SHPO 

criteria in 1990.

■ Be cautious about expanding wetlands to the detriment of historic properties.

■ Protect historic sites at the Ma-le’l Unit.

■ Protect shell midden sites at Salmon Creek Unit (i.e. sites near railroad tracks and Arrowhead Point).

■ Make sure that all cultural resources are considered (ie. protected and accessible to the Wiyot for 

traditional uses).
M-10 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX M

Humboldt Bay NWR General comments

■ (there is) More money to be made off of eco-tourism than will be made off of hunting.

■ Promote more ecotourism on refuge, (which will) support the local economy.

■ Birdwatchers/photographers do not take wildlife.

■ Photographers do take wildlife pictures.

■ Hunters, photographers and birdwatchers should work together.

■ (the speaker is) Concerned about overpopulation of deer.

■ Consider contaminants from old dump site on Table Bluff with respect to management of (the) Hookton 

Slough west end.

■ (the speaker expressed) Concern over restricted access at the Ma-le’l Dunes Unit due to presumed 

impacts.

■ Appreciate the building improvements.

■ Enhance existing property.

■ Keep doing what you are doing.

Coordination with others

■ Develop partnerships.

■ Long term plans (should) reflect global warming issues.

■ Consider efficiency of our own management in regards to global warming.

■ Acquire and enhance property.

■ Should acquire land at the mouth of the Elk River at the old rendering plant. acreage (land between 101 

& Tompkins Hill Road).

■ Management of Eureka Slough Unit (coordination with Harbor District Mitigation sites, i.e. Park St. 

Marsh).

■ Coordination with the City of Eureka. Educate City on the value of their sloughs. Their sloughs are an 

extension of the Unit.

■ Work with existing Ecosystem-based Management program to be sure refuge system and goals are 

incorporated.

Facilities/infrastructure

■ Please keep Hookton boat dock and trail open.

Staffing

■ Keep the refuge open on Sundays.

■ More staff would be good (volunteers sometimes can not answer questions or provide misinformation).
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 M-11

Summary of HBNWRC CCP Issues Workbook Comments Received During the Open 

Comment Period from January 29 Through March 15, 2007

In total, 14 completed issues workbooks were returned during the open comment period. 

A summary of entries into the issues workbooks follows:

1. What activities do you engage in on Humboldt Bay Refuge or plan to in the near future? 

■ Hunting (8 comments)

■ Wildlife observation (6 comments)

■ Walking/hiking (5 comments)

■ Fishing (4 comments)

■ Photography (3 comments)

■ Kayaking (1 comment)

■ Environmental education (1 comment)

■ Aleutian goose management (1 comment)

■ Salmon Creek fisheries (1 comment)

■ Visitor education (1 comment)

2. What things do you value most about the refuge? 

■ Access to hunting/fishing (5 comments)

■ Wildlife viewing (3 comments)

■ Public access (3 comments)

■ Wetlands (2 comments)

■ Scenic beauty (2 comments)

■ Knowing there is habitat for so many species of flora and fauna (1 comment)

■ Openness (1 comment)

■ Solitude (1 comment)

■ Relative (given hunting noise) quiet and sounds of birds (1 comment)

■ Visibility/tourism (1 comment)

■ Staff (1 comment)

■ Nothing, it takes away publicly accessible land (1 comment)

■ It is close to home (1 comment)

3. In a sentence or two, describe your future vision for the refuge. You may want to list a vision for 

wildlife, habitats, visitor services or other aspects of the refuge 

■ More walking trails available, more native plants, wildlife viewing areas and activities (other than hunting) 

promoted

■ The refuge should not cause problems for neighboring properties (ex. drainage or lack of feed for geese)

■ A refuge managed for hunting and maximizing hunting opportunities

■ Continued limitation on hunting, closing portion of Teal Island to hunting (too close to the Hookton Trail), 

continued free access to the refuge, another hiking trail or two, and extended hours

■ Multi-purpose habitat with lots of restoration potential and all current uses should be maintained

■ To see better understanding between hunters and non-hunters and for non-hunters to be educated about 

how hunters financially support refuges

■ Properly managed for opportunities for everyone to hunt and fish

■ To see it managed for additional opportunities for hunting

■ When waterfowl are doing good the refuge should be flexible to accommodate more hunter opportunities 

and areas around the refuge should not be closed to hunting 

■ Allow hunting without regulations that favor closing additional areas 

■ The refuge should stop buying public lands and limiting use on those lands

■ The refuge should be for wildlife, especially birds, and more trails on the outer dikes throughout the 

refuge. Some diked areas should be restored to salt marsh

■ Educate people about sources of funding for refuges and how to cooperate to benefit wildlife and habitat

■ The refuge should stay the way it is, but have more chances to hunt
M-12 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX M

4. What do you consider the most important problems facing the refuge today? (List up to 3 in order of 

importance) 

■ Conflicts between hunters and other refuge users (2 comments)

■ Staff using personal vision to manage the refuge (2 comments)

■ Methods of allowing hunting (the draw) (2 comments)

■ Health of eelgrass beds (1 comment)

■ Pollution in Humboldt Bay (1 comment)

■ Enforcing refuge rules (e.g., ATV use on Dunes) (1 comment)

■ Limited access to the Salmon Creek Unit for 2 days per week (want more access) (1 comment)

■ Lack of clarity regarding huntable areas and CDFG hunting regulations (1 comment)

■ Conflict between hunting and nature conservation (1 comment)

■ Aleutian goose management (1 comment)

■ Dike failure (1 comment)

■ Lack of funding (1 comment)

■ Bureaucracy trying to close it down, to prevent public enjoyment (1 comment)

■ (too many) Controlling staff at the refuge (1 comment)

■ Only being able to hunt 2 days per week (1 comment)

■ No trespassing signs in the sloughs (1 comment)

■ Using the refuge to provide hunting opportunities (1 comment)

■ Equal charges for refuge users, currently only hunters pay $5/day (1 comment)

■ Too many hunters in a small area (1 comment)

■ How to limit its expansion (1 comment)

■ Sea level rise will impact refuge resources, making dike maintenance key (increase width and strength) (1 

comment)

■ Restoration of habitats to increase biodiversity (1 comment)

■ People’s attitudes about how things should be done on refuges (1 comment)

■ Need more habitat (1 comment)

■ Water resources should be managed better (1 comment)

5. What technical services would you like the refuge staff to provide? (check if appropriate)

■ Management to benefit wildlife/fisheries (12 comments)

■ Wetland management (6 comments)

■ Control of invasive and non-native species (4 comments)

■ Enhanced educational services (4 comments)

■ Habitat enhancement on private lands (3 comments)

■ Volunteer opportunities (3 comments)

■ Enhanced visitor services (3 comments)

■ Need more law enforcement, there is none (2 comments)

■ Education on such topics as a lecture the human and natural history of the lands that are now part of the 

Complex (Dune walks are good, but would like to know more about the wetland units) (1 comment)

■ Provide more hunt opportunities (1 comment)

■ Manage more areas for waterfowl (flooded) (1 comment)

■ Maintaining trails for bird watching (1 comment)

6. Please indicate here any additional comments you wish to make on values, vision, or the Service’s 

role. 

■ Hunting seems to be promoted over other uses on the refuge (1 comment)

■ Gunfire is not enjoyable for non-hunters visiting the refuge (1 comment)

■ Limit hunting times at the refuge so that other users can enjoy the natural resources (1 comment)

■ Be pro-hunting (2 comments)

■ With so little natural habitat left for wildlife, the refuge should resist pressure from hunters to open more 

areas to hunting (1 comment)

■ Excellent staff (1 comment)

■ Current hours of operation are a great benefit to visitors (1 comment)

■ Should balance salt marsh conversion with goose habitat improvements (1 comment)

■ Hunting areas should not be closed down by the refuge (1 comment)

■ Concentrate on what attracts waterfowl (1 comment)
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 M-13

■ There should be more interactions with local schools including the College of the Redwoods, in particular 

involving students in studies on the refuge as a way to teach them about refuge habitats (1 comment)

■ Hunting season passes should be available (1 comment)

■ Would like to seem more photo blinds on the refuge (1 comment)

■ Add an additional hunting day or extend hunting from 3 pm to sunset (1 comment)

7. What role would you like the Complex to play in the conservation of natural areas and wildlife, 

regionally in Humboldt County?

■ More people should be educated about the benefits and taught about the refuge’s value (through refuge 

visitor programs) (2 comments)

■ A minimal role specifically aimed at enhancing waterfowl habitat and populations for hunting (1 comment)

■ Minimal role (1 comment)

■ Continue to work with CDFG, Loleta Tribe, and Humboldt County on issues related to land use, 

conversions and restoration (1 comment)

■ Would like to see the refuge expand beyond current boundaries to acquire additional wetlands (1 

comment)

■ Less natural, protected areas and more public access (1 comment)

■ Manage these areas for activities that really affect the complex, and do not remove areas from hunting (1 

comment)

■ If purchasing more areas, the huntable area should be expanded (1 comment)

■ Open more refuge lands to hunting (1 comment)

■ Showing leadership on estuarine restoration plans and projects around the bay (1 comment)

■ As a care taker and enhancer with the help of the public (1 comment)

Fish, Wildlife, Plants and Their Habitats

1. Are any of the following issues a major concern to you on the refuge? If so, please check (or number 

in priority order) your top choices.

■ Haying or grazing (6 comments)

■ Aleutian cackling goose management (5 comments)

■ Refuge in holdings and boundary issues (5 comments)

■ Water rights and related issues (4 comments)

■ Lack of active management to improve wildlife habitat (3 comments)

■ Fish habitat restoration (3 comments)

■ Control of invasive plant species (1 comment)

■ Water quality (1 comment)

■ Dune and salt marsh conservation (1 comment)

■ Endangered and rare plant conservation (1 comment)

■ Lead bullets and sinkers, for fishing, should not be allowed (1 comment)

■ Access to lands (1 comment)

2. If possible, please provide additional details on why you selected the above choices. In particular we 

would be interested to know specific locations of concern.

■ Haying and grazing is good to allow new growth of grasses and support waterfowl (2 comments)

■ Would like the Island on Mad River Slough, which are now part of Ma-le’l Dunes to remain open to 

hunting (2 comments)

■ Grow grain instead of grass (2 comments)

■ The refuge should not keep closing areas to hunting (2 comments)

■ Hunting of Aleutian cackling geese should be allowed on farmer’s lands to drive geese to wildlife areas (1 

comment)

■ Production of Aleutian cackling geese feed on the refuge takes grazing pressure off my nearby lands (1 

comment)

■ Maintaining drainage on the refuge effects drainage on nearby land (1 comment)

■ Get the signs out of the waters in Jacoby Creek and Hookton Slough and Mad River Slough (1 comment)

■ Remove boundary signs from north bay and south bay tidal flats (1 comment)

■ Walking on trails does not feel safe when hunting is occurring (1 comment)
M-14 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX M

■ Would like to have hunter access to Hookton Slough at the boat dock off Toroni Rd. and would like Jacoby 

Creek to remain open to foot traffic via Jacoby Creek itself (1 comment)

■ Haying and grazing should be expanded (1 comment)

■ Controlling invasive plants, particularly in salt marshes around Humboldt Bay, is a huge issue (1 

comment)

■ Water quality may become an issue when the Salmon Creek restoration is complete especially relative to 

fish passage and fish habitat (1 comment)

3. Please include here any additional comments on fish and wildlife habitat issues and concerns. 

■ Hunting should be restricted to birds that are numerous and will actually be eaten (ex. mallards, Canadian 

geese) (1 comment)

■ Grown grain instead of grass as it attracts more waterfowl (1 comment)

■ Everyone pays (an) equal share for uses (1 comment)

■ Managing access to foot or boat traffic is needed, but closing areas to trespass is wrong (1 comment)

■ Stop buying up public lands (1 comment)

■ Trails have improved greatly over the past 10 years (1 comment)

■ Improve the website and keep it updated at least every 3 months (1 comment)

Recreation, Education, and Access 

1. Are any of the current activities, or the current levels of use on the refuge a concern to you? 

■ Would like to see increased hunting opportunities on the refuge (2 comments)

■ The refuge should manage short grass habitat with cattle, with grazing only allowed during the right time 

of year to provide geese with the most feed possible (1 comment)

■ To be consistent with other refuges you should allow at least 3 hunt days per week (1 comment)

■ Need more use days (1 comment)

■ Free bird watching in inequitable, other refuges charge for day use (1 comment)

■ There is not enough duck hunting (1 comment)

■ Hunting of waterfowl should not be allowed on the refuge (1 comment)

■ Hunters should have to declare their harvest at the end of the day, and staff should be trained to know 

what they are looking at (bird identification) (1 comment)

■ Should have a fee for bird watching (1 comment)

2. Do current refuge recreational facilities meet your needs (trails, parking, signs, etc.)? Please 

explain. 

■ There should be more trails for non-hunters (1 comment)

■ Would like to see a public boat ramp at the parking lot/dock off Hookton Road, to allow hunter access to 

Hookton Slough and Teal Island (1 comment)

■ Trails should be longer (1 comment)

■ There are too many signs and closed areas (1 comment)

■ Yes (2 comments)

■ Yes, but add funding for regular maintenance of the Hookton Road and parking area, particularly the 

entrance to Hookton parking (1 comment)

■ Yes, but more trails would be nice (1 comment)

3. Are any of the following visitor service and public use issues a major concern to you on the refuge? 

If so, please check (or number in priority order) your top choices.

■ Access or trespass (4 comments)

■ Illegal hunting (3 comments)

■ Lack of wildlife related visitor services (ex. education, information, hunting) (3 comments)

■ Cultural/historic resource preservation (ex. maintain barn at HQ) (2 comments)

■ Lack of wildlife related visitor services on the refuge (2 comments)

■ Possible conflicts between public uses/facilities and wildlife/habitat values (1 comment)

■ Walkers scaring birds (1 comment)

■ Bird watchers and the general public should pay or buy some type of pass or bird stamp, or should have a 

fishing license (1 comment)
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 M-15

4. Please indicate here any additional comments on recreation, education, and public access. 

■ Hunting should be allowed in Hookton Slough/Teal Island and Mad River Slough 7 days per week to be 

consistent with CDFG code (2 comments)

■ Dog walking should not be banned (1 comment)

■ Do not block public views of the North Fields of the Salmon Creek Unit, so that people (driving by) can 

see deer and birds and understand that the land is a refuge (1 comment)

■ Would like to see a newsletter or website that would explain projects ongoing at the refuge (e.g., Aleutian 

cackling geese grass work, Salmon Creek project, etc.) (1 comment)

■ Need more of it (1 comment)

■ Manage Salmon Creek to increase hunter opportunities (1 comment)

■ CDFG hunting codes are adequate and the Federal government should not bring in new laws (1 comment) 

■ Should encourage more hunting (1 comment)

5. Castle Rock NWR is not currently open to public visitation, but are there any Visitor Services that 

you feel should be provided nearby?

■ Public visitation should be limited on the refuge (1 comment)

■ This is a good idea and should be left untouched (1 comment)

■ Open it to hunting (1 comment)

■ Content with it remaining a true refuge for seabirds (1 comment)

■ Set up a live feed from Castle Rock to the internet webcam so that people can observe the birds (1 

comment)

For public comments received on the January 2009 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment, see Appendix R.

Appendix N: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex History

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 N-1

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex History

1969 Humboldt Bay NWR proposed. 

1971 Humboldt Bay NWR established. 

1974 Humboldt Bay NWR added to San Francisco Bay NWR Complex.

1974 The Nature Conservancy (TNC) purchases easement on Lanphere Dunes.

1979 FWS purchases Castle Rock from TNC to establish Castle Rock NWR. 

1982 Friends of the Dunes (FOD) established.

1985–1988 Lanphere Dunes expansion and office built.

1988 FWS purchases McBride Ranch (now Salmon Creek Unit); triples Refuge acreage.

1989 Humboldt Bay NWR Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (EA) approved.

1993 Humboldt Bay NWR excavates western most portion of historic Salmon Creek channel.

1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act clarifies refuge mission.

1997 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex separates from San Francisco Bay NWR Complex management. 

1997 TNC donates Lanphere Dunes to Humboldt Bay NWR Complex.

2001 Added Deputy Project Leader position; Refuge Manager Richard J. Guadagno killed on Flight 93 on 

9/11/01.

2002 Refuge Office and Visitor Center construction completed, Aleutian cackling geese begin staging in 

Humboldt County grasslands in large numbers.

2002 Richard J. Guadagno Headquarters and Visitor Center dedicated in May.

2003 Interpretive dioramas in Visitor Center unveiled during Refuge Centennial Celebration.

2004 Moved old hunt cabin/check-station near McBride Barn and built new hunt check-station and 

bunkhouse.

2005 The 160-acre Ma-le’l Dunes Unit (aka. former Buggy Club), added to Refuge with assistance of 

California Coastal Conservancy and Center for Natural Lands Management.

2005 Formation of Friends of Humboldt Bay NWR to support the entire Refuge. 

2006 Lower Salmon Creek Delta Restoration begins with assistance of Pacific Coast Wetlands Wildlife and 

Restoration Association, CDFG, and Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (AFWO). Severe winter storm 

damages perimeter dike on Salmon Creek Unit, leading to decision to armor dike with riprap to 

protect public and private property.

2006 Remote cameras deployed at Castle Rock NWR in collaborative project with Humboldt State 

University, AFWO, National Park Service, and US Coast Guard to gather baseline data on nesting 

seabirds.

2006 Begin data gathering process including vegetation mapping of entire refuge, begin pilot study on 

methods of Spartina densiflora control.

2007 Lanphere Dunes Unit office expanded, new tide gate installed in Salmon Creek Overflow.

2008 Replace Salmon Creek tide gate.

Appendix O: List of Preparers

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 O-1

Dominic Bachman: previously with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humboldt Bay NWRC

David Bergendorf: previously with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region

Sean Brophy: Visitor Services Assistant, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humboldt Bay NWRC

Patricia M. Clifford: Natural Resource Specialist, previously with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Humboldt Bay NWRC

Deborah Jaques: Consultant, Pacific Eco Logic

Emily Jennings: previously with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humboldt Bay NWRC

Amy Kocourek: previously with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humboldt Bay NWRC

Steven F. Lewis: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humboldt Bay NWRC

Alexandra Morton: Natural Resource Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region 

Eric T. Nelson: Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humboldt Bay NWRC

Sandy Osborn: National Wildlife Refuge Planner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region 

Scott Owen: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humboldt Bay NWRC

Andrea Pickart: Ecologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humboldt Bay NWRC

Anan Raymond: Regional Archaeologist Region 1+Region 8 Cultural Resource Team, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 1 

Richard Smith: Natural Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region 

Shannon Smith: Deputy Refuge Manager, previously with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humboldt Bay 

NWRC

List of Preparers

Appendix P: Coastal Flood Hazard Maps

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 P-1

Arcata

Eureka

Myrtletown

Arcata

Blue Lake

Cutten

Pine Hills

¬«255

£¤101 £¤101

124°0’0"W

124°0’0"W

124°2’30"W

124°2’30"W

124°5’0"W

124°5’0"W

124°7’30"W

124°7’30"W

40°52’30"N

40°52’30"N

40°50’0"N

40°50’0"N

40°47’30"N

40°47’30"N

40°45’0"N

40°45’0"N

405000mE

405000mE

06

06

07

07

08

08

09

09

410

410

11

11

12

12

13

13

14

14

15

15

416000mE

416000mE

4512000mN4512000mN

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

4520 4520

21 21

22 22

23 23

24 24 4525000mN 4525000mN

This information is being made available for informational purposes only. Users of this information

agree by their use to hold blameless the State of California, and its respective officers, employees,

agents, contractors, and subcontractors for any liability associated with its use in any form. This work

shall not be used to assess actual coastal hazards, insurance requirements, or property values 

and specifically shall not be used in lieu of Flood Insurance Studies and Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

Data Sources: US Geological Survey, Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric

 Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), Coastal ServicesCenter (CSC), Scripps Institution 

of Oceanography, Phillip WIlliams and Associates, Inc. (PWA), US Department of Agriculture (USDA),

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Imagery from ESRI and i-cubed.

Created by the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California, 2009.

California Flood Risk: Sea Level Rise

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 0.5 1 2 3

Kilometers

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

8:

Tyee City

Arcata North

not printed

Eureka

not printed

Fields Landing

not printed

not printed 6 7 8

1 2 3

4 5

§ ̈¦

£¤

")

¬«

Interstate

US Highway

State Highway

County Highway

Grid coordinates: 

 UTM Zone 10N meters

Adjoining Quadrangles:

Map extents match USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps

Project funded by the California Energy Commission’s 

Public Interest Energy Research Program, CalTrans,

and the California Ocean Protection Council

Arcata South Quadrangle

Current Coastal Base Flood

 (approximate 100-year flood extent)

Sea Level Rise Scenario

 Coastal Base Flood + 1.4 meters (55 inches)

Landward Limit of 

 Erosion High Hazard Zone in 2100

NAD83 GCS degrees
P-2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX P

124°15’0"W

124°15’0"W

124°17’30"W

124°17’30"W

124°20’0"W

124°20’0"W

124°22’30"W

124°22’30"W

40°45’0"N

40°45’0"N

40°42’30"N

40°42’30"N

40°40’0"N

40°40’0"N

40°37’30"N

40°37’30"N

383000mE

383000mE

84

84

85

85

86

86

87

87

88

88

89

89

390

390

91

91

92

92

93

93

94

94

395000mE

395000mE

4498000mN4498000mN

99 99

4500 4500

01 01

02 02

03 03

04 04

05 05

06 06

07 07

08 08

09 09

4510 4510

11 11 4512000mN 4512000mN

This information is being made available for informational purposes only. Users of this information

agree by their use to hold blameless the State of California, and its respective officers, employees,

agents, contractors, and subcontractors for any liability associated with its use in any form. This work

shall not be used to assess actual coastal hazards, insurance requirements, or property values 

and specifically shall not be used in lieu of Flood Insurance Studies and Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

Data Sources: US Geological Survey, Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric

 Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), Coastal ServicesCenter (CSC), Scripps Institution 

of Oceanography, Phillip WIlliams and Associates, Inc. (PWA), US Department of Agriculture (USDA),

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Imagery from ESRI and i-cubed.

Created by the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California, 2009.

California Flood Risk: Sea Level Rise

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 0.5 1 2 3

Kilometers

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

8:

not printed

not printed

Eureka

not printed

Fields Landing

Ferndale OE W

Ferndale

Fortuna 6 7 8

1 2 3

4 5

§ ̈¦

£¤

")

¬«

Interstate

US Highway

State Highway

County Highway

Grid coordinates: 

 UTM Zone 10N meters

Adjoining Quadrangles:

Map extents match USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps

Project funded by the California Energy Commission’s 

Public Interest Energy Research Program, CalTrans,

and the California Ocean Protection Council

Cannibal Island Quadrangle

Current Coastal Base Flood

 (approximate 100-year flood extent)

Sea Level Rise Scenario

 Coastal Base Flood + 1.4 meters (55 inches)

Landward Limit of 

 Erosion High Hazard Zone in 2100

NAD83 GCS degrees
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 P-3

Bertsch-Oceanview

Crescent City

Crescent City North

Crescent City

¬«197

£¤101

£¤199

124°7’30"W

124°7’30"W

124°10’0"W

124°10’0"W

124°12’30"W

124°12’30"W

124°15’0"W

124°15’0"W

41°52’30"N

41°52’30"N

41°50’0"N

41°50’0"N

41°47’30"N

41°47’30"N

41°45’0"N

41°45’0"N

396000mE

396000mE

97

97

98

98

99

99

400

400

01

01

02

02

03

03

04

04

05

05

06

06

407000mE

407000mE

4623000mN4623000mN

24 24

25 25

26 26

27 27

28 28

29 29

4630 4630

31 31

32 32

33 33

34 34

35 35 4636000mN 4636000mN

This information is being made available for informational purposes only. Users of this information

agree by their use to hold blameless the State of California, and its respective officers, employees,

agents, contractors, and subcontractors for any liability associated with its use in any form. This work

shall not be used to assess actual coastal hazards, insurance requirements, or property values 

and specifically shall not be used in lieu of Flood Insurance Studies and Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

Data Sources: US Geological Survey, Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric

 Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), Coastal ServicesCenter (CSC), Scripps Institution 

of Oceanography, Phillip WIlliams and Associates, Inc. (PWA), US Department of Agriculture (USDA),

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Imagery from ESRI and i-cubed.

Created by the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California, 2009.

California Flood Risk: Sea Level Rise

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 0.5 1 2 3

Kilometers

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

8:

not printed

Smith River

not printed

Crescent City OE W

Hiouchi

not printed

Sister Rocks

Childs Hill 6 7 8

1 2 3

4 5

§ ̈¦

£¤

")

¬«

Interstate

US Highway

State Highway

County Highway

Grid coordinates: 

 UTM Zone 10N meters

Adjoining Quadrangles:

Map extents match USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps

Project funded by the California Energy Commission’s 

Public Interest Energy Research Program, CalTrans,

and the California Ocean Protection Council

Crescent City Quadrangle

Current Coastal Base Flood

 (approximate 100-year flood extent)

Sea Level Rise Scenario

 Coastal Base Flood + 1.4 meters (55 inches)

Landward Limit of 

 Erosion High Hazard Zone in 2100

NAD83 GCS degrees
P-4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX P

Eureka

Pine Hills

Cutten

Myrtletown

Bayview

Arcata

Humboldt Hill Humboldt Hill

¬«255

£¤101

124°7’30"W

124°7’30"W

124°10’0"W

124°10’0"W

124°12’30"W

124°12’30"W

124°15’0"W

124°15’0"W

40°52’30"N

40°52’30"N

40°50’0"N

40°50’0"N

40°47’30"N

40°47’30"N

40°45’0"N

40°45’0"N

394000mE

394000mE

95

95

96

96

97

97

98

98

99

99

400

400

01

01

02

02

03

03

04

04

405000mE

405000mE

4512000mN4512000mN

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

4520 4520

21 21

22 22

23 23

24 24 4525000mN 4525000mN

This information is being made available for informational purposes only. Users of this information

agree by their use to hold blameless the State of California, and its respective officers, employees,

agents, contractors, and subcontractors for any liability associated with its use in any form. This work

shall not be used to assess actual coastal hazards, insurance requirements, or property values 

and specifically shall not be used in lieu of Flood Insurance Studies and Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

Data Sources: US Geological Survey, Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric

 Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), Coastal ServicesCenter (CSC), Scripps Institution 

of Oceanography, Phillip WIlliams and Associates, Inc. (PWA), US Department of Agriculture (USDA),

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Imagery from ESRI and i-cubed.

Created by the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California, 2009.

California Flood Risk: Sea Level Rise

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 0.5 1 2 3

Kilometers

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

8:

not printed

Tyee City

Arcata North

not printed

Arcata South

Cannibal Island

Fields Landing

not printed 6 7 8

1 2 3

4 5

§ ̈¦

£¤

")

¬«

Interstate

US Highway

State Highway

County Highway

Grid coordinates: 

 UTM Zone 10N meters

Adjoining Quadrangles:

Map extents match USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps

Project funded by the California Energy Commission’s 

Public Interest Energy Research Program, CalTrans,

and the California Ocean Protection Council

Eureka Quadrangle

Current Coastal Base Flood

 (approximate 100-year flood extent)

Sea Level Rise Scenario

 Coastal Base Flood + 1.4 meters (55 inches)

Landward Limit of 

 Erosion High Hazard Zone in 2100

NAD83 GCS degrees
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 P-5

Pine Hills

Humboldt Hill Humboldt Hill

Eureka

Eureka

£¤101

£¤101

124°7’30"W

124°7’30"W

124°10’0"W

124°10’0"W

124°12’30"W

124°12’30"W

124°15’0"W

124°15’0"W

40°45’0"N

40°45’0"N

40°42’30"N

40°42’30"N

40°40’0"N

40°40’0"N

40°37’30"N

40°37’30"N

394000mE

394000mE

95

95

96

96

97

97

98

98

99

99

400

400

01

01

02

02

03

03

04

04

405000mE

405000mE

4498000mN4498000mN

99 99

4500 4500

01 01

02 02

03 03

04 04

05 05

06 06

07 07

08 08

09 09

4510 4510

11 11 4512000mN 4512000mN

This information is being made available for informational purposes only. Users of this information

agree by their use to hold blameless the State of California, and its respective officers, employees,

agents, contractors, and subcontractors for any liability associated with its use in any form. This work

shall not be used to assess actual coastal hazards, insurance requirements, or property values 

and specifically shall not be used in lieu of Flood Insurance Studies and Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

Data Sources: US Geological Survey, Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric

 Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), Coastal ServicesCenter (CSC), Scripps Institution 

of Oceanography, Phillip WIlliams and Associates, Inc. (PWA), US Department of Agriculture (USDA),

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Imagery from ESRI and i-cubed.

Created by the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California, 2009.

California Flood Risk: Sea Level Rise

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 0.5 1 2 3

Kilometers

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

8:

not printed

Eureka

Arcata South

Cannibal Island

not printed

Ferndale

Fortuna

not printed 6 7 8

1 2 3

4 5

§ ̈¦

£¤

")

¬«

Interstate

US Highway

State Highway

County Highway

Grid coordinates: 

 UTM Zone 10N meters

Adjoining Quadrangles:

Map extents match USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps

Project funded by the California Energy Commission’s 

Public Interest Energy Research Program, CalTrans,

and the California Ocean Protection Council

Fields Landing Quadrangle

Current Coastal Base Flood

 (approximate 100-year flood extent)

Sea Level Rise Scenario

 Coastal Base Flood + 1.4 meters (55 inches)

Landward Limit of 

 Erosion High Hazard Zone in 2100

NAD83 GCS degrees
P-6 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX P

McKinleyville

124°7’30"W

124°7’30"W

124°10’0"W

124°10’0"W

124°12’30"W

124°12’30"W

124°15’0"W

124°15’0"W

41°0’0"N

41°0’0"N

40°57’30"N

40°57’30"N

40°55’0"N

40°55’0"N

40°52’30"N

40°52’30"N

394000mE

394000mE

95

95

96

96

97

97

98

98

99

99

400

400

01

01

02

02

03

03

04

04

05

05

406000mE

406000mE

4526000mN4526000mN

27 27

28 28

29 29

4530 4530

31 31

32 32

33 33

34 34

35 35

36 36

37 37

38 38 4539000mN 4539000mN

This information is being made available for informational purposes only. Users of this information

agree by their use to hold blameless the State of California, and its respective officers, employees,

agents, contractors, and subcontractors for any liability associated with its use in any form. This work

shall not be used to assess actual coastal hazards, insurance requirements, or property values 

and specifically shall not be used in lieu of Flood Insurance Studies and Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

Data Sources: US Geological Survey, Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric

 Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), Coastal ServicesCenter (CSC), Scripps Institution 

of Oceanography, Phillip WIlliams and Associates, Inc. (PWA), US Department of Agriculture (USDA),

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Imagery from ESRI and i-cubed.

Created by the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California, 2009.

California Flood Risk: Sea Level Rise

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 0.5 1 2 3

Kilometers

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

6:

7:

8:

not printed

Trinidad

Crannell

not printed

Arcata North

not printed

Eureka

Arcata South 6 7 8

1 2 3

4 5

§ ̈¦

£¤

")

¬«

Interstate

US Highway

State Highway

County Highway

Grid coordinates: 

 UTM Zone 10N meters

Adjoining Quadrangles:

Map extents match USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps

Project funded by the California Energy Commission’s 

Public Interest Energy Research Program, CalTrans,

and the California Ocean Protection Council

Tyee City Quadrangle

Current Coastal Base Flood

 (approximate 100-year flood extent)

Sea Level Rise Scenario

 Coastal Base Flood + 1.4 meters (55 inches)

Landward Limit of 

 Erosion High Hazard Zone in 2100

NAD83 GCS degrees
Appendix Q: Compliance with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act 

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 Q-1
Q-2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX Q
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 Q-3
Q-4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX Q
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 Q-5
Q-6 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX Q
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 Q-7
Q-8 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX Q
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 Q-9
Q-10 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX Q
Appendix R: Responses to Comments on the January 2009 Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 R-1

Responses to Comments on the January 2009 Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment

1.0 Introduction

This appendix contains a detailed summary of all comments received in response to the Humboldt Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

(Draft CCP/EA) during the 45-day public comment period. Public comments on the Draft CCP/EA were 

accepted from February 6, 2009, through March 23, 2009.

All comments were reviewed and organized to facilitate an objective analysis, management, and 

presentation of the comments (see section 2.0 of this appendix). For the purposes of this appendix, the 

word “letter” is generally used throughout this appendix to refer to any comment received, whether by 

letter, facsimile, electronic mail, comment sheet, or verbally. A database was created to help analyze the 

subject matter and extent of the range of comments received. Responses by the Refuge management 

are included in section 3.0. The names and affiliations of all people who commented are listed in section 

4.0. An explanation and summary of the changes made between the draft and the final versions of the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment is presented in section 5.0. In cases 

where a letter indicated a minor typographical or editorial error in the Draft CCP/EA, the change was made 

in the final CCP/EA, but no response is included in this summary. 

2.0 Quantitative Analysis of Comments Received

2.1 Summary of Comments Received on the Draft CCP/EA and the Response Process

The Service received a total of 35 comment letters (via letter, facsimile, e-mail, comment card) on the Draft 

CCP/EA during the comment period.

2.1.1 Public Meetings

To facilitate public review and comment on the Draft CCP/EA, the Refuge hosted three public meetings 

held on March 3, 4 and 5, 2009, in Humboldt and Del Norte counties to receive public comment on the 

Draft CCP/EA (see Table S-1). Refuge and Regional Planning staff made presentations and provided 

time for questions and comments at each of the meetings. Maps showing the various refuge management 

alternatives were also displayed in the meeting room to facilitate dialogue. Paper and electronic copies 

(CDs) of the Draft CCP/EA were also available for the public to review and take with them. 

At the meetings, the public was invited to provide comments on the content of the Draft CCP/EA. 

Comment sheets were distributed and paper flip charts were provided to record comments. The Service 

encouraged members of the public attending the meetings to submit written comments by the close 

of the comment period, March 23, 2009. The public meetings were attended by Refuge and Pacific 

Southwest Region staff, a state agency representative, representatives of non-governmental or non-profit 

organizations, students from the nearby university, and other members of the general public. Meetings 

were held as shown in Table R-1.
R-2 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX R

Table R-1. Date, Location and Attendance at Public Meetings on the Draft CCP/EA

Date Location Attendance

March 3, 2009, 5:00pm Loleta, California 13

March 4, 2009, 3:30pm Crescent City, California 5

March 5, 2009, 11:00am Loleta, California 2

2.1.2 Affiliations

Table R-2 provides a summary of the affiliations of those who commented on the Draft CCP/EA. Names 

and affiliations of the commenters are listed in section 4.0. Many of the comments received had letterhead 

and signatures from various agencies, organizations, and businesses; however, when the entity was not 

specifically represented in the comment, the comment was left in the general public affiliation type.

Table R-2. Commenter Affiliation

Affiliation Type Number Of Letters Received

State Agencies 7

Local Agencies 1

Organizations 12

General Public 14*

TOTAL 34

* One commenter submitted two separate comment forms.

2.1.3 Comment Media

Comments were received in a variety of formats during this process, including letters (and postcards), 

e-mails, facsimiles (faxes), and comment cards distributed by refuge staff (primarily at public meetings) to 

facilitate the comment process. Comments or questions recorded during the three public meetings that were 

pertinent to the Draft CCP/EA have also been included in this summary. During the comment period, the 

Draft CCP/EA was available for review at the Refuge Complex’s Richard J. Guadagno Headquarters and 

Visitor Center as well as at the following local libraries: Arcata Library, College of the Redwoods Library, 

Del Norte County Library, Fortuna Library, and Humboldt County Library, Humboldt Sate University 

Library. The Draft CCP/EA was also available at the Service’s Conservation Library in Shepherdstown, 

West Virginia.

The distribution of comment media type is summarized below in Table R-3. If an individual submitted a 

comment letter using more than one type media, then it was counted as a single entry in Table R-3. For 

example, if an individual e-mailed a comment letter and sent the same letter via fax, it was counted as one 

entry in this analysis. In one case, one commenter submitted two separate comment forms. The Refuge 

management considered all comments received as part of the decision-making process.

Table R-3. Type of Comment Media Used 

Type of Media Number Received

Letter 5

E-mail 22

Facsimile (fax) 2

Comment form 6*

TOTAL 35

* One commenter submitted two separate comment forms.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 R-3

2.2 Quantitative Summary of Comments Received

Section 3.0 of this Appendix presents a summary of specific comments received, followed by the Service’s 

responses. However, it is first useful to present a general summary of the nature of comments received, 

based on issue type. The information presented in this section includes a relatively quantitative analysis 

of the information received and analyzed. Comments were identified within the letters, e-mail, facsimiles 

(fax), comment forms, and flip chart comments. If an individual made the same comment more than once 

or in more than one type of media, it was counted as one comment in this analysis. Refuge staff have read 

and reviewed every letter received during the comment process and the information contained in those 

comments was used to help develop the CCP/Final EA and refine the Preferred Alternative.

Table R-4 contains a list of issues or comment categories that were specifically mentioned in the comments 

received. It is important to note that comment letters may have contained more than one issue. A single 

comment letter typically included multiple comments on multiple issues. For this analysis, each of these 

comments was placed into one of the comment categories. However, the total number of comments in each 

issue area could vary depending upon how the comment is classified. 

After reviewing the comments, 146 comments were grouped within the comment categories in Table 

R-4. Many of these issues were also identified during the CCP scoping process. Of the 134 comments 

on Humboldt Bay NWR, the most dealt with special status species designations (28 or ~21%). Of the 

28 comments on special status species, 26 comments were from one comment letter; of the 26, 21 of the 

comments were revisions to the species status or information in the appendices, which could have been 

grouped into a single comment. Other issues receiving more than the average number of comments were: 

cultural resources (16 comments) and climate change/sea level rise (11 comments). Of the 12 comments 

about Castle Rock NWR, 4 of the 12 comments dealt with Aleutian cackling geese.

Table R-4. Humboldt Bay NWR Comments Concerning Specific Issues

Comment Category Number of Comments

Biological Resources Management/Habitat

Climate change 11

Water quality 10

Special status species 28

Aleutian cackling geese (ACG) 2

Invasive species management 5

Visitor Services

Hunting-general 8

Hunting-regulations/jurisdiction 7

Hunting-facilities/infrastructure 3

Access 7

Other 2

Cultural Resources

Cultural resources-management 3

Cultural resources-education 2

Cultural resources-coordination 1

Cultural resources-other 12
R-4 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX R

Comment Category Number of Comments

Other

Environmental justice 7

Corrections to CCP 7

Boundary expansion 3

Law enforcement 1

Mosquito abatement 2

Restoration 5

Miscellaneous 8

TOTAL 134

Table R-5. Castle Rock NWR Comments Concerning Specific Issues

Comment Category Number of Comments

Biological Resources Management/Habitat Protection

Aleutian cackling geese (ACG) 4

Wilderness designation 2

Monitoring 2

Corrections to CCP text 1

Special status species 1

Visitor Services – Community Outreach

Environmental education 2

TOTAL 12

3.0 Summary of Comments and Refuge Responses

This section provides a summary of the individual comments received on the Draft CCP/EA, followed by 

the Service’s responses to those comments. To manage and consolidate the responses to the comments, 

the comments were organized into 10 general topic areas (A. through J.), many of which are categories 

identified in Table R-4. Most comments applied to Humboldt Bay NWR (Castle Rock NWR is closed to 

the public). Except for topic area I. Castle Rock NWR, the topic areas apply to Humboldt Bay NWR and 

include:

A. Climate change/sea level rise/boundary expansion

B. Hunting 

C. Access at Jacoby Creek

D. Habitat management

E. Water quality

F. Special status species

G. Cultural resources

H. Environmental justice

I. Castle Rock NWR

J. Miscellaneous

In many cases, the comment text is a quote from a particular letter; in some cases, very similar comments 

were paraphrased to make them more concise. Every effort was made to present all substantive comments 

in this summary. The specific comments presented here are a representative sample of all of the comments 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 R-5

received. A comment that addressed several issues was sometimes grouped into a single topic area, in 

the section to which it was most closely related. Therefore, there is some overlap between topics. The 

Service response is included following the comment or each group of comments if the same response 

applies. Comment number designations (shown in brackets for tracking purposes, e.g., [22]) are used by 

the Service’s to reference the comment to the comment letter received. As presented below by topic area, 

the comment number designations are not consecutive. A copy of the original comments received on the 

Draft CCP/EA is maintained on file at the Service’s Refuge Planning office, Pacific Southwest Region, in 

Sacramento, California. The comment responses have been developed by the Service’s management at the 

Refuge Complex.

A. Climate Change/Sea-Level Rise/Boundary Expansion.

A1

Comment [14,22,5]: Climate change and sea level rise will affect the Service’s management of the refuge 

and refuge boundary expansion. Given the likely rise in sea level, consider expanding the Refuge boundaries 

to accommodate future acquisitions of valuable wetland landscapes. 

Response [14,22,5]: The Service is working with partners to understand the effects of climate change and 

sea level rise on fish, wildlife, and their habitats. We recognize that much of the land within the current 

approved refuge boundary is within the zone of impact for projected sea level rise. In the future, the Refuge 

staff will evaluate opportunities to expand the approved boundary to increase the resilience of wildlife and 

their habitats as they adapt to changes in climate.

A2 

Comment [6,22,47]: The approved boundary of the Lanphere Dunes Unit should be larger. Sea level rise is 

likely to erode some of the existing property and require expansion simply to continue to provide the same 

level of habitat conservation effectiveness. Dunes are projected to erode nearly 600 meters by 2100. The 

current refuge boundary is insufficient for acquiring optimum parcels from willing sellers, to protect lands 

“...at a very high level appropriate to such a public treasure” or to provide appropriate buffers against 

incompatible uses. 

Response [6,22,47]: The Service will continue to seek appropriate lands that would buffer Refuge lands and 

increase the resilience of wildlife and their habitats as they adapt to changes in climate and other stressors.

A3 

Comment [22,45,5]: The Draft CCP/EA fails to address the threats that climate change/sea level rise pose 

to the Complex. In the final CCP, address the cumulative impacts with respect to management and refuge 

boundary expansion, potential habitat loss, harm to sensitive species, and loss of key public recreational 

opportunities.

Response [22,45,5]: Climate change is addressed in sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3, and 3.6.3 of the CCP. CCP 

management strategies 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.4.4-2.4.7, 3.3.3, and 4.1.3 were developed to help address climate 

change. Also, Coastal Flood Hazard Analysis maps were added in a new appendix that shows the extent of 

a sea level rise scenario of base flood elevation plus 1.4 meters. Text references to Appendix P were added 

in the sections on climate change and sea level rise for Humboldt Bay NWR (3.1.2) and Castle Rock NWR 

(3.6.3). See also CCP sections 4.1.1 and 3.6.3. 

Information about how the Service is working with partners to reduce the impacts of climate change on fish, 

wildlife, plants and their habitats can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/ New America 

Foundation’s Climate Policy Program is tracking state climate change action plans. PDF versions of the 

completed plans are available at: http://www.newamerica.net/programs/climate/building_blocks/action_plans 

Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) information can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/home/

climatechange/ 

A reference was also added to the CCP section 3.1.2 to the last link. 
R-6 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX R

While the Service agrees that climate change will affect the refuge resources and management, it would 

be speculative and outside of the scope of this 15-year management plan to describe potential cumulative 

effects of climate change in the CCP beyond the new information and references added to the CCP (see 

responses A1, A2, and A3). The Service will continue to evaluate opportunities to expand the approved 

boundary to increase the resilience of wildlife and their habitats as they adapt to changes in climate and 

other stressors.

A4 

Comment [13]: The Service should look into expanding the refuge boundaries to include future acquisition 

of former tidelands east of Highway 101 in the South Bay. 

Response [13]: The Service will continue to evaluate opportunities to expand the approved boundary to 

increase the resilience of wildlife and their habitats as they adapt to changes in climate and other stressors.

A5

Comment [15]: The Service should consider the effect that the closed Humboldt County landfill on Hookton 

Road has on the refuge and consider acquiring this property.

Response [15]: Comment noted. The Refuge will consider this suggestion. The Refuge has specific 

concerns about contaminant hazards and liability for remediation. Unless the county landfill lands could be 

proven to be completely remediated, the Service would not likely pursue acquisition of that property. See 

also response A4.

A6

Comment [8]: I agree with the policy of the Service obtaining only that “interest” in lands necessary to 

satisfy agency objectives.

Response [8]: Comment noted.

A7

Comment [24]: Climate change and resultant sea level rise must be considered when planning any 

structures on the coast (e.g., Refuge’s environmental center). Until a better understanding is reached...

consider delaying much further development on the refuge.

Response [24]: Comment noted. Climate change is addressed in sections 3.1.2, 4.1.1 and 3.6.3. See also the 

response to comment A3. When more detailed planning of the proposed environmental center begins, its 

location will be determined only after thorough evaluation of sea level rise scenarios and models to ensure 

that it would not be located in an area at risk for flooding due to sea level rise. 

A8

Comment [23]: Additional work is needed to evaluate the costs and values of natural ecosystems [with 

respect to the effects of climate change on natural ecosystems].

Response [23]: Comment noted. The purpose of the EA (Appendix E) is to provide an analysis of the 

environmental effects (beneficial and adverse) of implementing the management actions proposed in the 

CCP. 

A9

Comment [25]: Protecting the inner walls of (at least some) of your dikes seems a worthwhile goal to 

consider]; to be able to increase [salt marsh] habitat behind the dikes.

A10

Comment [26]: The Bay’s eel grass may be affected by sea level rise; it seems important that the Refuge 

should protect this resource. Perhaps after reading “The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California 

Coast”, present owners will wish to offer their land to the Refuge.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 R-7

A11

Comment [28]: I support Alternative C for Table Bluff Unit (TBU) and habitat restoration on White Slough. 

However, plans for restoring to non-saline vegetation on TBU may be futile with sea level rise.

Response [25,26,28]: Comments noted.

B. Hunting.

B1 [39,40,41]

Comment: Install a type of safety ring or throw bag in a box on blinds 3, far 5, and 7 so visitors can pull 

themselves in if stuck [in the mud]. Add a call box at the intersection of Road 3 and the main road or other 

system to identify when blinds are coming in and in case of emergency. Mark shallow areas in the deeper 

sloughs with a T-post. 

Response [39,40,41]: The Service is continually seeking ways to improve safety and appreciates suggestions 

to do so. The Refuge staff has considered this suggestion and plans to devise a throw rope at these 

locations. Text was added to the Waterfowl Hunt Plan. While the Service concurs that a call box or an 

electronic system would be a welcome convenience to hunters, funding is not earmarked for this purpose 

at this time. The Service will consider the feasibility of installing T-posts or other means of safely marking 

shallow areas. 

B2

Comment [4,44]: Hunting is absolutely not appropriate and should not be permitted at or around the Ma-le’l 

Dunes Unit (MDU). Families don’t want to hear gun shots while hiking in the woods. Hikers also oppose 

hunting in this area because pellets from the Mad River Slough channel (where hunting is proposed) might 

reach them while they are participating in non-hunting recreational activities at Ma-le’l Dunes. 

Response [4,44]: There is no hunting proposed in the CCP for the mainland portion of the MDU where 

there are trails. It is possible to hear gunshots from other areas. However, it is highly unlikely that spent 

pellets from the Mad River Slough could fall on hiking trails on the mainland portions of MDU. Hunting has 

historically and legally occurred at Mad River Slough at or below mean higher high water (and is under the 

jurisdiction of CDFG and Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District; see response 73).

B3

Comment [73]: Hunting, per California case law, is also a recognized public trust use of navigable waters, 

and any attempts to regulate it below the high water mark appropriately falls under the State Lands 

Commission or the California Fish and Game Commission’s jurisdiction.

Response [73]: The State has legislatively granted to the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and 

Conservation District (HBHRC District) management of areas within the Refuge boundary that are 

below the elevation of “mean higher high water”, which is 3.15 feet above mean sea level (7.06 feet NGVD). 

Clarifying text has been added to section 4.1.9 of the CCP and Appendices C (Waterfowl Hunt Plan) and 

D (Sport Fishing Plan). A clarifying note was added to all applicable CCP and EA figures (maps) stating, 

“Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service include 

all lands and waters with an elevation greater than “mean higher high water” or 7.06 NGVD. Strategy 

5.4.14 was revised to read “Work with HBHRCD, California State Lands Commission, CDFG, and 

the Department of the Interior’s Solicitor’s Office to pursue a lease or other written agreement for the 

management of over-water hunting in tidelands (including salt marsh, mudflats, and open water) consistent 

with hunting on lands within the Service’s jurisdiction.”

B4

Comment [76,86,95]: The salt marsh islands and exposed mudflat within the slough are actually owned by 

the State of California and controlled under the jurisdiction of HBHRC District and not by the Refuge. 

Therefore, Hookton Slough, including the salt marsh islands and exposed mudflat, is available to hunt 7 

days a week under California Fish & Game Code 3681 and not [the days listed on Appendix C, page C-11]. 

California State Lands Commission indicates that MHHW, elevation of the tide within Hookton Slough 
R-8 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX R

that falls under 7.06 feet, is governed by the HBHRC District. Regarding Appendix C, section 3. Hookton 

Slough Area: Clarify that CCP and the Waterfowl Hunt Plan only pertain to areas of “Hookton Slough” with 

an elevation greater than mean higher high water.

B5

Comment [85]: All maps should clearly depict the HBHRC District’s jurisdictional boundaries. If this can 

not be achieved cartographically on each map, then a footnote should be added which clearly identifies the 

areas for which the CCP applies versus areas managed by the District. Additionally, all text in the CCP 

should be made fully explicit regarding this distinction.” Clarify that the District’s management boundary 

extends to “mean higher high water.” Strategies 1.2.18, 1.5.7, and 1.6.8 were added, which state “Work with 

HBHRCD, California State Lands Commission, and DOI Solicitor’s Office 

to pursue a lease or other written agreement for the management of tidelands (including salt marsh, 

mudflats, and open water) consistent with wildlife habitat restoration on lands within the USFWS’s 

jurisdiction.”

Response [76,86,95,85]: A clarifying note was added to all applicable CCP and EA figures (maps) stating, 

“Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service include all 

lands and waters with an elevation greater than “mean higher high water” or 7.06 NGVD.

B6

Comment [75]: The Draft CCP proposes 25% of the refuge would be open to hunting. Most other NWRs 

allow hunting at a greater percentage, typically near 40%. Thus, we would encourage the Humboldt Bay 

NWR staff to open additional lands to hunting in the future, such as portions of Hookton Slough and White 

Slough. If legitimate safety issues do possibly exist with other users, we would encourage refuge staff to 

implement temporal closures similar to the Salmon Creek Unit or to close some areas to other uses entirely 

on hunt days while allowing such uses on non-hunt days. 

Response [75]: Not all Refuges can support hunting on 40% of the fee title lands. The current and proposed 

management plans balance a number of different public uses in a relatively small area. As described in 

Appendix C: Waterfowl Hunt Plan, section VI., B., public uses on the Refuge, especially the Salmon Creek 

Unit, are zoned both temporally and spatially during the hunt season to avoid conflict and provide public 

safety. Hunt areas on Humboldt Bay NWR are designed with consideration for the small hunt areas, State 

safety constraints, and reducing conflicts with other high priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

recognized by the Refuge Improvement Act. Based on these relatively static factors, the Refuge does not 

anticipate opening additional areas such as the Hookton Slough Unit or White Slough Unit during the 15-

year life of this CCP. Text was added to the rationale for hunting Objective 5.4. Beyond the slight increase 

in hunting opportunities described in the CCP, any further increase in total hunt area on the Refuge is 

unlikely due to the numerous hunting opportunities that already exist around Humboldt Bay, the relatively 

small size of the Refuge, and its proximity to Highway 101 and residential areas.

B7

Comment [30]: I support the removal of hunting in Alternative B.

Response [30]: Comment noted.

B8

Comment [12]: I like the idea of increasing visitor services and would like to see hunt opportunities 

increase; at the very least, these should be maintained at the current level. Hunters in this area depend 

on the hunting opportunities at the refuge. I would rather see an increase in entry fees over a decrease in 

hunting opportunities. Ideas about a yearly permit system/pass, costs were provided.

Response [12]: Comment noted. Alternative A reflects the current level of hunting; Alternative C and 

the CCP reflect a slight increase in hunting (see CCP Objective 5.4) and the EA provides an analysis of 

Alternatives A, B and C.

B9

Comment [72]: I would like...to see the hunting tradition continued for future generations.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 R-9

B10

Comment [146]: Be sure that hunting continues on the Humboldt Bay NWR. In favor of a small increase in 

hunting shown in Alternative C.

B11

Comment [37]: In favor of maintaining historical hunting traditions legally possible.

B12

Comment [74]: We...support the opening of portions of Fernstrom-Root Island to hunting, which will help to 

meet continued local hunter demand for new huntable acreage...we support the inclusions of two separate 

youth hunting days in December and January...”

Comment [27]: I support Waterfowl Hunting Plan B and oppose Plan C, which seems more in harmony with 

[MBCA’s] an inviolate sanctuary.

Response [72,146,37,74,27]: Comments noted.

C. Access at Jacoby Creek

C1

Comment [1]: Regarding vehicle access at Jacoby Creek- Hunters camp alongside the highway prior to the 

season opener and then over-hunt it, negatively impacting the roosting and feeding habits of game and nongame species.

Response [1]: The Refuge acknowledges that illegal parking and camping occur on the Highway 101 and 

railroad rights of way at this location to access Jacoby Creek, especially during hunting season. Camping 

is not allowed on the Refuge. Parking, camping and vehicle access at the Jacoby Creek Unit is prohibited 

without a special use permit. The Service recognizes the desire for vehicle access at Jacoby Creek, but due 

to safety and jurisdictional constraints and regulations, it is not allowed. Sections 4.1.9, 4.1.10, 5.4.5, 5.4.12 

and 5.4.13; and Objective 5.4 for Visitor Services – Hunting address access enforcement. Text was added to 

the CCP under the rationale for Objective 5.4.

C2

Comment [35,87,42,2,3]: Regarding vehicle access at Jacoby Creek. Limiting access to “boat in” users 

will nearly eliminate the recreational use of Jacoby Creek because access by boat is limited during high 

tides. If no vehicular parking and access is provided (effectively closing Jacoby Creek to walk-in access), 

it will severely limit public use of Jacoby Creek. To eliminate walk-in access at Jacoby Creek will leave the 

northeastern part of North Bay without any reasonable access for duck hunters and bird watchers. Suggest 

that the Service work with both CalTrans and the Railroad Authority to enhance public access and allow 

parking at Jacoby Creek. If not allowed, the reasons for such a decision should be clearly stated in the CCP. 

Public access off Highway 101 is needed.

Response [35,87,42,2,3]: The Refuge will look for options to work with other agencies and organizations to 

provide safe and legal access at Jacoby Creek Unit. Currently, access is not safe or legal except by boat or 

special use permit. Text was added to the rationale for Objective 5.4 for Visitor Services - Hunting. See also 

the response to C1.

D. Habitat Management

D1

Comment [9]: Regarding short-grass habitat for wintering Aleutian Cackling Geese (ACG)- Is there a 

system in place to compensate landowners for impacts and does this system identify “key” land parcels? Is 

there a measure of use that could be used to compensate landowners?

Response [9]: There is no compensation system in place; direct compensation for ACG impacts is not 

currently available nor is it foreseen to be within the life of this CCP (15 years). However, an ACG working 
R-10 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX R

group continues to explore best possible options to solve ACG management issues. This information was 

added to the discussion of this issue in chapter 4 of the CCP (section 4.1.3).

D2

Comment [11]: It is essential to improve or maintain the current Aleutian Cackling Goose and Pacific Black 

Brant habitat restoration. I am in favor of Alternative C, (second choice is Alternative A).

Response [11]: Comment noted.

D3

Comment [65]: We believe that the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan should be completed prior to 

circulation of the CCP/EA. Failure to fully analyze the effects to a variety of plants and wildlife species does 

not meet the requirements under [NEPA].

Response [65]: The Service considers an IPM Plan to be a “step-down” (or detailed) plan that effectively 

“tiers” from the CCP. Comment noted.

Strategies 1.4.2 and 3.2.6 include the use of IPM techniques for removal and management of invasive plants. 

In response to comments, additional explanation about the PUP process and analysis of the potential 

effects of herbicides was added to the environmental consequences chapter 4 of the EA, under the resource 

sections for Invasive Species and Environmental Justice. Appendix 1 to the EA, conservation measure #13, 

details the required actions to mitigate for potentially adverse effects. 

D4

Comment [66]: CIBA and its members are opposed to the use of synthetic chemical herbicides [to control 

invasive plants].

Response [66]: Comment noted. Invasive species are widely considered to be the greatest threat to natural 

areas after habitat loss. The Biological Integrity Policy (601 FW 3) specifies that the Refuge System 

manages non-native invasive species by the use of integrated pest management strategies, which can 

include mechanical, chemical, biological, and cultural techniques, as described in the CCP/EA. Pesticide use 

on the Refuge is in strict accordance with all regulations required under Service policy. See also response 

D3.

D5

Comment [67]: Herbicides have the potential to destroy plants that are browse, food, shelter, and nesting 

habitat. Herbicides are also considered to be the greatest contributor to worldwide decline in pollinators. 

Herbicide tolerance has developed in many noxious weed species. In 2000, NMFS 4(d) Rules for Pacific 

Salmon said that concentrations of pesticides may affect salmonid behavior and reproductive success.

Response [67]: Comment noted. See also response D3.

D6

Comment [18]: There is no discussion of invasive dune plants. Yellow bush lupine, European beach grass, 

and ice plant should be discussed here [pages E-11 and E-12]. Continued monitoring is necessary for these 

species. Their removal is discussed on page 42 for Table Bluff Unit; this removal should be common to all 

alternatives.

Response [18]: Information about invasive plant removal on Table Bluff Unit applies to other dune units 

also. Objective 2.1 and strategies for restoring Dune Mat/Foredune Grassland includes removal of yellow 

bush lupine, European beach grass & ice plant (among other activities). Although these plants may not be 

listed by name, wherever “restoration” is planned for the Dune Units it includes work to slow and/or remove 

these and other invasive plants. For example, in the EA, under Goal 2, both action Alternatives B & C 

include restoration (including removal of invasive plants). 

D7

Comment [145]: Why will the Refuge remove all of the eucalyptus at once? Surely they have some habitat 

value.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 R-11

Response [145]: The Refuge would not remove all eucalyptus at once. Mature eucalyptus trees do provide 

over-story structure. However, generally, stands of non-natives have lower habitat value than native plant 

species, as described at the end of section 3.2.4 and in section 4.1.5 in chapter 4 of the CCP. As explained in 

4.1.5, the habitat values that are gained from riparian restoration plantings exceed the structural habitat 

values being lost by removal of the eucalyptus. The Refuge would only remove non-native trees as variable 

staff and funding resources permit, which generally results in a selective removal over several years. 

Clarifying text is added to sections 4.1.5, the rationale for Objective 1.4 in the CCP, and the description of 

Alternatives in the EA. 

D8

Comment [97]: Chapter 5, section 2.3 discusses restoration of 33 acres of dune riparian/swamp habitat. 

What does this entail? Exclusion of exotics? Planting natives?

Response [97]: Restoration includes removal of forest invasive plants (e.g., European beach grass) from 

the dune riparian/swamp and monitoring and treating new occurrences of forest invasive plants from the 

dune riparian swamp. See the descriptions and analysis of Alternatives B & C in the EA (Appendix E). In 

response to comments and to clarify, strategy 2.3.8 was added to chapter 5 of the CCP: “To enhance dune 

riparian/swamp habitat, plant native dune riparian/swamp species where invasive plants were removed or 

gaps in native vegetation exist and are vulnerable to re-infestation by invasives, as appropriate.”

D9

Comment [98]: Chapter 5, section 2.4 proposes restoring a gap in the dune forest. What does this entail? 

Plantings?

Response [98]: Restoration of forest margins includes removal of European beach grass, yellow bush 

lupine, and other invasives; planting with native coniferous forest species as needed; and removing casual 

human trails throughout the forest by scarifying and seeding or planting with native coniferous forest 

species. Clarifying text was added to strategy 2.4.2 in chapter 5 of the CCP. 

D10

Comment [99]: DFG’s support of the habitat modification/restoration projects in Alternative C is limited to 

the general concept of the proposals. The document is lacking clear descriptions of the tradeoffs made when 

converting habitat types. Identify management objectives and special-status species that may be affected. 

Extent of benefit or detriment should be described. Include a footprint of the plan and areas beyond the 

footprint that may be influenced by the action.

Response [99]: The tradeoffs of restoration are described in chapter 4, pages 87-92. Chapter 4 of the CCP 

also describes the area beyond the boundary that may influence, or be influenced by, Refuge management 

activities. Management goals, objectives, and strategies are found in chapter 5 of the CCP. The Plant 

Communities section of the EA describes how existing habitats are being restored. In the Fish and Wildlife 

section of the Draft EA, pages E-59-77 describe how species may be affected by Refuge actions, including 

special status species. The areas affected (the footprint) of these habitat restoration and enhancement areas 

are also shown in the maps found in the back of the EA (at the end of Appendix E). 

D11

Comment [19]: The map on page 32 of the Draft CCP/EA shows 3 islands in Arcata Bay within the Refuge 

boundary, but there is no discussion of how these islands will be managed.

Response [19]: Although these islands in Arcata Bay are within the approved Humboldt Bay NWR 

boundary, these islands are not owned by the Service in fee title. Page 33 of the Draft CCP/EA notes that 

the Sand Islands in northern Humboldt Bay are within the Refuge boundary, although no interest in the 

Island’s lands has been acquired by the Service; the Service does not own the land. These islands are likely 

at elevations below 7.06 NGVD and therefore, under the management of HBHRC District. Three of the low 

elevation islands are man-made of dredge spoil. Because the islands are continually eroding due to wave 

erosion, there are no current plans for the Refuge to acquire or manage these islands. Because they are not 

owned in fee title, no management actions are proposed. Clarifying text was added to the CCP section 3.2.2.
R-12 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX R

D12

Comment [31]: Explain how habitat management shown in Figure E-3 will be achieved.

Response [31]: Figure E-3 shows habitat types on Hookton Slough Unit that are described by management 

strategies 1.3.10, 1.3.12, 1.3.14, 3.1.15, 3.1.19, 3.1.20, and 3.2.2. Rationale and descriptions are provided in 

the rationale sections in chapter 5 of the CCP and in the Features Common to All Alternatives for Humboldt 

Bay NWR section in chapter 2 of the EA.

D13

Comment [143,144]: Will the Refuge do a grazing plan for Humboldt Bay NWR? Do the managers from 

different public agencies coordinate about grassland/pasture management (for example, NRCS and the 

RCD)?

Response [143,144]: The Refuge plans to prepare a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) that includes 

grazing as one tool for land management. The Service expects to complete the HMP within 4 years of 

the approval of the CCP. See also the CCP section 1.6.5 Current Management of Humboldt Bay NWR 

for more on the HMP and agricultural grassland management and chapter 5, Objective 1.3. A working 

group including public agencies, private landowners and ranchers regularly meets to provide a forum for 

coordinating and resolving issues about grassland/pasture management and Aleutian cackling geese. See 

also Figures E-3, E-5 and E-6 in the EA, which show short-grass pasture areas.

E. Water Quality

E1

Comment [43]: Day kayaking is inherently non-polluting when kayakers are suitably educated. Explore 

North Coast would be available to liaison with Humboldt Bay NWR staff and oyster farmers in addressing 

water quality concerns.

Response [43]: When the Refuge coordinates with oyster growers on water quality concerns related to 

non-motorized boating, they will also coordinate with non-motorized boating groups and/or individuals, such 

as kayakers that have expressed an interest. Text was added to strategy 4.1.5 in chapter 5 of the CCP; the 

rationale section under Wildlife Observation and Photography, page B-12, Appendix B; and the descriptions 

of Alternatives B and C in the Final EA.

E2

Comment [89]: Reference should be given (in section 4.1.6) to the agreement by the Service, the State 

Coastal Conservancy, [HBHRC District], oyster farmers and the Health Department to develop an 

increased water sampling plan for the Mad River Slough upon the phased development of the Ma-le’l Dunes 

Public Access Plan.

Response [89]: The agreement referenced in the comment to develop an increased water sampling plan 

was not found in the Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area Public Access Plan (March 2008) (MD 

CMA Public Access Plan). The final Ma-le’l CMA Plan was being revised at the time of this printing and 

is expected to be finalized in the summer of 2009. However, the Plan no longer prioritizes the Mad River 

Slough location for boat access.

E3

Comment [91]: Comparing public use of the area from 1990 to 1994 to current usage is incongruent. No 

public access is currently allowed. The comparison should be made between 1990-1994 usage and the 

expected 8,000 people annually projected in the Ma-le’l Dunes CMA Public Access Plan and the need for a 

proactive approach to water quality protection.

Response [91]: Comment noted. The Service continues to be committed to maintaining water quality 

standards in the Mad River Slough. Clarifying text was added to CCP section 4.1.6, which describes the 

issue. Although non-motorized boat access on Mad River Slough was considered as a part of Alternative 

B in the EA (Water Quality section, Alternative B), it is not a part of the preferred Alternative C, is not 

proposed in the CCP, and Mad River Slough is no longer a prioritized location for boat access in the MD 

CMA Public Access Plan.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 R-13

E4

Comment [92]: Confusion exists about differing boundaries for the refuge units in the Plan [Ma-le’l Dunes 

Cooperative Management Area Public Access Plan]. Produce a map that accurately depicts the Ma-le’l 

Dunes CMA boundaries above mean high water.

Response [92]: Figures were revised to include jurisdictional information. See also responses B3 and B5.

E5

Comment [88]: Shellfish farmers have expressed concern regarding a proposed increase to 8,000 visitors 

per year might have on the quality of the water we grow our oysters in and the subsequent risk to the public 

health. The Health Department will significantly curtail or eliminate shellfish harvesting activities in Mad 

River Slough when the Plan is implemented.

Response [88]: Comment noted. See response E3. 

E6

Comment [127]: [California Department of Public Health’s (CDPH) 2008 comments on MD CMA Public 

Access Plan were submitted as comments on the Draft CCP/EA] “Unpredictable pollution events cannot 

be managed, therefore commercial shellfish growing is not allowed in areas that experience these types of 

potential impacts.” [to water quality]. “Pollution sources in Humboldt Bay can directly impact water quality 

in the commercial shellfish growing areas and affect the classification.” [Installation of a non-motorized 

boat ramp at the Ma-le’l north parking and picnic area...present the following potential non point pollution 

sources: bacterial & viral pathogens; runoff of improperly deposited waste... especially along the banks 

of the Mad River Slough.] “[The kayak and canoe ramp], associated increased boating activity in the 

Mad River Slough and the anticipated increase in visitors to the project location create an unmanageable 

potential source of human pathogens that is not consistent with the current use as an aquaculture site. 

CDPH will be required to take action if [the non-motorized boat ramp] is completed. Regulatory actions 

could include harvest restrictions during periods of peak activity, permanent reclassification of the growing 

area to Prohibited (no shellfish harvesting allowed), or a temporary harvest closure with increased 

microbiological sampling of the certified growing areas until the water and shellfish quality impacts can be 

assessed.”

Response [127]: Comment noted. See response E3.

E7

Comment [48]: I encourage your efforts to promote conservation and good planning for the management 

of wildlife and fish in [the Humboldt Bay NWR]. The founding documents state that oyster culture should 

remain in the North Bay and I think the [the Service] should support that.

Response [48]: Comment noted. The Service is committed to maintaining water quality standards in Mad 

River Slough. See also response E3.

E8

Comment [123]: Presumably minimum dissolved oxygen has increased and maximum temperature has 

decreased with the new tide gates. Clarify by specifying the water quality parameters that have improved 

after installation of the tidegates. This beneficial effect of tidegate replacement is worth reporting.

Response [123]: Water quality data was collected by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) from 

their temperature data probes in Salmon Creek from 2007 and 2008 (before and after the tide gates were 

installed). The water quality data has not yet been fully summarized or analyzed and data continues to be 

collected; however, the Service believes that water quality improved after the installation of the tide gates. 

Upon completion of Phase II of the Salmon Creek Delta Restoration project, PCFWWRA or the Service 

will summarize water quality findings as part of the final report.

E9

Comment [90]: Please elaborate on the water quality monitoring program referenced in Section 1.6.4 [of the 

Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative Management Area Public Access Plan (MD CMA Public Access Plan)].
R-14 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX R

Response [90]: The MD CMA Public Access Plan is separate from the CCP. Please refer to the Ma-le’l 

Dunes Public Access Plan for more detail on the water quality monitoring program, which is expected to be 

finalized in the summer of 2009. See also response E3.

E10

Comment [94]: There is a lack of analysis or discussion of the potential impacts of pentachlorophenol or 

dioxin contamination in the Humboldt Bay region on the resources of the [Humboldt Bay NWR Complex]. 

At least three of the units in the Complex are adjacent to known dioxin and pentachlorophenol sites (Male’l/Lanphere adjacent to Sierra Pacific Industries Mill; Jacoby Creek Unit adjacent to the former Bracut 

Mill location; Indian Island is known to contain dioxin contamination). Include an analysis of what it means 

for the management of the NWR for Humboldt Bay to be listed on the CWA section 303(d) list as being 

impaired for dioxins. Analyze whether these sites contain hazardous materials that would have a negative 

impact upon resources found within the refuges. This possibility may require special management practices 

especially through restoration projects that would involve soil disturbing activities.

Response [94]: The purpose of the EA is to analyze the potential effects of the Refuge management 

alternatives on the environment. The commenter noted known dioxin and pentachlorophenol contamination 

sites; this is part of the existing condition under which the Service is managing the Refuge now; the 

Service will also continue to coordinate with working groups concerned with water quality in the Bay. An 

analysis of the effects of dioxins on natural resources and humans is included in the 2004 National Research 

Council review of a 2003 draft document by EPA titled Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds (Reassessment). Reference to this 

analysis was added to the CCP, chapter 4, 4.1.18.

F. Special Status Species

F1

Comment [120]: To conserve native species such as the northern red-legged frog (DFG: SSC), the plan 

should incorporate a monitoring program that will detect the presence of non-native bullfrog within the 

Humboldt Bay NWR and control/eradicate the species as necessary.

Response [120]: Strategy 3.1.16 was added to Goal 3, Objective 3.1 (page 106), which addresses prevention, 

early detection, and control of invasive plants and animals.

F2

Comment [121]: 

USFWS should monitor juvenile salmonid response to the implementation of Phase II of Salmon Creek 

Delta Restoration Project and coordinate the monitoring with DFG.

Response [121]: Salmon Creek Delta Restoration project strategy 1.1.1 includes species monitoring the 

Refuge will do to document the results and support the adaptive management of Salmon Creek. Also, CDFG 

is conducting on-going monitoring of the Salmon Creek restoration project (contact M. Wallace, CDFG’s 

Eureka office). For the Refuge to also monitor juvenile salmonids seems duplicative so additional monitoring 

is not included at this time.

F3

Comment [124]: Describe or indicate on a map the locations of Ponds 1 and 5 (from surveys of frog 

abnormalities). Clarify what Sendak (2008) was comparing to find “that northern red-legged frog 

abundance was greater in the smaller, permanent pond habitats out in the dune ecosystem.

Response [124]: Figure E-2 was revised to show Ponds 1 and 5. Sendak was comparing natural history 

facets of the species such as differences in relative abundance, movement, and breeding phenology between 

and among permanent and seasonal pond-breeding habitats in the study area. Clarifying text was added to 

the CCP (page 53 of the Draft CCP). 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 R-15

F4

Comment [125]: DFG agrees the pre- and post-construction surveys of amphibians on the Salmon Creek 

Unit are essential to understand the effects of restoration practices on amphibians. Care must be taken to 

maintain northern red-legged frog habitat and avoid creating conditions that encourage bullfrogs.

Response [125]: Strategy 3.1.16 was added to address the comment. 3.1.16 will create a monitoring 

program that will detect the presence of non-native bullfrog and control or abate its adverse effects on 

native species.

F5

Comment [126]: Regarding Strategies for Salmon Creek Delta Restoration, section 1.1.11. For connecting 

Cattail Creek to Salmon Creek, the USFWS should consult with amphibian experts with regard to 

maintaining breeding habitat for the northern red-legged frog and avoiding predation by fish on the frog.

Response [126]: The Refuge has consulted with the USFWS’ Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (AFWO) 

amphibian expert J. Bettaso. Goals of the Salmon Creek Restoration Program include enhancing and 

improving habitat for the Federally listed tidewater goby and salmonids. Further, to address amphibians as 

well, chapter 1 (section 1.6.5, Biological Program) describes the biological programs on the Refuge including 

an ongoing partnership with AFWO and CDFG to monitor lower Salmon Creek and Hookton Slough for 

salmonids, tidewater goby, as well as amphibians. A 5-year amphibian monitoring program is included 

as part of the Salmon Creek Restoration project. Clarifying text was added to chapter 5, strategy 1.1.1. 

Existing/ongoing monitoring was also mentioned on page E-12.

F7

Comment [46,100-104, 106-119,122]: A list of special status species was provided with corrections and 

additions to those special status species designations and their habitats. 

Response [46,100-104,106-119,122]: Corrections and additions to the Appendices I, J, K and L were made as 

applicable.

F8

Comment [105]: Longfin smelt will soon be reclassified from SSC to State Threatened. It has been 

observed in Salmon Creek and in Hookton Slough. 

Response [105]: Comment noted. In chapter 5, the Strategies for Salmon Creek Delta Restoration include 

restoration activities to benefit fish including the longfin smelt and conservation measures to avoid take and 

avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of salmonids, goby, and longfin smelt. Page L-3 was revised to 

note observation of the species in Salmon Creek & Hookton Slough.

F9

Comment [130]: Statement about “similar life histories” of salmon may be incorrect. Mike Wallace’s 

research in south slough indicates 3 life history strategies.

Response [130]: After review of the Wallace reference, the Service concluded that the general statement 

on page 51 that the local salmonids’ life histories were “similar” is a general statement that does not conflict 

with the Wallace or other documentation on strategies for salmon.

G. Cultural Resources.

 

G1

Comment [57,58,59,60]: We support Goal 6 and offer these suggestions to meet the objectives: (1) convene 

bi-annual meetings between Humboldt Bay NWR and their named Wiyot area Tribes to discuss advance 

planning & other issues of concern to Tribes; (2) Accelerate the schedule for Cultural Resources - Education 

(Alternatives B & C), by setting a 5-year goal to develop a cultural resources overview for the [Complex] 

in partnership with the three Wiyot area Tribes; (3) add a new 10-year goal to complete a Management 

Plan for FWS management [of the Humboldt Bay NWR] in partnership with the three Wiyot area Tribes 

[including inventory, evaluation and treatment of at-risk Wiyot cultural places; and (4) Under Cultural 
R-16 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX R

Resources - Education [strategies,] add a reference to the contemporary Wiyot communities and cultural 

activities as part of the effort to develop educational displays for public benefit.

Response [57,58,59,60]: (1) Comment noted; (2) In response to the comment, the Service has accelerated the 

schedule for Objective 6.2 for a cultural resources overview for the Complex; instead of within 10 years, the 

goal is to develop the overview within 5 years; (3) Cultural Resources management strategies 6.1.1-6.1.9 & 

6.2.1-6.2.6 address much of the planning coordination the commenter suggests. The strategies 6.1.3, 6.2.5 & 

6.2.6 were revised to be completed within 10 years instead of 15 and “inventory, evaluation, and treatment” 

of at-risk cultural places was added to the agreement described in 6.1.3; and (4) To address the comment, 

text was added to Cultural Resources Management - Education strategy 6.2.1 to include education about 

contemporary communities. Text was revised to reflect the aforementioned revisions in the CCP under the 

Cultural Resources strategies and in the Final EA Table E-1. 

G2

Comment [50,51]: Draft CCP section 3.4 inadequately characterizes the historic and Native American 

cultural and archaeological settings of the Complex. These units contain hundreds of recorded 

archaeological sites, ethnographic Wiyot places, historic structure, and resources of importance. Within the 

Complex are many sites listed on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Draft 

CCP section 3.4.1 (3rd paragraph) incorrectly cites that Elsasser and Heizer (1964) published on another 

site than CA-HUM-67. Section 3.4.2 (1st paragraph) incorrectly states that there are no listed National 

Register sites in or near the NWR.

Response [50,51]: The Humboldt Bay NWR Cultural Resources section 3.4, including subsections 3.4.1 and 

3.4.2, have been updated and re-written to address the comments and correct the errors.

G3

Comment [52,134]: Conduct a complete records search for the Humboldt Bay Complex, and to compile 

the findings in the confidential database to aid FWS on-going management of and planning for these units. 

Contact the appropriate regional archaeological information center for a record search.

Response [52,134]: The Service conducted a record search as part of the background research for chapter 

3 of the CCP. The Service will conduct an exhaustive record search when it prepares a cultural resource 

overview and management plan upon implementation of the final CCP.

G4

Comment [53,54,55]: 3.4.1 (4th paragraph) seems to include obsolete info only through 1990. Section needs 

to be updated since 1992 amendments to NHPA and 36 CFR 800 & establishment of THPO programs 

by Blue Lake Rancheria, Wiyot Tribe, Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria. It is an incorrect 

suggestion that there are only a couple of places important to contemporary Wiyots within the area of FWS’ 

jurisdiction; and infers that there have been 2 cultural resource investigations since 1918 in south Humboldt 

Bay, which is absolutely false. A more rigorous, updated and comprehensive summary of cultural resources 

setting is needed for multiple reasons. 

Response [53,54,55]: See response to G2.

G5

Comment [135]: If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a 

professional report detailing the findings and recommendations.

Response [135]: The Service has and will continue to conduct cultural resource identification efforts 

including field surveys as necessary for undertakings in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.

G6

Comment [136]: Contact the Native American Heritage Commission for: A Sacred Lands File Check; a list 

of appropriate Native American contacts to assist with the mitigation measures.

Response [136]: See response to G3. The CCP does not constitute an undertaking under NHPA. The CCP 

alone will not fund or implement any specific projects on the ground. The Service will engage Section 106 of 

the NHPA as specific projects come forward.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 R-17

G7

Comment [137]: Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface 

existence. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and 

evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources.

Comment [138]: Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the disposition of 

recovered artifacts, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.

Comment [61,139]: Lead agencies should include provision for discovery of Native American human 

remains in their mitigation plan. Add the directive to establish within 1 year, in consultation with the Wiyot 

area Tribes, an Inadvertent Archaeological Discovery Protocol.

Response [137,138,61,139]: The Service will consult with the affected Tribes when it plans for the 

disposition of artifacts under Service control and recovered from the refuge. To help fulfill CCP Goal 6 

to protect tribal cultural resources at Humboldt Bay NWR, strategy 6.1.14 was added: “Within 1 year, 

consultation will begin with the Wiyot Tribe, Blue Lake Rancheria, and Bear River Band of Rohnerville 

Rancheria, to establish an Archaeological Inadvertent Discovery Protocol.” The Service’s protocol/

policy is to follow the existing law(s). The Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) each 

have a provision for “discovery.” NAGPRA has both “inadvertent discovery” and “intentional discovery.” 

Essentially each law provides the provision to codify tribal consultation procedures in case of a discovery. 

NAGPRA is the most specific.

G8

Comment [56]: The Tribe strongly recommends that establishment of basic cultural resources management 

(CRM) capabilities for the Complex. Because FWS administers lands associated with significant water 

bodies in the Wiyot homeland, it is responsible for complying with NHPA (Section 106 and 110, etc.) [and 

ARPA, NAGPRA, etc.]. It is imperative that FWS secure professional staffing or establish contracts with 

California based CRM professionals to meet its responsibilities in a fair and equitable manner.

Response [56]: Comment noted. The Service’s Region 1 and Region 8 Cultural Resource Team assists the 

Refuges to ensure that the Service meets its responsibilities for complying with NHPA, ARPA, NAGPRA, 

and other applicable laws and Service policies. The Service will engage local cultural resource professionals 

for historic preservation needs as funds and opportunities allow.

H. Environmental Justice.

H1

Comment [62]: The Service says that they will provide Native Americans reasonable access to Service 

managed lands and waters. However, we believe that the use of herbicides is in conflict with the intent 

of the Native American Policy due to the potential for impacts to native plants and wildlife. The use 

of herbicides has the potential to impact Native residents of the region, including basket weavers and 

gatherers whose ancestral lands are currently managed by the Humboldt Bay NWR.

Response [62]: Herbicides are not used in areas where gathering would occur. Pesticide use on the Refuge 

is in strict accordance with all regulations required under Service policy. See also responses H2 and H3. 

H2

Comment [68]: Unreleased study by U.S. EPA’s Region said the average 70-year-old Native American in 

the Pacific Northwest has 50 times the cancer risk of non-Native residents of the region due to high rate 

of fish consumption by tribal people, combined with the high levels of toxic chemicals found in fish tissue. 

Herbicide use has been found to have the potential to contaminate deer meat, another major component of 

the diet of many Tribal people. California quail, common flicker, pileated woodpecker, and Roosevelt elk are 

of importance to Tribal people. The use of herbicides may result in disproportionate exposure to Native 

people due to the use of native species.

Response [68]: Comment noted and analysis was added to the Environmental Justice section in the EA 

(Appendix E) to address the possible disproportionate exposure of Native people to herbicides due to 
R-18 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX R

the use of native species. See also the strategies in chapter 5 of the CCP that call for coordination among 

the Wiyot Tribe, Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, the Blue Lake Rancheria and the Service 

regarding resource management: 6.1.3, 6.1.13, 6.3.2, 6.3.3. See also response H3 regarding the required use 

permit and coordination prior to plant gathering.

H3

Comment [70]: Prior notification of spraying should be available for interested individuals as well as tribes. 

Notification should include maps, planned timing of application and other site-specific information to allow 

basketweavers and gatherers to make use of the available plant resources before spraying. The areas 

sprayed should be posted clearly with cautionary language regarding hunting and gathering of plants or 

animals in sprayed areas, with weatherproof signage in place for a minimum of 3 years. Place signs in roads 

leading into and out of the area.

Response [70]: The purpose of the measures suggested in the comment seems to be to notify interested 

individuals and Tribes of the specifics of proposed pesticide spraying on the Refuge. The Compatibility 

Determination (CD) for Plant Gathering in Appendix F provides for a special use permit to be issued by 

the Refuge for plant gathering and access regulated to ensure protection of critical habitat. One of the 

stipulations of the CD is that the Refuge Manager has the authority to close areas of the Refuge to fulfill 

Refuge purposes or ensure safety. Special use permits and the coordination meetings listed in strategies 

6.1.3, 6.1.13, 6.3.2, and 6.3.3 should ensure that any potential conflicts are avoided.

H4

Comment [69]: We believe that the ability of California Indian Basketweavers to safely gather plants on 

their ancestral territories without fear of being exposed to poisonous chemicals is necessary...to continue 

the traditions important to our cultural heritage.”

Response [69]: Comment noted. See responses to H2 and H3.

H5

Comment [20]: There is no discussion of environmental justice impacts of management of Humboldt Bay 

NWR or for Castle Rock NWR.

Response [20]: See responses to comments H1, H2 and H3 and the revised Environmental Justice analysis 

in the Final EA.

H6

Comment [63]: Use of herbicides has the potential to impact Native residents of the region, including 

basket weavers and gatherers whose ancestral lands are currently managed by the Humboldt Bay NWR. A 

study on the persistence of herbicide residues in plants of importance to California Indians conducted by the 

Department of Pesticide Regulation found that herbicides remain in plant tissues used by California Indian 

basketweavers. 

Response [63]: In response to the comments, additional analysis was added to the Environmental Justice 

section of the EA. The information provided by the commenter was carefully considered, but the Service 

did not find conclusive results in the study cited. The Service is aware of the potential human health risks of 

overexposure to pesticides and the potential for contamination of plants and water by off-site movement of 

herbicides. Pesticide use on the Refuge is in strict accordance with all regulations required under Service 

policy. Additionally, tribal representatives are required to obtain a special use permit from the Refuge staff 

prior to gathering on Refuge lands. For more information, see Appendix F, Compatibility Determination for 

Plant Gathering for Humboldt Bay NWR.

H7

Comment [64]: The use of herbicides to spray unspecified plant species in unspecified locations does not 

provide sufficient information to constitute disclosure and assessment of potential environmental impacts 

that may result from such management. What species are targeted, number of acres to be sprayed, 

methods of spraying, what buffers zones will be maintained along perennial and intermittent stream/seeps/

sprigs, and what alternative methods have been analyzed should be included in the EA. What monitoring 

will be conducted to document impacts and effectiveness of herbicides. We believe that non-chemical 

methods of removal and prescribed burning should always be the preferred methods for noxious weed 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 R-19

management. Secretary of Agriculture Venneman wrote that the definition of IPM makes it very clear that 

pesticide use should be the last resort.

Response [64]: A list of invasive plant species that may be treated and the herbicides used are discussed in 

sections 1.6.5 Invasive Species Management, Goal 3 and Objective 3.1, and Invasive Species Management 

section under the Features Common to all Alternatives section in the EA and under the analysis of each of 

the Alternatives A, B & C in the EA. The effects are analyzed in the section Invasive Species (Integrated 

Pest Management) of the EA. Table E-3 lists “Herbicides that May be Used to Control Invasive Plants on 

Humboldt Bay NWR.” To address the comments, information was added in the Final EA and text was 

added to clarify the Pesticide Use Proposal measures to mitigate potentially adverse effects. Pesticide use 

on the Refuge is in strict accordance with all regulations required under Service policy.

I. Miscellaneous.

I1

Comment [96]: Prepare a consistency determination for the CCP and submit to the California Coastal 

Commission.

Response [96]: A May 20, 2009 letter was sent from the Service to the California Coastal Commission 

(Commission) requesting their concurrence with the Service’s negative determination for the CCP. In the 

Commission’s July 20, 2009 letter, they agreed that with the commitment for additional consistency review 

of future projects, implementation of the CCP will not adversely affect coastal resources. The Commission 

also concurred with the Service’s negative determination made pursuant to 15 CFR 930.35 of the NOAA 

implementing regulations. A new appendix was added, Appendix Q: Compliance with the Federal Coastal 

Zone Management Act. 

I2

Comment [36]: Regarding the water trails on the Humboldt Bay NWR brochure: (1) Teal Island Trail 

would be best designated as a high water trail only to avoid stranding kayakers; (2) consider adding White 

Slough as a water trail.

Response [36]: Comment noted. (1) The Refuge does caution visitors about tide level concerns both in the 

Complex brochure and in person; (2) White Slough - The Refuge has considered adding White Slough to the 

water trail system, but stranding and safety considerations have kept it from being added to the water trail 

map. While taking a kayak to White Slough may be a good option for more experienced boaters, the Refuge 

management thinks that distance and stranding considerations are too great to include it on the Refuge’s 

water trail map. Also, the Refuge does not want to encourage parking and accessing the Refuge at Hwy 

101. See also response C1.

I3

Comment [17]: Can Caltrans and the refuge work together to provide more convenient non-vehicular access 

to the refuge especially the White Slough Unit?

Response [17]: White Slough is not accessible to public and is not expected to be during the life of this CCP 

(15 years). See also response C1. Text was added to the end of CCP section 3.3.2 Humboldt Bay NWR 

Visitor Services that explains that the White Slough Unit is closed to the public.

I4

Comment [29]: Adding wheelchair accessible trails seems worthwhile on Salmon Creek and Hookton 

Slough Units.

I5

Comment [33]: The low contour dike seems a possible solution to Hookton Road being taken out by 

immediate future flooding, but drainage to the west/upstream will require outflow provisions. However, may 

be better to address low spot west of Clough Road by raising the road bed and adding an adequate culvert.

Response [29,33]: Comments noted.
R-20 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX R

I6

Comment [21]: Page F-40 says if mosquito populations exceed human health thresholds that pesticides will 

be considered, but there is no description of the human health threshold.

Response [21]: Information from Humboldt County Health Department about thresholds for chemical 

mosquito spraying and larval control with water management was added to page F-40, Appendix F, 

Compatibility Determination for Mosquito Control on Humboldt Bay NWR.

I7

Comment [32]: The Refuge has been constructive in dealing with drainage issues and mosquitoes.

Response [32]: Comment noted.

I8

Comment [38]: I am concerned about security at refuge access points open to the public. Vehicle break-ins 

have increased locally and are a threat to personal property. I have had to change my use [due to vehicle 

security].

Response [38]: Security at Refuge access points and parking areas is a valid and continuing concern. 

The Refuge staff makes every effort to address these concerns through Refuge staff visibility and a law 

enforcement contract with DOI agencies. Strategies 5.1.15, 5.4.15, and 5.5.8 in the CCP include increasing 

law enforcement on the Refuge by contract or by support from other Service law enforcement and the 

proposed program budget (Table 17 in the CCP) includes a law enforcement agreement with the Bureau of 

Land Management.

I9

Comment [49]: I do not approve of the Southern Pacific Shorebird Conservation Plan’s recommendation 

in Section 1, page 17 recommending to “Prohibit further alteration of tidal flats for oyster culture.” This is 

contrary to available science as shorebirds have been shown to prefer shellfish culture areas over adjacent 

mudflat or eelgrass.

Response [49]: Comment noted. The Southern Pacific Shorebird Conservation Plan was developed 

separately from this Draft CCP/EA. The Draft CCP/EA includes a reference to the plan as a related 

project/plan or study in the same area as the Humboldt Bay NWR Complex. The Draft CCP/EA has no 

bearing on the approval of the Southern Pacific Shorebird Conservation Plan.

I10

Comment [71]: I would like the public to be aware of what the hunter and fishermen and women have done 

to help create and maintain these Wildlife Refuges.

Response [71]: Comment noted. Chapter 5, Strategy 5.2.18 for Visitor Services Environmental Education 

addresses outreach to the public about the historical support hunters and anglers have provide for the 

refuge system and conservation.

I11

Comment [7]: The US Fish and Wildlife Service should assume one of the major roles in the restoration of 

the Bay’s marshlands, should extensive salt marsh restoration become feasible.

Response [7]: Comment noted. Through coordination with and participation in the groups and programs 

listed in section 1.7 of the CCP, the Service has and continues to assume a major role in the Bay’s restoration 

in cooperation with other Federal, Tribal, State, & local agencies; including the Humboldt Bay Harbor 

Recreation and Conservation District in pursuing restoration goals in and around the Bay.

I12

Comment [16]: What are effects of Highway 101 on Salmon Creek and White Slough Units? Does the 

Highway act as a migration barrier? Can the Refuge work with Caltrans to mitigate impacts?
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 R-21

Response [16]: Hwy 101 likely does act as a migration barrier to small animals and large mammals. The 

Refuge does coordinate with California Department of Transportation to attempt to mitigate known adverse 

impacts. Both agencies will continue to look for cost-effective ways to improve conditions for wildlife passage 

in the future. Although a designed wildlife crossing is not an integral part of Highway 101 in this location, 

wildlife crossings are typically designed into and incorporated as a part of planning for future highways. 

J. Castle Rock NWR

J1

Comment [10]: We are concerned that Cassin’s Auklet and Rhinoceros Auklet are in serious decline and 

also concerned about the Leach’s Storm-Petrel and Fork-tailed Storm Petrel. Are these declines related to 

increased Aleutian Goose roosting pressure? To pretend that thousands of roosting geese have no impact 

on any of the 14 nesting species on Castle Rock is disingenuous. Birds migrating to nest on Castle Rock are 

being negatively impacted by thousands of roosting geese. Enormous potential negative impact of the geese 

should have been studied. Until we know the impact, prudent, intelligent science dictates that the geese 

should not be allowed a roosting niche on Castle Rock.

Response [10]: The Service shares these concerns, but there is currently no feasible management option 

to allow the Service to eliminate, deter, or haze geese off of Castle Rock without adversely affecting other 

protected species and their habitat, such as the burrow-nesting seabirds. Text was added to CCP section 

4.1.19 Habitat Management on Castle Rock NWR.

J2

Comment [77]: There are no sand beaches on Castle Rock. The tiny beach that exists is of small cobble (>1 

cm). There is a tiny patch of very small cobble - or pebble sand - on the reef east of the island.

Response [77]: The CCP text was corrected.

J3

Comment [78]: I would strongly recommend installation of acoustic monitoring of seabirds concurrent 

with the video monitoring for: (1) detecting and (2) obtaining some index of abundance of nocturnal burrow 

nesting species without adding any impact. Lack of knowledge of an abundance index could result in 

mismanagement of refuge by allowing, for example, storm petrel and auklet declines due to inadequate soil 

burrow habitat.

Response [78]: The Refuge staff will look for opportunities to implement these ideas in the near future. A 

strategy 1.1.14 was added to incorporate the recommendations in this comment. The budgets proposed in 

Tables 16 and 17 were increased accordingly for both one-time costs and estimated annual cost. 

J4

Comment [79]: Alternative C, 3rd cell in Table E-2: I strongly feel that the ‘5-year survey’ for fauna and 

flora should include an assessment of soils and their use by burrow nesting seabirds; [including sampling 

soil depth, grain size, organic content, etc.] and sampling the study areas for seabird burrow density and 

probable species using them. Without sampling, mismanagement of Refuge could result by allowing, for 

example, storm petrel and auklet declines due to inadequate soil burrow habitat.

Response [79]: The Refuge staff will look for opportunities to implement these ideas in the near future. 

Under Castle Rock NWR Objective 1.1, strategy 1.1.4 was revised to add that research will also evaluate 

quantity, quality, and rate of erosion of soils available for burrow nesting seabirds. In response to the 

comment, the budget proposed in Table 16 was increased to implement strategy 1.1.4, as expanded.

J5

Comment [80]: What is the cost-benefit of a wilderness designation for Castle Rock NWR? What is gained 

in protection as a Wilderness Area in terms of real protection, conservation funding, and improved wildlife 

resources? What is potentially costly in terms of (a) conflicts with commercial and sport fishing adjacent 

to the refuge and (b) will legal conflict arise with airspace use by Crescent City Airport (especially if the 

proposed airport expansion proceeds)?
R-22 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX R

Response [80]: The Federal designation of wilderness on Castle Rock NWR is not evaluated on a costbenefit basis. The Wilderness Act does not mention costs. The wilderness review and inventory follows 

guidelines that result in a conclusion as to whether Castle Rock meets the requirements of wilderness 

designation. As to non-monetary costs versus benefits, having Castle Rock NWR designated as wilderness 

may not result in greater protections because it is already closed to the public, but could be used as a 

filter to screen proposed projects. The Refuge is closed to the public already. The costs and adverse 

effects of designation are not expected to be significant whether it remains without a designation or it is 

recommended for wilderness designation. The Wilderness Act requires that a legislative environmental 

impact statement (EIS) be prepared to analyze the effects of a recommendation for wilderness designation 

on the environment (wildlife habitat and other resources). Clarifying text was added to the EA.

There is no commercial or sport fishing on Castle Rock, and wilderness designation would not alter that. 

Currently, there is no conflict with the Crescent City airport, and although there can be restrictions of 

airspace over some wilderness areas, they are not common and often voluntary. At this time, the Service 

does not expect that the proposed Crescent City airport plans would be in conflict with a recommendation 

for wilderness designation.

J6

Comment [82]: We support the Preferred Alternative C. Wilderness designation would give Castle Rock an 

appropriate level of resource protection.

J7

Comment [83]: Large numbers of Aleutian Geese have impacted habitat on Castle Rock for other species, 

and changed vegetation. Monitoring these impacts and restoring damaged habitat is desirable. Alternative 

C does allow for needed surveys that cannot be accomplished remotely. Alternative C would allow for an 

assessment of restoration actions.

J8

Comment [84]: The remote monitoring cameras that display pictures of the Castle Rock wildlife activity at 

our National and State Redwood Park Headquarters is a valuable public educational tool. And, continued 

participation in our Aleutian Goose Festival and other events are also valuable educational opportunities.

Response [82,83,84]: Comments noted.

J9 

Comment [141]: Comment in favor of hunting ACG near Crescent City.

J10 

Comment [142]: Comment opposed to hunting ACG near Crescent City in late season prior to migration 

north.

Response [141,142]: Comments noted.

J11

Comment [81]: Where are alternatives for environmental education and interpretation? As a restricted 

access and largely inaccessible refuge, Castle Rock NWR realizes its best potential for people in its 

environmental education and interpretation. More and alternative options for expanded programs to this 

end are needed.

Response [81]: The alternatives for environmental education were unintentionally omitted from the table 

of the Draft EA, but were described in the text of the Draft EA. The omission was corrected by adding to 

Table E-2 the description of Goal 2 (as described in chapter 5 of the Draft CCP) and the alternatives for 

Environmental Education and Interpretation (as described in the text on pages E-44 and E-45 of the Draft 

CCP/EA).
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 R-23

4.0 Comment Authors

4.1 State Agencies

Agency Signature

State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Roberts, Terry 

California Department of Fish and Game Lancaster, Dave 

California Department of Fish and Game Stacey, Gary B.

California Department of Public Health Trevena, Eric

California Coastal Commission Simon, Larry

California Native American Heritage Commission Sanchez, Katy

California State Lands Commission Newton, Gail

4.2 Local Agencies

Organization Signature

Humboldt Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District Hull, Dave

4.3 Organizations

Organization Signature 

Blue Lake Rancheria Eidsness, Janet 

California Indian Basketweavers Association Kalt, Jennifer

California Outdoor Heritage Alliance Hennelly, Mark

Coast Seafoods Company Dale, Greg

Crescent Coastal Research Strong, Craig S.

Environmental Protection Information Center Greacen, Scott

Explore North Coast Schrieber, Ed

Friends of Del Norte Cooper, Eileen

Humboldt Bay Oyster Co. Van Herpe, Todd

Humboldt Baykeeper Smith, Michelle D.

North Coast Chapter of California Waterfowl Association Holdner, Jim

UC Davis Sea Grant Office Schlosser, Susan

4.4 General Public

Brandenburg, S. Laird, A.

Cox, R. Mills, J.

Crawford, R. Orr, J.

Forsell, W. Romo, T.

Gartland, J. Schrieber, E.

Kuehn, D. Susich, G.

Kuehner, R. Sway, S.
R-24 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX R

5.0 Summary of Changes

5.1 Changes to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)

This section explains and summarizes the major changes made between the draft and final versions of the 

CCP. 

Chapters 3, 3.1.2, 3.6.3. Regarding sea level rise, references to Appendix P: Coastal Flood Hazard Maps 

were added to the sections addressing climate change.

Chapter 3, 3.1.2. Regarding sea-level rise/climate change, a reference to http://www.fws.gov/home/

cllimatechange/ was added to section 3.1.2.

Chapter 3, 3.2.2. Regarding the North Bay islands within the approved Refuge boundary, clarifying text 

was added to 3.2.2 to explain that they are not owned in fee title by the Service, so no management actions 

are proposed.

Chapter 3, 3.2.5. Regarding Sendak’s research on frogs, clarifying text was added to the amphibians and 

reptiles section. Ponds 1 and 5 were identified on applicable Salmon Creek Unit figures.

Chapter 3, 3.3.2. Regarding White Slough Unit, text was added to section 3.3.2 Humboldt Bay NWR Visitor 

Services to explain that the White Slough Unit is closed to the public.

Chapter 3, 3.4. Regarding Humboldt Bay cultural resources, section 3.4, including subsections 3.4.1 and 

3.4.2 have been updated and replaced. 

Chapter 4, 4.1.1. Regarding sea level rise, references to Appendix P: Coastal Flood Hazard Maps were 

added to the sections addressing climate change.

Chapter 4, 4.1.3. Regarding possible solutions to solve Aleutian cackling geese management issues, text was 

added to section 4.1.3 in the CCP. 

Chapter 4, 4.1.5. Regarding removing eucalyptus and other non-native trees, clarifying text was added to 

section 4.1.5, the rationale for Objective 1.4 in the CCP, and the description of Alternatives in the EA. 

Chapter 4, 4.1.6. Regarding water quality concerns in Mad River Slough, clarifying text was added to 4.1.6 

and text regarding a proposed non-motorized boat launch was removed.

Chapter 4, 4.1.18. Regarding dioxins, reference to an effects analysis was added to 4.1.18.

Chapter 4, 4.1.9. Regarding jurisdiction of tidelands, the State has legislatively granted to the Humboldt 

Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District (HBHRC District) management of areas within the 

Refuge boundary that are below the elevation of “mean higher high water”, which is 3.15 feet above mean 

sea. Clarifying text has been added to sections 4.1.9 of the CCP and all applicable maps (figures). 

Chapter 4, 4.1.19. Regarding infeasibility of deterring geese from Castle Rock, clarifying text was added to 

section 4.1.19 (previously 4.1.18) Habitat Management on Castle Rock NWR.

Chapter 5, 1.1.1. Regarding monitoring on Salmon Creek, text was added to include juvenile salmonids and 

amphibian monitoring in strategy 1.1.1.

Chapter 5, 1.2.8. Regarding wildlife habitat restoration and jurisdiction in tidelands, a new strategy 1.2.8 

was added.

Chapter 5, 1.5.7. Regarding wildlife habitat restoration and jurisdiction in tidelands, a new strategy 1.5.7 

was added. 
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 R-25

Chapter 5, 1.6.8. Regarding wildlife habitat restoration and jurisdiction in tidelands, a new strategy 1.6.8 

was added. 

Chapter 5, 2.3.8. Regarding restoration of dune/riparian swamp habitat, a new strategy 2.3.8 was added 

under Humboldt Bay NWR Goal 2.

Chapter 5, 2.4.2. Regarding restoration of dune forest margins, clarifying text was added to strategy 2.4.2.

Chapter 5, 3.1.16. Regarding protection of the northern red-legged frog from non-native bullfrogs, a new 

strategy 3.1.16 was added under Humboldt Bay NWR Goal 3.

Chapter 5, 5.1.8. Regarding water quality concerns in Mad River Slough, text regarding a proposed nonmotorized boat launch was removed from Objective 5.1 and strategy 5.1.8.

Chapter 5, 5.1.14. Regarding jurisdiction of tidelands, clarifying text was added to Objective 5.4, strategy 

5.4.14 of the CCP.

Chapter 5, 5.1.14. Regarding percentage of fee title lands open to hunting, clarifying text was added to the 

rationale for Objective 5.4 of the CCP.

Chapter 5, 5.1.14. Regarding illegal parking and access at Jacoby Creek, clarifying text was added to the 

rationale for Objective 5.4 of the CCP.

Chapter 5, 6.1.3, 6.2.5, 6.2.6. Regarding cultural resources management timeframes for completion of 

strategies, these strategies were revised to be completed within 10 years (instead of 15 years).

Chapter 5, 6.1.3. Regarding cultural resources management; inventory, evaluation and treatment of at-risk 

cultural places was added to strategy 6.1.3. 

Chapter 5, 6.1.14. Regarding inadvertent discovery, a new strategy 6.1.14 was added under Humboldt Bay 

NWR Goal 6 to begin consultation with the Wiyot Tribe, Blue Lake Rancheria, and Bear River Band of 

Rohnerville Rancheria, to establish an Archaeological Inadvertent Discovery Protocol.

Chapter 5, 6.2. Regarding the timeframe for preparation of a cultural resources overview, this Objective 6.2 

was revised to be completed within 5 years (instead of 10 years).

Chapter 5, 6.2.1. Regarding cultural resources management education, strategy 6.2.1 was revised to include 

education about contemporary communities.

Chapter 5, 1.1.4. Regarding Castle Rock NWR, monitoring strategy 1.1.4 was revised to include evaluation 

of soil erosion (as related to burrow-nesting seabirds) and seabird nesting density.

Chapter 5, 1.1.14. Regarding Castle Rock NWR, a new strategy 1.1.14 was added under Castle Rock NWR 

Goal 1 to improve the acoustic monitoring being done concurrent with the existing video monitoring on 

Castle Rock.

Chapter 6, Table 16. The budget for Castle Rock NWR was increased by $5,000 to fund the revision of 

monitoring strategy 1.1.4 to include evaluation of soil erosion (as related to burrow-nesting seabirds) and 

seabird nesting density.

Chapter 6, Table 16. The budget for Castle Rock NWR was increased by $10,000 for the new strategy 1.1.14 

to improve the acoustic monitoring being done concurrent with the existing video monitoring on Castle 

Rock.
R-26 September 2009 Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

APPENDIX R

5.2 Changes to the Environmental Assessment (EA)

This section explains and summarizes the major changes made between the draft and final versions of the 

Environmental Assessment (Appendix E to the CCP). 

Figures in the EA. Regarding jurisdiction of tidelands, a clarifying note was added to all applicable EA 

figures (maps) stating, “Note: Tide lands and waterways under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service include all lands and waters with an elevation greater than “mean higher high water” or 7.06 

NGVD.”

Figures E-2 in the EA. Regarding Sendak’s research referenced in the CCP, Ponds 1 and 5 were identified 

this map of Salmon Creek Unit.

Chapter 2, Table E-1. Regarding cultural resources, Table E-1 was revised to reflect the changes to 

strategies 6.1.3, 6.2.2, 6.2.5, and 6.2.6.

Chapter 2. Regarding removing eucalyptus and other non-native trees, clarifying text was added to the 

descriptions of Alternatives in the EA. 

Chapter 2. Regarding water quality concerns in Mad River Slough, text was added to the description of 

Alternatives B and C in the EA.

Chapter 4. Regarding pesticide use, additional explanation about the Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) process 

and additional analysis of the potential effects of herbicides was added to the environmental consequences 

chapter 4 of the EA, under the resource sections for Soils, Invasive Species, and Environmental Justice for 

Humboldt Bay NWR.

Chapter 4, Table E-2. Regarding Castle Rock NWR, the omission was corrected by adding the description 

of Goal 2 (as described in the text in chapter 5 of the Draft CCP) and the alternatives for Environmental 

Education and Interpretation (as described in the text on pages E-44 and E-45 of the Draft CCP/EA) to the 

Summary of Alternatives Table E-2. 

Chapter 4. Regarding Castle Rock NWR, an Environmental Justice section was added to the EA.

Chapter 4. Regarding Castle Rock NWR, clarifying text was added to indicate that the timeframe for the 

recommendation for wilderness designation is within 15 years.

5.3 Other Appendices to the CCP

This section explains and summarizes the major changes made between the draft and final versions of the 

Appendices to the CCP, not including Appendix E, which is summarized in 5.2, above. 

Appendix B, Appendix C, Appendix D. Regarding jurisdiction of tide lands, a clarifying note was added 

to figures (maps) in Appendix B (Visitor Services Plan), Appendix C (Waterfowl Hunt Plan), Appendix D 

(Sport Fishing Plan), and all applicable maps (figures) stating, “Note: Tide lands and waterways under the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service include all lands and waters with an elevation greater than 

“mean higher high water” or 7.06 NGVD.

Appendix B: Visitor Services Plan. Regarding water quality concerns in Mad River Slough, text was added 

to the rationale under Wildlife Observations and Photography.

Appendix C: Waterfowl Hunt Plan. Regarding adding a throw rope (as a safety measure) at some of the 

blinds, text was added to section I, about South Bay.

Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations for Mosquito Control on Humboldt Bay NWR. Information 

from Humboldt County Health Department about thresholds for chemical mosquito spraying and larval 

control with water management was added to page F-40.
Humboldt Bay NWR Complex—Comprehensive Conservation Plan September 2009 R-27

Appendix G: Wilderness Review for Humboldt Bay NWR and Castle Rock NWR. The timeframe noted in 

Appendix G was changed from 10 years to 15 years to submit a recommendation for wilderness designation 

and prepare a legislative environmental impact statement that supports the recommendation to be 

consistent with Alternative C in the Draft EA.

Appendix I: Compliance with Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act. Revisions to species 

information were made. The title of the appendix was revised (previously entitled, Section 7 ESA Listed 

Species). Compliance correspondence with US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries Service was 

added.

Appendix J: Plant Lists. Species information was revised.

Appendix K: Wildlife Lists. Species information was revised.

Appendix L. Locally Occurring Special Status Species. Species information was revised.

The following new appendices were added:

Appendix P: Coastal Flood Hazard Maps. Maps show the extent of a sea level rise scenario with a base 

flood elevation plus 1.4 meters of sea level rise.

Appendix Q: Compliance with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Correspondence with the 

California Coastal Commission is included.

Appendix R: Responses to Comments on the January 2009 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment.
Historic U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey topographic sheet of Humboldt Bay

Published in 1870 jN

Scale Unknown
Historic U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey topographic sheet of Humboldt Bay

Published in 1932 j N

Scale Unknown