U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment

December 2009
Vision Statement

“Located near the confluence of the north and south forks of the Pit River, Modoc National 

Wildlife Refuge will conserve, restore, protect, and manage a mosaic of seasonal wetlands, semipermanent wetlands, wet meadows, riparian, and sagebrush-steppe habitats. These habitats will 

provide important resting, feeding, and nesting areas for ducks, geese, and other migratory birds. 

Modoc Refuge’s high- quality habitat will play a key role in the long-term recovery of Central 

Valley greater sandhill cranes. 

As an integral part of the surrounding community, Modoc Refuge will provide high quality 

wildlife-dependent recreation including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, and 

interpretation. The Refuge will continue to be known for its high-quality environmental education 

program offered to generations of students. Visitors will develop a greater understanding and 

appreciation for the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and refuge management 

programs and for the importance of protecting lands for wildlife conservation.”

Disclaimer

CCPs provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives,

and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate

of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially

above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning

and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing

increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Prepared by:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 8

2800 Cottage Way, W-1832

Sacramento, CA 95825

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

PO Box 1610

Alturas, CA 96101

December 2009

-- egional Director, Pacific Southwest Region

Date: J ~ -/ S--o ?

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

have been assessed consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC

4321 et seq.)
- i - 

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ............................................................................. 1

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

2. Purpose of and Need for Plan.................................................................................... 3

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

3.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act..................................... 3

3.2 Appropriate Use Policy ..................................................................................... 4

3.3 Compatibility Policy........................................................................................... 5

3.4 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy.............. 6

4. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................... 6

5. The National Wildlife Refuge System ...................................................................... 7

6. Modoc Refuge .............................................................................................................. 9

6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 9

6.2 Refuge History ................................................................................................... 9

7. Refuge Purposes........................................................................................................10

8. The Refuge Vision.....................................................................................................11

9. Existing and New Partnerships ..............................................................................11

10. Wilderness Review....................................................................................................12

Chapter 2. The Planning Process ..........................................................................................13

1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................13

2. The Planning Process ...............................................................................................13

3. Planning Hierarchy...................................................................................................14

4. The Planning Team...................................................................................................15

5. Pre-Planning ..............................................................................................................16

6. Public Involvement in Planning...............................................................................17

7. Public Outreach .........................................................................................................18

8. Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ......................................................................18

9. Development of the Refuge Vision..........................................................................19

10. Determining the Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies................................. 19

10.1 Goals ..................................................................................................................19

10.2 Refuge Management Goals .............................................................................19

10.3 Objectives, Rationale, and Strategies............................................................20
- ii - 

11. Development of the Refuge Management Alternatives........................................20

11.1 Alternative A: No Action.................................................................................21

11.2 Alternative B: Habitat Emphasis...................................................................21

11.3 Alternative C: Proposed Action......................................................................21

11.4 Alternative D: Visitor Services Emphasis.....................................................22

12. Selection of the Refuge Proposed Action ...............................................................22

13. Plan Implementation................................................................................................. 22

Chapter 3. The Refuge Environment.....................................................................................23

1. Refuge Description ...................................................................................................23

2. Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ...............................................................................23

3. Physical Environment...............................................................................................28

3.1 Climate and Air Quality...................................................................................28

3.2 Water Supply and Water Quality...................................................................30

3.3 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................33

4. Habitat........................................................................................................................33

4.1 Wetlands............................................................................................................36

4.1.1 Seasonal wetlands .................................................................................37

4.1.2 Semi-permanent wetlands....................................................................37

4.1.3 Wet meadows.........................................................................................37

4.2 Riverine .............................................................................................................38

4.3 Reservoir...........................................................................................................38

4.4 Riparian.............................................................................................................39

4.5 Sagebrush-steppe.............................................................................................40

4.6 Croplands ..........................................................................................................40

5. Habitat Management................................................................................................41

5.1 Water Management.........................................................................................41

5.1.1 Seasonal wetlands .................................................................................41

5.1.2 Semi-permanent wetlands....................................................................41

5.1.3 Wet Meadows ........................................................................................41

5.2 Vegetation Management .................................................................................42

5.2.1 Sagebrush-steppe..................................................................................42

5.2.2 Croplands ...............................................................................................42

5.2.3 Haying ....................................................................................................42

5.2.4 Grazing ...................................................................................................43

5.2.5 Prescribed Burning...............................................................................43

5.2.6 Control of Invasive/Non-native Species .............................................45

5.2.7 Wildlife Sanctuary.................................................................................46

6. Fish and Wildlife .......................................................................................................46
- iii - 

6.1 Waterfowl..........................................................................................................47

6.2 Shorebirds.........................................................................................................50

6.3 Waterbirds ........................................................................................................50

6.4 Gulls and Terns ................................................................................................50

6.5 Birds of Prey.....................................................................................................50

6.6 Game Birds .......................................................................................................51

6.7 Other Landbirds...............................................................................................51

6.8 Mammals ...........................................................................................................51

6.9 Amphibians and Reptiles ................................................................................51

6.10 Fish ....................................................................................................................52

6.11 Invertebrates....................................................................................................52

6.12 Threatened and Endangered Species............................................................53

6.12.1 Greater Sandhill Crane ........................................................................53

6.12.2 Western Snowy Plover .........................................................................56

6.12.3 American Peregrine Falcon................................................................. 57

6.12.4 American Bald Eagle............................................................................58

6.12.5 Swainson’s Hawk...................................................................................58

6.12.6 Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo.............................................................59

6.12.7 Willow Flycatcher .................................................................................59

6.12.8 Bank Swallow.........................................................................................60

6.12.9 Modoc Sucker ........................................................................................61

6.12.10 Oregon Spotted Frog .......................................................................61

7. Fish and Wildlife Management ................................................................................62

7.1 Migratory Bird Management .........................................................................62

7.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Management....................................62

7.3 Game Management..........................................................................................63

7.4 Monitoring, Research, and Investigations ....................................................63

7.5 Wildlife Disease Monitoring and Treatment ................................................64

8. Visitor Services..........................................................................................................64

8.1 Visitor Services and Management Policy......................................................64

8.2 Trends................................................................................................................64

8.3 Hunting .............................................................................................................67

8.4 Fishing ...............................................................................................................69

8.5 Wildlife Observation and Photography .........................................................69

8.6 Environmental Education...............................................................................70

8.7 Interpretation and Outreach ..........................................................................70

8.8 Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation ..............................................................71

8.9 Youth Program................................................................................................. 72

8.10 Volunteer Program ..........................................................................................72

9. Partnerships ...............................................................................................................73
- iv - 

10. Cooperation with Adjacent Landowners ................................................................73

11. Fire Prevention and Hazard Reduction ................................................................. 74

12. Law Enforcement and Resource Protection..........................................................74

13. Facilities .....................................................................................................................75

14. Safety..........................................................................................................................76

15. Cultural Resources....................................................................................................76

16. Social and Economic Environment .........................................................................77

16.1 Transportation.................................................................................................. 77

16.2 Employment .....................................................................................................77

16.3 Local Economy ................................................................................................. 78

16.4 Land Use and Zoning ......................................................................................79

16.5 Demographics...................................................................................................80

Chapter 4. Planned Refuge Management and Programs.................................................81

1. Overview of Goals, Objectives, and Strategies.......................................................81

2. Organization...............................................................................................................81

3. Refuge Management Goals, Objectives, and Strategies.......................................82

Chapter 5. Management Plan Implementation................................................................107

1. Implementation .......................................................................................................107

2. Funding and Staffing..............................................................................................107

3. Step-Down Management Plan Summaries ..........................................................110

3.1 Hunting Plan...................................................................................................110

3.2 Fishing Plan....................................................................................................110

3.3 Visitor Services Plan......................................................................................112

3.4 Habitat Management Plan............................................................................112

3.5 Integrated Pest Management Plan..............................................................112

3.6 Cultural Resources Overview.......................................................................112

4. Appropriate Use Requirements ............................................................................113

5. Compatibility Determinations ...............................................................................113

6. Compliance Requirements .....................................................................................114

7. Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................................................114

8. Adaptive Management............................................................................................115

9. CCP Plan Amendment and Revision ....................................................................115
- v - 

Glossary .....................................................................................................................................117

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................134

Figures

Figure 1. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge......................................................................... 2

Figure 2. The CCP process ................................................................................................ 14

Figure 3. Hierarchical relationship of refuge goals and objectives to other aspects of 

the planning process........................................................................................... 15

Figure 4. Relationships between Service, System, and other planning efforts ........... 16

Figure 5. Modoc Plateau Region ....................................................................................... 25

Figure 6. Upper Pit River Watershed .............................................................................. 26

Figure 7. Watershed Ecosystem Map............................................................................... 27

Figure 8. Water Management Map of Modoc Refuge..................................................... 32

Figure 10. Habitat Unit Map of Modoc Refuge ................................................................. 35

Figure 11. Waterfowl production 1972-2001....................................................................... 48

Figure 12. Canada goose production 1961-2003................................................................. 48

Figure 13. Migration routes of Central Valley population of greater sandhill cranes .. 55

Figure 14. Greater sandhill crane production at Modoc Refuge, 1979-2003 ................. 56

Figure 15. Visitor services and habitat restoration map .................................................. 83

Figure 16. Modoc Refuge staffing organization chart..................................................... 111

Tables

Table 1. Refuge issues identified through public comment.......................................... 17

Table 2. Refuge Habitat Classifications.......................................................................... 33

Table 3. Periodic wildlife survey Modoc Refuge, 2004.................................................. 49

Table 4. Federal and State listed wildlife species occurring at or near Modoc 

National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................... 54

Table 5. Ranks of three wildlife dependent activities.................................................... 66

Table 6. Hunting summary for Modoc Refuge, 1981-2007* ......................................... 68

Table 7. Estimated initial capital outlay to implement the CCP ............................... 108

Table 8. Estimated annual cost to implement the CCP.............................................. 109
- vi - 

Appendices

Appendix A Environmental Assessment

Appendix B Compatibility Determinations

Appendix C Hunting Plan

Appendix D Fishing Plan

Appendix E Visitor Services Plan

Appendix F Annual Habitat Management Plan

Appendix G Integrated Pest Management Plan

Appendix H Species List

Appendix I Applicable Laws and Executive Orders and Relationships to Federal, State, 

and Local Policies and Plans

Appendix J List of Planning Team Members and Persons Responsible for Preparing 

This Document 

Appendix K Response to Comments

Appendix L Section 7
- vii - 

Acronyms

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

AHMP Annual Habitat Management Plan

AHPA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act

APCD Air Pollution Control District

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act

ATV all terrain vehicle

BIDEH biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice 

BOR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Cal Fire California Fire (also, California Department of Forestry, CDF)

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan

CD Compatibility Determination

CDF California Department of Forestry (also, Cal Fire)

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

cfs Cubic feet per second

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWA California Waterfowl Association

DMBM Division of Migratory Bird Management 

DOI Department of the Interior

DWR Department of Water Resources

EA Environmental Assessment

EE Environmental Education

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FR Federal Register

FTE Full-time Equivalent

FY Fiscal Year

GIS Global Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

IPM Integrated Pest Management

IWJV Intermountain West Joint Venture
- viii - 

MAPS Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NOI Notice of Intent

NOA Notice of Availability

NRCS U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service

NWR National Wildlife Refuge (also, Refuge)

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System (also, Refuge System)

PRBO Point Reyes Bird Observatory, PRBO Conservation Science

PUP Pesticide Use Permit

RCD Resource Conservation District

Refuge Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (also, Modoc NWR)

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System (also, NWRS)

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

Service Manual Fish and Wildlife Service Manual

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SUP Special Use Permit

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

T&E Threatened and Endangered Species

TNC The Nature Conservancy

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

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

YCC Youth Conservation Corps

WUI Wildland Urban Interface
Introduction and Background

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1 

Chapter 1. 

Introduction and Background

1. Introduction

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

the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) located 

southeast of the town of Alturas in northeastern 

California (Figure 1). The Refuge contains critically 

important habitats for a great diversity of wildlife, 

particularly migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway. 

This document is a Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) designed to guide management of the 

Refuge for the next fifteen years. The CCP provides a 

description of the desired future conditions and longrange guidance to accomplish the purposes for which 

the Refuge was established. The CCP and 

accompanying Environmental Assessment (EA) 

address Service legal mandates, policies, goals, and 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

compliance. The EA (Appendix A) presents a range of 

administrative, habitat management, and visitor 

services alternatives that consider issues and 

opportunities on the Refuge. The Service’s initial 

proposal for future management of the Refuge is presented in the 

EA. Chapter 4 of the CCP describes the goals, objectives, and 

strategies for the Service’s preferred alternative (Alternative C). The 

Final CCP will be developed through modifications made during the 

internal and public review processes.

The CCP is accompanied by six new plans: a Hunting Plan (Appendix 

C), Fishing Plan (Appendix D), Visitor Services Plan (Appendix E), 

Annual Habitat Management Plan (Appendix F), and Integrated Pest 

Management Plan (Appendix G). Other existing plans that will 

remain in place include a Fire Management Plan, Emergency Action 

Plan for Dorris Reservoir, Standard Operating Procedures for Dorris 

Reservoir, Disease Control Plan, Pest Control Plan, and Safety Plan. 

The CCP is divided into five chapters: Chapter 1, Introduction and 

Background; Chapter 2, Planning Process; Chapter 3, Refuge 

Environment; Chapter 4, Planned Refuge Management and 

Programs; and Chapter 5, Management Plan Implementation.

Sandhill Crane and Colt 

Photo by Share The Road Productions
Chapter 1

2 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Figure 1. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Introduction and Background

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3 

2. Purpose of and Need for Plan

Currently, the Refuge is guided by a Master Plan (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1963). The National Wildlife Refuge System 

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

accordance with an approved CCP by 2012. Under the Improvement 

Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is to be 

consistently directed and managed to fulfill the specific purpose(s) for 

which each refuge was established as well as the Refuge System

mission. The planning process helps the Service achieve the refuge 

purposes and the Refuge System mission by identifying specific 

goals, objectives, and strategies to implement on each refuge.

The purposes of this CCP are to

 provide a clear statement of direction for the future management 

of the Refuge; 

 provide long-term continuity in Refuge management; 

 communicate the Service’s management priorities for the Refuge 

to their partners, neighbors, visitors, and the general public; 

 provide an opportunity for the public to help shape the future 

management of the Refuge; 

 ensure that management programs on the Refuge are consistent 

with the mandates of the Refuge System and the purposes for 

which the Refuge was established; 

 ensure that the management of the Refuge is consistent with 

Federal, State, and local plans; and

 provide a basis for budget requests to support the Refuge’s needs 

for staffing, operations, maintenance, and capital improvements.

3. Legal and Policy Guidance

National wildlife refuges are guided by the purposes of the individual 

refuge, mission and goals of the Refuge System, Service policy, laws, 

and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by 

the Improvement Act, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected 

portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual (Service Manual). 

Refuges are also governed by a variety of other laws, treaties, and 

executive orders pertaining to the conservation and protection of 

natural and cultural resources (refer to Appendix I for additional 

information about these laws and executive orders). 

3.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

The Improvement Act, which amends the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966, provides comprehensive 
Chapter 1

4 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

legislation on how the Refuge System should be managed and used 

by the public. The Improvement Act: 

 identified a new mission statement for the Refuge System. 

 established six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental education and 

interpretation); 

 emphasized conservation and enhancement of the quality and 

diversity of fish and wildlife habitat;

 stressed the importance of partnerships with Federal and State 

agencies, Tribes, non-governmental organizations, industry, and 

the general public;

 mandated public involvement in decisions on the acquisition and 

management of refuges; and 

 required, prior to acquisition of new refuge lands, identification of 

existing compatible wildlife-dependent uses that would be 

permitted to continue on an interim basis pending completion of 

comprehensive conservation planning. 

The Improvement Act establishes the responsibilities of the 

Secretary of the Interior for managing and protecting the Refuge 

System; requires a CCP for each refuge by the year 2012; and 

provides guidelines and directives for the administration and 

management of all areas in the Refuge System, including wildlife 

refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife 

threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife 

management areas, and waterfowl production areas. 

3.2 Appropriate Use Policy

This policy describes the initial decision process the refuge manager 

follows when first considering whether to allow a proposed use on a 

refuge. The refuge manager must find a use appropriate before 

undertaking a compatibility review of the use. An appropriate use as 

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Photo by USFWS
Introduction and Background

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5 

defined by the Appropriate Use Policy (603 FW 1 of the Service 

Manual) is a proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least 

one of the following four conditions:

 The use is a wildlife-dependant recreational use as identified in 

the Improvement Act.

 The use contributes to the fulfilling of the refuge purpose(s), the 

Refuge System mission, or goals or objectives described in a 

refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date 

the Improvement Act was signed into law.

 The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State 

regulations.

 The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in Section 

1.11 (603 FW 1 of the Service Manual).

If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will 

eliminate or modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new 

use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will deny the use without 

determining compatibility. If a use is determined to be an appropriate 

refuge use, the refuge manager will then determine if the use is 

compatible (see Compatibility Policy section below). Although a use 

may be both appropriate and compatible, the refuge manager retains 

the authority to not allow the use or modify the use. Uses that have 

been administratively determined to be appropriate are the six 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation) and take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

Chapter 5 of this CCP includes a review of appropriateness of 

existing Refuge uses and planned future uses. 

3.3 Compatibility Policy

Lands within the Refuge System are different from other multiple 

use public lands in that they are closed to all public uses unless 

specifically and legally opened. The Improvement Act states, “... the 

Secretary shall not initiate or permit a new use of a Refuge or 

expand, renew, or extend an existing use of a Refuge, unless the 

Secretary has determined that the use is a compatible use and that 

the use is not inconsistent with public safety.”

In accordance with the Improvement Act, the Service has adopted a 

Compatibility Policy (603 FW 2 of the Service Manual) that includes 

guidelines for determining if a use proposed on a national wildlife 

refuge is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was 

established. A compatible use is defined in the policy as a proposed or 

existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a 

national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional judgment, 

will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

Refuge System mission or the purposes of the Refuge. Sound 

professional judgment is defined as a finding, determination, or 
Chapter 1

6 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

decision that is consistent with the principles of sound fish and 

wildlife management and administration, available science and 

resources (funding, personnel, facilities, and other infrastructure), 

and applicable laws. The Service strives to provide priority public 

uses when they are compatible. If financial resources are not 

available to design, operate, and maintain a priority use, the refuge 

manager will take reasonable steps to obtain outside assistance from 

the State and other conservation interests. 

When a determination is made as to whether a proposed use is 

compatible or not, this determination is provided in writing and is 

referred to as a compatibility determination (CD). An opportunity for 

public review and comment is required for all CDs. For compatibility

determinations prepared concurrently with a CCP or step-down 

management plan, the opportunity for public review and comment is 

provided during the public review period for the draft plan and 

associated NEPA document. The CDs prepared in association with 

this CCP are provided in Appendix B. 

3.4 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental 

Health Policy

The Improvement Act directs the Service to “ensure that the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge 

System are maintained for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans...” To implement this directive, the Service 

has issued the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental 

Health Policy (601 FW 3 of the Service Manual), which provides 

policy for maintaining and restoring, where appropriate, the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge 

System. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to 

follow while achieving the refuge purpose(s) and Refuge System 

mission. It provides for the consideration and protection of the broad 

spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuge and 

associated ecosystems. Further, it provides refuge managers with an 

evaluation process to analyze their refuge and recommend the best 

management direction to prevent further degradation of 

environmental conditions and restore lost or severely degraded 

components where appropriate and in concert with refuge purposes 

and the Refuge System mission. When evaluating the appropriate 

management direction for refuges, refuge managers will use sound 

professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple 

landscape scales. 

4. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for 

conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Although 

the Service shares this responsibility with other Federal, State,
Introduction and Background

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7 

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

responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and certain marine 

mammals. These are referred to as Federal trust species. The

Service also manages the Refuge System and National Fish 

Hatcheries; enforces Federal wildlife laws and international treaties 

on importing and exporting wildlife; assists State fish and wildlife 

programs; and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation 

programs.

The mission of the Service is: 

“Working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, 

wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of the American people.”

5. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and 

waters set aside specifically for the conservation of wildlife and 

ecosystem protection. The Refuge System consists of 548 national 

wildlife refuges that provide important habitat for native plants and 

many species of mammals, birds, fish, and threatened and 

endangered species. 

The mission of the Refuge System, as stated in the Improvement Act, 

is: 

“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where appropriate,

restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present 

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

Mule Deer

Photo by USFWS
Chapter 1

8 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt named Florida’s Pelican 

Island the nation’s first bird sanctuary, which, along with other 

sanctuaries and preserves, evolved into the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Since that time, the Refuge System has grown to more than 

97 million acres. It includes 548 refuges, at least one in every state 

and many U.S. territories, and over 3,000 Waterfowl Production 

Areas. The needs of wildlife and their habitats come first on refuges, 

in contrast to other public lands managed for multiple uses. 

The goals of the Refuge System, as defined in the Refuge System 

Mission and Goals and Refuge Purposes Policy (601 FW 1 of the 

Service Manual) are to

 conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, 

including species that are endangered or threatened with 

becoming endangered; 

 develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, 

anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal 

populations that is strategically distributed and carefully 

managed to meet important life history needs of these species 

across their ranges; 

 conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of 

national or international significance, and landscapes and 

seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented in 

existing protection efforts; 

 provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation); and

 foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and 

interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

Collectively, these goals articulate the foundation for our stewardship 

of the Refuge System and define the unique and important niche it 

occupies among the various Federal land systems. These goals will 

help guide development of specific management priorities during 

development of CCPs.

In addition, the guiding principles of the Refuge System are as 

follows: 

 We are land stewards, guided by Aldo Leopold's teachings that 

land is a community of life and that love and respect for the land 

is an extension of ethics. We seek to reflect that land ethic in our 

stewardship and to instill it in others. 

 Wild lands and the perpetuation of diverse and abundant wildlife 

are essential to the quality of the American life. 

 We are public servants. We owe our employers, the American 

people, hard work, integrity, fairness, and a voice in the 

protection of their trust resources. 
Introduction and Background

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9 

 Management, ranging from preservation to active manipulation of 

habitats and populations, is necessary to achieve Refuge System 

and Service missions. 

 Wildlife-dependent uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, interpretation, and education, when 

compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses of the Refuge 

System. 

 Partnerships with those who want to help us meet our mission are 

welcome and indeed essential. 

 Employees are our most valuable resource. They are respected 

and deserve an empowering, mentoring, and caring work 

environment. 

 We respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of our neighbors. 

6. Modoc Refuge

6.1 Introduction

The 7,021-acre Modoc Refuge is located along the South Fork of the 

Pit River in Modoc County, southeast of the town of Alturas, in 

extreme northeastern California (Figure 1). The Refuge is located on 

the western edge of the Great Basin, a high elevation, cold desert 

environment. The Refuge consists of wetland, reservoir, riparian, 

sagebrush-steppe, and cropland habitats. 

The Refuge is part of a larger complex of midelevation wetlands and lakes of northeastern 

California and is strategically situated to meet 

the needs of waterfowl and other migratory 

birds of the Pacific Flyway. Modoc Refuge acts 

as a migration and staging area for ducks, geese, 

and other wetland birds on the southward 

migration funnel into this region. After feeding 

and resting on the Refuge, they continue to the 

Central and Imperial Valleys of California and 

other wintering areas. This pattern is reversed 

in the spring. The Refuge’s wetlands and 

adjacent uplands are also an important nesting 

area for ducks, geese, greater sandhill cranes, 

and several other species of marsh birds.

6.2 Refuge History

In 1870, Presley A. Dorris, Henry Fitzhugh, and several other Dorris 

family members drove cattle and horses into the area. With lands 

granted under the U.S. Homestead Act, the Dorris family established 

a livestock ranch, which they operated for ninety years. In the 1930s, 

the Dorris family created Dorris Reservoir to provide water storage 

for their ranch. 

Entrance to the Modoc National Wildlife 

Refuge

Photo by USFWS
Chapter 1

10 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Acquisition of lands for establishing Modoc Refuge was authorized by 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission on April 8, 1959. In 

1960, the Refuge was established to manage, protect, and produce 

migratory waterfowl. 

In November 1960, 5,360 acres (Tracts 4, 5, 6, and 7) were purchased 

from the Dorris family. In 1967, 187-acre Tract 16 was purchased 

from Tad Fender. In 1972, the State conveyed 487 acres to the 

Refuge. In 1973, 40 acres of Tract 1 were acquired and in 1975, the 

208-acre Tract 17 was acquired from Barre Stephens. Tract 19 (103 

acres) was purchased from Edward Clark in 1992. In 1995, 310-acre 

Tract 20 was purchased from the J.K. Hamilton Family Trust. In 

1998, the 325-acre Tract 21 was purchased from Adair Brown and 

The American Land Conservancy. Currently, the Refuge is 7,021 

acres.

7. Refuge Purposes 

The Service acquires Refuge System lands under a variety of 

legislative acts and administrative orders. The official purpose or 

purposes for a refuge are specified in or derived from the law, 

proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation 

document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, 

or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. The Service 

defines the purpose of a refuge when it is established or when new 

land is added to an existing refuge. These purposes, along with the 

Refuge System mission, are the driving force in developing refuge 

vision statements, goals, objectives, and strategies in the CCP. The 

purposes also form the standard for determining if proposed refuge 

uses are compatible. 

The refuge purposes for Modoc Refuge are:

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

management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d 

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929).

“... suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented 

recreational development, (2) the protection of natural 

resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or 

threatened species ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... 

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

be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-2 (Refuge 

Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended).

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

conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources ...” 

16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) “... for the benefit of the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any 
Introduction and Background

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude 

...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). 

8. The Refuge Vision

A vision statement is developed or revised for each individual refuge 

unit as part of the CCP process. Vision statements are grounded in 

the unifying mission of the Refuge System. They describe the desired 

future conditions of the refuge unit in the long term (15 years) and 

are based on the refuge’s specific purposes, the resources present on 

the refuge, and any other relevant mandates. This CCP incorporates 

the following vision statement for the Modoc Refuge.

“Located near the confluence of the north and south forks of 

the Pit River, Modoc National Wildlife Refuge will conserve, 

restore, protect, and manage a mosaic of seasonal wetlands, 

semi-permanent wetlands, wet meadows, riparian, and 

sagebrush-steppe habitats. These habitats will provide 

important resting, feeding, and nesting areas for ducks, 

geese, and other migratory birds. Modoc Refuge’s highquality habitat will play a key role in the long-term recovery 

of Central Valley greater sandhill cranes. 

As an integral part of the surrounding community, Modoc 

Refuge will provide high quality wildlife-dependent recreation 

including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

and interpretation. The Refuge will continue to be known for 

its high-quality environmental education program offered to 

generations of students. Visitors will develop a greater 

understanding and appreciation for the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and refuge management 

programs and for the importance of protecting lands for 

wildlife conservation.”

9. Existing and New Partnerships 

In Fulfilling the Promise (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999), the 

Service identified the need to forge new and non-traditional alliances 

and strengthen existing partnerships with States, Tribes, non-profit 

organizations, and academia to broaden citizen and community 

understanding of and support for the Refuge System. The Service 

recognizes that strong citizen support benefits the Refuge System. 

Involving citizen groups in refuge resource and management issues 

and decisions helps managers gain an understanding of public 

concerns. Partners yield support for refuge activities and programs, 

raise funds for projects, are activists on behalf of wildlife and the 

Refuge System, and provide support for important wildlife and 

natural resource issues.

A variety of people including, but not limited to, scientists, birders, 

anglers, hunters, farmers, outdoor enthusiasts, and students are 

keenly interested in the management of Modoc Refuge, its fish and 
Chapter 1

12 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

wildlife species, and its plants and habitats. This interest is 

demonstrated by the number of visitors the Refuge receives and the 

partnerships that have already developed. 

Refuge partners include: California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG), National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

Central Modoc Resource Conservation District (RCD), Pit RCD, 

Goose Lake RCD, North CAL/NEVA Resource Conservation and 

Development, California Department of Transportation, U.C. 

Cooperative Extension, Modoc County Department of Agriculture, 

Friends of Modoc Refuge, The River Center, California Department 

of Water Resources, Ducks Unlimited, California Waterfowl 

Association (CWA), Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Wild 

Turkey Federation, National Rifle Association, Alturas Chamber of 

Commerce, Modoc County Office of Education, and Modoc Joint 

Unified School District. We will continue to form new partnerships 

with interested organizations, local civic groups, community schools, 

Federal, State, and County governments, Tribes, other civic 

organizations, and private landowners. 

10. Wilderness Review 

As part of the CCP process, lands within the 

boundaries of the Modoc Refuge were reviewed for 

wilderness suitability. No lands were found suitable for 

designation as Wilderness as defined in the Wilderness 

Act of 1964.

Modoc Refuge does not contain 5,000 contiguous 

roadless acres, nor does the Refuge have any units of 

sufficient size to make their preservation practicable 

as Wilderness. The lands of the Refuge have been 

substantially affected by humans. As a result of the 

extensive modification of natural habitats and ongoing 

manipulation of natural processes, adopting a 

wilderness management approach at the Refuge would 

not facilitate the restoration of a pristine or presettlement condition, which is a goal of wilderness 

designation.

White-faced Ibis

Photo by Steve Emmons
The Planning Process

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

Chapter 2. 

The Planning Process

1. Introduction

This CCP for the Modoc Refuge is intended to comply with the 

requirements of the Improvement Act and NEPA. Refuge planning 

policy also guided the process and development of the CCP, as 

outlined in Part 602, Chapters 1, 3, and 4 of the Service Manual.

Service policy, the Improvement Act, and NEPA provide specific

guidance for the planning process, such as seeking public involvement 

in the preparation of the EA. The development and analysis of 

“reasonable” management alternatives within the EA include a “no 

action” alternative that reflects current conditions and management 

strategies on the Refuge. Management alternatives were developed 

as part of this planning process and can be found in Appendix A 

Environmental Assessment.

The planning process for this CCP began in October 2006 with preplanning meetings and coordination. The CCP team (Appendix J) was 

also formed. Initially, members of the refuge staff and planning team 

identified a preliminary list of issues, concerns, and opportunities that 

were derived from wildlife and habitat monitoring and field 

experience from the past management and history of the Refuge. 

Early in the process, visitor services, especially hunting and fishing, 

were identified as primary issues. This preliminary list was expanded 

during public scoping and then refined and finalized through the 

planning process to generate the vision, goals, objectives, and 

strategies for the Refuge. Throughout this process, close coordination 

with CDFG was emphasized.

2. The Planning Process

Part of comprehensive conservation planning includes preparation of 

a NEPA document. Key steps in the CCP planning process and the 

parallel NEPA process include the following: 

 preplanning and team formation

 public scoping

 identifying issues, opportunities, and concerns

 defining and revising vision statement and Refuge goals

 developing and assessing alternatives

 identifying the preferred alternative plan

 draft CCP and EA

 revising draft documents and releasing final CCP

 implementing the CCP

 monitoring /feedback (adaptive management)
Chapter 2

14 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Figure 2 shows the overall CCP planning steps and process in a 

linear cycle. The following sections provide additional detail on 

individual steps in the planning process. 

Figure 2. The CCP process

3. Planning Hierarchy 

The Service planning hierarchy that determines the direction of the 

goals, objectives, and strategies is a natural progression from the 

general to the specific (Figure 3). Described as a linear process, the 

planning hierarchy is, in reality, a multi-dimensional flow that is 

linked by the refuge purposes, missions, laws, mandates, and other 

statutory requirements (Figure 4). 

In practice, the process of developing the vision statement, goals, and 

objectives is repetitive and dynamic. During the planning process, or 

as new information becomes available, the plan continues to develop.
The Planning Process

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

Figure 3. Hierarchical relationship of refuge goals and 

objectives to other aspects of the planning process 

4. The Planning Team

The CCP process requires close teamwork with staff, planners, and 

other partners to accomplish the necessary planning steps, tasks, and 

work to generate the CCP document and associated EA. 

The core team is the working/production entity of the CCP. The 

members are responsible for researching and generating the 

contents of the CCP document and participate in the entire planning 

process. The core team, refuge staff facilitated by the refuge planner, 

meets regularly to discuss and work on the various steps and sections 

Fish and Wildlife Service Mission 

 Refuge System Mission

 Refuge Purpose(s)*

 National and Regional Goals and Priorities

 Ecosystem Goals and Objectives

 Refuge Vision

 Goals

 Objectives

 Strategies

 Monitoring and Feedback

(Adaptive Management)

*When in conflict, we give priority to the refuge 

purpose(s) over the Refuge System mission.
Chapter 2

16 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

of the CCP. The team members also work independently in producing 

their respective CCP sections, based on their area of expertise. Multitasking by team members is a standard requirement since work on 

the CCP occurs in addition to their regular workload (Appendix J).

Figure 4. Relationships between Service, System, and other 

planning efforts

5. Pre-Planning

Pre-planning involved formation of the planning team, development 

of the CCP schedule, and gathering data. The team determined 

procedures, work allocations, and outreach strategies. The team also 

created a preliminary mailing list. 
The Planning Process

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

6. Public Involvement in Planning

Public involvement is an important and necessary component of the 

CCP and NEPA process. Public scoping meetings allow the Service 

to provide updated information about the Refuge System and the 

Refuge. Most important, these meetings allow the refuge staff to hear 

public comments, concerns, and opportunities. These public meetings 

provide valuable discussions and identify important issues regarding 

the Refuge and the surrounding region. 

The Refuge hosted a public meeting in Alturas, California in August 

2007. Sixteen people attended the meeting held at the Refuge. The 

meeting began with a presentation introducing the Refuge and staff, 

provided an open forum for public comment, and ended with a 

breakout session to allow for individual questions and conversations. 

In addition to comments made by participants and noted on flip 

charts at the meeting, comments were also received by written 

comment cards, email, and letters. These comments were analyzed 

and used to further identify Refuge issues and develop CCP goals, 

objectives, and strategies (Table 1).

Table 1. Refuge issues identified through public comment

Refuge Issue Category

Number of Comments

Received1

Visitor Services 11

Hunting 3 

Fishing 1 

Bike Trail 2 

Other 5 

Refuge Management 12

Wildlife & Habitat 10

Invasive Species Control 3 

 Habitat Management 5 

Wildlife 2 

Partnerships 4 

Other Comments 4 

Total Comments (Total Number of 

People/ Organizations Commenting)

41 (12)

1

Total number of comments received is greater than the total number of 

people commenting since each letter, email, fax, comments card, and 

flipchart comment received may contain more than one comment. 
Chapter 2

18 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

7. Public Outreach

During the planning process, refuge staff continued to actively 

participate in the various working groups and agency teams 

concerning the Modoc Refuge. The staff also met with several special 

interest and local groups to explain the planning process and to listen 

to their concerns.

An information letter called “Planning Update” was also mailed to 

over 80 individuals, agencies, and organizations. These periodic 

publications were created to provide the public with up-to-date 

Refuge information and progress on the CCP process. The Planning 

Updates were also made available at the Refuge, on the Refuge’s 

webpage, and at various outreach meetings/events. The EA 

(Appendix A) contains a list of individuals and organizations that 

were notified or were sent a copy of the Draft CCP, were sent 

planning updates, or attended scoping meetings.

8. Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

Through the scoping process and team discussions, the planning team 

identified issues, concerns, and opportunities. Sixteen people 

attended the public scoping meeting held in Alturas, California on 

August 21, 2007. Twelve people/organizations provided forty-one 

comments (Table 1) for consideration in identifying issues and 

opportunities for the CCP. The team 

categorized the comments into five 

main areas of interest: visitor 

services, wildlife and habitat, refuge 

management, partnerships, and 

other comments. Refuge 

management received the most 

comments (12) followed by visitor 

services (11), wildlife and habitat 

(10), partnerships (4), and other 

comments (4). 

Comments regarding refuge 

management included wanting more 

prescribed burning on the Refuge; 

opening the Godfrey Tract to public 

use, maintaining the wildlife first 

philosophy; and analyzing the impact 

of human activities and non-wildlife 

dependant activities.

Visitor services comments included expanding hunting on the Refuge, 

prohibiting hunting on the Refuge, adding a bike trail, adding a picnic 

area, and expanding fishing opportunities. 

Comments regarding wildlife and habitat included wanting to see the 

Refuge continue its invasive species control program, questions 

Students Enjoy Field Trips to the Refuge

Photo by USFWS
The Planning Process

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

regarding habitat management in specific Refuge units, and 

suggesting additional wildlife inventories.

Partnership comments included a request to use the Refuge to 

provide grazing opportunities for permittees temporarily displaced 

by the Modoc National Forest and Alturas Office of Bureau of Land 

Management Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy (Modoc 

National Forest and Alturas Field Office Bureau of Land 

Management 2007). 

9. Development of the Refuge Vision

A vision statement is developed or reviewed for each individual 

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

grounded in the unifying mission of the Refuge System and describe 

the desired future conditions of the refuge unit in the long term 

(more than 15 years). They are based on the refuge’s specific 

purposes, the resources present on the refuge, and any other relevant 

mandates. Please refer to Chapter 1 for Modoc Refuge’s vision 

statement. 

10. Determining the Refuge Goals, Objectives, and 

Strategies

The purpose for creating the refuge is established by law (Chapter 1). 

The Improvement Act directs that the planning effort develop and 

revise the management focus of the refuge within the Service’s 

planning framework, which includes the Service mission, the Refuge 

System mission, ecosystem guidelines, and refuge purposes. This is 

accomplished during the CCP process through the development of 

goals, objectives, and strategies.

10.1 Goals

Goals describe the desired future conditions of a refuge in succinct 

statements. Each one translates to one or more objectives that define 

these conditions in measurable terms. A well-written goal directs 

work toward achieving a refuge’s vision and ultimately the purpose(s) 

of a refuge. Collectively, a set of goals is a framework within which to 

make decisions. 

10.2 Refuge Management Goals

The interim management goals for Modoc Refuge (2003) are to

 protect, restore, and maintain high quality habitats for the benefit 

of migratory birds;

 protect existing water rights and enhance water quality to ensure 

that the water of the Pit River and its tributaries will continue to 

provide a reliable source of high quality water for the Refuge and 

associated wetlands;
Chapter 2

20 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

 protect, restore, and enhance habitats for and otherwise support 

recovery of endangered, threatened, and candidate species of 

wildlife;

 protect and enhance habitats, and associated populations of fish 

and wildlife, representative of the native biological diversity of 

the Modoc plateau; and

 provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent recreation, 

education, and research which is compatible and consistent with 

other Refuge purposes.

Through the CCP process, these interim goals were evaluated and 

revised. Modoc Refuge’s goals are detailed in Chapter 4.

10.3 Objectives, Rationale, and Strategies

Once the refuge goals are reviewed and revised, the various 

objectives, rationale, and strategies are determined to accomplish 

each of the goals. Modoc Refuge’s objectives, rationales, and 

strategies are detailed in Chapter 4.

Objectives: The Service defines objectives as “a concise statement of 

what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, when and 

where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work” 

(602 FW 1 of the Service Manual). Objectives are incremental steps 

we take to achieve a goal. They are derived from goals and provide a 

foundation for determining strategies, monitoring refuge 

accomplishments, and evaluating success. The number of objectives 

per goal will vary. Where there are many, an implementation 

schedule may be developed. All objectives must be specific, 

measurable, achievable, results-oriented, and time-fixed.

Rationale: Each objective should document the rationale for forming 

the objective. The degree of documentation will vary, but at a 

minimum, it should include logic, assumptions, and sources of 

information. This promotes informed debate on the objective’s 

merits, provides continuity of management in the event of staff 

turnover, and allows reevaluation of the objective as new information 

becomes available.

Strategy: The Service defines a strategy as “a specific action, tool, 

technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives” (602 FW 1 of the Service Manual). Multiple 

strategies can be used to support an objective.

11. Development of the Refuge Management Alternatives

Alternatives are “different sets of objectives and strategies or means 

of achieving refuge purposes and goals, helping to fulfill the Refuge 

System mission, and resolving issues” (602 FW 1 of the Service 

Manual). The development of alternatives, assessment of their 

environmental effects, and the identification of the preferred 
The Planning Process

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

management alternative are fully described in the EA (Appendix A). 

Alternatives were developed to represent reasonable options that 

address specific Refuge issues and challenges. A “no action” or 

continuation of current management alternative is required by 

NEPA. A range of other alternatives were studied and are described 

in the EA (Appendix A).

11.1 Alternative A: No Action

Under Alternative A: No Action, Modoc Refuge would continue to be 

managed as it has in the recent past. Recent management has 

followed existing step-down management plans as follows: 

 Annual Habitat Management Plan

 Fire Management Plan 

 Safety Plan

 Emergency Action Plan for Dorris Reservoir

 Standard Operation Procedures for Dorris Reservoir

 Disease Control Plan

 Pest Control Plan

The focus of the Refuge would remain the same: to provide habitat 

and maintain current active management practices; and continue to 

manage and provide habitat for migratory and resident birds, 

threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife. The Refuge 

would continue to provide wildlife-dependant recreation opportunities 

including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. Current staffing and 

funding levels would remain the same.

11.2 Alternative B: Habitat Emphasis

Under this alternative, the Refuge would emphasize management for 

biological resources. Biological opportunities would be maximized to 

allow optimum wildlife and habitat management throughout the 

majority of the Refuge. Visitor service opportunities would be 

reduced. In addition, staffing and funding levels would need to be 

redirected and increased to fully implement this alternative. A 

wildlife biologist, park ranger, and wage grade position would be 

hired to accomplish this alternative.

11.3 Alternative C: Proposed Action

Alternative C would achieve an optimal balance of biological resource 

objectives and visitor services opportunities. Habitat management 

and associated biological resource monitoring would be improved. 

Visitor service opportunities would focus on quality wildlifedependant recreation distributed throughout the Refuge. Staffing 

and funding levels would need to be increased to fully implement this 

alternative. An interpretive specialist, wildlife biologist, park ranger, 
Chapter 2

22 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

and wage grade position would be hired to accomplish this 

alternative.

11.4 Alternative D: Visitor Services Emphasis

Under Alternative D, the Refuge would emphasize management for 

visitor services. Wildlife-dependant recreational opportunities would 

be expanded on the Refuge. However, wildlife and habitat 

management would remain as described in Alternative A. Staffing 

and funding levels would need to be redirected and increased 

substantially to implement this alternative. An outdoor recreation 

planner, interpretive specialist, park ranger, and wage grade position 

would be hired to accomplish this alternative. 

12. Selection of the Refuge Proposed Action

The alternatives were analyzed in the EA (Appendix A) to determine 

their effects on the Refuge environment. Based on this analysis, we 

have selected Alternative C as the proposed action because it best 

achieves the Refuge goals and purposes, as well as the Refuge 

System and Service missions. 

Alternative C is founded upon the existing cooperative management 

programs, with enhancements in habitat and monitoring programs 

and an integration of a cooperative visitor services program that 

includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

interpretation, and environmental education. Cooperative 

management refers to the current practice of working closely with 

State and other partners to provide protected and enhanced habitat 

along with visitor service opportunities and adjacent land uses on 

publicly owned properties. Please refer to Chapter 4, which describes

this proposed management plan.

13. Plan Implementation

This Draft CCP and EA will be provided for public review and 

comment. Comments received by the Service will be incorporated 

where appropriate and perhaps result in modifications to the 

preferred alternative or selection of one of the other alternatives. The 

alternative that is ultimately selected will become the basis of the 

ensuing Final CCP. This document then becomes the basis for 

guiding management over the coming 15-year period. It will guide the 

development of more detailed step-down management plans for 

specific resource areas and will underpin the annual budgeting 

process for Refuge operations and maintenance (Chapter 5). Most 

importantly, it lays out the general approach to managing habitat, 

wildlife, and people at the Modoc Refuge that will direct day-to-day 

decision-making and actions.

A review of the CCP will take place approximately every five years, 

and the CCP will be updated every fifteen years.
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

Chapter 3.

The Refuge Environment

1. Refuge Description 

This chapter provides a detailed description of the Refuge, its 

habitats, the species upon which it depends, and the recreational 

opportunities it offers. Located just south of the town of Alturas in 

Modoc County, California, the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge has 

7,021 acres of wetlands, reservoir, riparian, cropland, and sagebrushsteppe habitats. These habitats provide important resting, nesting, 

and feeding areas for ducks, 

geese, and other migratory 

birds including greater 

sandhill cranes. Located in 

the Pacific Flyway, the 

Refuge is used by migratory 

birds on their southern and 

northern migrations. The 

Refuge also provides 

hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, 

environmental education, 

and interpretation as well as 

non-wildlife dependent 

recreational opportunities, 

such as boating, waterskiing, 

bicycling, horseback riding, 

and swimming.

2. Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

The Modoc Plateau historically has supported high desert plant 

communities and ecosystems similar to that region—shrub-steppe, 

perennial grasslands, sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, mountain 

mahogany, and juniper woodlands. Sagebrush plant communities are 

characteristic of the region, providing important habitat for 

sagebrush-dependent wildlife. Conifer forests dominate the higher 

elevations of the Warner Mountains and the smaller volcanic 

mountain ranges and hills that shape the region. Wetland, spring, 

meadow, vernal pool, riparian, and aspen communities scattered 

across the rugged and otherwise dry desert landscape support 

diverse wildlife. The region has varied aquatic habitats, from high 

mountain streams to the alkaline waters of Goose and Eagle lakes to 

the clear spring waters of Fall River and Ash Creek.

Northeastern California is an outstanding region for wildlife, 

providing habitat for mountain lion, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, 

Modoc Refuge is West of the Warner Mountains

Photo by North State Resources, Inc.
Chapter 3

24 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Rocky Mountain elk, greater sage-grouse, and waterfowl of the 

Pacific Flyway. Golden eagles, peregrine and prairie falcons, 

northern goshawks, greater sandhill cranes, and American white 

pelicans nest and hunt or forage in the region. The varied aquatic 

habitats and natural barriers along the Pit River and its tributaries 

have allowed the evolution of several unique aquatic communities that 

include endemic fish and invertebrates.

Sixty percent of the Modoc Plateau is Federally managed (Figure 5); 

the USFS manages 30 percent, BLM manages 26 percent, and the 

Service and Department of Defense each manage about 2 percent of 

the lands (California Department of Fish and Game 2005a). CDFG 

manages 1 percent of the region as wildlife areas, and about 37 

percent of the lands are privately owned or belong to municipalities 

(California Department of Fish and Game 2005a). Only nine percent 

of the forests and rangelands of the Modoc region are designated as 

reserves, such as wilderness areas, less than is protected in any other 

region of the state except the Central Valley (California Department 

of Fish and Game 2005a). The combined total of lands managed by 

State Parks and the National Park Service is about 2,500 acres 

(California Department of Fish and Game 2005a). 

Many of the region’s plant communities and ecosystems have been 

substantially altered or degraded over the last 120 years by a 

combination of stressors. Despite being in one of the least-developed 

regions of the state, habitats of the Modoc Plateau are among the 

most threatened ecosystems of North America (The Nature 

Conservancy 2001). Many of the meadow and riparian areas are 

overgrazed, channelized, or are suffering from encroachment by 

juniper, pine, fir, and invasive plants (USDA Forest Service 1991; 

Loft 1998; USDA Forest Service 2001). 

The major stressors negatively affecting terrestrial wildlife on the 

Modoc Plateau ecosystem are a combination of livestock and feral 

horse grazing, invasive annual grasses, the expansion of native 

western juniper, and altered frequencies of fire (California 

Department of Fish and Game 2005a). Together, these stressors have 

combined to alter the region’s sagebrush and forest habitats and 

ecosystems (Miller et al. 1994; Schaefer et al. 2003). Aquatic 

ecosystems throughout the region are affected by water diversions, 

erosion, poor grazing practices, and introductions of non-native 

species (California Department of Fish and Game 2005a). 

Private land owners, State and Federal land management agencies, 

resource conservation districts, watershed groups, and fishing and 

hunting organizations working through various partnerships, are 

involved in stream, riparian, wetland, and upland restoration and

conservation projects across the region (California Department of 

Fish and Game 2005a). 
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

Source: California Wildlife Action Plan (California Department of Fish and Game 2005a) 

Figure 5. Modoc Plateau Region
Chapter 3

26 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Modoc Refuge is located in the eastern part of Modoc County on the 

west side of the Warner Mountains, lying in a valley surrounded by 

lava plateaus and mountains. The area surrounding the Refuge is 

primarily agricultural, planted with irrigated crops such as wild rice, 

alfalfa, and meadow hay. Raising livestock is the main farm 

enterprise and nearly all the livestock are cattle (USDA Soil 

Conservation Service 1980). 

At an elevation of approximately 4,365 feet, the Refuge is located 

immediately upstream of the confluence of the north and south forks 

of the Pit River in the Upper Pit River Watershed (Figure 6). The 

Upper Pit River Watershed is located in northeastern California and 

covers approximately 2,620 square miles (Environmental Statistics 

Group 2003). The north fork of the Pit River originates near the 

southern end of Goose Lake. The south fork of the Pit River 

originates from several tributaries in the southern Warner 

Mountains. Both forks join in the town of Alturas, and then flow in a 

southwesterly direction to Shasta Lake in Shasta County, and 

eventually into the Sacramento River and the San Francisco Bay and 

Delta. Modoc Refuge is part of the Service’s Central Valley-San 

Francisco Bay Ecoregion (Figure 7).

Figure 6. Upper Pit River Watershed 

Source: Upper Pit River Watershed Alliance (VESTRA 2004)
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Figure 7. Watershed Ecosystem Map
Chapter 3

28 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

3. Physical Environment

3.1 Climate and Air Quality

The Refuge has a semi-arid climate with hot, dry summers and cold 

winters. Summer temperatures can reach 100 degrees Fahrenheit 

(oF), but generally cools rapidly during the evening and nighttime 

hours. January is the coldest month of the year, with temperatures 

occasionally dropping below -30 oF. Strong winds are common, with 

prevailing winds typically from the south and west. Precipitation 

generally occurs during the winter and spring months, with the 

Refuge receiving approximately 7-11 inches of rainfall annually. 

Relative humidity ranges from 10-20 percent during summer months 

and averages 75 percent during the winter months.

The Pit River Basin climate includes periodic drought cycles that 

usually follow 10-year patterns. During the driest years, annual 

precipitation can be as low as 30 percent of average.

Climate change is already affecting wildlife throughout California 

(Parmesan and Galbraith 2004), and its effects will continue to 

increase. Climate change has particular significance for this region’s 

major river systems. Depending on the model and assumptions, 

scientists project the average annual temperature in California to rise 

between 4 and 10.5 degrees above the current average temperature 

by the end of the century (Schneider and Kuntz-Suriseti 2002; 

Turman 2002; Hayhoe et al. 2004). Within 50 years, average 

wintertime temperatures are expected to rise between 2 and 2.5 

degrees. A rise in this range would substantially reduce annual 

snowpack and increase fire frequency and intensity. By mid-century, 

the Sierra snowpack could be reduced by 25 to 40 percent and by as 

much as 70 percent at the end of the century (duVair 2003). The snow 

season would be shortened, starting later and melting sooner, while 

the fire season would be longer and hotter. The reduction of 

snowpack and more extreme fire conditions would have cascading 

effects on water resources, plant communities, and wildlife. Hotter 

temperatures, combined with lower river flows, would dramatically 

increase the water needs of both people and wildlife. This is likely to 

translate into less water for wildlife, especially fish and wetland 

species (California Department of Fish and Game 2005a). 

The Service’s Draft Climate Change Strategic Plan (USFWS 2009) 

will follow six guiding principles in responding to climate change:

 We will be a leader in national and international efforts to address 

climate change.

 We will commit to a new spirit of coordination, collaboration and 

interdependence with others.

 We will leverage our resources by building coalitions that 

emphasize the shared conservation of habitats and species within 

sustainable landscapes.
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

 We will continually evaluate our priorities and approaches, make 

difficult choices, take calculated risks and adapt to climate 

change.

 We will assemble and use state of-the-art technical capacity to

meet the climate change challenge.

 We will reflect scientific excellence, professionalism, and integrity 

in all our work.

The Draft Climate Change Strategic Plan (USFWS 2009b) employs 

three key strategies to address climate change: adaptation, 

mitigation, and engagement. The Service will adaptively manage 

Modoc Refuge in response to climate change. Changes and responses 

will continually be assessed through monitoring and the Refuge will 

modify actions accordingly. 

The Federal and State governments have each established ambient 

air quality standards for several pollutants. Most standards have 

been set to protect public health. However, standards for some 

pollutants are based on other values, such as protecting crops and 

materials and avoiding nuisance conditions.

The Refuge is located in California’s Northeast Plateau Air Basin. 

The Northeast Plateau Air Basin is the fourth largest basin in 

California, encompassing an area of 15,900 square miles. It includes 

all of Modoc, Lassen, and Siskiyou counties. The Modoc County Air 

Pollution Control District (APCD) is the agency responsible for 

ensuring compliance with Federal and State air quality standards in 

the basin where the Refuge is located.

Currently, the Modoc County APCD is designated as attainment for 

ozone standards and non-attainment for the State particulate matter 

(PM10) standards (California Air Resources Board 2006). When an 

area is a non-attainment area, the State must develop an 

implementation plan to outline methods for reaching identified air 

quality standards. Permitting, scheduling, and restrictions on some 

activities may be required. Federal and State PM10 standards are 

designed to prevent respiratory disease and protect visibility.

PM10 is produced by stationary point sources (e.g., fuel combustion 

and industrial processes), fugitive sources, (e.g., roadway dust from 

paved and unpaved roads), wind erosion from open land, and 

transportation sources. PM10 levels in Modoc County are highest 

during December (California Air Resources Board 2005). Colder, 

more stagnant conditions during this time of the year are conducive 

to the buildup of PM10, including the formation of secondary 

ammonium nitrate. In addition, increased activity from residential 

wood combustion may also occur. The Modoc County APCD requires 

smoke management plans and limits the acreage of prescribed burns 

conducted by the Refuge.
Chapter 3

30 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Certain land uses are more sensitive to air pollution than other uses. 

Locations such as schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are 

sensitive receptors because their occupants (the young, old, and 

infirm) are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air 

quality-related health problems than the public. Residential areas are 

also considered sensitive receptors because residents tend to be home 

for extended periods, resulting in sustained exposure to any 

pollutants present.

3.2 Water Supply and Water Quality

In 1960, the Service purchased the land comprising the Refuge and 

the accompanying water rights. The water rights held by the Service 

fall into four categories:

 direct diversion rights from the North Fork Pit River

 riparian rights from the South Fork Pit River

 direct diversion rights from Pine Creek

 storage rights to divert water from Parker Creek, Pine Creek, 

and Stockdill Slough to Dorris Reservoir

The Service’s direct diversion rights to water during the irrigation 

season are based upon judicial decrees and legal agreements that are 

not subject to the permitting and licensing process administered by 

the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), pursuant to 

Water Code Section 1200 et seq. The Service’s rights to divert water 

to storage from Parker Creek, Pine Creek, and Stockdill Slough are 

held under appropriative Water Right Licenses 465, 466, and 4822 

and Permit 854.

The Refuge receives water from the South Fork of the Pit River, 

Pine Creek direct diversion, and Pine Creek and Parker Creek 

storage into Dorris Reservoir. Delivery ditches on the Refuge include 

Pine Creek Ditch, Pine Creek Canal, Parker Creek Diversion Canal, 

Dorris Canal, High Line Canal, East Side Canal, and Pine Creek 

Overflow (Figure 8). The South Fork of the Pit River flows through 

the Refuge and provides riparian flood water to the wetlands and 

riparian areas on the west side of the Refuge, including Sharkey 

Field, North and South Grain Fields, Matney Fields, Pit Marsh, 

Matney Marsh, 395 Ponds, and the South Dam Pond. Pine Creek 

direct diversion provides water to the Hamilton Tract and Pine Creek 

Field. 

Storage water in Dorris Reservoir provides water to the remaining 

wetlands, meadows, and ponds in the Refuge. During the irrigation 

season (April 1-September 30), water is withdrawn from Dorris 

Reservoir to maintain wetland habitats. Dorris Reservoir may be 

drawn down to minimum pool by the end of the irrigation season. The 

Refuge also has five irrigation wells.
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

Dorris Reservoir—Downstream

Photo by USFWS

The Refuge monitors the quantity of water diverted to storage and at 

primary points of diversion for irrigation. This information fulfills 

monitoring requirements under appropriative licenses. The Modoc 

County Water Master sets the diversions to deliver water in 

accordance with Refuge water rights.

Modoc Refuge lies within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley 

Regional Water Quality Control Board, which established beneficial 

uses and water quality objectives for surface water and groundwater 

in the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the region 

(California Regional Water Quality Control Board 1998).

The Pit River is an impaired water body under the Clean Water Act 

Section 303(d). The pollutants/stressors include nutrients, organic 

enrichment/low-dissolved oxygen, and temperature. The potential 

sources of pollution include municipal and agricultural. The Refuge is 

a member of the Northeastern California Water Association, which 

was formed to meet the water quality monitoring requirements under 

the California’s Irrigated Lands Program. 
Chapter 3

32 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Figure 8. Water Management Map of Modoc Refuge
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

3.3 Geology and Soils

Virtually the entire Upper Pit River Watershed from the headwaters 

to the historical confluence with Fall River is within the Modoc 

Plateau Geomorphic Province. The Refuge lies just beyond the 

western edge of the Great Basin with the Warner Mountain range on 

the east and the Adin Mountain range on the west. The Modoc

Plateau is a flat-topped upland area built up of irregular masses of a 

variety of volcanic materials, although it consists predominately of 

basalt (Oakeshott 1971). This area is characterized by attenuation, or 

stretching and thinning of the earth’s crust, which results in the highangle normal faults found throughout the region.

Three main soil types formed from alluvial parent material derived 

from basic igneous rocks predominantly underlie the Refuge:

 Pit-Buntingville-Goose Lake – nearly level to moderately sloping, 

very deep, somewhat poorly drained and poorly drained silt 

loams, clay loams, silty clay loams, and clays in basins and on 

floodplains

 Tulana-Pasquetti – nearly level, very deep, poorly drained mucky 

loams and silty clay loams in basins

 Bieber-Barnard-Modoc – nearly level to strongly sloping, shallow 

and moderately deep, well-drained gravelly loams, cobbly loams, 

clay loams, and sandy loams on alluvial fans and terraces

4. Habitat

The Refuge currently consists of 7,011 acres of wetlands, reservoir, 

riparian, sagebrush-steppe, and cropland habitats (Figure 9, Table 2). 

An additional 10 acres of the Refuge are comprised of administration 

sites (e.g., roads, buildings, and ditches). Figure 9 shows the locations 

and names of the units on the Refuge. 

Table 2. Refuge Habitat Classifications

Habitat Type Acres

Seasonal wetlands 1,062

Semi-permanent wetlands 553

Wet meadows 2,183

Reservoir 547

Riparian* 64

Sagebrush-steppe 2,053

Croplands 549

Administrative 10

TOTAL 7,021

* These acres include woody riparian habitat only. 

There are also 282 acres of degraded herbaceous 

riparian on the Pit River system which is included 

in wet meadows and seasonal wetlands habitat 

types.
Chapter 3

34 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Figure 9. Vegetation map of Modoc Refuge
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

Figure 10. Habitat Unit Map of Modoc Refuge
Chapter 3

36 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Modoc Refuge Wetlands

Photo by USFWS

Most of the habitats on the Refuge have been altered from historic 

conditions due to man’s activities. Vegetation has responded to 

modified hydrology within the landscape, non-native/invasive plant 

infestations, altered fire regimes, and agricultural practices. The 

most evident changes have occurred in the sagebrush-steppe uplands, 

which have been subject to non-native grass infestation and western 

juniper encroachment.

4.1 Wetlands

At the time of European settlement in the early 1600s, the area that 

was to become the conterminous United States had approximately 

221 million acres of wetlands (Dahl and Allord 1996). About 103 

million acres remained as of the mid-1980s (Dahl and Johnson 1991). 

California lost greater than 85 percent of its original wetland acreage 

(Dahl 1990).

Because of these historic losses of wetlands, the Refuge’s wetlands 

are intensively managed. Modoc Refuge is part of a large complex of 

mid-altitude wetlands and lakes in northeastern California. These 

wetlands freeze up in mid-winter and burst into life in summer. They 

occur in a mosaic with extensive grassland, sagebrush flats, and large 

tracts of coniferous forest in this wild and virtually unpopulated 

corner of the State. Modoc Refuge acts as a migration hub and 

staging area for ducks, geese, and other wetland birds during their 

spring and fall migrations. 

The wetlands of the Modoc Plateau boast the highest diversity of 

breeding waterfowl in the State (National Audubon Society 2008). 

Wetlands also provide feeding and nesting grounds for great egrets, 

snowy egrets, black-crowned night-herons, American bitterns, great 

blue herons, white-faced ibis, marsh wrens, and red-winged and 

yellow-headed blackbirds. Shorebirds, such as sandpipers, Wilson’s 

phalaropes, willets, long-billed curlews, killdeer, black-necked stilts, 

and American avocets, also nest at the Refuge.
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

The Refuge contains three main types of wetlands, seasonal, semipermanent, and wet meadows. 

4.1.1

Seasonal wetlands (approximately 1,062 acres) support the greatest 

abundance and diversity of wildlife species and are highly productive 

sources of food for wildlife. They contain abundant seeds and other 

vegetative food items, such as leaves, stems, and tubers, as well as

invertebrates (e.g., insects, spiders, and crustaceans). Seasonal 

wetlands provide a diverse amount and distribution of emergent 

vegetation (e.g., bulrushes and cattails) and contain bare islands, 

levees, and open shorelines that provide excellent waterfowl loafing 

sites.

Seasonal wetlands

These wetlands are intensively managed, with the timing and depths 

of water and vegetation manipulated to meet resource management 

objectives. In general, they are wet from fall through spring and dry 

during the summer. The cover in this habitat, including cattails and 

bulrush, can range from mostly open water to almost 100 percent 

cover (Figure 9).

4.1.2

Semi-permanent wetlands provide important breeding habitat for 

waterfowl and many other wetland-dependent species during all or 

part of the summer, as well as most of the rest of the year.

Semi-permanent wetlands

Semi-permanent wetlands (approximately 553 acres) are 

characterized by surface water present throughout the year and 

emergent vegetation including cattails and bulrush. They are 

normally drawn down on a five-year rotation. Semi-permanent 

wetlands include Goose, Teal, Little Goose, Wigeon, Flournoy, Duck, 

Sloss, and South Dam ponds (Figure 9).

4.1.3

Wet meadows typically exhibit 

shallow surface water or 

saturated soil conditions. Wet 

meadows occur over most of 

the Refuge (approximately 

2,183 acres) and areas 

associated with its developed 

irrigation system. Herbaceous 

plants, including rushes, a 

variety of sedges, and reed 

canary grass, dominate these 

habitats (Figure 9). 

Wet meadows

Wet Meadows

Photo by USFWS
Chapter 3

38 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

4.2 Riverine

Aquatic ecosystems throughout the Modoc Plateau are affected by 

water diversions, erosion from logging roads, grazing activities, and 

introductions of non-native fish and invertebrates (California 

Department of Fish and Game 2005a). These stressors have degraded 

the main stem and tributaries of the Pit River.

There are five miles of riverine habitat on the Refuge, comprised of 

two miles of the main stem of the Pit River and three miles of the 

south fork of the Pit River (Figure 9). 

4.3 Reservoir 

In the 1930s, the Dorris family created Dorris Reservoir to provide 

water storage for their ranch. Dorris Reservoir is a 1,100 surfaceacre (only 547 acres of which are owned by the Refuge) storage 

facility used to supply water to the Refuge (Figure 9). The Refuge 

stores 11,500-acre feet of water within Dorris Reservoir. At spillway 

elevation, depths average 11.4 feet with a maximum depth of 22 feet. 

Nearly 40 percent of the Reservoir is less than 10 feet deep. 

Approximately 11 miles of shoreline exist at spillway elevation. 

Emergent vegetation is scarce except in the upper arms and shallow 

bays. 

The primary purpose of Dorris Reservoir is to provide water for 

habitat management purposes on other areas of the Refuge. 

Withdrawals of water to meet the irrigation needs of the Refuge 

cause large seasonal fluctuations in water levels. Therefore, Dorris 

Reservoir is not specifically managed as habitat for wildlife. 

However, through seasonal closures, the wildlife that uses the 

Reservoir is protected. 

Pit River

Photo by USFWS
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

Dorris Reservoir provides habitat for fish eating birds, including 

American white pelicans, double-crested cormorants, ring-billed 

gulls, Forster’s terns, Caspian terns, western grebes, and eared 

grebes. 

4.4 Riparian 

Riparian communities are among the most important habitats for 

wildlife because of their high floristic and structural diversity, high 

biomass (and therefore high food abundance), and high water 

availability. In addition to providing breeding, foraging, and roosting 

habitat for a diverse array of animals, riparian communities provide 

movement corridors for some species, connecting a variety of habitats 

throughout a region.

Riparian habitat (approximately 64 acres) on the Refuge is associated 

with creeks, river edges, and ditches and is found along the South 

Fork Pit River, Pit River, Pine Creek Ditch, Hamilton Tract, and 

Sub-headquarters Areas (Figures 9 and 10). Dominant woody species 

present include willows and cottonwoods with a 

native and non-native grass understory. An aspen 

stand is also included in this habitat type.

The Pit River provides habitat for the scarce 

cottonwood-willow forest and riparian scrub 

communities and consequently areas of high 

species richness (Davis et al. 1998). Small but 

important riparian areas on the Refuge provide 

excellent nesting and foraging areas for the redtailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, great horned owl, 

barn owl, downy woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, 

and Neotropical migrants, such as the yellow 

warbler, Bullock’s oriole, Wilson’s warbler, tree 

swallow, and willow flycatcher.

Dorris Reservoir

Photo by USFWS

Riparian Habitat

Photo by USFWS
Chapter 3

40 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

4.5 Sagebrush-steppe

Sagebrush habitat on the Refuge (approximately 2,053 acres) occurs 

in the uplands (areas not subject to flooding) and includes basin big 

sagebrush, western juniper, rabbitbrush, and perennial grasses such 

as Great Basin wild rye interspersed with bunchgrasses. Sagebrushsteppe habitat is dispersed throughout the Refuge, but the majority 

is located around Dorris Reservoir and in the Godfrey Tract. Small 

upland areas are located around the Refuge Headquarters, 

interspersed among wetland habitats and on the margins of the South 

Fork Pit River (Figures 9 and 10). 

Sagebrush-steppe habitat at the Refuge has undergone significant 

modification since settlement, including the invasion of cheat grass, a 

non-native annual that prefers frequently burned areas. Further, the 

recent history of fire suppression has allowed unimpeded juniper 

encroachment. These changes in the plant community structure and

composition have altered the fire regime and subsequently changed 

wildlife utilization of the habitat.

Sagebrush-steppe areas on the Refuge provide forage and nesting 

sites for northern harriers, short-eared owls, California quail, 

western kingbirds, western meadowlarks, sage thrashers, and other 

passerine species.

4.6 Croplands

Croplands (approximately 549 acres) are composed of those areas 

planted to crops of high value for wildlife. Approximately 200 acres of 

barley and winter wheat are planted annually. Farm fields include 

Ebbe, Matney, North Grain, Grandma Tract, and Town Grain 

(Figures 9 and 10). 

Sagebrush-steppe Habitat

Photo by USFWS
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

5. Habitat Management 

Refuge management is guided and tracked 

by an annual habitat management planning 

process. Appendix F contains an example of 

the annual habitat management work plan 

from 2006.

5.1 Water Management

Refuge wetlands are maintained by a 

complex and extensive irrigation system to 

allow for flooding and draining of various 

areas. Water is diverted through a system 

consisting of the 11,500-acre-foot Dorris 

Reservoir, twenty miles of major canals, fifty 

miles of minor ditches, the South Fork Pit 

River, and several pond and marsh areas.

5.1.1

During the fall and winter months, water levels in most seasonal 

wetland units are kept relatively shallow (<12 inches), with portions 

of some units up to 36 inches deep. Beginning in June, water levels in 

individual seasonal wetlands are slowly drawn down to mostly 

mudflat, typically over a period of 10-20 days. Seed-producing plants 

germinate and grow to maturity on the moist pond bottoms during 

the summer. In the fall, individual units are flooded on a staggered 

schedule between August and October, making appropriate amounts 

of habitat available to fall migrating birds and other wildlife as their 

numbers increase.

Seasonal wetlands

5.1.2

Water depth in semi-permanent wetlands ranges from 12 to 72 

inches. Water levels are maintained at consistent levels, to the extent 

possible, to minimize negative impacts to overwater nesting birds and 

growth of undesirable vegetation. Semi-permanent wetlands are 

maintained by a flow-through of water.

Semi-permanent wetlands

Semi-permanent wetlands are typically managed by flooding and 

maintaining the water throughout the year (i.e., permanent wetland). 

Permanent wetlands may be maintained for up to five years or more, 

but without periodic drawdown, productivity decreases over time. In 

addition, emergent vegetation grows relatively fast and its density 

can become a problem. As a result, these units are typically drawn 

down every three to five years to recycle nutrients and conduct any 

required maintenance or vegetation control.

5.1.3

Approximately 2,183 acres are irrigated and managed as wet, shortgrass meadows for the benefit of waterfowl and greater sandhill 

cranes (see Section 6 Fish and Wildlife). Wet meadows are irrigated 

Wet Meadows

Pine Creek Structure

Photo by USFWS
Chapter 3

42 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

beginning April 1. A continual flow of shallow water (2-4 inches) is 

maintained across these units until July 15. Beginning on July 15, wet 

meadows are allowed to dry naturally. During the month of August, 

wet meadows are hayed (see Section 5.2.3 Haying). Beginning 

September 1, water is reapplied to the wet meadows as in the spring 

until the end of the irrigation season on September 30.

5.2 Vegetation Management

5.2.1

The sagebrush-steppe habitat on the Refuge is not actively managed 

other than juniper removal and very limited prescribed fire to 

remove the decadent stands of grasses and stimulate growth of native 

grasses and forbs.

Sagebrush-steppe

5.2.2

Croplands are composed of those areas planted to crops of high value 

for wildlife, including barley and winter wheat. Farming helps to 

alleviate waterfowl and sandhill crane depredation of neighboring 

private crops by attracting them onto the Refuge.

Croplands

A rotational system of cropping and flood/fallowing is currently used 

in six of the Matney fields. Three of these fields are flooded during 

the fall, winter, and spring and are then drawn down gradually 

beginning June 1. This process is followed for three years. Then the 

fields are put into a winter wheat/spring barley rotation. The 

remaining three fields, which were in a winter wheat/spring barley 

rotation, are then put into flood/fallow.

Remaining croplands are planted to winter wheat/spring barley 

rotation. Planted in the fall, winter wheat matures the following 

spring and summer, and is left standing through the fall and winter. 

The field is then planted to spring barley. Spring barley matures in 

the summer, is left standing through the following summer, and is 

planted with winter wheat.

5.2.3

A late-season haying program is conducted on 2,079 acres of wet 

meadows to provide foraging and nesting habitat for greater sandhill 

cranes. All haying is conducted by permittees beginning August 1 and 

ending August 31. The start of haying can be delayed if sandhill crane 

colts less than three weeks of age are present.

Haying

Haying is conducted through the Special Use Permit (SUP) process. 

All SUPs are allotted through a bid process. Every three years the 

Refuge conducts a rate survey to determine the base rate for a ton of 

hay. This base rate provides the minimum bid used during the 

bidding process. Individual haying units are awarded to the highest 

bidder. The previous year’s permittee has the right to match the high 

Juniper Removal in 

Sagebrush-Steppe Habitat

Photo by USFWS
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

bid. The Refuge has one “grandfathered” haying permittee who pays 

the base rate annually.

5.2.4

Grazing can occur on approximately 935 acres of wet meadow habitat. 

This includes two unhayed units that are grazed only. Grazing is done 

by permittees and is conducted from September 1 through November 

30. Grazing provides short green browse for geese.

Grazing

Grazing is conducted through the SUP 

process. All SUPs are allotted through 

a bid process. Every three years the 

Refuge conducts a rate survey to 

determine the base rate for an animal 

unit month (AUM). This base rate 

provides the minimum bid used during 

the bidding process. Individual grazing 

units are awarded to the highest bidder. 

The previous year’s permittee has the 

right to match the high bid. The Refuge 

has two “grandfathered” grazing 

permittees who pay the base rate 

annually.

5.2.5

Prescribed burning is used in both wetland and upland habitats to 

remove hazardous fuel loads, control non-native invasive species, and 

enhance and maintain habitat values. Burning in wetland areas 

reduces perennial vegetation that has expanded to the point where

decreased wildlife use and overall productivity has resulted. 

Perennial vegetation includes hard-stemmed bulrush, cattail, and 

reed canary grass. Typically, prescribed burns are applied to 

managed wetlands during winter and early spring. Depending on 

conditions and habitat objectives, both dry and overwater burning 

can be successful.

Prescribed Burning 

The frequency of burning wetland units depends on the habitat type, 

vegetation species composition, tendency for growth, and soil type. In 

some cases, this may be as often as once every five years and in 

others, it may be once every 20 to 30 years.

Fire replenishes depleted growth elements to soils and helps clear 

fields of vegetative debris. Resource benefits include maintaining 

biodiversity (especially native plant communities and the wildlife they 

support), providing browse and nesting cover for waterfowl, and 

general maintenance of habitat for short grass wildlife species.

These burns also reduce the risk of large unwanted wildfires by 

reducing the accumulation of hazardous fuels and establishing a 

Male Gadwall

Photo by Steve Emmons
Chapter 3

44 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

mosaic of fuel loads. Burns may occur at any time of year, depending 

on specific objectives and condition of the habitat.

The Refuge is within the Klamath fire management zone. The fire 

management staff of the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex has annually conducted prescribed fire activities at the 

Modoc Refuge.

Prescribed burns are conducted in accordance with both Department 

of the Interior and Service Fire Management Policy (621 FW 1-3 of 

the Service Manual). Use of prescribed burns for habitat 

management and hazardous fuel reduction is consistent with both the 

approved habitat and fire management plans for the Refuge. A Fire 

Management Plan and EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003) were 

completed in 2003. Individual prescribed burn plans are written, 

reviewed, and approved for each unit as outlined in the Interagency 

Prescribed Fire Guide. They include a variety 

of information detailing how the burn will be 

conducted, considerations for safety, and 

measures to minimize impacts to sensitive 

species and air quality. All prescribed burns 

are conducted in compliance with the Clean 

Air Act and associated permitting 

requirements.

Prescribed burning eliminates fuel build-up, 

prepares land for new growth, creates 

diversity needed by wildlife, and helps certain 

plants and trees germinate. Prescribed burns 

were conducted on the Refuge from 1985 to 

2001. During this period the annual 

prescribed burned area ranged from 50 to 275 

acres, with a total of 1,554 acres burned on the 

Refuge. Most of the acres burned were in wet 

meadow and agricultural habitats. Additional prescribed burns were 

conducted in 2004 and 2005. The goals of the prescribed fire program 

are to

 restore/perpetuate native grasses, forbs, and shrubs,

 reduce non-native plant species,

 periodically reduce dense cattail and bulrush growth in wetlands 

to improve the ratio of open water to cover,

 maintain/rejuvenate nesting cover for waterfowl and other native 

birds,

 maintain water delivery systems, and

 protect riparian habitats from catastrophic wildland fire events 

through the establishment of firebreaks.

Prescribed Burning

Photo by USFWS
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

5.2.6

The Refuge actively controls a number of invasive and/or non-native 

plants. Invasive plant species compete with desirable plants for 

space, sunlight, nutrients, and water. They have detrimental effects 

on the distribution and abundance of plants that are important to 

wildlife as food, shelter, and nesting areas. In some cases, certain 

plants may be desirable in modest proportions, but can be 

detrimental to diversity and productivity if they become dominant. 

Currently, approximately 5,210 acres of the Refuge are infested with 

non-native species. The Refuge treats approximately 1,000 acres 

annually.

Control of Invasive/Non-native Species

There are five primary invasive/non-native weed species on the 

Refuge: perennial pepperweed, Scotch thistle, Canada thistle, bull 

thistle, and Mediterranean sage. Other non-native or nuisance 

invasive species include common teasel, cheat grass, reed canary 

grass, and poison hemlock. Perennial pepperweed and scotch thistle 

are the most invasive and damaging of the non-native species on the 

Refuge. However, the most widespread is Canada thistle, which 

occurs along wetland margins, wet meadows, irrigation canals, and 

roadsides.

The Refuge actively participates in the Modoc County Noxious 

Weed Management Group, which includes the CDFG, 

California Department of Food and Agriculture, NRCS, 

USFS, BLM, Central Modoc Resource Conservation District 

(RCD), Pit RCD, Goose Lake RCD, North CAL/NEVA 

Resource Conservation and Development, California 

Department of Transportation, U.C. Cooperative Extension, 

and Modoc County Department of Agriculture. The Group was 

brought together by the common goals of noxious weed 

exclusion, early detection, and control within Modoc County. 

The Service pest management policy goal (30 AM 12.1 of the 

Administrative Manual) is to eliminate the unnecessary use 

of pesticides through the use of Integrated Pest 

Management (IPM). IPM uses a combination of biological, 

physical, cultural, and chemical control methods (30 AM 

12.5 of the Administrative Manual). This approach notes 

environmental hazards, efficacy, costs, and vulnerability of the pest. 

An IPM Plan (Appendix G) has been developed for the Refuge. 

Mechanical, physical, biological, and chemical applications are the 

primary mechanisms used to control non-native/invasive species. 

Prescribed fire is also an effective means of reducing weed 

infestations, particularly in native communities that evolved with fire.

When plants or animals are considered a pest, they are subject to 

control on national wildlife refuges if the pest organism represents a 

threat to human health, well-being, or private property; the 

acceptable level of damage by the pest has been exceeded; State or 

Controlling Invasive Plant 

Species

Photo by USFWS
Chapter 3

46 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

local governments have designated the pest as noxious; the pest 

organism is detrimental to primary refuge objectives; and the 

planned control program will not conflict with the attainment of 

Refuge objectives or the purposes for which the Refuge is managed 

(7 RM 14.2 of the Refuge Manual).

5.2.7

Sanctuaries are areas on the Refuge that are closed to public use

(approximately 4,265 acres or 61 percent of the Refuge). They 

provide places where human-caused disturbances are reduced, 

thereby reducing the interruption of wildlife activities, such as 

foraging, resting, breeding, feeding nestlings, and other maintenance 

activities. They are also important for wildlife to avoid predation by 

other wild animals, as they can devote less energy to avoiding 

humans and more to avoiding predators. Sanctuaries are areas where 

wildlife concentrate and reproduce, resulting in increased numbers of 

wildlife, which can lead to more wildlife-dependent public use in areas 

near the sanctuary. 

Wildlife Sanctuary

Short-term sanctuaries occur on Dorris Reservoir during the 

wintering and nesting seasons. Dorris Reservoir is closed to public 

access from October 1 through January 31 to provide sanctuary for 

migratory waterfowl. From February 1 through May 31, shorelines, 

islands, and peninsulas are closed to public access to reduce 

disturbance of nesting waterfowl. In addition, the 2,130-acre hunt 

area is closed to public access, outside of the waterfowl hunting 

season. 

6. Fish and Wildlife 

Situated along the Pacific Flyway, the Refuge is an important 

resting, nesting, and feeding area for migratory birds, and it has been

recognized as an Important Bird Area (IBA). The IBA program is a 

global effort to identify and conserve areas that are vital to birds and 

other biodiversity. By working with Audubon chapters, landowners, 

public agencies, community groups, and other non-profits, Audubon 

endeavors to interest and activate a broad network of supporters to 

ensure that all IBAs are properly managed and conserved.

To qualify as an IBA, sites must satisfy a variety of criteria. In the 

U.S., the IBA program has become a key component of many bird 

conservation efforts, including Partners in Flight, North American 

Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation 

Plan. 

The Upper Klamath Lake IBA was selected and approved as an IBA 

because it supports greater than 10 percent of the California 

breeding population of greater sandhill cranes, 12 sensitive species, 

and greater than 5,000 waterfowl (Cooper 2004).
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

Depending upon the season, bird populations on the Refuge vary 

greatly in abundance and diversity, with over 240 bird species 

recorded, including 40 accidentals (species not normally found in the 

region). Seventy-seven of these species nest on the Refuge. In 

addition to the numerous species of birds, 53 species of mammal and 

19 species of reptiles and amphibians are known to inhabit the 

Refuge, as well as both native and non-native fish and invertebrate

species. Appendix H contains a complete list of fish and wildlife 

species that occur or potentially could occur on the Refuge. An 

overview of wildlife use of the Refuge follows.

6.1 Waterfowl 

The Refuge is an important northern California waterfowl production 

area, providing nesting habitat for 11 species. Duck production (to 

fledging) averages approximately 3,600 birds/year and is dominated 

by mallards, gadwalls, cinnamon teals, northern shovelers, and 

redheads (Figure 11). In addition, approximately 2,000 Canada geese 

are produced on the Refuge each year (Figure 12).

Fall migrating waterfowl begin to arrive on the Refuge in September 

and stage there until hard freezes drive the majority of the birds into 

the Central Valley. These birds return in the spring as they migrate 

back to their northern breeding grounds. Up to 25,000 ducks stop and 

rest on the Refuge (Table 3). The number of geese using the area 

averages between 4,000 and 5,000 birds (Table 3). Approximately 

1,000 tundra swans also use the Refuge each year during migration.

Canada Geese with Goslings

Photo by USFWS
Chapter 3

48 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Figure 11. Waterfowl production 1972-2001

Figure 12. Canada goose production 1961-2003

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Pairs Production Nesting Pairs Trendline Production Trendline

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

197219731974197519761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Production Breeding Pairs Linear (Production) Linear (Breeding Pairs)
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

Table 3. Periodic wildlife survey Modoc Refuge, 2004

Species September October November

Tundra swan 0 0 153

Trumpeter swan 0 0 0 

TOTAL SWANS 0 0 153

White-front goose 0 83 10

Snow goose 0 0 0 

Canada goose 1,008 2,795 1,443

TOTAL GEESE 1,008 2,878 1,453

Mallard 2,393 9,145 1,983

Gadwall 1,454 7,130 1,877

Green-winged teal 0 2,150 588 

American wigeon 117 3,650 977

Northern pintail 75 6,370 266

Northern shoveler 162 1,500 627

Blue-winged teal 0 0 0 

Cinnamon teal 26 850 0 

Canvasback 0 0 0 

Redhead 223 250 14

Ring-necked duck 0 40 420

Lesser scaup 225 0 0 

Common goldeneye 0 0 286 

Bufflehead 0 10 748

Common merganser 0 0 0 

Hooded merganser 3 0 0 

Ruddy duck 0 0 0 

TOTAL DUCKS 4,678 31,095 7,786

GRAND TOTAL 5,686 33,973 9,392
Chapter 3

50 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Waterfowl use of the Refuge’s habitat varies by species as well as 

factors such as water depth, ratio of open water to emergent 

vegetation, food availability, access to loafing sites, and level of 

human disturbance. Most of the waterfowl that 

occur on the Refuge are dabbling ducks and geese, 

which all prefer relatively shallow water. Species 

such as northern pintails, American wigeons, and 

northern shovelers prefer more open water, 

whereas mallards and gadwalls will use wetlands 

with denser cover.

6.2 Shorebirds 

Numerous shorebirds nest on the Refuge and 

forage in its shallow ponds and mudflats. Nesting 

has been recorded for the Wilson’s phalarope, 

willet, long-billed curlew, killdeer, black-necked 

stilt, American avocet, and spotted sandpiper.

6.3 Waterbirds 

Wetlands on the Refuge provide feeding and nesting grounds for a 

variety of wading birds including the greater sandhill crane (State

listed threatened species), great egret, snowy egret, black-crowned 

night-heron, American bittern, great blue heron, and white-faced ibis.

Areas of open and usually deep water, such as at Dorris Reservoir, 

attract fish-eating birds, including the American white pelican and 

double-crested cormorant. Other year-round species include Virginia 

rails, soras, and grebes (e.g., pied-billed, eared, Clark’s, and western). 

6.4 Gulls and Terns

Ring-billed and California gulls are the most common gulls on the 

Refuge, occurring primarily during the summer. Forster’s, Caspian, 

and black terns are common to abundant during the summer. 

Forster’s and black terns nest on the Refuge.

6.5 Birds of Prey

The small but important riparian habitats on the Refuge provide 

nesting and foraging areas for the red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, 

American kestrel, great horned owl, and barn owl. Upland and 

wetland habitats provide foraging and nesting for the northern 

harrier and short-eared owl. In addition, bald eagles, golden eagles, 

prairie falcons, and rough-legged hawks are common winter visitors.

Greater Yellowlegs

Photo by Steve Emmons

American Kestrel

Photo by Steve Emmons
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

6.6 Game Birds 

Game birds use a variety of habitats on the Refuge. Ring-necked 

pheasant can be found foraging in the agricultural areas and nesting 

in nearby shrubs. Mourning doves and California quail can also be 

found on the Refuge. Mourning doves and Wilson’s snipe (a 

shorebird) are technically “migratory birds,” but are also 

classified as upland game birds in the California hunting 

regulations. Mourning doves occur year-round. They are a 

common nester during the spring and summer and a less common 

winter resident. Wilson’s snipe are abundant during the summer 

and nest in shallow wetlands. Wilson’s snipe and ring-necked 

pheasant (Junior Hunt only) are the only game birds hunted on 

the Refuge.

6.7 Other Landbirds 

The riparian habitat on the Refuge is occupied by species such as 

the downy and hairy woodpecker. This habitat also provides 

nesting and foraging areas for Neotropical migrants such as the 

yellow warbler, Bullock’s oriole, Wilson’s warbler, tree swallow, 

and willow flycatcher.

Upland habitat on the Refuge provides nesting and foraging 

areas for passerines such as the western kingbird, western 

meadowlark, black-billed magpie, song sparrow, and sage 

thrasher. Non-native European starlings and house sparrows 

are common and often out-compete native species for nesting 

sites.

6.8 Mammals

Most of the mammals found on the Refuge are year-round residents. 

The most abundant species include the deer mouse, Great Basin 

pocket mouse, Ord’s kangaroo rat, western harvest mouse, northern 

grasshopper mouse, and Belding’s ground squirrel. Nuttall’s 

cottontails and black-tailed jackrabbits are common in 

the sagebrush habitat. Bats, including the Brazilian 

free-tailed bat, little brown bat, California myotis, and 

Yuma myotis, are also present on the Refuge.

Large mammals commonly found in the Refuge 

include mule deer, badger, striped skunk, bobcat, and 

coyote. In addition, muskrat, beaver, and river otter 

are found in the Refuge’s aquatic habitats.

6.9 Amphibians and Reptiles

Common amphibians and reptiles occurring on the 

Refuge include the western toad, Pacific treefrog, 

western fence lizard, sagebrush lizard, western 

skink, gopher snake, common garter snake, and 

western pond turtle.

Wilson’s Snipe

Photo by Steve Emmons

Western Pond Turtle

Photo by Steve Emmons
Chapter 3

52 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

6.10 Fish 

Native fish species expected to occur in the Reservoir and/or riverine 

habitats on the Refuge include the Pit-Klamath brook lamprey, Goose 

Lake redband trout, Sacramento sucker, hardhead, pit roach, 

Sacramento pike minnow, speckled dace, tui chub, and Pit sculpin. 

Non-native species include the bluegill, green sunfish, largemouth 

bass, brown trout, rainbow trout, brown bullhead, crappie, and 

channel catfish.

In July 1989, a gill net survey was conducted on Dorris Reservoir. 

The survey included 113 fish (54 percent tui chub, 20 percent brown 

bullhead, 16 percent largemouth bass, 5 percent rainbow trout, 4 

percent bluegill sunfish, and 1 percent channel catfish).

Within the Refuge, fish are primarily found in the Pit River and 

Dorris Reservoir. However, they can also be found in canals and 

ponds. The CDFG stocks Dorris Reservoir with rainbow trout and is 

the primary source of existing fish species. The Reservoir was 

treated with Rotenone in 1947 and then annually stocked with 

rainbow trout until 1968. As a result of public pressure, annual 

stocking of catchable sized trout by CDFG resumed in 1980. Because

of annual summer drawdowns and associated warm temperatures, 

this is not a self-sustaining population. The State also planted 

largemouth bass in 1949, bluegill in 1955, channel catfish in 1972, and 

brown bullhead (date unknown). In 2007, CDFG planted 2,450 Eagle 

Lake rainbow trout into Dorris Reservoir. 

Fish barriers have been installed in Parker Creek and Pine Creek 

delivery canals to prevent fish migration during high precipitation 

years. Fish habitat enhancement projects on Dorris Reservoir are 

conducted annually. Juniper stumps and recycled Christmas trees 

are used to create brush piles that provide escape cover for fish.

6.11 Invertebrates 

Invertebrate populations are greatest and most diverse in aquatic 

habitats, and provide an important food base for many fish and 

wildlife species both aquatic and terrestrial. Invertebrates present on 

the Refuge are an important resource based on their contribution to 

biotic diversity and their vital function in the food chain for many fish 

and wildlife species. They occur in all habitat types, both aquatic and 

terrestrial. Some are abundant such as many species of midges, while 

others are quite rare.

In combination with seeds and other vegetation, aquatic 

invertebrates are an essential part of many waterbird diets at various 

times of the year, as they provide a balance of amino and fatty acids 

to facilitate fat and protein storage (Euliss and Harris 1987; Miller 

1987; Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). Invertebrates provide energy 

for migration, protein to replace molted feathers, and calcium for the 

production of eggs. Wetlands support a wide variety of aquatic 
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

invertebrates including water fleas, snails, clams, dragonflies, 

damselflies, water boatmen, backswimmers, beetles, midges, 

mosquitoes, worms, mussels, crayfish, and various species of 

zooplankton. While many of these species’ larvae occur in the water 

column or sediment in wetlands, the adult stages are aerial and an 

important food source for landbirds as well as mammals (i.e., 

swallows, flycatchers, and bats).

Terrestrial invertebrates are also an important food base for many 

migratory and resident bird species, and include numerous species of 

grasshoppers, beetles, butterflies, moths, ants, spiders, and other 

insects. In addition, many of these invertebrates play key roles in 

plant pollination. 

6.12 Threatened and Endangered Species

The Refuge provides breeding, rearing, migratory, and wintering 

habitat for Federal and State threatened and endangered species and 

species of special status. Federally and State listed species are 

presented in Table 4 and are discussed in more detail below. Other 

special-status species are presented in Appendix H. No Federal or 

State listed plant species are known to occur on the Refuge.

6.12.1

The greater sandhill crane (State listed as threatened) is 

one of six subspecies of sandhill cranes found in North 

America. The greater sandhill cranes are divided into five 

distinct migratory populations, which return to the same 

breeding and wintering sites every year (Littlefield and 

Ivey 2000). These five populations are the Eastern, Prairie, 

Rocky Mountain, Lower Colorado River Valley, and 

California Central Valley (Littlefield and Ivey 2000, 2002). 

Greater sandhill cranes that occur on the Modoc Refuge 

belong to the California Central Valley population.

Greater Sandhill Crane

In 2000, there were an estimated 62,600 greater sandhill 

cranes in existence (Littlefield and Ivey 2000). In 2005, 

the estimate for greater sandhill cranes within their 

Pacific Flyway range was between 5,000 and 6,000 

individuals (California Department of Fish and Game 

2005c). Estimates of breeding crane pairs were made in 

these northern California counties: Modoc (252), Lassen (122), 

Siskiyou (51), Plumas (20), Shasta (10), and Sierra (10). Breeding 

population estimates have ranged from a low of 112 breeding pairs in 

1971 (in 3 of the above 6 counties) to a high of 465 pairs in 2000 

(California Department of Fish and Game 2005c). 

This species continues to experience threats on both wintering and 

breeding grounds due to agricultural and urban conversion of habitat, 

predation, human disturbance, and collisions with power lines. 

Greater Sandhill Crane Colt

Photo by USFWS
Chapter 3

54 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Table 4. Federal and State listed wildlife species occurring at or near Modoc National 

Wildlife Refuge

Common Name

Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat Description Comments

Greater sandhill crane

Grus canadensis 

tabida

CT, CFP Wetlands required for breeding; 

forage in nearby pastures, fields, 

and meadows.

Common spring, summer, and 

fall resident; known to breed on 

the Refuge.

Western snowy plover

Charadrius 

alexandrinus nivosus

FT, CSC Inland, breeds on barren to 

sparsely vegetated ground at 

alkaline or saline lakes, 

reservoirs, and ponds.

Rare summer resident; 

suspected of nesting on the 

Refuge.

Swainson’s hawk

Buteo swainsoni

CT Breeds in stands with few trees 

in juniper-sage flats, riparian 

areas, and oak savannah; forages 

in adjacent livestock pasture, 

grassland, or grain fields.

Summer resident; known to nest 

on the Refuge.

American peregrine 

falcon

Falco peregrinus 

anatum

FD, CE, 

CFP

Forages in many habitats; 

requires cliffs for nesting.

Rare migrant.

Bald eagle

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

FD, CE, 

CFP

Riverine and open wetland 

habitats. Perches high in large, 

stoutly limbed trees, on snags or 

broken-topped trees or on rocks 

near water.

Winter resident and occasional 

migrant.

Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus 

occidentalis

FC, CE Nesting habitat is 

cottonwood/willow riparian 

forest.

Rare migrant and summer 

resident; suspected of nesting on 

the Refuge.

Willow flycatcher

Empidonax traillii

CE Wet meadow and montane 

riparian habitats.

Uncommon summer resident; 

known to nest on the Refuge.

Bank swallow

Riparia riparia

CT Colonial nester on vertical banks

or cliffs with fine-textured soils 

near water.

Common migrant and 

uncommon summer resident; 

known to nest on the Refuge.

Oregon spotted frog

Rana pretiosa

FC, CSC Wet areas in mountainous 

woodlands and wet meadows.

Suitable habitat occurs on the 

Refuge. Has been recorded 

historically in Pine Creek and 

the south fork of the Pit River 

near Alturas (California Herps 

2007).

Modoc sucker

Catostomus microps

FE, CE Small streams Known to occur in Turner and 

Rush Creeks in Modoc County, 

not known to occur on the

Refuge

1

Status Key: Federal: FE = Endangered, FT = Threatened, FC = Candidate Species; FD = Delisted

State of California: CE = Endangered, CT=Threatened, CSC = Species of Special Concern, CFP = 

Fully Protected
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

The California Central Valley population consists of two groups, 

which breed in different areas (Figure 13). One group winters in the 

southern part of California’s Central Valley and breeds in southeast 

Washington, southeast and south-central Oregon, northwest Nevada, 

and in northeast California. The other group winters in the northern 

part of the Central Valley, and breeds in British Columbia (Littlefield 

and Ivey 2002).

Figure 13. Migration routes of Central Valley population of 

greater sandhill cranes 

Source: Littlefield and Ivey 2002

In California, sandhill cranes establish territories in wet meadows 

that are often interspersed with emergent marsh. They tend to nest 

in rather open habitat; however, in certain areas they nest in 

association with a dense cover of bulrush and bur-reed. 

The greater sandhill crane is a common spring, summer, and fall 

resident at the Refuge, which supports approximately 40 to 50 

nesting pairs each year with an average recruitment (number of 

young surviving to adulthood) of 12 cranes per year (Figure 14).
Chapter 3

56 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002* 2003

Nesting Pairs Production Nesting Pair Trendline Production Trendline

Figure 14. Greater sandhill crane production at Modoc Refuge, 

1979-2003

Greater sandhill cranes require wet meadows and wetlands to 

support their breeding and brood rearing efforts. Many of the pairs 

nesting on the Refuge also use areas adjacent to the Refuge for 

foraging. During the spring and fall, thousands of cranes use the 

Refuge on their way to and from the Central Valley of California.

6.12.2

The western snowy plover (Federally listed as threatened) is a small 

shorebird distinguished from other plovers by its small size, pale 

brown upper parts, dark patches on either side of the upper breast, 

and dark gray to blackish legs. The western snowy plover lays its 

eggs in a shallow depression in the salt pan or salt flat area of an 

estuary or in the beach dune areas near estuaries. Plovers feed 

primarily on insects and other invertebrates that they find in the wet 

sand along the surf or in lagoons.

Western Snowy Plover

Western snowy plovers breed from Washington State to Baja, 

California, and winter in coastal areas from southern Washington to 

Central America. Most western snowy plovers return to the same site 

in subsequent breeding seasons. Their preferred coastal nesting 

habitats are sand spits, dune-backed beaches, unvegetated beach 

strands, open areas around estuaries, and beaches at river mouths. In 

winter, snowy plovers are found on many of the beaches used for 

nesting as well as on beaches where they do not nest, and on 

estuarine sand and mud flats.
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

Recreational and other human disturbance, loss of habitat to urban 

development, introduction of beachgrass and other nonnative species, 

and expanding predator populations have all contributed to a decline 

in active nesting areas and in the size of the breeding and wintering 

populations. Current estimates project that there are roughly 1,800 

western snowy plovers along the Pacific Coast from Washington to 

Baja (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service unpublished data).

Western snowy plovers are a rare summer visitor at the Refuge 

where limited numbers have been observed during early summer. 

The closest documented nesting for this species occurs on Goose 

Lake and in Surprise Valley. 

6.12.3

The American peregrine falcon (Federally delisted, 

State listed as endangered) is a migratory species. 

Peak fall migration occurs between mid-September 

and mid-November, and individuals arrive on 

breeding grounds and establish territories in early 

March (White et al. 2002). The California breeding 

range, which has been expanding, now includes the 

Channel Islands, coast of southern and central 

California, inland north coastal mountains, Klamath 

and Cascade ranges, and the Sierra Nevada 

(California Department of Fish and Game 2005b). 

Nesting sites are typically on ledges of large cliff 

faces, but some pairs nest on city buildings and 

bridges. Nesting and wintering habitats are varied, 

including wetlands, woodlands, other forested 

habitats, cities, agricultural areas, and coastal 

habitats.

American Peregrine Falcon

Ninety-six randomly chosen peregrine nest sites in 

Washington, California, Oregon, Idaho, and

Nevada were monitored in 2003. Under the 

Service-funded effort, 30 territories were sampled in California. The 

Pacific region’s overall occupancy was 86 percent (93 percent in 

California), the overall nest success was 64 percent (75 percent in 

California), and the overall productivity was 1.4 young per occupied 

site (1.5 in California). In these five states, approximately 43 new 

territories were discovered in 2003, including nine in California 

(California Department of Fish and Game 2005c). Currently, the

population of the peregrine falcon in California is increasing 

(California Department of Fish and Game 2005c). 

On the Refuge, the peregrine falcon is a rare migrant, summer, and 

winter resident. Peregrine falcons are not known to nest in the Upper 

Pit River Watershed (VESTRA 2004).

American Peregrine Falcon

Photo by Steve Emmons
Chapter 3

58 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

6.12.4

The bald eagle (Federally delisted, State listed as endangered) 

occupies various woodland, forest, grassland, and wetland habitats. 

The species winters throughout most of 

California at lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and some 

rangelands and coastal wetlands. Nesting 

territories are found mostly in the northern half 

of the State, and also in the southern Sierra 

Nevada, Central Coast Range, inland southern 

California south to Riverside County, and on 

Santa Catalina Island (California Department of 

Fish and Game 2005b). The breeding range 

expanded from portions of eight counties in 1981 

to at least 32 of California’s 58 counties by 2003 

(California Department of Fish and Game 2005c). 

The population of bald eagles in California is 

currently increasing (California Department of 

Fish and Game 2005c). 

American Bald Eagle

Modoc and Shasta counties have the highest 

densities of nesting bald eagles in California 

(VESTRA 2004). Between 1959 and 1977, only 

two bald eagle territories were documented in 

the Upper Pit River Watershed. Since then, 16 

have been recorded (VESTRA 2004).

Wintering bald eagles utilize the Refuge from October through 

March. Large cottonwoods and junipers near Dorris Reservoir and 

the Pit River provide eagle roosting and perching sites. 

6.12.5

Swainson’s hawks (State listed as threatened) breed in North 

America and winter in Mexico, Central America, and South America. 

In California, this species may have declined by as much as 90 

percent (Riparian Habitats Joint Venture 2004). Swainson’s hawks 

were once found throughout the lowlands of California and were 

absent only from the Sierra Nevada, north Coast Ranges and 

Klamath Mountains, and portions of the desert regions of the State. 

Today they are restricted to portions of the Central Valley and Great 

Basin regions where suitable nesting and foraging habitat is still 

available (California Department of Fish and Game 2005c). 

Swainson’s Hawk

Approximately 95 percent of Swainson’s hawks in California exist in 

the Central Valley (California Department of Fish and Game and 

University of California at Davis 2006). They nest in trees along 

riparian corridors or in isolated trees or small groves near suitable 

foraging habitat. Foraging habitat consists of grassland vegetation 

and short herbaceous croplands.

American Bald Eagle

Photo by Steve Emmons
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

During historical times (ca. 1900), Swainson's hawks may have 

maintained a population of more than 17,000 pairs. Based on a study 

conducted in 1994, the statewide population was estimated to be 

approximately 800 pairs. The loss and conversion of native grasslands 

and agricultural lands to various residential and commercial 

developments is the primary threat to Swainson's hawk populations 

throughout California (California Department of Fish and Game 

2005c). Currently the population of Swainson’s hawks in California is 

declining (California Department of Fish and Game 2005c). 

In northeast California, Swainson's hawks arrive at nesting areas in 

early to mid-April and begin to depart in early September, with a few 

individuals remaining on territories in early October. A pair of 

Swainson’s hawks has been observed on the Refuge since 2000 and 

nesting has been documented for the past several years.

6.12.6

The western yellow-billed cuckoo (Federal candidate species, State

listed as endangered) requires dense, large tracts of riparian 

woodlands with well-developed understories for breeding. Their 

breeding range in California includes the lower Colorado, Kern, and 

Sacramento Rivers. The current population in California is about 60 

to 100 pairs (Halterman et al. 2001).

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo

The western yellow-billed cuckoo is threatened by loss and 

degradation of its habitat due to land clearing, fire, flood control 

projects, surface water diversions and groundwater pumping, and 

overgrazing by livestock (California Department of Fish and Game 

2005c). Such disturbances often foster the establishment of invasive 

non-native plants such as tamarisk and giant reed. The resulting 

fragmentation reduces the size and quality of habitat for the cuckoo. 

Cuckoo’s nest in larger trees, such as Fremont cottonwoods, located 

in close proximity to foraging habitat (mixed riparian forest and 

willow and herbaceous scrublands).

Western yellow-billed cuckoos are rare summer visitors to the 

riparian habitat on the Refuge. Nesting has not been verified but is 

suspected to have occurred.

6.12.7

The willow flycatcher (State listed as endangered) is a rare to locally 

uncommon, summer resident in wet meadow and montane riparian 

habitats at 2,000-8,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range.

They have specific habitat requirements, typically consisting of 

riparian habitat often dominated by willows and/or alder, and 

permanent water, often in the form of low gradient watercourses, 

ponds, lakes, wet meadows, marshes, and seeps within and adjacent 

to forested landscapes. Peak fall migration occurs between midAugust and mid-September, and breeding individuals arrive in their 

breeding territory around late May and early June (Sedgwick 2000). 

Willow Flycatcher
Chapter 3

60 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Willow flycatchers are thought to primarily winter in Central 

America.

Willow flycatchers historically nested throughout much of California 

wherever deciduous shrubs, mainly thickets of willow, occurred 

(Grinnell and Miller 1944). In the latter half of the 20th century, the 

breeding populations drastically declined in lower elevation habitats 

(Serena 1982). Habitat alteration and overgrazing are cited as the two 

most responsible factors (Remsen 1978, Serena 1982). Generally, 

throughout the range of the willow flycatcher, historic wet meadow 

habitats have been drained for agricultural purposes and a 

percentage converted to crop production. More recently, predators 

and brood parasitism have been discovered to have a negative

influence on survival and reproduction (Green et al. 2003). 

Approximately 315 territories are thought to occur in California 

(Green et al. 2003). 

Willow flycatchers are a common spring and fall migrant at lower 

elevations, primarily in riparian habitats (California Department of 

Fish and Game 2005b). On the Refuge, willow flycatchers are a spring 

and fall migrant and uncommon summer resident of riparian habitats. 

One successful nesting attempt has been documented.

6.12.8

Bank swallows (State listed as threatened) are Neotropical migrants 

that breed in California from April to August and spend the winter 

months in South America. In California, they are found primarily in 

riparian and other lowland habitats. The current population is 

restricted to portions of the upper Sacramento River, primarily 

between Redding and Colusa; about four or five central and 

north coast colonies; and scattered colonies in northern and 

northeastern California, including a large one (usually 

about 1,500 burrows) at Fall River Mills (Schlorff 2000). 

Sacramento Valley riparian systems provide habitat for 

over 70 percent of the remaining population (Schlorff 2000).

Bank Swallow

Bank swallows are the smallest North American swallow 

species. They nest colonially and inhabit isolated places 

where fine-textured or sandy, vertical bluffs or riverbanks 

are available in which to dig burrows. Bank swallows forage 

over open riparian areas, brushland, grassland, and 

cropland. The rip-rapping of natural stream bank 

associated with bank protection projects is the single most 

serious, human-caused threat to the long-term survival of 

the bank swallow in California (California Department of 

Fish and Game 2005b).

VESTRA (2004) states that there are six bank swallow colonies 

reported in the Upper Pit River Watershed along the Pit River. Four 

colonies occur on the Pit River between 3 to 10 miles southwest of 

Bank Swallow

Photo by Steve Emmons
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

Alturas, one 5 miles north of Alturas, and one colony near McArthur. 

Currently the McArthur colony is active, but it is unknown whether 

any of the other colonies are still active.

Bank swallows are a common migrant and uncommon summer 

resident on the Refuge. During the spring, the species has been 

observed feeding on flying insects over much of the Refuge. In the 

summer, they seem to be restricted to areas along the Pit River 

where they nest in limited numbers.

6.12.9

The Modoc sucker was listed as endangered with critical habitat on 

June 11, 1985. Critical habitat for the Modoc sucker was designated 

in Modoc County, California to include a total of approximately 26 

miles of the following streams and a 50 foot riparian zone on either 

side of the steam channel: Turner Creek, Washington Creek 

(including its tributary Coffee Mill Gulch), Hulbert Creek (including 

its tributary Cedar Creek), Johnson Creek (including its tributaries 

Rice Flat and Higgins Flat), and Rush Creek. 

Modoc Sucker

Modoc suckers are known from only two widely separated 

watersheds of the Pit River, Ash Creek and Turner Creek, and from 

two streams (Bauers and Thomas creeks) in the upper Goose Lake 

basin in Oregon (Moyle 2002). The decline of the species is largely 

attributed to habitat destruction and hybridization between the 

Modoc sucker with the Sacramento sucker a species that occupies 

larger streams in the region.

Even though suitable habitat may occur, Modoc suckers are not 

known to occur on the Refuge.

6.12.10

The Oregon spotted frog is a Federal candidate species. Historically, 

they ranged from extreme southwest British Columbia south through 

Washington and Oregon, to extreme northeast California, where it is 

known from only a few scattered localities including Pine Creek, 

South Fork Pit River near Alturas, Warner Mountains, and the 

southwest side of Lower Klamath Lake from near sea level to 5,000 

feet. 

Oregon Spotted Frog

Currently, 36 Oregon spotted frog locations are known in the U.S. 

including 7 in Washington (Klickitat, Skamania, and Thurston 

counties), 29 in Oregon (Deschutes, Klamath, Jackson, Lane, and 

Wasco counties), and 3 in British Columbia, Canada (USFWS 2007c). 

In California, this species has not been detected at historic sites and 

may be extirpated; however, there has not been an adequate survey 

of potential habitat, so this species may still occur in California. 
Chapter 3

62 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Watson et al. (2003) summarized the conditions required for 

completion of Oregon spotted frog life cycle as shallow water areas 

for egg and tadpole survival, perennial deep moderately vegetated 

pools for adult and juvenile survival in the dry season, and perennial 

water for protecting all age classes during cold wet weather. Threats 

to the species’ habitat include changes in hydrology due to 

construction of dams and alterations to seasonal flooding, 

introduction of exotic plant and animal species, plant successional 

changes, poor water quality, livestock grazing (in some 

circumstances), and residential and commercial development 

(USFWS 2007c). 

7. Fish and Wildlife Management

Fish and wildlife management is accomplished through habitat 

restoration, enhancement, and management. Habitat restoration and 

management can improve the overall health and productivity of fish 

and wildlife populations by increasing water, food, breeding, staging, 

winter areas, cover, and shelter. Habitat management needs can be 

designed to benefit certain target species or multiple species.

7.1 Migratory Bird Management

One of the Refuge’s primary purposes is to provide habitat for 

migratory birds, particularly migrating and nesting waterfowl. The 

habitat management described in Section 5 contributes to achieving 

that purpose. The combination of managed habitat types support 

nesting and migrating ducks, geese, shorebirds, greater sandhill 

cranes, and a host of other wetland dependent species.

The Refuge participates in or conducts a number of migratory bird 

surveys and monitoring projects throughout the year. Surveys 

include ground migratory bird surveys, Canada goose production

surveys, waterfowl and greater sandhill crane banding, Monitoring 

Avian Productivity and Survivorship project (MAPS) surveys, and 

other special surveys. This information is stored, tracked, and 

analyzed in a database and then used to develop annual habitat 

management plans. 

7.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Management

The Refuge manages for greater sandhill cranes by providing and 

enhancing nesting and foraging habitat (see Section 5). Annual 

greater sandhill crane breeding pair surveys are conducted and 

successful reproduction (the presence of greater sandhill crane colts) 

is recorded. In addition to documenting the number of nesting pairs 

on the Refuge, the information gathered provides the refuge 

manager with a means of determining greater sandhill crane

preferred nesting habitat and nest success, which can be used to 

guide habitat management on the Refuge.

Canada Geese Banding and 

Neck Collaring

Photo by USFWS
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

7.3 Game Management

Game management at the Refuge is limited to habitat management 

for waterfowl and snipe (see Section 5). Game species other than 

waterfowl and snipe are not managed for explicitly. However, upland 

game species receive incidental benefits from the habitats that are 

managed for other priority Refuge resources. For example, 

sagebrush-steppe, seasonal marshes, and semi-permanent wetlands 

all contribute to nesting cover for upland game birds. Welldistributed semi-permanent wetlands provide essential water sources 

during summer months, when the Refuge is relatively dry.

7.4 Monitoring, Research, and Investigations

Monitoring and research projects 

are conducted by refuge staff or 

cooperatively with principle 

investigators from government 

agencies, universities, and private 

conservation organizations. 

Monitoring and research are the 

foundation for Refuge management 

decisions. 

A mist-netting project at the Refuge 

initially began in 1982 as a ten-year 

study to monitor the breeding 

population of yellow warblers and 

willow flycatchers. After 1992, the 

mist-netting project continued and 

data were formally submitted to 

MAPS on the various Neotropical 

migrants captured. MAPS data are 

collected at various 

locations all over the 

United States by the 

Institute for Bird 

Populations in Point 

Reyes, California.

Study proposals are evaluated by refuge staff to assure 

that the research is compatible with the Refuge and that 

some aspect of the results will contribute to wildlife and 

habitat management. A SUP is issued to each research 

investigator. The SUP identifies and describes individual 

projects, provides contact information, identifies where 

research activities will take place, and describes special 

conditions to assure the health and safety of the 

environment and those who visit the Refuge.

Greater Sandhill Crane 

Colt

Photo by USFWS

Collecting MAPS Data is a Key 

Activity at the Modoc Refuge

Photo by USFWS
Chapter 3

64 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

7.5 Wildlife Disease Monitoring and Treatment

Wildlife disease monitoring is conducted opportunistically during site 

visits, field inspections, and wildlife surveys. Follow-up treatment 

includes carcass retrieval, documentation of site and carcass 

conditions, and either carcass disposal or shipment to the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) National Wildlife Health Center, located 

in Madison, Wisconsin, where the carcass is tested to determine the 

cause of death. When appropriate, results are shared with other 

Service divisions (e.g., Law Enforcement and National Forensics 

Laboratory at Ashland, Oregon) and CDFG (e.g., game wardens and 

Wildlife Investigations Laboratory at Rancho Cordova).

8. Visitor Services

8.1 Visitor Services and Management Policy

There are a variety of sources for policy and guidance to manage 

public use programs on the Refuge. The Service Manual (605 FW 1-7) 

provides the policy for wildlife-dependent recreation including 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. The policy also provides 

guiding principles for each of the wildlife-dependant recreation 

programs. A Visitor Services Plan for the Refuge is included in 

Appendix E. 

8.2 Trends

The ability to compare and analyze population and demographic 

trends is invaluable in making projections about future recreational 

needs as well as for assessing existing visitor facilities and programs. 

The following are highlights of some recreation reports and surveys 

that are available for consideration when managing the visitor 

services program.

The Public Opinions and Attitudes on Recreation in California report 

(California Department of Parks and Recreation 2003) summarizes 

surveyed public attitudes, opinions, and values regarding key areas of 

interest relating to outdoor recreation opportunities in California; 

and public participation interests in different types of outdoor

recreation activities. The results of this study on public opinions and 

attitudes about outdoor recreation in California are in general 

agreement with past editions of this study. Californians think outdoor 

recreation areas and facilities are very important to their quality of 

life (84.1 percent), and more than two-thirds (69.1 percent) reported 

spending the same or more time in outdoor recreation activities than 

five years ago. Almost all Californians (96.7 percent) agreed or 

strongly agreed that maintaining the natural environment in outdoor 

recreation areas was important to them. The most important factors 

influencing enjoyment of recreational activities were being able to 

relax (75.9 percent), feeling safe and secure (68.3 percent), being in 

the outdoors (75.9 percent), and beauty of the area (61.8 percent); 

meeting new people (13.2 percent) ranked last.
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

Three priority wildlife-dependent activities were surveyed and 

ranked (Table 5), although it should be noted that the nature study 

category could also include educational and interpretive activities. 

Walking for fitness and fun was ranked number one with 91.1 percent 

participating an average of 94.4 days per year. Driving for pleasure, 

sightseeing, and driving through natural scenery ranked second with 

90.2 percent (31.3 days). Windsurfing showed the lowest percentage 

participation (3.4 percent), with snowmobiling and orienteering/geocaching tied for next lowest (4.6 percent). Fifty percent or more of 

the respondents participated in 11 of the 55 recreation activities at 

least one day during the 12 months prior to the survey. 

The Park and Recreation Trends in California 2005 report (California 

State Parks 2005) summarizes the State’s population and 

demographic trends affecting parks, recreation areas, programs, and 

services. Some of the highlights include the following: 

 California’s population is currently 34 million and will increase by 

1⁄2 million persons annually. 

 California is continuing to be more culturally and racially diverse 

– Asian’s and Hispanics are the top two groups. 

 California’s senior population will double by 2010. 

 Baby boomers (40-60 years) are reaching retirement age, adding 

to the citizen-steward group. 

 Today’s youth (18-40 years) are the most urban of any generation, 

seeking one-day excursions with multiple activities. 

 Understanding how people recreate will be the most effective way 

to serve visitors. 

 California’s advanced technology and transportation will expand 

recreational opportunities. 

Kiosk at the Auto Tour Route on Modoc Refuge

Photo by USFWS
Chapter 3

66 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

 Favorite outdoor recreation activities pertinent to refuges that 

will continue to dominate include walking, picnicking, sightseeing, 

and visiting nature centers. 

 Day hiking, bicycling, running, and wildlife viewing are predicted 

to increase in popularity. 

 Educational and interpretive programs will continue to be 

essential to help visitors understand the relationship between 

humans, nature, and cultural heritage.

Table 5. Ranks of three wildlife dependent activities 

Rank Participation

Average 

Number of Days 

Participated

Wildlife viewing, bird 

watching, viewing natural 

scenery

8 75.1% 25.3

Fishing (freshwater) 19 34.0% 5.8

Hunting 49 9.0% 1.9

Source: California Department of Parks and Recreation 2003

Recreation trends in the U.S. are found in Outdoor Recreation in 

American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply 

Trends (Cordell et al. 1999). Projections were made nationally for 

four U.S. regions, with California included in the Pacific coast region. 

Trends for the Pacific region indicate wildlife viewing and nature 

study are expected to increase by 65 percent and double the number 

of days per year per person in the next 40 years. Fishing is expected 

to increase, while hunting is expected to decrease.

The 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation – California (Survey) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service et al. 2006) is a comprehensive publication that provides 

information about the numbers of U.S. anglers, hunters, and wildlifewatchers by state. The Survey found that 7.4 million California 

residents and nonresidents 16 years and older fished, hunted, or 

watched wildlife in California. Of the total participants, 1.7 million 

fished, 281 thousand hunted, and 6.3 million participated in wildlifewatching activities spending a total of $8.0 billion on wildlife 

recreation in California. When compared to the 1996 Survey (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service et al. 1996), the number of anglers 

decreased by 36 percent, number of hunters decreased by 45 percent, 

and wildlife-watching (away from home) increased by 23 percent.
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

8.3 Hunting

Hunting for waterfowl, snipe, moorhen, and coot is 

currently permitted on approximately 30 percent 

(2,130 acres) of the Refuge. An average of 1,650 

hunter visits occur annually (Table 6). Habitats 

included in the hunt area are croplands, wet 

meadows, and wetlands. The most common species 

harvested include Canada geese, mallards, 

gadwalls, green-winged teal, and American 

wigeons. 

Hunters must enter the area from one of two 

designated parking areas, and are required to fill 

out a self-registration permit prior to hunting. The 

kill record portion of the permit must be carried at 

all times, filled out, and returned prior to leaving 

the hunt area. All equipment is carried in and out 

each day. Three spaced blinds are available (Figure 

1), all of which are universally accessible. The 

remainder of the hunt area is open for free-roam 

hunting (Figure 1).

The hunt area is open for waterfowl hunting on 

Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Hunting on 

opening weekend is by reservation only. Hunters are selected 

through a drawing conducted by the Refuge. The normal quota is 100 

hunters for both Saturday and Sunday. Typically, 350-400 hunters 

apply for opening weekend. Up to four hunters may apply on an 

application. Each hunting party may bring up to two junior hunters. 

A separate drawing is conducted for the three universally accessible 

blinds. There is a $3 application fee per person and successful 

applicants pay a $10 per person permit fee. Interagency Senior Pass, 

Interagency Access Pass, Golden Access, and Golden Age

cardholders pay $5. There is no fee for junior hunters.

Junior Waterfowl Hunters

Photo by USFWS

Mallard

Photo by Steve Emmons
Chapter 3

68 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Table 6. Hunting summary for Modoc Refuge, 1981-2007*

Year # Hunters # Ducks

Ducks 

Hunter # Geese

Geese 

Hunter

Total 

Birds

Birds 

Hunter

1981 2,429 1,900 0.78 515 0.21 2,415 0.99

1982 3,335 2,850 0.85 1,208 0.36 4,058 1.22

1983 2,249 2,203 0.98 484 0.22 2,687 1.19

1984 1,801 1,808 1.00 524 0.29 2,332 1.29

1985 1,800 1,325 0.74 796 0.44 2,121 1.18

1986 1,696 1,409 0.83 440 0.26 1,849 1.09

1987 1,379 1,672 1.21 337 0.24 2,009 1.46

1988 1,547 1,637 1.06 509 0.33 2,146 1.39

1989 1,477 894 0.61 330 0.22 1,224 0.83

1990 1,459 1,050 0.72 692 0.47 1,742 1.19

1991 2,268 1,536 0.68 821 0.36 2,357 1.04

1992 1,176 616 0.52 420 0.36 1,036 0.88

1993 1,835 1,425 0.78 502 0.27 1,927 1.05

1994 973 1,716 1.76 289 0.30 2,005 2.06

1995 1,317 1,859 1.41 176 0.13 2,035 1.55

1996 1,674 2,844 1.70 362 0.22 3,206 1.92

1997 1,851 2,533 1.37 385 0.21 2,918 1.58

1998 1,757 2,246 1.28 339 0.19 2,585 1.47

1999 1,645 2,535 1.54 287 0.17 2,822 1.72

2000 1,227 1,815 1.48 246 0.20 2,061 1.68

2001 1,155 715 0.62 386 0.33 1,101 0.95

2002 1,412 1,321 0.94 309 0.22 1,630 1.15

2003 1,475 2,307 1.56 275 0.19 2,582 1.75

2004 1,513 2,333 1.58 280 0.18 2,613 1.73

2005 1,446 3,186 2.20 243 0.17 3,429 2.37

2006 1,441 2,708 1.88 274 0.19 2,982 2.07

2007 1,201 2,324 1.94 219 0.18 2,543 2.12

Average 1,650 1,880 1.19 431 0.26 2,312 1.44

*This table does not include youth waterfowl hunt numbers.
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

Wildlife Observation

Photo by USFWS

Universally Accessible Hunting Blind

Photo by USFWS

After opening weekend, waterfowl hunting is conducted through a 

self-check-in/out system. There is no quota or fee after opening 

weekend. Universally accessible blinds may be reserved by 

contacting the Refuge Headquarters no later than 24 hours in 

advance of the hunt day. Non-reserved blinds are available to all 

hunters on a first come first serve basis.

The Refuge conducts a youth waterfowl hunt 

usually two weeks prior to opening weekend. 

The youth waterfowl hunt is by reservation only. 

Hunters are selected through a drawing 

conducted by the Refuge. The normal quota is 

50 youth hunters. Typically, 75-100 hunters 

apply for the youth waterfowl hunt. Up to four 

hunters may apply on an application. Youth 

hunters must be accompanied by an adult nonhunter with no more than two youth hunters per 

adult.

The Refuge also conducts an annual youth 

pheasant hunt. Hunters are selected through a 

drawing conducted by the Refuge. This hunt is 

for wild pheasant and is limited to ten youth 

hunters. Youth hunters must be accompanied by 

an adult non-hunter with no more than two youth hunters per adult.

The Refuge Hunting Program Working Group was established in 

2004 to help improve the quality of waterfowl hunting on the Refuge. 

All interested parties are welcome to participate in annual meetings.

8.4 Fishing

Fishing on Dorris Reservoir is permitted during 

daylight hours from February 1 through September 

30. Largemouth bass, channel catfish, sunfish, and 

rainbow trout can be found in the Reservoir. All 

California State fishing regulations apply. A 60-foot 

long, wheelchair-accessible fishing pier is located at 

the south end of the Reservoir (Figure 1). 

Approximately 3,000 fishing visits occurred in 2007.

8.5 Wildlife Observation and Photography

Excellent wildlife viewing and photography 

opportunities can be found on the Refuge. Animals,

such as greater sandhill cranes, waterfowl, 

shorebirds, raptors, and mule deer, can be seen from 

the three-mile auto tour loop, fully accessible Wigeon 

Pond Nature Trail with observation blind and 

interpretive overlook, and the U.S. 395 Overlook 

(Figure 1). The auto tour is accessible by pedestrians, 

bicycles, vehicles, and horseback riders. Dogs, on a 
Chapter 3

70 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

leash, are also permitted on roads and trails open to the public. In 

addition, wildlife-viewing opportunities can be found at Dorris 

Reservoir and from the roads along the perimeter of the Refuge. 

Friends of the Modoc Refuge have constructed a photography blind 

on Duck Pond Dike (Figure 1). The blind is available year-round by 

reservation through the Refuge Headquarters. Approximately 4,400 

wildlife observation and 900 photography visits occurred in 2007.

8.6 Environmental Education

The visitor center at the Refuge offers a variety of exhibits, nature 

collections, and mounted wildlife. Complimentary brochures, posters, 

and leaflets regarding the Refuge System are 

available. Refuge staff also conducts

presentations and tours upon request both on 

and off the Refuge.

In the spring of 2004, the Refuge joined forces 

with the River Center, a local non-profit 

environmental education facility, to initiate 

the Pit River Watershed Adoption Project 

(Project). The Project is a hands-on 

environmental education program that 

promotes awareness and understanding of 

watersheds through hands on projects. Each 

spring, all kindergarten through eighth grade 

students in the Alturas School system take 

part in a field trip to the outdoor learning 

laboratory on the Refuge. 

The Refuge has designated a 20-acre site as an 

outdoor watershed learning lab. Activities 

include revegetation of native plants, plant inventory, wildlife 

inventory, water quality monitoring, and more. Participation provides 

an opportunity for students to complete hands-on, place-based 

learning projects at the site as they progress in grade levels. Over 

1,000 students typically participate in the project annually both on 

and off the Refuge.

The Service’s Children and Nature initiative strives to ensure that 

America’s children have enjoyable and meaningful experiences in the 

out-of-doors and develop strong life-long connections with the natural 

world. The Refuge also strives to meet this initiative.

8.7 Interpretation and Outreach

Interpretation involves participants of all ages who learn about the 

complex issues confronting fish and wildlife resource management as 

they voluntarily engage in stimulating and enjoyable activities. Firsthand experience with the environment is emphasized although 

presentations, audiovisual media, and exhibits are often necessary 

components of the interpretive program.

Environmental Education – Up Close and 

Personal with a Bug

Photo by USFWS
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

Refuge related information is provided at annual local 

festivals or during special events, such as the Wings of 

the Warners Migratory Bird Festival. The Festival is a 

combined effort of the Refuge and many other entities 

including the Friends of Modoc Refuge, Alturas Chamber 

of Commerce, Modoc County Office of Education, and 

Modoc Joint Unified School District. It celebrates the 

diversity of migratory birds at the Refuge and includes 

informational workshops, booths, Refuge tours, children’s 

activities, music, and food. The Refuge also participates 

in the Children’s Fair. Refuge staff conducts

presentations and tours upon request both on and off the 

Refuge. In 2007, there were 150 off-site participants and 

120 on-site participants.

8.8 Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation 

Dorris Reservoir provides a number of recreational 

opportunities including swimming, boating, bicycling, 

horseback riding, and waterskiing. However, the 

Reservoir is closed to all public access during the 

waterfowl hunting season, from October 1 through 

January 31, to provide a sanctuary for wildlife. In 

addition, shoreline areas, islands, and peninsulas with nesting 

waterfowl are signed and closed to public access during waterfowl 

nesting season, March 1 through May 31.

Walk-in access is allowed on the Reservoir beginning February 1. 

Licensed motorized vehicles and bicycles are permitted at the 

Reservoir from April 1 through September 30 on roads designated 

for motor vehicles. Horseback riding is permitted from April 1 

through September 30 on roads designated for motor vehicles and on 

the equestrian trail across the dam (Figure 1). Horseback riding is 

also allowed year-round on roads designated for motor vehicles in the 

remaining portions of the Refuge.

Bicycling is permitted from April 1 through September 30 on roads 

designated for motor vehicles. Bicycling is also allowed year-round on 

roads designated for motor vehicles, including the entrance road and 

auto tour route, in the remaining portions of the Refuge.

Boating is open April 1 through September 30. Swimming is open 

June 1 through September 30. No-wake zones in coves are designated 

with buoys to protect wildlife. Boat launch ramps, restrooms, and 

walking access are provided at the north and south sides of the 

Reservoir (Figure 1). Waterskiing is from June 1 through September 

30 in the designated area (Figure 1). Personal watercrafts are 

prohibited.

Wings of the Warners Migratory 

Bird Festival 

Photo by USFWS
Chapter 3

72 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Youth Conservation Corps Building a Blind

Photo by USFWS

8.9 Youth Program

A Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) program was implemented 

during the summer of 2002. It consists of one crew leader and six 

crew members. During the eight-week program, enrollees complete 

facilities maintenance and repair projects and assist with biological 

monitoring and banding efforts. YCC contributes over 2,000 project 

work hours annually. For every eight hours of work, one hour of 

environmental education is provided as field trips, presentations, or 

discussions.

8.10 Volunteer Program

The National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Partnership 

Enhancement Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-242) strengthens the Refuge 

System’s role in developing relationships with volunteers. Volunteers 

possess knowledge, skills, and abilities that can enhance the scope of 

refuge operations. Volunteers enrich refuge staff with their gift of 

time, skills, and energy. Refuge staff will initiate, support, and 

nurture relationships with volunteers so that they may continue to be 

an integral part of Refuge programs and management. The volunteer 

program is managed in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual, Part 150, Chapters 1-3, “Volunteer Services Program”, and 

Part 240 Chapter 9 “Occupational Safety and Health, Volunteer and 

Youth Program”.

In 2007, the volunteer program consisted of 118 individuals (564 

hours) that assisted with biological, environmental education, 

interpretive, wildlife observation, hunting, and maintenance events 

and activities.
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

A Photography Blind

Photo by USFWS

The Friends of the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge 

(Friends) is a non-profit organization dedicated to 

assisting the enhancement of the Refuge as a 

community asset. The group meets monthly at the 

Refuge. The Friends have assisted the Refuge by 

sponsoring the annual sandhill crane count, 

providing new benches for the auto tour route, 

improving universally accessible hunting blinds, 

landscaping the front entrance, assisting with the 

youth waterfowl hunts, and constructing a new 

photography blind.

9. Partnerships

Partnerships have been a cornerstone of Refuge 

development and management. In addition to the 

partnerships described in the sections above, the 

Refuge works closely with CDFG, Ducks 

Unlimited, and the CWA to secure funding to restore and rehabilitate 

habitat on the Refuge. 

Through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, the Service 

assists landowners to protect, enhance, or restore wetland, riparian, 

or native grassland habitats on their property. The Service works 

with a variety of Federal, State, and private partners including 

CDFG, NRCS, local RCDs, California Department of Water 

Resources, Ducks Unlimited, CWA, and Intermountain West Joint 

Venture (IWJV) to benefit landowners and further Refuge land 

conservation objectives. 

Additionally, refuge staff is available to provide technical assistance 

and education and outreach information to landowners who are 

interested in conserving fish and wildlife habitats on their lands. 

We will continue to form new partnerships with interested 

organizations; local civic groups; community schools; Federal, State, 

and County governments; Tribes; and other civic organizations.

10. Cooperation with Adjacent Landowners

The Refuge is part of a mosaic of public and private lands along the 

Pit River corridor. The private lands are an important part of the 

river system that supports a wide range of wildlife species and 

provides for economic vitality through agricultural production. To 

maximize conservation efforts, the Refuge encourages and supports a 

cooperative approach to problem solving by working with neighbors 

on common issues. The refuge manager is the primary contact for 

cooperation with adjacent landowners.
Chapter 3

74 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

11. Fire Prevention and Hazard Reduction

The Service has been recording wildland fire history at the Refuge 

since its establishment in 1960. The Refuge has had 22 recorded fires 

since that time, resulting in the burning of approximately 149 acres 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a). One of these fires was natural 

(caused by lightning). A number of other escaped prescribed burns 

and equipment caused fires have scorched different areas. The 1980s 

were a busy time, relatively, for wildland fire suppression at Modoc 

Refuge compared to its overall fire history. The Refuge continues to 

experience a dominant pattern of human influenced fires today. Its 

annual fuels growth and high visitation numbers (both users spending 

time on the Refuge and passing through on one of the surrounding 

transportation networks) poses a continued risk for wildland fire in 

the future (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a). 

Fire prevention and fire hazard reduction programs are intended to 

protect and reduce risks to human life and property at nearby homes, 

farms, businesses, developed areas, structures, improvements, and 

the Refuge boundaries. The Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) 

program is part of the National Fire Plan and is designed to reduce 

the potential for wildfire damage in zones where wildlands and 

infrastructure (assets at risk) mix. The WUI program emphasizes 

pre-fire management around communities that are listed as “at-risk” 

to wildfire in the Federal Register and by the state of California.

The program is part of a national stimulus package to implement 

wildfire hazard reduction projects on Federal lands, especially 

emphasizing use of local contractors. Development of site-specific 

projects includes collaboration with local landowners, local, County, 

and State firefighting departments, the refuge manager, and the 

Klamath Basin Complex fire management officer. Projects include, 

but are not limited to, prescribed burns for fuel reduction, permanent 

fuel breaks, selective cutting, mowing, or disking along boundaries 

and developed areas, and cooperative agreements with local fire 

districts for wildfire suppression.

12. Law Enforcement and Resource Protection 

The staff of the Modoc Refuge recognizes the obligation that has 

been entrusted to them—the care of valuable natural and cultural 

resources—and they take this responsibility very seriously.

Law enforcement on the Refuge is used both for protection and for 

prevention. Used for prevention, law enforcement safeguards the 

visiting public, staff, facilities, and natural and cultural resources 

from criminal action, accidents, vandalism, and negligence. Used as 

prevention, law enforcement inhibits incidents from occurring by 

providing a law enforcement presence. The refuge manager 

supervises law enforcement on the Refuge. Currently, there are no 

law enforcement officers stationed at Modoc Refuge, but the law 
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters

Photo by USFWS

enforcement officer stationed at Klamath Basin Complex and CDFG 

wardens provide limited law enforcement on the Refuge.

13. Facilities

There are a number of structures located on the Refuge, including 

shops, vehicle storage, offices, residences, pump houses, and 

hazardous materials storage areas. A complex infrastructure of 

roads, buildings, fences, canals, and water control structures is 

needed to provide suitable habitat for wildlife and provide safe 

functional areas for Refuge visitors and staff. Refuge facilities 

require frequent maintenance and repair. Currently, the Refuge has 

two permanent and one term wage grade positions for maintenance 

and operations. 

An intricate system of power lines also exists on the Refuge. 

Aboveground transmission lines are found primarily along county 

roads. One subsurface line follows the Refuge entrance road and 

provides service to the Refuge Headquarters.

The Refuge has many miles of roads that were primarily constructed 

to facilitate farming or access to adjacent farms. Most of the main 

roads are paved or have an aggregate surface. Secondary roads are 

native surface and are inaccessible when wet. General road 

maintenance, including grading and mowing, is required to provide 

safe access through the Refuge.

In order to maintain the integrity of the Refuge, it is critical to reduce 

trespass, dumping, and poaching on Refuge lands. It is the intent of 

the Service to maintain a positive working relationship with 

neighbors to reduce trespass, vandalism, and theft on adjacent 

landowner properties. To achieve these goals, the Refuge has fenced, 

signed, and gated the Refuge boundaries. This infrastructure helps to 

alleviate trespass problems. Annually, most Refuge units will require 

installation of some new posts due to vandalism. Information signs 

are maintained on the Refuge.
Chapter 3

76 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

14. Safety 

Safety is important both for the Modoc Refuge staff and for visitors. 

Monthly staff safety meetings are held at the Refuge headquarters. 

The intent of the meetings is to update and train personnel, as well as 

to resolve any safety concerns that arise. Sample topics include Lyme 

disease, West Nile virus, and hantavirus safety; heavy equipment 

safety; hazardous materials; boating safety; first aid; hypothermia; 

heat stress; and respiratory safety.

The Refuge has a Safety Plan, which is updated annually, that 

describes the safety program and the responsibilities of the Refuge 

staff and volunteers. The Safety Plan has an extensive amount of 

safety information provided in the appendices. A safety committee 

comprised of a collateral duty safety officer and additional staff meets 

quarterly to discuss safety issues and coordinate annual safety 

inspections.

15. Cultural Resources

From the late Pleistocene more than 10,000 years ago, through the 

late Holocene, to present time humans have occupied northern 

California and utilized its generous natural resources. Many diverse 

and complex cultures developed during this time, culminating in the 

Native American Tribes recorded by early ethnographers.

The Pit River Indians have traditionally inhabited a vast portion of 

northeastern California. The current site of the Refuge and the 

surrounding area was the home of the Kosealekte division of the 

Achumawi, whose winter village was located at the confluence of the 

north and south forks of the Pit River. These people fished the Pit 

River and harvested camas, tule potato, and seed bearing grasses. 

The marshy areas supplied willow and tule, from which houses were 

built, baskets were made, and items of tule clothing were woven.

The first European contact in the region was in 1826, with Peter 

Skene Ogden, who named the Pit River. A Hudson Bay Company 

group led by John Work in 1832 seems to be the first major, 

documented group of fur trappers to traverse and stay in Modoc 

County (Modoc County 1998). During the 1840s, several overland 

parties or trailblazers traveled through the region. During the 1850s, 

several other groups traversed the area, including two Pacific 

Railroad explorations in 1854. By 1857, several wagon trails through 

Modoc County were established, and in 1864, the first permanent 

non-Indian settlement was established in Surprise Valley (Modoc 

County 1998).

In 1870, Presley, Carlos, and Jim Dorris settled the town of Dorris 

Bridge, later to become the City of Alturas. With land granted under 

the U.S. Homestead Act, the Dorris family established a livestock 

ranch, which they operated for 90 years. Dorris Bridge was 

established as the County seat in 1876.
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

Cinnamon Teal

Photo by Steve Emmons

The period of 1880 to 1910 saw steady expansion in Modoc County. 

The predominant economic activity was agriculture, with the lumber 

business also being notable. The railroad arrived in 1908, four years 

after electricity. By 1910, Alturas had about 1,200 people (Mintier 

Harnish and Associates 1998).

16. Social and Economic Environment

16.1 Transportation

Major transportation routes near the Refuge include State Routes 

299, U.S. Highway 395, and County Roads 56 and 115. There are no 

public transportation systems that provide access to the Refuge.

16.2 Employment

California has a $1.4 trillion gross state product, which makes it the 

largest state economy in the nation and the fifth largest economy in 

the world (California Department of Transportation 2005). The 2005-

2025 County-Level Economic Forecast (California Department of 

Transportation 2005) reported that the state has 14.9 million wage 

and salary jobs. In 2004, 139,500 jobs were created, 97 percent of 

which came from the non-farm sector. The unemployment rate 

declined to 6.2 percent. The per capita 

income in California is $34,220 and the 

average salary per worker is $49,690. 

Employment growth is expected to increase 

over the next several years.

The following information regarding 

employment in Modoc County was taken 

from the 2007 Modoc County Economic & 

Demographic Profile (Center for Economic 

Development 2007). The average 

unemployment rate in Modoc County from 

1990 to 2006 was 10.3 percent. Tracking 

monthly unemployment trends during that 

time revealed seasonal changes in the level of 

employment. In Modoc County there have 

been, on average, significant declines in 

unemployment from August through 

October. During this period, unemployment 

dropped from over 10 percent to 7.6 percent on average before it 

began to rise again. This decline may be largely, but not completely, 

driven by both seasonal ranching and forestry-related jobs.

In 2006, 4,000 residents, or 41 percent of Modoc County’s population, 

were members of the labor force, compared to 48 percent in 

California. The city of Alturas had a labor force of 1,200 members in 

2006 and a 7 percent decrease between 1990 and 2006. As of 2006, 

3,800 members, or 95 percent of Modoc County’s labor force, were 
Chapter 3

78 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

employed, which equaled the preceding year. Employment in the 

County is expected to rise in upcoming years.

In 2006, 200 members of Modoc County’s labor force were 

unemployed, making up nearly 6 percent of the labor force. Modoc 

County’s unemployment rate has been consistently higher than the 

California average since 1990.

16.3 Local Economy

The Government sector is the dominant employer (46 percent) in 

Modoc County (California Department of Finance 2007a). The 

second-largest sector, the trade, transportation, and utilities sector, 

accounts for 15.7 percent of all jobs and farming accounts for 11.7 

percent of total jobs (California Department of Finance 2007a).

Modoc County’s labor force in 2006 totaled 4,000, with 1,100 of these 

workers residing in Alturas. During that year, the County’s average 

unemployment rate was estimated at 7.7 percent, significantly higher 

than the statewide rate of 4.9 percent (California Department of 

Finance 2007b). On a per capita basis, income growth in Modoc 

County has slightly lagged statewide income growth since 1990, 

although income in the County has remained well below statewide 

levels.

In 2004, Modoc County’s agriculture industry had an estimated value 

of 71 million dollars. Leading commodities included alfalfa, beef, 

potatoes, vegetables, and wheat. Government added 60 jobs, with 

increases in local and Federal components (70 and 10 jobs, 

respectively) offsetting a slight loss in state government (down 20 

jobs). Educational and health services and leisure and hospitality 

posted no cumulative growth during these years, while trade, 

transportation, and utilities; goods producing; and other services 

employment declined by 10, 20, and 100 jobs, respectively 

(Employment Development Department 2006).

In general, recreational visits to national wildlife refuges generate 

substantial economic activity. In Fiscal Year 2006, more than 34.8

million people visited refuges for recreation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2005). Their spending generated $1.7 billion of sales in 

regional economics. As this spending flowed through the economy, 

nearly 27,000 people were employed and $542.8 million in 

employment income was generated (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2005). 
The Refuge Environment

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

Festivals bring visitors to Modoc County

Photo by USFWS

In 2006, there were approximately 17,344 visits to the Refuge. Local 

spending by visitors was estimated at $314,000. Residents of Modoc 

County accounted for about 60 percent of all recreation-related 

spending (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b). Visitation to the 

Refuge also generates value to visitors over and above the amount 

that they spend to recreate, known as net economic values. Based on 

the average net economic values per visit derived by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b), Refuge 

visits in 2006 are estimated to have generated about $303,200 in net 

economic values to Refuge visitors.

Refuge operations generated about 33 full- and part-time jobs in 

Modoc County in 2007, accounting for almost one percent of 

countywide employment opportunities (see Attachment 1 of Appendix 

A). About half of the jobs generated by Refuge operations were 

directly attributable to administration of the Refuge (see Attachment 

1 of Appendix A). Personal income generated by the Refuge for 

Modoc County residents totaled an estimated $1.4 million in 2007, 

including $844,000 in direct income and $583,200 in indirect and 

induced income (see Attachment 1 of Appendix A). The income 

directly and indirectly generated by the Refuge accounted for about 

0.8 percent of total countywide income in 2007.

16.4 Land Use and Zoning

The Refuge is bordered by private, city, county, and Tribal lands. 

Modoc County has its own General Plan that outlines land use 

policies. The portion of the Modoc County General Plan that relates 

to Refuge management is summarized in Appendix I. 
Chapter 3

80 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

16.5 Demographics

In the first 150 years of statehood, California grew from fewer than 

100,000 citizens in 1850 to almost 34 million in 2000 (California 

Department of Finance 2002). Between 1950 and 2000 alone, 

California’s population increased by 200 percent (California 

Department of Finance 2002). If California continues to add nearly 

500,000 persons each year, by 2012, the population could easily 

exceed 40 million. The 50-million mark will be passed sometime 

between 2030 and 2040 if current growth rates persist (California 

Department of Finance 2002).

The following information regarding the demographics of Modoc 

County was taken from the 2007 Modoc County Economic & 

Demographic Profile (Center for Economic Development 2007). 

Modoc County is currently home to 9,836 people with a projected 

population of 9,870 by 2015. Between 1996 and 2006, population 

decreased by 0.1 percent.

The largest age group in Modoc County in 2006 was the 50-59 yearold group, with 1,521 people. Since 1990, the number of people 

between the ages of 50-59 increased 6 percent, while those 30-39 

decreased 6 percent, causing a 6 percent decline among children 

between 0-9. These trends may indicate that the number of jobs for 

those 30-39 has declined, while people looking towards retirement are 

migrating into the area. Residents over 60 make up a higher 

percentage of the population in Modoc County than the state average.

In 2006, 2,866 people inhabited the city of Alturas. Alturas saw an 

annual average population decrease of 0.9 percent between 1996 and 

2006.

Approximately 79 percent of residents in Modoc County classified 

themselves as white in 2006, compared to 42 percent statewide. 

Hispanics represented the next largest group, with 13 percent of the 

population, compared to 36 percent in California. American Indians 

and Asians are the next largest groups, with 434 and 70 people 

respectively, and blacks are the smallest census-classified group, with 

68 people.
Planned Refuge Management and Programs

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

Chapter 4. 

Planned Refuge Management 

and Programs

1. Overview of Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

One of the most important parts of the CCP process is the 

development and refinement of the refuge vision and goals. This 

section contains the primary goals that will define the management 

direction of the Modoc Refuge for the next 15 years. In addition, as 

part of the CCP, refuges are expected to develop objectives and 

strategies that, together, will help achieve the goals. Goals are broad 

statements of the desired future conditions for refuge resources. 

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

frame of the CCP. Whenever possible, objectives are quantified 

statements of a standard to be achieved or work to be accomplished. 

They should be specific, measurable, achievable, results-oriented, and 

time-fixed, and should be feasible within the 15-year lifespan of the 

CCP. Strategies are specific actions, tools, or techniques that 

contribute toward accomplishing the objective. In some cases, 

strategies describe specific projects in enough detail to assess 

funding and staffing needs.

The five goals of the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge are outlined 

below to provide a context for the proposed management direction.

Goal 1: Conserve, manage, and restore a diversity of habitat types 

native to the Modoc Plateau for the benefit of fish, wildlife, plants,

and special-status species.

Goal 2: Provide optimum migrating and nesting habitat for greater 

sandhill cranes.

Goal 3: Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation and 

interpretation to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and 

enjoyment of fish, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources.

Goal 4: Provide quality environmental education opportunities 

focusing on fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Pit River watershed.

Goal 5: Promote partnerships to preserve, restore, and enhance 

diverse, healthy, and productive ecosystems of northeastern 

California. 

2. Organization

Each objective and each strategy are given a unique numeric code for 

easy reference. Objectives have a two-digit code (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 
Chapter 4

82 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Vegetation Management

Photo by USFWS

2.2). The first digit corresponds to the goal to which the objective 

applies. The second digit is sequential. Similarly, each strategy has a 

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

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

third digit is sequential. 

3. Refuge Management Goals, Objectives, and 

Strategies

Goal 1: Habitat and Wildlife

Conserve, manage, and restore a diversity of habitat types native to 

the Modoc Plateau for the benefit of fish, wildlife, plants, and special 

status species. 

Protect and enhance 1,615 acres of wetland habitat to provide 

seasonal wetlands (1,062 acres) and semi-permanent wetlands (553 

acres) comprised of >50 percent native plant species cover by 2024.

Seasonal wetlands will be managed as shallow water habitats (<12 

inches water depth) and will produce desirable food plants such as 

smartweed and swamp timothy. Semi-permanent wetlands will be 

managed to include an approximately 50:50 ratio of open water 

(approximately 12-72 inches water depth) to native emergent plant 

species including cattails and bulrush.

Objective 1.1: Wetland Habitat

Rationale: Wetlands support the greatest abundance and diversity of 

wildlife on the Refuge. Freshwater wetlands have declined by 90 to 

95 percent in the state of California. The North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian 

Wildlife Service 1986; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. 1998) and 

Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in California

(Intermountain West Joint Venture 2005) address population and 

habitat objectives for healthy waterfowl populations. The 

Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan (Oring et al. 2001) and 

Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation 

Plan (Ivey and Herziger 2006) address goals and 

objectives to maintain healthy populations, 

distributions, and habitats of shorebirds and 

waterbirds throughout the Intermountain West 

region. Refuge management strategies will 

support these objectives. Wetlands are an 

essential component upon which significant 

numbers of waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds, 

and other wildlife rely. This objective also helps to 

achieve Modoc Plateau Region Conservation 

Action A in the California Wildlife Action Plan

(California Department of Fish and Game 2005a). 
Planned Refuge Management and Programs

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

Figure 15. Visitor services and habitat restoration map
Chapter 4

84 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Sagebrush 

Photo by USFWS

1.1.1 Use mowing, disking, deleveling, prescribed fire 

(approximately 200 acres/year), and herbicides to manage and 

enhance wetland habitat.

Wetland Habitat Strategies

1.1.2 Restore/enhance additional acres of wetlands using native 

plant materials derived from local ecotypes as opportunities 

arise.

1.1.3 Enhance West Pit (105 acres) wetland habitats by restoring 

the natural floodplain and seasonal wetlands, reduce erosion 

impacts to the South Fork Pit River, and control non-native 

reed canary grass (see Figure 15). 

1.1.4 Conduct and evaluate wetland vegetation surveys annually to 

determine percent cover, species composition, and stand 

condition. 

1.1.5 Conduct and evaluate monthly wildlife surveys to assess 

wildlife use of wetland habitats.

1.1.6 Support and facilitate management-oriented research on 

wetland habitat.

1.1.7 Maintain water control infrastructure.

1.1.8 Implement water quality monitoring (organics, heavy metals, 

etc.) on the Refuge water supply at initial points of entry.

1.1.9 Hire a full-time wildlife biologist to accomplish this objective 

and objectives 1.2-1.11 and 2.1.

Protect and enhance 2,053 acres of sagebrush-steppe habitat 

comprised of >20 percent native plant species cover including 

sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and Great Basin wild rye, with <1 percent 

western juniper cover by 2024. 

Objective 1.2: Sagebrush-steppe Habitat

Rationale: Sagebrush-steppe provides 

numerous important habitat components, 

including foraging areas and nesting, thermal 

and escape cover for a variety of wildlife 

species on the Refuge. Sagebrush, perennial 

bunchgrass, aspen, and bitterbrush habitats 

of the Modoc Plateau are among the most 

threatened ecosystems of North America

(The Nature Conservancy 2001). 

The sagebrush-steppe habitats on the Refuge 

are dominated by non-native species. 

Invasion of cheatgrass has altered the fire 

regime and impacted native shrub-steppe 

habitat (California Department of Fish and 

Game 2005a). In addition, the recent history 

of fire suppression has allowed encroachment 

of juniper (California Department of Fish 
Planned Refuge Management and Programs

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

Yellow Warbler

Photo by Steve Emmons

and Game 2005a). The protection/restoration sagebrush-steppe 

habitat represents an important contribution to biological integrity of 

the Refuge. 

The Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in 

California (Intermountain West Joint Venture 2005) and Sagebrush 

Bird Conservation Plan (California Partners in Flight 2005) address 

population and habitat objectives for healthy sagebrush bird 

populations throughout the Intermountain West region. Refuge 

management strategies will support these objectives. This objective 

also helps to achieve Modoc Plateau Region Conservation Actions A 

and E in the California Wildlife Action Plan (California Department 

of Fish and Game 2005a). 

1.2.1 Use mowing, disking, prescribed fire (approximately 200 

acres/year), herbicides, grazing, or other appropriate 

treatments to reduce and control non-native and invasive 

plant species and enhance and maintain native species 

composition.

Sagebrush-steppe Habitat Strategies

1.2.2 Restore/enhance additional acres to sagebrush-steppe using 

native plant materials derived from local ecotypes as 

opportunities arise.

1.2.3 Restore HQ Field (5 acres) to sagebrush-steppe habitat (see 

Figure 15). 

1.2.4 Remove juniper on Godfrey Tract (240 acres) (see Figure 15). 

1.2.5 Conduct invasive plant species control projects.

1.2.6 Conduct and evaluate regular wildlife surveys to assess 

wildlife use of sagebrush-steppe habitats.

1.2.7 Conduct and evaluate periodic sagebrush-steppe 

vegetation surveys.

1.2.8 Support management-oriented research on sagebrushsteppe habitats.

1.2.9 To promote native vegetation and eliminate cheatgrass, 

evaluate summer (July/August) and winter (February) 

prescribed burning.

On the Pit River system, protect and enhance 64 acres of existing 

woody riparian habitat and restore up to 282 acres of degraded 

herbaceous riparian habitat comprised of >80 percent native 

woody vegetation (e.g., willows spp., black cottonwood, and rose 

spp.) and herbaceous cover (i.e., various grasses and sedges) by 

2024 for the benefit of native fish and wildlife.

Objective 1.3: Riparian Habitat

Rationale: Riparian forests and other riparian plant communities 

provide habitat for a diversity of resident and migratory 

terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, including rare and endangered

species. The Partners in Flight North American Landbird 

Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004), the Riparian Bird Conservation 
Chapter 4

86 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Managing Croplands

Photo by USFWS

Plan (Riparian Habitats Joint Venture 2004), and the Coordinated 

Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in California 

(Intermountain West Joint Venture 2005) identify focal species and 

habitat conservation and restoration needs throughout the 

Intermountain West region. Refuge management strategies will 

support these objectives. This objective also helps to achieve Modoc 

Plateau Region Conservation Actions A and E and Statewide 

Conservation Action G in the California Wildlife Action Plan

(California Department of Fish and Game 2005a). 

1.3.1 Restore riparian habitat by planting native trees and shrubs 

using local ecotypes when practicable and feasible on the 

South Fork and mainstem of the Pit River (282 acres) (see 

Figure 15). 

Riparian Habitat Strategies 

1.3.2 Maintain woody riparian habitat (64 acres) on mainstem of the 

Pit River, South Fork Pit River, and Pine Creek Ditch (see 

Figure 15). 

1.3.3 Conduct and evaluate regular surveys to assess wildlife use of 

riparian habitats.

1.3.4 Conduct and evaluate regular riparian vegetation surveys.

1.3.5 Support management-oriented research on riparian habitats.

Manage 549 acres of croplands, plant 150 acres of alternative crops to 

meet migratory bird objectives while improving the soil condition by 

2009, and convert 8 acres of croplands to native vegetation by 2014.

Objective 1.4: Croplands

Rationale: Since the early 1900s, many species of 

migratory birds have become highly dependent on 

croplands during part of their annual life cycle. 

There is a long history of geese, sandhill cranes, 

and other migratory birds using the croplands and 

pastures of the Modoc Plateau. The Coordinated 

Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in 

California (Intermountain West Joint Venture 

2005) and The Partners in Flight North American 

Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004), 

address population and habitat objectives for 

healthy bird populations throughout the 

Intermountain West region. Refuge management 

strategies will support these objectives. 

Individual refuges contribute to biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health (BIDEH) at larger landscape scales, especially 

when they support populations and habitats that have been lost at an 

ecosystem, national, or even international scale. In pursuit of refuge 

purposes, individual refuges may at times compromise elements of 

BIDEH at the refuge scale in support of those components at larger 

landscape scales. For example, because of the large-scale loss of 
Planned Refuge Management and Programs

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

Winter at the Refuge

Photo by USFWS

wetland habitat nationwide, the remaining wetlands must produce 

more habitat, more consistently, to support wetland-dependent 

migratory birds. Therefore, to conserve these migratory bird 

populations at larger landscape scales, many refuges like Modoc 

Refuge along the content’s four major flyways are intensively

managed. On Modoc Refuge, this includes active water management 

in wetlands, vegetation management, and cropland management. 

These strategies are aimed at maximizing habitat values for 

waterfowl. 

1.4.1 Croplands (549 acres) are planted with crops of high value for 

wildlife. Approximately 200 acres of barley and winter wheat 

will be planted annually.

Croplands Strategies 

1.4.2 Convert 5 acres (Headquarters Field) of croplands to native 

sagebrush-steppe and convert 3 acres (Matney 2) of cropland 

to native riparian vegetation (see Figure 15).

1.4.3 Enhance Matney 3-8 Fields (150 acres) by planting 

alternative crops to meet migratory bird objectives while 

improving the soil condition (see Figure 15).

1.4.4 Conduct and evaluate regular surveys to assess wildlife use of 

croplands.

Reduce the Refuge’s energy consumption 3 percent annually and 30 

percent by 2019. 

Objective 1.5: Climate Change

Rationale: Climate change is already 

affecting wildlife throughout the State

(Parmesan and Galbraith 2004), and its 

effects will continue to increase. It has 

particular significance for this region’s 

major river systems. Depending on the 

model and assumptions, scientists project 

the average annual temperature in 

California to rise between 4 and 10.5 °F 

above the current average temperature by 

the end of the century (Hayhoe et al. 2004). 

Within 50 years, average wintertime 

temperatures are expected to rise between 2 

and 2.5 degrees. A rise in this range would 

substantially reduce annual snowpack and 

increase fire frequency and intensity. By 

mid-century, the Sierra snowpack could be 

reduced by 25 to 40 percent and by as 

much as 70 percent at the end of the 

century (duVair 2003). The snow season would be shortened, starting 

later and melting sooner, while the fire season would be longer and 

hotter. The reduction of snowpack and more extreme fire conditions 

would have cascading effects on water resources, plant communities, 
Chapter 4

88 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Mallard’s Nest

Photo by USFWS

and wildlife. Hotter temperatures, combined with lower river flows, 

will dramatically increase the water needs of both people and wildlife. 

This is likely to translate into less water for wildlife, especially fish 

and wetland species (California Department of Fish and Game 

2005a). This objective also helps to achieve Statewide Conservation 

Action I in the California Wildlife Action Plan (California Department 

of Fish and Game 2005a). 

1.5.1 Support and facilitate management-oriented research on 

wildlife and habitat (Objectives 1.1-1.11 and 2.1), including 

monitoring the impacts of climate change. 

Climate Change Strategies

1.5.2 Replace Refuge vehicles with more fuel-efficient vehicles 

(hybrid, electric, etc.) as funding permits.

1.5.3 Investigate the use of solar, wind, and/or geothermal power to 

reduce the energy costs of Refuge buildings.

1.5.4 Retrofit existing facilities to increase energy efficiency (e.g., 

use compact fluorescent bulbs, increase insulation, and 

replace single paned windows).

1.5.5 Refuge staff will use telephone or computer video 

conferencing whenever possible to reduce carbon emissions.

1.5.6 The Refuge will continue to meet or exceed requirements for 

recycling and using recycled goods.

Implement seven regular and periodic surveys for migrating and 

breeding waterfowl annually. 

Objective 1.6: Waterfowl

Rationale: Migratory birds are Federal trust 

species under the jurisdiction of the Service. Many 

species of migratory and resident birds depend on 

wetlands for nesting and migrating habitat. Their 

conservation, management, and restoration are 

among the mandated purposes of the Refuge. The 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife 

Service 1986; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. 

1998), Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird 

Conservation in California (Intermountain West 

Joint Venture 2005), and Pacific Flyway 

Management Plan (Pacific Flyway Council 2007)

address population and habitat objectives for 

healthy waterfowl populations. Refuge management 

strategies will support these objectives. The Refuge 

provides nesting and migrating habitat for 

waterfowl. Monitoring is necessary to determine 

population status, assess trends, and identify habitat 

use, as well as restoration and management needs.
Planned Refuge Management and Programs

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

Canada Goose

Photo by Steve Emmons

Black-Necked Stilt

Photo by Steve Emmons

1.6.1 Conduct and evaluate monthly wildlife surveys to assess

waterfowl abundance and species composition. 

Waterfowl Strategies

1.6.2 Conduct annual duck brood and pair counts during May-July. 

1.6.3 Conduct annual duck nest success surveys during May-June. 

1.6.4 Conduct annual Canada goose brood and pair counts during 

March-June. 

1.6.5 Conduct annual Canada goose nest success surveys during 

April. 

1.6.6 Conduct annual waterfowl banding of Canada geese, 

gadwalls, mallards, redheads, etc. during the summer months. 

1.6.7 Provide seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands to enhance 

waterfowl habitat for Canada geese, mallards, gadwalls, 

cinnamon teals, redheads, etc. 

1.6.8 Optimize water level management to enhance habitat for 

waterfowl. Seasonal wetlands will be managed as shallow 

water habitats (<12 inches water depth) and will produce 

desirable food plants such as smartweed and swamp timothy. 

Semi-permanent wetlands will be managed to include an 

approximately 50:50 ratio of open water (approximately 12-72 

inches water depth) to native emergent plant species 

including cattails and bulrush.

1.6.9 Monitor avian disease outbreaks.

1.6.10 Support management-oriented research on waterfowl. 

Conduct one periodic and one regular survey annually in order to 

assess trends in the abundance and distribution of shorebirds. 

Objective 1.7: Shorebird

Rationale: Migratory birds are Federal trust species under the 

jurisdiction of the Service. Many species of migratory and resident 

birds depend on wetlands for winter habitat. The U.S. Shorebird 

Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001), Coordinated Implementation 

Plan for Bird Conservation in California (Intermountain West Joint 

Venture 2005), and Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan

(Oring et al. 2001) address population and habitat objectives for 

healthy shorebird populations. Refuge management strategies will 

support these objectives. The Refuge provides wintering, migration, 

and breeding habitat for shorebirds. Monitoring is necessary to 

determine population status, assess trends, and identify habitat use, 

as well as restoration and management needs.

1.7.1 Conduct and evaluate monthly surveys to assess wildlife.

Shorebird Strategies

1.7.2 Conduct periodic long-billed curlew nest surveys during 

April-June.

1.7.3 Provide shallow water and mudflats around wetland margins 

to enhance shorebird habitat, including habitat for blacknecked stilts, long-billed dowitchers, western sandpipers, and 

American avocets. 

1.7.4 Monitor avian disease outbreaks.
Chapter 4

90 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

California Quail

Photo by USFWS

1.7.5 Support management-oriented research on shorebirds.

Conduct four surveys annually in order to assess trends in the 

abundance and distribution of waterbirds and landbirds. 

Objective 1.8: Waterbird and Landbird

Rationale: Migratory birds are Federal trust species under the 

jurisdiction of the Service. The Coordinated Implementation Plan for 

Bird Conservation in California (Intermountain West Joint Venture 

2005), North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 

2002), Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (Ivey and 

Herziger 2006), Sagebrush Bird Conservation Plan (California 

Partners in Flight 2005), Partners in Flight North 

American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 

2004), and Riparian Bird Conservation Plan (Riparian 

Habitats Joint Venture 2004) address goals and 

objectives to maintain healthy populations, 

distributions, and habitats of waterbirds and landbirds 

throughout the Intermountain West region. Refuge 

management strategies will support these objectives. 

The Refuge provides breeding and migrating habitat 

for egrets, herons, rails, ibises, grebes, and other 

waterbirds as well as numerous landbirds. Monitoring 

is necessary to determine population status, assess 

trends, and identify habitat use, as well as restoration 

and management needs.

1.8.1 Conduct annual colonial waterbird survey during AprilSeptember.

Waterbird and Landbird Strategies

1.8.2 Conduct annual Breeding Bird Survey during June.

1.8.3 Conduct annual MAPS survey and banding May-August.

1.8.4 Conduct periodic raptor survey, including annual Swainson’s 

hawk production survey during May-June. 

1.8.5 Monitor avian disease outbreaks.

1.8.6 Manage wetlands to provide large stands of emergent 

vegetation (e.g., cattail and bulrush) for nesting habitat and 

successful breeding of waterbirds including black-crowned 

night herons and white-faced ibises. 

1.8.7 Support management-oriented research on waterbirds and 

landbirds. 

Treat new or small infestations of non-native species, such as 

perennial pepperweed, Mediterranean sage, and Scotch thistle, for 

100 percent eradication. Treat wide spread non-native species, such 

as Canada thistle, reed canary grass, and poison hemlock, to control 

spread to other areas of the Refuge. Treat non-native, invasive 

species using prescribed fire, grazing, herbicide treatment, mowing, 

Objective 1.9: Non-native, Invasive Species Control 
Planned Refuge Management and Programs

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91

disking, or other proven techniques on 2,000 acres of the Refuge 

annually as described in the IPM Plan.

Rationale: Invasive non-indigenous (non-native) species have become 

the single greatest threat to the Refuge System and the Service’s 

wildlife conservation mission. More than eight million acres within 

the Refuge System are infested with invasive weeds (National 

Audubon Society 2002). Invasive species cause widespread habitat 

degradation, compete with native species, and contribute significantly 

to the decline of trust species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). 

The National Strategy for Management of Invasive Species (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) has been developed within the context 

of the National Invasive Species Management Plan, as called for by 

Presidential Executive Order 13112, and functions as the internal 

guidance document for invasive species management throughout the 

Refuge System. This plan has four goals: 1) increase the awareness of 

invasive species issues, both internally and externally; 2) reduce the 

impacts of invasive species to allow the Refuge System to more 

effectively meet its fish and wildlife conservation mission and 

purpose; 3) reduce invasive species impacts on the Refuge System’s 

neighbors and communities; and 4) promote and support the 

development and use of safe and effective integrated management 

techniques to deal with invasive species. Refuge management 

strategies will support these objectives.

Numerous exotic grasses and plants, like perennial pepper weed, 

annual medusahead, red brome, and various non-native thistles and 

aquatic weeds, such as Eurasian watermilfoil, have displaced native 

plants and altered local plant communities (California Department of 

Fish and Game 2005a). The invasion of cheatgrass and other exotic 

plants has contributed to the wholesale conversion of thousands of 

acres of sagebrush, bitterbrush, and mountain mahogany plant 

communities to annual grasslands that are less supportive of native 

wildlife (Miller et al. 1994; Young 2000; Henstrom et al. 2002; 

Schaefer et al. 2003). This objective also helps to achieve Statewide 

Conservation Action F in the California Wildlife Action Plan

(California Department of Fish and Game 2005a). 

1.9.1 Annually evaluate invasive non-native species to be 

controlled. Locate, map, and monitor non-native species that 

may trigger a management response.

Non-Native, Invasive Species Control Strategies

1.9.2 Control invasive and non-native species using prescribed fire, 

herbicide and mechanical treatments, or other proven 

techniques as identified in the IPM plan (Appendix G).

1.9.3 Conduct, facilitate, and/or support research to identify 

invasive plant biology and ecology and to evaluate techniques 

for controlling invasive plant species.

1.9.4 Hire a full-time maintenance worker to accomplish this 

objective and support objectives 1.1-1.4 and 2.1. 
Chapter 4

92 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Greater Sandhill Crane

Photo by Share The Road Productions

By 2009, provide 3,845 acres (55 percent of the total Refuge acres) of 

wetland, sagebrush-steppe, riparian, and cropland habitats as 

permanent sanctuary (i.e., no public access) for general wildlife use as 

well as nesting and breeding sites for sensitive populations. 

Seasonally, an additional 2,977 acres provide sanctuary for wildlife.

Objective 1.10: Wildlife Sanctuary

Rationale: Sanctuaries are areas on the Refuge that 

are closed to public use. They provide places where 

human-caused disturbances are reduced, thereby 

reducing the interruption of wildlife activities, such 

as foraging, resting, breeding, feeding nestlings, and 

other maintenance activities. Sanctuaries are 

especially important during high visitor use periods. 

They are also important for wildlife to avoid 

predation by other wild animals, as they can devote 

less energy to avoiding humans and more to 

avoiding predators. Sanctuaries are areas where 

wildlife concentrate and reproduce, resulting in 

increased numbers of wildlife that can lead to more 

wildlife-dependent public use in areas near the 

sanctuary. 

In some cases, short-term sanctuaries may be established on the 

Refuge to protect a sensitive nesting colony or site. These seasonal 

sanctuaries may impose public access restrictions at some nesting 

sites for species with a low tolerance for human disturbance.

1.10.1 Provide strategically located sanctuaries on the Refuge for 

wildlife to feed and rest with relatively little human 

disturbance.

Wildlife Sanctuary Strategies

1.10.2 Provide sanctuaries to reduce human disturbance at sensitive 

fish, and wildlife sites during the rearing, breeding, and 

growing seasons.

By 2024, conduct five baseline surveys to determine presence and 

abundance and support research on native fish, wildlife, and plants.

Objective 1.11: Research and Baseline Survey

Rationale: Knowledge of the distribution and abundance of species, 

species’ needs, and status is critical for the management of the 

Refuge. Biological monitoring is necessary to assess the status of fish 

and wildlife populations, as well as how they respond to management 

actions. Management effectiveness can be evaluated and corrected, if 

needed, based on a monitoring program. Monitoring will consist of 

both long- and short-term projects and be conducted by refuge staff, 

partners, contractors, and other researchers. Some monitoring 

efforts will be conducted to meet Refuge data needs, while others will 
Planned Refuge Management and Programs

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93

Greater Sandhill Crane Nest

Photo by USFWS

contribute to or be a part of larger-scale ecoregion, flyway, or 

national monitoring initiatives. This objective also helps to achieve 

Statewide Conservation Action N in the California Wildlife Action 

Plan (California Department of Fish and Game 2005a). 

1.11.1 Conduct baseline surveys to determine the 

presence/abundance of native fishes, insects, small mammals, 

aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, plants, and 

special-status species on the Refuge.

Research Strategies:

1.11.2 Support management-oriented research for fish, wildlife, and 

plants on the Refuge.

1.11.3 Contribute to monitoring efforts on an ecoregion, flyway, or 

national scale.

Goal 2: Greater Sandhill Crane Goal

Provide optimum migrating and nesting habitat for greater sandhill 

cranes.

Protect and enhance wet meadows (2,183 acres) to provide shortgrass habitats (<4 inch) during fall and spring migration periods. 

Through the summer, provide shallow water habitats (approximately 

2-4 inches water depth) in the wet meadows for greater sandhill 

cranes. Annually monitor greater sandhill cranes and the habitats 

upon which they depend. 

Objective 2.1: Greater Sandhill Crane

Rationale: The Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the 

Central Valley Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes (Pacific 

Flyway Council 2007), Coordinated Implementation Plan for 

Bird Conservation in California (Intermountain West Joint 

Venture 2005), Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan

(Oring et al. 2001), and Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan (Ivey and Herziger 2006) address goals and 

objectives to maintain healthy populations, distributions, and 

habitats of greater sandhill cranes throughout the 

Intermountain West region. Refuge management strategies 

will support these objectives. 

Wet meadows are an essential component upon which 

significant numbers of Greater sandhill cranes, waterfowl, 

waterbirds, shorebirds, and other wildlife rely. This objective 

also helps to achieve Modoc Plateau Region Conservation 

Action A in the California Wildlife Action Plan (California 

Department of Fish and Game 2005a). 

2.1.1 Use haying and grazing in wet meadows to provide 

short-grass habitats (<4 inch) for greater sandhill 

cranes during fall and spring migration periods. 

Greater Sandhill Crane Strategies
Chapter 4

94 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

2.1.2 Conduct and evaluate wet meadow and wetland vegetation 

surveys to determine percent cover, species composition, and 

stand condition annually.

2.1.3 Use mowing, disking, deleveling, prescribed fire, and 

herbicides to manage and enhance wetland habitat.

2.1.4 Enhance West Pit (105 acres) wetland habitats by restoring 

the natural floodplain and seasonal wetlands, reduce erosion 

impacts to the South Fork Pit River, and control non-native 

reed canary grass (see Figure 15). 

2.1.5 Conduct annual greater sandhill crane breeding pair survey

during April-May.

2.1.6 Conduct annual greater sandhill crane nest success survey

during May-June.

2.1.7 Conduct annual greater sandhill crane production survey

during August.

2.1.8 Conduct greater sandhill crane colt banding. The Refuge will 

attempt to place Service and color marked bands on all known 

colts (pre-fledged subadults) produced annually.

2.1.9 Conduct greater sandhill crane banding of adult birds as 

opportunities arise annually.

2.1.10 Support management-oriented research on greater sandhill 

cranes and wet meadows. Conduct a satellite telemetry study 

to determine recruitment and seasonal distribution.

2.1.11 Monitor avian disease outbreaks.

2.1.12 Hire a full-time wildlife biologist to accomplish this objective 

and objectives 1.1-1.11. 

Goal 3: Visitor Services

Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation and interpretation to 

enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of fish, 

wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources.

Conduct a high quality hunting program including opportunities for 

approximately 1,760 annual hunting visits (depending on season 

length and climatic conditions) on 2,330 acres by 2010.

Objective 3.1: Hunting

Rationale: Hunting is identified in the Improvement Act as a priority 

public use that can be allowed when compatible with other Refuge 

purposes. As a result, the Refuge proposes to continue hunting of 

waterfowl, coots, common moorhens, snipe, and ring-necked pheasant 

(junior hunt only). The hunting program will be conducted in a safe 

and cost-effective manner and will be carried out consistent with 

State regulations. The Hunting Plan (Appendix C) was developed to 

provide safe hunting opportunities while minimizing conflicts with 

other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Other visitor uses 

occur on different areas, thereby minimizing potential conflicts with 

hunters (Figure 15). The Refuge hunting program complies with the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 50, 32.1 and is managed in 

accordance with Service Manual 605 FW 2, Hunting. This objective 
Planned Refuge Management and Programs

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95

Junior Waterfowl Hunter

Photo by USFWS

also helps to achieve Statewide Conservation Action Q in the 

California Wildlife Action Plan (California Department of Fish and 

Game 2005a) by giving greater priority to funding and staffing of 

wildlife and natural resource law enforcement efforts.

3.1.1 Implement the Hunt Plan for the Refuge. 

Hunting Strategies

3.1.2 Add hunt program changes to CDFG regulations and 50 CFR

annually.

3.1.3 Provide the Refuge’s hunting brochure at the interpretive 

kiosks and the Refuge Headquarters. 

3.1.4 Continue to coordinate with the California Waterfowl 

Association, Ducks Unlimited, and Friends of Modoc Refuge 

on the Junior Waterfowl Hunt on the Refuge. 

3.1.5 Implement a second Junior Waterfowl Hunt on the Refuge.

3.1.6 Conduct an annual Kids Hunting Skills Field Day on the 

Refuge in cooperation with the CDFG, Friends of Modoc 

Refuge, Ducks Unlimited, CWA, Rocky Mountain Elk 

Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, and National 

Rifle Association.

3.1.7 Monitor hunting visits and bird harvest each hunt day and 

annually report these hunter visits. 

3.1.8 Work with the Refuge’s Hunting Program Working Group to 

develop and improve the Refuge’s hunting program, including 

access and facilities for hunters with disabilities.

3.1.9 Refuge staff and law enforcement officer will work 

cooperatively with Klamath Basin law enforcement officers 

and CDFG wardens to enforce CFR, State Fish and Game 

hunting laws, and Refuge-specific regulations to provide a 

quality experience for all visitors.

3.1.10 Hire a full-time law enforcement officer to accomplish this 

objective as well as Objectives 3.2-3.6. 

3.1.11 Maintain hunter self check-in kiosks 

to effectively process hunters and 

provide hunter-related information. 

3.1.12 Add a universally accessible goose 

hunting blind to Matney 9 and covert 

a portion of the free roam area to 

spaced blind to accommodate this 

addition (see Figure 15).

3.1.13 Open Grandma Tract (200 acres) to 

waterfowl hunting. Create four 

assigned ponds and one universally 

accessible spaced blind (see Figure 

15).
Chapter 4

96 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Fishing Pier at Dorris Reservoir

Photo by USFWS

Continue to provide 547 acres at Dorris Reservoir for 3,050 annual 

fishing visits by 2014. 

Objective 3.2: Fishing

Rationale: Fishing is identified in the 

Improvement Act as a priority use for refuges 

when compatible with other refuge purposes. The 

fishing program will be conducted in a safe and 

cost-effective manner and carried out in 

accordance with State regulations. The Fishing 

Plan (Appendix D) was developed to provide safe 

fishing opportunities while minimizing conflicts 

with other priority wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses. The fishing program will comply with 50 

CFR 32.4 and will be managed in accordance with 

Service Manual 605 FW3, Recreational Fishing.

3.2.1 Implement the Fishing Plan. 

Fishing Strategies

3.2.2 Update the Dorris Reservoir general brochure. 

3.2.3 Maintain information kiosks, restrooms, universally 

accessible fishing pier, and boat launches at Dorris Reservoir. 

3.2.4 Monitor, collect, and annually report fishing visits.

3.2.5 Refuge staff and law enforcement officer will work 

cooperatively with Klamath Basin law enforcement officers 

and CDFG wardens to enforce CFR, State Fish and Game 

fishing laws, and Refuge-specific regulations to provide a 

quality experience for all visitors.

3.2.6 Conduct an annual Kids Fishing Day at Dorris Reservoir.

3.2.7 Work with CDFG to assess fishery resource in Dorris 

Reservoir. Repeat the 1989 gill net survey.

3.2.8 Conduct a survey to determine the presence of native fishes in 

Pine Creek and South Fork Pit River. 

3.2.9 Update the Fishery Management Plan for Dorris Reservoir.

3.2.10 Work with CDFG to coordinate fish stocking and fish habitat 

enhancement of Dorris Reservoir.

Provide quality opportunities for 6,000 annual wildlife viewing visits 

on 1,924 acres by 2014.

Objective 3.3: Wildlife Observation

Rationale: Wildlife observation is identified in the Improvement Act 

as a priority public use that can be allowed when compatible with 

other Refuge purposes. As a result, the Refuge encourages first-hand 

opportunities to observe wildlife in their habitats. This activity will be 

managed to ensure that people have opportunities to observe wildlife 

in ways that minimize wildlife disturbance and damage to Refuge 

habitats. Wildlife viewing will be managed to foster a connection 

between visitors and natural resources. The Visitor Services Plan 

(Appendix E) was developed to provide guidance for the Refuge’s 
Planned Refuge Management and Programs

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97

Observing Wildlife at the Refuge

Photo by USFWS

public use program. The wildlife observation program will be 

managed in accordance with Service Manual 605 FW 4, Wildlife 

Observation.

3.3.1 Maintain and enhance the three-mile auto tour route to 

provide opportunities to view wildlife and their habitats.

Wildlife Observation Strategies 

3.3.2 Maintain the wildlife viewing facilities (e.g., observation blind 

and overlook on the Wigeon Trail, observation blind in the 

Environmental Education (EE) area, and US 395 overlook).

3.3.3 Maintain the universally accessible one-mile Wigeon Trail. 

3.3.4 Open the EE area (60 acres) for wildlife observation from 

March 1 through August 31 including the trail, observation 

deck and blind, floating dock, EE shelter, boardwalk, 

interpretive panels, and kiosk (see Figure 15).

3.3.5 Continue to provide Birding Kits including binoculars, bird 

identification books, Refuge brochure and wildlife checklists, 

and Basin and Range Birding Trail brochure to the public for 

use on and off the Refuge.

3.3.6 Monitor, collect, and annually report wildlife observation

visits.

By 2014, provide quality opportunities for 50 photography blind 

annual visits and 900 wildlife photography annual visits on 1,924 

acres.

Objective 3.4: Wildlife Photography

Rationale: Wildlife photography is identified in the Improvement Act 

as a priority public use that can be allowed when compatible with 

other Refuge purposes. As a result, the Refuge encourages first-hand 

opportunities to observe and photograph wildlife in their habitats. 

This activity will be managed to ensure that people have 

opportunities to photograph wildlife in ways that minimize wildlife 

disturbance and damage to Refuge habitats. Wildlife photography 
Chapter 4

98 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

The Blue Goose and Fans

Photo by USFWS

will be managed to foster a connection between visitors and natural 

resources. The Visitor Services Plan (Appendix E) was developed to 

provide guidance for the Refuge’s public use program. The wildlife 

photography program will be managed in accordance with Service 

Manual 605 FW 5, Wildlife Photography.

3.4.1 Maintain and enhance the three-mile auto tour route to 

provide photographic opportunities.

Wildlife Photography Strategies 

3.4.2 Maintain one wildlife photography blind on Lower Duck 

Pond. 

3.4.3 Open EE area (60 acres) to wildlife photography, including 

observation deck and blind, from June 1 through September 1 

(see Figure 15).

3.4.4 Develop and implement photographer guidelines, maps, and 

photography blind reports. 

3.4.5 Evaluate photography blind reports and implement changes 

annually.

3.4.6 Maintain the Refuge’s website (http://www.fws.gov/modoc) to 

provide information about current photographer guidelines 

and facilities.

3.4.7 Monitor, collect, and annually report wildlife photography

visits.

Refuge staff will develop an interpretive program to provide 450 

annual visits (300 off-site and 150 on-site) by 2024. The program will 

promote public awareness and support of Refuge resources and 

management activities. 

Objective 3.5: Interpretation 

Rationale: Interpretation is identified in the Improvement Act as a 

priority public use that can be allowed when compatible with other 

Refuge purposes. As a result, the Refuge encourages 

interpretation as both an educational and recreational 

opportunity that is aimed at revealing relationships, 

examining systems, and exploring how the natural world and 

human activities are interconnected. Participants of all ages 

can voluntarily engage in stimulating and enjoyable 

activities as they learn about the issues confronting fish and 

wildlife resource management on the Refuge. First-hand 

experiences with the environment will be emphasized, 

although presentations, audiovisual media, and exhibits will 

be necessary components of the Refuge interpretive 

program. The Visitor Services Plan (Appendix E) was 

developed to provide guidance for the Refuge’s public use 

program. 

In 2007, the Service declared that “connecting people with 

nature” is among the agency’s highest national priorities 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). A connection with 
Planned Refuge Management and Programs

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 99

nature, whether it’s hiking, fishing, camping, hunting, or simply 

playing outside, helps children develop positive attitudes and 

behaviors towards the environment. Positive interactions with the 

environment can lead to a life-long interest in enjoying and 

preserving nature. People’s interest in nature is crucial to the Service 

mission of conserving, protecting, and enhancing populations of fish, 

wildlife, plants, and their habitats. 

The interpretive program will be managed in accordance with Service 

Manual 605 FW 7, Interpretation.

Effective outreach is an important component of the interpretive 

program. The Refuge will provide two-way communication between 

the Refuge and the public to establish a mutual understanding and 

promote involvement with the goal of improving joint stewardship of 

our natural resources. Outreach will be designed to identify and 

understand the issues and target audiences, craft messages, select 

the most effective delivery techniques, and evaluate effectiveness. 

Refuge outreach will follow the guidance of the National Outreach 

Strategy: A Master Plan for Communicating in the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). 

3.5.1 Use the Refuge Headquarters to provide presentations and 

exhibits.

Interpretation Strategies

3.5.2 Maintain interpretive kiosks, walking trails, auto tour route, 

and the Refuge Headquarters for use by Refuge visitors.

3.5.3 Provide at least five tours of the Refuge annually.

3.5.4 Develop a “Sense of Wonder Zone” by creating a family 

oriented opportunity area where youth and people of all ages 

can reconnect with nature.

3.5.5 Continue to participate in or provide information to local 

annual events (Wings of the Warners, Children’s Fair, Modoc 

County Fair, etc.).

3.5.6 Write news releases for local newspapers and articles for 

magazines. Conduct television and radio interviews upon 

request.

3.5.7 Maintain the Refuge’s website (http://www.fws.gov/modoc

3.5.8 Provide interpretive brochures at kiosks and in the Refuge 

Headquarters. 

). 

3.5.9 Maintain and upgrade the Refuge Headquarters exhibits and 

activities.

3.5.10 Utilize interns and volunteers to coordinate annual events on 

and off Refuge and assist with Refuge programs (e.g. 

facilitating school groups). 

3.5.11 Monitor, collect, and annually report interpretation visits.
Chapter 4

100 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Continue to provide compatible non-wildlife dependent recreation, 

including horseback riding, swimming, boating, and bicycling (on 556 

acres of the Refuge by 2009). 

Objective 3.6: Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation

Rationale: Non-wildlife dependent recreation does not directly 

contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

Refuge’s natural or cultural resources, nor is the use beneficial to the 

Refuge’s natural or cultural resources. However, if the uses are 

appropriate and compatible they will not detract from them. 

Although their primary interest may be an activity like horseback 

riding, swimming, boating, or bicycling, the abundance of birdlife 

makes wildlife observation an opportunity as well. These 

opportunities will improve their experience without jeopardizing 

Modoc Refuge’s wildlife resources or conflicting with the priority 

wildlife-dependent activities.

3.6.1 Continue to provide horseback riding opportunities at Dorris 

Reservoir from April 1 through September 30 on roads 

designated for motor vehicles and on the equestrian trail (9 

acres), and year-round on roads designated for motor vehicles 

in the remaining portions of the Refuge (see Figure 15). 

Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation Strategies

3.6.2 Continue to provide bicycling opportunities from April 1 

through September 30 on roads designated for motor vehicles 

at Doris Reservoir (8 acres) and year-round on roads 

designated for motor vehicles in the remaining portions of the 

Refuge. 

3.6.3 Continue to allow pedestrian use of roads designated for 

motor vehicles and the equestrian trail at Dorris Reservoir (9 

acres) from February 1 through September 30 and yearround on roads designated for motor vehicles in the remaining 

portions of the Refuge. 

3.6.4 Continue to provide swimming and boating opportunities at 

Dorris Reservoir from April 1 through September 30 (547 

acres) (see Figure 15).

3.6.5 Maintain facilities and update signs and brochures regarding 

non-wildlife dependent recreation.

3.6.6 Prohibit waterskiing on Refuge waters within Dorris 

Reservoir.

3.6.7 Refuge staff and law enforcement officer will work 

cooperatively with Klamath Basin law enforcement officers 

and CDFG wardens to enforce CFR and Refuge-specific 

regulations to provide a quality experience for all visitors.

3.6.8 Monitor, collect, and annually report non-wildlife dependent 

visits.

By 2024, increase the number of volunteers to 200 in order to support 

a variety of Refuge programs.

Objective 3.7: Volunteer
Planned Refuge Management and Programs

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101

Habitat Restoration

Photo by USFWS

Rationale: The National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and 

Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-242) strengthens the 

Refuge System’s role in developing relationships with volunteers. 

Volunteers possess knowledge, skills, and abilities that can enhance 

the scope of refuge operations. Volunteers enrich Refuge staff with 

their gift of time, skills, and energy. Refuge staff will initiate, 

support, and nurture relationships with volunteers so that they may 

continue to be an integral part of Refuge programs and management. 

The volunteer program will be managed in accordance with the Fish 

and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 150, Chapters 1-3, “Volunteer 

Services Program”, and Part 240 Chapter 9 “Occupational Safety and 

Health, Volunteer and Youth Program”.

Currently the Refuge volunteer program consists of 118 individuals 

who assist with wildlife-dependent recreation, maintenance, wildlife 

and habitat management, and environmental education programs. 

3.7.1 Recruit additional volunteers through a variety of community 

groups (e.g., Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and 4H).

Volunteer Strategies:

3.7.2 Facilitate volunteer training.

3.7.3 Develop an annual work day (Brush Up Day) to clean up the 

Refuge’s hunt areas.
Chapter 4

102 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Goal 4: Environmental Education 

Provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on 

fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Pit River watershed. 

Continue to enhance and expand the environmental education 

program to serve about 2,500 students (K-12) annually in cooperation 

with the River Center by 2024. 

Objective 4.1: Environmental Education 

Rationale: Environmental education is identified in the Improvement 

Act as a priority public use that can be allowed when compatible with 

other Refuge purposes. As a result, the Refuge encourages 

environmental education as a process of building knowledge in 

students. The Refuge staff will work with schools (K-12) to integrate 

environmental concepts and concerns into structured educational 

activities. These Refuge-lead or educator-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 and meets 

the goals of school districts adopted instructional standards; and 

provides interdisciplinary opportunities that link the natural world 

with all subject areas. The Visitor Services Plan (Appendix E) was 

developed to provide guidance for the Refuge’s public use program. 

The environmental education program will be managed in accordance 

with Service Manual 605 FW 6 Environmental Education. This 

objective also helps to achieve Statewide Conservation Action J in the 

California Wildlife Action Plan (California Department of Fish and 

Game 2005a). 

4.1.1 Continue to conduct the Pit River Watershed Adoption 

Project. Provide an environmental education program that 

promotes studies of the ecological principles that are 

associated with the scope of habitats found within the Upper 

Pit River Watershed and the Refuge’s natural, cultural, and 

historical resources. The education activities will be designed 

to develop awareness and understanding for Refuge 

resources and management activities while meeting State 

education standards.

Environmental Education Strategies:

4.1.2 Annually schedule and plan field trips for grades K-12 of the 

Alturas school system. 

4.1.3 Continue to provide Birding Kits including binoculars, bird 

identification books, Refuge brochure and wildlife checklists, 

and Basin and Range Birding Trail brochure to the public for 

use on and off Refuge.

4.1.4 Facilitate after school programs (e.g., PIT Club from Alturas 

High School) involving activities such as habitat restoration 
Planned Refuge Management and Programs

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 103

and student mentors for the Pit River Watershed Adoption 

Project.

4.1.5 Develop a partnership with the Boy and Girl Scouts.

4.1.6 Facilitate resource-training workshops (e.g., Wild on

Wetlands) about the Refuge’s environmental education 

program for educators.

4.1.7 Maintain the Refuge’s website (http://www.fws.gov/modoc

4.1.8 Continue to enhance the partnership with the River Center to 

conduct the Pit River Watershed Adoption Project. 

) to 

promote current educational opportunities.

4.1.9 Hire a full-time interpretive specialist to accomplish this 

objective and support Objectives 3.1-3.6.

4.1.10 Explore opportunities to utilize interns and volunteers to 

facilitate the environmental education program.

Goal 5: Partnerships 

Promote partnerships to preserve, restore, and enhance diverse, 

healthy, and productive ecosystems of northeastern California. 

By 2024, maintain and enhance at least 20 partnerships among 

Federal, Tribal, State, local agencies, organizations, schools, 

corporations, and private landowners to promote the understanding 

and conservation of resources within Upper Pit River Watershed.

Objective 5.1: Partnership

Rationale: The Service recognizes that strong citizen support 

benefits the Refuge System. These benefits include the involvement 

and insight of citizen groups in Refuge resource and management 

issues and decisions, a process that helps managers gain an 

understanding of public concerns. Partners support Refuge activities 

and programs, raise funds for projects, are advocates on behalf of 

wildlife and the Refuge System, and provide support on important 

wildlife and natural resource issues. In Fulfilling the Promise (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1999), the Service identified the need to 

forge new and non-traditional alliances and strengthen existing 

partnerships with States, Tribes, non-profit organizations, and 

academia to broaden citizen and community understanding and 

support for the National Wildlife Refuge System. This objective also 

helps to achieve Statewide Conservation Actions H and P in the 

California Wildlife Action Plan (California Department of Fish and 

Game 2005a). 

A variety of people including, but not limited to, scientists, farmers, 

birders, hunters, photographers, and students have a great deal of 

interest in the Refuge’s management, fish and wildlife species, and 

habitats. New partnerships will be formed as opportunities, funding, 

and staff are available.
Chapter 4

104 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Great Horned Owl Chick

Photo by Share the Road Productions

5.1.1 Maintain good relations and open communication with 

partners.

Partnership Strategies:

5.1.2 Actively look for partnering opportunities with local and 

regional conservation groups, academic institutions, 

organizations, Tribal governments, and other local, State, and 

Federal agencies.

5.1.3 Pursue opportunities to cost-share mutually beneficial 

projects with other organizations.

5.1.4 Continue to work with Friends of the Modoc Refuge.

5.1.5 Continue to enhance the partnership with the River Center to 

conduct the Pit River Watershed Adoption Project.

5.1.6 Continue to work with local Chambers of Commerce to 

participate in local events and improve dissemination of public 

recreation literature about the Refuge. 

5.1.7 Stay actively involved in Federal, State, and local planning 

processes to protect Refuge resources and foster cooperative 

management of those resources.

5.1.8 Continue to participate in the Northeastern California Water 

Association. 

5.1.9 Maintain active participation with the IWJV. 

5.1.10 Continue partnerships with CWA, Ducks Unlimited, and 

other non-governmental conservation organizations.

5.1.11 Continue Partners for Fish and Wildlife private lands 

program.

5.1.12 Maintain contact with adjacent neighbors to discuss and 

address mutual concerns and opportunities.
Planned Refuge Management and Programs

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 105

Over the next fifteen years, implement the following strategies to

protect, preserve, evaluate, and interpret the cultural heritage and 

resources of the Refuge while consulting with appropriate Native 

American groups and preservation organizations, and comply with 

historic preservation legislation for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Refuge users and communities.

Objective 5.2: Cultural Resources Objective

Rationale: Modoc Refuge contains 50 discovered and documented 

cultural resource sites. Many more sites probably occur on the 

Refuge, but the Refuge has not been completely or intensively survey 

for cultural resources. Even with the known cultural sites, the Refuge 

preserves thousands of years of human history, settlement, and 

interaction between people and the environment. A host federal 

historic preservation law including the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

(ARPA), and the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and regulations require the Service to 

implement a cultural resource program that inventories, evaluates, 

protects and interprets the cultural and heritage resources on it 

lands. Modoc Refuge has active habitat, wildlife, and visitor service 

programs that by law must consider and protect cultural resources as 

the programs are implemented. In addition, Tribes, archaeologists, 

historians, and the public are interested in the scientific and 

educational value of the cultural resources and want to protect, study, 

and interpret them. Tribes also have a spiritual connection to cultural 

resources; they are important elements of individual and group 

identity. Cultural resources are not renewable. The primary objective 

is to create and implement a basic Cultural Resources Management 

capability at Modoc Refuge that will respond to the compliance 

requirements of federal cultural resources legislation and protect 

these resources for present and future generations. 

5.2.1. Identify cultural resource sites that coincide with existing and 

planned roads, facilities, visitor service areas, and habitat 

projects. Evaluate threatened and impacted sites for 

eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places using a 

research design prepared in consultation with Tribes and the 

scientific community. Prepare and implement activities to 

mitigate impacts to sites as necessary.

Cultural Resource Strategies

5.2.2. Compile baseline data on cultural resources sites, surveys, 

and reports within Modoc Refuge. Develop a GIS layer for 

cultural resources that can be used with other GIS layers for 

the Refuge, yet contains appropriate locks to protect sensitive 

information.

5.2.3. Consult and partner with the Tribes, universities, and other 

historic preservation institutions for cultural resources 

inventory, evaluation, and protection. 
Chapter 4

106 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

5.2.4. Service’s Cultural Resources Office, with assistance from the 

Refuge, will create a Cultural Resource Management Plan 

within ten years of completion of the CCP.

5.2.5. The Service’s Cultural Resources Office, with assistance from 

the Refuge, will create and utilize a Memorandum of 

Agreement with Native American groups to implement the 

inadvertent discovery clause of the NAGPRA within two 

years of completion of the CCP.

5.2.6. Reuse and maintain existing historic structures when 

compatible with Refuge facility and space needs.

5.2.7. Ensure that refuge staff receives training in historic 

preservation requirements and of NHPA, ARPA, and the 

NAGPRA.

5.2.8. Inventory and evaluate the prehistoric archaeological site that 

coincides with the refuge headquarters office, shop, residence, 

spring, and immediately adjacent area. 

Greater Sandhill Cranes

Photo by Share the Road Productions
Management Plan Implementation

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 107

Chapter 5. 

Management Plan 

Implementation

1. 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 the public. 

The timing and achievement of the management strategies proposed 

in this document are contingent upon a variety of factors, including:

 funding and staffing

 completion of step-down plans

 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 Service 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.

2. Funding and Staffing

Resources are required to operate adequately 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 for Modoc Refuge is approximately $10.2 million (Table 7,

Estimated initial capital outlay to implement the CCP). Not all of 

these capital expenditures would occur in the same year, as many of 

these expenses would most likely be implemented over the next 

fifteen years if approval and funding were 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.
Chapter 5

108 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Table 7. Estimated initial capital outlay to implement the CCP

Expenditure [Related Objective(s)] Unit Cost Unit Quantity Total Cost

Develop Environmental Education Area 

(Objective 4.1)

$650,500 ea 1.0 $650,500

Monitor Refuge water quality 

(Objectives 1.1 & 1.11)

$45,000 ea 1.0 $45,000

Restore riparian habitat on Pit River, South 

Fork of the Pit River, Pine Creek, and Matney 

2 (349 acres) (Objective 1.3)

$910,000 ea 1.0 $910,000

Restore wetland and sagebrush steppe 

habitats (350 acres) (Objectives 1.1 & 1.2)

$218,000 ea 1.0 $218,000

Conduct greater sandhill crane research 

(Objective 2.1)

$50,000 annually 1.0 $750,000

Construct universally accessible hunting 

blinds (Objective 3.1)

$5,000 ea 2.0 $10,000

Implement RLGIS on Refuge (Goals 1-5) $15,000 ea 1.0 $15,000

Expand Refuge Headquarters/Visitor Center 

(Goals 1-5)

$200,000 ea 1.0 $200,000

Replace and rehabilitate shop buildings (Goals 

1-5)

$833,000 ea 1.0 $833,000

Replace bunkhouse (Goals 1-5) $250,000 ea 1.0 $250,000

Replace restrooms (3), kiosks (2), and fishing 

pier at Dorris Reservoir (Goals 3 & 5) 

$175,000 ea 1.0 $175,000 

Replace interpretive signs (Goals 3 & 5) $4,167 ea 12.0 $50,000

Replace boundary fencing (Goals 1-5) $6,000 mi 10.0 $60,000

Underground existing overhead power lines

(Goals 1-5)

$52,250 mi 4.0 $209,000

Construct 4,000 square foot equipment 

storage building (Goals 1-5)

$250,000 ea 1.0 $250,000

Replace Sharkey and South Dams (Goals 1-5) $497,000 ea 1.0 $497,000

Repair Dorris Dam (Goals 1-5) $142,000 ea 1.0 $142,000

Repair water delivery system (Goals 1-5) $1,105,000 ea 1.0 $1,105,000

Resurface entrance road (Goals 3-5) $300,000 mi 1.2 $360,000

Repair public use roads and auto tour route 

(Goals 3-5)

$149,530 mi 5.0 $747,649

Repair public use parking lots (Goals 3-5) $2.36 sq ft 81,424 $192,204

Repair service roads (Goals 1-5) $70,000 mi 5.0 $350,000 

Replace existing small equipment (Goals 1-5) $22,174 ea 23.0 $510,000

Replace existing heavy equipment backlog 

(Goals 1-5)

$91,667 ea 18.0 $1,650,000

Total $6,041,290 $10,179,353
Management Plan Implementation

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 109

The recurring CCP implementation total is approximately $1.8 

million (Table 8). Annual contracts or cooperative agreements will be 

needed to provide specialized services beyond the core Refuge 

functions for which staff are required.

Table 8. Estimated annual cost to implement the CCP

Expenditure Unit Cost Unit Quantity

Salaries and Benefits

Refuge Manager - GS13 $114,436 FTE 1.0

Deputy Refuge Manager - GS12 $84,910 FTE 1.0

Private Lands Biologist – GS9/11 $70,601 FTE 1.0

Admin. Officer – GS7/9 $58,552 FTE 1.0

Eng. Equip. Oper. - WG10 $79,370 FTE 1.0

Eng. Equip. Oper. - WG10 $79,370 FTE 1.0

Tractor Operator – WG6 (Term) $57,000 FTE 1.0

Total Existing Staff Cost 544,239

Wildlife Biologist – GS7/9/11

(Goals 1-5)

$70,842 FTE 1.0

Interpretive Specialist – GS7/9

(Goals 3-5)

$58,552 FTE 1.0

Law Enforcement Officer – GS7/9

(Goals 3-5)

$67,560 FTE 1.0

Maintenance Worker – WG6 

(Invasive Species Control)

(Goals 1-2)

$57,000 FTE 1.0

Total Additional Staff Cost $253,954

TOTAL STAFF COST $798,193

Project Funding

Wildlife and Habitat Management $344,641 ea 1.0

Invasive Species Control $20,000 ea 1.0

Water Master fees $20,000 ea 1.0

Maintenance $391,028 ea 1.0

Visitor Services $110,479 ea 1.0

Connecting Children With Nature $50,000 ea 1.0

Law Enforcement $16,890 ea 1.0

Partners for F&W $80,000 ea 1.0

TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING $1,033,038

Grand Total: $1,831,231

Shading indicates position identified in the CCP

Unit Cost based on 2008 Grade level with 50 percent benefits for law 

enforcement and 30 percent benefits for everyone else. Staffing and 

funding would be sought over the 15-year life of this plan subject to 

approval and funding by Congress.
Chapter 5

110 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Junior Waterfowl Hunter

Photo by USFWS

Figure 16 shows the current staffing organization chart. If all 

positions indicated in Table 8 and Figure 16 are filled, the Refuge 

would be able to carry out all aspects of this plan to a reasonable 

standard. If some positions are not filled, not all aspects of the Plan 

could be completed or those projects might be done over a longer 

period. 

With the existing staffing levels for the Refuge, annual maintenance 

projects for habitat management and infrastructure will continue to 

degrade into maintenance backlogs. The current staffing of two full 

time and one term maintenance positions will not be able to maintain 

high quality habitat or provide annual maintenance on firebreaks, 

roads, parking lots, signage, fencing, gates, and other visitor service 

facilities for the Refuge. 

3. 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. In essence, stepdown management plans provide the additional planning details 

necessary to implement management strategies identified in a CCP. 

Included in this document are six step-down management plans.

3.1 Hunting Plan

The purpose of the Hunting Plan (Appendix C) is to establish 

guidelines for hunting Modoc Refuge 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. The activities in the Hunt Plan are evaluated in a 

compatibility determination located in Appendix B. 

3.2 Fishing Plan 

The purpose of the Fishing Plan (Appendix D) is to establish 

guidelines for fishing Modoc Refuge 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 
Management Plan Implementation

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 111

Figure 16. Modoc Refuge staffing organization chart
Chapter 5

112 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

habitat. It was developed to provide safe fishing opportunities while 

minimizing conflicts with other priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses. The plan will allow the fishing program to be 

conducted in a cost-effective manner, coordinated with the State. The 

fishing program will be reviewed annually by refuge staff. The

activities in the Fishing Plan are evaluated in a compatibility 

determination located in Appendix B. 

3.3 Visitor Services Plan

The purpose of the Visitor Services Plan (Appendix E) is to establish 

guidelines for public uses on Modoc Refuge 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 opportunities while minimizing adverse 

impacts to the wildlife resources. The plan will allow the visitor 

services program to be conducted in a cost-effective manner. The 

program will be reviewed annually by refuge staff. The activities in 

the Visitor Services Plan are evaluated in compatibility 

determinations located in Appendix B. 

3.4 Habitat Management Plan

Refuge staff has developed an annual Habitat Management Plan for 

Modoc Refuge that guides the refuge manager in the decision making 

process (Appendix F). 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 Refuge goals and objectives. 

3.5 Integrated Pest Management Plan

The Refuge has developed an IPM Plan (Appendix G) to address 

invasive and nuisance plants on the Refuge. The purposes of this plan 

are to identify mosquito control 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 provide long-term 

planning to meet the Service’s goal of reducing effects of pesticide 

use on Department of Interior (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 covers chemical 

pesticide use (aerial and ground application), mechanical eradication, 

and biological controls. 

3.6 Cultural Resources Overview

The Refuge has developed a cultural resource overview. Cultural 

resources on the Refuge will be managed according to the guidelines 

developed in this plan and under Federal regulations listed in the 

National Historic Preservation Act, Archeological Resources 

Protection Act, and Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act. 
Management Plan Implementation

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 113

4. Appropriate Use Requirements

The Appropriate Use Policy describes the initial decision process the 

refuge manager follows when first considering whether to allow a 

proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find that 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:

 The use is a wildlife-dependant recreational use as identified in 

the Improvement Act.

 The use contributes to the fulfilling of the refuge purpose(s), the 

Refuge System mission, or goals or objectives described in a 

refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date 

the Improvement Act was signed into law.

 The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State 

regulations.

 The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in Section 

1.11 (603 FW 1 of the Service Manual).

If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will 

eliminate or modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new 

use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will deny the use without 

determining compatibility. If a use is determined to be an appropriate 

refuge use, the refuge manager will then determine if the use is 

compatible (see Compatibility 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 wildlifedependent 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 uses was 

completed for the Refuge. Commercial photography, research, 

bicycling, grazing, haying, horseback riding, swimming, recreational 

boating, and plant material gathering were found to be appropriate 

uses on the Refuge. Waterskiing, camping, and field dog trials were 

found to be not appropriate uses on the Refuge.

5. 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 
Chapter 5

114 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Sandhill Crane in Flight

Photo by Steve Emmons

compatible use is defined as a proposed or existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational use or any other use of a national wildlife refuge that, 

based on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere 

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

the purposes of the 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 hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental education and 

interpretation, commercial photography, bicycling, horseback riding, 

recreational boating and swimming, grazing, and haying are included 

in Appendix B. These uses were all found to be appropriate and 

compatible. 

6. Compliance Requirements 

This CCP was developed to comply with all Federal 

laws, executive orders, and legislative acts to the 

extent possible. Some activities (particularly those 

that involve 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 the 

Federal laws, executive orders, and legislative acts is 

in Appendix I. 

7. 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 refine management 

techniques.

Collection of baseline data on wildlife 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, and species of management concern will be the focus 

of monitoring efforts.
Management Plan Implementation

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 115

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 public use programs will involve the continued 

collection of visitor use statistics. Monitoring will be done to evaluate 

the effects of visitor service on Refuge habitat, wildlife populations, 

and visitor experience. 

8. Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is the process of implementing policy decisions 

as scientifically driven experiments that test predictions and 

assumptions about management plans, and using the resulting 

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 

objectives, and adapts original strategies to reach desired objectives. 

Habitat, wildlife, 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. 

9. CCP Plan Amendment and Revision 

The CCP is intended to evolve as the Refuge changes, 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 Service 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 Service to have 

the CCP applies to any new lands that may be acquired. If changes 

were required, the refuge manager would determine the level of 

public involvement and associated NEPA documentation.
Chapter 5

116 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

The intent of the CCP is for refuge 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.
Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 117

Glossary

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 (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

Alluvial Fan: Accumulation of sediment where a stream moves from 

a steep gradient to a flatter gradient and suddenly loses transporting 

power. 

Alluvial: Pertaining to clay, silt, sand, gravel, or other sedimentary 

matter deposited by flowing water, usually within a river valley. 

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 sets of objectives and strategies or means 

of achieving refuge purposes and goals, helping fulfill the Refuge 

System mission, and resolving issues (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

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. 

ATV: All Terrain Vehicle (either 3- or 4-wheeled vehicles). 

Bank: The rising ground bordering a body of water or forming the 

edge of a cut or hollow. 

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. 
Glossary

118 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Biological Control: The use of organisms or viruses to control weeds 

or other pests. 

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 (Service Manual 602 

FW 1.6). 

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). 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. 

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 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 National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission or the purposes of the national wildlife refuge 

(Service Manual 603 FW 2.6). 

Compatibility Determination: A written determination signed and 

dated by the refuge manager and Regional Chief signifying that a 

proposed or existing use of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible 

use or is not a compatible use. The Director makes this delegation 

through the Regional Director (Service Manual 603 FW 2.6). 

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 

achieve 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 (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

Concern: See Issue. 

Coordination Area: A wildlife management area made available to a 

State, by "(A) cooperative agreement between the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the State fish and game agency pursuant to 

Section 4 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 664); 

or (B) by long-term leases or agreements pursuant to the Bankhead-
Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 119

Jones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525; 7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.)." States 

manage Coordination Areas, but they are part of the Refuge System. 

We do not require CCPs for Coordination Areas (Service Manual 602 

FW 1.6). 

Cultural Resource: The physical remains of human activity 

(artifacts, ruins, petroglyphs, etc.) and conceptual content or context 

of an area, such as a traditional sacred site. It includes historically, 

archaeologically, and architecturally 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 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). 

Diversion: A structure in a river or canal that diverts water from the 

river or canal to another watercourse. 

Drain: A canal that collects and transports excess water from 

irrigated farmland. 

Easement: A privilege or right that is held by one person or other 

entity in land owned by another. 

Ecological Integrity: The integration of biological integrity, natural 

biological diversity, and environmental health; the replication of 

natural conditions (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

Ecology: The branch of biology that studies the interactions of 

organisms within an environment, either with other organisms (biotic 

factors) or with the non-living components (abiotic factors) of that 

ecosystem. 

Ecosystem: The sum of all interacting parts of the environment and 

associated ecological communities within a particular area; an 
Glossary

120 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

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. 

Ecosystem Approach: Protecting or restoring the natural function 

(processes), structure (physical and biological patterns), and species 

composition of an ecosystem, recognizing that all components are 

interrelated. 

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’s

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 Statelisted species. 

Entitlement: The annual maximum amount of water that can be 

delivered to a parcel of land, a product of eligible acres and water 

duty (expressed in acre-feet). 

Environment: The sum total of all biological, chemical, and physical 

factors to which organisms are exposed; the surroundings of a plant 

or animal. 

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 Education: A process designed to develop a 

citizenry that has the awareness, concern, knowledge, attitudes, 
Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 121

skills, motivation, and commitment to work toward solutions of 

current environmental problems and the prevention of new ones. 

Environmental education within the National Wildlife Refuge System 

incorporates materials, activities, programs, and products that 

address the citizen's course of study goals, the objectives of the 

refuge/field station, and the mission of the Refuge System. 

Environmental Health: Abiotic composition, structure, and 

functioning of the environment consistent with natural conditions, 

including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed written 

statement required by Section 102(2) (C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts of a 

proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, 

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

versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, 

and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (40 

CFR 1508.11). 

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). 

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 

United States and to the public health. 

Fallow: Allowing land that normally is used for crop production to lie 

idle. 

Federal Trust Resources: A trust is something managed by one 

entity for another who holds the ownership. The Service holds in 

trust many natural resources for the people of the United States of 

America as a result of Federal Acts and treaties. Examples are 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act, migratory birds 

protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other international 

treaties, and native plant or wildlife species found on the Refuge 

System. 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): A document prepared 

in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, supported 
Glossary

122 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

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). 

Floodplain: The relatively flat area along the sides of a river that is 

naturally subjected to flooding. 

Fluvial: Pertaining to a river. 

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. 

GIS: Geographic Information System. Refers to such computer 

mapping programs as ArcView, ArcInfo, ERDAS, etc. 

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

future conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define 

measurable units (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6). 

Habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an 

organism for survival and reproduction. The place where an organism 

typically lives. 

Habitat Restoration: Management emphasis designed to move 

ecosystems to desired conditions and processes, and/or to healthy 

forestlands, rangelands, and aquatic systems. 

Hydrograph: A graph of the local pattern and magnitude of water 

flow influenced by season and dam releases. 

Hydrologic Regime: The local pattern and magnitude of water flow 

influenced by season. 

Hydrology: The science dealing with the properties, distribution, and 

circulation of water on and below the earth's surface and in the 

atmosphere. The distribution and cycling of water in an area. 

Impoundment: A body of water created by collection and 

confinement within a series of levees or dikes, thus creating separate 

management units although not always independent of one another. 
Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 123

Impact: See effect. 

Indigenous: Native to the area. 

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. 

Interpretation: Interpretation can be an educational and 

recreational activity that is aimed at revealing relationships, 

examining systems, and exploring how the natural world and human 

activities are interconnected. 

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 that flows from 

irrigated land and generally transports higher concentrations of 

dissolved salts than the water applied to the land. 

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 (Service Manual 602 

FW 1.6). 

Landowner: A person or entity indicated as the owner of property on 

the various ownership maps maintained by the Office of the County 

Assessor. 

Landscape Ecology: A sub-discipline of ecology, which focuses on 

spatial relationships and interactions between patterns and 

processes. This emerging science integrates hydrology, geology, 

geomorphology, soil science, vegetation science, wildlife science, 

economics, sociology, law, engineering, and land use planning to 

conserve, enhance, restore, and protect the sustainability of 

ecosystems on the land. 

Lease: A legal contract by which water rights are acquired for a 

specified period for a specified rent or compensation. 

Levee: An embankment along the river to prevent water from 

overbank flooding. 

Marsh: A periodically wet or continually flooded area where the 

water is shallow enough to allow the growth of emergent vegetation 

such as sedges, rushes, and cattails. 
Glossary

124 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Meander: The bend of curve in a river or stream channel. Migration 

of the river or stream channel. 

Migration: The seasonal movement from one area to another and 

back. 

Migratory Bird: A bird that seasonally moves between geographic 

areas. In reference to birds in the Great Basin, a bird that breeds in 

the Great Basin and subsequently moves south of the Great Basin for 

the winter months. Birds that migrate south of Mexico for the winter 

are considered Neotropical migrants. 

Mission Statement: Succinct statement of the unit's purpose and 

reason for being. 

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. 

Model: A mathematical formula that expresses the actions and 

interactions of the elements of a system in such a manner that the 

system may be evaluated under any given set of conditions. 

Moist-Soil: A process where water is drawn down intentionally or 

naturally to produce mudflats (i.e., moist soil), which are required for 

germination of many desirable plants. 

Monitoring: Data collected and analyzed periodically for comparing 

trends in that which is being monitored. Monitoring is necessary to 

identify, track, and analyze results of management actions at the 

refuge so that future management actions may be adapted to obtain 

the best benefits to wildlife and habitat (see adaptive management). 

Mud Flat: Expanses of mud contiguous to a water body often 

covered and exposed by tides. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): An act that

encourages productive and enjoyable harmony between humans and 

their environment to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate 

damage to the environment and atmosphere and 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). 
Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 125

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 A Report 

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

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

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. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission (mission): "The mission 

of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, 

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

within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans" (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

Natural Recruitment: Plant establishment through natural 

processes. In riparian systems, these processes include flooding, 

sediment deposition, erosion, and seed dispersal from local or 

upstream plant sources. 

Native Species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular 

ecosystem. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds: Migratory birds that breed in North 

American and winter in Central and South America. 

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

Niche: An organism's "place," or role, in an ecosystem. This involves 

many components of the organism's life: where it lives (habitat), what 

it eats, by whom it is eaten, when it migrates or breeds, etc. All of 

these factors combine to determine the role of the organism in its 

ecosystem. 

No Action Alternative: An alternative under which existing 

management would be continued. 

Non-Priority Public Uses, or Non-wildlife Dependent Uses: Any 

use other than a compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use. 
Glossary

126 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Notice of Intent (NOI): A notice that an environmental impact 

statement will be prepared and considered (40 CFR 1508.22). 

Published in the Federal Register. 

NWR: National Wildlife Refuge. 

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 (Service Manual 

602 FW 1.6). 

One-hundred-year Floodplain: The relatively flat portion of the 

river channel that has a one percent chance of being inundated by 

floodwater in any given year. 

Opportunities: Potential solutions to issues. 

Outreach: Outreach is two-way communication between the Service

and the public to establish mutual understanding, promote 

involvement, and influence attitudes and actions, with the goal of 

improving joint stewardship of our natural resources. 

Overbank Flooding: River flows that exceed the boundaries of the 

existing river channel and flood the adjacent riparian areas and 

bottomlands. 

Passerine Bird: A songbird or other perching bird that is in the 

order Passeriformes. Blackbirds, crows, warblers, sparrows, and 

wrens for example.

Perennial: In reference to a body of water, one that contains water 

year-to-year and that rarely goes dry. 

Peak Flow: The maximum discharge of a stream during a specified 

period of time. 

PILT: Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes. 

Planning Area: The area upon which the planning effort will focus. A 

planning area may include lands outside existing planning unit 

boundaries currently studied for inclusion in the Refuge System 

and/or partnership planning efforts. It also may include watersheds 

or ecosystems outside of our jurisdiction that affect the planning unit. 

At a minimum, the planning area includes all lands within the 

authorized boundary of the refuge (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

Planning Team: A team or group of persons working together to 

prepare a document. Planning teams are interdisciplinary in 
Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 127

membership and function. Teams generally consist of a planning 

team leader, refuge manager and staff biologists, a state natural 

resource agency representative, and other appropriate program 

specialists (e.g., social scientist, ecologist, and recreation specialist). 

We also will ask other Federal and Tribal natural resource agencies 

to provide team members, as appropriate. The planning team 

prepares the CCP and appropriate NEPA documentation (Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

Planning Team Leader: The planning team leader typically is a 

professional planner or natural resource specialist knowledgeable of 

the requirements of NEPA and who has planning experience. The 

planning team leader manages the refuge planning process and 

ensures compliance with applicable regulatory and policy 

requirements (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

Planning Unit: A single refuge, an ecologically or administratively 

related refuge complex, or distinct unit of a refuge. The planning unit 

also may include lands currently outside refuge boundaries (Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

Plant Community: An assemblage of plant species of a particular 

composition. The term can also be used in reference to a group of one 

or more populations of plants in a particular area at a particular point 

in time; the plant community of an area can change over time due to 

disturbance (e.g., fire) and succession. 

Pollutant: Any introduced gas, liquid, or solid that makes a resource 

unfit for a specific purpose. 

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 

(i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation). 
Glossary

128 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Proposed Action: The Service’s proposed action for Comprehensive 

Conservation Plans is to prepare and implement the CCP. 

Public: Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, 

State, and local government agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign 

nations. It may include anyone outside the core planning team. It 

includes those who may or may not have indicated an interest in 

Service issues and those who do or do not realize that Service 

decisions may affect them. 

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 (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

Raptor: A bird of prey, such as a hawk, eagle, or owl. 

Record of Decision (ROD): A concise public record of decision 

prepared by the Federal agency, pursuant to NEPA, that contains a 

statement of the decision, identification of all alternatives considered, 

identification of the environmentally preferable alternative, a 

statement as to whether all practical means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted 

(and if not, why they were not), and a summary of monitoring and 

enforcement where applicable for any mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 

Recruitment: The annual increase in a population as determined by 

the proportion of surviving offspring produced during a specific 

period (usually expressed per year). 

Refuge: Short got National Wildlife Refuge. 

Refuge Goal: See goal. 

Refuge Purposes: See purposes of the Refuge. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Program or RRSP: Proves payments to 

counties in lieu of taxes using revenues derived from the sale of 

products from refuges. 
Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 129

Refuge Use: Any activity on a refuge, except administrative or law 

enforcement activity carried out by or under the direction of an 

authorized Service employee. 

Restoration: The return of an ecosystem to an approximation of its 

former unimpaired condition. 

Restoration, Active Restoration: Restoration that uses horticultural 

and agricultural techniques for plant establishment. Common 

practices of cultural restoration include propagating seeds, acorns, 

and cuttings in a greenhouse and planting these propagules in rows 

so that irrigations systems may be installed and maintained and 

weeds can be sprayed and mowed. Specific human actions taken to 

reestablish the natural processes, vegetation, and resultant habitat of 

an ecosystem. 

Restoration, Passive Restoration: Restoration that relies on natural 

processes for plant establishment. These processes include flooding, 

sediment deposition, erosion, and seed dispersal from local or 

upstream plant sources. Allowing an ecosystem to restore its natural 

processes, vegetation, and resultant habitat without human actions. 

Riparian Area: Riparian areas are transitional between terrestrial 

and aquatic ecosystems and are distinguished by gradients in 

biophysical conditions, ecological processes, and biota. They are areas 

through which surface and subsurface hydrology connect waterbodies 

with their adjacent uplands. They include those portions of terrestrial 

ecosystems that significantly influence exchanges of energy and 

matter with aquatic ecosystems (i.e., a zone of influence). Riparian 

areas are adjacent to perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, 

lakes, and estuarine-marine shorelines. 

Riparian Habitat: Gravel bars, sand dunes, non-vegetated 

riverbanks, herbaceous, scrub, and forested vegetation, which 

provides habitat for plants, macro-invertebrates, fish, and wildlife. 

Riverine: Pertaining to rivers and floodplains. 

Secretary: Short for the Secretary of the Interior. 

Sediment: Any material, carried in suspension by water, which 

ultimately settles to the bottom of watercourses. Sediments may also 

settle on stream banks or flood plains during high water flow. 

Service or USFWS: Short for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Shorebirds: Birds, also known as waders, belonging to the Order 

Charadriiformes that use shallow wetlands and mud flats for foraging 

and nesting. 
Glossary

130 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Slough: A naturally occurring side or overflow channel that holds 

water. 

Soil Erosion: The wearing away of the land's surface by water, wind, 

ice, or other physical process. 

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 of 

1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) and other applicable laws. Included in 

the finding, determination, or decision is a refuge manager’s field 

experience and knowledge of the particular refuge’s resources 

(Service Manual 603 FW 2.6). 

Spatial Distribution: The pattern of frequency of a specific habitat 

type over a larger area. 

Species: A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable 

characteristics, and that can interbreed and produce young. A 

category of biological classification. 

Species Composition: A group of species that inhabit a specific 

habitat type in its healthy state. To enhance species composition is to 

ensure that all or as many species as possible inhabit the appropriate 

habitat by improving the quality of that habitat. 

Step-Down Management Plan: A plan that provides specific 

guidance on management subjects (e.g., habitat, public use, fire, or 

safety) or groups of related subjects. It describes strategies and 

implementation schedules for meeting CCP goals and objectives 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

Strategy: A specific action, tool, or technique or combination of 

actions, tools, and techniques used to meet unit objectives (Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

Submergent Vegetation: Plants that grows completely submerged 

except when flowering. 

Succession: The replacement of one plant community by another 

over time. 

Surface Water: A body of water that has its upper surface exposed 

to the atmosphere. 

System or Refuge System: National Wildlife Refuge System. 

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 
Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 131

threatened species in the Federal Register by the Secretary of the 

Interior. Threatened species are afforded protection under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Tiering: The coverage of general matters in broader environmental 

impact statements with subsequent narrower statements of 

environmental analysis, incorporating by reference, the general 

discussions and concentrating on specific issues (40 CFR 1508.28). 

Transient Species: Animals that migrate through a locality without 

breeding or overwintering. 

Trust Species: Species for which the Service has primary 

responsibility, including, most Federally listed threatened and 

endangered species, anadromous fishes once they enter inland U.S. 

waterways, migratory birds, and certain marine mammals. 

Understory: Shrubs and herbaceous plants that typically grow 

beneath larger trees in a woodland. 

Upland: An area where water normally does not collect and where 

water does not flow on an extended basis. Uplands are non-wetland 

areas. 

USFWS or Service: Short for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission: Our mission is working 

with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

Vegetation: The composition of plant species, their frequency of 

occurrence, density, and age classes at a specified scale. 

Vegetation Community: See plant community. 

Vegetation Type or Habitat Type: A land classification system 

based upon the concept of distinct plant associations. 

Vernal Pool: Seasonally flooded depressions on soils with an 

impermeable layer such as a hardpan, claypan, volcanic basalt, or 

saturated alkali clays. The impermeable layer allows the pools to 

retain water much longer then the surrounding uplands; nonetheless, 

the pools are shallow enough to dry up each season. Vernal pools 

often fill and empty several times during the rainy season. Only 

plants and animals that are adapted to this cycle of wetting and 

drying can survive in vernal pools over time. 

Vertebrate: An animal having a segmented backbone or vertebral 

column; includes mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, and reptiles. 
Glossary

132 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

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 (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

Waterfowl: A group of birds that include ducks, geese, and swans 

(belonging to the order Anseriformes). 

Water-righted Acreage: The land base for which there are water 

rights.

Water Rights: A grant, permit, decree, appropriation, or claim to the 

use of water for beneficial purposes, and subject to other rights of 

earlier date of use, called priority, or prior appropriation. 

Watershed: The entire land area that collects and drains water into a 

river or river system. 

Wetland: Land that is transitional between upland (terrestrial) and 

aquatic systems (greater than about 6-feet deep), where the water 

table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by 

shallow water... wetlands must have one or more of the following 

three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports 

predominantly hydrophytes (plants that require wet conditions); (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 each year 

(Cowardin et al. 1979). 

Wetland Habitat: Habitat provided by shallow or deep water (but 

less than 6-feet deep), with or without emergent and aquatic 

vegetation in wetlands. Wetland habitat only exists when and where a 

wetland or portion of a wetland is covered with water (visible surface 

water). Consequently, the size and shape of "wetland habitat" will 

fluctuate from season-to-season and year-to-year while the size and 

shape of the "wetland" within which wetland habitat occurs will 

remain constant from season to season and from year to year. 

Wetlands only provide habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, muskrats, 

aquatic insects, and other wetland-dependent wildlife when they 

contain surface water (i.e., when they provide wetland habitat). 

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). 
Glossary

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 133

Wildland fire: A free burning fire requiring a suppression response; 

all fire other than prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands. Often 

referred to as wildfire. 

Wildlife: All nondomesticated animal life; included are vertebrates 

and invertebrates. 

Wildlife Corridor: A landscape feature that facilitates the 

biologically effective transport of animals between larger patches of 

habitat dedicated to conservation functions. Such corridors may 

facilitate several kinds of traffic, including frequent foraging 

movement, seasonal migration, or the once in a lifetime dispersal of 

juvenile animals. These are transition habitats and need not contain 

all the habitat elements required for long-term survival of 

reproduction of its migrants. 

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 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

 
Bibliography

134 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Bibliography

Brown, S. C., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001. The 

U.S. shorebird conservation plan. 2nd ed. Manomet, 

Massachusetts: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences.

California Air Resources Board. 2005. Characterization of ambient 

PM0 and PM2.5 in California. Technical report. California Air 

Resources Board. June 2005.

California Air Resources Board. 2006. The California almanac of 

emissions and air quality - 2006 edition: California Air 

Resources Board.

California Department of Finance. 2002. Census 2000 California 

profile.

California Department of Finance. 2007a. E-1 population estimates 

for cities, counties, and the State with annual percent change - 

January 1, 2006 and 2007. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Finance. 2007b. E-8 historical population 

and housing estimates for cities, counties, and the state, 1990-

2000. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2005a. California wildlife 

conservation challenges, California's wildlife action plan. 

Prepared by the U.C. Davis Wildlife Health Center. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 2005b. CWHR version 8.1 

personal computer program: California Department of Fish 

and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2005c. The status of rare, 

threatened, and endangered plants and animals of California 

2000-2004. 

California Department of Fish and Game, and University of 

California at Davis. 2006. California Swainson's hawk 

inventory: 2005-2006, 2005 progress report. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2003. Public 

opinions and attitudes on outdoor recreation in California 

2002. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 

California Department of Transportation. 2005. California 2005 - 

2025 county-level economic forecast. September 2005.
Bibliography

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 135

California Herps. 2007. California reptiles and amphibians. 

http://www.californiaherps.com/index.html (cited June 21, 

2007 

California Partners in Flight. 2005. Version 1.0. The sagebrush bird 

conservation plan: A strategy for protecting and mapping 

sagebrush habitats and associated birds in California. PRBO 

Conservation Science. 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, C. V. R. 1998. 

Fourth edition of the water quality control plan (basin plan) 

for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River basins. 

September 1998, amended September 2004.

California State Parks. 2005. Park and recreation trends in 

California 2005. 

Center for Economic Development. 2007. 2007 Modoc County 

economic & demographic profile: Center for Economic 

Development, CSU, Chick Research Foundation.

Cooper, D. S. 2004. Important bird areas of California. Pasadena, 

California: Audubon California.

Cordell, H. K., C. Betz, J. M. Bowker, D. B. K. English, S. H. Mou, B. 

J. C., R. J. Teasley, M. A. Tarrant, and J. Loomis. 1999. 

Outdoor recreation in American life: A national assessment 

of demand and supply trends. Champaign, Illinois: 

Sagamore, Inc.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. 

Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the 

United States. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.h

tm (cited 2004).

Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetlands - losses in the United States, 1780s to 

1980s. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report to Congress. 

Dahl, T. E., and C. E. Johnson. 1991. Wetlands - status and trends in 

the conterminous United States, mid-1970s to mid-1980s. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Dahl, T. E., and G. J. Allord. 1996. Technical aspects of wetlands. 

History of wetlands in the conterminous United States. In 

National water summary on wetland resources. U.S. 

Geological Survey water supply paper 2425: U.S. Geological 

Survey.
Bibliography

136 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Davis, F. W., D. M. Stoms, A. D. Hollander, K. A. Thomas, P. A. 

Stine, D. Odion, M. I. Borchert, J. H. Thorne, M. V. Gray, R. 

E. Walker, and J. Graae. 1998. The California gap analysis 

project: Final report. 

http://www.biogeog.ucsb.edu/projects/gap/gap_rep.html (cited 

2008).

duVair, P. 2003. Climate change and California. Staff report of the 

California Energy Commission. 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2003-11-26_100-03-017F.pdf 

(cited 2008).

Employment Development Department. 2006. Modoc County 

snapshot. 

http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/cosnaps/modocSnap.pdf (cited 

June 25, 2007 

Environmental Statistics Group. 2003. Hydrologic unit project. 

http://www.esg.montana.edu/gl/huc/index.html (cited June 17, 

2007 

Euliss, N. H., Jr., and S. W. Harris. 1987. Feeding ecology of 

northern pintails and green-winged teal wintering in 

California. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(4):724-732.

Green, A. G., H. L. Bombay, and M. L. Morrison. 2003. Conservation 

assessment of the willow flycatcher in the Sierra Nevada. 

USDA Forest Service. 

Grinnell, J., and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of 

California. Pacific Coast Avifauna 27:1-608.

Halterman, M. D., D. S. Gilmer, S. A. Laymon, and G. A. Falxa. 2001. 

Status of the yellow-billed cuckoo in California: 1999-2000. 

Report to the USGS-BRD. 

Hayhoe, K., D. Cayan, C. B. Field, P. C. Frumhoff, E. P. Maurer, N. 

L. Miller, S. C. Moser, S. H. Schneider, K. N. Cahill, E. E. 

Cleland, L. Dale, R. Drapek, R. M. Hanemann, L. S. 

Kalkstein, J. Lenihan, C. K. Lunch, R. P. Neilson, S. C. 

Sheridan, and J. H. Verville. 2004. Emissions pathways,

climate change, and impacts on California. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences 101(34):12422-12427.

Heitmeyer, M. E., and D. G. Raveling. 1988. Winter resource use by 

three species of dabbling ducks in California. Final report to 

Delta Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Center. 
Bibliography

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 137

Henstrom, M. A., M. J. Wisdom, W. J. Hann, M. M. Rowland, B. C. 

Wales, and R. A. Gravenmier. 2002. Sagebrush-steppe 

vegetation dynamics and restoration potential in the interior 

Columbia Basin, U.S. A. Conservation Biology 16:1242-1255.

Intermountain West Joint Venture. 2005. Coordinated 

implementation plan for bird conservation in California 

(BCRs 9, 15, and 33). 

Ivey, G. L., and C. P. Herziger. 2006. Intermountain West waterbird 

conservation plan, version 1.2. A plan associated with the 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas Initiative. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Pacific Region. 

Kushlan, J. A., M. J. Steinkamp, K. C. Parsons, J. Capp, M. A. Cruz, 

M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. 

M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. 

Paul, R. Phillips, J. E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. 

Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird conservation for the 

Americas: The North American waterbird conservation plan, 

version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. 

Littlefield, C. D., and G. L. Ivey. 2000. Conservation assessment for 

greater sandhill cranes wintering on the Consumnes River 

floodplain and delta regions of California. The Nature 

Conservancy. 

Littlefield, C. D., and G. L. Ivey. 2002. Washington State recovery 

plan for the sandhill crane. Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife. 

Loft, E. R. 1998. Economic contribution of deer, pronghorn antelope, 

and sage grouse hunting to northeastern California and 

implications to the overall "value" of wildlife. California 

Wildlife Conservation Bulletin 11:42.

Miller, M. R. 1987. Fall and winter foods of northern pintails in the 

Sacramento Valley, California. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 51(2):405-414.

Miller, R. F., T. J. Svejcar, and N. E. West. 1994. Implications of 

livestock grazing in the intermountain sagebrush region: 

Plant composition. In Ecological implications of livestock 

herbivory in the west: Society for Range Management.

Mills, Terry J. 1980. Life history, status, and management of the 

Modoc sucker, Catostomus microps (Rutter) in California, 

with a Recommendation for Endangered Classification. 

Inland Fisheries Endangered Species Program, Department 

of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. 30+pp.
Bibliography

138 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Mintier Harnish and Associates. 1998. Modoc County general plan: 

Background report. September 1988.

Modoc County. 1998. Modoc County general plan: Background 

report. September 1998.

Modoc National Forest, and Alturas Field Office Bureau of Land 

Management. 2007. Sage steppe ecosystem restoration 

strategy draft environmental impact statement. 

National Audubon Society. 2002. Cooling the hotspots: Protecting 

America's birds, wildlife and natural heritage from invasive 

species. National Audubon Society. 

National Audubon Society. 2008. Important bird areas. 

http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba (cited 2008).

Oakeshott, G. B. 1971. California's changing landscapes: A guide to 

the geology of the state. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oring, L. W., L. Neel, and K. E. Oring. 2001. Intermountain West 

shorebird plan. Version 1.0. http://shorebirdplan.fws.gov/ 

RegionalShorebird/downloads/IMWEST4.doc (cited 2008).

Pacific Flyway Council. 2007. Pacific Flyway Council. 

http://pacificflyway.gov/Management.asp (cited 2008).

Parmesan, C., and H. Galbraith. 2004. Observed impacts of global 

climate change in the U.S. 

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/final%5FObsImpact%

2Epdf (cited 2008).

Remsen, J. V. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. 

Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. 

C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. 

O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Roseberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. 

Wendt, and T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North 

American landbird conservation plan. Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology. 

Riparian Habitats Joint Venture. 2004. The riparian bird 

conservation plan: A strategy for reversing the decline of 

riparian associated birds in California. 

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/pdfs/riparian_v-2.pdf (cited 

October 16, 2007).
Bibliography

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 139

Schaefer, R. J., D. J. Thayer, and T. S. Burton. 2003. Forty-one 

years of vegetation change on permanent transects in 

northeastern California: Implications for wildlife. California 

Fish and Game 89(2):55-71.

Schlorff, A. R. 2000. Report to the Fish and Game Commission on 

bank swallow populations. California Department of Fish and 

Game. 

Schneider, S. H., and K. Kuntz-Suriseti. 2002. Uncertainty and 

climate change policy. In Climate change policy, edited by S. 

H. Schneider, A. Rosencranz and J. O. Niles. Washington, 

D.C.: Island Press.

Sedgwick, J. A. 2000. Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). In The 

birds of North America, edited by A. Poole and F. Gill. 

Philadelphia: The Birds of North America, Inc.

Serena, M. 1982. The status and distribution of the willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii) in selected portions of the Sierra 

Nevada, 1982. Report No. 82-5. California Department of Fish 

and Game, Wildlife Management Branch. 

The Nature Conservancy. 2001. Great Basin: An ecoregion-based 

conservation blueprint. Reno, Nevada.

Turman, E. G. 2002. Regional impact assessments: A case study of 

California. In Climate change policy, edited by S. H. 

Schneider, A. Rosencranz and J. O. Niles. Washington, D.C.: 

Island Press.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1963. Master plan Modoc National 

Wildlife Refuge, Modoc County, California. Part I 

development and management and part II engineering. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Determination of Endangered 

Status and Critical Habitat for the Modoc Sucker. Federal 

Register (50) 112: 24523-24530.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. National outreach strategy: A 

master plan for communicating in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fulfilling the promise: The 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Visions for wildlife, habitat, 

people, and leaders. USFWS Division of Refuges. 
Bibliography

140 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. National strategy for 

management of invasive species. Report by Fulfilling the 

Promise National Invasive Species Management Strategy 

Team. September 10, 2002.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Wildland fire management plan 

and environmental assessment. Modoc National Wildlife 

Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Banking on nature: The 

economic benefits to local communities of National Wildlife 

Refuge visitation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. September 

2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Fire management. Wildlife fire 

history project 1936-2005. 

http://www.fws.gov/klamathbasinrefuges/fire/whp.html (cited 

2008).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Banking on nature: The 

economic benefits to local communities of National Wildlife 

Refuge visitation. Division of Economics. September.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007c. Species Assessment and 

Listing Priority Assignment Form for Oregon spotted frog 

(Rana pretiosa). March 2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Draft Rising to the Challenge. 

Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate 

Change. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. 

North American waterfowl management plan. U.S. 

Department of Interior. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, and 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1996. 1996 National survey of fishing, 

hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation - California survey. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Canadian Wildlife Service, and 

Mexican National Institute of Ecology. 1998. Expanding the 

vision: 1998 update - North American waterfowl management 

plan. U.S. Department of Interior. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, and 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. 2006 National survey of fishing, 

hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation - California survey.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Connecting people with nature: 

Action plan sharing the spark. California Nevada Region.
Bibliography

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 141

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished. Regular wildlife 

surveys, 1989-2007.Willows, California: Sacramento National 

Wildlife Refuge.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Modoc National Forest land and 

resource management plan. Modoc National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada forest plan amendment, 

final impact statement. Volumes 1-6. Pacific Southwest 

Region. 

USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1980. Soil survey of Modoc 

County, California, Alturas area: National Cooperative Soil 

Survey.

VESTRA. 2004. Upper Pit River Watershed assessment. Prepared 

for Pit River Alliance. 

Watson, J.W., K.R. McAllister, and D.J. Pierce. 2003. Home ranges, 

movements, and habitat selection of Oregon spotted frogs 

(Rana pretiosa). Journal of Herpetology 37:292−300.

White, C. M., N. J. Clum, T. J. Cade, and W. G. Hunt. 2002. 

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). In The birds of North 

America, edited by A. Poole and F. Gill. Philadelphia: The 

Birds of North America, Inc.

Young, J. 2000. Bromus tectorum. In Invasive plants of California's 

wildlands, edited by C. C. Bossard, J. M. Randall and M. C. 

Hoshovsky. Berkeley, California: University of California 

Press.