Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

December 2009 Vision Statement

“Located near the confluence of the north and south forks of the Pit River, Modoc National Wildlife Refuge will conserve, restore, protect, and manage a mosaic of seasonal wetlands, semi- permanent wetlands, wet meadows, riparian, and sagebrush-steppe habitats. These habitats will provide important resting, feeding, and nesting areas for ducks, geese, and other migratory birds. Modoc Refuge’s high- quality habitat will play a key role in the long-term recovery of Central Valley greater sandhill cranes.

As an integral part of the surrounding community, Modoc Refuge will provide high quality wildlife-dependent recreation including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation. The Refuge will continue to be known for its high-quality environmental education program offered to generations of students. Visitors will develop a greater understanding and appreciation for the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and refuge management programs and for the importance of protecting lands for wildlife conservation.”

Disclaimer CCPs provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 8 2800 Cottage Way, W-1832 Sacramento, CA 95825

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge PO Box 1610 Alturas, CA 96101

December 2009 -- Date: J ~ -/ S--o ? egional Director, Pacific Southwest Region

Implementation of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan and alternative management actions/programs have been assessed consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq.)

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

- i -

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

- ii -

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

- iii -

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

- iv -

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

- v -

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

- vi -

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

- vii -

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

- viii -

Introduction and Background

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

1. Introduction The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) manages the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) located southeast of the town of Alturas in northeastern California (Figure 1). The Refuge contains critically important habitats for a great diversity of wildlife, particularly migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway.

This document is a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) designed to guide management of the Refuge for the next fifteen years. The CCP provides a description of the desired future conditions and long- range guidance to accomplish the purposes for which the Refuge was established. The CCP and accompanying Environmental Assessment (EA) address Service legal mandates, policies, goals, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. The EA (Appendix A) presents a range of administrative, habitat management, and visitor Sandhill Crane and Colt services alternatives that consider issues and Photo by Share The Road Productions 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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1 Chapter 1

Figure 1. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

2 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Introduction and Background

2. Purpose of and Need for Plan Currently, the Refuge is guided by a Master Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1963). The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 United States Code [USC] 668dd- 668ee) (Improvement Act) requires that all refuges be managed in accordance with an approved CCP by 2012. Under the Improvement Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is to be consistently directed and managed to fulfill the specific purpose(s) for which each refuge was established as well as the Refuge System mission. The planning process helps the Service achieve the refuge purposes and the Refuge System mission by identifying specific goals, objectives, and strategies to implement on each refuge.

The purposes of this CCP are to

 provide a clear statement of direction for the future management of the Refuge;

 provide long-term continuity in Refuge management;

 communicate the Service’s management priorities for the Refuge to their partners, neighbors, visitors, and the general public;

 provide an opportunity for the public to help shape the future management of the Refuge;

 ensure that management programs on the Refuge are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System and the purposes for which the Refuge was established;

 ensure that the management of the Refuge is consistent with Federal, State, and local plans; and

 provide a basis for budget requests to support the Refuge’s needs for staffing, operations, maintenance, and capital improvements.

3. Legal and Policy Guidance National wildlife refuges are guided by the purposes of the individual refuge, mission and goals of the Refuge System, Service policy, laws, and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the Improvement Act, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (Service Manual).

Refuges are also governed by a variety of other laws, treaties, and executive orders pertaining to the conservation and protection of natural and cultural resources (refer to Appendix I for additional information about these laws and executive orders).

3.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act The Improvement Act, which amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, provides comprehensive

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3 Chapter 1

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.

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Photo by USFWS

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

4 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Introduction and Background

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5 Chapter 1

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,

6 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Introduction and Background

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.

Mule Deer Photo by USFWS

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.).

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7 Chapter 1

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.

8 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Introduction and Background

 Management, ranging from preservation to active manipulation of habitats and populations, is necessary to achieve Refuge System and Service missions.

 Wildlife-dependent uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and education, when compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses of the Refuge System.

 Partnerships with those who want to help us meet our mission are welcome and indeed essential.

 Employees are our most valuable resource. They are respected and deserve an empowering, mentoring, and caring work environment.

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

6. Modoc Refuge 6.1 Introduction The 7,021-acre Modoc Refuge is located along the South Fork of the Pit River in Modoc County, southeast of the town of Alturas, in extreme northeastern California (Figure 1). The Refuge is located on the western edge of the Great Basin, a high elevation, cold desert environment. The Refuge consists of wetland, reservoir, riparian, sagebrush-steppe, and cropland habitats.

The Refuge is part of a larger complex of mid- elevation wetlands and lakes of northeastern California and is strategically situated to meet the needs of waterfowl and other migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway. Modoc Refuge acts as a migration and staging area for ducks, geese, and other wetland birds on the southward migration funnel into this region. After feeding and resting on the Refuge, they continue to the Central and Imperial Valleys of California and other wintering areas. This pattern is reversed Entrance to the Modoc National Wildlife in the spring. The Refuge’s wetlands and Refuge adjacent uplands are also an important nesting Photo by USFWS 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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9 Chapter 1

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

10 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Introduction and Background

restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).

8. The Refuge Vision A vision statement is developed or revised for each individual refuge unit as part of the CCP process. Vision statements are grounded in the unifying mission of the Refuge System. They describe the desired future conditions of the refuge unit in the long term (15 years) and are based on the refuge’s specific purposes, the resources present on the refuge, and any other relevant mandates. This CCP incorporates the following vision statement for the Modoc Refuge.

“Located near the confluence of the north and south forks of the Pit River, Modoc National Wildlife Refuge will conserve, restore, protect, and manage a mosaic of seasonal wetlands, semi-permanent wetlands, wet meadows, riparian, and sagebrush-steppe habitats. These habitats will provide important resting, feeding, and nesting areas for ducks, geese, and other migratory birds. Modoc Refuge’s high- quality habitat will play a key role in the long-term recovery of Central Valley greater sandhill cranes.

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11 Chapter 1

wildlife species, and its plants and habitats. This interest is demonstrated by the number of visitors the Refuge receives and the partnerships that have already developed.

Refuge partners include: California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Central Modoc Resource Conservation District (RCD), Pit RCD, Goose Lake RCD, North CAL/NEVA Resource Conservation and Development, California Department of Transportation, U.C. Cooperative Extension, Modoc County Department of Agriculture, Friends of Modoc Refuge, The River Center, California Department of Water Resources, Ducks Unlimited, California Waterfowl Association (CWA), Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, National Rifle Association, Alturas Chamber of Commerce, Modoc County Office of Education, and Modoc Joint Unified School District. We will continue to form new partnerships with interested organizations, local civic groups, community schools, Federal, State, and County governments, Tribes, other civic organizations, and private landowners.

10. Wilderness Review As part of the CCP process, lands within the boundaries of the Modoc Refuge were reviewed for wilderness suitability. No lands were found suitable for designation as Wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Modoc Refuge does not contain 5,000 contiguous roadless acres, nor does the Refuge have any units of sufficient size to make their preservation practicable as Wilderness. The lands of the Refuge have been substantially affected by humans. As a result of the extensive modification of natural habitats and ongoing manipulation of natural processes, adopting a wilderness management approach at the Refuge would not facilitate the restoration of a pristine or pre- settlement condition, which is a goal of wilderness designation.

White-faced Ibis Photo by Steve Emmons

12 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Planning Process

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)

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13 Chapter 2

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.

14 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Planning Process

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

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.

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15 Chapter 2

of the CCP. The team members also work independently in producing their respective CCP sections, based on their area of expertise. Multi- tasking by team members is a standard requirement since work on the CCP occurs in addition to their regular workload (Appendix J).

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

5. Pre-Planning Pre-planning involved formation of the planning team, development of the CCP schedule, and gathering data. The team determined procedures, work allocations, and outreach strategies. The team also created a preliminary mailing list.

16 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Planning Process

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

Number of Comments Refuge Issue Category 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 41 (12) People/ Organizations Commenting) 1Total number of comments received is greater than the total number of people commenting since each letter, email, fax, comments card, and flipchart comment received may contain more than one comment.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17 Chapter 2

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 Students Enjoy Field Trips to the Refuge Photo by USFWS 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

18 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Planning Process 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;

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19 Chapter 2

 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

20 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Planning Process management alternative are fully described in the EA (Appendix A). Alternatives were developed to represent reasonable options that address specific Refuge issues and challenges. A “no action” or continuation of current management alternative is required by NEPA. A range of other alternatives were studied and are described in the EA (Appendix A).

11.1 Alternative A: No Action Under Alternative A: No Action, Modoc Refuge would continue to be managed as it has in the recent past. Recent management has followed existing step-down management plans as follows:

 Annual Habitat Management Plan

 Fire Management Plan

 Safety Plan

 Emergency Action Plan for Dorris Reservoir

 Standard Operation Procedures for Dorris Reservoir

 Disease Control Plan

 Pest Control Plan

The focus of the Refuge would remain the same: to provide habitat and maintain current active management practices; and continue to manage and provide habitat for migratory and resident birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife. The Refuge would continue to provide wildlife-dependant recreation opportunities including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Current staffing and funding levels would remain the same.

11.2 Alternative B: Habitat Emphasis Under this alternative, the Refuge would emphasize management for biological resources. Biological opportunities would be maximized to allow optimum wildlife and habitat management throughout the majority of the Refuge. Visitor service opportunities would be reduced. In addition, staffing and funding levels would need to be redirected and increased to fully implement this alternative. A wildlife biologist, park ranger, and wage grade position would be hired to accomplish this alternative.

11.3 Alternative C: Proposed Action Alternative C would achieve an optimal balance of biological resource objectives and visitor services opportunities. Habitat management and associated biological resource monitoring would be improved. Visitor service opportunities would focus on quality wildlife- dependant recreation distributed throughout the Refuge. Staffing and funding levels would need to be increased to fully implement this alternative. An interpretive specialist, wildlife biologist, park ranger,

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21 Chapter 2

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.

22 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

Chapter 3. The Refuge Environment

1. Refuge Description This chapter provides a detailed description of the Refuge, its habitats, the species upon which it depends, and the recreational opportunities it offers. Located just south of the town of Alturas in Modoc County, California, the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge has 7,021 acres of wetlands, reservoir, riparian, cropland, and sagebrush- steppe habitats. These habitats provide important resting, nesting, and feeding areas for ducks, geese, and other migratory birds including greater sandhill cranes. Located in the Pacific Flyway, the Refuge is used by migratory birds on their southern and northern migrations. The Refuge also provides hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation as well as non-wildlife dependent recreational opportunities, such as boating, waterskiing, bicycling, horseback riding, Modoc Refuge is West of the Warner Mountains and swimming. Photo by North State Resources, Inc.

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,

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23 Chapter 3

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).

24 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

Figure 5. Modoc Plateau Region

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25 Chapter 3

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)

26 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

Figure 7. Watershed Ecosystem Map

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27 Chapter 3

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.

28 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

 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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29 Chapter 3

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.

30 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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.

Dorris Reservoir—Downstream Photo by USFWS

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31 Chapter 3

Figure 8. Water Management Map of Modoc Refuge

32 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

3.3 Geology and Soils Virtually the entire Upper Pit River Watershed from the headwaters to the historical confluence with Fall River is within the Modoc Plateau Geomorphic Province. The Refuge lies just beyond the western edge of the Great Basin with the Warner Mountain range on the east and the Adin Mountain range on the west. The Modoc Plateau is a flat-topped upland area built up of irregular masses of a variety of volcanic materials, although it consists predominately of basalt (Oakeshott 1971). This area is characterized by attenuation, or stretching and thinning of the earth’s crust, which results in the high- angle normal faults found throughout the region.

Three main soil types formed from alluvial parent material derived from basic igneous rocks predominantly underlie the Refuge:

 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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33 Chapter 3

Figure 9. Vegetation map of Modoc Refuge

34 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

Figure 10. Habitat Unit Map of Modoc Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35 Chapter 3

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.

Modoc Refuge Wetlands Photo by USFWS

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.

36 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

The Refuge contains three main types of wetlands, seasonal, semi- permanent, and wet meadows.

4.1.1 Seasonal wetlands 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.

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 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 (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 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 Photo by USFWS

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37 Chapter 3

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.

Pit River Photo by USFWS

There are five miles of riverine habitat on the Refuge, comprised of two miles of the main stem of the Pit River and three miles of the south fork of the Pit River (Figure 9).

4.3 Reservoir In the 1930s, the Dorris family created Dorris Reservoir to provide water storage for their ranch. Dorris Reservoir is a 1,100 surface- acre (only 547 acres of which are owned by the Refuge) storage facility used to supply water to the Refuge (Figure 9). The Refuge stores 11,500-acre feet of water within Dorris Reservoir. At spillway elevation, depths average 11.4 feet with a maximum depth of 22 feet. Nearly 40 percent of the Reservoir is less than 10 feet deep. Approximately 11 miles of shoreline exist at spillway elevation. Emergent vegetation is scarce except in the upper arms and shallow bays.

The primary purpose of Dorris Reservoir is to provide water for habitat management purposes on other areas of the Refuge. Withdrawals of water to meet the irrigation needs of the Refuge cause large seasonal fluctuations in water levels. Therefore, Dorris Reservoir is not specifically managed as habitat for wildlife. However, through seasonal closures, the wildlife that uses the Reservoir is protected.

38 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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.

Dorris Reservoir Photo by USFWS 4.4 Riparian Riparian communities are among the most important habitats for wildlife because of their high floristic and structural diversity, high biomass (and therefore high food abundance), and high water availability. In addition to providing breeding, foraging, and roosting habitat for a diverse array of animals, riparian communities provide movement corridors for some species, connecting a variety of habitats throughout a region.

Riparian habitat (approximately 64 acres) on the Refuge is associated with creeks, river edges, and ditches and is found along the South Fork Pit River, Pit River, Pine Creek Ditch, Hamilton Tract, and Sub-headquarters Areas (Figures 9 and 10). Dominant woody species present include willows and cottonwoods with a native and non-native grass understory. An aspen stand is also included in this habitat type.

The Pit River provides habitat for the scarce cottonwood-willow forest and riparian scrub communities and consequently areas of high species richness (Davis et al. 1998). Small but important riparian areas on the Refuge provide excellent nesting and foraging areas for the red- tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, great horned owl, barn owl, downy woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, and Neotropical migrants, such as the yellow warbler, Bullock’s oriole, Wilson’s warbler, tree swallow, and willow flycatcher. Riparian Habitat Photo by USFWS

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39 Chapter 3

4.5 Sagebrush-steppe Sagebrush habitat on the Refuge (approximately 2,053 acres) occurs in the uplands (areas not subject to flooding) and includes basin big sagebrush, western juniper, rabbitbrush, and perennial grasses such as Great Basin wild rye interspersed with bunchgrasses. Sagebrush- steppe habitat is dispersed throughout the Refuge, but the majority is located around Dorris Reservoir and in the Godfrey Tract. Small upland areas are located around the Refuge Headquarters, interspersed among wetland habitats and on the margins of the South Fork Pit River (Figures 9 and 10).

Sagebrush-steppe Habitat Photo by USFWS

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).

40 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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. Pine Creek Structure Photo by USFWS 5.1.1 Seasonal wetlands 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.

5.1.2 Semi-permanent wetlands 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 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 Wet Meadows Approximately 2,183 acres are irrigated and managed as wet, short- grass meadows for the benefit of waterfowl and greater sandhill cranes (see Section 6 Fish and Wildlife). Wet meadows are irrigated

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41 Chapter 3

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 Sagebrush-steppe 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.

5.2.2 Croplands 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.

A rotational system of cropping and flood/fallowing is currently used in six of the Matney fields. Three of these fields are flooded during Juniper Removal in the fall, winter, and spring and are then drawn down gradually Sagebrush-Steppe Habitat beginning June 1. This process is followed for three years. Then the Photo by USFWS 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 Haying 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 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

42 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment bid. The Refuge has one “grandfathered” haying permittee who pays the base rate annually.

5.2.4 Grazing 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 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 Male Gadwall annually. Photo by Steve Emmons

5.2.5 Prescribed Burning 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.

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43 Chapter 3

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 Burning Photo by USFWS 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.

44 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

5.2.6 Control of Invasive/Non-native Species 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.

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 Controlling Invasive Plant of pesticides through the use of Integrated Pest Species Management (IPM). IPM uses a combination of biological, Photo by USFWS 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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45 Chapter 3

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 Wildlife Sanctuary 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.

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).

46 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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).

Canada Geese with Goslings Photo by USFWS

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47 Chapter 3

Figure 11. Waterfowl production 1972-2001

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Production Breeding Pairs Linear (Production) Linear (Breeding Pairs)

Figure 12. Canada goose production 1961-2003

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 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

48 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49 Chapter 3

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 Greater Yellowlegs has been recorded for the Wilson’s phalarope, Photo by Steve Emmons 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.

American Kestrel Photo by Steve Emmons

50 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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 Wilson’s Snipe meadowlark, black-billed magpie, song sparrow, and sage Photo by Steve Emmons 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 Western Pond Turtle Refuge include the western toad, Pacific treefrog, Photo by Steve Emmons western fence lizard, sagebrush lizard, western skink, gopher snake, common garter snake, and western pond turtle.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51 Chapter 3

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

52 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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 Greater Sandhill Crane 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.

In 2000, there were an estimated 62,600 greater sandhill cranes in existence (Littlefield and Ivey 2000). In 2005, Greater Sandhill Crane Colt the estimate for greater sandhill cranes within their Photo by USFWS 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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53 Chapter 3

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 CT, CFP Wetlands required for breeding; Common spring, summer, and Grus canadensis forage in nearby pastures, fields, fall resident; known to breed on tabida and meadows. the Refuge. Western snowy plover FT, CSC Inland, breeds on barren to Rare summer resident; Charadrius sparsely vegetated ground at suspected of nesting on the alexandrinus nivosus alkaline or saline lakes, Refuge. reservoirs, and ponds. Swainson’s hawk CT Breeds in stands with few trees Summer resident; known to nest Buteo swainsoni in juniper-sage flats, riparian on the Refuge. areas, and oak savannah; forages in adjacent livestock pasture, grassland, or grain fields. American peregrine FD, CE, Forages in many habitats; Rare migrant. falcon CFP requires cliffs for nesting. Falco peregrinus anatum Bald eagle FD, CE, Riverine and open wetland Winter resident and occasional Haliaeetus CFP habitats. Perches high in large, migrant. leucocephalus stoutly limbed trees, on snags or broken-topped trees or on rocks near water. Western yellow-billed FC, CE Nesting habitat is Rare migrant and summer cuckoo cottonwood/willow riparian resident; suspected of nesting on Coccyzus americanus forest. the Refuge. occidentalis Willow flycatcher CE Wet meadow and montane Uncommon summer resident; Empidonax traillii riparian habitats. known to nest on the Refuge. Bank swallow CT Colonial nester on vertical banks Common migrant and Riparia riparia or cliffs with fine-textured soils uncommon summer resident; near water. known to nest on the Refuge. Oregon spotted frog FC, CSC Wet areas in mountainous Suitable habitat occurs on the Rana pretiosa woodlands and wet meadows. Refuge. Has been recorded historically in Pine Creek and the south fork of the Pit River near Alturas (California Herps 2007). Modoc sucker FE, CE Small streams Known to occur in Turner and Catostomus microps Rush Creeks in Modoc County, not known to occur on the Refuge 1Status Key: Federal: FE = Endangered, FT = Threatened, FC = Candidate Species; FD = Delisted State of California: CE = Endangered, CT=Threatened, CSC = Species of Special Concern, CFP = Fully Protected

54 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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).

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55 Chapter 3

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

0 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

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 Western Snowy Plover 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 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.

56 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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 American Peregrine Falcon 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 American Peregrine Falcon habitats. Photo by Steve Emmons

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).

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57 Chapter 3

6.12.4 American Bald Eagle 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).

Modoc and Shasta counties have the highest American Bald Eagle densities of nesting bald eagles in California Photo by Steve Emmons (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 Hawk 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).

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.

58 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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 Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo 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).

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 Willow Flycatcher 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 mid- August and mid-September, and breeding individuals arrive in their breeding territory around late May and early June (Sedgwick 2000).

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59 Chapter 3

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 Swallow 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 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 Bank Swallow serious, human-caused threat to the long-term survival of Photo by Steve Emmons 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

60 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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 Modoc Sucker 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 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 Oregon Spotted Frog 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.

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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61 Chapter 3

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. Canada Geese Banding and Neck Collaring 7.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Management Photo by USFWS 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.

62 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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. Well- distributed 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 Greater Sandhill Crane migrants captured. MAPS data are Colt collected at various Photo by USFWS 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. Collecting MAPS Data is a Key Activity at the Modoc Refuge Photo by USFWS

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63 Chapter 3

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.

64 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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/geo- caching 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.

Kiosk at the Auto Tour Route on Modoc Refuge Photo by USFWS

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 ½ 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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65 Chapter 3

 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

Average Number of Days Rank Participation Participated Wildlife viewing, bird 8 75.1% 25.3 watching, viewing natural scenery 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 Wildlife- Associated 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 wildlife- watchers 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 wildlife- watching 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.

66 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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). Junior Waterfowl Hunters Photo by USFWS 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.

Mallard Photo by Steve Emmons

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67 Chapter 3

Table 6. Hunting summary for Modoc Refuge, 1981-2007* Ducks Geese Total Birds Year # Hunters # Ducks Hunter # Geese Hunter 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.

68 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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 non- hunter 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 Universally Accessible Hunting Blind Photo by USFWS 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 Wildlife Observation interpretive overlook, and the U.S. 395 Overlook Photo by USFWS (Figure 1). The auto tour is accessible by pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, and horseback riders. Dogs, on a

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69 Chapter 3

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 Environmental Education – Up Close and part in a field trip to the outdoor learning Personal with a Bug laboratory on the Refuge. Photo by USFWS 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. First- hand experience with the environment is emphasized although presentations, audiovisual media, and exhibits are often necessary components of the interpretive program.

70 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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, Wings of the Warners Migratory horseback riding, and waterskiing. However, the Bird Festival Reservoir is closed to all public access during the Photo by USFWS 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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71 Chapter 3

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.

Youth Conservation Corps Building a Blind Photo by USFWS

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.

72 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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 A Photography Blind development and management. In addition to the Photo by USFWS 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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73 Chapter 3

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

74 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment 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.

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters Photo by USFWS

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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75 Chapter 3

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.

76 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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 Cinnamon Teal unemployment from August through Photo by Steve Emmons 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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77 Chapter 3

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).

78 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge The Refuge Environment

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.

Festivals bring visitors to Modoc County Photo by USFWS

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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79 Chapter 3

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 year- old 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.

80 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Planned Refuge Management and Programs

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,

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81 Chapter 4

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.

Objective 1.1: Wetland Habitat 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.

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).

Vegetation Management Photo by USFWS

82 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Planned Refuge Management and Programs

Figure 15. Visitor services and habitat restoration map

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83 Chapter 4

Wetland Habitat Strategies 1.1.1 Use mowing, disking, deleveling, prescribed fire (approximately 200 acres/year), and herbicides to manage and enhance wetland habitat. 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.

Objective 1.2: Sagebrush-steppe Habitat 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.

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 Sagebrush habitat (California Department of Fish and Photo by USFWS Game 2005a). In addition, the recent history of fire suppression has allowed encroachment of juniper (California Department of Fish

84 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Planned Refuge Management and Programs

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).

Sagebrush-steppe Habitat Strategies 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. 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 sagebrush- steppe habitats. 1.2.9 To promote native vegetation and eliminate cheatgrass, evaluate summer (July/August) and winter (February) prescribed burning.

Objective 1.3: Riparian Habitat 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.

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 Yellow Warbler Photo by Steve Emmons species. The Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004), the Riparian Bird Conservation

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85 Chapter 4

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).

Riparian Habitat Strategies 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). 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.

Objective 1.4: Croplands 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.

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 Managing Croplands healthy bird populations throughout the Photo by USFWS 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

86 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Planned Refuge Management and Programs

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.

Croplands Strategies 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. 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.

Objective 1.5: Climate Change Reduce the Refuge’s energy consumption 3 percent annually and 30 percent by 2019.

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 Winter at the Refuge mid-century, the Sierra snowpack could be Photo by USFWS 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,

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87 Chapter 4

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).

Climate Change Strategies 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. 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.

Objective 1.6: Waterfowl Implement seven regular and periodic surveys for migrating and breeding waterfowl annually.

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 Mallard’s Nest healthy waterfowl populations. Refuge management Photo by USFWS 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.

88 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Planned Refuge Management and Programs

Waterfowl Strategies 1.6.1 Conduct and evaluate monthly wildlife surveys to assess waterfowl abundance and species composition. 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. Canada Goose 1.6.9 Monitor avian disease outbreaks. Photo by Steve Emmons 1.6.10 Support management-oriented research on waterfowl.

Objective 1.7: Shorebird Conduct one periodic and one regular survey annually in order to assess trends in the abundance and distribution of shorebirds. 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.

Shorebird Strategies 1.7.1 Conduct and evaluate monthly surveys to assess wildlife. 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 black- Black-Necked Stilt necked stilts, long-billed dowitchers, western sandpipers, and Photo by Steve Emmons American avocets. 1.7.4 Monitor avian disease outbreaks.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89 Chapter 4

1.7.5 Support management-oriented research on shorebirds.

Objective 1.8: Waterbird and Landbird Conduct four surveys annually in order to assess trends in the abundance and distribution of waterbirds and landbirds.

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 California Quail trends, and identify habitat use, as well as restoration Photo by USFWS and management needs.

Waterbird and Landbird Strategies 1.8.1 Conduct annual colonial waterbird survey during April- September. 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.

Objective 1.9: Non-native, Invasive Species Control 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,

90 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Planned Refuge Management and Programs

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).

Non-Native, Invasive Species Control Strategies 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. 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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91 Chapter 4

Objective 1.10: Wildlife Sanctuary 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.

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 Greater Sandhill Crane wildlife concentrate and reproduce, resulting in Photo by Share The Road Productions 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.

Wildlife Sanctuary Strategies 1.10.1 Provide strategically located sanctuaries on the Refuge for wildlife to feed and rest with relatively little human disturbance. 1.10.2 Provide sanctuaries to reduce human disturbance at sensitive fish, and wildlife sites during the rearing, breeding, and growing seasons.

Objective 1.11: Research and Baseline Survey By 2024, conduct five baseline surveys to determine presence and abundance and support research on native fish, wildlife, and plants.

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

92 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Planned Refuge Management and Programs

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).

Research Strategies: 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. 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.

Objective 2.1: Greater Sandhill Crane Protect and enhance wet meadows (2,183 acres) to provide short- grass 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.

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).

Greater Sandhill Crane Strategies Greater Sandhill Crane Nest 2.1.1 Use haying and grazing in wet meadows to provide Photo by USFWS short-grass habitats (<4 inch) for greater sandhill cranes during fall and spring migration periods.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93 Chapter 4

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.

Objective 3.1: Hunting 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.

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

94 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Planned Refuge Management and Programs

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.

Hunting Strategies 3.1.1 Implement the Hunt Plan for the Refuge. 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).

Junior Waterfowl Hunter Photo by USFWS

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95 Chapter 4

Objective 3.2: Fishing Continue to provide 547 acres at Dorris Reservoir for 3,050 annual fishing visits by 2014.

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 Fishing Pier at Dorris Reservoir uses. The fishing program will comply with 50 Photo by USFWS CFR 32.4 and will be managed in accordance with Service Manual 605 FW3, Recreational Fishing.

Fishing Strategies 3.2.1 Implement the Fishing Plan. 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.

Objective 3.3: Wildlife Observation Provide quality opportunities for 6,000 annual wildlife viewing visits on 1,924 acres by 2014.

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

96 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Planned Refuge Management and Programs

public use program. The wildlife observation program will be managed in accordance with Service Manual 605 FW 4, Wildlife Observation.

Observing Wildlife at the Refuge Photo by USFWS

Wildlife Observation Strategies 3.3.1 Maintain and enhance the three-mile auto tour route to provide opportunities to view wildlife and their habitats. 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.

Objective 3.4: Wildlife Photography By 2014, provide quality opportunities for 50 photography blind annual visits and 900 wildlife photography annual visits on 1,924 acres.

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97 Chapter 4

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.

Wildlife Photography Strategies 3.4.1 Maintain and enhance the three-mile auto tour route to provide photographic opportunities. 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.

Objective 3.5: Interpretation 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.

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.

The Blue Goose and Fans In 2007, the Service declared that “connecting people with Photo by USFWS nature” is among the agency’s highest national priorities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). A connection with

98 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Planned Refuge Management and Programs 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).

Interpretation Strategies 3.5.1 Use the Refuge Headquarters to provide presentations and exhibits. 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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 99 Chapter 4

Objective 3.6: Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation Continue to provide compatible non-wildlife dependent recreation, including horseback riding, swimming, boating, and bicycling (on 556 acres of the Refuge by 2009).

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.

Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation Strategies 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). 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 year- round 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.

Objective 3.7: Volunteer By 2024, increase the number of volunteers to 200 in order to support a variety of Refuge programs.

100 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Planned Refuge Management and Programs

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.

Volunteer Strategies: 3.7.1 Recruit additional volunteers through a variety of community groups (e.g., Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and 4H). 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.

Habitat Restoration Photo by USFWS

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101 Chapter 4

Goal 4: Environmental Education Provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Pit River watershed.

Objective 4.1: Environmental Education 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.

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).

Environmental Education Strategies: 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. 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

102 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Planned Refuge Management and Programs

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) to promote current educational opportunities. 4.1.8 Continue to enhance the partnership with the River Center to conduct the Pit River Watershed Adoption Project. 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.

Objective 5.1: Partnership 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.

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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 103 Chapter 4

Partnership Strategies: 5.1.1 Maintain good relations and open communication with partners. 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.

Great Horned Owl Chick Photo by Share the Road Productions

104 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Planned Refuge Management and Programs

Objective 5.2: Cultural Resources Objective 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.

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.

Cultural Resource Strategies 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. 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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 105 Chapter 4

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

106 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Management Plan Implementation

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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 107 Chapter 5

Table 7. Estimated initial capital outlay to implement the CCP Expenditure [Related Objective(s)] Unit Cost Unit Quantity Total Cost Develop Environmental Education Area $650,500 ea 1.0 $650,500 (Objective 4.1) Monitor Refuge water quality $45,000 ea 1.0 $45,000 (Objectives 1.1 & 1.11) Restore riparian habitat on Pit River, South $910,000 ea 1.0 $910,000 Fork of the Pit River, Pine Creek, and Matney 2 (349 acres) (Objective 1.3) Restore wetland and sagebrush steppe $218,000 ea 1.0 $218,000 habitats (350 acres) (Objectives 1.1 & 1.2) Conduct greater sandhill crane research $50,000 annually 1.0 $750,000 (Objective 2.1) Construct universally accessible hunting $5,000 ea 2.0 $10,000 blinds (Objective 3.1) Implement RLGIS on Refuge (Goals 1-5) $15,000 ea 1.0 $15,000 Expand Refuge Headquarters/Visitor Center $200,000 ea 1.0 $200,000 (Goals 1-5) Replace and rehabilitate shop buildings (Goals $833,000 ea 1.0 $833,000 1-5) Replace bunkhouse (Goals 1-5) $250,000 ea 1.0 $250,000 Replace restrooms (3), kiosks (2), and fishing $175,000 ea 1.0 $175,000 pier at Dorris Reservoir (Goals 3 & 5) 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 $52,250 mi 4.0 $209,000 (Goals 1-5) Construct 4,000 square foot equipment $250,000 ea 1.0 $250,000 storage building (Goals 1-5) 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 $149,530 mi 5.0 $747,649 (Goals 3-5) 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 $91,667 ea 18.0 $1,650,000 (Goals 1-5) Total $6,041,290 $10,179,353

108 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Management Plan Implementation

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 $70,842 FTE 1.0 (Goals 1-5) Interpretive Specialist – GS7/9 $58,552 FTE 1.0 (Goals 3-5) Law Enforcement Officer – GS7/9 $67,560 FTE 1.0 (Goals 3-5) Maintenance Worker – WG6 $57,000 FTE 1.0 (Invasive Species Control) (Goals 1-2) 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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 109 Chapter 5

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, step- down 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 Junior Waterfowl Hunter maintain wildlife numbers at levels compatible with Refuge Photo by USFWS

110 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Management Plan Implementation

Figure 16. Modoc Refuge staffing organization chart

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 111 Chapter 5

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.

112 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Management Plan Implementation

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 involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations.

 The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in Section 1.11 (603 FW 1 of the Service Manual).

If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will deny the use without determining compatibility. If a use is determined to be an appropriate refuge use, the refuge manager will then determine if the use is compatible (see Compatibility section below). Although a use may be both appropriate and compatible, the refuge manager retains the authority to not allow the use or modify the use. Uses that have been administratively determined to be appropriate are the six wildlife- dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation) and 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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 113 Chapter 5

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 Sandhill Crane in Flight The CCP is designed to be effective for a 15-year Photo by Steve Emmons 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.

114 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Management Plan Implementation

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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 115 Chapter 5

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.

116 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Glossary

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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 117 Glossary

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-

118 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Glossary

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 119 Glossary

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 State- listed 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,

120 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Glossary 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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 121 Glossary

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.

122 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Glossary

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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 123 Glossary

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).

124 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Glossary

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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 125 Glossary

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

126 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Glossary

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).

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 127 Glossary

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.

128 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Glossary

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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 129 Glossary

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

130 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Glossary

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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 131 Glossary

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).

132 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Glossary

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).

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 133 Bibliography

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.

134 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Bibliography

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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 135 Bibliography

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.

136 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Bibliography

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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 137 Bibliography

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).

138 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Bibliography

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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 139 Bibliography

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.

140 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Bibliography

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.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 141

Appendix A. Environmental Assessment

U. S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Environmental Assessment for Management of Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Modoc County, California

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and the Environmental Assessment (EA) for Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The CCP will guide Refuge management for the next fifteen years. The CCP/EA (USFWS 2009), herein incorporated by reference, describes the Service’s proposals for managing the Refuge and their associated effects on the human environment under four alternatives, including the no action alternative.

Decision Following comprehensive review and analysis, the Service selected Alternative C for implementation because it is the alternative that best meets the following criteria: • Achieves the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). • Achieves the purposes of the Refuge. • Will be able to achieve the Service’s vision and goals for the Refuge. • Maintains and restores the ecological integrity of the habitats and populations on the Refuge. • Addresses the important issues identified during the scoping process. • Addresses the legal mandates of the Service and the Refuge. • Is consistent with the scientific principles of sound fish and wildlife management and endangered species recovery. • Facilitates priority public uses which are compatible with the Refuge’s purposes and the Refuge System mission.

Alternative Considered Following is a brief description of the alternatives for managing Modoc Refuge, including the selected plan (Alternative C). For a complete description of each alternative, see the EA.

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, the Refuge would continue to be managed as it has in the recent past. 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, greater sandhill cranes, and other wildlife. The Refuge would continue to offer wildlife- dependant recreation opportunities including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Current staffing and funding levels would remain the same.

Alternative A was not selected for implementation because it does not include needed improvements for habitat management, for management of migratory birds, and it does not accommodate the growing demand for wildlife-dependant recreation.

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge 1 Finding of No Significant Impact Alternative B Under this alternative, the Refuge would emphasize management for biological resources over visitor services. Biological opportunities would be maximized to allow optimum wildlife and habitat management throughout the majority of the Refuge. A combination of wetland, riparian, and sagebrush-steppe habitat would be enhanced or restored on the Refuge and biological monitoring would increase. The visitor services programs and facilities, environmental education, and interpretation opportunities would be reduced. Staffing and funding levels would need to be redirected and increased substantially to implement this alternative.

Alternative B was not selected for implementation because it does not accommodate the growing demand for compatible wildlife-dependant recreation on the Refuge. Furthermore, it conflicts with the Improvement Act’s mandate to facilitate compatible wildlife-dependant recreation.

Alternative C (Selected Plan) 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 increase and would focus on quality wildlife- dependant recreation distributed throughout the Refuge. Environmental education and interpretation opportunities would also be increased. Staffing and funding levels would need to be increased to fully implement this alternative.

Alternative C was selected for implementation because it includes needed improvements in habitat management, migratory bird and special status species management, and makes an important contribution to regional biodiversity. It also provides a balanced mix of compatible wildlife-dependant recreation opportunities to meet the growing demand in the region.

Alternative D Under Alternative D, the Refuge would emphasize management for visitor services over biological resources. Wildlife-dependant and non-wildlife dependant recreation, environmental education, and interpretation 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.

Alternative D was not selected for implementation because it does not balance the need to improve habitat for management of migratory birds with the growing demand for wildlife- dependant recreation on the Refuge. The increased visitor service opportunities would reduce the quality of the Refuge’s biological program.

Effects of Refuge management in the human environment As described in the EA, implementing the selected alternative will have no significant impacts on any of the environmental resources identified. A summary of the impacts analysis and conclusions follows:

Soils There is an increased potential for temporary surface erosion and sedimentation resulting from increased restoration efforts and construction of new environmental education facilities. This moderate increase, however, is not expected to be significant, because increases would be minor and localized. Any temporary increase in erosion and sedimentation rates would be at least

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge 2 Finding of No Significant Impact partially offset by the long-term reduction in erosion and sedimentation rates that would result from habitat restoration.

Hydrology Restoration of riparian habitat along the Pit River and South Fork Pit River would cause a reduction in the velocity of flood flows that inundate the restoration areas. The restoration area is relatively small and impacts would be expected to be minor. Removal of the west dike along North Grain Field and restoration of the area to woody riparian habitat would restore floodplain function to the 81-acre tract. These restoration activities would result in a beneficial effect by improving floodplain function and would not likely result in any adverse impact to downstream properties.

Agricultural Resources No change is proposed to the general agriculture practices on the Refuge (e.g., haying, grazing, and croplands), except there would be a small reduction in the amount of croplands on the Refuge as the habitat is restored to native vegetation. Thus, the impacts would not change (i.e., minor impact).

Water Quality/Contaminants Habitat restoration/enhancement, prescribed fire, and herbicide application will increase and temporary minor impacts on water quality and contaminants are expected. Water Quality Mitigation Measures identified in the EA are incorporated in the proposed action.

The proposed restoration activities would result in positive long-term effects on water quality in the Pit River and the South Fork Pit River. These effects, although beneficial, would not be significant since the Refuge encompasses only 5 miles of riverine habitat, a small portion of the Pit River and South Fork Pit River.

Air Quality The amount of prescribed fire on the Refuge will increase. Prescribed burns will not have any significant air quality effects because of the small burn unit size, distance from population centers, and compliance with all conditions of the burn permit issued by the Air Quality Management District.

Minor amounts of short and long-term increases in pollutant emissions are also expected. Short- term increases in dust (PM10) and tailpipe emissions (particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and reactive gases) would result from increased habitat management projects and long-term increases would result from increased visitor service activities. Habitat restoration should help to improve air quality over the long-term. Therefore, the minor emission increases caused by increased Refuge activities and visitor activities would not be considered significant.

Vegetation Habitat restoration/enhancement, prescribed fire, and herbicide application will increase and minor impacts to vegetation are expected from these management activities. Habitat restoration/enhancement and prescribed fire will have beneficial long-term impacts to vegetation on the Refuge. These impacts would be minimized by small unit size and total acres restored/burned per year; therefore, the benefits would not be significant. Use of herbicides would have a positive effect on vegetation, since the control of nonnative weeds would result in an increase in native species.

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge 3 Finding of No Significant Impact

Visitor services will increase on the Refuge, which could slightly increase impacts to vegetation because constructing facilities would require the removal of some vegetation. Loss of vegetation would be minimized due to the small size of the construction footprint (approximately 1 acre). No significant impacts are expected to occur.

Wildlife Resources Short-term and long-term benefits for wildlife species will occur with the implementation of habitat restoration projects and with additional surveys and monitoring. As with the effects of habitat restoration/enhancement discussed above, the beneficial effects on wildlife species would not be significant.

Increased facilities and visitation would cause some degradation of habitat, displacement of wildlife, and increase the disturbance of some wildlife. However, this is expected to be minor given the size of the Refuge and the use of management strategies that avoid or minimize intrusion into priority wildlife habitat. No significant impacts on wildlife resources are expected to occur.

The Service concluded that waterfowl hunting on the Refuge will not have a significant impact on local, regional, or Pacific Flyway waterfowl populations. Hunting of Wilson’s snipe and ring- necked pheasant also will not have a significant impact on local populations. We have included a number of biological visitor service management practices to avoid conflicts and minimize impacts.

Fisheries Resources A minor impact to fisheries resources is expected. Temporary impacts on fish species could occur during restoration implementation due to loosening of the soil during dike removal, resulting in a temporary increase in sediment load and turbidity in the river. However, when working near water bodies, the Mitigation Measure described in Section 1.5 would be employed. This would minimize any short-term impacts to fish. No significant impacts to fisheries resources are expected.

The implementation of habitat restoration/enhancement in all alternatives would result in long- term beneficial effects on fish and other aquatic organisms. These effects, although beneficial, would not be significant since the Refuge encompasses a small portion of the Pit River and South Fork Pit River.

Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the Service conducted an intra- agency review to determine the effects of implementing the CCP on special status species occurring on the Refuge (USFWS 2009). No adverse effects on threatened and endangered species are expected to occur. The objectives to improve habitat conditions (habitat restoration, invasive species management, etc.) for native fish and wildlife will also benefit threatened and endangered species.

Visitor Services Visitor use of the Refuge would increase. A portion of the Grandma Tract would be opened to waterfowl hunting, additional disabled waterfowl hunting blinds would be constructed, and a second junior waterfowl hunt and an annual kids hunting skills field day would be added. In addition, the wildlife observation and photography programs and facilities would be expanded.

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge 4 Finding of No Significant Impact The environmental education area, which includes a trail, observation deck and blind, floating dock, and kiosk, would also be opened to wildlife observation and photography seasonally (March 1 through August 31). Although visitor service opportunities would increase, the overall increase in wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities would not be significant and would be compatible with the purposes of the Refuge and the mission of the Refuge System, and would be consistent with the Improvement Act.

Economy Wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities will increase on the Refuge. The net effect of these management changes would be expected to increase visitor spending by $39,600 over Alternative A (see Table 8 in Economics Analysis, Attachment 1). The expected positive impact of this additional spending on job and income creation would be minor (see Table 8). While the increase in public use would not result in a significant effect on the overall local economy, to numerous individuals it could present a substantial gain in overall income.

Cultural Resources Minor impacts to cultural resources could occur. These minor impacts to cultural resources will be minimized through cultural resource reviews and surveys. If any additional cultural resources are discovered on the Refuge during habitat restoration projects or visitor services improvements, the Service would take all the necessary steps to comply with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

Public Review The Draft CCP/EA was available for public review and comment for a 45-day period from June 15, 2009 through July 30, 2009. The document was distributed to Federal, State, and local agencies; public libraries; potentially affected landowners; private groups, and individuals. The Refuge received a total of 82 comment letters from Federal and local agencies, organizations and individuals. The Final CCP/EA has been modified to meet and address the concerns that were raised.

The planning process incorporated extensive public involvement in developing and reviewing the CCP. This included two public workshops, four planning updates, and public review and comment on the planning documents. The details of the Service’s public involvement program are described in the CCP/EA.

Conclusions Based on review and evaluation of the information contained in the supporting references, I have determined that implementing Alternative C of the EA for management of Modoc National Wildlife Refuge is not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, within the meaning of section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. Accordingly, the Service is not required to prepare an environmental impact statement.

This Finding of No Significant Impact and supporting references are on file at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, 5364 County Road 115 (PO Box 1610,) Alturas, California, 96101 (telephone 530-233-3572). These documents are available to the public and can be found on the Internet at www.fws.gov/modoc. Public notices will be placed in newspapers and we

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge 5 Finding of No Significant Impact are sending a final planning update to interested and affected parties notifying them of this decision.

Supporting References

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge. Region 8. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Intra-Service Section 7 for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge. Region 8. Alturas, CA.

~/2------/Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region Sacramento, California

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge 6 Finding of No Significant Impact

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Environmental Assessment

Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 8 2800 Cottage Way, W-1832 Sacramento, CA 95825

and

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge PO Box 1610 Alturas, CA 96101

December 2009

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Proposed Action ...... 1 3. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ...... 1 4. Project Area ...... 2 4.1. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ...... 2 5. Decisions to be Made ...... 2 6. Issue Identification ...... 2 7. Public Involvement ...... 3 8. Related Actions ...... 3 9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Wildlife Refuge System ...... 3 10. Refuge Purposes...... 3 11. The Refuge Vision Statement ...... 4 12. Refuge Goals ...... 4

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ...... 7 1. Introduction ...... 7 2. Current Management ...... 7 3. Alternatives Development Process ...... 7 4. Features Common to All Alternatives ...... 8 5. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...... 9 5.1. Sanctuary Alternative ...... 10 5.2. Custodial Management Alternative ...... 10 6. Preferred Alternative ...... 10 7. Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) ...... 11 8. Alternative B: Habitat Emphasis Alternative ...... 22 9. Alternative C: Proposed Action ...... 24 10. Alternative D: Visitor Services Emphasis Alternative ...... 27

Chapter 3. Affected Environment ...... 31 1. Physical Environment...... 31

- i -

2. Biological Environment ...... 31 3. Social and Economic Environment ...... 31 3.1. Employment ...... 31 3.2. Local Economy ...... 31 3.3. Land Use and Zoning ...... 31 3.4. Demographics ...... 32 3.5. Cultural Resources ...... 32

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences ...... 33 1. Effects on the Physical Environment ...... 33 1.1. Geology and Soils ...... 33 1.2. Hydrology ...... 38 1.3. Agricultural Resources ...... 38 1.4. Air Quality ...... 39 1.5. Water Quality/Contaminants ...... 40 2. Effects on the Biological Environment ...... 41 2.1. Vegetation ...... 41 2.2. Wildlife Resources ...... 42 2.3. Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts of Hunting on Wildlife Species ...... 43 2.4. Harvest Management – Regulatory Procedures ...... 46 2.5. Waterfowl – Flyway Analysis ...... 47 2.6. Waterfowl - Regional Analysis ...... 47 2.7. Waterfowl - Local Analysis ...... 47 2.8. Significance Conclusion for Waterfowl ...... 48 2.9. Wilson’s Snipe – Regional Analysis ...... 48 2.10. Wilson’s Snipe – Local Analysis ...... 48 2.11. Significance Conclusion for Wilson’s snipe ...... 48 2.12. Ring-necked Pheasant - Regional Analysis ...... 50 2.13. Ring-necked Pheasant - Local Analysis ...... 50 2.14. Significance Conclusion for Ring-necked pheasant ...... 52 2.15. Effects of Hunting on Other Non-hunted Wildlife Species ...... 52 2.16. Fisheries Resources ...... 53 2.17. Threatened, Endangered, and Special-Status Species ...... 54 3. Effects on the Social and Economic Environment ...... 55 3.1. Visitor Services ...... 55 3.2. Effects of Hunting on Other Refuge Wildlife-Dependant Recreation ...... 56 3.3. Economy ...... 57 3.4. Cultural Resources – All Alternatives ...... 59 3.5. Climate Change – All Alternatives ...... 59 3.6. Environmental Justice – All Alternatives ...... 60

- ii -

4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... 61 5. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 61 6. Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ...... 61 7. Cumulative Impacts ...... 61 7.1. Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions and Anticipated Impacts ...... 62 7.2. Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Hunts and Anticipated Impacts ...... 63 7.3. Anticipated Impacts if Individual Hunts are Allowed to Accumulate ...... 63

Chapter 5. Consultations and Coordination with Others ...... 65 1. Agency Coordination and Public Involvement...... 65 2. Notice of Intent ...... 65 3. Environmental Review and Coordination ...... 65 4. Other Federal Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders ...... 65 5. Distribution and Availability ...... 66 5.1. Public Outreach ...... 66 5.2. Distribution List ...... 67

Figures

Figure 1. Alternative A: No Action Alternative ...... 20 Figure 2. Alternative B: Biological Emphasis Alternative ...... 23 Figure 3. Alternative C: Preferred Alternative ...... 25 Figure 4. Alternative D: Visitor Services Emphasis Alternative ...... 28 Figure 5. Wilson’s snipe range map (Zeiner et al. 1990; California Department of Fish and Game 2008) ...... 49 Figure 6. Ring-necked pheasant range map ...... 51

- iii -

Tables

Table 1. Modoc Refuge alternative/issue comparison summary ...... 12 Table 2. Summary of environmental consequences ...... 34 Table 3. Modoc Refuge, hunting season bag limit summary for 2008-2009 ...... 45

Attachments

Attachment 1 Economic Analysis

- iv - ______Purpose of and Need for Action

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

1. Introduction This environmental assessment (EA) evaluates the environmental effects of four alternatives for managing Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). This EA will be used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) to solicit public involvement in the Refuge’s planning process and to determine whether the implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) would have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This EA is part of the Service's decision-making process in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), as amended, and its implementing regulations.

2. Proposed Action The Service proposes to develop and implement a CCP for Modoc Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009) that best achieves the purposes for which the Refuge was established, helps fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), is consistent with sound fish and wildlife management, and ensures that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained.

The Service examined a range of management alternatives. Specific details regarding the alternatives that were evaluated are provided in Chapter 2. Alternative C represents the Service’s proposed action for the Refuge; however, the final decision can be any of the alternatives, and may reflect a modification of certain elements of any alternative based on consideration of public comment. This alternative is described in more detail in Chapter 4 of the CCP. Of the alternatives evaluated, this alternative appears to best achieve the purpose, vision, and goals for the Refuge, while also appropriately addressing the major issues and relevant mandates identified for the Refuge during the development of the CCP.

3. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action The development of a CCP provides guidance for conducting general Refuge operations, wildlife and habitat management, habitat enhancement and restoration, and visitor services. The CCP is intended to ensure that management actions are consistent with the purposes for which the Refuge was established, the mandates of the Refuge System, and the Refuge’s goals and objectives. The purpose of the CCP is to describe the desired future conditions of Modoc Refuge over the next 15 years and provide guidance for achieving those conditions. The CCP accomplishes the following:

 sets a long term vision for the Refuge;

 establishes management goals, objectives, and strategies for the Refuge;

 provides the Refuge with a 15-year management plan for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their related habitats;

 defines compatible public uses;

 develops a plan that, when fully implemented, will achieve Refuge purposes, help fulfill the mission of the System, and maintain and, where appropriate, restore ecological integrity;

______Environmental Assessment 1 Chapter 1 ______

 communicates the Service’s management priorities for the Refuge to the public; and

 provides a basis for budget needs to support staffing, operations, maintenance, and capital improvements.

The development of this CCP is also required to fulfill legislative and contractual obligations of the Service. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), requires that every refuge or related complex of refuges have a CCP in place within 15 years of the Improvement Act’s enactment. In order to comply with NEPA, an EA or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which evaluates the effects of different alternatives that meet the goals of the Refuge and identifies the Service’s Proposed Action, must be prepared to accompany the CCP. The Draft CCP and its appendices are herein incorporated by reference (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

4. Project Area 4.1. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Located just south of the town of Alturas in Modoc County, California, the Refuge occupies 7,021 acres of wetlands, reservoir, riparian, sagebrush-steppe, and cropland habitats (Figure 1 of the CCP). 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 opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation as well as non-wildlife dependent recreational opportunities including boating, bicycling, horseback riding, swimming, and waterskiing.

5. Decisions to be Made Based on the analysis documented in this Draft EA, the Regional Director must determine the type and extent of management and visitor service opportunities on the Refuge and if the selected management alternative would have a significant effect on the quality of the environment. If the selected alternative has significant impacts, the Service is required to prepare an EIS. If the selected alternative has no significant impacts, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is prepared.

The planning team has recommended Alternative C to the Regional Director. The accompanying Draft CCP was developed for implementation based on this recommendation.

6. Issue Identification Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified through early planning discussions and initiation of the public scoping process. This process began with publishing the Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register and mailing the first planning update in August 2007. Other comments were received in writing and noted through personal communications with refuge staff. For a more in depth description of the issues, see Chapter 2 of the CCP. Public scoping and involvement helped direct this process and provided important elements in the synthesis of the goals, objectives, and strategies found in the CCP for the proposed action and in this document for all other alternatives.

Issues discussed under each alternative include habitat management, migratory birds, and visitor services. Additional issues are addressed for each alternative in Chapter 2, Table 1.

2 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Purpose of and Need for Action

7. Public Involvement The Service initiated the planning process by publishing the NOI in the Federal Register on August 9, 2007. Planning updates were sent to a mailing list of over 80 individuals, groups, and agencies in August 2007, March 2008, and May 2009. The Refuge hosted a public meeting in Alturas, California on August 21, 2007. Sixteen people attended the meeting held at the Refuge.

Public input received in response to these updates and public meetings is incorporated into the CCP and EA, and a summary of comments is included in Chapter 2 of the CCP. The original comments are being maintained in planning team files at the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge office in Willows, California, and are available for review at that location. Chapter 5 of this EA 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. Related Actions Please see Chapter 1 of the CCP for a description of related actions, projects, and studies in the area.

9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Wildlife Refuge System The mission of the Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance the nation's fish, wildlife, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for migratory birds, endangered plants and animals, certain marine mammals, and anadromous fish. The responsibility to conserve our nation's fish and wildlife resources is shared with other Federal agencies and State and Tribal governments.

As part of this responsibility, the Service manages the Refuge System. The Refuge System is the only nationwide system of Federal lands managed and protected for wildlife and their habitats. The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

Modoc Refuge is managed as part of the Refuge System in accordance with the Improvement Act, and other relevant legislation, Executive Orders, regulations, and policies. Chapter 1 of the CCP provides more information about the Service and the Refuge System. Appendix I of the CCP summarizes these major laws, regulations, and policies.

10. 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.

______Environmental Assessment 3 Chapter 1 ______

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).

11. The Refuge Vision Statement 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 (more than 15 years), and are based on the refuge’s specific purposes, the resources present on the refuge, and any other relevant mandates. The CCP incorporates the following vision statement for the Modoc Refuge.

“Located near the confluence of the north and south forks of the Pit River, Modoc National Wildlife Refuge will conserve, restore, protect, and manage a mosaic of seasonal wetlands, semi-permanent wetlands, wet meadows, riparian, and sagebrush-steppe habitats. These habitats will provide important resting, feeding, and nesting areas for ducks, geese, and other migratory birds. Modoc Refuge’s high-quality habitat will play a key role in the long-term recovery of Central Valley greater sandhill cranes.

As an integral part of the surrounding community, Modoc Refuge will provide high-quality wildlife-dependent recreation including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation. Modoc Refuge will continue to be known for providing high-quality environmental education 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.”

12. Refuge Goals This section establishes the primary goals that will define the management direction of the 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

4 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Purpose of and Need for Action

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 following goals are discussed in detail in the Refuge’s CCP. They provide a context for the proposed management direction analyzed in this EA.

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.

______Environmental Assessment 5 Chapter 1 ______

6 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

1. Introduction This chapter describes the process used to develop alternatives, similarities among the alternatives, a detailed description of each alternative, and a summary comparison of the alternatives. All alternatives considered in this EA were developed with the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes of the Refuge as guiding principles. The Service’s proposed action is Alternative C. Three of the four alternatives presented in this chapter are “action alternatives” that would involve a change in the current management of the Refuge. The remaining alternative is the No Action Alternative, in which the Service would continue managing the Refuge as it currently does. The four alternatives for managing the Refuge include Alternative A, Current Management (No Action); Alternative B, Habitat Emphasis Alternative; Alternative C, Proposed Action; and Alternative D, Visitor Services Emphasis Alternative. These alternatives are summarized in Table 1 and are described below.

2. Current Management The Refuge is managed to provide important resting, nesting, and feeding areas for ducks, geese, and other migratory birds, including greater sandhill cranes. It provides wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. The Refuge also provides non-wildlife dependent recreation opportunities including boating, waterskiing, swimming, bicycling, and horseback riding. Chapter 3 of the CCP describes the Refuge’s current management practices and visitor service opportunities in detail.

3. Alternatives Development Process NEPA requires Federal agencies to evaluate a full range of reasonable alternatives, including a preferred alternative. The alternatives should meet the purpose and need of the proposal while minimizing or avoiding detrimental effects. The NEPA alternative development process allows the Service to work with the public, stakeholders, interested agencies, and Tribes to formulate alternatives that respond to identified issues.

After developing the Refuge’s vision statement and goals, the planning team reviewed and evaluated the scoping comments received in response to the NOI, as well as the comments provided at a public meeting held to discuss management activities and visitor services on the Refuge. A list of important issues related to the management of the Refuge was developed using this input, along with additional input from the planning team and other Service staff (refer to Chapter 2 of the CCP).

Once the list of important management issues was generated, the planning team described the No Action Alternative. It was important to describe this alternative accurately because the No Action Alternative serves as the baseline to which all other alternatives are compared.

Each alternative describes a combination of habitat and visitor service prescriptions designed to achieve the Refuge purposes, vision, and goals. These alternatives provide different ways to address and respond to public issues, management concerns, and opportunities identified during

______Environmental Assessment 7 Chapter 2 ______

the planning process. All of the issues, activities, and management concerns were evaluated and addressed for each alternative.

4. Features Common to All Alternatives Although there are distinct differences among the range of alternatives developed for the Refuge, a number of management components are common to all and would be part of the CCP regardless of the alternative selected for implementation.

To reduce repetition in the alternative descriptions, those features that are common among all of the alternatives are described in detail below.

Habitat Management – The primary habitat types for which management occurs are seasonal wetlands, semi-permanent wetlands, and wet meadows. Vegetation management is relatively common on the Refuge, and is generally used to control the abundance of certain plant species or their distribution and to enhance desirable species. Croplands are planted with high wildlife value crops like barely and winter wheat. Prescribed fire is used to accomplish habitat and Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) objectives. Haying and grazing are used to provide habitat for greater sandhill cranes and Canada geese. The Refuge implements the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) process to control invasive species.

Water Management – Refuge wetlands are maintained by a complex and extensive irrigation system to allow for flooding and draining of various areas. The timing of drawdowns, irrigations, and floodups largely dictates plant species composition (i.e., germination and growth of desirable food and cover plants). It also governs habitat availability (i.e., how much wetland is flooded at certain times of the year) for certain wildlife species.

Biological Monitoring - Monitoring and research are the foundation for Refuge management decisions. Biological data collected during wildlife surveys is used to help document the relative distribution and abundance of biological resources at the Refuge. Focused research studies are sometimes required to provide additional data that cannot be obtained from regular Refuge surveys. All the information is used to prioritize where management efforts are most needed.

Migratory Bird Management – One of the Refuge’s primary purposes is to provide habitat for migratory birds, particularly waterfowl and greater sandhill cranes. The Refuge conducts several migratory bird surveys and monitoring projects throughout the year.

Invasive/Pest Species Control – It is necessary to control certain plant and animal species that have undesirable effects on the Refuge’s animals, plants, and habitats or pose a public health risk. The Refuge actively controls or permits control of a number of invasive and/or exotic plants and pest animals using the IPM process. Frequent searches and periodic control of invasive plant species is implemented to enhance the quality of the native habitats on the Refuge.

Disease Monitoring – Wildlife disease monitoring is conducted opportunistically during site visits, field inspections, and wildlife surveys. Follow-up treatment includes carcass removal, documentation of site and carcass conditions, and either carcass disposal or shipment to the U.S. Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center, where carcasses are tested to determine the cause of death. The Refuge maintenance and biological staff track any mortality that may indicate a disease outbreak.

8 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Scientific Research – Research projects are often conducted in cooperation with other government agencies, universities, or private conservation organizations. Monitoring and research helps define the Refuge’s role and importance in the conservation of certain species or habitat and factors into management decisions.

Protection of Cultural Resources – A few systematic archaeological surveys have been conducted on the Refuge. All cultural resource site locations are kept confidential and are monitored on a regular basis. Cultural resources are managed in accordance with public law and agency policy. The Refuge manager would continue to consider the effects of the proposed action on the Refuge’s archaeological and historic properties and would consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), federally recognized Tribes, and interested parties, when appropriate, prior to implementing any ground disturbing projects or projects effecting historic structures.

Fire Management – Prescribed fire is an integral part of habitat management on the Refuge. Prescribed fires are used on the Refuge to reduce hazard fuels, restore the natural processes and vitality of ecosystems, improve wildlife habitat, remove or reduce non-native species, and/or conduct research. Preventing the spread of wildland fire to/or from adjacent properties provides for the safety of the public and protection of private and public lands. The Refuge will continue working closely with neighboring communities with the WUI.

Visitor Services – The Refuge provides wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. The visitor center is located in the Refuge Headquarters office. A three-mile auto tour, the universally accessible Wigeon Pond Nature Trail with observation blind and interpretive overlook, and the U.S. 395 overlook are open year-round. Dorris Reservoir provides a number of recreational opportunities including fishing, swimming, and boating. Hunting of waterfowl, coot, common moorhen, and snipe is permitted on a portion of the Refuge on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays during the legal seasons. Ring-neck pheasant are also hunted during the annual junior pheasant hunt.

Law Enforcement and Resource Protection - Law enforcement on the Refuge is used for both protection and prevention. Used for protection, 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 deters incidents from occurring by providing a law enforcement presence.

Facilities Maintenance - General road maintenance, including grading and mowing, is required on the Refuge to provide safe access for staff, researchers, law enforcement activities, and educational field trips. Upland areas require mowing to reduce fire hazards, provide weed suppression, and provide access for maintenance or monitoring projects during the spring and summer months. The Refuge’s buildings, visitor parking areas, and trails require frequent maintenance and repair.

5. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis The alternatives development process under NEPA and the Improvement Act are designed to allow the planning team to consider the widest possible range of issues and develop feasible management solutions that respond to these issues. These management solutions are then incorporated into one or more alternatives evaluated in the EA process and considered for inclusion in the CCP.

______Environmental Assessment 9 Chapter 2 ______

Actions and alternatives that are not feasible or may cause substantial harm to the environment are usually not considered in an EA. Similarly, an action (and therefore, an alternative containing that action) should generally not receive further consideration if:

 It is illegal (unless it is the No Action Alternative, which must be considered to provide a baseline for evaluation of other alternatives, even though it may not be capable of legal implementation).

 It does not fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

 It does not relate to or help achieve one of the goals of the Refuge.

 Its environmental impacts have already been evaluated in a previously approved NEPA document.

However, if such actions or alternatives address a controversial issue or an issue on which many public comments were received, they may be considered in detail in a NEPA document to demonstrate clearly, why they are not feasible or would cause substantial harm to the environment.

During the alternatives development process, the planning team considered a wide variety of potential actions on the Refuge. The following actions were ultimately rejected and excluded from the alternatives proposed here because they did not achieve Refuge purposes or were incompatible with one or more goals.

5.1. Sanctuary Alternative This alternative would have eliminated all visitor service programs, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation on the Refuge. In addition, staff access would be extremely limited to support the concept of a “true” sanctuary. This alternative was not analyzed in detail because it conflicts with the Improvement Act, which directs the Service to provide compatible wildlife-dependant recreational opportunities. This mandate would not be met under this alternative. Moreover, this alternative would severely limit the ability to manage habitat for migratory birds on the Refuge, which would conflict with the purposes for which the Refuge was established.

5.2. Custodial Management Alternative This alternative would have eliminated all restoration projects, habitat management, and visitor service programs. Refuge management would be limited to maintaining boundary signs and fences. Habitat goals would not have been met and the public would be prevented from accessing the Refuge. This alternative was not analyzed in detail because it conflicts with the Refuge purpose of providing habitat for migratory and resident birds and other wildlife. The Improvement Act also directs the Service to provide compatible wildlife-dependant recreational opportunities. This mandate would not be met under this alternative.

6. Preferred Alternative The planning policy that implements the Improvement Act requires the Service to select a preferred alternative, which is also the preferred alternative under NEPA. The written description of this preferred alternative is effectively the Planned Management Chapter (Chapter 4) of the Draft CCP. Alternative C is the preferred alternative for the Refuge because it meets the following criteria:

10 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

 achieves the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System

 achieves the purposes of Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

 provides guidance for achieving the Refuge’s 15-year vision and goals

 maintains and restores the habitats and populations on the Refuge

 addresses the important issues identified in the scoping process

 addresses the legal mandates of the Service and the Refuge

 is consistent with the scientific principles of sound fish and wildlife management and endangered species recovery

The preferred alternative described in the EA is preliminary. The action ultimately selected and described in the Final CCP will be determined, in part, by the comments received on the Draft EA. The preferred alternative presented in the Final CCP may suggest a modification of one of the alternatives presented here.

The four alternatives considered for managing the Refuge are summarized in Table 1 and are described below. Refuge management units referenced in Table 1 are depicted in Figure 10 of the CCP.

7. Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) Under this alternative (Figure 1, Table 1), the Refuge would continue to be managed as it has been in the recent past (see Chapter 3 of the CCP). Recent management has followed existing step-down management plans:

 Fire Management Plan

 Safety Plan

 Emergency Action Plan for Dorris Reservoir

 Standard Operating Procedures for Dorris Reservoir

 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 and other wildlife. The Refuge would continue to provide wildlife-dependant recreation opportunities including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Non-wildlife dependant recreation opportunities, including boating, swimming, waterskiing, and horseback riding, would also continue. Current staffing and funding levels would remain the same.

Habitat Management: Under Alternative A, the Service would continue to manage the habitat on the Refuge as described in detail in Chapter 3 of the CCP. Habitat management implementation and accomplishments would be limited due to insufficient funding levels, less than full staffing, and non-biological needs. The primary habitat types for which management occurs are seasonal wetlands, semi-permanent wetlands, and wet meadows. Water levels in these wetlands would be optimized to enhance wetland habitat for waterfowl. Riparian and sagebrush-steppe habitats

______Environmental Assessment 11 Chapter 2 ______

Table 1. Modoc Refuge alternative/issue comparison summary

Alternative B Alternative D Alternative A Habitat Emphasis Alternative C Visitor Services Emphasis Issue No Action Alternative Alternative Proposed Action Alternative

Biological

Wetland Protect and enhance Same as Alternative A plus: Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A Management seasonal wetlands (1,062 • Restore West Pit (105 acres), semi-permanent acres) wetlands. wetlands (553 acres), and • Optimize water level wet meadows (2,183 acres). management to enhance Optimize water level habitat for waterfowl management to enhance and shorebirds. habitat for waterfowl.

Riparian Protect and enhance 64 Same as Alternative A plus: Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A Management acres of riparian vegetation. • Restore riparian habitat (282 acres) along Pit River and South Fork of the Pit River. • Restore Matney 2 (3 acres) to riparian habitat. • Remove west dike along North Grain Field (81 acres) to restore floodplain function and riparian habitat.

12 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 1. Modoc Refuge alternative/issue comparison summary

Alternative B Alternative D Alternative A Habitat Emphasis Alternative C Visitor Services Emphasis Issue No Action Alternative Alternative Proposed Action Alternative

Sagebrush- Protect and enhance 2,053 Restore HQ Field (5 acres) Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A steppe acres of sagebrush-steppe to sagebrush-steppe Management habitat. habitat. Remove juniper on Godfrey Tract (240 acres). Conduct invasive plant species control projects.

Cropland Manage 550 acres of Same as Alternative A plus: Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A Management croplands (200 acres • Restore Matney 2 (3 planted annually in barley acres) to riparian and winter wheat). habitat. • Restore HQ Field (5 acres) to sagebrush- steppe habitat. • Remove west dike along North Grain Field (81 acres) to restore. floodplain function and riparian habitat. • Plant alternative crops to meet migratory bird objectives while improving soil conditions (Matney 3-8, 150 acres).

______Environmental Assessment 13 Chapter 2 ______

Table 1. Modoc Refuge alternative/issue comparison summary

Alternative B Alternative D Alternative A Habitat Emphasis Alternative C Visitor Services Emphasis Issue No Action Alternative Alternative Proposed Action Alternative

Grazing Graze 935 acres of wet Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A plus: meadow habitat from Add additional grazing September 1 through acres (150 acres). November 30.

Haying Hay 2,079 acres of wet Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A meadows from August 1 to except hayed acreage August 31. increased (103 acres).

Invasive Species 5,210 acres of the Refuge Same as Alternative A plus: Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A Management are infested and 1,000 acres • Treat 2,000 acres are treated annually. annually. • Add wage grade position (PFT).

Prescribed Fire Burn 200-400 acres of Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Program sagebrush-steppe and wetland habitats annually.

Biological Conduct 5 surveys annually: Same as Alternative A plus: Same as Alternative B Conduct 2 surveys Monitoring crane pair count • Conduct 10 additional annually: crane colt (young) wildlife surveys. • crane pair count production/ banding • Conduct vegetation • crane colt wildlife surveys monitoring. production/banding waterfowl brood counts • Add wildlife biologist MAPS (PFT).

14 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 1. Modoc Refuge alternative/issue comparison summary

Alternative B Alternative D Alternative A Habitat Emphasis Alternative C Visitor Services Emphasis Issue No Action Alternative Alternative Proposed Action Alternative

Visitor Services – Wildlife-Dependent

Hunting Permit hunting for Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A plus: Same as Alternative C waterfowl, coots, moorhens, • Open Grandma Tract and snipe on Tuesdays, (200 acres) to waterfowl Thursdays, and Saturdays hunting; increasing during the waterfowl season visits by 10% (1,760 (1,600 visits annually). visits annually).

Junior Hunts Conduct a pre-season junior Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A plus: Same as Alternative C waterfowl hunt and youth • Provide additional pheasant hunt. junior waterfowl hunt. • Conduct annual kids Hunting Skills Field Day (additional 100 visits)

Disabled Provide three universally Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A plus: Same as Alternative C waterfowl accessible blinds (available • Add 2 more universally hunting by reservation). accessible blinds, opportunities including one at Grandma Tract (additional 20 hunting visits).

______Environmental Assessment 15 Chapter 2 ______

Table 1. Modoc Refuge alternative/issue comparison summary

Alternative B Alternative D Alternative A Habitat Emphasis Alternative C Visitor Services Emphasis Issue No Action Alternative Alternative Proposed Action Alternative

Assigned None Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A plus: Same as Alternative C Hunting Ponds • Add assigned hunting ponds on Grandma Tract.

Big game None Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Add youth deer hunt hunting (additional 10 hunting visits).

Fishing Permit on Dorris Reservoir Restrict fishing during Same as Alternative A plus: Same as Alternative C plus: during daylight hours from daylight hours from June 1 • Conduct an annual Kid’s • Allow fishing until one February 1 through through September 30, Fishing Day at Dorris hour after sunset. September 30 which would reduce visits to Reservoir (additional 50 (3,000 visits annually). 2,500 annually. visits).

Wildlife Wildlife observation Limit auto tour to Same as Alternative A plus: Same as Alternative C Observation available on 3-mile auto motorized vehicles only (no • Open EE area tour route, 1-mile walking bicycles, horses, or seasonally (March 1- trail loop with observation pedestrians), which would August 31) to public use blind and interpretive reduce visits to 3,000 (60 acres), increasing overlook, and US 395 annually. visits to 6,000 annually. overlook (4,400 visits annually).

16 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 1. Modoc Refuge alternative/issue comparison summary

Alternative B Alternative D Alternative A Habitat Emphasis Alternative C Visitor Services Emphasis Issue No Action Alternative Alternative Proposed Action Alternative

Photography Provide one photography Remove photography blind, Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A plus: facilities blind available all year by which would reduce visits to • Add second reservation only, 800 annually. photography blind, supporting 900 visits increasing visits to annually. 1,000 annually.

Interpretation Support 150 off-site Same as Alternative A Increase off-site Increase off-site participants and 120 on-site participants to 300 and on- participants to 300 and on- visits. site visits to 150. site visits to 300.

Environmental Provide 20-acre site as an Restrict EE to HQ area to Same as Alternative A plus: Same as Alternative C plus: Education outdoor watershed learning reduce impacts to wildlife. • Complete development • Add outdoor recreation lab supporting 1,000 of EE area (universally planner (PFT). student visits annually (on- accessible) including site) and 1,000 student trail, observation deck participants (off-site) and blind, floating dock, annually. EE shelter, boardwalk, interpretive panels, and kiosk. • Increase school group participation to all students K-12 in Alturas School system (additional 500 students). • Add interpretive specialist position (PFT).

______Environmental Assessment 17 Chapter 2 ______

Table 1. Modoc Refuge alternative/issue comparison summary

Alternative B Alternative D Alternative A Habitat Emphasis Alternative C Visitor Services Emphasis Issue No Action Alternative Alternative Proposed Action Alternative

Visitor Services – Non-Wildlife Dependent

Bicycling Permitted on roads Prohibit bicycles on the Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A plus: designated for motor Refuge. • Add bicycle trail vehicles year-round, and on (additional 100 visits). Dorris Reservoir from April 1 through September 30 on roads designated for motor vehicles.

Horseback Permitted from April 1 Prohibit horseback riding Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Riding through September 30 on on the Refuge. Reservoir roads designated for motor vehicles and on the equestrian trail across the dam at Dorris Reservoir. In the remaining portions of the Refuge, permitted year-round on roads designated for motor vehicles.

Swimming Permitted at Dorris Prohibit swimming at Same as Alternative A with Same as Alternative C Reservoir during daylight Dorris Reservoir. swimming allowed during hours from June 1 through daylight hours from April 1 September 30. through September 30.

18 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 1. Modoc Refuge alternative/issue comparison summary

Alternative B Alternative D Alternative A Habitat Emphasis Alternative C Visitor Services Emphasis Issue No Action Alternative Alternative Proposed Action Alternative

Boating Permitted on Dorris Same as Alternative A plus: Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A plus: Reservoir during daylight • No wake restrictions on • Allow boating until one hours, from April 1 through boats at Dorris hour after sunset. September 30. Reservoir. • Boating permitted on February 1 through September 30.

Waterskiing Permitted on Dorris Prohibit waterskiing at Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B Reservoir from June 1 Dorris Reservoir. through September 30 in the designated area.

Law Limited law enforcement Same as Alternative A plus: Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B enforcement provided by Klamath Basin • Add a park ranger Refuge Complex and position (PFT). CDFG.

Volunteer Involve 118 volunteers Same as Alternative A Increase number of Same as Alternative A program annually. except restrict volunteers to volunteers to 200 annually. except restrict volunteers wildlife project focus. to visitor services focus.

Funding/ Maintain current funding Increase funding and Increase funding and Increase funding and Staffing and staffing. staffing with a habitat staffing for a balance of staffing with a visitor focus. biological and visitor service services focus. needs.

______Environmental Assessment 19 Chapter 2 ______

Figure 1. Alternative A: No Action Alternative

20 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

would continue to be protected and enhanced. Croplands would continue to be planted with high wildlife value crops like barley and winter wheat. Haying and grazing would continue to be used to provide habitat for greater sandhill cranes and Canada geese. Invasive species would be managed as funding allows (approximately 1,000 acres annually). Prescribed fire would be used to accomplish annual habitat objectives (200-400 acres of prescribed fire per year) on the Refuge.

Biological monitoring would include approximately five annual surveys to aid in the evaluation of habitat management and the establishment of future management plans. Biological monitoring and habitat assessment efforts would be limited due to insufficient funding levels and less than full staffing.

Migratory Birds: Under this alternative, the Service would continue to restore, enhance, and manage wetlands, riparian, sagebrush-steppe, and other habitats to support an abundance of waterfowl and other migratory birds as described in Chapter 3 of the CCP.

The Refuge would continue to conduct, coordinate, and/or participate in existing surveys and other monitoring efforts. Management-oriented research would be solicited, facilitated, and otherwise supported when and where appropriate. Migratory bird monitoring would be limited due to insufficient funding levels and less than full staffing.

Visitor Services: Under Alternative A, the Refuge’s visitor services and facilities would continue unchanged to accommodate an average of 1,660 annual hunter visits. Hunting of waterfowl, coot, common moorhen, and snipe would be permitted on a portion of the Refuge on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays during the legal seasons. Hunting on the opening weekend would be by reservation only. Hunters would continue to be selected through a drawing conducted by the Refuge. The normal quota would be 100 hunters for both Saturday and Sunday. After opening weekend, waterfowl hunting would be conducted through a self-check-in/out system. There is no quota or fee after opening weekend. Three universally accessible blinds are available by reservation. The Refuge would continue to conduct a youth waterfowl hunt, usually two weeks prior to the opening weekend of the season. The Refuge would also conduct an annual youth pheasant hunt (one day) during the legal season.

Fishing would continue on Dorris Reservoir during daylight hours from February 1 through September 30. Fishing would continue to support approximately 3,000 visits annually.

The wildlife observation and photography programs and facilities on the Refuge would continue to include an auto tour route, walking trail with observation blind and interpretive overlook, U.S. 395 overlook, and photography blind. These facilities would continue to support 4,400 wildlife observation and 900 photography visits annually.

The Refuge would continue its environmental education program, which supports approximately 2,000 visits annually and includes a 20-acre outdoor watershed learning lab. The interpretive program would continue to support 270 annual visits on and off refuge by attending or organizing up to two special events, attending public meetings, and conducting presentations or tours to interested organizations.

Approximately 3,500 non-wildlife dependent recreation visits would continue to occur annually on the Refuge, including horseback riding, bicycling, swimming, boating, and waterskiing. Other non-

______Environmental Assessment 21 Chapter 2 ______

wildlife dependent uses (e.g., field dog trials and personal watercraft use) would continue to be prohibited on the Refuge.

Bicycling would continue to be permitted year-round on roads designated for motor vehicles. Bicycling at Dorris Reservoir would continue from April 1 through September 30 on roads designated for motor vehicles.

At Dorris Reservoir, horseback riding would continue to be permitted from April 1 through September 30 on roads designated for motor vehicles and on the equestrian trail across the dam. In other areas, horseback riding would continue to be permitted year-round on roads designated for motor vehicles.

Swimming would continue to be allowed on Dorris Reservoir during daylight hours from June 1 through September 30. Boating would also continue on Dorris Reservoir during daylight hours from April 1 through September 30. Waterskiing would continue in the designated area of Dorris Reservoir from June 1 through September 30.

Law enforcement would continue to be provided on a limited basis by the law enforcement officer stationed at Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) wardens. The Refuge is allocated $2,500 annually to help cover the costs of law enforcement coverage from Klamath Basin.

The volunteer program would continue to involve approximately 118 volunteers. Volunteers would continue to provide over 500 hours annually, assisting with recreation, environmental education, maintenance, and wildlife habitat programs and projects.

8. Alternative B: Habitat Emphasis Alternative Under this alternative (Figure 2, Table 1), the Refuge would emphasize habitat restoration on the Refuge. Biological opportunities would be maximized to allow optimum wildlife and habitat management throughout the majority of the Refuge. In addition, staffing and funding levels would be redirected and increased to implement this alternative fully. A wildlife biologist, park ranger, and wage grade position would be hired to accomplish this alternative.

Habitat Management: Under Alternative B, the Refuge would be managed almost entirely based upon the quantity and quality of habitat needed for maximum biological benefits, with much less focus on (and sometimes at the expense of) other Refuge programs such as visitor services.

Wetland management and enhancement would continue on the Refuge. West Pit (105 acres) wetlands would be enhanced/restored under this alternative. Water level management would be optimized to provide wetland habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds.

Riparian restoration would occur on Refuge lands along the Pit River and the South Fork Pit River (approximately 282 acres) and in the Matney 2 Field (3 acres). Removal of the west dike along North Grain Field would restore floodplain function and restore riparian habitat to 81 acres currently in croplands.

Restoration of HQ Field (5 acres) to sagebrush-steppe habitat would be conducted and juniper on the Godfrey Tract (240 acres) would be removed.

22 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Figure 2. Alternative B: Biological Emphasis Alternative

______Environmental Assessment 23 Chapter 2 ______

Management of croplands would remain the same as described in Alternative A except North Grain Field (81 acres), Matney 2 (3 acres), and HQ Field (5 acres) would be converted to native vegetation. Matney 3-8 (150 acres) would be enhanced by planting alternative crops to meet migratory bird objectives while improving the soil condition. Haying acreage would be increased by 103 acres under this alternative. The grazing and prescribed fire programs would remain as described in Alternative A. Control of invasive plants would be increased from 1,000 to 2,000 acres annually.

Refuge staff would increase the number of annual wildlife surveys to fifteen and would begin vegetation monitoring.

Migratory Birds: Under Alternative B, habitat management would be maximized to provide the greatest level of benefit to migratory birds with emphasis on waterfowl and other wetland- dependent birds. Visitors would be managed to keep disturbance at the lowest level, relative to the other alternatives. Relative to Alternative A, the number and frequency of surveys would be increased to provide more comprehensive monitoring of key migratory bird species and the habitat upon which they depend.

Visitor Services: Under Alternative B, visitor services and facilities would be reduced to optimize wildlife and habitat management. Hunting opportunities would remain as described in Alternative A. Fishing at Dorris Reservoir would be restricted to daylight hours from June 1 through September 30, decreasing annual visits to 2,500. The wildlife observation programs and facilities would be limited by restricting the auto tour route to motorized vehicles, which would reduce visits to 3,000 annually. The photography blind would be eliminated reducing photography visits to 800 annually.

Environmental education activities would be restricted to the Refuge Headquarters area. The interpretation program would be as described in Alternative A.

Waterskiing on Dorris Reservoir would be prohibited and boating on Dorris Reservoir would be restricted to no-wake limits. Swimming, bicycling, and horseback riding would also be prohibited on the Refuge. Other non-wildlife dependent uses (e.g., field dog trials, personal watercraft use, etc.) would be prohibited on the Refuge. As a result, annual non-wildlife dependent recreation visits would decrease to 2,800.

The volunteer program would remain as described in Alternative A, except volunteers would focus on wildlife-oriented projects. The law enforcement program would increase compared to Alternative A, with the addition of a park ranger position.

9. Alternative C: Proposed Action Alternative C (Figure 3, Table 1) would achieve an optimal balance of habitat emphasis objectives and visitor services opportunities. Habitat management and associated biological resource monitoring would be improved. Visitor service opportunities would focus on quality wildlife- dependant recreation distributed throughout the Refuge. Staffing and funding levels would be increased to implement this alternative fully. As described in Alternative B, a wildlife biologist, park ranger, and wage grade position would be hired to accomplish this alternative. In addition, an interpretive specialist would be hired to accomplish this alternative.

24 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Figure 3. Alternative C: Preferred Alternative

______Environmental Assessment 25 Chapter 2 ______

Habitat Management: Under Alternative C, wetland, riparian, sagebrush-steppe, and croplands management would be the same as described in Alternative B. Riparian restoration would occur on Refuge lands along the Pit River and the South Fork Pit River (approximately 282 acres) and in the Matney 2 Field (3 acres). Removal of the west dike along North Grain Field (81 acres) would restore floodplain function and restore riparian habitat to 81 acres currently in croplands.

Wetland management and enhancement would continue on the Refuge as described in Alternative B. The West Pit (105 acres) wetlands would be enhanced/restored and water level management would be optimized to provide wetland habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds.

As described in Alternative B, restoration of HQ Field (5 acres) to sagebrush-steppe habitat would be conducted and juniper on the Godfrey Tract (240 acres) would be removed.

Haying, grazing, and the prescribed fire program would be the same as described in Alternative A. Haying and grazing would continue to be used to provide habitat for greater sandhill cranes and Canada geese. Control of invasive plants would be increased from 1,000 to 2,000 acres annually as described in Alternative B.

As described in Alternative B, refuge staff would increase the number of annual wildlife surveys to fifteen and would begin vegetation monitoring.

Migratory Birds: As described in Alternative B, habitat management would be maximized to provide the greatest level of benefit to migratory birds with emphasis on waterfowl and other wetland-dependent birds. As described in Alternative B, the number and frequency of surveys would be increased to provide more comprehensive monitoring of key migratory bird species and the habitat upon which they depend.

Visitor Services: Under Alternative C, the visitor services and facilities would optimize a balance of quality wildlife-dependent recreation throughout the Refuge.

The hunting program would be as described in Alternative A except the Grandma Tract (200 acres) would be opened to waterfowl hunting, thereby increasing hunting visits by 10 percent. In addition, assigned ponds and a universally accessible blind would be added to the Grandma Tract.

Another universally accessible blind would be added to the hunt area. Annual visits would be increased by approximately 20 by adding these universally accessible blinds. This alternative also provides an opportunity to add another junior waterfowl hunt and an annual kids hunting skills field day on the Refuge, which would increase annual visits by approximately 100.

Fishing would remain as described in Alternative A except an annual kid’s fishing day would be established on the Refuge, which would increase annual visits by approximately 50.

The environmental education area would be opened to wildlife observation and photography seasonally (March 1 through August 31), increasing wildlife observation visits to 6,000 annually.

26 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Photography facilities, bicycling, and horseback riding would be the same as described in Alternative A.

Environmental education activities would be conducted for all students K-12 in the Alturas school system (additional 500 students). Under Alternative C, the development of the environmental education area (universally accessible), which includes a trail, observation deck and blind, floating dock, environmental education shelter, boardwalk, interpretive panels, and kiosk, would be completed. The interpretive program would expand to support 300 off-site and 150 on-site participants.

Bicycling, horseback riding, and boating would remain as described as in Alternative A. Swimming in Dorris Reservoir would be expanded to April 1 through September 30. Waterskiing would be prohibited as described in Alternative B. Other non-wildlife dependent uses (e.g., field dog trials, personal watercraft use, etc.) would be prohibited on the Refuge. As a result, annual non-wildlife dependent recreation visits would remain at 3,500.

Volunteer recruitment would take place in order to increase the number of volunteers from 118 to 200. The law enforcement program would remain as described in Alternative B.

10. Alternative D: Visitor Services Emphasis Alternative Under Alternative D (Figure 4, Table 1), the Refuge would emphasize management for visitor services. Wildlife-dependant recreational opportunities would be expanded on the Refuge. However, staffing and funding levels would need to be redirected and increased substantially to implement this alternative. As described in Alternative C, an interpretive specialist, park ranger, and wage grade position would be hired. In addition, an outdoor recreation planner would be hired to accomplish this alternative.

Habitat Management: Under Alternative D, wetland, riparian, sagebrush-steppe, and cropland management would be the same as described in Alternative A. No additional habitat restoration or enhancement projects would be conducted. Haying, invasive species management, and the prescribed fire program would also be the same as described in Alternative A. Grazing would continue as described in Alternative A except an additional 150 acres on the Refuge would be grazed.

Biological monitoring would be reduced, including only two annual surveys (i.e., crane pair count and crane colt production/banding).

Migratory Birds: As described in Alternative A, the Refuge would conduct habitat management to support migratory birds with emphasis on waterfowl and other migratory birds. Migratory bird monitoring would be limited due to insufficient funding levels and less than full staffing.

Visitor Services: Under Alternative D, hunting would be the same as described in Alternative C, except for the addition of a youth deer hunt, which would provide an additional 10 hunting visits annually.

Fishing at Dorris Reservoir would be expanded and allowed from sunrise to one hour after sunset from February 1 through September 30. As in Alternative C, refuge staff would establish an annual Kids’ Fishing Day at Dorris Reservoir.

______Environmental Assessment 27 Chapter 2 ______

Figure 4. Alternative D: Visitor Services Emphasis Alternative

28 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

The wildlife observation and environmental education programs would be as described in Alternative C. A second photography blind would be added on the Refuge, providing an additional 100 visits annually. Interpretation would increase to 300 on-site participants and 300 off-site visits annually.

Under Alternative D, annual non-wildlife dependent recreation visits would increase to 3,600. Horseback riding would be the same as described in Alternative A. Under Alternative D, a bicycling trail would be added to the Refuge, providing approximately 100 additional visits. Swimming would be the same as described in Alternative C. Boating would be allowed from sunrise to one hour after sunset, from February 1 through September 30. Waterskiing and other non-wildlife dependent uses (e.g., field dog trials, personal watercraft use, etc.) would be prohibited on the Refuge.

The volunteer program would remain as described in Alternative A except volunteers would focus on visitor service projects. The law enforcement program would remain as described in Alternative B.

______Environmental Assessment 29 Chapter 2 ______

30 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Affected Environment

Chapter 3. Affected Environment

This chapter briefly outlines the physical, biological, social, and economic environment that would most likely be affected by the alternatives. See Chapter 3 of the CCP for a more detailed description.

1. Physical Environment Chapter 3 of the CCP provides a detailed description of the physical environment.

2. Biological Environment Chapter 3 of the CCP provides a detailed description of the biological environment.

3. Social and Economic Environment It is important to note, “that economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact statement. When an environmental impact statement is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are interrelated, then the environmental impact statement will discuss all of these effects on the human environment” (40 CFR 1508.14). In assessing the physical and biological effects of changing land use on certain pieces of land, the Draft EA has appropriately addressed the interrelated potential social and economic impacts.

3.1. Employment See Economic Assessment of Operations at the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Attachment 1).

3.2. Local Economy See Economic Assessment of Operations at the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Attachment 1).

3.3. Land Use and Zoning The Refuge is bordered by private, city, county, and Tribal lands. Modoc County is dominated by Federal land ownership, with 61 percent of the land managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (Mintier Harnish and Associates 1998). The county has its own General Plan (Modoc County 1988) that outlines land use policies and includes the following goals, policies, and actions that pertain to land use (Mintier Harnish and Associates 1988):

 Provide for a full range of residential land uses and housing opportunities while protecting the valuable environment and community assets of the county.

 Provide for a full range of industrial land use options to enable the expansion or establishment of industry in Modoc County, while preserving the county’s valuable natural beauty and environment and assuring compatibility with existing and projected land uses.

 Ensure that an adequate supply of commercial land is available throughout the county to meet the service needs of the residents as well as the traveling public while insuring compatibility with neighboring uses.

______Environmental Assessment 31 Chapter 3 ______

 Protect and support the agricultural economy of Modoc County.

 Insure compatibility of public and quasi-public land uses with other land uses and development.

3.4. Demographics 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 year-old group, with 1,521 people. Since 1990, the number of people between the ages of 50-59 increased 6 percent, while those between 30-39 decreased 6 percent, and children aged 0-9 decreased 6 percent. These trends may indicate that the number of jobs for those aged 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.

3.5. Cultural Resources Archaeological surveys were conducted in 1980 (Lawrence E. Weigel) and 1984 (Nancy B. Ridgway) to detect the presence of important historical sites. These surveys resulted in the identification and recording of prehistoric archaeological sites on the Refuge.

32 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Environmental Consequences

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences

This chapter analyzes the environmental impacts expected to occur from the implementation of the alternatives described in Chapter 2. Impact evaluation has been conducted for each aspect of the environment described in Chapter 3, including physical, biological, and social and economic resources. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are described where applicable for each alternative. Alternative A (No Action) is a continuation of management practices that are in place today and serves as a baseline against which Alternatives B, C, and D are compared. Table 2 contains a comparison of the environmental consequences for each of the alternatives.

Significance of impacts to the human environment determines whether preparation of an EIS is warranted. Thus, an EA provides a discussion of the magnitude of the impacts within the context of the situation for each impact topic. Case law supports the inclusion of mitigation measures in an EA. Specifically, an agency may support a conclusion of less-than-significant effects by showing that mitigation measures will significantly compensate for a proposed action’s adverse environmental impacts (Friends of Endangered Species v. Jantzen, 760 F.2d 976, 987 (9th Cir. 1985)).

In describing the significance of impacts, the Service defers to NEPA Implementing Regulations at 40 CFR 1508.27.

"Significantly" as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity:

(a) Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant.

(b) Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. “

In the analysis that follows, we have included mitigation measures that would be desirable to consider and adopt as part of the preferred alternative.

1. Effects on the Physical Environment 1.1. Geology and Soils 1.1.1. Common to Alternatives Habitat restoration/enhancement would occur at some level under all alternatives, and several site preparation activities would be conducted to prepare Refuge areas for this restoration. Some of these activities, such as juniper removal, dike removal, and light land grading, would involve soil disturbance and may temporarily increase erosion and sedimentation rates in the project area.

______Environmental Assessment 33 Chapter 4 ______

Table 2. Summary of environmental consequences Alternative B Alternative D Alternative A Habitat Emphasis Alternative C Visitor Services Resource No Action Alternative Alternative Proposed Action Emphasis Alternative Physical Environment Geology/Soils Surface erosion potential Increased potential for Increased potential for Increased potential for is low, activities temporary surface temporary surface temporary surface conducted in small erosion resulting from erosion resulting from erosion resulting from increments, long-term increased acreage of increased acreage of construction of reduction in erosion and restoration activities, restoration activities and environmental education sedimentation due to greater long-term construction of facilities, greater long- restoration reduction in erosion and environmental education term reduction in erosion sedimentation facilities, greater long- and sedimentation term reduction in erosion and sedimentation Hydrology Minor impact Minor impact. Reduction Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A in velocity of flood flows in downstream portions of the Pit and South Fork Pit River. Agricultural Resources Minor impact Minor impact. Increase in Minor impact. Small Minor impact. Grazing acreage of haying. Small decrease in croplands. acreage increased. Small decrease in croplands. decrease in croplands. Air Quality Long-term, localized, Decreased tailpipe and Increased tailpipe and Increased long-term minor impacts fugitive dust emissions, fugitive dust emissions, minor impacts from increased temporary increased temporary increased tailpipe and minor impacts from minor impacts from fugitive dust emissions restoration activities, restoration activities, long-term improvement long-term improvement of air quality from habitat of air quality from habitat restoration restoration

34 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Environmental Consequences

Table 2. Summary of environmental consequences Alternative B Alternative D Alternative A Habitat Emphasis Alternative C Visitor Services Resource No Action Alternative Alternative Proposed Action Emphasis Alternative Water Quality and Minor impact, Best Increase in temporary Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A Contaminants Management Practices minor impacts. Long- used during habitat term positive impacts, management activities Best Management Practices used during restoration

Biological Environment Vegetation Positive impact from Additional positive Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A habitat protection and impact due to increased enhancement habitat restoration and enhancement Wildlife Resources Positive impact due to Additional positive Positive impact due to Positive impact due to management and impact due to additional additional acreage of habitat management, restoration of habitat, acreage of habitat habitat restoration, highest proposed minor disturbance from restoration and decrease increased visitor services increase in visitor visitor services in disturbance from balanced with public services balanced with visitor services education, trails, signs, public education, trails, and increased staff signs, and increased staff Fishery Resources Minor impact Temporary increase in Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A turbidity and suspended sediment level, long-term increase in shaded riverine aquatic habitat

______Environmental Assessment 35 Chapter 4 ______

Table 2. Summary of environmental consequences Alternative B Alternative D Alternative A Habitat Emphasis Alternative C Visitor Services Resource No Action Alternative Alternative Proposed Action Emphasis Alternative Threatened, Positive impact on Additional positive Additional positive Positive impact on Endangered, and species from habitat impact due to additional impact due to additional species from habitat Special-Status Species management, minor acres of habitat acres of habitat management, increased disturbance from visitor restoration, increased restoration and increased disturbance from visitor services number of wildlife number of wildlife services surveys, and decrease in surveys disturbance from visitor services Social and Economic Environment Visitor Services Positive impact from Minor negative impact: Additional positive Positive impact: visitor services program reduced visitor service impact by expanding maximum visitor service opportunities visitor service opportunities opportunities Economy Existing conditions, Potential minor negative Potential positive impact Potential positive impact minor positive local impact to local economy to local economy from to local economy from impact from decreased public increased public use increased public use use opportunities opportunities opportunities Cultural Resources No impact from Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A management activities due to existing Service policies Climate Change Minor impact Moderate positive impact Moderate positive impact Minor impact Environmental Justice No minority or low Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A income populations will be disproportionately impacted

36 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Environmental Consequences

Mitigation Measure 1 (Water quality) will also provide protection for soil erosion and sedimentation; therefore, there will be no significant impact to geology and soils.

Under all alternatives, standard habitat management activities, including mowing, disking, tilling, herbicide/pesticide application, prescribed fire, grazing, and irrigation may have some effect on soils. In particular, Service-approved herbicides would be used with all alternatives including restoration applications. The use of herbicides and pesticides is highly regulated through the Service’s Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) process. This approach notes environmental hazards, efficacy, costs, and vulnerability of the pest. In addition, the highly regulated IPM process results in minimizing the use of herbicides/pesticides and, subsequently, leads to minor effects on soils.

The effects of prescribed fire on soil would be the same under all alternatives (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). The effect is dependent largely on the fire intensity and duration. The cool, moist soils of wetter areas in the burn units or areas with little fuel will be minimally affected by fire. The degree of impact to the soils is a function of the thickness and composition of the organic mantle. On open grassland sites, the blackening of the relatively thin mantle will cause greater heat absorption and retention from the sun. This will encourage earlier germination during the spring growing season. Fire will speed up the nutrient release that occurs as a part of the normal decomposition process. The rate and amount of nutrients released will be dependent on the fire duration and intensity as well as the amount of humus, duff, and other organic materials present in the mantle. The increase immediately after a burn of calcium, potash, phosphoric acid, and other minerals will give the residual and emergent vegetation a short-term boost. There is no evidence to show that the direct heating of soil by a fire of low intensity has any significant adverse effect. Fire of this type has little total effect on the soil, and in most cases would be beneficial.

1.1.2. Alternative A Under Alternative A, the overall effect on soils from habitat enhancement is negligible. The surface erosion potential is low, and because these activities would be conducted in small increments isolated spatially and temporally, any temporary increase in erosion and sedimentation rates resulting from the project would likely be minor (see Mitigation Measure 1).

1.1.3. Alternative B Alternative B would have a higher potential for a temporary increase in erosion and sedimentation due to the larger area that would be affected by restoration efforts (e.g., 366 additional acres of riparian restoration). However, any temporary increase in erosion and sedimentation rates resulting from site preparation activities under Alternative B would be at least partially offset by the long-term reduction in erosion and sedimentation rates that would result from the reduction in cropland acreage. The 81-acre North Grain Field would be taken out of croplands and restored to woody riparian. An additional 8 acres (Matney Field and HQ Field) would be taken out of croplands and restored to native habitat (3 acres of riparian habitat at Matney Field and 5 acres of sagebrush-steppe habitat at HQ Field), and 150 acres (Matney 3-8 Fields) would be planted to alternative crops, which would improve soil conditions.

1.1.4. Alternative C Alternative C would have a higher potential for a temporary increase in erosion and sedimentation due to the larger area that would be affected by restoration efforts (e.g., 366 additional acres of riparian restoration accomplished over the 15 years). The potential for an increase in erosion and

______Environmental Assessment 37 Chapter 4 ______

sedimentation under Alternative C would be slightly higher (though still minor) than Alternatives A and B due to the grading that would be necessary (approximately 1 acre) for construction of a new environmental education trail, shelter, boardwalk, and kiosk. However, any temporary increase in erosion and sedimentation rates resulting from activities under Alternative C would be at least partially offset by the long-term reduction in erosion and sedimentation rates that would result from the reduction in croplands, as described in Alternative B above.

1.1.5. Alternative D The potential for an increase in erosion and sedimentation under Alternative D would be slightly higher than Alternative A due to the grading that would be necessary for construction of a new environmental education trail, shelter, boardwalk, and kiosk, but less than Alternatives B and C, due to the lack of additional habitat restoration efforts.

1.2. Hydrology 1.2.1. Alternatives A and D Minor impacts to hydrology would be anticipated under Alternatives A and D.

1.2.2. Alternatives B and C The proposed restoration of approximately 282 acres of degraded herbaceous riparian habitat along the Pit River and South Fork Pit River would cause a reduction in the velocity of flood flows that inundate the restoration areas. The restoration area is relatively small and impacts would be expected to be negligible.

The proposed removal of the west dike along North Grain Field and restoration of the area to woody riparian habitat would restore floodplain function to the 81-acre tract. The dike was built prior to establishment of the Refuge so that the floodplain could be farmed. Removal of the dike to reestablish floodplain function would result in reduced flood flow velocities downstream. The alteration would also be considered beneficial for reducing the direct and indirect effects of erosion and sediment deposition in the river. The area in which the river can naturally erode and deposit would be increased. Further, by restoring the hydrologic function of floodplains on Refuge lands, flooding on neighboring properties may be reduced. The Service recognizes the need to protect the integrity of the system of levees, weirs, diversions, and overflow areas for the purpose of public safety and agricultural operations. In summary, the proposed restoration activities would result in a beneficial effect by improving floodplain function and would not likely result in any adverse impact to downstream properties.

1.3. Agricultural Resources 1.3.1. Alternative A Under Alternative A, no change is proposed to the general agriculture practices on the Refuge (e.g., haying, grazing, and croplands). Thus, the impacts would not change (i.e., minor impact).

1.3.2. Alternative B Under Alternative B, the acreage of wet meadow haying would be increased by 103 acres. There would also be a small reduction in the amount of croplands (86 acres) on the Refuge as the habitat is restored to native vegetation. Therefore, the impacts would be expected to be minor.

38 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Environmental Consequences

1.3.3. Alternative C Under Alternative C, no change is proposed to the general haying and grazing methods. There would be a small reduction in the amount of croplands (86 acres) on the Refuge as the habitat is restored to native vegetation. Thus, the impacts would not change (i.e., minor impact).

1.3.4. Alternative D Under Alternative D, the wet meadow grazing acreage would be increased by 150 acres. There would also be a small reduction in the amount of croplands (86 acres) on the Refuge as the habitat is restored to native vegetation. Therefore, the impacts would be expected to be minor.

1.4. Air Quality 1.4.1. Common to All Alternatives All alternatives would have temporary increases in dust and tailpipe emissions due to restoration work and use of limited prescribed fire to control nonnative weeds, which may temporarily affect air quality. Burning vegetation could increase PM10 concentrations substantially in select areas; however, these increases would be temporary (several hours or less duration). Adverse impacts from prescribed fires would be expected to be less than significant for the following reasons:

 Prior to conducting a burn, the Refuge would develop a prescribed burn plan and obtain a burn permit from the Modoc County Air Pollution Control District (APCD).

 The Refuge would follow all conditions of the permit.

 Measures to avoid and/or minimize adverse effects would include close coordination with the APCD; selection of a proper burn prescription and cessation of burn activities when conditions exceed predetermined prescription levels; and the use of firebreaks (cut line, existing roads) around burn units to minimize any potential for wildfire.

 Prescribed fire impacts are mitigated by small burn unit size, direction of winds, and distance from population centers.

1.4.2. Alternative A Under Alternative A, other factors that could affect air quality, such as visitor-related traffic generation and minor dust from habitat management work, would remain the same (long-term minor localized impact).

1.4.3. Alternative B Alternative B would have long-term decreases in tailpipe and fugitive dust emissions due to decreased visitor trips (reduced from Alternative A by approximately 2,000 visits per year). Short- term minor increases in dust (PM10) and tailpipe emissions (i.e., particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and reactive gases) would result from increased habitat management projects that disturb the soil and/or require the use of heavy equipment. Standard precautions would be taken to minimize potential air quality impacts by keeping the equipment tuned up and in proper running order. Habitat restoration should help to improve air quality over the long-term. None of these changes would be significant since the amount of restoration and change in visitor use is relatively minor.

______Environmental Assessment 39 Chapter 4 ______

1.4.4. Alternative C Alternative C would result in long-term increases in tailpipe and fugitive dust emissions due to increased visitor trips (increased by approximately 1,960 visits). Short-term minor increases in dust (PM10) and tailpipe emissions (i.e., particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and reactive gases) would result from increased habitat management projects that disturb the soil and/or require the use of heavy equipment. Standard precautions would be taken to minimize potential air quality impacts by keeping the equipment tuned up and in proper running order. Habitat restoration should help to improve air quality over the long-term. Therefore, the minor emission increases caused by increased Refuge activities and visitor activities (including hunting) would not be considered significant.

1.4.5. Alternative D Alternative D would result in long-term increases in tailpipe and fugitive dust emissions due to increased visitor trips (increased by approximately 2,320 visits per year). The long-term minor emission increases caused by visitor activities (including hunting) would not be considered significant because the change in visitor use is relatively minor.

1.5. Water Quality/Contaminants 1.5.1. Common to All Alternatives Habitat restoration/enhancement, prescribed fire, and herbicide application would occur to varying degrees under all alternatives. These activities would involve soil disturbance and may temporarily increase erosion and sedimentation rates in the project area, which may have a minor impact on water quality. Best Management Practices (Mitigation Measure 1) would be implemented under all alternatives.

Mitigation Measure 1: Implement Best Management Practices to Avoid Reduction in Water Quality. Best management practices (BMPs) could include a variety of sediment control measures such as silt fences, straw or rice bale barriers, brush or rock filters, sediment traps, fiber rolls, or other similar linear barriers that can be placed at the edge of the project area to prevent sediment from flowing off site. The refuge manager will determine the exact location and placement of the various sediment control BMPs.

The Refuge will establish a spill-prevention and countermeasure plan before project construction begins; this plan will include on-site handling criteria to avoid input of contaminants to the waterway. A staging, washing, and storage area will be provided away from the waterway for equipment, construction materials, fuels, lubricants, solvents, and other possible contaminants.

1.5.2. Alternatives A and D A minor impact on water quality from habitat management activities would be expected to occur under these alternatives. The impact assessment is described fully in Section 1.5.1 for both Alternatives A and D, and no additional impacts would be anticipated.

1.5.3. Alternatives B and C Alternatives B and C would result in greater temporary minor impacts than Alternatives A and D due to the removal of the west dike along North Grain Field, resulting in possible soil erosion into the South Fork Pit River. Restoration activities would also occur under both alternatives and increase temporary minor impacts on water quality. These activities would involve large

40 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Environmental Consequences

earthmoving equipment that could result in the introduction of various contaminants, such as fuel oils, grease, and other petroleum products, either directly from equipment or through surface runoff. Contaminants may be toxic to fish or adversely affect their respiration and feeding. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 described above, no adverse effects to water quality would be expected to occur.

In addition, under Alternatives B and C, the acreage subjected to invasive species management (including application of herbicides) would double. This could affect water quality from herbicide drift into nearby water bodies. All herbicides approved by the Service through the PUP process would be applied at label rates and all label recommendations would be followed (e.g., measures to preclude herbicide application on windy days).

Over time, these alternatives would be expected to result in positive effects on water quality in the Pit River and the South Fork Pit River through the restoration of riparian habitat. These effects, although beneficial, would not be significant. The Refuge encompasses only 5 miles of riverine habitat, a small portion of the Pit River and South Fork Pit River.

2. Effects on the Biological Environment 2.1. Vegetation 2.1.1. Common to All Alternatives Impacts to Refuge vegetation by hunters would be expected to be minimal and insignificant. Hunting is conducted on foot by individuals or small groups, often accompanied by a hunting dog. This direct impact of foot travel by hunters on the habitat is often different from that of other wildlife-dependent recreation users because hunters tend to travel in dispersed patterns over wide areas, minimizing the chances of negatively affecting sites.

Small, dispersed impacts on some vegetated areas due to wildlife-dependent visitor service activities would occur under all of the alternatives. A small amount of trampling would also result from non-consumptive visitor service activities and would have only temporary and small-scale impacts on vegetation. Under all the alternatives, portions of the Refuge known as ‘sanctuaries’ are closed to visitor services at various times of the year, reducing the potential extent of impacts by the public on vegetation. Short-term sanctuaries also occur on Dorris Reservoir during the wintering and nesting seasons. In addition, outside of the waterfowl hunting season the hunt area is closed to public access. The construction of the environmental education trail, shelter, boardwalk, and kiosk under Alternatives C and D would help to concentrate visitor activity, including environmental education, to designated areas.

No Federal or State listed plant species occur on the Refuge; therefore, none of the alternatives would be expected to have a negative impact on Federal or State listed plant species.

All alternatives would utilize herbicides for nonnative or invasive plant management. Trained applicators would apply herbicides following manufacturers’ recommendations and in accordance with the Refuge’s approved PUPs. Use of herbicides would have a positive effect on vegetation, since the control of nonnative weeds would result in an increase in native species with minimal environmental cost.

The prescribed burning program would have a visible impact on vegetation and the land. Immediately after a fire, much of the land in the burn unit would be blackened; however, burning

______Environmental Assessment 41 Chapter 4 ______

typically occurs during the winter and early spring, which coincides with the lowest visitor use on the Refuge. There would be few grasses or ground forbs remaining and most of the brush would be scorched. Trees may be scorched. Because of wet ground conditions or discontinuous fuel, there may be areas within the burn unit that were untouched by the fire. In spring, grasses and forbs would begin to grow within a few days of the burn. The enriched soil would promote rapid growth such that after two or three weeks, the ground would be covered. In some cases, trees would resprout. Some of the less fire resistant trees would show signs of wilting and may succumb. After one season of regrowth, most signs of the prescribed burn would be difficult to detect without close examination. Prescribed fire would have beneficial long-term impacts to vegetation on the Refuge. These impacts would be minimized by small burn unit size and total acres burned per year (200 acres/year); therefore, the benefits would not be significant.

2.1.2. Alternatives A and D Under Alternatives A and D, no changes would occur to habitat management activities currently being conducted on the Refuge. The Service would continue to use burning, mowing, disking, irrigation, grazing, haying, or herbicides to have a positive impact upon vegetation. Alternative D would increase the amount of visitor services on the Refuge compared to all the other alternatives. The increase in visitor service on the Refuge would not adversely affect vegetation because all constructed facilities would be located in sparsely vegetate areas near other visitor facilities and all visitors would be required to stay on designated routes. No significant effects would result from the implementation of these alternatives.

2.1.3. Alternatives B and C Habitat restoration/enhancement is proposed under Alternatives B and C and would have beneficial long-term impacts on the Refuge. Alternatives B and C would restore or enhance approximately 866 acres of habitat including 366 acres of riparian, 245 acres of sagebrush steppe, 105 acres of wetlands, and 150 acres of croplands. Alternative B would reduce visitor services, reducing impacts to vegetation, while Alternative C would increase visitor services on the Refuge, which could slightly increase impacts to vegetation because constructing facilities would require the removal of some vegetation. Loss of vegetation would be minimized due to the small size of the construction footprint (approximately 1 acre).

Alternatives B and C would have a greater positive effect on habitat than Alternatives A and D. Habitat restoration/enhancement fulfills the Service’s congressional mandate to preserve, restore, and enhance habitat for threatened and endangered species, songbirds, waterfowl, other migratory birds, anadromous fish, resident riparian wildlife, and plants. However, the Refuge encompasses only a small portion of the Pit River and South Fork Pit River. Thus, in the context of the large amount of riparian habitat lost along these rivers, the beneficial effects of the proposed habitat restoration/enhancement would not be significant. The Refuge also encompasses a small portion of the sagebrush-steppe, wetland, and cropland habitats in the Modoc Plateau; therefore, its beneficial effects would also not be significant.

2.2. Wildlife Resources 2.2.1. Common to All Alternatives All alternatives would result in short-term and long-term benefits for wildlife species due to the implementation of habitat restoration projects. As with the effects of riparian restoration/enhancement discussed above, the beneficial effects on wildlife species would not be significant.

42 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Environmental Consequences

All alternatives would have short-term minor disturbance impacts on wildlife from Refuge management activities (such as prescribed burns and invasive species control). In addition, wildlife species on the Refuge are currently subjected to some minor degree of disturbance due to visitor services on the Refuge.

2.2.2. Alternative B Implementation of Alternative B would result in a decrease in disturbance of wildlife resulting from visitor services due to the reduced number of visits, the prohibition of horseback riding and bicycles, and the restriction of environmental education to the Headquarters area. This positive impact, although beneficial, would not be significant since the reduction in visitors is relatively minor.

Additional biological staff would be hired under Alternative B. This would provide a long-term benefit to wildlife resources by providing for additional surveys and monitoring. Alternative B would provide more restored habitat than Alternatives A and D, and, therefore, would have greater positive effects for wildlife. This positive impact, although beneficial, would not be significant.

2.2.3. Alternative C As with Alternative B, additional biological staff would be hired under Alternative C. This would provide a long-term benefit to wildlife resources by providing for additional surveys and monitoring. Alternative C would also provide more restored habitat than Alternatives A and D, and, therefore, would have greater positive effects for wildlife. This positive impact, although beneficial, would not be significant.

2.2.4. Alternative D The highest number of visits would occur under Alternative D. Increased visitor services would result in an increased disturbance to wildlife. However, with the implementation of Alternative D, there would also be increased public education, trails, and signage, all of which would help to alleviate the increased level of disturbance. No habitat restoration would occur under this alternative; therefore, it would have the least benefit to wildlife resources.

2.3. Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts of Hunting on Wildlife Species Hunting would occur under each of the proposed alternatives. Alternatives A and B would continue the existing hunt program; therefore, harvest levels are expected to remain similar to previous years. Alternative C would increase hunting opportunities by approximately ten percent on the Refuge by opening an additional 200 acres to waterfowl hunting. Alternative D, which further increases hunting opportunities, would have slightly higher harvest levels than all other alternatives. Hunting is an appropriate wildlife management tool that can be used to manage wildlife populations. Some wildlife disturbance would occur during the hunting seasons. Proper zoning and regulations would be designated to minimize any negative impacts to wildlife populations and other visitors using the Refuge.

Direct effects of hunting include mortality, wounding, and disturbance (DeLong 2002). Hunting can alter behavior (i.e., foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife (Owens 1977; Raveling 1979; White-Robinson 1982; Thomas 1983; Madsen 1985; Bartelt 1987; Cole and Knight 1990). There also appears to be an inverse relationship between the numbers of birds using an area and hunting intensity (DeLong 2002). In Connecticut, lesser scaup were observed to

______Environmental Assessment 43 Chapter 4 ______forage less in areas that were heavily hunted (Cronan 1957). In California, the numbers of northern pintails on Sacramento Refuge non-hunt areas increased after the first week of hunting and remained high until the season was over in early January (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). Following the close of hunting season, ducks generally increased their use of the hunt area; however, use was lower than before the hunting season began. Human disturbance associated with hunting includes loud noises and rapid movements, such as those produced by shotguns and boats powered by outboard motors. This disturbance, especially when repeated over a period of time, compels waterfowl to change food habits, feed only at night, lose weight, or desert feeding areas (Wolder 1993; Madsen 1995).

These impacts can be reduced by the presence of adjacent sanctuary areas where hunting does not occur and birds can feed and rest relatively undisturbed. Sanctuaries or non-hunt areas have been identified as the most common solution to disturbance problems caused from hunting (Havera et al. 1992). Prolonged and extensive disturbances may cause large numbers of waterfowl to leave disturbed areas and migrate (Paulus 1984; Madsen 1995) elsewhere. In Denmark, hunting disturbance effects were experimentally tested by establishing two sanctuaries (Madsen 1995). Over a 5-year period, these sanctuaries became two of the most important staging areas for coastal waterfowl. Numbers of dabbling ducks and geese increased 4 to 20 fold within the sanctuary (Madsen 1995). Thus, sanctuary and non-hunt areas are very important to minimize disturbance to waterfowl populations to ensure their continued use of the Refuge.

Intermittent hunting can be a means of minimizing disturbance, especially if rest periods in between hunting events are weeks rather than days (Fox and Madsen 1997). It is common for refuges to manage hunt programs with non-hunt days. At Sacramento Refuge, 3 to 16 percent of pintails were located on hunted units during non-hunt days, but were almost entirely absent in those same units on hunt days (Wolder 1993). In addition, northern pintails, American wigeon, and northern shovelers decreased time spent feeding on days when hunting occurred on public shooting areas, as compared to non-hunt days (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). The intermittent hunting program of three hunt days per week at Sacramento Refuge results in lower pintail densities on hunt areas during non-hunt days than non-hunt areas (Wolder 1993). However, intermittent hunting may not always greatly reduce hunting impacts.

The CDFG is California’s lead agency for management of fish, wildlife, and native plants - collectively called “wildlife.” CDFG has trustee responsibility for the conservation and management of wildlife for the benefit and enjoyment of the public.

Resident game species are protected on refuges by both Federal and State laws and regulations to ensure that harvest rates do not negatively affect populations. The potential impacts of hunting on migratory bird and resident upland game birds are discussed and evaluated in the California Environmental Quality Act process (California Department of Fish and Game 2001, 2004a). This process results in periodically updated and publicly reviewed documents. Based on the findings of these documents, the State ensures that game animal hunting in California does not adversely impact its wildlife populations at an unacceptable level (California Department of Fish and Game 2004b). Table 3 contains a summary of hunting seasons and bag limits for 2008-2009 for the game species on Modoc Refuge.

Wildlife populations on the Refuge are able to sustain hunting and to support other wildlife- dependent priority uses. To manage the populations to support hunting, the Refuge adopts

44 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Environmental Consequences

harvest regulations set by the State within Federal framework guidelines. The regulatory procedures that govern harvest are described in the section below.

By its very nature, hunting has very few positive effects on the target species while the activity is occurring. However, in the Service’s experience, hunting has given many people a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of conserving their habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the Refuge System’s mission. Furthermore, despite the potential impacts of hunting, a goal of the Refuge is to provide visitors of all ages an opportunity to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation. Of key concern is to offer a safe and quality program and ensure adverse impacts remain at an acceptable level.

Recreational hunting will remove individual animals, but does not negatively affect wildlife populations. To assure that populations are sustainable, the California Fish and Game Commission, in consultation with the CDFG, annually review the population censuses to establish season lengths and harvest levels. Each year the refuge staff conducts habitat management reviews of each unit on the Refuge to evaluate wildlife population levels, habitat conditions, and visitor service activities. The areas closed to various hunting activities provide adequate sanctuaries for wildlife.

Table 3. Modoc Refuge, hunting season bag limit summary for 2008-2009

Species Dates Daily Bag Limits

Waterfowl – Ducks* Second Saturday in October Up to 7 ducks; see below*; extending for 105 consecutive possession double the bag limit days Waterfowl – Geese Second Saturday in October Up to 6 geese; see below**; extending for 100 consecutive possession double the bag limit days American Coot and October - concurrent with 25/day, 25 in possession, either Common Moorhen duck season all of one species or a mixture of these species Snipe Third Saturday in October 8/day; possession double the bag extending for 106 days limit Youth Waterfowl Hunt The Saturday 14 days before Same as regular season the opening of waterfowl season Youth Pheasant One Sunday in mid-to late 3 males per hunter Hunt*** November *Duck Bag Limits: 7 ducks/but not more than 1 hen mallards, 1 pintail, 2 redhead, 2 scaup, throughout the season **Goose Bag Limits: 6 geese/but not more than 6 white geese, 4 white-fronted geese, 2 large Canada geese, 1 small Canada goose ***Pheasants are only hunted during a youth pheasant hunt that occurs on one day during the legal season. Hunting 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.

______Environmental Assessment 45 Chapter 4 ______

2.4. Harvest Management – Regulatory Procedures Waterfowl populations throughout the United States are managed through an administrative process known as flyways, of which there are four (Pacific, Central, Mississippi, and Atlantic). The review of the policies, processes, and procedures for waterfowl hunting are covered in the following documents.

NEPA considerations by the Service for hunted migratory game bird species are addressed by the programmatic document, ‘‘Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88–14),’’ filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. The Service published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582) and the Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). Annual NEPA considerations for waterfowl hunting frameworks are covered under a separate EA and FONSI. Further, in a notice published in the September 8, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 53776); the Service announced its intent to develop a new Supplemental EIS for the migratory bird hunting program. Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, as announced in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register notice (71 FR 12216).

Because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds are closed unless specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually promulgates regulations (50 CFR Part 20) establishing the Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks. The frameworks are essentially permissive in that hunting of migratory birds would not be permitted without them. Thus, in effect, Federal annual regulations both allow and limit the hunting of migratory birds.

The Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks provide season dates, bag limits, and other options for the States to select that should result in the level of harvest determined to be appropriate based upon Service-prepared annual biological assessments detailing the status of migratory game bird populations. In North America, the process for establishing waterfowl hunting regulations is conducted annually. In the United States, the process involves a number of scheduled meetings (Flyway Study Committees, Flyway Councils, Service Regulations Committee, etc,) in which information regarding the status of waterfowl populations and their habitats is presented to individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, public hearings are held and the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment.

For waterfowl, these annual assessments include the Breeding Population and Habitat Survey, which is conducted throughout portions of the United States and Canada, and is used to establish a Waterfowl Population Status Report annually. In addition, the number of waterfowl hunters and resulting harvest are closely monitored through both the Harvest Information Program (HIP) and Parts Survey (Wing Bee). Since 1995, such information has been used to support the adaptive harvest management (AHM) process for setting duck-hunting regulations. Under AHM, a number of decision-making protocols render the choice (package) of pre-determined regulations (appropriate levels of harvest) which comprise the framework offered to the States that year. California’s Fish and Game Commission then selects season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options from the Pacific Flyway package. Their selections can be more restrictive, but cannot be more liberal than AHM allows. Thus, the level of hunting opportunity afforded each State increases or decreases each year in accordance with the annual status of waterfowl populations.

46 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Environmental Consequences

2.5. Waterfowl – Flyway Analysis As a result of the recent regulations, the estimated average annual duck harvest for the Pacific Flyway is 3.4 million birds, which represents approximately 20.1 percent of the estimated average annual U.S. harvest of 14 million ducks (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a). The estimated average annual goose harvest for the Pacific Flyway is 453,390, which represents 11.2 percent of the estimated annual U.S. harvest of over 3.5 million geese.

For comparison, in 2007, the breeding duck population estimate for those areas surveyed (California, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and Washington) in the Pacific Flyway was 1.1 million birds, which was a 0.1 percent decrease from the 2006 average (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a). The estimated average duck breeding population for these areas from 1994 to 2007 was approximately 1.10 million birds. Furthermore, by itself the 2007 Midwinter Waterfowl Survey Index for ducks wintering in California was approximately 4.1 million. These numbers serve to demonstrate the relative importance of these areas (especially California) in the Pacific Flyway for wintering waterfowl, rather than for waterfowl production. In fact, the vast majority of waterfowl wintering and subsequently harvested in California and throughout the Pacific Flyway come from breeding grounds to the north.

2.6. Waterfowl - Regional Analysis The estimated breeding duck population in California in 2007 was 627,607 birds, which was a 3.4 percent decrease from the 2006 estimate (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a). The average estimated breeding duck population for California from 1990 to 2007 was 605,263 birds. Mallards generally comprise more than half of each years breeding population estimate. Add to that an estimate of a few thousand breeding western Canada geese, and you have a pretty good picture of the magnitude of California’s waterfowl reproduction on an annual basis. In contrast, the Mid- winter Waterfowl Survey index for California totals 4 million ducks and 1 million geese in recent years, further illustrating the relative importance of California’s overall wintering waterfowl capacity within the Pacific Flyway.

Annual harvest estimates for California indicate that approximately 1.5 million ducks and 146,000 geese (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a) have been harvested by some 66,800 waterfowl hunters (based on Federal Duck Stamp sales) (California Department of Fish and Game 2001) in recent years.

Closer to home, for Modoc County the estimated duck harvest was 39,953 and the goose harvest was 7,163 (California Department of Fish and Game 2004b). The estimated number of duck hunters for Modoc County in 2006 was 2,553 and the estimated number of goose hunters was 2,082. The harvest of coots and moorhens for Modoc County was 173 and the number of hunters was 25.

2.7. Waterfowl - Local Analysis Waterfowl harvest is tracked on the Refuge via kill cards. In 2007, 1,286 hunters (including 85 youth waterfowl hunters) at the Refuge harvested 2,965 birds (2,696 ducks, 245 geese, and 24 coots/moorhens), with an average of 2.31 birds/hunter. Under Alternatives A and B, effects of waterfowl harvest would be expected to be similar to previous years. Harvest would increase under Alternatives C and D, since an additional 200 acres would be opened for waterfowl hunting and visits are expected to increase by 10 percent. Alternative D would open additional hunting opportunities, increase visitation, and increase harvest levels compared to Alternative C.

______Environmental Assessment 47 Chapter 4 ______

The Refuge, consist of 7,021 acres of wetland, sagebrush-steppe, riparian, and cropland habitats. These habitats supports peak populations of approximately 25,000 ducks and 4,000-5,000 geese. Hunting is currently allowed on 30 percent of the Refuge (2,130 acres).

2.8. Significance Conclusion for Waterfowl The hunting of waterfowl in the United States is based upon a thorough regulatory process that involves numerous sources of waterfowl population and harvest monitoring data. As a result of the regulatory options produced (AHM) in recent years, California hunter’s estimated harvest of nearly 1.5 million ducks is approximately 20 percent of the total U.S. harvest of 13.8 million and 45.6 percent of the Pacific Flyway’s 3.4 million harvest estimate (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a). The comparative numbers for the estimated goose harvest yield percentages of 11 and 31 percent of the U.S. and Pacific Flyway totals, respectively (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a).

Waterfowl hunting on the Refuge represents a tiny fraction of all ducks and geese harvested in California. Based on this analysis, the Service has concluded that hunting associated with each of the alternatives will not have a significant impact on local, regional, or Pacific Flyway waterfowl populations.

2.9. Wilson’s Snipe – Regional Analysis Wilson’s snipe, formally called common snipe, is particularly well camouflaged with a striped head and back, white belly, and rusty tail. It is usually only seen when flushed from the edge of a marsh or pond. In flight, it is fast and erratic.

Wilson’s snipe are found throughout the United States. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001) population estimates for snipe are two million. They breed from northern Alaska and Canada south to the southwestern and northeastern United States and winter throughout much of the United States, all of Central America, the Caribbean, and northern South America. Snipe are fairly common from October to April on wet meadow and short, emergent wetland habitats throughout much of California (Figure 5). They are a year-round resident in parts of northeastern California (Airola 1980).

The 2006 Hunter Survey (California Department of Fish and Game 2004b) reported a statewide harvest of 13,260 snipe with no birds harvested in Modoc County. During 2006, the number of snipe hunters statewide was 1,512 with no hunters reported for Modoc County (California Department of Fish and Game 2004b).

2.10. Wilson’s Snipe – Local Analysis In 2007, no snipe were harvested on the Refuge. Snipe harvest rates would not be expected to change significantly over time under any of the alternatives.

2.11. Significance Conclusion for Wilson’s snipe Based on the Local Analysis, the Service has concluded that hunting associated with each of the alternatives would have no impact on local populations or statewide populations of Wilson’s snipe.

48 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Environmental Consequences

Figure 5. Wilson’s snipe range map (Zeiner et al. 1990; California Department of Fish and Game 2008)

______Environmental Assessment 49 Chapter 4 ______

2.12. Ring-necked Pheasant - Regional Analysis The ring-necked pheasant is native to eastern Asia. The first attempts to introduce the species in California were made in the 1880s (California Department of Fish and Game 2004a). In 1925, pheasants became established in sufficient numbers for a hunting season, first held in Inyo and Mono counties.

The CDFG (2004a) objectives include maintaining healthy resident game bird populations, including ring-necked pheasants, and providing public hunting opportunities through regulated harvest. These objectives are consistent with the wildlife conservation policy adopted by the State Legislature in Section 1801 of the Fish and Game Code. The State's wildlife conservation policy, among other items, contains the objective of providing for the harvest of wildlife resources where such use is consistent with maintaining healthy wildlife populations.

Ring-necked pheasants are found in six habitat types in California consisting of 14,390,125 acres (Figure 6) (California Department of Fish and Game 2004b). Densities range between 0.66 and 12 acres per bird (Hart et al. 1956; Hart 1990). The size of the pheasant population (adults in the spring) is estimated to be at least 1,199,177 birds (California Department of Fish and Game 2004b). The Breeding Bird Survey Data for the Central Valley Region of California during the period of 1966 to 2002 shows a slightly increasing population trend (California Department of Fish and Game 2004b).

The adult spring population of ring-necked pheasants includes about 58 percent females (Hart 1990). Nesting success is 53 percent, clutch size averages 12, and 83 percent of the eggs hatch (Schemnitz 1980). Brood mortality is 63 percent (Hill and Robertson 1988) and adult mortality (including hunting) is 63 percent (Peterson et al. 1988). Total annual mortality (natural) is estimated to be at least 3,068,542 from a pre-mortality population of at least 4,870,702 birds (California Department of Fish and Game 2004b).

The five-year average annual harvest of 176,815, including unretrieved hunting mortality (California Department of Fish and Game 2002), represents about 6 percent of the total annual mortality. The 2006 Hunter Survey (California Department of Fish and Game 2006) reported a statewide harvest of 98,023 ring-necked pheasants with 644 birds harvested in Modoc County. During 2006, the number of pheasant hunters statewide was 30,064 with 223 hunters reported for Modoc County (California Department of Fish and Game 2006).

2.13. Ring-necked Pheasant - Local Analysis Wild ring-necked pheasants are hunted during a youth pheasant hunt in the State season. The hunt 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. Hunters are selected through a drawing conducted by the Refuge.

Pheasant harvest is tracked for each youth hunter using his or her hunt permit. In 2007, no pheasants were harvested on Modoc Refuge (0 average pheasants/hunter). Pheasant harvest rates would not be expected to change significantly over time under any of the alternatives.

50 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Environmental Consequences

Figure 6. Ring-necked pheasant range map

______Environmental Assessment 51 Chapter 4 ______

2.14. Significance Conclusion for Ring-necked pheasant The CDFG (2004b) determined that the removal of individual animals from resident game bird populations statewide would not significantly reduce those populations and therefore, not have a significant environmental impact on resident game birds. The CDFG (2004b) also determined that resident game bird hunting would not have a significant impact on other aspects of the natural environment. Current hunting regulations permit the harvest of only male pheasants; and because pheasants are polygynous (one male capable of breeding several females), there is very little effect on reproduction (Hart 1990). In addition, the CDFG (2004b) determined there were no significant adverse impacts to the ring-necked pheasant population expected as a result of existing hunting regulations.

Based on the Local Analysis, the Service has concluded that hunting associated with each of the alternatives would have no significant impact on local populations or statewide populations of ring- necked pheasant. No pheasant were harvested in 2007. This hunt is for wild pheasants and is limited to ten youth hunters and the bag limit for pheasant (in 2007) was three per day, making 30 the maximum number of pheasants harvested annually. However, the typical harvest for the youth hunt ranges from 0-6 pheasants annually and we do not anticipate this harvest to change significantly.

2.15. Effects of Hunting on Other Non-hunted Wildlife Species Hunted species and other wildlife would possibly compete for habitat. While each species occupies a unique niche, there is only a finite amount of space available to satisfy various habitat requirements, such as water, food, cover, breeding, roosting, and fawning areas. Therefore, while individuals of a species compete for habitat within the species niche, most species occupy space to the exclusion of many other species. Hunted species (i.e., waterfowl, coots, common moorhens, pheasant, and snipe) generally do not prey on other species at unacceptable levels. Harvesting these species would not result in a substantial decrease in biological diversity on the Refuge.

Hunting is a highly regulated activity, and generally takes place at specific times and seasons (e.g., dawn, fall, and winter) when the game animal is less vulnerable. Hunting is an appropriate wildlife management tool that can be used to manage game populations. Although, some disturbance to non-hunted wildlife would occur during the hunting seasons, proper zoning, regulations, and Refuge seasons would be designated to minimize any negative impacts to wildlife populations using the Refuge.

Human disturbance associated with hunting includes loud noises and rapid movements, such as those produced by shotguns. This disturbance, especially when repeated over a period of time, may compel waterfowl to change food habits, feed only at night, lose weight, or desert feeding areas (Wolder 1993; Madsen 1995). Presumably, these same behavioral changes may occur in non- hunted wildlife species as a result of hunting-related noises and movements.

These indirect impacts would not be significant on the Refuge because they would be reduced by the availability of adjacent sanctuary areas where hunting does not occur, and both hunted and non-hunted wildlife could feed and rest relatively undisturbed. Sanctuaries or non-hunt areas have been identified as the most common solution to disturbance problems caused from hunting (Havera et al. 1992).

52 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Environmental Consequences

Biological conflicts (all alternatives) would be minimized by applying the following management practices:

 Hunting will be limited to Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays during the established seasons.

 Special regulations will be put in place to minimize negative impacts to wildlife.

 The number of hunters will be limited by designated hunter quotas on the Refuge during the opening weekend.

 Federally approved non-toxic shot will be used for all hunting to help minimize the possibility of lead poisoning.

 No hunting will be allowed during the breeding season. Hunting will be allowed only during designated seasons for waterfowl and upland game birds.

 The areas closed to hunting activities (4,691 acres closed to hunting including 3,845 acres closed to the public) will provide adequate sanctuaries for wildlife.

 Law enforcement presence will help minimize excessive harvest and other infractions (illegal use of lead shot, take of non-game species, littering, etc.).

 Firearms are permitted on the Refuge for public hunting under the provisions of 50 CFR Part 32. Persons may carry unloaded firearms on the Refuge that are dismantled or cased in vehicles (50 CFR 27.42).

 A Section 7 consultation on the Draft CCP/EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009), which includes hunting of waterfowl, coot, common moorhen, pheasant, and snipe and junior pheasant hunts, will be completed to determine effects of the CCP on threatened and endangered species.

2.16. Fisheries Resources 2.16.1. Common to All Alternatives The implementation of habitat restoration/enhancement in all alternatives would result in long- term beneficial effects on fish and other aquatic organisms in the Pit and South Fork Pit River. The riparian community would provide shaded riverine aquatic habitat, increasing cover, food, and other main channel and floodplain habitat components for fish.

No changes to fisheries resources in Dorris Reservoir would be anticipated under any of the alternatives.

2.16.2. Alternatives B and C Alternatives B and C would provide greater benefits than Alternatives A and D due to the restoration of 366 acres of riparian habitat. These effects, although beneficial, would not be significant as the Refuge encompasses only a small portion of the Pit and South Fork Pit rivers.

Temporary impacts on fish species could occur during restoration implementation under Alternatives B and C due to loosening of the soil during dike removal, resulting in a temporary

______Environmental Assessment 53 Chapter 4 ______

increase in sediment load in the river. Increased input of sediment has the potential to increase turbidity, possibly reducing the feeding efficiency of juvenile and adult fish. Turbidity and suspended sediment levels in the Pit River are high relative to most other waters in northern California (California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region and Development 2002). This is, in part, a reflection of natural erosion and sediment transport processes. Thus, additional sediment input from restoration activity would be comparatively minimal and would not have any noticeable effect to the overall condition of the river. After the first germinating fall/winter rains, grasses and forbs would provide ground cover that stabilizes top soil. In addition, when working near water bodies, the Mitigation Measure described in Section 1.5 would be employed. This would minimize any short-term impacts to fish.

2.17. Threatened, Endangered, and Special-Status Species 2.17.1. Common to All Alternatives It is the policy of the Service to protect and preserve all native species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants, including their habitats, which are designated threatened or endangered with extinction. A list of Federal or State listed endangered or threatened species, which may occur on the Refuge, can be found in the CCP (Table 4).

A common concern among members of the public and wildlife professionals, including Service personnel, is the impact of damage management assistance methods and activities on non-target species, particularly threatened and endangered species. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884), provides that,

“The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act'' (and shall) “ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of (critical) habitat ...''

A Section 7 consultation on the Draft CCP/EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009), which includes hunting of waterfowl, coots, common moorhens, snipe, and a junior pheasant hunt, will be completed to determine the effects of the CCP on threatened and endangered species.

The Refuge would continue to provide habitat for wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, under all the alternatives. No adverse effects on threatened and endangered species would be expected to occur under any of the alternatives. All of the proposed management alternatives have objectives to improve habitat conditions (habitat restoration, invasive species management, etc.) for native fish and wildlife, including species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (Table 4 in the CCP). All alternatives would result in positive impacts for threatened and endangered species; however, no significant impacts would be expected under any of the alternatives.

2.17.2. Alternatives A and D Alternatives A and D would provide the smallest benefit to threatened and endangered species as the least habitat restoration and invasive species management would occur under this alternative. Threatened and endangered species on the Refuge are currently (Alternative A) subjected to some degree of disturbance as a result of visitor services on the Refuge. Increased public use under Alternative D may result in an increased disturbance to threatened and endangered

54 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Environmental Consequences

species. However, with the implementation of Alternative D, there would also be increased public education, trails, and signage, all of which would help to alleviate the increased level of disturbance.

2.17.3. Alternatives B and C Alternatives B and C would provide for larger acreages of habitat restoration and invasive species management, increasing the benefit to threatened and endangered species. Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species resulting from disturbance by Refuge management activities and visitor services would be similar to those described under Wildlife Resources above. Precautions will be taken to protect threatened and endangered species during Refuge management activities including prescribed burning.

Implementation of Alternative B would result in a decrease in disturbance of threatened and endangered species due to the reduced number of public visits.

Increased public use under Alternative C may result in an increased disturbance to threatened and endangered species. However, with the implementation of Alternative C, there would also be increased public education, trails, and signage, all of which would help to alleviate the increased level of disturbance.

Additional biological staff would be hired under Alternatives B and C. This would provide a long- term benefit to threatened and endangered species by providing the resources needed for additional surveys and monitoring.

3. Effects on the Social and Economic Environment 3.1. Visitor Services 3.1.1. Common to All Alternatives The Refuge would continue to provide wildlife-dependent recreation activities at some level under all the alternatives. Therefore, all the alternatives would have positive impacts from the visitor services program.

3.1.2. Alternative A Implementing Alternative A would result in no change in visitor service programs. Hunting is conducted on foot by individuals or small groups, often accompanied by a hunting dog. The direct impact of foot travel by hunters on the environment is often different from that of other wildlife-dependent recreation users because hunters tend to travel in dispersed patterns over wide areas, minimizing the chances of negatively affecting sites. This is in contrast to the tendency of many other wildlife-dependent recreation users who congregate on a limited number of trails. Hunting is not allowed on Refuge trails.

Minor impacts to Refuge roads in the hunt areas would occur from hunter use. The hunting parking areas would also receive normal wear and tear from hunters. These impacts would be expected to be relatively minor.

3.1.3. Alternative B Under Alternative B, visitor services and facilities would be reduced to optimize wildlife and habitat management. Fishing, wildlife observation, and photography opportunities would be

______Environmental Assessment 55 Chapter 4 ______

reduced. Hunting would continue as described in Alternative A. Environmental education activities would continue as described in Alternative A except activities would be limited to the Headquarters area. Non-wildlife dependent recreation (horseback riding, bicycling, swimming, etc.) would also be limited under this alternative.

The Improvement Act directs the Service to provide compatible wildlife-dependant recreational opportunities. However, Alternative B emphasizes wildlife resources and actually decreases the compatible wildlife-dependant recreational opportunities on the Refuge. Although this alternative would result in a reduction in visitor services, the impact is less than significant, because the Refuge would still be open to the public and up to 9,020 visits would be expected to occur for wildlife-dependent recreation each year.

3.1.4. Alternative C Under Alternative C, visitor use of the Refuge would increase. A portion (200 acres) of the Grandma Tract (310 acres) would be opened to waterfowl hunting, additional disabled waterfowl hunting blinds would be constructed, and a second junior waterfowl hunt and an annual kids hunting skills field day would be added. In addition, the wildlife observation and photography programs and facilities would be expanded. The environmental education area, which includes a trail, observation deck and blind, floating dock, and kiosk, would also be opened to wildlife observation and photography seasonally (March 1 through August 31). Although visitor service opportunities would increase under Alternative C, the overall increase in wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities would not be significant and would be compatible with the purposes of the Refuge and the mission of the Service and the Refuge System, and would be consistent with the Improvement Act.

3.1.5. Alternative D Under Alternative D, visitor use of the Refuge would increase. Wildlife observation and photography programs would continue as described in Alternative C. Hunting would be expanded and a youth deer hunt would be offered. In addition, the wildlife observation program and facilities would be expanded. The environmental education area would also be opened seasonally to wildlife observation and photography (March 1- August 31). Although visitor service opportunities would increase under Alternative D, the overall increase in wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities would not be significant and would be compatible with the purposes of the Refuge and the mission of the Service and the Refuge System, and would be consistent with the Improvement Act.

3.2. Effects of Hunting on Other Refuge Wildlife-Dependant Recreation 3.2.1. Common to All Alternatives Under all the alternatives, the Refuge would be open to wildlife-dependent recreation (i.e., hunting, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation). Further, areas of exclusive use for non-hunting wildlife-dependent recreation users would be provided under all alternatives.

Hunting affects other wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities in a variety of ways. Many non- hunters plan their vacations or visits to avoid being in the “woods” during the hunting seasons. Most tend to seek out areas that offer amenities such as trails, parking areas, and information kiosks. These facilities provide bird watchers, photographers, and students an opportunity to experience the Refuge for a safe, informally guided visit.

56 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Environmental Consequences

In contrast, hunters plan their visits to correspond with the hunting seasons. They seek out the habitats that support the game species they are hunting. Most hunting on the Refuge occurs in fall and early winter.

Although the timing of wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation activities overlap with hunting activities, conflicts between hunting and other public uses will be minimized by implementing the following management practices:

 Physically separate non-hunting and hunting acres to spatially divide the activities.

 Boundary and hunting area signs will be maintained to clearly define the designated hunting areas.

 Vehicle traffic will be allowed only on designated roads and parking areas.

 Parking areas will be signed to allow only pedestrian hunter access to hunting areas. Vehicle access is allowed for pick up and drop off of disabled hunters.

 The hunting program will be managed in strict accordance with all applicable Federal laws (50 CFR Subchapter C) and to the extent practicable, consistent with applicable State laws.

 Field checks by refuge law enforcement officers and CDFG game wardens will be planned to maintain compliance with regulations.

 Information about the Refuge hunting program will be provided through signs, kiosks, brochures, and the Refuge’s website (http://www.fws.gov/modoc)

 No camping will be allowed on the Refuge.

By implementing these management practices there will be minimal conflicts between hunters and other wildlife-dependent recreational uses, as they will not occur on the same area at the same time. Therefore, hunting will have minimal effects on other wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities.

3.2.2. Alternatives A and B Under Alternatives A and B, no change to hunting would occur, therefore no change to the effects of hunting on other refuge wildlife-dependent recreation would be anticipated.

3.2.3. Alternatives C and D The analysis in 3.2.1 covers most all aspects of these alternatives, except that under Alternatives C and D, hunting would increase by about 10 percent. This increase would not be sufficient to cause a conflict between hunters and other user groups. No additional management practices other than those listed in 3.2.1 would be necessary.

3.3. Economy 3.3.1. Alternative A Implementing Alternative A would result in no significant change (minor positive impact) in the economic impact of operation of the Refuge on Modoc County (see Tables 8 and 9 in Economic Analysis, Attachment 1).

3.3.2. Alternative B Alternative B includes some changes in Refuge management that could be expected to affect recreation opportunities at the Refuge. The net effect of these management changes would be

______Environmental Assessment 57 Chapter 4 ______

expected to reduce visitor spending by $37,500 over Alternative A (see Table 8 in Economic Analysis, Attachment 1). This would be about a 14 percent decrease in spending by Refuge visitors. However, $172 million is spent on recreation and tourism in Modoc County (Table 3 in Economic Analysis, Attachment 1); thus, this decrease would be negligible. Management changes would also result in a minor decrease in employment and income in Modoc County (see Table 9 in Economic Analysis, Attachment 1). These changes would not be considered significant.

3.3.3. Alternative C Alternative C includes some changes in Refuge management that could be expected to affect recreation opportunities at the Refuge. The net effect of these management changes would be expected to increase visitor spending by $39,600 over Alternative A (see Table 8 in Economics Analysis, Attachment 1). The expected positive impact of this additional spending on job and income creation would be minor (see Table 8).

3.3.4. Alternative D Alternative D includes some changes in Refuge management that could be expected to affect recreation opportunities at the Refuge. The net effect of these management changes would be expected to increase visitor spending at local businesses by $41,600 over Alternative A (see Table 8 in Economics Analysis, Attachment 1). The expected positive impact of this additional spending on job and income creation would be minor (see Table 9 in Economics Analysis, Attachment 1).

3.3.5. Effects of Hunting on the Economy – All Alternatives According to the Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b), in 2001, approximately 1.8 million people participated in waterfowl hunting throughout the United States. The majority of waterfowl hunters live in the Mississippi Flyway (44 percent), followed by the Atlantic Flyway (21 percent), the Central Flyway (19 percent), and the Pacific Flyway (15 percent). Waterfowl hunters spent $495 million on trip expenses and $440 million on equipment expenditures in 2001. These expenditures created 21,415 jobs and $725.2 million in employment income. In 2001, over $129.5 million in state tax revenue and $201.8 million in Federal tax revenue was generated.

The report also states that in 2001, approximately 102,000 people participated in waterfowl hunting in California (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b). Waterfowl hunters spent $86.5 million on trip expenses and equipment expenditures. These expenditures created 1,303 jobs and $44.9 million in employment income. In 2001, approximately $8.4 million in State tax revenue and $12.5 million in Federal tax revenue was generated in California.

Statewide, California hunters spent an estimated 1,033,989 days and contributed $27.1 million to local economies in pursuit of resident game birds alone during the 2002 hunting season (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993; California Department of Fish and Game 2002). Although the exact figure is unknown, the CDFG has concluded that approximately 100,000 hunters buy hunting licenses solely for the purpose of hunting resident game birds. If the hunting of resident game birds were to cease, the CDFG could expect to lose about $3.77 million in revenues ($31.25 license + $6.50 upland game bird stamp x 100,000)(California Department of Fish and Game 2004b). A revenue loss of this magnitude would effectively halt all resident game bird management activities.

58 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Environmental Consequences

Hunting on the Refuge (all alternatives) has the potential to result in some economic impacts on local communities (see Table 5 in Economics Analysis, Attachment 1). Because some of the communities in the project area are small, there would be some economic benefits near the hunt areas since hunters from outside the local area visit the region and purchase goods and services from local merchants. This additional spending is likely to generate additional retail sales, income, and possibly short-term employment in businesses such as motels, restaurants, and retail stores.

Hunting on the Refuge would not result in any adverse direct or indirect economic effects that would produce any significant environmental impacts. Under each of the alternatives, the number of hunters would be expected to remain relatively constant with just a 10 percent increase projected in Alternative C. The 10 percent increase in hunting under Alternative C would provide additional positive benefits to the local economy.

3.4. Cultural Resources – All Alternatives Under Federal ownership, archaeological and historical resources within the Refuge receive protection under Federal laws mandating the management of cultural resources, including, but not limited to, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act; the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act; the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; and the National Historic Preservation Act. Under all alternatives, as site specific projects are planned on the Refuge, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would take all necessary steps to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, as outlined in the existing Programmatic Agreement between the Service and the California State Historic Preservation Officer.

3.5. Climate Change – All Alternatives 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 (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 2005).

The U.S. Department of Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring its land management agencies to consider potential climate change impacts as part of long-range planning endeavors. The increase of carbon within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface temperature commonly referred to as global warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation planning for national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate related impact to be considered in planning. The U.S. Department of Energy’s report Carbon Sequestration Research and Development (1999) defines carbon sequestration as “…the

______Environmental Assessment 59 Chapter 4 ______

capture and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”

Terrestrial biomes of all sorts – grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice, and desert – are effective in preventing carbon emissions and in acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon monoxide. The Department of Energy’s report conclusions note that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere.

Preserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife refuges. The actions proposed under any of the alternatives would conserve or restore land and water, and would thus enhance carbon sequestration. This in turn contributes positively to efforts to mitigate human-induced global climate changes.

Several impacts of climate change have been identified (Hassol 2004) that may need to be considered and addressed in the future:

 Habitat available for cold water fish such as trout and salmon in lakes and streams could be reduced.

 Forests may change, with some species shifting their range northward or dying out, and other trees moving in to take their place.

 Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding habitat due to stronger and more frequent droughts.

 Changes in the timing of migration and nesting could put some birds out of sync with the life cycles of their prey species.

3.5.1. Alternative A Alternative A would have no changes, and, therefore, would have a minor impact on climate change.

3.5.2. Alternative B Under Alternative B, increased habitat restoration and reduced visitation would result in a moderate positive impact on climate change.

3.5.3. Alternative C Under Alternative C, we would anticipate increased habitat restoration, reduced energy consumption (3 percent annually for 10 years), and increased visitation. This would result in a moderate positive impact on climate change. Alternative C would have a slightly greater positive impact than Alternative B due to the implementation of the reduced energy consumption.

3.5.4. Alternative D Alternative D would have minor impacts on climate change. This impact is slightly greater than Alternative A due to the impacts of increased visitation in Alternative D.

3.6. Environmental Justice – All Alternatives On February 11, 1994, the President issued Executive Order 12898 (“Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”) requiring that all

60 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Environmental Consequences

Federal agencies achieve environmental justice by “identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” Environmental justice is defined as the “fair treatment for peoples of all races, cultures, and incomes, regarding the development of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

The mission of the Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The developing environmental justice strategy of the Service extends this mission by seeking to ensure that all segments of the human population have equal access to America’s fish and wildlife resources, as well as equal access to information that will enable them to participate meaningfully in activities and policy shaping.

Within the spirit and intent of Executive Order 12898, no minority or low-income populations would be impacted by any Service action under any alternative.

4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None of the alternatives considered would be expected to result in unavoidable adverse impacts on the environment. Where the potential for such effects has been identified, appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project scope to reduce the effects to below the level of significance. In addition, monitoring of the Refuge’s resources would be conducted as part of any proposed management action to enable refuge staff to identify/analyze management results and adapt management policies should any unforeseen problems arise.

5. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Most management actions identified in this document would require a commitment of funds that would then be unavailable for use on other Service projects. At some point, commitment of funds to these projects would be irreversible, and once used, these funds would be irretrievable. Non- renewable or non-recyclable resources committed to projects identified in the CCP would also represent irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, such as fuel for Refuge vehicles, supplies used in management or maintenance activities (herbicide, fencing, signs, etc.), and fuel for construction equipment used to implement enhancement and restoration projects.

6. Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity An important goal of the System is to maintain the long-term ecological productivity and integrity of the biological resources on refuges. This system-wide goal is the foundation for the goals presented in the CCP. The implementation of Alternative C would include increased management of wildlife habitats and development of visitor service activities and facilities. The resulting long- term productivity would include increased protection and survival of migratory bird species and endangered species, as well as a myriad of native plant and animal species. The public would also gain through long-term opportunities for wildlife-dependant recreational activities.

7. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative effects (or impacts) are those effects on the environment resulting from incremental consequences of the Service’s proposed actions when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who undertakes these actions. Cumulative effects can be the result of individually minor impacts, which can become significant when added over time. Accurately summarizing cumulative effects is difficult in that while one action increases or

______Environmental Assessment 61 Chapter 4 ______

improves a resource in an area, other unrelated actions may decrease or degrade that resource in another area.

As stated in the Service Manual (550 FW 1), in an EA, a cumulative impact assessment should be conducted if it is determined necessary through scoping to make a determination of significance of the proposed action. When a cumulative effects analysis is included in an EA, the analysis need only be sufficient for the decision maker to reach a conclusion on the significance of the impact in order to determine if the preparation of an EIS is required.

This section addresses the potential cumulative effects for all of the alternatives and is intended to consider the activities on the Refuge in the context of other actions on a larger spatial and temporal scale. This cumulative effects analysis focuses on two primary areas, habitat improvements in relation to ongoing development and the cumulative effects of hunting on the Refuge.

7.1. Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions and Anticipated Impacts The greatest past, present, and foreseeable future impact in the vicinity of the Refuge is development. There is a clear trend in California of increasing development and associated habitat loss. Additional residential and commercial development may be planned throughout the local area.

All of the alternatives would preserve and enhance existing habitat on the Refuge. All alternatives would have some long-term benefits for native wildlife species and habitats within the area. The protection and improvement of wildlife habitats within the Refuge would represent a benefit to the long-term conservation of migratory bird species, threatened and endangered species, and other native wildlife species. However, these alternatives would not reverse or halt the regional trend of development and the associated reduction in biological diversity. Therefore, these long-term benefits would not be cumulatively significant.

The Refuge does not have much control over the cumulative negative impacts from local development. The Refuge helps to mitigate impacts by working with partners to protect important habitats from development.

Cumulative effects involving the visitor services program would include an overall improvement in the quality of environmental education and wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. Priority visitor service opportunities would increase or improve with the establishment of new or enhanced visitor facilities. These benefits, however, would not be cumulatively significant.

In addition, the Modoc National Forest, BLM, and partner agencies including Modoc County are cooperating in developing a management strategy for the restoration of sage steppe ecosystems that have come to be dominated by juniper (Modoc National Forest and Alturas Field Office Bureau of Land Management 2008). The analysis area covers approximately 6.5 million acres of public and private land in northeastern California and northwestern Nevada. All of the alternatives would contribute to the restoration of sage steppe ecosystems within the area covered by this plan.

62 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Environmental Consequences

7.2. Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Hunts and Anticipated Impacts 7.2.1. Past Hunting has been occurring on the Refuge since it was established in 1961. Hunting has traditionally occurred in California on private lands, State owned conservation properties, and federally owned public lands. During scoping and public meetings for the CCP, there were comments from Refuge neighbors and adjacent farmers that supported hunting.

There is a long history of hunters investing significant resources into the betterment of many of California's habitats. The interest generated by these programs has resulted in the formation of numerous local sportsmen's organizations dedicated to the protection and improvement of wildlife habitat. Moreover, organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited, California Waterfowl Association, National Wild Turkey Federation, Quail Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Safari Club International, Safari Club International Foundation, and California Deer Association, invest resources to benefit many types of wildlife.

7.2.2. Present Wildlife populations are currently hunted on both private and public lands, including Modoc National Forest and Alturas Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. Hunting is a highly regulated activity. It generally takes place at specific times and seasons (e.g., dawn, fall, and winter) when the game animal is less vulnerable (e.g., breeding season) and in areas where other wildlife-dependent activities (e.g., bird watching and environmental education and interpretation) do not occur, thus reducing the magnitude of disturbance to Refuge wildlife in those areas. Managed and regulated hunting would not reduce species populations to levels where other wildlife-dependent uses will be affected.

7.2.3. Reasonably Foreseeable Future The Refuge is comprised of 7,021 acres of wetlands, sagebrush-steppe, riparian, and cropland habitats. This diversity of vegetation provides wildlife with high quality breeding habitat; escape cover that offers safety from predators, including humans; shelter from weather-related elements; resting areas; water; and high quality winter habitat.

Although hunting directly affects individual animals, the amount of harvest would not be expected to have a measurable effect on Refuge wildlife population levels. In addition, hunting is monitored, regulated, and designed to ensure that harvest does not reduce populations to unsustainable levels. Moreover, the amount of hunting on the Refuge would not be expected to increase significantly in the future.

7.3. Anticipated Impacts if Individual Hunts are Allowed to Accumulate In California, 38 refuges provide 471,526 acres of habitat for wildlife. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, and environmental education and interpretation are enjoyed by millions of visitors annually. Refuges are also wild places where people can find solace and reconnect with nature.

In California, fourteen refuges are closed to the public. Eighteen refuges, including Modoc Refuge, allow waterfowl hunting. Nine refuges also allow pheasant hunting and Clear Lake Refuge allows pronghorn hunting. Sacramento River Refuge is the only refuge in California to allow deer, quail, turkey, and dove hunting opportunities, in addition to waterfowl and pheasant

______Environmental Assessment 63 Chapter 4 ______

hunting. Hunting on the Refuge would have an extremely minor impact on wildlife species on refuges within California. There would be a benefit to California hunters to be able to hunt these species on the Refuge; however, it would not be a cumulatively significant benefit.

There are approximately 1,650 annual hunter visits to the Refuge. The amount of hunters would be expected to increase by approximately 10 percent with the opening of the Grandma Tract. The amount of hunters would not be expected to increase significantly in the future. In addition, hunting is monitored, regulated, and designed to ensure that harvest does not reduce populations to unsustainable levels. Hunters must report waterfowl harvest on the kill record portion of their self-registration permit. Although hunting directly affects individual animals, the amount of harvest would not be expected to have a measurable effect on Refuge wildlife population levels. Field checks by Refuge law enforcement officers will be planned, conducted, and coordinated with staff and other agencies to maintain compliance with regulations and assess species populations and numbers harvested. The Refuge’s Hunt Plan describes management actions to address the need for changes to the hunt program if negative impacts were observed by the Service.

Each refuge in the system considers the cumulative impacts to hunted migratory species through the Migratory Bird Frameworks published annually in the Service’s regulations on Migratory Bird Hunting. Season dates and bag limits for refuges open to hunting are never longer or larger than the State regulations. In fact, based upon the findings of an EA developed when a refuge opens a new hunting activity, season dates and bag limits may be more restrictive than the State allows. The harvest management procedures that are in place at a National and State level take into consideration the status of waterfowl populations prior to determining the appropriate level of harvest permitted that year.

Based on the analysis presented earlier in this chapter, the Service has concluded that there would be no significant cumulative impacts on the Refuge’s wildlife populations, either hunted or non-hunted species. Although mortality would occur to some wildlife under the Refuge’s hunt program, the analysis presented previously in this chapter supports the conclusion that there would be no adverse population level impacts to hunted or non-hunted wildlife species, even when added to other hunt programs regionally or nationally. The Service has also concluded that the proposed action would not cumulatively impact the Refuge environment or programs. This determination was based upon a careful analysis of potential environmental impacts of hunting on the Refuge together with other projects and/or actions. Hunting is an appropriate wildlife management tool that can be used to manage wildlife populations. Some wildlife disturbance would occur during the hunting seasons. Proper zoning and regulations will be designated to minimize any negative impacts to wildlife populations using the Refuge.

All alternatives would have long-term benefits for native wildlife species and habitats within the area. The protection of wildlife habitats within the Refuge represents a benefit to the long-term conservation of threatened and endangered species and other native wildlife species. Alternatives B and C would provide greater benefits than Alternatives A and D due to the increased amount of habitat restoration that would take place. However, these long-term benefits would not be cumulatively significant. The benefits derived from Alternatives B and C would restore and protect only a small fraction of the amount of habitat that has been lost in the region.

64 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Consultation and Coordination with Others

Chapter 5. Consultations and Coordination with Others

1. Agency Coordination and Public Involvement The CCP and EA were prepared with the involvement of technical experts, community groups, and private citizens. The Service has invited, and continues to encourage, public participation through the public involvement program consisting of technical panels and project planning updates.

The public workshops, planning updates, and other coordination activities have been previously discussed in the Issue Identification and Public Involvement sections of Chapter 1 of the CCP.

2. Notice of Intent A Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2007.

A Notice of Availability (NOA) was published in the Federal Register in May 2009.

3. Environmental Review and Coordination As a Federal agency, the Service must comply with provisions of NEPA. An environmental assessment was developed under NEPA to evaluate reasonable alternatives that would meet stated objectives and to assess the possible impacts to the human environment. This EA serves as the basis for determining whether implementation of the preferred alternative of the CCP would constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

4. Other Federal Law s, Regulations, and Executive Orders In undertaking the preferred alternative, the Service would comply with the following Federal laws, Executive Orders (EO), and Legislative Acts: Floodplain Management (EEO 11988); Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (EO 12372); Protection of Historical Archaeological, and Scientific Properties (EO 11593); Protection of Wetlands (EO 11990); Management of General Public Use of National Wildlife Refuge System (EO 12996); Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (EO 12898); Facilitation of Hunting (EO 13443); Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986; Refuge Recreation Act, as amended; National Wildlife Refuge System Administrative Act of 1966, as amended; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (EO 13186); Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918; the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, as amended; and Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 2000. Appendix I of the CCP contains a list of other laws and executive orders that may affect the CCP or the Service’s implementation of the CCP. It also contains an overview of polices and plans that are relevant to the Refuge.

______Environmental Assessment 65 Chapter 5 ______

5. Distribution and Availability 5.1. Public Outreach This section describes consultation and coordination efforts with the public, interested groups, and other agencies. Section 2 contains the distribution list for the CCP. The organizations and individuals listed were either sent notification about the release of the Draft CCP or a copy of the Draft CCP. The majority was also sent planning updates or attended the public scoping meetings in 2007.

5.1.1. Outreach During Scoping USFWS News Release (sent to 6 newspapers):  August 9, 2007

Federal Register Notice of Intent:  Published on August 9, 2007

Public Scoping Meetings:  August 21, 2007 in Alturas, CA

Newspaper legal notices:  Modoc County Record, August 16, 2007

Other:  USFWS Modoc National Wildlife Refuge website (http://www.fws.gov/modoc/)

5.1.2. Outreach After Scoping Planning Updates (sent to 80 people/organizations): . August 2007 . March 2008 . June 2009

5.1.3. Outreach Draft CCP Comment Period USFWS News Release (sent to 8 newspapers):  June 2009

Federal Register Notice of Availability:  Published on June 15, 2009

Public Scoping Meetings:  July 1, 2009 in Alturas, CA

Newspaper legal notices:  Modoc County Record, June 15 & 22, 2009

Other:  USFWS Modoc National Wildlife Refuge website (http://www.fws.gov/modoc/)

 National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (www.nraila.org)

66 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Consultation and Coordination with Others

5.2. Distribution List 5.2.1. Federal, State, and County Elected Officials Office of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer Senator Office of U.S. Senator - Dianne Feinstein U.S. Representative District 4 – Tom McClintock State Senator, District 1 - Dave Cox State Assemblyman, District 2 – Jim Nielsen Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger Modoc Co Board of Supervisors, District 1 - Dan Macsay Modoc Co Board of Supervisors, District 2 – Jeff Bullock Modoc Co Board of Supervisors, District 3 - Patricia Cantrall Modoc Co Board of Supervisors, District 4 - Shorty Crabtree Modoc Co Board of Supervisors, District 5 - David Bradshaw

5.2.2. Federal Agencies U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service

Forest Service, Modoc National Forest Robert Haggard

U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, Alturas Field Office

Fish and Wildlife Service Ren Lohoefener - Region Director Marge Kolar - Assistant Regional Director, Refuges Dan Walsworth - Refuge Supervisor Barry Christenson – Refuge Operations Chief Mark Pelz - Chief of Refuge Planning Alexandra Pitts - External Affairs, Region 8 Anne Post Roy - NCTC, Conservation Library Anan Raymond - Chief of Cultural Resources Laurie Sada, Project Leader - Klamath Falls F&W Office Art Shine - Chief of Visitor Services Scott Stevens - Chief Refuge Law Enforcement Doug Waggoner - Fire Coordinator

5.2.3. Tribal Agencies Pit River Tribe Jessica Jim - Chairman Christopher Pirosko, Natural Resources & Roads

Kosealekte Irvin Brown, Kosealekte Cultural Representative

Fort Bidwell Reservation Chairperson

______Environmental Assessment 67 Chapter 5 ______

Cedarville Rancheria Chairperson

5.2.4. State Agencies California Department of Fish and Game Richard Shinn

5.2.5. Local Modoc County Agriculture Department - Joe Moreo Modoc County Fish, Game & Recreation Commission Modoc County Farm Bureau Modoc County Land Use Committee Modoc County Planning Department City of Alturas

5.2.6. Public Libraries Modoc County Library Cedarville Branch Library

5.2.7. Private Groups and Individuals D. Alexander J. Anderson Animal Protection Institute Assembly Committee Water, Parks & Wildlife G. Bagnaschi R. Billings California Outdoor Heritage Alliance California Waterfowl Association T. Carpenter Central Modoc Resource Conservation District D. Collis J. Collis D. Duncan D. Dunham Ducks Unlimited Friends of Modoc Refuge Fund for Animals Governor's Office of Planning & Research O. Jones M. Kobel M. Masamuri Modoc County Record Modoc Independent B. Moklestad National Audubon Society Glenn Olson, National Audubon Society, CA Office National Trappers Association, Inc.

68 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Consultation and Coordination with Others

National Wildlife Refuge Association Robert Fields National Wildlife Refuge Association, CA/NV Rep. Joseph Mazzoni S. Nelson North State Resources Paul Uncapher Ginger Bolen North CAL-NEVA RC&D Mark Steffek Northern California Traveler B. Sachau J. Simontacchi G. Stadinski The River Center T. Walker The Wilderness Society U.C. Cooperative Extension Don Lancaster Western Fishes Stuart Reid S. Younger

______Environmental Assessment 69 Chapter 5 ______

70 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Bibliography

Chapter 6. Bibliography

Airola, D. A., ed. 1980. California wildlife habitat relationships program: Northeast Interior Zone. Volume III. Birds. Susanville, California: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lassen National Forest.

Bartelt, G. A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family groups in east central Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:517-522.

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 Department of Fish and Game. 2001. Final environmental document migratory game bird hunting (waterfowl, coots, moorhens).

California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Report on the 2002 Game Take Hunter Survey.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2004a. Final environmental documents regarding resident game bird hunting.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2004b. Report of the 2004 Game Take Hunter Survey.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2005. California wildlife conservation challenges, California's wildlife action plan. Prepared by the U.C. Davis Wildlife Health Center.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2006. Report of the 2006 Game Take Hunter Survey.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2008. CWHR version 8.2 personal computer program: California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, and N. C.-N. R. C. a. Development. 2002. Summary report Pit River water quality study 2001-2002.

Center for Economic Development. 2007. 2007 Modoc County economic & demographic profile: Center for Economic Development, CSU, Chick Research Foundation.

Cole, D. N., and R. L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Utah State University.

Cronan, J. M. 1957. Food and feeding habits of the scaups in Connecticut waters. Auk 74(4):459- 468.

______Environmental Assessment 71 Chapter 6 ______

DeLong, A. K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds - literature review of impacts and mitigation measures - prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix L. In Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact statement for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision (Vol. II). Portland, Oregon: Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. 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).

Fox, A. D., and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:1-13.

Hart, C. H. 1990. Management plan for the ring-necked pheasant in California. California Department of Fish and Game publication.

Hart, C. H., B. Glading, and H. T. Harper. 1956. The pheasant in California. In Pheasants in North America, edited by B. Hines. Harrisbug, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C.: The Stackpole Company.

Hassol, S. J. 2004. Impacts of a warming arctic. Arctic climate impact assessment. http://amap.no/workdocs/index.cfm?dirsub=%2FACIA%2Foverview (cited March 19, 2008).

Havera, S. P., L. R. Boens, M. M. Georgi, and R. T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298.

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.

Hill, D. A., and P. A. Robertson. 1988. A population model as an aid to pheasant management. In Pheasants: Symptoms of wildlife problems on agricultural lands, edited by W. R. Edwards and G. V. Burger. Bloomington, Indiana: North Central Section of the Wildlife Society.

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, Denmark. Biological Conservation 33:53-63.

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74.

Mintier Harnish and Associates. 1988. Modoc County General Plan. Goals, policies and action program. Sacramento, California.

Mintier Harnish and Associates. 1998. Modoc County general plan: Background report. September 1988.

72 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______Bibliography

Modoc County. 1988. Modoc County General Plan. Modoc County, California.

Modoc National Forest, and Alturas Field Office Bureau of Land Management. 2008. Sage steppe ecosystem restoration strategy. Final environmental impact statement. USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management. August.

Owens, N. W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14.

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).

Paulus, S. L. 1984. Activity budgets of nonbreeding gadwalls in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:371-380.

Peterson, L. R., R. T. Dumke, and J. M. Gates. 1988. Pheasant survival and the role of predation. In Pheasants: symptoms of wildlife problems on agricultural lands, edited by D. L. Hallett, W. R. Edwards and G. V. Burger. Bloomington, Indiana: North Central Section, The Wildlife Society.

Raveling, D. G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference to control of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252.

Schemnitz, S. D. 1980. Wildlife management techniques manual. Washington, D.C.: The Wildlife Society.

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. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon sequestration research and development. Office of Science and Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. December.

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. 2005a. Economic impact of waterfowl hunting in the United States: Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing and Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

______Environmental Assessment 73 Chapter 6 ______

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. 2005 Pacific Flyway data book: Waterfowl harvest and status, hunter participation and success, and certain hunting regulations in the Pacific Flyway and United States. Portland, Oregon: Compiled by R. E. Trost and M. S. Drut, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1993. 1991 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. U.S. Government Printing Office.

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and salt marsh feeding of wintering brent geese in Essex. Wildfowl 33:113-118.

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, California. Master's thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990. California's wildlife. Volume III: Mammals. Sacramento, California: California Department of Fish and Game.

74 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ______

Attachment 1. Economics Assessment

Attachment 1 ______

This assessment describes economic effects of current operations at the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), including economic values and impacts of recreation activities supported by the Refuge, agricultural production values generated both on the Refuge and nearby, and administration of the Refuge. The economic effects of Refuge management alternatives being considered for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) also are evaluated.

Regional Economy Modoc Refuge is located in Modoc County, in the northeastern corner of California. With an estimated 9,700 residents in 2006, Modoc County is one of California’s least-populated counties. Since 1990, Modoc County’s population has increased by only 0.4 percent, substantially lagging the 25.0 percent growth statewide over this 16-year period (Table 1). The population of Alturas, the County’s only incorporated city, has actually declined over this period, falling by 12.3 percent. With a current population of 2,830, slightly less than one of every three county residents lived in Alturas in 2006.

Table 1. Comparative population trends Percent Change Area 1990 2000 2006 1990-2006 Alturas 3,230 2,890 2,830 -12.3% Modoc County 9,680 9,450 9,720 0.4% California 29,758,200 33,873,100 37,195,200 25.0% Source: California Department of Finance 2007a, 2007b

Unlike population growth, employment in Modoc County has increased at a moderate rate since 1990. Total employment grew by 15.3 percent between 1990 and 2005, compared to 21.1 percent statewide (Table 2). Of the estimated 4,740 jobs in Modoc County in 2005, about two-thirds were wage and salary jobs, whereas the remaining jobs were attributable to proprietors employment. According to the California Employment Development Department (California Employment Development Department 2007a), the government sector is by far the most important employer in Modoc County, accounting for 46 percent of all jobs. By comparison, the second-largest sector, the trade, transportation, and utilities sector, accounts for 15.7 percent of all jobs. Farming accounts for 11.7 percent of total jobs.

Table 2. Comparative employment and income trends

Employment Per Capita Personal Income Percent Percent Change Change Area 1990 2005 1990-2005 1990 2005 1990-2005 Modoc County 4,110 4,740 15.3% $15,640 $25,840 65.2% California 19,965,200 20,548,600 21.1% $21,640 $36,940 70.7% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis 2007 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. Unemployment in Alturas was even

______1 ______Economics Assessment

higher than the countywide rate in 2006, estimated at 10.9 percent (California Employment Development Department 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. As Table 2 shows, Modoc County’s $25,840 in per capita income was about 30 percent lower than statewide income in 2005.

The contribution of Modoc County’s recreation and tourism-related sectors to the County’s economy is shown in Table 3. As the table’s data show, business sectors sensitive to the spending of recreationists and tourists accounted for nearly 10 percent of countywide employment in 2006, with food and beverage stores generating 107 jobs and food services and drinking places supporting an additional 103 jobs. The income generated by recreation and tourism-related sectors accounts for about one quarter of Modoc County’s total income, although this contribution is much lower once the income generated by gasoline stations, primarily related to the earnings of station owners, is excluded.

Table 3. 2006 Employment and income in recreation and tourism-related sectors of Modoc County Employmenta Incomeb Percent of Percent of Sector Total Jobs Total Total Income Total Food & beverage stores 107 2.7% $2,427,000 1.4% Gasoline stations 77 1.9% $36,807,000 21.3% Miscellaneous retailersc 32 0.8% $1,203,000 0.7% Hotels & motels 59 1.5% $1,658,000 1.0% Food services and 103 2.6% $1,590,000 0.9% drinking places All other sectors 3,646 90.5% $129,302,000 74.7% Total 4,024 100.0% $172,987,000 100.0% Notes: aEmployment includes full- and part-time jobs. bIncome includes employee compensation, proprietor income, and other property income. cIncludes general merchandise stores, miscellaneous store retailers, and non-store retailers. Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2007

Refuge Economic Activities Visitor Use, Spending, and Net Economic Values The Modoc Refuge supports both consumptive and non-consumptive recreation activities. Consumptive recreation activities include fishing, primarily at Dorris Reservoir, and hunting activities, mostly hunting for waterfowl but also some small game hunting. Non-consumptive recreation activities include auto touring of the Refuge, trail hiking, waterskiing on Dorris reservoir, photography, environmental education, and interpretation visits.

2 ______Attachment 1 ______

The number of visits to the Refuge between 2005 and 2007 is shown in Table 4. As shown, recreation visitation to the Refuge is fairly constant from year to year. In 2006, participation in non-consumptive activities accounted for about 59 percent of total visits, fishing accounted for about 32 percent of total visits, and hunting (mostly for waterfowl) accounted for about 9 percent of visits. Residents of Modoc County made about 82 percent of all Refuge visits and non-residents of the County about 18 percent (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007).

Table 4. Recreation visits to the Modoc Refuge, 2005 through 2007 Recreation Activity 2005 2006 2007 Auto tour visits 3,800 3,675 3,715 Hiking trail visits 600 690 640 Photography visits 900 915 900 Hunting visits 1,523 1,588 1,580 Fishing visits (Dorris Reservoir) 5,500 5,500 3,000 Environmental education visits 668 1,186 2,076 Interpretation visits 190 270 270 Non-wildlife dependent visits 3,200 3,520 3,500

Total 16,381 17,344 15,681 Source: Clay pers. comm.

In 2006, local spending by visitors to the Refuge was estimated at $314,000 (Table 5). Of this total, spending in food and drink establishments and on transportation-related services (including air transportation) accounted for about $199,000, or 63 percent of all spending. Expenditures were fairly evenly split among fishing, hunting, and non-consumptive recreation activities. Residents of Modoc County accounted for about 60 percent of all recreation-related spending and nonresidents accounted for about 40 percent (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007).

Table 5. Local recreation-related spending by visitors to the Modoc Refuge in 2006 (in 2006 dollars) Residents of Non-Residents of Recreation Activity Modoc County Modoc County All Visitors Non-consumptive - Birding $21,400 $33,500 $54,900 - Other non-consumptive activities $33,900 $13,700 $47,600 Subtotal $55,300 $47,200 $102,600

______3 ______Economics Assessment

Residents of Non-Residents of Recreation Activity Modoc County Modoc County All Visitors Hunting - Small game $300 $1,000 $1,300 - Migratory birds $41,500 $61,700 $103,200 Subtotal $41,900 $62,700 $104,600 Fishing (Dorris Reservoir) $90,500 $16,300 $106,800 Total Recreation-related spending $187,800 $126,200 $314,000 Note: Totals may not add due to rounding error Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007

Visitation to the Refuge also generates value to visitors over and above the amount that they spend to recreate. These values are referred to as net economic values. Based on average net economic values per visit derived by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2007) from the National Survey on Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, Refuge visits in 2006 are estimated to have generated about $303,200 in net economic values to Refuge visitors.

Agricultural Production on Refuge and Nearby Lands Agricultural production is supported by the Modoc Refuge in two ways. First, the Refuge allows hay production and livestock grazing on parts of the Refuge through special use permits issued to local farmers and ranchers. Second, other nearby farms and ranches receive all or part of their water through the water conveyance system owned and maintained by the Modoc Refuge.

Farmers and ranchers with special use permits issued by the Modoc Refuge paid approximately $78,200 to the federal government in 2007 to grow hay or graze livestock on Refuge lands. These operations produced approximately 2,630 tons of hay in 2007. Most of the hay grown on the Refuge is used as feed in the cattle operations of the permitees (Clay pers. comm.). Assuming an average value of $107 per ton, the hay grown on the Refuge had an estimated value of $281,410 in 2007. Additionally, Refuge properties used by special permit operators supported about 811 animal-unit months (AUMs) of pasture forage for livestock, valued at about $15,410, during 2007 (Clay pers. comm.).

In addition to the farms and ranches that hold special use permits for Refuge land rights, about 20 other farms and ranches receive all or part of their water through the water conveyance system owned and maintained by Modoc Refuge. Precise estimates of the additional acreage irrigated by water conveyed through this system are not available; however, Modoc Refuge personnel (Clay pers. comm.) have roughly estimated that these farms and ranches irrigate about 3,000 acres using water provided by the Refuge’s water conveyance system. These water users primarily produce grass hay and pasture crops. Other crops grown in smaller amounts on these farms and ranches include grain, other hay crops, and wild rice (Clay pers. comm.).

Refuge Administration and Expenditures In 2007, the Modoc Refuge spent approximately $997,000 on staff salaries and travel, land restoration agreements with private landowners, vehicle replacement, utilities, and goods and services. As shown in Table 6, an estimated $671,000 (67 percent) was spent within Modoc County.

4 ______Attachment 1 ______

Modoc Refuge spent about $417,200 on salaries in 2007, employing five permanent full-time employees, one temporary employee, and seven Youth Conservation Corps employees. All but one of the employees resided in Modoc County. Additionally, staff travel accounted for $7,100 in expenditures, all outside of Modoc County.

Refuge expenditures on agreements with local private landowners, including Wildlife Extension, Challenge Cost Share, and Cooperative agreements, totaled $115,800 in 2007. Landowners use these funds for habitat and wetlands restoration projects, which can include several activities, including riparian fencing, off-stream watering facilities, willow plantings, earth moving, installation of water control structures, and pond construction. Much of the work is performed by contractors hired by private landowners, but landowners also perform some of the work.

Replacement of vehicles and equipment in 2007 required $117,100 in expenditures by the Modoc Refuge, which was substantially more than the $30,000-$50,000 spent in a typical year (Clay pers. comm.). Only about 5 percent of these expenditures are made in Modoc County because vehicles and equipment are generally purchased under a nationwide federal contract.

Table 6. Modoc Refuge 2007 budget expenditures Estimated Expenditures Expenditure Category Total Expenditures Within Modoc County Staff (salaries and travel) $424,310 $354,820a Private land agreementsb $115,820 $115,820 Vehicle/equipment replacement $117,070 $5,850c Utilities $31,380 $3,140d Goods and servicese $308,480 $191,390 Total $997,060 $671,020 Notes: aExcludes the travel expenditures made outside of Modoc County and the estimated salary of one employee who resides outside of the County. bIncludes expenditures associated with Wildlife Extension agreements, Challenge Cost Share agreements, and Cooperative agreements. cAmount spent in Modoc County was based on the estimate that 5 percent of expenditures in this category are made locally. dEstimated by assuming that 10 percent of expenditures made to utilities based outside of Modoc County return to the County through utility expenditures on salaries, goods, and services in the County. eIncludes expenditures on contracts, parts and materials, supplies, and fuels. Source: Clay pers. comm.

Utility-related spending made by the Refuge, including expenditures on power, waste disposal, and watermaster fees, totaled $31,400 in 2007. All of the utility companies affected by Refuge spending have local offices but are part of larger companies based outside of Modoc County. Presumably, a small portion (assumed to be 10 percent) of the funds spent by the utilities return to Modoc County in the form of salaries for utility staff and for purchases of goods and services by the utilities.

______5 ______Economics Assessment

The Modoc Refuge spent $308,500 on good and services, including $117,100 within Modoc County, in 2007. Expenditures on goods and services include spending on contracts with service providers, and purchases of parts and materials, supplies, and fuel.

Regional Economic Impacts of Refuge Operations Activities occurring on the Modoc Refuge provide regional economic benefits to businesses and households throughout Modoc County, mostly Alturas. As described above, these activities include visitors recreating at the Refuge who also spend in the local economy, agricultural production on Refuge and nearby lands, and Refuge administration that generates salaries and procures goods and services needed for Refuge management.

Based on modeling results from the IMPLAN input-output model, spending by recreation visitors to the Refuge in 2006 supported about five jobs in the local economy and generated about $151,000 in personal income (Table 7). Two of the five jobs supported by visitor spending were in food and drink establishments.

Table 7. Employment and income in Modoc County generated by visitors to the Modoc Refuge in 2006 (in 2006 dollars) Sector Jobsa Incomeb Food & drinking establishments 2.0 $30,700 Gasoline stations <0.1 $30,300 Miscellaneous retailers 0.9 $14,600 Lodging 1.2 $34,700 Other sectors 0.8 $40,500 Total 4.9 $150,800 Notes: aEmployment includes full- and part-time jobs. bIncome includes employee compensation, proprietor income, and other property income. cIncludes general merchandise stores, miscellaneous store retailers, and non-store retailers. The production of livestock feed (hay and forage) on Refuge lands by farms and ranches is directly responsible for generating about $211,800 in income for farmers and ranchers and about $89,300 in indirect and induced income for other businesses and residents of Modoc County. In terms of employment, feed production on the Refuge directly generates the equivalent of about two jobs in the farming/ranching sector and indirectly generates an additional two jobs in other sectors of Modoc County’s economy.

Based on IMPLAN modeling results, Refuge administration directly and indirectly supported about 24 jobs in Modoc County in 2007. Of these jobs, 16 are directly generated by Refuge expenditures, including salary payments, the local procurement of goods and services needed for Refuge operations and maintenance, and payments to local landowners for habitat and wetlands restoration projects. The remaining eight jobs were indirectly generated by the Refuge expenditures. Personal income directly and indirectly generated in Modoc County by Refuge expenditures totaled an estimated $975,300 in 2007.

In total, Refuge operations generated about 33 full- and part-time jobs in Modoc County in 2007, accounting for almost one percent of countywide employment opportunities. About half of the jobs generated by Refuge operations were directly attributable to administration of the Refuge.

6 ______Attachment 1 ______

Personal income generated by the Modoc 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. The income directly and indirectly generated by the Refuge accounted for about 0.8 percent of total countywide income in 2007.

Visitor Spending and Regional Economic Effects of the Project Alternatives The project alternatives for the CCP involve Refuge management actions that are expected to affect recreation opportunities at the Refuge (management actions associated with each project alternative are identified in Table 1 of the Environmental Assessment). The number of recreation visits and the amount of local visitor spending associated with each alternative are estimated in Table 8. Local visitor spending is estimated to range from about $228,300 annually under the Biological Alternative to about $307,400 annually under the Visitor Services Alternative.

Visitor-related effects of the project alternatives on countywide jobs and personal income are shown in Table 9. The Biological Alternative would be expected to result in a minor reduction in employment and personal income compared to the No Action Alternative, whereas the Preferred Alternative and Visitor Services Alternative would result in a slight increase in countywide employment and personal income.

Table 8. Estimated visitor spending in Modoc County generated by visitors to the Modoc Refuge under the project alternatives (in 2006 dollars) Alternative D: Alternative B: Alternative C: Visitor No Action Biological Preferred Services Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Recreation visitsa 12,500 9,900 14,430 14,630 Visitor spending - County residents $144,500 $121,900 $164,000 $165,000 - Nonresidents $121,300 $106,400 $141,400 $142,400 Total $265,800 $228,300 $305,400 $307,400 Notes: aIncludes visits associated with wildlife observation, hunting, fishing, and non-wildlife dependent recreation only. Visits associated with other activities shown in Table 1 of the EA are not included to avoid double counting of visits in the estimation of visitor spending.

Table 9. Estimated employment and income in Modoc County generated by visitors to the Modoc Refuge under the project alternatives (in 2006 dollars) Alternative B: Alternative C: Alternative D: No Action Biological Preferred Visitor Services

Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative

Sector Jobsa Incomeb Jobsa Incomeb Jobsa Incomeb Jobsa Incomeb Food and 1.7 $25,700 1.4 $21,500 1.9 $29,600 1.9 $29,800 drinking establishments

______7 ______Economics Assessment

Alternative B: Alternative C: Alternative D: No Action Biological Preferred Visitor Services

Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative

Sector Jobsa Incomeb Jobsa Incomeb Jobsa Incomeb Jobsa Incomeb Gasoline <0.1 $28,200 <0.1 $26,000 <0.1 $32,900 <0.1 $32,900 stations Miscellaneous 0.6 $8,300 0.5 $7,000 0.7 $9,200 0.7 $9,300 retailers Lodging 1.1 $32,300 1.0 $27,900 1.3 $37,800 1.4 $38,100 Other sectors 0.8 $38,100 0.7 $33,000 0.9 $43,800 0.8 $44,300 TOTAL 4.2 $132,600 3.6 $115,400 4.8 $153,300 4.8 $154,400 Notes: aEmployment includes full- and part-time jobs. bIncome includes employee compensation, proprietor income, and other property income. cIncludes general merchandise stores, miscellaneous store retailers, and non-store retailers.

Bibliography 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 Employment Development Department. 2007a. Modoc County industry employment and labor force - by annual average, March 26 benchmark.

California Employment Development Department. 2007b. Labor force data for sub-county areas - Alturas and Modoc County, 2006 benchmark.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, I. 2007. 2006 IMPLAN data file for Modoc County. Stillwater, MN.

U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2007. Table CA04 - Personal income and employment summary for Modoc County and California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Banking on nature: The economic benefits to local communities of National Wildlife Refuge visitation. Division of Economics. September.

Personal Communications Clay, Steve. Project Leader. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge. Information from emails provided on December 19, 2007; December 27, 2007; December 31, 2007; January 14, 2008; and January 18, 2008.

8 ______

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

Compatibility determinations for the following uses are included within this appendix:

 Bicycling  Boating  Commercial Photography  Environmental Education and Interpretation  Fishing  Grazing  Haying  Horseback Riding  Hunting  Plant Material Gathering  Research  Swimming  Wildlife Observation and Photography

B-1

Compatibility Determination for Bicycling at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (2009)

Use: Bicycling

Refuge Name: Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, located in Modoc County, California.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) was established in 1960. Legal authorities include the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715d); Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended; and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742).

Refuge Purpose(s):

Modoc Refuge purposes include:

“... 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).

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee]).

Description of Use: Bicycles may be used on Modoc Refuge on designated public roadways, including the entrance roads and auto tour route, year-round from sunrise to sunset. In addition, bicycles may be used at Dorris Reservoir from April 1 through September 30, on roads designated for motor vehicles. This use is described in the Proposed Action (Alternative C) analyzed in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009) and is incorporated by reference.

Bicycling facilitates priority public uses, including wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation, and involves observing the natural landscape from a

B-2

bicycle. Riders stop to observe associated animals and plant communities. The use mainly occurs in groups, with an average group size of 1-4 riders.

Bicycle travel on the Refuge will be conducted in accordance with the stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility. Travel will be limited to designated roads (i.e., off-road cycling is prohibited).

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs (based on FY 2008 costs) would be required to monitor bicycling activities as described above:

Annual Costs Monitoring $1,000 Law Enforcement $2,000 Total $3,000

Refuge operational funds are currently available through the Service budget process to administer this program.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Soil Impacts: Bicycle wheels can cause physical impacts on soil surfaces. Cessford (1995) notes the shearing action of wheels creates damage to trails, which increases when trail conditions are wet or when traveling up a steep slope. It is anticipated that bicycle use of designated routes will cause minor to no soil erosion and compaction. Routes designated for this use have very little elevation change, with no steep grades. The designated routes are existing paved or gravel roads that have been previously altered by vehicles and equipment; therefore, soils are generally compacted and less susceptible to physical impact and mechanical erosion. Based on the conditions of designated routes and current levels of use, this activity will have very minor impacts to soils.

Plant Impacts: Bicycle use will occur on designated roads that have little to no vegetation, since they are graveled or paved. Off-road cycling is not permitted. Therefore, it is anticipated that bicycles will have very minor impacts on plant communities.

Wildlife Impacts: Human uses can result in habitat modification and can create disturbances to wildlife. Disturbances vary with the wildlife species involved and the type, level, frequency, duration, and the time of year such activities occur. Whittaker and Knight (1998) note that wildlife response can include attraction, habituation, and avoidance. Human induced avoidance by wildlife can prevent animals from using otherwise suitable habitat. Knight and Cole (1991) describe behavioral changes as a result of disturbance from recreational use. Effects range from short- term shifts in habitat use, to complete abandonment of disturbed areas in favor of undisturbed sites. Disturbance can have negative effects such as increasing the energy demands on wildlife. Flight in response to other disturbance can lower songbird nesting productivity, cause disease, and in extreme cases (predation) can result in death. Knight and Cole (1991) suggest that recreational activities occurring simultaneously may have a combined negative impact on wildlife. Hammitt and Cole (1998) conclude that the frequent presence of humans in wildland areas can dramatically change the normal behavior of wildlife, mostly as a result of unintentional harassment.

B-3

Seasonal sensitivities are also important in wildlife responses to human disturbance. For example, when an animal species is already stressed, human disturbance can compound the effect on that individual. Examples of these disturbances include regularly flushing birds during nesting, exposing juvenile animals to greater predation levels, or causing mammals to flee during winter months. These disturbances can cause large amounts of stored fat reserves to be consumed. Hammitt and Cole (1998) note that females (such as deer) with young are more likely to flee from a disturbance than those without young. This indicates increased sensitivity to human disturbance during the breeding season.

Anticipated impacts of bicycle use on wildlife include temporal disturbances to species using habitat directly adjacent to the designated routes. Although there is some temporary disturbance to wildlife due to human activities, the disturbance is generally localized and does not have an adverse effect on overall populations.

Education: Education helps make visitors aware that their actions can have negative impacts on birds, and will increase the likelihood that visitors will abide by restrictions on their actions. For example, Klein (1993) demonstrated that visitors who had spoken with refuge staff or volunteers were less likely to disturb birds. Increased surveillance and imposed fines may also help reduce visitor caused disturbance (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). Monitoring is recommended to adjust management techniques over time, particularly because it is often difficult to generalize about the impacts of specific types of recreation in different environments. Local and site -specific knowledge is necessary to determine effects on birds, and to develop effective management strategies (Hockin et al. 1992; Klein et al. 1995; Hill et al. 1997).

Disturbance of wildlife is the primary concern regarding this use. Disturbance to wildlife, such as the flushing or interruption of feeding, resting, or nesting birds, is inherent to this activity.

Bicycling on designated roads is not anticipated to have significant short-term or long-term impacts. The anticipated use is viewed as an effective and justifiable method of travel that allows the public to discover, experience, and enjoy priority public uses on the Refuge. Continued monitoring of the effects of bicycling and associated human activities is necessary to better understand the impacts of the use on Refuge habitats, plant and wildlife communities, and visitors. Monitoring will identify any actions needed to respond to new information (adaptive management) and correct problems that may arise in the future.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction with distribution of the Draft CCP and EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009) for Modoc Refuge.

Determination:

_____ Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

B-4

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

 Bicycling is allowed on the entrance roads and auto tour route on Modoc Refuge year-round, as well as the roads designated for motor vehicles at Dorris Reservoir, from April 1 through September 30.  Access to the Refuge is allowed from sunrise to sunset.  Off-road cycling is prohibited.  Regulatory and directional signs clearly mark designated routes of travel and areas closed to the public.  Maps and public use information are available at the Refuge Headquarters, kiosks, and the Refuge’s website http://www.fws.gov/modoc.  Refuge staff will monitor the effects of bicycling and will identify any actions needed to correct problems that may arise in the future.  Routine law enforcement patrols are conducted throughout the year.  Bicycle races and tournaments are prohibited on the Refuge.

Justification: While not listed as priority wildlife-dependent recreational use under the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act, as amended, bicycling is believed to be a compatible public use under the stipulations outlined in this compatibility determination. Primary reasons for this determination include the following: wildlife observation can be an element of bicycling and impacts associated with these activities are not believed to exceed impacts already caused by other public use activities.

The stipulations outlined above should minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions. Based upon impacts described in the Draft CCP and EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009), it is determined that bicycling within Modoc National Wildlife Refuge as described herein, will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge System. In our opinion, implementing the bicycling to facilitate wildlife-dependent recreation and its associated stipulations will not conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the Refuge.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (2019):

_____ Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EA and CCP (for priority public uses)

X Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

B-5

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

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited

Cessford, G. R. 1995. Off-road mountain biking: A profile of participants and their recreation setting and experience preferences. Department of Conservation. Hammitt, W. E., and D. N. Cole. 1998. Wildland recreation: Ecology and management. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hill, D. A., D. Hockin, D. Price, G. Tucker, R. Morris, and J. Treweek. 1997. Bird disturbance: Improving the quality and utility of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:275-288. Hockin, D., M. Ounsted, M. Gorman, D. A. Hill, V. Keller, and M. A. Barker. 1992. Examination of the effects of disturbance on birds with reference to its importance in ecological assessments. Journal of Environmental Management 36:253-286. Klein, M. L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:31-39. Klein, M. L., S. R. Humphrey, and H. F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution of waterbirds in a wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology 9:1454-1465. Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. In Transactions of the 56th North American Wildlife & Natural Resources Conference. Knight, R. L., and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistence through management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8. Whittaker, D., and R. L. Knight. 1998. Understanding wildlife responses to humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:312-317.

B-6 CompatibilityDetermination for Bicycling at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: @= Wildlife Refuge Manager/ Project Leader � : ... ,,� Approval: ---,.'!:....-,�--- /.2-/5'- -..""'�=-----__" ___ (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: (Signature)

AssistantRegional Director Refuges: (SIgnature�J �

B-7

Compatibility Determination for Boating at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (2009)

Use: Boating

Refuge Name: Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, located in Modoc County, California.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Modoc Refuge purposes include:

“... 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).

Description of Use: Boating will be allowed on Dorris Reservoir from April 1 through September 30. Dorris Reservoir is closed to all public activities during the waterfowl hunting season from October 1 through February 1. Shoreline areas, islands, and peninsulas with nesting waterfowl are signed and closed to public access during the waterfowl nesting season (February 1 through May 31).

Boating on the Refuge facilitates priority public uses including fishing, wildlife observation, and photography. Boating will also contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s natural resources.

B-8

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 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. Current facilities include five gravel parking areas, two boat launches, and three restrooms. These uses are described in the Proposed Action (Alternative C) analyzed in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009) and are incorporated by reference.

Boating described in this compatibility determination includes motorboats and non-motorized boats, including kayaks and canoes. Motorboats include a variety of crafts powered by 2-cycle or 4-cycle engines. It does not include personal watercraft (jet ski) use.

Regulation of boating on the Refuge will be managed to minimize safety risks, as well as adverse effects on wildlife, habitat, and other recreational users, particularly those engaged in wildlife- dependent uses. A seasonal closure from October 1 through February 1 will be implemented to reduce disturbance to wintering, resting, foraging, and breeding birds and other wildlife and their habitats. In addition, shoreline areas, islands, and peninsulas with nesting waterfowl are signed and closed to public access during the waterfowl nesting season (February 1 through May 31).

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs (based on FY 2008 costs) would be required to administer and manage boating activities as described above:

Annual Costs Signs, buoys, and brochures $1,000 Law enforcement $2,000 Administration $1,000 Monitoring $1,000 Total $4,000

Refuge operational funds are currently available through the Service budget process to administer this program.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Wildlife respond differently to boats based on their size, speed, the amount of noise they make, and how close the craft gets to the animals (DeLong 2002). Dahlgren and Korschgen (1992) categorized human activities in order of decreasing disturbance to waterfowl:

 Rapid overwater movement and loud noise (power-boating, water skiing, aircraft).  Overwater movement with little noise (sailing, wind surfing, rowing, canoeing).  Little overwater movement or noise (wading, swimming).  Activities along shorelines (fishing, bird watching, hiking, and traffic).

Boating activity, both motorized and non-motorized, can alter distribution, reduce use of particular habitats or entire areas by waterbirds and other birds, alter feeding behavior and

B-9

nutritional status, and cause premature departure from areas (Knight and Cole 1995). More sensitive species may find it difficult to secure adequate food or loafing sites as their preferred habitat becomes fragmented and recreation-related disturbances increase (Skagen et al. 1991; Pfister et al. 1992). Motorized boats generally have more impact on wildlife than non-motorized boats because motorboats produce a combination of movement and noise (Tuite et al. 1983, Knight and Cole 1995). For example, a significant decrease in the proportion of bald eagles feeding at a site was observed when motorized boating activity occurred within 200 meters of that area in the preceding 30 minutes (Skagen 1980). Motorized boats can also cover a larger area in a relatively short time, in comparison to non-motorized boats. Great blue herons were one of the most sensitive of 23 waterbird species, when measuring flush distances from motorized watercraft (Rodgers and Schwikert 2002).

Even canoes and kayaks can cause significant disturbance effects based on their ability to penetrate into shallower areas of the marsh (Speight 1973, Knight and Cole 1995). In the Ozark National Scenic Riverway, green heron activity declined on survey routes when canoes and boat use increased on the main river channel (Kaiser and Fritzell 1984). Canoes or slow-moving boats have also been observed to disturb nesting great blue herons (Vos et al. 1985). Huffman (1999) found that non-motorized boats within 30 meters of the shoreline in south San Diego Bay caused all wintering waterfowl to flush between the craft and shore. However, compared to motorboats, canoes and kayaks appear to have less disturbance effects on most wildlife species (Jahn and Hunt 1964, Huffman 1999, DeLong 2002).

In Denmark, fast-moving boats were observed to have the greatest impact on red-breasted merganser broods (Kahlert 1994). The presence of fast-moving boats also caused the most significant modifications to the amount of time animals spent feeding and resting. In England, an increased rate of disturbance from boats partly caused a decline in roosting numbers of shorebird species (Burton et al. 1996). In addition, boaters have been observed to cause massive flights of diving ducks on the Mississippi River (Thornburg 1973). Motorized boats within 100 meters of shore caused all wintering waterfowl and shorebirds to flush between the craft and shore in south San Diego Bay, regardless of speed. However, disturbance to birds in general was reduced when boats traveled at or below the 5 mph speed limit (Huffman 1999).

Impacts of boating can occur even at low densities, given their noise, speed, and ability to cover extensive areas in a short amount of time. The total number of boats and people can be an inappropriate measure of recreational intensity because the presence of a single boat might be just as disturbing as that of many (Tuite et al. 1983; Knight and Knight 1984).

Timing of boating use has implications for waterbirds. During the breeding season, disturbance may affect nest abandonment, predation on young, or subject young birds to environmental stress (DeLong 2002). The habitat around Dorris Reservoir receives use by a variety of waterbirds and raptors. Nesting disturbance will be reduced by closing shoreline areas, islands, and peninsulas during the waterfowl nesting season (February 1 through May 31).

Motorized boats introduce noise and pollution, in the form of gas and oil in water and particulates in the air.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction with distribution of the Draft CCP and EA for Modoc Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

B-10

Determination:

_____ Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

 Boating is allowed February 1 through September 30.  A seasonal closure from October 1 through February 1 will be implemented to reduce disturbance to wintering, resting, foraging, and breeding birds and other wildlife and their habitats.  Shoreline areas, islands, and peninsulas with nesting waterfowl are signed and closed to public access during the waterfowl nesting season (February 1 through May 31).  Signs/buoys will be installed and maintained to mark closed areas and convey seasonal closures on the Refuge.  Periodic law enforcement will help ensure compliance with area closures. Regulations will be described in brochures and posted at Refuge Headquarters and at boat launch sites. Boaters are required to be in compliance with all applicable Refuge, U.S. Coast Guard and State of California regulations and laws.  Boating activities and associated effects will be monitored by refuge staff.  Monitoring data will be used by the refuge manager in making necessary adjustments in regulations or other aspects of the Refuge boating program and in the periodic reevaluation of this Compatibility Determination.  Information will be posted in the Refuge’s kiosk at Dorris Reservoir to educate boaters about methods to reduce the spread of aquatic invasive species (e.g. quagga and zebra mussels, water hyacinth, hydrilla, etc).

Justification: Providing opportunities for boating to facilitate fishing, wildlife observation, and photography would contribute toward fulfilling provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended in 1997, and one of the goals of Modoc Refuge (Goal 3.2, Chapter 4, CCP). The stipulations outlined above should minimize potential impacts of boating relative to wildlife/human interactions. Based upon impacts described in the Draft CCP and EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009), it is determined that boating within Modoc National Wildlife Refuge as described herein, will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge System. In our opinion, implementing boating and associated stipulations will not conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the Refuge.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (2024):

Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EA and CCP (for priority public uses)

X Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

B-11

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

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited

Burton, N. H. K., P. R. Evans, and M. A. Robinson. 1996. Effects on shorebird numbers of disturbance, the loss of a roost site and its replacement by an artificial island at Harlepool, Cleveland. Biological Conservation 77:193-201. Dahlgren, R.B. and C.E. Korschgen. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: an annotated bibliography. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. 62 pp. DeLong, A. K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds - literature review of impacts and mitigation measures - prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix L. In Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact statement for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision (Vol. II). Portland, Oregon: Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Huffman, K. 1999. San Diego South Bay survey report-effects of human activity and water craft on wintering birds in South San Diego Bay. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jahn, L. R., and R. A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Conservation Department Technical Bulletin 33. Kahlert, J. 1994. Effects of human disturbance on broods of red-breasted mergansers Mergus serrator. Wildfowl 15:222-231. Kaiser, M. S., and E. K. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:561-567. Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In Wildlife and recreationists, edited by R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller. Covelo, California: Island Press. Knight, R. L., and S. K. Knight. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:999-1004. Pfister, C., B. A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at a migration staging area. Biological Conservation 60:115-126. Rodgers, J. A., Jr., and S. T. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. Conservation Biology 16(1):216-224. Skagen, S. K. 1980. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity on the Skagit River, Washington. In Proceedings of the Washington Bald Eagle Symposium.

B-12

Skagen, S. K., R. L. Knight, and G. H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbances of an avian scavenging guild. Ecological Applications 1:215-225. Speight, M. C. D. 1973. Outdoor recreation and its ecological effects: A bibliography and review, Discussion Papers in Conservation. London: University College London. Thornburg, D. D. 1973. Diving duck movements on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Journal of Wildlife Management 37:382-389. Tuite, C. H., M. Owen, and D. Paynther. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8. Vos, D. K., R. A. Ryder, and W. D. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human disturbance in north central Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22.

B-13 B-14

Compatibility Determination for Commercial Photography at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (2009)

Use: Commercial Photography

Refuge Name: Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, located in Modoc County, California.

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) was established in 1961. Legal authorities include the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715d); Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended; and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742).

Refuge Purpose(s):

Modoc Refuge purposes include:

“... 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).

Description of Use: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identifies wildlife photography as well as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, interpretation, and environmental education as priority wildlife dependent public uses for refuges. As one of the six priority public uses of the Refuge System, wildlife photography is to be encouraged when compatible with the purposes of the Refuge.

The guiding principles of the System’s wildlife photography program are to  provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible wildlife viewing opportunities and facilities;

B-15

 promote visitor understanding of, and increase visitor appreciation for, America’s natural resources;  provide opportunities for quality recreational and educational experiences consistent with criteria describing quality found in 605 FW 1.6; and  minimize conflicts with visitors participating in other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation activities.

Commercial photography is a visual recording (motion or still) by firms or individuals (other than news media representatives) who intend to distribute their photographic product for money or other consideration. This includes the creation of educational, entertainment, or commercial enterprises as well as advertising audio-visuals created for the purpose of paid product or services publicity and commercially oriented photo contests (Service Manual 605 FW 5).

Modoc Refuge is open to the public for wildlife observation and photography daily from sunrise to sunset year-round. Facilities include a three-mile auto tour route, one-mile walking trail with observation blind and interpretive overlook, and US 395 overlook. In addition, wildlife viewing opportunities can be found at Dorris Reservoir and from the roads along the perimeter of the Refuge. Dorris Reservoir is open for walk-in access from February 1 through September 30.

The 60-acre Environmental Education (EE) area will be opened seasonally (March 1 through August 31) for wildlife observation and photography. This area will include a trail, observation deck and blind, floating dock, environmental education shelter, boardwalk, interpretive panels, and kiosk.

In addition to the facilities described above, there is a universally accessible photography blind on Modoc Refuge. It has adjustable camera size openings in three sides. The blind accommodates one person comfortably; however, two people at a time are allowed. The photo blind is available on a first come, first serve basis. The blind is available year-round by reservation through the Refuge Headquarters. This use is described in the Proposed Action (Alternative C) analyzed in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009) and is incorporated by reference.

Availability of Resources: User fees are collected when issuing special use permits (SUP) to commercial photographers. The minimum standard fee for commercial photography is $100 per year (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). This category applies to any photography that result in images that are intended for sale, or where the photographer is otherwise paid for the work by salary or contract. A permit and fee is not required when the photographer is utilizing areas and facilities that are open to the public. If any special attention (such as transportation, access to restricted areas, food, lodging, or guide service) is provided by the refuge staff, these costs will be added to the standard fee for issuing a SUP. All fair and reasonable expenses (i.e., salary costs and purchases) for administering this SUP will be tracked with an Economic Use Worksheet (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005) consistent with section 17.9 5 RM 17 of the Refuge Manual.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Once considered “non-consumptive”, it is now recognized that wildlife photography can negatively impact wildlife by altering wildlife behavior, reproduction, distribution, and habitat (Purdy et al. 1987, Knight and Cole 1995).

B-16

Of the wildlife observation techniques, photographers tend to have the largest disturbance impacts (Klein 1993, Morton 1995, Dobb 1998). While wildlife observers frequently stop to view species, wildlife photographers are more likely to approach wildlife (Klein 1993). Even a slow approach by photographers tends to have behavioral consequences to wildlife species (Klein 1993). Other impacts include the potential for photographers to remain close to wildlife for extended periods of time, in an attempt to habituate the wildlife subject to their presence (Dobb 1998) and the tendency of casual photographers, with low-power lenses, to get much closer to their subjects than other activities would require (Morton 1995), including wandering off trails. This usually results in increased disturbance to wildlife and habitat, including trampling of plants. Klein (1993) recommended that refuges provide observation and photography blinds to reduce disturbance to waterbirds when approached by visitors.

Disturbance of wildlife is the primary concern regarding this use. Disturbance to wildlife, such as the flushing of feeding, resting, or nesting birds, is inherent to these activities. There is some temporary disturbance to wildlife due to human activities on trails (e.g., hiking and bird watching); however, the disturbance is generally localized and does not have an adverse effect on overall populations. Increased facilities and visitation would cause some displacement of habitat and increase some disturbance to wildlife, although this is expected to be minor given the size of the Refuge and the avoidance or minimization of intrusions into important wildlife habitat.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction with distribution of the Draft CCP and EA for Modoc Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

Determination:

_____ Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

 Access to the Refuge is allowed from sunrise to sunset.  A universally accessible photography blind on Modoc Refuge is available by reservation year- round.  Commercial wildlife photographers must obtain a SUP if the request includes access to closed areas or other special considerations (access to the Refuge after normal public visitation hours, setting up temporary photography blinds, etc.) (16 USC 460I-6d, Refuge Manual 8 RM 16). A minimum standard fee of $100 per year for commercial photographers will be charged for issuing the SUP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). Areas used will be closely monitored to evaluate the impacts on the resource; if adverse impacts appear, the activity may be moved to secondary locations or curtailed entirely. Specific conditions may apply depending upon the requested activity and will be addressed through the SUP.  All fair and reasonable expenses (i.e. salary costs and purchases) for administering this SUP will be tracked with an Economic Use Worksheet (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005) consistent with section 17.9 5 RM 17 of the Refuge Manual.  All commercial photography operations that involve models, sets, props, lights, or similar equipment which will result in damage to the resource or which will unduly conflict with normal visitor use require an audio-visual production permit. Photography that includes

B-17

commercial products for sale, filming motion pictures, documentaries or commercials, and similar related activities also requires an audio-visual production permit. All advertising photography requires an audio-visual production permit. Advertisements must not imply endorsement by the Service. No fee is charged for the permit. A bond or cash deposit is required when an audio-visual production permit is issued. The purpose of the bond is to assure that the area is left in its original condition. A performance bond issued by a bonding company, a cash deposit or certified check may be used for this purpose. Bonds or deposits will be required in amounts equal to the estimated cost to the Service of clean-up or restoration that would be required if the permittee failed to perform. Should the permittee actually fail to perform all or any part of the necessary clean-up or restoration, the refuge manager will have the required work done, assess the charge, deduct it from the bond or cash deposit and return the balance, if any, to the permittee. A Certificate of Insurance naming the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as certificate holder with the filming company assuming all liability for losses and damages also is required (Refuge Manual 8 RM 16). Areas used will be closely monitored to evaluate the impacts on the resource. If adverse impacts appear, the activity may be moved to secondary locations or curtailed entirely. Specific conditions may apply depending upon the requested activity and will be addressed through the audio-visual production permit.  News gathering organizations are exempt from formal permits and bonding requirements.

Justification: It is determined that commercial photography within Modoc National Wildlife Refuge as described herein, will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge were established or the mission of the Refuge System. In our opinion, allowing commercial photography with associated stipulations will not conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the Refuge.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (2019):

_____ Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EA and CCP (for priority public uses)

X Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

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

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: The debate behind the lens. Audubon Jan.-Feb. Klein, M. L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:31-39.

B-18

Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In Wildlife and recreationists, edited by R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller. Covelo, California: Island Press. Morton, J. M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. In Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement and management in the Atlantic Flyway, edited by W. R. Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whittemore, P. Kehoe and L. Roberts. Dover, Delaware: Environmental Manage. Comm., Atlantic Flyway Council Techn. Sect., and Delaware Div. Fish and Wildl. Purdy, K. G., G. R. Goft, D. J. Decker, G. A. Pomerantz, and N. A. Connelly. 1987. A guide to managing human activity on national wildlife refuges. Ft. Collins, Colorado: Office of Information Transfer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Standardized fee schedule for special use permits. March 16, 1992 memo from Assistant Regional Director, Refuges and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Implementing recommendations in the OIG Audit Report entitled "Miscellaneous receipts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" (Report 00-I-50). September 23, 2005 memo from Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8.

B-19

Compatibility Determination for Environmental Education and Interpretation at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (2009)

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Refuge Name: Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, located in Modoc County, California.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Modoc Refuge purposes include:

“... 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).

Description of Use: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identifies environmental education and interpretation as well as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and photography as priority wildlife dependent public uses for refuges. As two of the six priority public uses of the Refuge System, these uses are to be encouraged when compatible with the purposes of the refuge. Environmental education and interpretation are considered simultaneously in this compatibility determination. Many elements of environmental education and interpretation are also similar to opportunities provided in the wildlife observation and photography programs. These uses are identified and discussed in detail in the Proposed Action (Alternative C) analyzed in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and

B-21

Environmental Assessment (EA) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a) and are incorporated by reference.

The guiding principles of the Refuge System’s environmental education programs (605 FW 6 of the Service Manual) are to

 teach awareness, understanding, and appreciation of our natural and cultural resources and conservation history;  allow program participants to demonstrate learning through refuge-specific stewardship tasks and projects that they can carry over into their everyday lives;  establish partnerships to support environmental education both on- and off-site;  support local, State, and national educational standards through environmental education on refuges;  assist refuge staff, volunteers, and other partners in obtaining the knowledge, skills, and abilities to support environmental education;  provide appropriate materials, equipment, facilities, and study locations to support environmental education;  give refuges a way to serve as role models in the community for environmental stewardship; and  minimize conflicts with visitors participating in other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation activities.

The guiding principles of the Refuge System’s interpretive programs (605 FW 7 of the Service Manual) are to

 promote visitor understanding of, and increase appreciation for, America’s natural and cultural resources and conservation history by providing safe, informative, enjoyable, and accessible interpretive opportunities, products, and facilities;  develop a sense of stewardship leading to actions and attitudes that reflect interest and respect for wildlife resources, cultural resources, and the environment;  provide quality interpretive experiences that help people understand and appreciate the individual refuge and its role in the Refuge System;  provide opportunities for quality recreational and interpretive experiences consistent with criteria describing quality found in 605 FW 1.6;  assist refuge staff, volunteers, and community support groups in attaining knowledge, skills, and abilities in support of interpretation; and  minimize conflicts with visitors participating in other compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities.

Environmental education and interpretation conducted on portions of the Refuge open to the public do not require a Special Use Permit (SUP). These areas are open from sunrise to sunset.

Environmental Education 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 and the Refuge’s natural, cultural, and historical resources through hands on projects. All kindergarten through eighth grade students in the Alturas school system

B-22

take part in a field trip to the outdoor learning laboratory each spring. Field trips will be expanded to include ninth through twelfth grade students.

The Environmental Education (EE) area (60 acres) will be opened seasonally (March 1 through August 31) for activities. Facilities will include a trail, observation deck and blind, floating dock, EE shelter, boardwalk, interpretive panels, and kiosk. Activities will include revegetation of native plants, plant inventory, wildlife inventory, water quality monitoring, and more. Participation provides an opportunity for students to complete hands-on, placed-based learning projects at the site as they progress in grade levels. Over 1,500 students will participate in the project annually both on- and off-Refuge.

Interpretation 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. First-hand experience with the environment is emphasized. Presentations, audiovisual media, and exhibits are also components of the interpretive program. The interpretation visits will be expand and enhanced up to 300 off-site and 150 on-site visits annually.

The Refuge will continue to maintain the Refuge’s website. Interpretive displays and brochures will continue to be updated and provided in Refuge kiosks and in the Refuge Headquarters. Displays along the walking trail, EE area, and auto tour route will also be maintained. In addition, the Refuge will develop a “Sense of Wonder Zone” by creating a family oriented opportunity area where youth and people of all ages can reconnect with nature.

Refuge related information is provided at annual local festivals and during special events, such as the Wings of the Warners, Children’s Fair, and Modoc County Fair. In 2007, there were 150 off- site participants and 120 on-site participants.

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs (based on FY 2008 costs) would be required to administer and manage environmental education and interpretation activities as described above:

One-Time Costs Annual Costs New Construction Develop Environmental Education $650,500 $3,000 Area Expand Refuge $200,000 $1,000 Headquarters/Visitor Center Predicted Maintenance of Facilities Equipment, vehicles, and supplies $3,000 (brochures, etc.) Total $850,500 $7,000

Additional funds would be required to fully implement the environmental education and interpretation programs. Additional visitor services staff and volunteers would be needed. Funding will be sought through the Service budget process. Other sources will be sought through

B-23

strengthened partnerships, grants, and additional refuge operations funding to support a safe and quality program as described above.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Disturbance of wildlife is the primary concern regarding these uses. Disturbance to wildlife, such as the flushing of feeding, resting, or nesting birds, is inherent to these activities. There is some temporary disturbance to wildlife due to human activities on trails (hiking, bird watching) however, the disturbance is generally localized and will not adversely impact overall populations. Increased facilities and visitation would cause some displacement of habitat and increase some disturbance to wildlife, although this is expected to be minor given the size of the Refuge and the avoidance or minimization of intrusions into important wildlife habitat.

Individual animals may be disturbed by human contact to varying degrees. Human activities on trails can result in direct effects on wildlife through harassment, a form of disturbance that can cause physiological effects, behavioral modifications, or death (Smith and Hunt 1995). Many studies have shown that birds can be affected by human activities on trails when they are disturbed and flushed from feeding, resting, or nesting areas. Flushing, especially repetitive flushing, can strongly affect habitat use patterns of many bird species. Flushing from an area can cause birds to expend more energy, be deterred from using desirable habitat, alter resting or feeding patterns, increase exposure to predation, or cause birds to abandon sites with repeated disturbance (Smith and Hunt 1995). Migratory birds were observed to be more sensitive than resident species to disturbance (Klein 1989).

Herons and shorebirds were observed to be the most easily disturbed (when compared to gulls, terns and ducks) by human activity and flushed to distant areas away from people (Burger 1981). A reduced number of shorebirds were found near people who were walking or jogging, and about 50 percent of flushed birds flew elsewhere (Burger 1981). In addition, the foraging time of sanderlings decreased and avoidance (e.g., running and flushing) increased as the number of humans within 100 meters increased (Burger and Gochfeld 1991). Nest predation for songbirds (Miller et al. 1998), raptors (Glinski 1976), colonial nesting species (Buckley and Buckley 1976), and waterfowl (Boyle and Samson 1985) tends to increase in areas more frequently visited by people. In addition, for many passerine species, primary song occurrence and consistency can be affected by a single visitor (Gutzwiller et al. 1994). In areas where primary song was affected by disturbance, birds appeared to be reluctant to establish nesting territories (Reijnen and Foppen 1994).

Depending on the species (especially migrants vs. residents), some birds may habituate to some types of recreation disturbance and either are not disturbed or will immediately return after the initial disturbance (Hockin et al. 1992; Burger et al. 1995; Knight and Temple 1995; Madsen 1995; Fox and Madsen 1997). Rodgers and Smith (1997) calculated buffer distances that minimize disturbance to foraging and loafing birds based on experimental flushing distances for 16 species of waders and shorebirds. They recommended 100 meters as an adequate buffer against pedestrian traffic, however, they suggest this distance may be reduced if physical barriers (e.g., vegetation screening) are provided, noise levels are reduced, and traffic is directed tangentially rather than directly toward birds. Screening may not effectively buffer noise impacts, thus visitors should be educated on the effects of noise and noise restrictions should be enforced (Burger 1981, 1986; Klein 1993; Bowles 1995; Burger and Gochfeld 1998). Seasonally restricting or prohibiting recreation activity may be necessary during spring and fall migration to alleviate disturbance to migratory birds (Burger 1981, 1986; Boyle and Samson 1985; Klein et al. 1995; Hill et al. 1997).

B-24

Education helps make visitors aware that their actions can have negative impacts on birds, and will increase the likelihood that visitors will abide by restrictions on their actions. For example, Klein (1993) demonstrated that visitors who had spoken with refuge staff or volunteers were less likely to disturb birds. Increased surveillance and imposed fines may also help reduce visitor caused disturbance (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). Monitoring is recommended to adjust management techniques over time, particularly because it is often difficult to generalize about the impacts of specific types of recreation in different environments. Local and site-specific knowledge is necessary to determine effects on birds and to develop effective management strategies (Hockin et al. 1992; Klein et al. 1995; Hill et al. 1997). Informed management decisions coupled with sufficient public education could do much to mitigate disturbance effects of wildlife-dependent recreation (Purdy et al 1987).

Environmental education and interpretation activities generally support the Refuge’s purposes and impacts can largely be minimized (Goff et al. 1988). The minor resource impacts attributed to these activities are generally outweighed by the benefits gained by educating present and future generations about refuge resources. Environmental education is a public use management tool used to develop a resource protection ethic within society. While it targets school age children, it is not limited to this group. This tool allows us to educate refuge visitors about endangered and threatened species management, wildlife management, and ecological principles and communities. A secondary benefit of environmental education is that it instills an ‘ownership’ or ‘stewardship’ ethic in visitors and most likely reduces vandalism, littering, and poaching; it also strengthens service visibility in the local community.

Disturbance by environmental education activities is considered to be of minimal impact because: (1) students and teachers will be instructed in wildlife observation etiquette and the best ways to view wildlife with minimal disturbance; (2) education groups will be required to have a sufficient number of adults to supervise the group; (3) observation areas, binoculars, and scopes are provided to view wildlife at a distance which reduces disturbance.

Refuge staff coordinates to ensure that impacts to both wildlife and habitat are minimal. As with any restoration and monitoring activities conducted by refuge personnel, these activities conducted by students would be at a time and place where the least amount of disturbance would occur.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction with distribution of the Draft CCP and EA for Modoc Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

Determination: Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

 Participants in the Refuge’s environmental education and interpretation programs are restricted to established trails, the visitor center, environmental education area, and other designated sites.

B-25

 Wildlife observation etiquette including ways to reduce wildlife disturbance is discussed with teachers during orientation and with students upon arrival during their welcome session. On the Refuge, the teacher(s) is responsible for ensuring that students follow wildlife observation etiquette.  Refuge staff conducts regular surveys of public activities on the Refuge. The data is analyzed and used by the refuge manager to develop future modifications if necessary to ensure compatibility of environmental education programs.  Educational groups are required to have a sufficient number of adults to supervise their groups, a minimum of 1 adult per 12 students.  Maintain interpretive signage, displays, kiosks, and brochures.  Open the EE area (60 acres) for environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography from March 1 through August 31 including trail, observation deck and blind, floating dock, EE shelter, boardwalk, interpretive panels, and kiosk.

Justification: These wildlife-dependent uses are priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Providing opportunities for environmental education and interpretation would contribute to fulfilling provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended in 1997, and one of the goals of Modoc Refuge (Goals 3 and 4, Chapter 4, CCP). Environmental education and interpretation would provide an excellent forum for allowing public access and increasing understanding of Refuge resources. The stipulations outlined above should minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions. Based upon impacts described in the Draft CCP and EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009), it is determined that environmental education and interpretation within Modoc National Wildlife Refuge as described herein, will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge System. In our opinion, implementing the visitor services plan and associated stipulations will not conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the Refuge.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (2024):

X Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EA and CCP (for priority public uses)

_____ Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

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

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

B-26

References Cited

Bowles, A. E. 1995. Response of wildlife to noise. In Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistence through management and research, edited by R. L. Knight and D. N. Cole. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Boyle, S. A., and F. B. Samson. 1985. Effects of non-consumptive recreation on wildlife: A review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116. Buckley, P. A., and F. G. Buckley. 1976. Guidelines for protection and management of colonially nesting waterbirds. Boston, Massachusetts: North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service. Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 21:231-241. Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United States. Biological Conservation 13:123-130. Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human distance and birds: Tolerance and response distances of resident and migrant species in India. Environmental Conservation 18:158-165. Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, and L. J. Niles. 1995. Ecotourism and birds in coastal New Jersey: Contrasting responses of birds, tourists, and managers. Environmental Conservation 22:56-65. Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1998. Effects of ecotourists on bird behavior at Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Environmental Conservation 25:13-21. Fox, A. D., and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:1-13. Glinski, R. L. 1976. Bird watching etiquette: The need for a developing philosophy. American Bird 30(3):655-657. Goff, G. R., D. J. Decker, and G. Pomerantz. 1988. A diagnostic tool for analyzing visitor impacts on wildlife refuges: A basis for a systematic approach to visitor management. In Transactions of the Northeast Section Wildlife Society 45:82. Gutzwiller, K. J., R. T. Wiedenmann, K. L. Clements, and S. H. Anderson. 1994. Effects on human intrusion on song occurrence and singing consistency in subalpine birds. Auk 111:28-37. Hill, D. A., D. Hockin, D. Price, G. Tucker, R. Morris, and J. Treweek. 1997. Bird disturbance: Improving the quality and utility of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:275-288. Hockin, D., M. Ounsted, M. Gorman, D. A. Hill, V. Keller, and M. A. Barker. 1992. Examination of the effects of disturbance on birds with reference to its importance in ecological assessments. Journal of Environmental Management 36:253-286. Klein, M. L. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J.N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Sanibel Florida. Master's thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Klein, M. L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:31-39.

B-27

Klein, M. L., S. R. Humphrey, and H. F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution of waterbirds in a wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology 9:1454-1465. Knight, R. L., and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistence through management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In Wildlife and recreationists, edited by R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller. Covelo, California: Island Press. Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74. Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169. Purdy, K. G., G. R. Goft, D. J. Decker, G. A. Pomerantz, and N. A. Connelly. 1987. A guide to managing human activity on national wildlife refuges. Ft. Collins, Colorado: Office of Information Transfer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Reijnen, R., and R. Foppen. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. I. Evidence of reduced habitat quality for willow warbler (Pylloscopus trochilus) breeding close to a highway. Journal of Applied Ecology 31:85-94. Rodgers, J. A., Jr., and S. T. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. Conservation Biology 16(1):216-224. Smith, L., and J. D. Hunt. 1995. Nature tourism: Impacts and management. In Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistence through management and research, edited by R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8.

B-28 Compatibility Determination for Environmental Education and Interpretation at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: /� (Date)sj o�

Wildlife Refuge Manager/ Project Leader Approval: �_� (Signature)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: (Signature) (Date)121ft) J�9

Assistant Regional 11.-/10-/07 Director Refuges: (Si�rgl1atUl'e ),kiL . (Date)

B-29

Compatibility Determination for Fishing at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (2009)

Use: Fishing

Refuge Name: Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, located in Modoc County, California.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Modoc Refuge purposes include:

“... 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).

Description of Use: Fishing is identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee) as a priority use for refuges when it is compatible with the refuge purposes and mission of the Refuge System. As a result, the Service is proposing to continue fishing on approximately 547 acres of Modoc National Wildlife Refuge. The Proposed Action (Alternative C) analyzed in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a) and the Fishing Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009b), which are incorporated by reference, contain maps and Refuge descriptions where fishing will be allowed. The fishing program will provide high quality, safe, and cost-effective fishing opportunities, and will be carried out consistent with State

B-30

regulations. The guiding principles of the Refuge System’s fishing programs (Service Manual 605 FW 3) are to  effectively maintain healthy and diverse fish communities and aquatic ecosystems through the use of scientific management techniques;  promote visitor understanding of, and increase visitor appreciation for, America’s natural resources;  provide opportunities for quality recreational and educational experiences consistent with criteria describing quality found in 605 FW 1.6;  encourage participation in this tradition deeply rooted in America’s natural heritage and conservation history; and  minimize conflicts with visitors participating in other compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities.

Fishing is allowed on Dorris Reservoir during daylight hours from February 1 through September 30. Fishing is not permitted on the remainder of the Refuge. Dorris Reservoir is closed to all access during the waterfowl hunting season (October 1 through January 31) to reduce disturbance to wintering, resting, foraging, and breeding birds and other wildlife and their habitats. Walk-in access is permitted February 1 through March 31. Shoreline areas, islands, and peninsulas with nesting waterfowl are signed and closed to public access during the waterfowl nesting season (February 1 through May 31).

There are two boat launches, five parking areas, three restrooms, and one universally accessible fishing pier at Dorris Reservoir. Interpretive brochures and displays at Dorris Reservoir will continue to be updated and maintained.

The Refuge adopts harvest regulations set by the State, which uses the best available population information. Anglers are required to comply with all State fishing regulations. Game fish species that will be allowed for legal take include all native and introduced species listed in the California regulations Freshwater Sport Fishing.

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs (based on FY 2008 costs) would be required to administer and manage fishing activities as described above:

One Time Costs Annual Costs Administration $1,000 Law Enforcement $4,000 Monitoring $1,000 Signs and brochures $500 Gate opening contract $3,500 Maintenance of facilities (fishing pier, 3 $2,000 restrooms, 2 kiosks, etc) Maintenance of roads and parking lots at $5,000 Dorris Reservoir Maintain and improve boat launches $7,500 $ 500 Total $7,500 $17,500

B-31

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Fishing as a solitary and stationary activity tends to be less disturbing to wildlife than hunting or motorized boating (Tuite et al 1983). It is well recognized that fishing can give many people a deeper appreciation of fish and wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of conserving habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the Refuge System mission. Furthermore, despite the potential impacts of fishing, one of the goals of Modoc Refuge is to provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. Fishing is one of the six priority public uses on the Refuge System. Of key concern then, is to manage the activity to keep adverse impacts to within acceptable limits.

Fishing activities may influence the composition of bird communities, as well as distribution, abundance, and productivity of waterbirds (Tydeman 1977, Bouffard 1982, Bell and Austin 1985, Bordignon 1985, Edwards and Bell 1985, and Cooke 1987). Shoreline activities, such as human noise, would cause some birds to flush and go elsewhere. Disturbance and destruction of vegetation, bank stability, and water quality may result from high levels of bank fishing activities. Boating associated with fishing can alter bird distribution, reduce use of particular habitats or entire areas by waterfowl and other waterbirds, alter feeding behavior and nutritional status, and cause premature departure from areas (Knight and Cole 1995).

Fishing and other human activities cause disturbance to wildlife (Burger 1981). Cumulative impacts of this increased use have correlating effects on wildlife, habitat, and the fisheries resource (Buckley and Buckley 1976; Glinski 1976; Miller et al. 1998; Reijnen and Foppen 1994; Smith and Hunt 1995).

The Refuge believes that there will be minimal conflicts between anglers and other wildlife- dependent recreational uses. Reducing conflicts between fishing and hunting, non-consumptive uses, and neighboring landowners will be minimized by the following:

 Provide information about the Refuge fishing program by maintaining informational signs/kiosks, distributing brochures, and utilizing the Refuge’s website (www.fws.gov/modoc).  Law enforcement patrols by game wardens and refuge officers to enforce State and Federal regulations.  Restrict entry and departure times as well as seasonal use on the Refuge.  Anglers using boats (motorized and non-motorized) must abide by the boating stipulations described in the State and Coast Guard regulations on boating.  Regulatory and directional signs clearly mark designated routes of travel and areas closed to the public.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction with distribution of the Draft CCP and EA for Modoc Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a).

Determination:

_____ Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

B-32

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

 Sport Fishing (italicized text represents a new and/or change regulation):

We allow fishing (fish and crayfish) only on Dorris Reservoir in accordance with State regulations subject to the following conditions:

1. We prohibit fishing from October 1 through January 31. 2. We allow fishing from legal sunrise to legal sunset. 3. We only allow walk-in access to Dorris Reservoir from February 1 through March 31. 4. We only allow use of boats on Dorris Reservoir from April 1 through September 30.

 A seasonal closure from October 1 through January 31 will be implemented to reduce disturbance to wintering, resting, foraging, and breeding birds and other wildlife and their habitats.  Shoreline areas, islands, and peninsulas with nesting waterfowl are signed and closed to public access during the waterfowl nesting season (February 1 through May 31).  Regulatory and directional signs clearly mark designated routes of travel and areas closed to the public.  Maps and public use information are available at the Refuge Headquarters, kiosks, and the Refuge’s website http://www.fws.gov/modoc.  Periodic law enforcement will help ensure compliance with State fishing regulations and Refuge regulation compliance.  Refuge staff will conduct regular surveys of fishing activities on the Refuge. The data is analyzed and used by the refuge manager to develop future modifications if necessary to ensure compatibility of the fishing program.

Justification: Fishing is a wildlife-dependent use and a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Providing opportunities for fishing would contribute toward fulfilling provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended in 1997, and one of the goals of Modoc Refuge (Goal 3, Chapter 4, CCP). The stipulations outlined above should minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions. Based upon impacts described in the Draft CCP and EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a), it is determined that fishing within Modoc National Wildlife Refuge as described herein, will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge System. In our opinion, implementing the fishing programs and associated stipulations will not conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the Refuge.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (2024):

X Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EA and CCP (for priority public uses)

_____ Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

B-33

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

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited

Bell, D. V., and L. W. Austin. 1985. The game-fishing season and its effects on overwintering wildfowl. Biological Conservation 33:3. Bordignon, L. 1985. Effetti del disturbo antropico su una popolazione di germano reale Anas platyrhynchos. (Effects of human disturbance on a population of mallard Anas platyrhynchos). Avocetta 9:87-88. Bouffard, S. H. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 47:553-558. Buckley, P. A., and F. G. Buckley. 1976. Guidelines for protection and management of colonially nesting waterbirds. Boston, Massachusetts: North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service. Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 21:231-241. Cooke, A. S. 1987. Disturbance by anglers of birds at Grafham Water. ITE Symposium 19:15-22. Edwards, R. W., and D. V. Bell. 1985. Fishing in troubled waters. New Science 1446:19-21. Glinski, R. L. 1976. Bird watching etiquette: The need for a developing philosophy. American Bird 30(3):655-657. Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In Wildlife and recreationists, edited by R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller. Covelo, California: Island Press. Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169. Reijnen, R., and R. Foppen. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. I. Evidence of reduced habitat quality for willow warbler (Pylloscopus trochilus) breeding close to a highway. Journal of Applied Ecology 31:85-94. Smith, L., and J. D. Hunt. 1995. Nature tourism: Impacts and management. In Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistence through management and research, edited by R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Tuite, C. H., M. Owen, and D. Paynther. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63.

B-34

Tydeman, C. F. 1977. The importance of the close fishing season to breeding bird communities. Journal of Environmental Management 5:289-296. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge fishing plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8.

B-35 Compatibility Determination for Fishing at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Refuge Determination

Prepared by:

Wildlife Refuge Manager! Project Leader Approval: __-= ---- - IA,,/Pdl ��= --�� - �.- � - � - tSign �.ure) �' (Date) : =

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: Ok.- '"'Ldlt-- 1'2-31- 0" A-e-fr�j (Signature) (Date)

Assistant Regional Director Refuges: (Signature)

B-36

Compatibility Determination for Grazing at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (2009)

Use: Grazing

Refuge Name: Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, located in Modoc County, California.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Modoc Refuge purposes include:

“... 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).

Description of Use: Grazing is not identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee) as a priority use for refuges. However, managing vegetation at Modoc Refuge through grazing provides habitat in the form of water, food, cover, breeding areas, rearing areas, and sanctuary for a variety of wildlife including migratory birds, waterfowl, and shorebirds.

Livestock grazing is conducted annually on Modoc Refuge, where appropriate, for a specified period (i.e., seasonally) to manage vegetation for the benefit of native plants and wildlife habitat. Grazing is administered with a livestock cooperator under a Special Use Permit (SUP). The SUP states provisions for habitat objectives, expected wildlife benefits, shared staffing, facility

B-37

maintenance, pest management, remedies, operating rules and laws, and reporting requirements. An annual habitat management plan identifies the Refuge tract to be grazed and specifies vegetation and habitat type, grazing objective (primary target weed and/or primary native species or taxa), prescribed expected tract conditions (vegetation height), date by which expected conditions are to be met, livestock turn-in/turn-out dates, and Animal Unit Months (AUM).

Grazing is used as a management tool to improve habitat conditions on the Refuge. Grazing privately owned livestock (cattle) will be conducted September 1 through November 30 to provide short green browse for migratory birds. Typically, the wet meadows are hayed prior to grazing (see Haying Compatibility Determination, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009); however, there are two units on the Refuge that are only grazed.

The specific dates are determined by the refuge manager and permittee to develop a strategy that meets target tract objectives. Each year the needs for vegetation management, including grazing, are evaluated during the annual review of the habitat management plan. The plan has built-in flexibility due to the uncertainties of annual and seasonal precipitation, flooding, and temperatures, and their consequent affect on vegetation growth. This flexibility ensures that expected conditions are met and that Refuge vegetation is neither over-grazed nor under- grazed—both conditions result in degraded habitat. The SUP specifies the Refuge tract, identifies facilities and maintenance projects, materials, shared responsibilities, and special management problems and considerations.

Permittees pay a unit price per AUM. This price is based as closely as possible on local market rates. During 2007, 935 acres of the Refuge were grazed. Permittees paid between $14.50 and $21.00 per AUM on the Refuge and total revenue for grazing collected in 2007 was $12,478.99. Funds will be deposited into the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund.

This is a refuge management economic activity and its utilization helps the Refuge achieve the purposes for which it was created and the mission of the Refuge System. The proposed grazing program is described in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and associated Environmental Assessment (EA), which are incorporated by reference (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs (based on FY 2008 costs) would be required to administer and manage grazing activities as described above:

Annual Costs Monitoring $1,000 Administration $1,000 Facilities maintenance $5,000 Total $7,000

Refuge operational funds are currently available through the Service budget process to administer this program. Individual grazing units are awarded to the highest bidder. Every three years the Refuge conducts a rate survey to determine the base rate for an AUM. This base rate provides the minimum bid used during the bidding process. The previous year’s permittee has the right to match the high bid. Monitoring is addressed in the annual habitat management plan.

B-38

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Grazing can be an effective management tool as part of an overall vegetative management strategy to improve and maintain wet meadows for the benefit of migratory birds and other species on Modoc Refuge. Primary plant species found in areas grazed include grasses (Agropyron spp., Agrostis spp., Poa spp., Hordeum spp.), sedges (Carex nebrascensis, Elocharis spp., Juncus balticus), and a mix of forbs. These areas may be used by a variety of wildlife species during different parts of the year to meet specific life-cycle needs. Grazing will provide foraging habitat for migratory bird species in the spring including Canada geese, white-fronted geese, pintails, mallards, and a variety of other duck and bird species. During early summer, grazed areas provide foraging areas for Canada goose broods and greater sandhill cranes.

Grazing by native wildlife species has long occurred in the California landscape where it has shaped its botanical and zoological resources (Edwards 1992; Edwards 1996). Currently, livestock grazing is an important method of vegetation management (Barry 2003; Griggs 2000). Beneficial effects to refuge habitat, wildlife, and native plants would occur as a result of a well-managed livestock grazing program. Primary benefits associated with the grazing program include a reduction in the accumulation of dead plant material; reduction in non-native invasive weeds (Thomsen et al. 1993); increases in native plants, including special-status species, from reduced competition for sunlight, water and nutrients with non-native annual grasses (Coppoletta and Moritsch 2001; Davis and Sherman 1992; Menke 1992; Muir and Moseley 1994); increases in primary production and resultant increases in plant biomass (McNaughton 1985); increases in flowering, with consequent increases in macro-invertebrate populations, including native pollinators of native plants, and prey items for refuge wildlife such as migratory birds. Grazing would provide optimal shorebird foraging habitat (Colwell and Dodd 1995; Knopf and Rupert 1995) and would provide short, nutritious grasses for grazing migratory waterfowl (Buchsbaum et al. 1986), and local deer. Aquatic invertebrates, insects, and special-status species would benefit from grazed herbaceous habitats (Bratton 1990; Bratton and Fryer 1990; Panzer 1988; Germano et al. 2001; Knopf and Rupert 1995). Primary, long-term benefits include continued annual native plant production, control of non-native invasive plant species, and seasonal use of Refuge habitat by migratory birds and resident deer.

The grazing program could also affect Refuge wildlife and habitat. Impacts to some nesting waterfowl and songbirds could occur (Kirsch 1969; Krueper 1993). Seasonal grazing would improve plant species composition and structure so that short-term impacts to wildlife and habitat would be mitigated by long-term benefits to Refuge vegetation, native plants, and overall wildlife habitat quality.

Potential impacts of grazing activities on the Refuge’s resources will be minimized because sufficient restrictions would be included as part of the annual habitat management plan and grazing activities will be monitored by refuge staff. The annual habitat management plan and associated projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of native Refuge wildlife populations and their habitats thereby helping the Refuge fulfill the purposes for which it was established, the mission of the Refuge System, and the need to maintain ecological integrity, diversity, and environmental health.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction with distribution of the Draft CCP and EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009) for Modoc Refuge.

B-39

Determination:

_____ Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

 The criteria for evaluating need for vegetation management, including grazing, are determined during the annual review of the habitat management plan.  Grazing is conducted in accordance with the SUPs, which include special conditions that specify timing of grazing, location(s) of grazing, stocking densities, access locations, and personnel and equipment allowed. The specific conditions can vary annually due to differences in objectives, habitat conditions, and weather.  Grazing is not allowed in sensitive natural areas or cultural resource sites.  Grazing is restricted to the period of September 1 through November 30.  Permittee shall notify the refuge manager not less than 48 hours prior to the time of moving cattle on or off the Refuge or between grazing units.  Dead cattle shall be removed from the Refuge immediately.  Permittee must meadow drag their field(s) and it must be accomplished prior to February 15.  Permittee will be responsible for repair of unit fences. Fences must be in good condition and approved by the refuge manager prior to the entry of cattle. Permittees on adjoining units will be jointly responsible for fences between units. Materials for fence repairs will be furnished by the Refuge.  Every three years the Refuge conducts a rate survey to determine the base rate for an 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.

Justification: The grazing program as described is determined to be compatible. Based upon impacts described in the Draft CCP and EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009), it is determined that grazing within Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, as described herein, will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge System. Refuge livestock grazing will directly benefit and support refuge goals, objectives, and management plans and activities. Populations of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitat will improve through vegetation management, which will result in short-term and long- term reductions of non-native invasive plant species, increases in native plants, increases in biomass, improved foraging conditions for migratory birds and local deer herds, and long-term improved nesting conditions for some species. Consequently, the livestock grazing program would increase or maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge.

The wildlife-dependent, priority public uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation) would also benefit as a result of the increased biodiversity, wildlife, and native plant populations from improved habitat conditions associated with the grazing program.

B-40

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (2019):

_____ Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EA and CCP (for priority public uses)

X Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

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

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited

Barry, S. 2003. Using planned grazing to manage for native grasslands. In Grazing techniques and strategies for using native grass and graminoids in revegetation and restoration: California Native Grass Association. Bratton, J. H. 1990. Seasonal pools: An overlooked invertebrate habitat. British Wildlife 2:22-29. Bratton, J. H., and G. Fryer. 1990. The distribution and ecology of Chirocephalus diaphanus Prevost (Branchiopoda: Anostraca) in Britain. Journal of Natural History 24:955-964. Buchsbaum, R., J. Wilson, and I. Valiela. 1986. Digestibility of plant constituents by Canada geese and Atlantic brant. Ecology 67:386-393. Colwell, M. A., and S. L. Dodd. 1995. Waterbird communities and habitat relationships in coastal pastures of northern California. Conservation Biology 9:827-834. Coppoletta, M., and B. Moritsch. 2001. Talking steps toward long-term preservation of the Sonoma spineflower. Fremontia 29(2):23-25. Davis, L. H., and R. J. Sherman. 1992. Ecological study of the rare Chorizanthe valida (Polygonaceae) at Point Ryes National Seashore, California. Madrõno 39(4):271-280. Edwards, S. W. 1992. Observations on the prehistory and ecology of grazing in California. Fremontia 20(1):3-11. Germano, D. J., G. B. Rathbun, and L. R. Saslaw. 2001. Managing exotic grasses and conserving declining species. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2):551-559. Griggs, F. T. 2000. Vina Plains Preserve: Eighteen years of adaptive management. Fremontia 27(4):48-51. Kirsch, L. M. 1969. Waterfowl production in relation to grazing. Journal of Wildlife Management 33:821-828.

B-41

Knopf, F. L., and J. R. Rupert. 1995. Habits and habitats of mountain plovers in California. The Condor 97:143-751. Krueper, D. J. 1993. Effects of land use practices on western riparian ecosystems. In Status and management of neotropical migratory birds, edited by D. M. Finch and P. W. Strangel. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-229. McNaughton, S. J. 1985. Ecology of a grazing ecosystem: The Serengeti. Ecological Monographs 55:259-294. Menke, J. W. 1992. Grazing and fire management for native perennial grass restoration in California grasslands. Fremontia 20(2):22-25. Muir, P. S., and R. K. Moseley. 1994. Responses of Primula alcalina, a threatened species of alkaline seeps, to site and grazing. Natural Areas Journal 14:269-279. Panzer, R. 1988. Managing prairie remnants for insect conservation. Natural Areas Journal 8(2):83-90. Thomsen, C. D., W. A. Williams, M. P. Vayssieres, F. L. Bell, and M. R. George. 1993. Controlled grazing on annual grassland decreases yellow starthistle. California Agriculture 47:36-40. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8.

B-42 Compatibility Determination for Grazing at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: IY; (Date)sfo '7

Wildlife Refuge Manager/ :;:�ader (s$� / Z"'�.;"' (/Y (Date) ..

Concurrence

RefugeSupervisor: (Signature)

AssistantRegional Director Refuges: (Signatu&

B-43

Compatibility Determination for Haying at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (2009)

Use: Haying

Refuge Name: Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, located in Modoc County, California.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Modoc Refuge purposes include:

“... 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).

Description of Use: Haying is not identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee) as a priority use for refuges. However, managing vegetation at Modoc Refuge through haying provides habitat in the form of water, food, cover, breeding areas, rearing areas, and sanctuary for a variety of wildlife including migratory birds, waterfowl, and shorebirds.

A late-season haying program will be conducted on approximately 2,079 acres of wet meadows on the Refuge for the purpose of habitat management. Haying is the cutting, processing (typically baling), and removal of meadow grass, sedge, rush, and associated species.

B-44

Haying will be conducted by permittee 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 bid. The Refuge currently has one “grandfathered” haying permittee who pays the base rate annually.

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. All hay bales and equipment are required to be removed from the Refuge by August 31. Permittees typically spend 1-2 weeks haying on the Refuge, although the entire process of cutting, baling and hauling can extend longer depending on weather and other factors.

Haying requires the use of tractors, swathers, balers, and trucks to haul gear, hay, and personnel. No additional roads or gates have been or will be constructed for this use. Administrative roads used by refuge staff will be available for use by permittees. Permittees are permitted to travel off road with vehicles through specified hay fields to conduct harvest operations. No pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers are associated with this use.

While haying on the Refuge provides economic benefits to permittees, the decision to and purpose for haying is dictated exclusively by habitat and wildlife management needs. All activities associated with haying including locations, acres cut, timing, and other special conditions are directed by the refuge manager to the permittees thru signed SUPs. Permittees pay a unit price per ton of hay cut. This price is based as closely as possible on local market rates. During 2007, 2,079 acres of the Refuge were hayed. Permittees paid between $22.50 and $31.00 per ton of hay cut on the Refuge and total revenues for haying collected in 2007 was $62,786.13. Funds will be deposited into the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund.

The use of permittees to complete haying operations on Refuge lands saves the Refuge a significant amount of money (purchase of specialized equipment, fuel, labor, etc.) and staff time (mowing, vegetation removal, equipment maintenance and transport, etc.). The proposed haying program is described in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and associated Environmental Assessment (EA), which are incorporated by reference (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs (based on FY 2008 costs) would be required to administer and manage haying activities as described above:

Annual Costs Administration $2,000 Monitoring $1,000 Facilities maintenance $2,000 Total $5,000

Refuge operational funds are currently available through the Service budget process to administer this program. The Refuge charges a fee per ton of hay cut (see above). Monitoring is addressed in the annual habitat management plan.

B-45

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Haying will result in short-term disturbances and long-term benefits to both resident and migratory wildlife using the Refuge. Short-term impacts will include disturbance and displacement by haying operations. Haying activities will also result in short- term loss of habitat for species using those areas for nesting, feeding, or resting. Long-term benefits are positive due to establishment of desired habitat. The resulting habitat will improve conditions for most of the species adversely affected by the short-term negative impacts. Control of the timing of haying will limit anticipated impacts.

Haying can be an effective management tool as part of an overall vegetative management strategy to improve and maintain wet meadows for the benefit of migratory birds and other species. Primary plant species found in areas hayed include grasses (Agropyron spp., Agrostis spp., Poa spp., Hordeum spp.), sedges (Carex nebrascensis, Elocharis spp., Juncus balticus), and a mix of forbs. These areas may be used by a variety of wildlife species during different parts of the year to meet specific life-cycle needs.

Wet meadow habitats need periodic removal of vegetation to maintain the plant vigor, diversity, and structure necessary for wildlife use. The rotation and periodic haying of areas also helps to create a mosaic and interspersion of habitats that many species find attractive for feeding, breeding, and protection. Removal of accumulated biomass through haying will reduce unwanted over-story, including dead and decadent vegetation, reduce woody plant invasion, and allow for more vigorous re-growth of desirable species. These management strategies contribute to the overall health of these vegetative communities, help limit or reduce the spread of invasive species, and reduce the speed of vegetation succession.

Haying will provide foraging habitat for migratory bird species in the spring including Canada geese, white-fronted geese, pintails, mallards, and a variety of other duck and bird species. During early summer, hayed areas provide foraging areas for Canada goose broods and greater sandhill cranes.

Timing of treatment will be used to minimize the impacts to wildlife. The Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Central Valley Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes (Littlefield 1995) suggests delay of haying until August 10th to prevent the mowing mortality of young sandhill cranes. The Refuge can delay the start of haying if sandhill crane colts less than three weeks of age are present. Haying operations are not expected to have significant impacts on sandhill cranes. While there could be some short-term disturbance associated with haying activities, hayed areas can provide excellent foraging sites for nesting and migrating cranes. Haying will result in a temporary reduction of residual nesting cover for sandhill cranes for the first spring period after haying.

Ground nesting birds will be minimally affected if haying is delayed until after August 1 each year. Migrating birds will also benefit if haying is conducted as quickly as possible to ensure that fields can be reflooded and green-up can occur prior to the peak migration period in October.

Potential impacts of haying activities on the Refuge’s resources will be minimized because sufficient restrictions will be included as part of the annual habitat management plan and haying activities will be monitored by refuge staff. The refuge staff ensures that haying contributes to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of native Refuge wildlife populations and

B-46

their habitats, thereby helping the Refuge fulfill the purposes for which it was established, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the need to maintain ecological integrity, diversity, and environmental health.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction with distribution of the Draft CCP and EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009) for Modoc Refuge.

Determination:

_____ Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

 The criteria for evaluating need for vegetation management, including haying, are determined during the annual review of the habitat management plan.  Haying is conducted from August 1 through August 31. The start of haying will be delayed if sandhill crane colts less than three weeks of age are present.  Haying is conducted in accordance with the SUPs, which include special conditions that specify timing, location(s), access locations, and personnel and equipment allowed. The specific conditions will vary annually due to differences in objectives, habitat conditions, and weather.  Permittees are required to weigh and submit certified weight receipts for 10 percent of all hay taken from the field.  As each load of hay leaves the Refuge, the hauler will be responsible for depositing a haul slip (which will be provided by the Refuge) into a receptacle at the entrance/exit of each field. The hauler is also responsible for accurately filling out each haul slip.  Permittees are responsible for training haulers and assuring compliance with the condition stated above.  Permittee must accompany refuge personnel on a tour of the field before haying to discuss boundaries and haul slip box locations between July 15 and July 31.  Haying will be conducted during daylight hours only.  Any property damage to the Refuge as a result of the permittee’s activities will be added to the permittee’s final billing.  Non-use of permit privileges, in whole or in part, shall be cause for cancelation of a permittee’s privileges at the discretion of the refuge manager unless non-use has previously been approved. Non-use of a permit, in whole or in part, may be authorized by the refuge manager for resource protection, research, or fact-finding purposes. Non-use for the convenience of the permit holder will normally not be approved unless there are extenuating circumstances that would warrant such approval. Fire and flood are examples of such extenuating circumstances.  A deposit of 25 percent of the estimated total fee will be required from the permittee prior to the beginning of haying.  Haying is not allowed in sensitive natural areas or cultural resource sites.

Justification: The haying program as described is determined to be compatible. The haying program is designed to avoid or minimize anticipated impacts to the Refuge’s resources and visitors. Based upon impacts described in the Draft CCP and EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009), it is determined that haying within Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, as described herein,

B-47

will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge System. Haying will directly benefit and support Refuge goals, objectives, and management plans and activities. Populations of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitat will improve through vegetation management which will result in short-term and long-term reductions of non-native invasive plant species, increases in native plants, increases in biomass, improved foraging conditions for migratory birds and local deer herds, and long-term improved nesting conditions for some species. Consequently, the haying program would increase or maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge. The wildlife-dependent, priority public uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation) would also benefit as a result of the increased biodiversity, wildlife, and native plant populations from improved habitat conditions associated with the haying program.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (2019):

_____ Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EA and CCP (for priority public uses)

X Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

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

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited

Littlefield, C. D. 1995. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Central Valley population of greater sandhill cranes. Prepared for the Pacific Flyway Council, Canadian Wildlife Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8.

B-48

Compatibility Determination for Horseback Riding at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (2009)

Use: Horseback Riding

Refuge Name: Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, located in Modoc County, California.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Modoc Refuge purposes include:

“... 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).

Description of Use: Horseback riding is allowed April 1 through September 30 on roads designated for motor vehicles and the dirt equestrian trail (3,860 feet) across the dam at Dorris Reservoir. This trail provides safe passage for equestrians off of the Parker Creek Road. Horseback riding is also allowed year-round on entrance road and auto tour route. The proposed horseback riding program is described in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and associated Environmental Assessment (EA), which are incorporated by reference (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

Horseback riding facilitates wildlife observation and photography opportunities, which contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s resources.

B-50

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs (based on FY 2008 costs) would be required to administer and manage horseback riding activities as described above:

Annual Costs Monitoring $1,000 Law Enforcement $2,000 Administration $1,000 Total $4,000

Refuge operational funds are currently available through the Service budget process to administer this program.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Although wildlife disturbance from horseback riding is not well- documented, some studies suggest that many wildlife species are habituated to livestock and that horseback wildlife observers can approach wildlife at closer distances than by other forms of travel. Any form of approach is expected to cause some disturbance, which will vary according to the species affected and the type, level, frequency, and duration of disturbance, as well as the time of day or year that it occurs.

Burger (1986) found that people on horseback did not seem to threaten birds even though they frequently moved rapidly. Birds flushed only to avoid trampling. Burger (1986) surmised that the birds perceived only the horse and not the person riding.

Horseback riding has both direct and indirect effects on habitat. Trampling causes mortality of plant (and animal) species by crushing. Indirect effects result when soil is compacted and plants cannot re-establish. Grazing can reduce vegetation.

Additionally, soil impacts and spread of invasive species are associated with horseback riding. Confining horse use to surfaced roadways limits soil impacts such as erosion and compaction and spread of invasive species.

While there can be user group conflicts or safety issues resulting from hikers, bicyclists, cars, and horseback riders using the same roads, these conflicts are not anticipated on Modoc Refuge due to the current levels of use. Horseback travel on the designated roads and levees is considered safe under current conditions and level of use.

Due to the limited amount of this activity occurring on the Refuge, the overall disturbance is expected to be minimal. The horseback riding activities are designed to avoid or minimize impacts anticipated to the Refuge’s resources and visitors.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction with distribution of the Draft CCP and EA for Modoc Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

B-51

Determination:

_____ Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

 Horseback riding is allowed April 1 through September 30 on roads designated for motor vehicles and the equestrian trail across the dam at Dorris Reservoir. It is also allowed year- round on roads designated for motor vehicles in the remaining portions of the Refuge.  Horseback riding is only allowed between sunrise and sunset.  Periodic law enforcement patrols will be conducted.  Horseback riding activities and associated effects will be monitored by refuge staff.  Monitoring data will be used by the refuge manager in making necessary adjustments in regulations or other aspects of the Refuge horseback riding program and in the periodic reevaluation of this Compatibility Determination.

Justification: While not listed as a priority, wildlife-dependent recreational use under the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act, as amended, horseback riding is believed to be a compatible public use under the stipulations outlined in this compatibility determination. Primary reasons for this determination include the following: wildlife observation can be an element of horseback riding; horseback riding allows us to reach a target audience we would not otherwise reach; horseback riders are potential partners and a potential source of support for the wildlife refuge; and impacts associated with horseback riding are not believed to exceed impacts already caused by other public use activities.

Based upon the impacts described in the Draft CCP and EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009), it is determined that horseback riding within Modoc National Wildlife Refuge as described herein, will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge System. In our opinion, horseback riding with the associated stipulations will not conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the Refuge.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (2019):

Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EA and CCP (for priority public uses)

X Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

B-52

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

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United States. Biological Conservation 13:123-130. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8.

B-53 CompatibilityDetermin ation for Horseback Riding at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Refuge Determination

Preparedby:

Wildlife Refuge Manager/ Project Leader Approval: =-_��___ _ ----:""'�"'--___/ • I .z "1.r-Q7 (Signature) (Date) . atF

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: Iz./rs-Jo7 (Signature) (Date)

Assistant Regional Director Refuges: (Date)t2/lt6 /0 J

B-54

Compatibility Determination for Hunting at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (2009)

Use: Hunting

Refuge Name: Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, located in Modoc County, California.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Modoc Refuge purposes include:

“... 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).

Description of Use: Hunting is identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee) as a priority use for refuges when it is compatible with the refuge purposes and mission of the Refuge System. As a result, the Service is proposing to continue hunting of waterfowl, coots, common moorhens, and snipe on approximately 2,330 acres of Modoc National Wildlife Refuge. An annual junior pheasant hunt on the Refuge will also be continued. The Proposed Action (Alternative C) analyzed in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a) and the Hunting Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009b), which are incorporated by reference, contain maps and Refuge descriptions where hunting will be allowed. The hunting program will provide high quality, safe, and cost-effective hunting opportunities, and will be carried out consistent with

B-55

State regulations. The guiding principles of the Refuge System’s hunting programs (Service Manual 605 FW 2) are to

 manage wildlife populations consistent with Refuge System-specific management plans approved after 1997 and, to the extent practicable, State fish and wildlife conservation plans;  promote visitor understanding of and increase visitor appreciation for America’s natural resources;  provide opportunities for quality recreational and educational experiences consistent with criteria describing quality found in 605 FW 1.6;  encourage participation in this tradition deeply rooted in America’s natural heritage and conservation history; and  minimize conflicts with visitors participating in other compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities.

The Hunting Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009b) was developed to provide safe hunting opportunities, while minimizing conflicts with other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. The Refuge’s hunting program will comply with the Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, 32.1 and be managed in accordance with Service Manual 605 FW2. Hunting will be permitted in accordance with State regulations and seasons (Table 1 gives an example of annual State hunt seasons for areas within the Refuge) to ensure that it will not interfere with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats. Therefore, the hunting of migratory birds and upland game birds on the Refuge is in compliance with State regulations and seasons; the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee); and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k).

Hunters must enter the area from one of three 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, and filled out and returned prior to leaving the hunt area. All equipment is carried in and out each day. Currently, three spaced blinds are available, all of which are universally accessible. One additional universally accessible blind will be constructed. The remainder of the hunt area is open for free-roam hunting.

The Grandma tract (200 acres) will be opened to hunting in four assigned ponds and one spaced blind (Figures 1 and 10 in the CCP). A party of up to four hunters will be allowed per site. Hunters must park in the numbered parking space corresponding to the blind or assigned pond they are going to hunt.

Hunting is permitted on designated portions of the Refuge (Figure 1 in the CCP). The area is open for waterfowl hunting on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Hunting on the opening weekend is by reservation only. Hunters are selected through a drawing conducted by the Refuge. The normal quota is 136 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 five universally accessible blinds.

B-56

Table 1. Modoc Refuges, hunting season bag limit summary for 2007-2008

Species Dates Daily Bag Limits Waterfowl – Ducks* Second Saturday in October Up to 7 ducks; see below*; extending for 105 consecutive possession double the bag limit days Waterfowl – Geese Second Saturday in October Up to 6 geese; see below**; extending for 100 consecutive possession double the bag limit days American Coot and October - concurrent with 25/day, 25 in possession, either Common Moorhen duck season all of one species or a mixture of these species Snipe Third Saturday in October 8/day; possession double the extending for 106 days bag limit Youth Waterfowl Hunt The Saturday 14 days before Same as regular season the opening of waterfowl season Youth Pheasant One Sunday in mid-to late 3 males per hunter Hunt*** November *Duck Bag Limits: 7 ducks/but not more than 1 hen mallards, 1 pintail, 2 redhead, 2 scaup, throughout the season **Goose Bag Limits: 6 geese/but not more than 6 white geese, 4 white-fronted geese, 2 large Canada geese, 1 small Canada goose ***Pheasant are only hunted during a youth pheasant hunt that occurs on one day during the legal season. Hunting 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.

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.

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 on a first come first serve basis to all hunters.

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 non-hunter with no more than two youth hunters per adult.

The Refuge also conducts an annual youth pheasant hunt in November. Hunters are selected through a drawing conducted by the Refuge. This hunt is for wild pheasant and is limited to ten

B-57

youth hunters. Youth hunters must be accompanied by an adult non-hunter with no more than two youth hunters per adult.

The Refuge Hunt 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.

The overall harvest success, as measured by the number of birds per hunter per day, has remained relatively constant (approximately 1.4 birds per hunter) since the hunting programs were established. An average of 1,650 hunter visits occurs annually with have an average of 1.44 birds per hunter (Table 2). 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.

Table 2. Hunting summary for Modoc Refuge, 1981-2007 # # Ducks # Geese Total Birds Year Hunters Ducks Hunter Geese Hunter 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.

B-58

In 2007, 1,286 hunters (including 85 youth waterfowl hunters) at the Refuge harvested 2,965 birds (2,696 ducks, 245 geese, and 24 coots/moorhens), with an average of 2.31 birds/hunter. In 2007, no snipe were harvested on the Refuge. In 2007, no pheasant were harvested on Modoc Refuge (0 average pheasant/hunter).

Field checks by refuge law enforcement officers will be planned, conducted, and coordinated with staff and other agencies to maintain compliance with regulations and assess species and number harvested. Dogs will be required to be kept on a leash, except for hunting dogs engaged in authorized hunting activities and under the immediate control of a licensed hunter.

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs (based on FY 2008 costs) would be required to administer and manage the hunting program as described above.

One-Time Costs Annual Costs Predicted Maintenance of Facilities Brochures, signs, etc $1,000 Maintenance of 3 parking areas, 5 $3,000 blinds, etc. Administration $5,000 New Construction Construct 2 universally accessible $10,000 hunting blinds Total $10,000 $9,000

Funds are currently available to operate and maintain the hunt program. Funding is acquired through the Service budget process.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Direct effects of hunting include mortality, wounding, and disturbance (De Long 2002). Hunting can alter behavior (e.g., foraging time), population structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife (Owens 1977, Raveling 1979, White-Robinson 1982, Thomas 1983, Bartelt 1987, Madsen 1985, and Cole and Knight 1990). There also appears to be an inverse relationship between the numbers of birds using an area and hunting intensity (DeLong 2002). In Connecticut, lesser scaup were observed to forage less in areas that were heavily hunted (Cronan 1957). In California, the numbers of northern pintails on Sacramento Refuge non-hunt areas increased after the first week of hunting and remained high until the season was over in early January (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). Following the close of hunting season, ducks generally increased their use of the hunt area; however, use was lower than before the hunting season began. Human disturbance associated with hunting includes loud noises and rapid movements, such as those produced by shotguns and boats powered by outboard motors. This disturbance, especially when repeated over a period of time, compels waterfowl to change food habits, feed only at night, lose weight, or desert feeding areas (Madsen 1995, Wolder 1993).

These impacts can be reduced by the presence of adjacent sanctuary areas where hunting does not occur and where birds can feed and rest relatively undisturbed. Sanctuaries or non-hunt areas have been identified as the most common solution to disturbance problems caused from hunting (Havera et. al 1992). Prolonged and extensive disturbances may cause large numbers of waterfowl

B-59

to leave disturbed areas and migrate elsewhere (Madsen 1995, Paulus 1984). In Denmark, hunting disturbance effects were experimentally tested by establishing two sanctuaries (Madsen 1995). Over a 5-year period, these sanctuaries became two of the most important staging areas for coastal waterfowl. Numbers of dabbling ducks and geese increased 4 to 20 fold within the sanctuary (Madsen 1995). Thus, sanctuary and non-hunt areas are very important to minimize disturbance to waterfowl populations to ensure their continued use of the Refuge.

Intermittent hunting can be a means of minimizing disturbance, especially if rest periods in between hunting events are weeks rather than days (Fox and Madsen 1997). It is common for refuges to manage hunt programs with non-hunt days. At Sacramento Refuge, 3-16 percent of pintails were located on hunted units during non-hunt days, but were almost entirely absent in those same units on hunt days (Wolder 1993). In addition, northern pintails, American wigeons, and northern shovelers decreased time spent feeding on days when hunting occurred on public shooting areas, as compared to non-hunt days (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). The intermittent hunting program of three hunt days per week at Sacramento Refuge results in lower pintail densities on hunt areas during non-hunt days than non-hunt areas (Wolder 1993). However, intermittent hunting may not always greatly reduce hunting impacts.

The impacts addressed here are discussed in detail in the EA (Appendix A) for the Draft CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a) which is incorporated by reference. Biological conflicts will be minimized by following proper zoning and regulations.

Hunting is a highly regulated activity, and generally takes place at specific times and seasons (fall and winter) when the game animals are less vulnerable, reducing the magnitude of disturbance to refuge wildlife. Managed and regulated hunting will not reduce species populations to levels where other wildlife-dependent uses will be affected.

The use of retrieving dogs would be permitted and encouraged in all areas open to waterfowl hunting. These dogs would be required to be under control at all times. Any hunter who allows his/her dog to disturb wildlife is not well received by other hunters who do not want waterfowl disturbed on the ponds that they are hunting. Law enforcement officers will enforce regulations requiring owners to maintain control over their dogs while on the Refuge. Although the use of dogs is not a form of wildlife-dependent recreation; they do in this case support a wildlife dependent use.

Hunting is an appropriate wildlife management tool that can be used to manage wildlife populations. Some wildlife disturbance will occur during the hunting seasons. Proper zoning, regulations, and Refuge seasons will be designated to minimize any negative impacts to wildlife populations using the Refuge. Harvesting these species, or any other hunted species, would not result in a substantial decrease in biological diversity on the Refuge.

Conflicts between hunting and other public uses will be minimized by the following:

 Physically separate non-hunting and hunting acres to spatially divide the activities.  Boundary and hunting area signs will be maintained to clearly define the designated hunting areas.  Allow vehicle traffic only on designated roads and parking areas.

B-60

 Parking areas will be signed to allow only pedestrian hunter access to hunting areas. Vehicle access is allowed for pick up and drop off of disabled hunters.  The hunting program will be managed in strict accordance with all applicable Federal laws (50 CFR Subchapter C) and to the extent practicable, consistent with applicable State laws.  Field checks by refuge law enforcement officers and CDFG game wardens will be planned to maintain compliance with regulations.  Information about the Refuge hunting program will be provided through signs, kiosks, brochures, and the Refuge’s website (http://www.fws.gov/modoc).  No camping will be allowed on the Refuge.

Wildlife populations on the Refuge are able to sustain hunting and support other wildlife- dependent priority uses. To manage the populations to support hunting, the Refuge adopts harvest regulations set by the State within Federal framework guidelines.

By its very nature, hunting has very few positive effects on the target species while the activity is occurring. However, in our opinion, hunting has given many people a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of conserving their habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the Refuge System mission. Furthermore, despite the potential impacts of hunting, a goal of Modoc Refuge is to provide visitors of all ages an opportunity to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation. Of key concern is to offer a safe and quality program and to ensure adverse impacts remain at an acceptable level.

Recreational hunting will remove individual animals, but will not negatively affect wildlife populations. To assure that populations are sustainable, the California Fish and Game Commission, in consultation with the CDFG, annually review the population censuses to establish season lengths and harvest levels. Each year the refuge staff conducts habitat management reviews of each unit on the Refuge to evaluate wildlife population levels, habitat conditions, and public use activities. The areas closed to various hunting activities do provide adequate sanctuaries for wildlife.

The Service believes that there will be minimal conflicts between hunters and the other wildlife- dependent recreational uses. The uses are not occurring on the same area at the same time.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction with distribution of the Draft CCP and EA for Modoc Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a).

Determination: _____ Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

 Refuge Specific Regulations (text in italics represent new and/or change regulation). o Hunting of Migratory Game Birds: We allow the hunting of geese, ducks, coots, moorhens, and snipe on designated areas of the refuge in accordance to State regulations subject to the following conditions:

B-61

1. On the opening weekend of the hunting season, hunters must possess and carry a refuge permit issued through a random drawing to hunters with advanced reservations only. Waterfowl Lottery Applications are available on the refuge website. 2. After the opening weekend of the hunting season, we only allow hunting on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Hunters must check-in and out of the refuge by filling out the “Migratory Bird Hint Report” permit and must possess and carry the permit while on the refuge. The harvest information must be filled out and turned in prior to exiting the hunting area. 3. In the designated spaced blind area and assigned pond areas, you must remain within the blind or pond assigned to you. 4. We require adults age 18 or older to accompany youth hunters 15 and under. 5. While in the field, to take wildlife on the refuge, you may only possess nontoxic ammunition and shotshells in quantities of 25 or less. 6. In the free-roam hunting areas, you may only use portable blinds or blinds constructed of vegetation. 7. You must remove all blinds, decoys, shell casings, other personal equipment, and refuse from the refuge at the end of each day (see CFR 27.93 and 27.94). 8. Hunters must enter and exit the hunting area from the three designated hunt parking lots, which open 1 ½ hours before legal sunrise and close 1 hour after sunset each hunt day. 9. We only allow access to the hunt area by foot, bicycle, and nonmotorized cart. We prohibit bicycles in the hunt area during the opening weekend of the hunting season. 10. Mobility impaired hunters should consult the refuge manager for allowed conveyances.

o Upland Game Hunting: We allow hunting of pheasant on designated areas of the refuge in accordance to State regulations subject to the following conditions: 1. We limit hunting to junior hunters only, age 15 or under, possessing a valid State Junior Hunting License and refuge Junior Pheasant Hunt Permit. 2. We require adults age 18 or older to accompany junior hunters. 3. You may only possess approved nontoxic shot while in the field (see CFR 32.2 (k)). 4. Hunters must enter and exit the hunting area from the two designated hunt parking lots.

 All hunting activities and operations will be reviewed annually to ensure compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies.  Adequate areas are designated as wildlife sanctuary with no or limited public use activities to provide high quality habitat for feeding, resting, and nesting. 3,845 acres (55 percent of the total Refuge acres) are designated as permanent sanctuary (i.e., no public access) for general wildlife use, nesting, and sensitive breeding population sites by 2009. Seasonally, an additional 2,977 acres provide sanctuary for wildlife.

B-62

 Population censuses will be reviewed annually with the CDFG to ensure that harvest from hunting is not unacceptably affecting the targeted populations. The program will be modified accordingly.  Refuge specific hunting information will be available via signs, information panels, brochures, and the website (http://www.fws.gov/modoc).  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.  Refuge staff will conduct regular surveys of hunting activities on the Refuge. The data is analyzed and used by the refuge manager to develop future modifications if necessary to ensure compatibility of the hunting program.  Dog training on the Refuge will not be allowed.

Justification: Hunting is a wildlife-dependent recreational use listed in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Providing a quality hunting program contributes to achieving one of the Refuge’s goals (Goal 3, Chapter 4 of the CCP). By facilitating this use on the Refuge, we will increase the visitors’ knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife, which may lead to increased public stewardship of wildlife and their habitats on the Refuge. Increased public stewardship will support and complement the Service’s actions in achieving the Refuge’s purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Approximately 4,691 acres (67 percent) will be closed to hunting and 3,845 acres (55 percent) will be closed to all public use to ensure an adequate amount of high-quality feeding and resting habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a).

Based upon impacts described in the Draft CCP, EA, and Hunting Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a, 2009b), it is determined that hunting within Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, as described herein, will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge System. In our opinion, implementing the Hunt Plan and associated stipulations will not conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the Refuge.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (2024):

X Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EA/CCP (for priority public uses)

_____ Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

B-63

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

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited

Bartelt, G. A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family groups in east central Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:517-522. Cole, D. N., and R. L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Utah State University. Cronan, J. M. 1957. Food and feeding habits of the scaups in Connecticut waters. Auk 74(4):459- 468. DeLong, A. K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds - literature review of impacts and mitigation measures - prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix L. In Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact statement for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision (Vol. II). Portland, Oregon: Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Fox, A. D., and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:1-13. Havera, S. P., L. R. Boens, M. M. Georgi, and R. T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298. 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. Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In Wildlife and recreationists, edited by R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller. Covelo, California: Island Press. Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, Denmark. Biological Conservation 33:53-63. Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74. Owens, N. W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14. Paulus, S. L. 1984. Activity budgets of nonbreeding gadwalls in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:371-380. Raveling, D. G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference to control of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252.

B-64

Thomas, V. G. 1983. Spring migration: the prelude to goose reproduction and a review of its implication. In Fourth Western Hemisphere Waterfowl and Waterbird Symposium, edited by H. Boyd. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009a. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009b. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge hunt plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2001. Memorandum of understanding. White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and salt marsh feeding of wintering brent geese in Essex. Wildfowl 33:113-118. Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, California. Master's thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.

B-65

Compatibility Determination for Plant Material Gathering at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (2009)

Use: Plant Material Gathering

Refuge Name: Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, located in Modoc County, California.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Modoc Refuge purposes include:

“... 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).

Description of Use: Gathering of plants in and around Modoc Refuge by Native Americans occurred historically and continues to be a periodic use today. Plants are gathered for a variety of uses, such as food, medicinal uses, ceremonial uses, and for artistic purposes, such as basket weaving. Plants gathered for traditional uses may include tule (Schoenoplectus acutus), cattail (Typha spp.), Nuphar lutea polysepala, and other common species. The amount of plant material being harvested is traditionally small and is not expected to increase. The use of Refuge lands for plant gathering is important to Native American cultural groups.

B-67

In addition, native plant seeds may be collected and propagated for use in habitat restoration activities on the Refuge. Species may include salt grass (Distichlis spicata), gumweed (Grindelia camporum), Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis), and other common species.

A Special Use Permit (SUP) will be issued for all plant gathering/collection activities. SUPs will contain specific terms and conditions that the gatherer(s) must follow relative to activity, location, duration, seasonality, etc. to ensure continued compatibility. All Refuge rules and regulations must be followed unless otherwise provided in writing by Refuge management. The proposed plant material gathering program is described in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and associated Environmental Assessment (EA), which are incorporated by reference (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs (based on FY 2008 costs) would be required to administer and manage plant gathering activities as described above:

Annual Costs Administration $100 Total $100

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Current levels of plant gathering on the Refuge are very low (less than one request per year) therefore, anticipated impacts to habitat and wildlife is expected to be minimal. The amount of plant material being harvested is very minor (<1 percent of any Refuge unit) and will have an insignificant impact on habitat. Cuttings from perennial plant species are typically requested, which result in no plant mortality. In addition, cuttings are usually harvested from areas that are identified for thinning. No rare or sensitive species will be gathered.

The level of disturbance to wildlife is also minor and long-term effects would be negligible because conditions of SUPs would ensure that impacts, such as disturbance to wildlife and habitats, are avoided or minimized. Areas used will be closely monitored to evaluate the impacts on the resource; if adverse impacts appear, the activity may be moved to secondary locations or eliminated entirely.

While the activity of gathering may have short-term impacts on individual plants and wildlife, no adverse long-term impacts on wildlife or plant populations are anticipated. This activity should not result in short- or long-term impacts that adversely affect the purposes of the Refuge or the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction with distribution of the Draft CCP and EA for Modoc Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

Determination:

_____ Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

B-68

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

 Access to the Refuge is allowed from sunrise to sunset.  A SUP will be issued for all plant gathering activities. SUPs will contain specific terms and conditions that the gatherer(s) must follow relative to activity, location, duration, seasonality, etc. to ensure continued compatibility. All Refuge rules and regulations must be followed unless otherwise excepted in writing by Refuge management.  Areas used will be closely monitored to evaluate the impacts on the resource; if adverse impacts appear, the activity may be moved to secondary locations or eliminated.

Justification: Though plant gathering is not a wildlife-dependent recreational use, it is an activity that contributes to environmental education and awareness. The stipulations outlined above should minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions. Based upon impacts described in the Draft CCP and EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009), it is determined that plant gathering within Modoc National Wildlife Refuge as described herein, will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge System. In our opinion, implementing the plant gathering and associated stipulations will not conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the Refuge.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (2019):

_____ Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EA/CCP (for priority public uses)

X Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

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

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8.

B-69

Compatibility Determination for Research at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (2009)

Use: Research

Refuge Name: Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, located in Modoc County, California.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Modoc Refuge purposes include:

“... 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).

Description of Use: Two provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act are to “maintain biological integrity, diversity and environmental health” and to conduct “inventory and monitoring.” Research investigations are designed to address these provisions by answering specific management questions. These include, but are not limited to, evaluation of vegetation and wildlife response to habitat management techniques, wildlife and plant population monitoring, documentation of seasonal wildlife movements and habitat use, wildlife disease investigations, and development of invasive species management techniques. Pertinent results from research investigations are incorporated into management plans and actions, and help strengthen the decision-making process. The proposed research program is discussed as part of the Proposed

B-71

Action in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and associated Environmental Assessment (EA), which are incorporated by reference (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

Modoc Refuge receives requests to conduct scientific research on the Refuge. The Refuge issues Special Use Permits (SUP) for approved research and monitoring projects. SUPs would only be issued for monitoring and investigations that contribute to the enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of native Refuge plant and wildlife populations and their habitats. Research applicants are required to submit a proposal that outlines: (1) objectives of the study; (2) justification for the study; (3) detailed methodology and schedule; (4) potential impacts on Refuge wildlife or habitat, including disturbance (short- and long-term), injury, or mortality (this includes a description of measures the researcher will take to reduce disturbance or impacts); (5) research personnel required; (6) costs to Refuge, if any; and (7) progress reports and end products (e.g., reports, thesis, dissertations, or publications). Research proposals are reviewed by Refuge staff, and if approved, a SUP is issued by the wildlife refuge manager to formally authorize any project.

Evaluation criteria will include, but not be limited to, the following:

 Research that will contribute to specific Refuge management issues will be given higher priority over other research requests.  Research that will conflict with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management programs will not be granted.  Research projects that can be accomplished off-Refuge are less likely to be approved.  Research which causes undue disturbance or is intrusive will likely not be granted. Level and type of disturbance will be carefully evaluated when considering a request. Suggestions may be made to adjust the location, timing, scope, number of permittees, study methods, number of study sites, etc.  If staffing or logistics make it impossible for the Refuge to monitor researcher activity in a sensitive area, the research request may be denied.  The length of the project will be considered and agreed upon before approval. Projects will be reviewed annually.

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs (based on FY 2008 costs) would be required to administer and manage research activities as described above:

Annual Costs Administration $3,000 (Evaluation of applications, management of permits, and monitoring of research projects) Total $3,000

Refuge operational funds are currently available through the Service budget process to administer this program.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Conducting management-oriented research will benefit Refuge fish, wildlife, and plant populations and their habitat. Monitoring and research investigations will be designed to answer habitat or population management questions, thereby contributing to adaptive management of the Refuge. An expected short-term effect of monitoring and research

B-72

investigations is that Refuge management activities would be modified to improve habitat and wildlife populations, as a result of new information. Expected long-term and cumulative effects include a growing body of science-based data and knowledge from which to draw upon to implement the best Refuge management possible. Natural resources inventory, monitoring, and research are necessary tools for maintaining biological integrity and diversity and environmental health. Information gained from well-thought out research will improve habitat and wildlife populations.

Some negative direct and indirect effects would occur through disturbance, which is expected with some research activities, especially where researchers are entering sanctuaries. Researcher disturbance would include altering wildlife behavior, going off designated trails, collecting soil and plant samples, or trapping and handling wildlife. However, most of these effects would be short- term because only the minimum of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, macroinvertebrates) required for identification and/or experimentation and statistical analysis would be permitted, and captured and marked wildlife would be released. Long-term effects would be negligible because Refuge evaluation of research proposals and conditions of SUPs would ensure that impacts, such as disturbance, to wildlife and habitats are avoided or minimized. Refuge staff would ensure research projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, preservation, and management of native Refuge wildlife populations and their habitats thereby helping the Refuge fulfill the purposes for which it was established and the mission of the Refuge System.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction with distribution of the Draft CCP and EA for Modoc Refuge.

Determination: This program as described is determined to be compatible. Potential impacts of research activities on Refuge resources will be minimized because sufficient restrictions and safeguards would be included in the SUP and research activities will be monitored by refuge staff. Refuge staff would ensure that proposed monitoring and research investigations would contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of native Refuge wildlife populations and their habitats; thereby helping the Refuge fulfill the purposes for which they were established, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the need to maintain ecological integrity, diversity, and environmental health.

_____ Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

The criteria for evaluating a research proposal, outlined in the Description of Use section above, will be used when determining whether a proposed study will be approved on the Refuge. If proposed research methods are evaluated and determined to have potential adverse impacts on Refuge wildlife or habitat, then the Refuge will determine the utility and need of such research to conservation and management of Refuge wildlife and habitat. If the need is demonstrated by the research permittee and accepted by the Refuge, then measures to minimize potential impacts (e.g., reduce the numbers of researchers entering an area and restrict research in specified areas)

B-73

will be developed and included as part of the study design and on the SUP. SUPs will contain specific terms and conditions that the researcher(s) must follow relative to activity, location, duration, seasonality, etc. to ensure continued compatibility. All Refuge rules and regulations must be followed unless otherwise accepted in writing by Refuge management.

Refuge staff will monitor researcher activities for potential impacts to the Refuge and for compliance with conditions on the SUPs. Research activities will be modified to avoid harm to sensitive wildlife and habitat when unforeseen impacts arise. The refuge manager may determine that previously approved research and SUPs will be terminated due to observed impacts. The refuge manager will also have the ability to cancel a SUP if the researcher is out of compliance with the conditions of the SUP.

Justification: This program as described is determined to be compatible. Based upon impacts described in the Draft CCP and EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009), it is determined that research within Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, as described herein, will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge System. In fact, well-designed research investigations will directly benefit and support refuge goals, objectives and management plans and activities. Populations of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitat will improve through the application of knowledge gained from monitoring and research. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health would benefit from scientific research conducted on natural resources at the Refuge. The wildlife-dependent, priority public uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation) would also benefit as a result of increased biodiversity and wildlife and native plant populations from improved restoration and management plans and activities associated with monitoring and research investigations which address specific restoration and management questions.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (2019):

_____ Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EA and CCP (for priority public uses)

X Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

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

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8.

B-74 Compatibility Determination for Research at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Refuge Determination

I2f;S/t7'j (Date)

WildlifeRefuge Manager/ �. Project Leader Approval: k ...... /.,/./,7�tI' P (Sfgnature) (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: (Signature)

Assistant Regional Director Refuges:

B-75

Compatibility Determination for Swimming at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (2009)

Use: Swimming

Refuge Name: Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, located in Modoc County, California.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Modoc Refuge purposes include:

“... 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).

Description of Use: Swimming will be allowed on Dorris Reservoir from April 1 through September 30. Dorris Reservoir is closed to all public activities during the waterfowl hunting season from October 1 through February 1. Shoreline areas, islands, and peninsulas with nesting waterfowl are signed and closed to public access during the peak of the waterfowl nesting season (February 1 through May 31).

B-76

as habitat for wildlife. However, through seasonal closures, the wildlife that uses the Reservoir is protected during peak use periods. Current facilities include five gravel parking areas, two boat launches, and three restrooms. These uses are described in the Proposed Action (Alternative C) analyzed in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009) and are incorporated by reference.

A seasonal closure will be implemented to reduce disturbance to wintering, resting, foraging, and breeding birds and other wildlife and their habitats. In addition, shoreline areas, islands, and peninsulas with nesting waterfowl are signed and closed to public access during the waterfowl nesting season.

Swimming 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. Although their primary interest may be swimming, the abundance of birdlife makes wildlife observation an opportunity for these visitors as well. These opportunities will improve their experience without any significant disruption to Modoc Refuge’s wildlife resources or conflicting with the priority wildlife-dependent activities.

Swimming has been an ongoing activity allowed on Modoc NWR. However, because swimming is not typically allowed on refuges it will be closely monitored to evaluate impacts. This use will be monitored to evaluate impacts on wildlife resources by recording number of swimmers, timing of the activity, and reaction of wildlife to the swimming. The activity will be reassessed, using this data, during the periodic reevaluation of this Compatibility Determination

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs (based on FY 2008 costs) would be required to administer and manage swimming activities as described above:

Annual Costs Law enforcement $2,000 Administration $2,000 Monitoring $5,000 Total $9,000

Refuge operational funds are currently available through the Service budget process to administer this program.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Wildlife respond differently to water based activity based on size, speed, noise, and proximity to the animals (DeLong 2002). Dahlgren and Korschgen (1992) categorized water based human activities in order of decreasing disturbance to waterfowl:

Boyle and Samson (1985) reviewed 166 articles examining non-consumptive outdoor recreation and wildlife. Only eight of these studies discussed impacts on birds from swimming and shore

B-77

recreation. Six of these reports documented negative impacts while two had no impacts or were undetermined. Other studies have shown swimming can disrupt resting, nesting and foraging activities of wildlife. However, the use at which this activity occurs on the Refuge is relatively small. Furthermore, the islands, shorelines, and peninsulas are signed and closed for the majority of the nesting season (February 1 – May 31). The stipulations outlined below should minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction with distribution of the Draft CCP and EA for Modoc Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

Determination:

_____ Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

 Swimming is allowed from April 1 through September 30 in those areas not posted closed to public access.  A seasonal closure from October 1 through February 1 will be implemented to reduce disturbance to wintering, resting, foraging, and breeding birds and other wildlife and their habitats.  Shoreline areas, islands, and peninsulas with nesting waterfowl are signed and closed to public access during the waterfowl nesting season (February 1 through May 31).  Signs will be installed and maintained to mark closed areas and convey seasonal closures on the Refuge.  Periodic law enforcement will help ensure compliance with area closures. Regulations will be described in brochures and posted at Refuge Headquarters and at boat launch sites.  Swimming activities and associated effects will be monitored by refuge staff.  Safety information (e.g. no lifeguard on duty, swim at your own risk, etc.) will be posted in the Refuge’s kiosk at Dorris Reservoir.  Swimming will be closely monitored to evaluate the impacts on the resource; if adverse impacts appear the activity will be modified or eliminated during the subsequent reevaluations of this use in future Compatibility Determination.

Justification: Providing opportunities for swimming at very low use levels is not expected to hinder our efforts to facilitate fishing, wildlife observation, and photography which contributes toward fulfilling provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended in 1997. It is also one of the goals of Modoc Refuge (Goal 3.2, Chapter 4) CCP. The stipulations outlined above should minimize potential impacts of swimming relative to wildlife/human interactions. Based upon impacts described in the Draft CCP and EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009), it is determined that boating and swimming within Modoc National Wildlife Refuge as described herein, will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge System. In our opinion, implementing swimming, and associated stipulations will not conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the Refuge.

B-78

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (2012):

Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EA and CCP (for priority public uses)

X Mandatory 3-year Re-Evaluation

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

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of non-consumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116. Dahlgren, R.B. and C.E. Korschgen. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: an annotated bibliography. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. 62 pp. DeLong, A. K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds - literature review of impacts and mitigation measures - prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix L. In Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact statement for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision (Vol. II). Portland, Oregon: Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.

B-79 +&- 1%7:1.&( 1+(:+.: 9&&(: 1:++: 5+( #: ##!: 8:

10&"( 1"+*: "b>\5>w /i>w

,O=D>w%>GH>w!3/H>` w #WQ>:iw >-<>`w \]aXs1w ) )LK.jqb>w /i>w

+(8..(:

$>ErH>w(q^AfLgY`w ) $%) *LK/iqc>w /l>w

gLgk4iw%>IXU1w >:iX`w%?DqH@gw () 0i>w

B-80

Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation and Photography at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (2009)

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Refuge Name: Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, located in Modoc County, California.

Refuge Purpose(s):

Modoc Refuge purposes include:

“... 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).

Description of Use: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identifies wildlife observation and photography as well as hunting, fishing, environmental education, and interpretation as priority wildlife-dependent public uses for refuges. As two of the six priority public uses of the Refuge System, these uses are to be encouraged when compatible with the purposes of the refuge. Wildlife observation and photography are considered simultaneously in this compatibility determination. Many elements of the wildlife observation and photography programs are also similar to opportunities provided in the environmental education and interpretation programs. These uses are described in the Proposed Action (Alternative C)

B-81

analyzed in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009) and are incorporated by reference.

The guiding principles of the Refuge System’s wildlife observation and wildlife photography programs (Service Manual 605 FW 4 and 5) are to:

 Provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible wildlife viewing opportunities and facilities.  Promote visitor understanding of, and increase visitor appreciation for, America’s natural resources.  Provide opportunities for quality recreational and educational experiences consistent with criteria describing quality found in 605 FW 1.6.  Minimize conflicts with visitors participating in other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation activities.

Wildlife Observation The wildlife observation objective of the Draft CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009) states that the Refuge will provide 6,000 wildlife observation annual visits on 1,924 acres by 2014.

Modoc Refuge is open to the public for wildlife observation and photography daily from sunrise to sunset year-round. Facilities include a three-mile auto tour route, one-mile walking trail with observation blind and interpretive overlook, and U.S. 395 overlook. In addition, wildlife viewing opportunities can be found at Dorris Reservoir and from the roads along the perimeter of the Refuge. Dorris Reservoir is open for walk-in access from February 1 through September 30 except those areas that are signed and closed to public access during the waterfowl nesting season (February 1 through May 31).

Photography The photography objective of the Draft CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009) states that the Refuge will provide quality opportunities for 50 photography blind annual visits and 900 wildlife photography annual visits on 1,924 acres by 2014. In addition to the facilities described above, there is one universally accessible photography blind on Modoc Refuge. The photo blind is available on a first come, first serve basis. To reserve the photo blind photographers must call the Refuge Headquarters during normal business hours a minimum of 24 hours in advance.

Photographers also complete a blind evaluation that reports photographed species, time spent, and comments. They must park in the designated parking area and proceed directly to the assigned blind via the designated route.

B-82

Availability of Resources: The following funding/annual costs (based on FY 2008 costs) would be required to administer and manage wildlife observation and photography activities as described above:

Annual Costs Administration $2,000 Signs $500 Brochures $1,000 Law Enforcement $1,000 Regular maintenance of kiosks, auto tour route, $15,000 viewing blinds, photography blind, trails, restrooms, etc. Monitoring $2,000 Total $21,500

Funding will be sought through the Service budget process. User fees are collected for commercial photography activities and for issuing Special Use Permits (SUP). Other sources will be sought through strengthened partnerships, grants, and additional refuge operations funding to support a safe and quality program as described above.

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Once considered “non-consumptive”, it is now recognized that wildlife observation and wildlife photography can negatively impact wildlife by altering wildlife behavior, reproduction, distribution, and habitat (Purdy et al. 1987, Knight and Cole 1995).

Purdy et al. (1987) and Pomerantz et al. (1988) described six categories of impacts to wildlife as a result of visitor activities:

 direct mortality: immediate, on-site death of an animal  indirect mortality: eventual, premature death of an animal caused by an event or agent that predisposed the animal to death  lowered productivity: reduced fecundity rate, nesting success, or reduced survival rate of young before dispersal from nest or birth site  reduced use of refuge: wildlife not using the refuge as frequently or in the manner they normally would in the absence of visitor activity  reduced use of preferred habitat on the refuge: wildlife use is relegated to less suitable habitat on the refuge due to visitor activity  aberrant behavior/stress: wildlife demonstrating unusual behavior or signs of stress likely to result in reduced reproductive or survival rates

B-83

feeding patterns, increase exposure to predation, or abandon sites with repeated disturbance (Smith and Hunt 1995). Migratory birds were observed to be more sensitive than resident species to disturbance (Klein 1989).

Depending on the species (especially migrants vs. residents), some birds may habituate to some types of recreation disturbance and either are not disturbed or will immediately return after the initial disturbance (Hockin et al. 1992; Burger et al. 1995; Knight and Temple 1995; Madsen 1995; Fox and Madsen 1997). Rodgers and Smith (1997) calculated buffer distances that minimize disturbance to foraging and loafing birds based on experimental flushing distances for 16 species of waders and shorebirds. They recommended 100 meters as an adequate buffer against pedestrian traffic; however, they suggest this distance may be reduced if physical barriers (e.g., vegetation screening) are provided, noise levels are reduced, and traffic is directed tangentially rather than directly toward birds. Screening may not effectively buffer noise impacts, thus visitors should be educated on the effects of noise and noise restrictions should be enforced (Burger 1981, 1986; Klein 1993; Bowles 1995; Burger and Gochfeld 1998). Seasonally restricting or prohibiting recreation activity may be necessary during spring and fall migration to alleviate disturbance to migratory birds (Burger 1981, 1986; Boyle and Samson 1985; Klein et al. 1995; Hill et al. 1997).

Of the wildlife observation techniques, wildlife photographers tend to have the largest disturbance effects (Klein 1993, Morton 1995, Dobb 1998). While wildlife observers frequently stop to view species, wildlife photographers are more likely to approach wildlife (Klein 1993). Even a slow approach by wildlife photographers tends to have behavioral consequences to wildlife species (Klein 1993). Other impacts include the potential for photographers to remain close to wildlife for extended periods of time in an attempt to habituate the wildlife subject to their presence (Dobb 1998) and the tendency of casual photographers, with low-power lenses, to get much closer to their subjects than other activities would require (Morton 1995), including wandering off trails. This usually results in increased disturbance to wildlife and habitat, including trampling of plants. Klein (1993) recommended that refuges provide observation and photography blinds to reduce disturbance of waterbirds when approached by visitors.

B-84

management techniques over time, particularly because it is often difficult to generalize about the impacts of specific types of recreation in different environments. Local and site -specific knowledge is necessary to determine effects on birds and to develop effective management strategies (Hockin et al. 1992; Klein et al. 1995; Hill et al. 1997).

The construction and maintenance of boardwalks/trails and parking lots will have minor impacts on soils and vegetation around the trails. This could include an increased potential for erosion, soil compaction (Liddle 1975), reduced seed emergence (Cole and Landres 1995), alteration of vegetative structure and composition, and sediment loading (Cole and Marion 1988). However, the construction of boardwalks will concentrate foot traffic, allowing the vegetation surrounding them to remain undisturbed.

Disturbance of wildlife is the primary concern regarding these uses. Disturbance to wildlife, such as the flushing of feeding, resting, or nesting birds, is inherent to these activities. There is some temporary disturbance to wildlife due to human activities on trails (e.g., hiking and bird watching); however, the disturbance is generally localized and does not have an adverse effect on overall populations. Increased facilities and visitation would cause some displacement of habitat and increase some disturbance to wildlife, although this is expected to be minor given the size of the Refuge and the avoidance or minimization of intrusion into important wildlife habitat.

Public Review and Comment: Public review and comments will be solicited in conjunction with distribution of the Draft CCP and EA for Modoc Refuge.

Determination:

_____ Use is Not Compatible

X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility:

 Adequate areas are designated as wildlife sanctuary with no or limited public use activities to provide high quality habitat for feeding, resting, and nesting.  Regulations and wildlife friendly behavior (e.g., requirements to stay on designated trails, dogs must be kept on leash, etc.) are described in brochures and posted at the visitor center.  Refuge staff will routinely monitor the auto tour route and walking trail for Refuge regulation compliance.  Refuge staff will conduct regular surveys of public activities on the Refuge. The data is analyzed and used by the refuge manager to develop future modifications if necessary to ensure compatibility of the wildlife observation and photography programs.  Access to the Refuge is allowed from sunrise to sunset.  Regulatory and directional signs clearly mark designated routes of travel and areas closed to the public.  Maps and public use information are available at the Refuge Headquarters, kiosks, and the Refuge’s website http://www.fws.gov/modoc.  Open the EE area (60 acres) for wildlife observation and photography from March 1 through August 31 including trail, observation deck and blind, floating dock, EE shelter, boardwalk, interpretive panels, and kiosk.

B-85

 One photography blind is available by reservation year-round.  Additional requirements for commercial photography activities are covered in the Compatibility Determination for Commercial Photography for Modoc National Wildlife Refuge.

Justification: These wildlife-dependent uses are priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Providing opportunities for wildlife observation and photography would contribute toward fulfilling provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended in 1997, and one of the goals of Modoc Refuge (Goal 3, Chapter 4, CCP). Wildlife observation and photography provide an excellent forum for allowing public access and increasing understanding of the Refuge’s resources. The stipulations outlined above should minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions. Based upon impacts described in the Draft CCP and EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009), it is determined that wildlife observation and photography within Modoc National Wildlife Refuge as described herein, will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge System. In our opinion, implementing the wildlife observation and photography programs and associated stipulations will not conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the Refuge.

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (2024):

X Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation, Date will be provided in Final EA and CCP (for priority public uses)

_____ Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses)

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

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References Cited

B-86

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 21:231-241. Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United States. Biological Conservation 13:123-130. Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human distance and birds: Tolerance and response distances of resident and migrant species in India. Environmental Conservation 18:158-165. Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, and L. J. Niles. 1995. Ecotourism and birds in coastal New Jersey: Contrasting responses of birds, tourists, and managers. Environmental Conservation 22:56-65. Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1998. Effects of ecotourists on bird behavior at Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Environmental Conservation 25:13-21. Cole, D. N., and J. L. Marion. 1988. Recreation impacts in some riparian forests of the eastern United States. Environmental Management 12:99-107. Cole, D. N., and P. B. Landres. 1995. Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. In Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistence through management and research, edited by R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller. Washington, D.D.: Island Press. Dobb, E. 1998. Reality check: The debate behind the lens. Audubon Jan.-Feb. Fox, A. D., and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:1-13. Glinski, R. L. 1976. Bird watching etiquette: The need for a developing philosophy. American Bird 30(3):655-657. Gutzwiller, K. J., R. T. Wiedenmann, K. L. Clements, and S. H. Anderson. 1994. Effects on human intrusion on song occurrence and singing consistency in subalpine birds. Auk 111:28-37. Hill, D. A., D. Hockin, D. Price, G. Tucker, R. Morris, and J. Treweek. 1997. Bird disturbance: Improving the quality and utility of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:275-288. Hockin, D., M. Ounsted, M. Gorman, D. A. Hill, V. Keller, and M. A. Barker. 1992. Examination of the effects of disturbance on birds with reference to its importance in ecological assessments. Journal of Environmental Management 36:253-286. Klein, M. L. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J.N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Sanibel Florida. Master's thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Klein, M. L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:31-39. Klein, M. L., S. R. Humphrey, and H. F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution of waterbirds in a wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology 9:1454-1465. Knight, R. L., and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistence through management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In Wildlife and recreationists, edited by R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller. Covelo, California: Island Press.

B-87

Knight, R. L., and S. A. Temple. 1995. Origin of wildlife responses to recreationists. In Wildlife and recreation: Coexistence through management and research, edited by R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Liddle, M. J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects on human trampling on natural ecosystems. Biological Conservation 7:17-36. Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74. Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169. Morton, J. M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. In Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement and management in the Atlantic Flyway, edited by W. R. Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whittemore, P. Kehoe and L. Roberts. Dover, Delaware: Environmental Manage. Comm., Atlantic Flyway Council Techn. Sect., and Delaware Div. Fish and Wildl. Pomerantz, G. A., D. J. Decker, G. R. Goff, and K. G. Purdy. 1988. Assessing impact of recreation on wildlife: A classification scheme. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:58-62. Purdy, K. G., G. R. Goft, D. J. Decker, G. A. Pomerantz, and N. A. Connelly. 1987. A guide to managing human activity on national wildlife refuges. Ft. Collins, Colorado: Office of Information Transfer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Reijnen, R., and R. Foppen. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. I. Evidence of reduced habitat quality for willow warbler (Pylloscopus trochilus) breeding close to a highway. Journal of Applied Ecology 31:85-94. Rodgers, J. A., Jr., and H. T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:139-145. Smith, L., and J. D. Hunt. 1995. Nature tourism: Impacts and management. In Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistence through management and research, edited by R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8.

B-88 Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation and Photography at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: J2j;sidJ (Date�

Wildlife Refuge Manager/ Project Leader � Approval: /�.p-V1 ��c::..-___. _--� ==------:#- _ ___ (Signature) *.. (Date)

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: (Signature)

Assistant Regional Director Refuges: (Slgnatur�J.� )

B-89

B-84 Appendix C. Hunting Plan

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1

2. Conformance with Statutory Authorities ...... 1 2.1 Refuge System Mission and Goals ...... 1 2.2 Refuge Purposes ...... 2 2.3 Refuge System Improvement Act ...... 2 2.4 Compatibility Determination ...... 3 2.5 Compliance with Endangered Species Act ...... 3 2.6 Appropriate NEPA Documents ...... 3

3. Statement of Objectives ...... 3

4. Assessment ...... 4 4.1 Are Wildlife Populations Present in Numbers Sufficient to Sustain Optimum Population Levels for Priority Refuge Objectives Other than Hunting? ...... 4 4.2 Is There Competition for Habitat Between Target Species and Other Wildlife? ...... 5 4.3 Are There Unacceptable Levels of Predation by Target Species on Other Wildlife Forms? ...... 5

5. Description of Hunting Program ...... 5 5.1 Areas of the Refuge that Support Populations of the Target Species ...... 5 5.1.1 Habitats ...... 5 Wetlands ...... 6 Riverine ...... 6 Reservoir ...... 6 Riparian ...... 6 Sagebrush-steppe ...... 6 Croplands...... 7 5.1.2 Target Species ...... 7 Migratory Game Birds ...... 7 Upland Game Birds ...... 7 5.2 Areas to be Opened to the Public ...... 7 5.2.1 Hunt Program Background Information ...... 7 5.2.2 Harvest Information ...... 9

C-i 5.2.3 Refuge Hunting Area Descriptions ...... 9 5.3 Species to be Taken, Hunting Periods ...... 9 5.3.1 Hunting Season and Bag Limits Overview ...... 9 5.3.2 Refuge Hunt Seasons and Bag Limits ...... 12 5.4 Justification for a Permit if One is Required ...... 13 5.5 Procedures for Consultation and Coordination with State ...... 13 5.6 Methods of Control and Enforcement (Identify Check Stations) ...... 14 5.7 Funding and Staffing Requirements for the Hunt ...... 14 5.8 Consideration of Providing Opportunities for Hunters with Disabilities ...... 14

6. Measures Taken to Avoid Conflicts With Other Management Objectives ...... 15 6.1 Biological Conflicts ...... 15 6.2 Public Use Conflicts ...... 15 6.3 Administrative Conflicts ...... 16

7. Conduct of the Hunt ...... 16 7.1 Refuge Specific Regulations ...... 16 7.1.1 Hunting of Migratory Game Birds ...... 16 7.1.2 Upland Game Hunting ...... 17 7.2 Anticipated Public Reaction to the Hunt ...... 17 7.3 Hunter Application and Registration Procedures ...... 17 7.4 Description of Hunter Selection Process ...... 17 7.5 Media Selection for Announcing and Publicizing the Hunt ...... 18 7.5.1 Outreach Plan ...... 18 Issue ...... 18 Basic Facts about the Issue ...... 18 Communication Goals: ...... 18 Message ...... 18 Interested Parties ...... 19 7.6 Description of Hunter Orientation, Including Pre-hunt Scouting Opportunities...... 19 7.7 Hunter requirements ...... 19 7.7.1 State Determined Age Requirement ...... 19 7.7.2 Allowable Equipment ...... 19 7.7.3 Licensing and Permits ...... 19 7.7.4 Reporting Harvest ...... 20 7.7.5 Hunter Training and Safety ...... 20 7.7.6 Other Information ...... 20

C-ii 8. Evaluation ...... 20 8.1 Monitoring and Reporting Use Levels and Trends ...... 20 8.2 Surveying Needs of the Hunting Visitor ...... 20 8.3 Are we Meeting Program Objectives? ...... 20 8.4 Do We Need to Resolve any Conflicts? ...... 20

9. Bibliography ...... 20

Figures Figure 1. Visitor Services on Modoc Refuge ...... 8 Figure 2. Grandma tract hunting area ...... 10

Tables

Table 1. Refuge habitat classifications ...... 5 Table 2. Hunting summary for Modoc Refuge, 1981-2007 ...... 11 Table 3. Modoc Refuge, hunting season bag limit summary for 2008-2009 ...... 13 Table 4. Funding/annual costs ...... 14

C-iii 1. Introduction The 7,021-acre Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is located along the south fork of the Pit River in Modoc County, just three miles south of the town of Alturas in extreme northeast California. The Refuge is bordered on the east side by the Warner Mountains. This impressive range rises to an average elevation of 8,000 feet, and contains stands of pine and fir trees. This mountain range is also the principal watershed for the entire valley west of it, including the Refuge. The country south, west, and north of the Refuge is a variety of rolling hills, canyons, and plateaus with a sagebrush/juniper vegetative community.

The purpose of this Hunting Plan is to outline how the hunting program will be managed on the Refuge. The Hunting Plan documents how the Refuge will provide safe, quality hunting opportunities, while minimizing conflicts with other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses (Service Manual, 605 FW 1). The Hunting Plan will discuss the following topics: compatibility, the effect of hunting on Refuge objectives, assessment of target species, description of the hunting areas, avoiding biological and public conflicts, and the procedures to conduct the daily hunt.

2. Conformance with Statutory Authorities National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) and the purposes for which individual refuges were established, as well as other policies, laws, and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act); the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962; and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Service Manual. The Refuge Recreation Act, as amended, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use when such uses do not interfere with the area’s primary purpose.

2.1 Refuge System Mission and Goals The Administration Act, as amended by the Improvement Act, states: “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.”

The following Refuge System goals guide the development of comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) and the administration, management, and growth of the Refuge System:

C-1  Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation).  Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

2.2 Refuge Purposes 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) defines the purpose of a refuge when it is established or when new land is added to an existing refuge.

The 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).

2.3 Refuge System Improvement Act The Improvement Act identified a new mission statement for the Refuge System; established six priority wildlife-dependent recreational 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, 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; 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.

C-2 2.4 Compatibility Determination The Improvement Act also establishes a formal process for determining compatibility of uses. Before any uses, including wildlife-dependent recreational uses, are allowed on refuges, Federal law requires that they be formally determined compatible. A compatible use is defined as a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the purposes of the refuge or mission of the Refuge System. Sound professional judgment is defined as a finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and resources (e.g., funding, personnel, facilities, and other infrastructure), and applicable laws. The Service strives to provide wildlife-dependent recreational uses when compatible. If financial resources are not available to design, operate, and maintain a priority use, the refuge manager will take reasonable steps to obtain outside assistance from the State and other conservation interests.

The Service has determined hunting of waterfowl, coots, common moorhens, snipe, and pheasant (junior hunt only) to be a compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use on the Refuge (Hunting Compatibility Determination (CD), Appendix B of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009b). Based upon biological impacts described in the Hunting CD, Draft CCP, and Environmental Assessment (EA) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a), which are incorporated by reference, hunting on the Refuge is a compatible use and will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was established. Stipulations within the Hunting CD to ensure compatibility include Refuge-specific regulations; monitoring of hunting activities, habitat conditions, public use activities, and wildlife population levels; and routine law enforcement patrols.

2.5 Compliance with Endangered Species Act A Section 7 consultation on the Draft CCP/EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a) which includes hunting of waterfowl, coots, common moorhens, pheasant, and snipe and a junior pheasant hunt will be completed to determine effects of the CCP on threatened and endangered species.

2.6 Appropriate NEPA Documents See EA (Appendix A in CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a)).

3. Statement of Objectives The Refuge’s management goals, objectives, and strategies (CCP, Chapter 4) are designed to achieve the Refuge’s purposes, which are listed in Section 1.1, Conformance with Statutory Authorities. The Refuge’s hunting objective is to “implement a high quality hunting program including opportunities for approximately 1,760 annual hunting visits on 2,330 acres by 2010” (Goal 3, Objective 3.1).

The strategies for implementing the hunting objective (CCP, Chapter 4) and to create the Refuge hunting program were developed using the Refuge System’s guiding principles for hunting programs (Service Manual, 605, FW2):

 Manage wildlife populations consistent with Refuge System-specific management plans approved after 1997 and, to the extent practicable, State fish and wildlife conservation plans.  Promote visitor understanding of, and increase visitor appreciation for, America’s natural resources.

C-3  Provide opportunities for quality recreational and educational experiences consistent with criteria describing quality found in 605 FW 1.6.  Encourage participation in this tradition deeply rooted in America’s natural heritage and conservation history.  Minimize conflicts with visitors participating in other compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities.

The Refuge developed and manages the hunting program based on the following Service quality criteria (Service Manual, 605, FW1):

 Promote safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities.  Promote compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior.  Minimize or eliminate conflict with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives in an approved plan.  Minimize conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.  Minimize conflicts with neighboring landowners.  Promote accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people.  Promote resource stewardship and conservation.  Promote public understanding and increase public appreciation of America’s natural resources and our role in managing and conserving these resources.  Provide reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife.  Use facilities that are accessible to people and blend into the natural setting.  Use visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs.

The hunting program will be conducted in a safe and cost-effective manner. This Hunting Plan was developed to provide safe hunting opportunities, while minimizing conflicts with other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Hunting will be permitted in accordance with State and Federal regulations to ensure that it will not interfere with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats. Therefore, the sport hunting of waterfowl, coots, common moorhens, snipe, and pheasant on the Refuge complies with State regulations, the Administration Act as amended by the Improvement Act, and the Refuge Recreation Act.

4. Assessment 4.1 Are Wildlife Populations Present in Numbers Sufficient to Sustain Optimum Population Levels for Priority Refuge Objectives Other than Hunting? Yes, wildlife populations are present in sufficient numbers for priority Refuge objectives for wildlife management and for the other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses (i.e., wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation). The Refuge adopts harvest regulations set by the State, which uses concepts of density dependant compensatory mortality and adaptive harvest management to ensure sustained game species populations (See Section 5.3, Species to be Taken).

The Refuge is evaluated to determine the best public use strategy for providing high quality wildlife-dependent public use opportunities. Approximately 2,330 acres (33 percent) of the Refuge is open to hunting of waterfowl, coots, common moorhens, snipe, and pheasant. Approximately 3,845 acres (55 percent) of the Refuge are closed to all public uses, including hunting (Goal 1, Objective 1.9). Approximately 1,924 acres provide opportunities for other wildlife-dependent

C-4 opportunities (i.e., wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation) and non-wildlife dependent uses.

4.2 Is There Competition for Habitat Between Target Species and Other Wildlife? Possibly, while each species occupies a unique niche, there is only a finite amount of space available to satisfy various habitat requirements of water, food, cover, breeding, and roosting areas.

4.3 Are There Unacceptable Levels of Predation by Target Species on Other Wildlife Forms? No, target species (waterfowl, coots, common moorhens, snipe, and pheasant) generally do not prey on other species at unacceptable levels.

5. Description of Hunting Program 5.1 Areas of the Refuge that Support Populations of the Target Species Target game species commonly occurring on the Refuge include waterfowl, coots, common moorhens, snipe, and pheasant. Descriptions of wetland, sagebrush-steppe, and riparian habitats and their associated plant and wildlife species are described below and in further detail in Chapter 3 of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a). A list of animal and plant species occurring on the Refuge can be found in Appendix H of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a). An overview of hunted target wildlife species is also described in Section 5.1.2.

5.1.1 Habitats The Refuge currently consists of 7,011 acres of wetlands, reservoir, riparian, sagebrush-steppe, and cropland habitats (Table 1). An additional 10 acres of the Refuge are comprised of administration sites (e.g., roads, buildings, and ditches).

Table 1. 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.

C-5 Wetlands The Refuge contains over 1,600 acres of seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands. Seasonal wetlands, 1,062 acres, support the greatest abundance and diversity of wildlife species and are highly productive for wildlife food. 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.

Semi-permanent wetlands provide habitat during all or part of the summer, as well as most of the rest of the year. They provide important breeding habitat for waterfowl and many other wetland- dependent species. 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.

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.

Riverine 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.

Reservoir Dorris Reservoir is a 1,100 surface-acre (only 547 acres of which are owned by the Refuge) storage facility used to supply water to the Refuge. 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.

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. Dominant woody species present include willows and cottonwoods. An aspen stand is also included in this habitat type.

Sagebrush-steppe Sagebrush habitat on the Refuge (approximately 2,053 acres) occurs in the uplands (areas not subject to flooding) and includes basin big sagebrush, western juniper, rabbitbrush, and perennial grasses such as Great Basin wild rye interspersed with bunchgrasses. Sagebrush-steppe habitat is

C-6 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.

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.

5.1.2 Target Species Migratory Game Birds 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 per year, dominated by mallards, gadwalls, cinnamon teal, northern shovelers, and redheads. In addition, approximately 2,000 Canada geese are produced on the Refuge each year.

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. Geese using the area average between 4,000 and 5,000 birds. Approximately 1,000 tundra swans also use the Refuge each year during migration. Upland Game Birds Ring-necked pheasant can be found foraging in the agricultural areas and nesting in nearby shrubs. 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.

5.2 Areas to be Opened to the Public 5.2.1 Hunt Program Background Information Waterfowl hunting has been permitted on the Refuge since 1961. Hunting is permitted on designated portions of the Refuge (Figure 1) on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Limiting hunting to three days per week allows waterfowl undisturbed access to the hunt area on non-hunt days. Sufficient feeding and resting areas are available in the closed areas of the Refuge, making hunting compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established.

Hunting on the opening weekend is by reservation only. Hunters are selected through a drawing conducted by the Refuge. After opening weekend, waterfowl hunting is conducted through a self- check-in/out system. There is no quota or fee after opening weekend.

C-7 Figure 1. Visitor Services on Modoc Refuge

C-8 carried in and out each day. Currently, three spaced blinds are available, all of which are universally accessible. One additional universally accessible blind will be constructed. The remainder of the hunt area is open for free-roam hunting.

The Grandma tract (200 acres) will be opened to hunting in four assigned ponds and one spaced blind (Figure 2). A party of up to four hunters will be allowed per site. Hunters must park in the numbered parking space corresponding to the blind or assigned pond they are going to hunt.

The Refuge conducts a youth waterfowl hunt usually two weeks prior to opening weekend. The youth waterfowl hunt is by reservation only. A second junior hunt will be added during the season in the future. Hunters are selected through a drawing conducted by the Refuge.

The Refuge also conducts an annual youth pheasant hunt in November. Hunters are selected through a drawing conducted by the Refuge. This hunt is for wild pheasants and is limited to ten youth hunters.

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.

5.2.2 Harvest Information The overall harvest success, as measured by the number of birds per hunter per day, has remained relatively constant (approximately 1.4 birds per hunter) since the hunting programs were established. An average of 1,650 hunter visits occur annually, with an average of 1.44 birds per hunter (Table 2). 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.

In 2007, 1,286 hunters (including 85 youth waterfowl hunters) at the Refuge harvested 2,965 birds (2,696 ducks, 245 geese, and 24 coots/moorhens), with an average of 2.31 birds/hunter. In 2007, no snipe were harvested on the Refuge. In 2007, no pheasants were harvested on Modoc Refuge (0 average pheasants/hunter).

5.2.3 Refuge Hunting Area Descriptions The hunting area is located between Highway 395 and County Road 115 (Figure 1), and the Grandma Tract is located north of County Road 56 (Figures 1 and 2). The public hunting area on the Refuge consists of 2,330 acres (33 percent) of wet meadows, wetlands, croplands, and sagebrush-steppe uplands. 4,691 acres (67 percent) of the Refuge is closed to hunting. Approximately 3,845 (55 percent) of the acres closed to hunting are managed as sanctuary and are closed to the public.

5.3 Species to be Taken, Hunting Periods 5.3.1 Hunting Season and Bag Limits Overview Waterfowl populations throughout the United States are managed through an administrative process known as flyways, of which there are four (Pacific, Central, Mississippi, and Atlantic). The review of the policies, processes, and procedures for waterfowl hunting are covered in a number of documents identified below.

C-9 Figure 2. Grandma tract hunting area

C-10

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) considerations by the Service for hunted migratory game bird species are addressed by the programmatic document, ‘‘Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88– 14),’’ filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. The Service published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582), and the Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). Annual NEPA considerations for waterfowl hunting frameworks are covered under a separate Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. Further, in a notice published in the September 8, 2005 Federal Register (70 FR 53776), the Service announced its intent to develop a new Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the migratory bird hunting program. Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, as announced in a March 9, 2006 Federal Register notice (71 FR 12216).

C-11 Because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds are closed unless specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually promulgates regulations in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR Part 20) establishing the Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks. The frameworks are essentially permissive in that hunting of migratory birds would not be permitted without them. Thus, in effect, Federal annual regulations both allow and limit the hunting of migratory birds.

The Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks provide season dates, bag limits, and other options for the States to select that should result in the level of harvest determined to be appropriate based upon Service-prepared annual biological assessments detailing the status of migratory game bird populations. In North America, the process for establishing waterfowl hunting regulations is conducted annually. In the United States, the process involves a number of scheduled meetings (Flyway Study Committees, Flyway Councils, Service Regulations Committee, etc.) in which information regarding the status of waterfowl populations and their habitats is presented to individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, public hearings are held and the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment.

For waterfowl, these annual assessments include the breeding population and habitat survey, which is conducted throughout portions of the United States and Canada, and is used to establish a Waterfowl Population Status Report annually. In addition, the number of waterfowl hunters and resulting harvest are closely monitored through both the Harvest Information Program (HIP) and parts survey (Wing Bee). Since 1995, such information has been used to support the adaptive harvest management (AHM) process for setting duck-hunting regulations. Under AHM, a number of decision-making protocols render the choice (package) of pre-determined regulations (appropriate levels of harvest) which comprise the framework offered to the States that year. California’s Fish and Game Commission then selects season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options from the Pacific Flyway package. Their selections can be more restrictive, but cannot be more liberal than AHM allows. Thus, the level of hunting opportunity afforded each State increases or decreases each year in accordance with the annual status of waterfowl populations.

Each national wildlife refuge considers the cumulative impacts to hunted migratory species through the Migratory Bird Frameworks published annually in the Service’s regulations on migratory bird hunting. Season dates and bag limits for national wildlife refuges open to hunting are never longer or larger than the State regulations. In fact, based upon the findings of an environmental assessment developed when a refuge opens a new hunting activity, season dates and bag limits may be more restrictive than the State allows.

5.3.2 Refuge Hunt Seasons and Bag Limits Hunting will be permitted in accordance with State and Federal regulations (Table 3 gives an example of annual State hunt seasons for areas within the Refuge) to ensure that it will not interfere with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats. Therefore, the sport hunting of migratory and upland game birds on the Refuge is in compliance with State regulations and seasons, the Administration Act as amended by the Improvement Act, and the Refuge Recreation Act.

C-12 Table 3. Modoc Refuge, hunting season bag limit summary for 2008-2009

Species Dates Daily Bag Limits

Waterfowl – Ducks* Second Saturday in October Up to 7 ducks; see below*; extending for 105 consecutive possession double the bag limit days Waterfowl – Geese Second Saturday in October Up to 6 geese; see below**; extending for 100 consecutive possession double the bag limit days American Coot and October - concurrent with 25/day, 25 in possession, either Common Moorhen duck season all of one species or a mixture of these species Snipe Third Saturday in October 8/day; possession double the extending for 106 days bag limit Youth Waterfowl Hunt The Saturday 14 days before Same as regular season the opening of waterfowl season Youth Pheasant One Sunday in mid-to late 3 males per hunter Hunt*** November *Duck Bag Limits: 7 ducks/but not more than 1 hen mallards, 1 pintail, 2 redhead, 2 scaup, throughout the season **Goose Bag Limits: 6 geese/but not more than 6 white geese, 4 white-fronted geese, 2 large Canada geese, 1 small Canada goose ***Pheasant are only hunted during a youth pheasant hunt that occurs on one day during the legal season. Hunting 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.

5.4 Justification for a Permit if One is Required A valid California hunting license, including appropriate stamps, is required of all hunters. Hunters must completely fill out the “Refuge Hunt Permit” portion of the permit and deposit it in the drop box prior to hunting. The hunter must possess and carry the “Record of Kill” portion of the permit while on the Refuge and turn it in prior to exiting the hunting area. The permit facilitates tracking of hunter use and species harvested on the Refuge.

5.5 Procedures for Consultation and Coordination with State To assure that hunted bird populations are sustainable, the California Fish and Game Commission, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), annually review the population censuses to establish season lengths and harvest levels.

The Service manages the Refuge’s land, habitats, and facilities; and the hunter selection and processing. Both the Service and CDFG participate in enforcing applicable Federal and State laws and Refuge regulations. CDFG participates in the annual Refuge Hunter Working Group meetings.

C-13 5.6 Methods of Control and Enforcement (Identify Check Stations) The hunting program is managed in strict accordance with all applicable Federal laws (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50 subchapter C) and to the extent practicable, consistent with applicable State laws.

Law enforcement would continue to be provided on a limited basis by the law enforcement officer stationed at Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex and CDFG wardens. The Refuge is allocated $2,500 annually to help cover the costs of law enforcement coverage from Klamath Basin.

5.7 Funding and Staffing Requirements for the Hunt Funds are currently available to operate and maintain the hunt program. Funding is acquired through the Service budget process. The following funding/annual costs (based on FY 2008 costs) (Table 4) would be required to administer and manage hunting activities as described above:

Table 4. Funding/annual costs One-Time Costs Annual Costs Predicted Maintenance of Facilities Brochures, signs, etc $1,000 Maintenance of 3 parking $3,000 areas, 5 blinds, etc. Administration $5,000 New Construction Construct 2 universally $10,000 accessible hunting blinds TOTAL $10,000 $9,000

5.8 Consideration of Providing Opportunities for Hunters with Disabilities The Service, including the Office of Diversity and Civil Rights, strongly supports the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act of 1967. Requirements that priority wildlife- dependent activities are to be managed in ways that promote integrated access for persons with disabilities, to the maximum extent possible where feasible and safe, are priority Refuge objectives. The Refuge will keep integration central, avoid exclusivity, and continue encouraging persons with disabilities to hunt wherever they are individually capable of hunting. Hunters with disabilities participate in the Refuge Hunting Program Working Group that meets annually to discuss, evaluate, and improve Refuge hunting facilities and procedures.

The Refuge provides the following facilities for hunters with disabilities:

 Three spaced blind sites are designated for hunters with mobility impairments. These sites may be accessed by motor vehicle.  Two additional universally accessible blinds will be constructed, one of which will be located on the Grandma Tract.

C-14  Opening weekend, a separate drawing is conducted for the accessible blinds. After the opening weekend, hunters with disabilities can call the Refuge no later than 24 hours prior to the day they want to hunt to reserve the blind or they are available on a first come, first serve basis.

6. Measures Taken to Avoid Conflicts With Other Management Objectives The impacts addressed here are discussed in detail in the EA (Appendix A) for the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a), which is incorporated by reference.

6.1 Biological Conflicts Biological conflicts will be minimized by the following:

 Hunting will be limited to Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays during the established seasons.  Special regulations will be put in place to minimize negative impacts to wildlife.  The number of hunters will be limited by designated hunter quotas on the Refuge during the opening weekend.  Federally approved non-toxic shot will be used for all hunting to help minimize the possibility of lead poisoning.  No hunting will be allowed during the breeding season. Hunting will be allowed only during designated seasons for waterfowl and upland game birds.  The areas closed to hunting activities (4,691 acres closed to hunting including 3,845 acres closed to the public) will provide adequate sanctuaries for wildlife.  Law enforcement presence will help minimize excessive harvest and other infractions (illegal use of lead shot, take of non-game species, littering, etc.).  Firearms are permitted on the Refuge for public hunting under the provisions of 50 CFR Part 32. Persons may carry unloaded firearms on the Refuge that are dismantled or cased in vehicles (50 CFR 27.42). In addition, 50 CFR 27.42(e) states persons may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national wildlife refuge in accordance with the laws of the state in which the wildlife refuge is located, except as otherwise prohibited by applicable Federal law.  A Section 7 consultation on the Draft CCP/EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a) which includes hunting of waterfowl, coots, common moorhens, pheasant, and snipe and junior pheasant hunt will be completed to determine effects of the CCP on threatened and endangered species.

6.2 Public Use Conflicts Conflicts between hunting and other public uses will be minimized by the following:

 Physically separate non-hunting and hunting acres to divide spatially the activities.  Boundary and hunting area signs will be maintained to define clearly the designated hunting areas.  Allow vehicle traffic only on designated roads and parking areas.  Parking areas will be signed to allow only pedestrian hunter access to hunting areas. Vehicle access is allowed for pick up and drop off of disabled hunters.  The hunting program will be managed in strict accordance with all applicable Federal laws (50 CFR Subchapter C) and to the extent practicable, consistent with applicable State laws.  Field checks by refuge law enforcement officers and CDFG game wardens will be planned to maintain compliance with regulations.

C-15  Information about the Refuge hunting program will be provided through signs, kiosks, brochures, and the Refuge’s website (http://www.fws.gov/modoc)  No camping will be allowed on the Refuge.

6.3 Administrative Conflicts There are no administrative conflicts with this proposal at this time. As the program expands, there may be conflicts associated with the cost of the program.

7. Conduct of the Hunt 7.1 Refuge Specific Regulations The following are the special regulations for Migratory Game Bird Hunting and Upland Game Hunting on the Modoc Refuge. The regulations are noticed in the Federal Register and are incorporated into 50 CFR 32.24, California Refuge-specific regulations (text in italics represent new and/or changed regulation).

7.1.1 Hunting of Migratory Game Birds We allow the hunting of geese, ducks, coots, moorhens, and snipe on designated areas of the Refuge subject to the following conditions:

2. After the opening weekend of the hunting season, we only allow hunting on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Hunters must check-in and out of the refuge by filling out the “Migratory Bird Hint Report” permit and must possess and carry the permit while on the refuge. The harvest information must be filled out and turned in prior to exiting the hunting area.

3. In the designated spaced blind and assigned pond areas, you must remain within the blind or pond assigned to you.

4. We require adults age 18 or older to accompany youth hunters 15 and under.

5. While in the field, to take wildlife on the refuge, you may only possess nontoxic ammunition and shotshells in quantities of 25 or less.

6. In the free-roam hunting areas, you may only use portable blinds or blinds constructed of vegetation.

7. You must remove all blinds, decoys, shell casings, other personal equipment, and refuse from the refuge at the end of each day (see CFR 27.93 and 27.94).

8. Hunters must enter and exit the hunting area from the three designated hunt parking lots, which open 1 ½ hours before legal sunrise and close 1 hour after sunset each hunt day.

9. We only allow access to the hunt area by foot, bicycle, and nonmotorized cart. We prohibit bicycles in the hunt area during the opening weekend of the hunting season.

C-16 10. Mobility impaired hunters should consult the refuge manager for allowed conveyances.

7.1.2 Upland Game Hunting We allow hunting of pheasant on designated areas of the Refuge subject to the following conditions:

1. We limit hunting to junior hunters only, age 15 or under, possessing a valid State Junior Hunting License and refuge Junior Pheasant Hunt Permit.

2. We require adults age 18 or older to accompany junior hunters.

3. You may only possess approved nontoxic shot while in the field (see CFR 32.2 (k)).

4. Hunters must enter and exit the hunting area from the two designated hunt parking lots.

7.2 Anticipated Public Reaction to the Hunt Hunting is a traditional use in the Modoc Plateau. Hunting on the Refuge has been occurring since 1961. Most hunters would support the hunting program on Modoc Refuge. During the comment periods and public scoping sessions for the CCP in 2007, a variety of opinions were heard. Three comments regarding hunting were received; two supported expanding the hunt area and the species hunted on the Refuge and one supported the ban of hunting and trapping (see Chapter 2 of the CCP).

7.3 Hunter Application and Registration Procedures Hunting on the opening weekend is by reservation only. Hunters are selected through a drawing conducted by the Refuge. The normal quota is 136 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 five universally accessible blinds.

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 on a first come first serve basis to all hunters.

7.4 Description of Hunter Selection Process The Refuge conducts a youth waterfowl hunt usually two weeks prior to opening weekend. The youth waterfowl hunt is by reservation only. A second junior hunt will be added during the season in the future. 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 non-hunter with no more than two youth hunters per adult.

C-17 The Refuge also conducts an annual youth pheasant hunt in November. Hunters are selected through a drawing conducted by the Refuge. This hunt is for wild pheasants 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.

7.5 Media Selection for Announcing and Publicizing the Hunt The Refuge has a standard list of local media contacts for news releases. The Service will utilize the Refuge’s website, kiosks, brochures, and flyers to provide current and accurate information regarding the Refuge’s hunt program. A draft news release regarding the hunting program is attached. An Outreach Plan is also included below.

7.5.1 Outreach Plan Issue The Service intends to continue to manage designated areas for migratory bird and upland game bird hunting on Modoc Refuge.

Basic Facts about the Issue

 The objective for the Refuge is to implement a high-quality hunting program including opportunities for approximately 1,760 annual hunting visits on 2,330 acres by 2010.  Hunting of waterfowl, coots, common moorhens, and snipe will be allowed Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturday s in accordance with State and Refuge-specific hunting regulations during the legal hunting seasons and shooting times.  Hunting is allowed only on designated areas of the Refuge.  Method of enforcement and control will take place through boundary and hunting signs, information kiosks, and routine patrol by the CDFG game wardens and refuge law enforcement officers.  Biological conflicts will be minimized by use of federally approved non-toxic shot and providing sanctuary areas that are strategically dispersed on the Refuge.  Measures taken to avoid Biological and Public Use conflicts are discussed under Section 6.  Hunters are required to enter and exit through one of three designated parking areas.  The Refuge Hunt Permit facilitates tracking of hunter use and species harvested.  During opening weekend, the number of hunters using the Refuge is limited through daily hunter quotas.

Communication Goals: Continue to do the following:  Solicit input from partners and keep lines of communication open.  Solicit input from the Refuge Hunting Program Working Group.  Ensure accurate public information and provide news releases.  Utilize the Refuge’s website (http://www.fws.gov/modoc), kiosks, brochures, and flyers to provide current and accurate information.

Message A quality and safe hunting program is managed and maintained on Modoc Refuge with input and assistance from many partners.

C-18 Interested Parties Interested parties include State fish and wildlife agencies; tribes; nongovernmental organizations; conservation groups; hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation groups; educators; farmers and ranchers; other Federal agencies; members of Congress; State and county representatives; news media; and many members of the public.

7.6 Description of Hunter Orientation, Including Pre-hunt Scouting Opportunities Maps and hunting information will be provided in the California state hunting regulations, on the Refuge’s website, and in the Refuge’s kiosks. The hunting areas of the Refuge are not open year- round, therefore pre-hunt scouting will not be allowed.

7.7 Hunter requirements 7.7.1 State Determined Age Requirement

 Junior and youth hunters, 15 years of age or younger, must be accompanied by an adult.  Minor hunter, 16-17 years of age, may hunt alone but may not accompany a junior and youth hunter or non-shooter.  Adult hunter, 18 years of age or older, may accompany a junior, youth, or minor.

7.7.2 Allowable Equipment

 Method of take: Federally approved non-toxic shot required for all species. Shotguns only are allowed. No shot shell larger than 10 gauge and no shot size larger than “T” is permitted. No rifles, pistols, or archery equipment may be used or possessed on the Refuge.  Dogs are required to be kept on a leash, except for hunting dogs engaged in authorized hunting activities and under immediate control.  Hunters must remove from the field all personal property, including decoys, at the end of each day.

7.7.3 Licensing and Permits

 A State hunting license is required for taking any bird. Hunters must carry licenses and be prepared to show them upon request.  Federal Duck Stamps are required for hunters 16 and older to take migratory waterfowl.  State Duck Stamps are required for all hunters, except junior hunters, to take migratory waterfowl.  Upland Game Bird Stamps are not required for junior hunters to take pheasants.  Harvest Information Program Stamp is required for all hunters.

C-19 7.7.4 Reporting Harvest

 Hunters are required to obtain a valid daily Refuge Hunt Permit to access the hunting area. The permit must be returned before leaving the hunting area with the recorded bird harvest.  The daily harvest totals and averages are posted on the Refuge’s website.

7.7.5 Hunter Training and Safety The Refuge Systems’ guiding principles for hunting programs is to provide quality recreational experiences. The Service’s criteria for quality are to promote safety for participants, visitors, and facilities (see Section 3).

 Hunters are required to complete successfully a hunter education course in order to purchase a State hunting license.  The Refuge-specific regulations 1, 3-4, 8-10 (see Section 7.1.1) are enforced to address hunter safety.

7.7.6 Other Information

 Waterfowl and upland game bird hunting: retrieving dogs are allowed and encouraged.  Falconry is not allowed.  Dog trials are not allowed.

8. Evaluation 8.1 Monitoring and Reporting Use Levels and Trends Hunter use levels, trends, and needs will be evaluated through hunters’ harvest, contact in the field, comments during the annual Refuge Hunting Program Working Group meeting, agencies, public meetings, e-mails, and letters. The visitor use will be recorded annually.

8.2 Surveying Needs of the Hunting Visitor Hunting visitor needs will be surveyed through hunter contacts in the field, discussions during the annual Refuge Hunting Program Working Group meeting, public meetings, e-mails, and letters.

8.3 Are we Meeting Program Objectives? The hunting program objective to “provide 1,760 high quality hunting opportunities on 2,330 acres by 2010,” taking into account season length and climatic conditions, will be met through the CCP strategies (Chapter 4, Goal 3). Monitoring will determine if we are meeting program objectives.

8.4 Do We Need to Resolve any Conflicts? Not at this time. The hunting program and outreach plans are written to minimize future conflicts.

9. Bibliography

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009a. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009b. Compatibility determination for hunting on Modoc National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8.

C-20

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE Modoc National Wildlife Refuge PO Box 1610 Alturas, CA 96101

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Steve Clay 530/233-3572

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Open to Hunting

The Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) will provide opportunities for migratory game bird hunting on 2,330 acres beginning on XXXX, including the 200 acre Grandma Tract. Take of waterfowl, coot, common moorhen, and snipe will be allowed in accordance with the State of California and Refuge-specific hunting regulations during the legal hunting seasons. Brochures and posted public use signs will assist hunters in determining the Refuge’s hunting areas. For further information and Refuge-specific hunting regulations see http://www.fws.gov/modoc or call 530-233-3572.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 94-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which encompasses more than 545 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 70 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies. 08/08

- FWS -

For more information about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, visit our home page at http://www.fws.gov

Appendix D. Fishing Plan

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Conformance with Statutory Authorities ...... 1 1.2 Refuge System Mission and Goals ...... 1 1.3 Refuge Purposes ...... 2 1.4 Refuge System Improvement Act ...... 2 1.5 Compatibility Determination ...... 2 1.6 Compliance with Endangered Species Act ...... 3 1.7 Appropriate NEPA Documents ...... 3

2. Statement of Objectives ...... 3

3. Assessment ...... 4 3.1 Is the Fishery Resource Capable of Sustaining Fishing Pressure? ...... 4 3.2 Does the Refuge Control All Access to the Resource? If Not, Can the Refuge Regulate Sport Fishing on These Waters? ...... 5 3.3 Is a Fishery Management Plan Needed? ...... 5

4. Description of Fishing Program ...... 5 4.1 Areas of the Refuge that Support the Fishery Resource ...... 5 4.2 Areas to be Opened to the Public ...... 5 4.3 Fishery-Related Species to be Taken ...... 6 4.4 Seasons...... 6 4.5 Justification for Permit, If One Is Required ...... 6 4.6 Procedures for Consultation and Coordination with State ...... 6 4.7 Methods of Enforcement ...... 6 4.8 Funding and Staffing Requirements for the Sport Fishing Program...... 7 4.9 Consideration of Providing Opportunities for Anglers with Disabilities and Youth Anglers ...... 7

5. Measures Taken to Avoid Conflicts with Other Management Objectives ...... 7 5.1 Biological Conflicts ...... 7

D-i 5.2 Public Use Conflicts ...... 8 5.3 Administrative Conflicts ...... 8

6. Conduct of the Sport Fishing Programs ...... 8 6.1 Refuge-specific fishing regulations ...... 8 6.2 Anticipated Public Reaction to the Sport Fishing Program ...... 8 6.3 Media Selection for Announcing and Publicizing the Sport Fishing Program ...... 9 6.3.1 Outreach plan ...... 9 6.4 Angler Application and Registration Procedures (If Needed) ...... 9 6.5 Description of Angler Selection Process (If Needed) ...... 10 6.6 Angler Requirements ...... 10

7. Compatibility Determination ...... 10

8. Appropriate NEPA Documents ...... 10

9. Evaluation ...... 10 9.1 Monitoring and Reporting Use Levels and Trends ...... 10 9.2 Surveying Needs of the Fishing Visitor ...... 11 9.3 Are We Meeting Program Objectives? ...... 11 9.4 Do We Need to Resolve Any Conflicts? ...... 11

10. Bibliography ...... 11

Tables

Table 1. CDFG 2008-2009 inland sport fishing regulations ...... 6 Table 2. Funding and staffing requirements for the sport fishing program ...... 7

D-ii 1. Introduction The 7,021-acre Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is located along the south fork of the Pit River in Modoc County, just three miles south of the town of Alturas in extreme northeast California. The Refuge is bordered on the east side by the Warner Mountains. This impressive range rises to an average elevation of 8,000 feet, and contains stands of pine and fir trees. This mountain range is also the principal watershed for the entire valley west of it, including the Refuge. The country south, west, and north of the Refuge is a variety of rolling hills, canyons, and plateaus with a sagebrush/juniper vegetative community.

The purpose of this Fishing Plan is to outline how the fishing program will be managed on the Refuge. The Fishing Plan documents how the Refuge will provide safe, quality fishing opportunities, while minimizing conflicts with other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses (Service Manual, 605 FW 1). The Fishing Plan will discuss the following topics: compatibility, the effect of fishing on Refuge objectives, assessment of target species, description of the fishing areas, avoiding biological and public conflicts, and the procedures to fish.

1.1 Conformance with Statutory Authorities National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) and the purposes for which individual refuges were established, as well as other policies, laws, and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act); the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962; and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Service Manual. The Refuge Recreation Act, as amended, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use when such uses do not interfere with the area’s primary purpose.

1.2 Refuge System Mission and Goals The Administration Act, as amended by the Improvement Act, states: “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.” The following Refuge System goals guide the development of comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) and the administration, management, and growth of the Refuge System:

 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 (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation).  Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

D-1 1.3 Refuge Purposes 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) defines the purpose of a refuge when it is established or when new land is added to an existing refuge.

The 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).

1.4 Refuge System Improvement Act The Improvement Act identified a new mission statement for the Refuge System; established six priority wildlife-dependent recreational 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, 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.

1.5 Compatibility Determination The Improvement Act also establishes a formal process for determining compatibility of uses. Before any uses, including wildlife-dependent recreational uses, are allowed on refuges, Federal law requires that they be formally determined compatible. A compatible use is defined as a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with

D-2 or detract from the fulfillment of the purposes of the refuge or mission of the Refuge System. Sound professional judgment is defined as a finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and resources (e.g., funding, personnel, facilities, and other infrastructure), and applicable laws. The Service strives to provide wildlife-dependent recreational uses when compatible. If financial resources are not available to design, operate, and maintain a priority use, the refuge manager will take reasonable steps to obtain outside assistance from the State and other conservation interests.

The Service has determined fishing to be a compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use on the Refuge (Fishing Compatibility Determination (CD), Appendix B of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a). Based upon biological impacts described in the Fishing CD, Draft CCP and Environmental Assessment (EA) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009b), which are incorporated by reference, fishing on the Refuge is a compatible use and will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was established. Stipulations within the Fishing CD to ensure compatibility include Refuge-specific regulations; monitoring of fishing activities, habitat conditions, public use activities, and wildlife population levels; and routine law enforcement patrols.

1.6 Compliance with Endangered Species Act A Section 7 consultation on the Draft CCP/EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a) will be completed to determine effects of the CCP on threatened and endangered species.

1.7 Appropriate NEPA Documents See EA (Appendix A in CCP) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a).

2. Statement of Objectives The Refuge’s management goals, objectives, and strategies (CCP, Chapter 4) are designed to achieve the Refuge’s purposes, which are listed in Section 1.1, Conformance with Statutory Authorities. The Refuge’s fishing objective is to “implement a high quality fishing program including opportunities for approximately 3,050 annual fishing visits on 547 acres by 2014” (Goal 3, Objective 3.2).

The strategies for implementing the fishing objective (CCP, Chapter 4) and to create the Refuge fishing program were developed using the Refuge System’s guiding principles for fishing programs (Service Manual, 605 FW3):

 Effectively maintain healthy and diverse fish communities and aquatic ecosystems through the use of scientific management techniques.  Promote visitor understanding of, and increase visitor appreciation for, America’s natural resources.  Provide opportunities for quality recreational and educational experiences consistent with criteria describing quality found in 605 FW 1.6.  Encourage participation in this tradition deeply rooted in America’s natural heritage and conservation history.  Minimize conflicts with visitors participating in other compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities.

D-3 The Refuge developed and manages the fishing program based on the following Service quality criteria (Service Manual, 605, FW1):

The fishing program will be conducted in a safe and cost-effective manner. This Fishing Plan was developed to provide safe fishing opportunities, while minimizing conflicts with other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Fishing will be managed to ensure that it will not interfere with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats. Therefore, the recreational fishing on the Refuge complies with State regulations and seasons, the Administration Act as amended by the Improvement Act, and the Refuge Recreation Act.

3. Assessment Evaluate the fishing resources on the Refuge populations and habitat. Points to be discussed include, but are not limited to, the following:

3.1 Is the Fishery Resource Capable of Sustaining Fishing Pressure? Yes, the fishery resource is capable of sustaining fishing pressure. Native fish species expected to occur in Dorris Reservoir and/or riverine habitats on the Refuge include the Pit-Klamath brook lamprey, Goose Lake redband trout, Sacramento sucker, hardhead, pit roach, Sacramento squawfish, 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. Non-native species compete for habitat with native species. Competition is especially severe in oxbows and sloughs, which provide relatively scarce still-water habitats that are dominated by non-native fishes. Non-native bass also prey on juvenile native fishes.

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 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) stocks Dorris Reservoir with rainbow trout and is the primary source of existing fish species. In 2007, CDFG planted 2,450 Eagle Lake rainbow trout into Dorris Reservoir. 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. As a result

D-4 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).

Fish barriers were installed in Parker Creek and Pine Creek delivery canals to prevent fish migration during high precipitation years.

The Refuge adopts harvest regulations set by the State, which uses the best available population information.

3.2 Does the Refuge Control All Access to the Resource? If Not, Can the Refuge Regulate Sport Fishing on These Waters? No, the Refuge does not control all access to Dorris Reservoir. With this Fishing Plan, the Refuge will provide consistent regulations with the State and will provide additional enforcement of these regulations.

3.3 Is a Fishery Management Plan Needed? Yes, the current Fishery Management Plan was completed in 1985 and was updated in 1990. One of the strategies in the CCP (Fishery Objective 3.2) includes the need to update the Fishery Management Plan for Dorris Reservoir by 2014.

4. Description of Fishing Program 4.1 Areas of the Refuge that Support the Fishery Resource The Refuge currently consists of 7,021 acres of wetlands, reservoir, riparian, sagebrush-steppe, and cropland habitats (Chapter 3, CCP). Game fish species occur in open water on the Refuge in Dorris Reservoir, Pit River, South Fork Pit River, Pine Creek ditch, irrigation canals, and sloughs.

Dorris Reservoir is a 1,100 surface-acre (only 547 acres of which are owned by the Refuge) storage facility used to supply water to the Refuge. 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.

A diversity of fish species use various types of wetlands during portions of their life history, including spawning, migration, and wintering periods. 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.

4.2 Areas to be Opened to the Public Fishing is permitted in Dorris Reservoir during daylight hours from February 1 through September 30. Fishing is not permitted on the remainder of the Refuge. All California state fishing regulations apply.

Walk-in access is allowed on the Reservoir beginning February 1. Licensed motorized vehicles, bicycles, and horseback riding are permitted at the Reservoir from April 1 through September 30 on roads designated for motor vehicles. Boating is open April 1 through September 30.

D-5

Boat launch ramps, restrooms, and walking access are provided at the north and south sides of the Reservoir. A 60-foot long, wheelchair-accessible fishing pier is located at the south end of the Reservoir. Approximately 3,000 fishing visits occurred in 2007.

4.3 Fishery-Related Species to be Taken Fish species that will be allowed for legal take include all native and introduced species listed in the California regulations Freshwater Sport Fishing (i.e., largemouth bass, channel catfish, sunfish, and rainbow trout). Fishing will be permitted in accordance with State and Federal regulations to ensure that it will not interfere with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats.

4.4 Seasons Fishing will be permitted in accordance with State and Federal regulations and seasons (Table 1) to ensure that it will not interfere with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats.

Table 1. CDFG 2008-2009 inland sport fishing regulations Species Limit Black bass 5/day, 12 inch minimum length Catfish and bullheads No limit Crappie 25/day, no size limit Sunfish No limit Trout 5/day, 10 in possession

4.5 Justification for Permit, If One Is Required Anyone 16 years and older must have a State fishing license to take any kind of fish. See Section 6.6 Angler Requirements below.

Anglers do not need to obtain a Refuge fishing permit or pay a special user fee to fish on the Refuge. There is a fee for State fishing licenses.

4.6 Procedures for Consultation and Coordination with State

 Continue to solicit input from partners and keep lines of communication open.  Ensure accurate public information and provide news releases.  Work with CDFG to assess fishery resource in Dorris Reservoir. Repeat 1989 gill net survey.  Work with CDFG to coordinate fish stocking and fish habitat enhancement of Dorris Reservoir.

4.7 Methods of Enforcement

 Public use signs depicting allowable uses will be maintained at vehicle access points on the Refuge.  Continue to open/close gates at parking areas at Dorris Reservoir to discourage use after hours.

D-6  Law enforcement patrols by game wardens and refuge officers to enforce State and Federal regulations.

4.8 Funding and Staffing Requirements for the Sport Fishing Program The following funding/annual costs (based on FY 2008 costs) would be required to administer and manage fishing activities as described above:

Table 2. Funding and staffing requirements for the sport fishing program Annual Costs Administration $1,000 Law Enforcement $4,000 Monitoring $1,000 Signs and brochures $500 Gate opening contract $3,500 Maintenance and replacement of facilities $2,000 (fishing pier, 3 restrooms, 2 kiosks, etc) Maintenance of roads and parking lots at $5,000 Dorris Reservoir TOTAL $17,000

4.9 Consideration of Providing Opportunities for Anglers with Disabilities and Youth Anglers

 All parking areas, fishing pier, and restrooms are fully accessible.  Conduct an annual Kid’s Fishing Day at Dorris Reservoir.

5. Measures Taken to Avoid Conflicts with Other Management Objectives The impacts addressed here are discussed in detail in EA (Appendix A) for the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a) which is incorporated by reference.

5.1 Biological Conflicts

 A seasonal closure from October 1 through January 31 will be implemented to reduce disturbance to wintering, resting, foraging, and breeding birds and other wildlife and their habitats.  Shoreline areas, islands, and peninsulas with nesting waterfowl are signed and closed to public access during the waterfowl nesting season (February 1 through May 31).  Maintain parking areas, roads, and access facilities.  Promote use of non-toxic sinkers, split shot, and lures by providing information in Refuge kiosks.  Monitor fishing activities to ensure facilities are adequate and wildlife disturbance is minimal.  Amphibian, reptiles, and mollusks are not allowed to be taken.

D-7  Maps and public use information are available at the Refuge Headquarters, kiosks, and the Refuge’s website http://www.fws.gov/modoc.  Periodic law enforcement will help ensure compliance with State fishing regulations and Refuge regulation compliance.  Refuge staff will conduct regular surveys of fishing activities on the Refuge. The data is analyzed and used by the refuge manager to develop future modifications if necessary to ensure compatibility of the fishing program.

5.2 Public Use Conflicts Reducing conflicts between fishing and hunting, non-consumptive uses, and neighboring landowners will be minimized by the following:

 Provide information about the Refuge fishing program by maintaining informational signs/kiosks, distributing brochures, and utilizing the Refuge’s website (http://www.fws.gov/modoc).  Law enforcement patrols by game wardens and refuge officers to enforce State and Federal regulations.  Restrict entry and departure times as well as seasonal use on the Refuge.  Anglers using boats (motorized and non-motorized) must abide by the boating stipulations described in the State and Coast Guard regulations on boating.  Regulatory and directional signs clearly mark designated routes of travel and areas closed to the public.

5.3 Administrative Conflicts There are no administrative conflicts with this proposal at this time. An annual contract to open/close the gates at Dorris Reservoir is awarded every year. If this cost becomes prohibitive, then the Refuge may need to consider fishing management alternatives.

6. Conduct of the Sport Fishing Programs The following special regulations are proposed to replace the existing special regulations for fishing on Modoc Refuge. The regulations will be noticed in the Federal Register and incorporated into 50 CFR 32.24, California Refuge-specific regulations.

6.1 Refuge-specific fishing regulations

Sport Fishing (italicized text represents a new and/or change regulation):

We allow fishing (fish and crayfish) only on Dorris Reservoir in accordance with State regulations subject to the following conditions:

6.2 Anticipated Public Reaction to the Sport Fishing Program Most anglers would support fishing on Dorris Reservoir. Hunting and fishing have a strong traditional use on the Modoc Plateau. During the scoping period for the CCP in 2007, one

D-8 comment regarding fishing was received (see Chapter 2 of the CCP). That comment supported opening the gates at Dorris Reservoir year-round to allow for additional fishing opportunities.

6.3 Media Selection for Announcing and Publicizing the Sport Fishing Program The Refuge has a standard list of local media contacts for news releases. A draft news release regarding the fishing program is attached. An Outreach plan is also included below.

6.3.1 Outreach plan 1. Issue

The Service intends to continue to allow recreational fishing on Dorris Reservoir on Modoc Refuge.

2. Basic facts about the issue

. Fishing (fish and crayfish) will be allowed in accordance with State and Refuge-specific fishing regulations during the legal fishing seasons and species. . Fishing will not interfere with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats. . Enforcement and control will take place through boundary and public use signs, information kiosks at boat ramps, and routine patrol by CDFG wardens and refuge officers. . Access restrictions will be continued.

3. Communication goals

. Continue to solicit input from partners and keep lines of communication open. . Ensure accurate public information and news stories. . Continue to solicit input from local/county Fish and Game Commissions. . Utilize the Refuge’s website to provide information (www.fws.gov/modoc).

4. Message

A quality, compatible, and safe fishing program will be implemented and maintained on the Modoc Refuge.

5. Interested parties

State fish and wildlife agencies; Tribes; conservation groups; hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation groups; educators; farmers and ranchers; other Federal agencies; members of Congress; state and county representatives; news media; and many members of the public.

6. Date

2009

6.4 Angler Application and Registration Procedures (If Needed) Anglers are required to have a valid State fishing license to fish on the Refuge. See Section 6.6 Angler Requirements below.

D-9

6.5 Description of Angler Selection Process (If Needed) At this time, there are no restrictions or limits on the number of anglers permitted on the Refuge.

6.6 Angler Requirements 1. Allowable equipment

All fish and crayfish species will be taken using methods allowed under the State fishing regulations.

2. Use of open fires

We prohibit open fires on the Refuge. Portable gas stoves are allowed.

3. Licensing and permits

Anyone 16 years and older must have a State fishing license to take any kind of fish. Every person, while engaged in taking any fish, shall display their valid sport fishing license by attaching it to their outer clothing at or above the waistline.

4. Creel census

There will be no reporting requirements of anglers unless required by CDFG.

5. Reporting requirements

There will be no reporting requirements of anglers unless required by CDFG.

6. Angler training and safety

Anglers are not required to complete a course in order to purchase a State sport fishing license.

7. Other information (use of boats, motors, etc.)

None.

7. Compatibility Determination See Appendix B in CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a).

8. Appropriate NEPA Documents See EA (Appendix A, CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a)).

9. Evaluation 9.1 Monitoring and Reporting Use Levels and Trends Auto counters, angler contact in the field, comments during agency and public meetings, e-mails and letters are some of the methods used to evaluate visitor use levels, trends, and needs. The visitor use will be recorded annually.

D-10

9.2 Surveying Needs of the Fishing Visitor Through angler contacts, the Refuge will assess visitor needs.

9.3 Are We Meeting Program Objectives? The fishing objective (to implement a high quality fishing program including opportunities for approximately 3,050 annual fishing visits on 547 acres by 2014) will be met through CCP strategies. Monitoring will determine if we are meeting program objectives.

9.4 Do We Need to Resolve Any Conflicts? Not at this time. The fishing program and outreach plans are written to minimize future conflicts.

10. Bibliography

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009a. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009b. Compatibility determination for fishing on Modoc National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8.

D-11

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE Modoc National Wildlife Refuge PO Box 1610 Alturas, CA 96101

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Steve Clay 530/233-3572

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Open to Fishing

The Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) will provide opportunities for recreational fishing on 547 acres of Dorris Reservoir beginning on XXXX. Take of all native and introduced fish and crayfish species will be allowed in accordance with the State of California and Refuge-specific freshwater sport fishing regulations during the legal fishing seasons. Brochures and posted public use signs will assist anglers in determining the Refuge’s fishing areas. For further information and Refuge-specific fishing regulations see http://www.fws.gov/modoc or call 530-233-3572.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 95-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which encompasses 544 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 69 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 81 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies. 02/05

- FWS -

For more information about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, visit our home page at http://www.fws.gov

Appendix E. Visitor Services Plan

Table of Contents

1. Summary ...... 1

2. Introduction ...... 1 2.1 Brief History ...... 1 2.2 Significant Features ...... 3

3. Primary Refuge Resource Management Goals and Objectives ...... 3

4. Local Setting ...... 3 4.1 Community Description ...... 3 4.2 Visitor Data ...... 4 4.3 Travel Links ...... 5 4.4 Visitor Services Opportunities (Off-Refuge) ...... 6 Other Areas ...... 7

5. Visitor Services Standards ...... 7 5.1 Welcome and Orient Visitors ...... 8 5.2 Provide Quality Hunting Opportunities ...... 8 5.3 Provide Quality Fishing Opportunities ...... 10 Fishing Strategies: ...... 11 5.4 Provide Quality Wildlife Observation ...... 11 Wildlife Observation Strategies: ...... 12 5.5 Provide Quality Photographic Opportunities ...... 13 Wildlife Photography Strategies: ...... 14 5.6 Provide Quality Interpretations of Key Resources ...... 15 Interpretation Strategies:...... 16 5.7 Manage for Other Recreational Use Opportunities ...... 17 Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation Strategies: ...... 17 5.8 Build Volunteer Programs and Partnerships with Refuge Support Groups ...... 18 Volunteer Strategies: ...... 19 5.9 Develop and Implement Quality Environmental Education Programs ...... 20 Environmental Education Strategies: ...... 21 5.10 Partnerships Goal ...... 22 Partnership Strategies: ...... 23

E-i 6. Other Applicable Visitor Services Programs ...... 25 6.1 Youth Conservation Corps ...... 25 6.2 Cooperating Association/Friends Groups ...... 25 6.3 Other ...... 26

7. Implementing the Plan ...... 26 7.1 Essential Staffing Needs ...... 26 7.2 Table of Projects, Costs ...... 26 7.3 Partnership Funding and Resources ...... 26

8. Compatibility Determinations ...... 26

9. NEPA Document/Decision Document ...... 26

10. ESA Section 7 Consultations ...... 26

11. Bibliography ...... 27

Figures

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

Tables

Table 1. Recreation visits to the Modoc NWR, 2005 through 2007 ...... 5

E-ii 1. Summary The purpose of the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) (Figure 1) visitor services program is to foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants and their conservation by providing the public with safe, high quality, appropriate, and compatible wildlife dependent recreational and educational programs and activities. In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act (Improvement Act) which clearly states, that on national wildlife refuges, wildlife comes first. The Improvement Act also identified six wildlife dependent public use activities and programs that are compatible with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These uses include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation.

This Visitor Services Plan (VSP) was prepared based upon these guidelines. With the adoption and implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and this step-down plan, all visitor service activities and programs on the Refuge would be in conformance with national guidelines and would insure that all visitor activities are compatible with the Refuge’s overarching wildlife mission and purposes.

The purpose of the VSP is to establish priorities and identify improvements, which will guide the Refuge’s visitor service program over the next fifteen years. Visitor services goals, objectives, and strategies have been identified in Chapter 4 of the CCP for Modoc Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). A Hunting Plan and Fishing Plan, which are a step-down plans from the VSP, have also been prepared (Appendices C and D of the CCP). This VSP addresses all compatible wildlife dependent recreational uses on the Refuge including hunting, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Non-wildlife dependant recreation, including bicycling, horseback riding, swimming, and recreational boating in designated areas, have also been determined to be compatible. The VSP also addresses the volunteer, Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) programs and the partnership and resource protection goals.

2. Introduction The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) manages the Refuge located on the Modoc Plateau just south of the town of Alturas (Figure 1). The Refuge contains critically important habitats for a diversity of wildlife, particularly migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway. A variety of wetland and upland habitats on the Refuge supports these and many other species.

2.1 Brief History The Refuge consists primarily of land formerly known as the Dorris Ranch, which was purchased by the Service in 1960. Although much of the original wetlands had been drained for livestock and agricultural purposes, the property still had important waterfowl use at the time of purchase. The Refuge is managed to provide important resting, nesting, and feeding areas for ducks, geese, and other migratory birds, including greater sandhill cranes. It also provides wildlife-dependent and non-wildlife dependent recreation opportunities.

For more information, see Chapter 1 of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

E-1 Figure 1. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

E-2 2.2 Significant Features 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)1, with over 240 bird species recorded on the Refuge. Seventy-seven of these species nest on the Refuge. Further, eight Federal and/or State listed threatened or endangered species may occur on the Refuge.

3. Primary Refuge Resource Management Goals and Objectives The CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009) contains the primary goals that will define the management direction of the Refuge for the next 15 years. In addition, as part of the CCP, the Refuge developed objectives and strategies that, together, will help achieve the goals.

The five goals of the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge are outlined below. The objectives and strategies can be found in Chapter 4 of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

Goal 1. Habitat and Wildlife Goal 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. Greater Sandhill Crane Goal Provide optimum migrating and nesting habitat for greater sandhill cranes.

Goal 3. Visitor Services Goal Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation and interpretation to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources.

Goal 4. Environmental Education Goal Provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Pit River watershed.

Goal 5. Partnerships Goal Provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Pit River watershed.

4. Local Setting 4.1 Community Description The 7,021-acre Refuge is located along the South Fork Pit River in Modoc County, southeast of the town of Alturas, in northeastern California.

For additional information, see Chapter 3 of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

4.1.1 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 The Important Bird Areas Program is a global effort to identify and conserve areas that are vital to birds and other biodiversity.

E-3 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. For more information, please see Attachment 1 of Appendix A of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

4.1.2 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).

Modoc County is one of California’s least-populated counties. It is home to 9,836 people with a projected population of 9,870 by 2015 (Center for Economic Development 2007). Between 1996 and 2006, population decreased by 0.1 percent (Center for Economic Development 2007). The racial makeup of the county is 79 percent white, 13 percent Hispanic, and 4 percent American Indian, with the remaining percentage from other races (Center for Economic Development 2007). The total median income in Modoc County in 2004 was $29,526 (Center for Economic Development 2007). The estimated median family income was $32,107. For more information, please see Attachment 1 of Appendix A of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007) detailed the findings from 80 national wildlife refuges, including Modoc Refuge. The Banking on Nature 2006 study included money spent for food and refreshments; lodging at motels, cabins, lodges or campgrounds; and transportation when it calculated the total economic activity related to refuge recreational use.

Modoc Refuge had approximately 17,344 visits in 2006. Refuge visitors enjoyed a variety of activities, including wildlife viewing, hiking, and migratory bird hunting. Local spending by visitors was estimated at $314,000 in 2007, and Refuge operations generated about 33 full-time and part-time jobs in Modoc County. 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 (the secondary impact of input purchases by the Refuge from local suppliers (indirect), and the effect of the additional spending on the income of employees and owners of local businesses (induced)). The income directly and indirectly generated by the Refuge accounted for about 0.8 percent of total countywide income in 2007.

4.2 Visitor Data The Refuge utilizes a variety of methods for estimating the number of annual wildlife-dependent visits. The types of estimation methods used are direct observation, traffic counters, hunter permits, surveys, and estimation based on professional judgment. From these estimates, the numbers of visitors and visits are used to manage and improve the Refuge’s visitor services program.

E-4 The National Wildlife Refuge System Visitation Estimation Handbook (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005) provides basic principles and definitions that have been used to describe the Refuge visitation estimation program.

Refuge recreational or educational activities that are allowed and monitored include environmental education, interpretation, photography, and hunting. Wildlife observation has been more specifically reported as auto tour and hiking trail visits.

A Refuge visitor (visitor) is a person that participates in at least one of the wildlife-dependent activities (e.g., wildlife viewing, hunting, environmental education, interpretation, or photography). Visitors do not include staff, volunteers, researchers, contractors, special use permittees, or people who are traveling through the refuge to reach another non-refuge location. A single visitor may make several visits to the refuge during the year by participating in one or more activities.

A visitor is not the same as a Refuge visit (visit). A single visitor can make several visits to the refuge on a single day by participating in several different activities. The total amount of visits on a given day is a count of only individuals. The amount of time for each individual visit is not accounted for; whether it is minutes or hours.

It should be noted that there is not a 100 percent accurate method of counting all visitors or visits. Therefore, the numbers of visitors or visits reported are only estimates, although the Refuge strives for consistency and quality in estimation monitoring methods. Annual visitation is reported in the Refuge Annual Performance Plan (RAPP). Table 1 depicts the number of Refuge visitors and visits for some of the primary wildlife-dependent Refuge activities over the last three years.

Table 1. Recreation visits to the Modoc NWR, 2005 through 2007 2005 2006 2007 Auto tour visits 3,800 3,675 3,715 Hiking trail visits 600 690 640 Photography visits 900 915 900 Hunting visits 1,523 1,588 1,580 Fishing visits 5,500 5,500 3,000 Environmental education visits 668 1,186 2,076 Interpretation visits 190 270 270 Non-wildlife dependent visits 3,200 3,520 3,500 Total Annual Visits 16,381 17,344 15,681

4.3 Travel Links 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.

E-5 4.4 Visitor Services Opportunities (Off-Refuge) 4.4.1 Modoc National Forest Having the California-Oregon state line as its north boundary for some 60 miles, the Modoc National Forest (Forest) is the most northeasterly of the national forest units of the California Region. Situated about the headwaters of the Pit River, it embraces within its boundaries a gross area of about two million acres, encompassing mountains, pine forests and meadows, lakes, streams, rugged canyons, wetlands, lava beds, and high desert plateaus. The Forest offers a variety of recreational opportunities including camping, hiking, horseback riding, backpacking, boating, fishing, hunting, nature study, photography, and off-highway vehicle travel. There are five main trails (the Highgrade National Recreation Trial, the North Star Basin Road, the Blue Lake National Recreation Trail, the Medicine Lake Highlands, and the Red Tail Rim Trial) in addition to several wilderness trails. The forest also contains 12 natural lakes and 13 reservoirs, most of which will accommodate small motor boats, sail boats, rowboats, canoes, etc. Many of the lakes and reservoirs have boat launch facilities. Fishing is available in the Pit River as well as the natural lakes and reservoirs. The Forest’s office is located in Alturas.

4.4.2 California Department of Fish and Game Located approximately six miles southeast of Alturas, the Pine Creek Wildlife Area’s (WA) 2,009 acres includes a 25-acre reservoir that supports wild and stocked farm trout. The WA provides opportunities for hunting and fishing as well as wildlife viewing.

Fitzhugh Creek Wildlife Area, located approximately five miles south of Pine Creek WA, encompasses 2,080 acres of land. It provides public access for hunting and fishing and offers excellent viewing of wetland, riparian, and riverine habitat. This WA provides important winter and summer range for deer and antelope.

4.4.3 Bureau of Land Management The Alturas Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 503,243 acres of public land in northern California. The Alturas Field Office is located in the town of Alturas. There are many things to do in the Alturas Resource Area. You can go camping, fishing, hunting, swimming and more. There are tons of watchable wildlife areas and scenic viewpoints. If you have an interest in archeology or cultural resources, you can visit numerous sites. There are three main trails: the Applegate Trail, the Lassen Trail, and Nobles Road.

The Pit River Campground is located on the river near Fall River Mills, California. This isolated area is one of the most unique and aesthetic camping spots around. The campground offers sites with tables and fire rings under large pine, oak, and ash trees. Fishing is available in the river as well as in several large reservoirs and lakes nearby. A variety of habitats surround the campground, including riparian areas, pine/oak woodlands, and upland brush land. The wildlife varies with the landscape, resulting in great bird watching opportunities.

The BLM managed public lands around Alturas offer some of the best hunting in Northern California for pronghorn antelope and mule deer. Areas such as the Tablelands, Tule Mountain, and Graven Ridge are popular spots.

There are three designated mountain biking areas: Devils Garden Mountain, Likely Mountain Challenge, and Woodland Jurassic Ride. The Devils Garden Mountain route consists of 3.0 miles of steep pavement and 2.3 miles of flat dirt roads, and is located about four miles west of Alturas,

E-6 off Highway 299. The Likely Mountain Challenge offers 7.2 miles of dirt road and 2.2 miles of broken highway and is located about five miles south of Likely. The Woodland Jurassic Ride offers 8.6 miles of dirt road and is located about four miles southwest of Alturas off the Centerville Road.

Other Areas Various city and county agencies also provide additional recreation opportunities near the Refuge. The River Center is a non-profit organization located in Alturas whose mission is to foster natural resource stewardship and promote the sustainability of the local community. They provide both classroom and adult presentations on a variety of ecological topics pertinent to the Modoc area as well as leading field trips to the Refuge for Alturas elementary and middle school students. The City of Alturas also offers a number of parks and recreational opportunities.

5. Visitor Services Standards The Service Manual (605 FW 1-7) provides Service policies, strategies, and requirements for management of wildlife-dependent recreation programs within the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System).

The Service Manual (605 FW 1, Section 1.6) states how the Service develops and evaluates quality wildlife-dependent recreation programs: “The Refuge System provides a unique opportunity to ensure that we approach our compatible wildlife-dependent recreation programs from the perspective of the Refuge System mission and goals. We believe wildlife-dependent recreation that comports well with the following criteria will continue to meet the needs and desires of refuge visitors. To ensure continued visitor satisfaction with our wildlife-dependent recreation programs, we incorporate public input using visitor satisfaction surveys or other instruments, including input during the development of a CCP or VSP, that help us define and evaluate wildlife-dependent recreation programs at each refuge. We develop our wildlife-dependent recreation programs in consultation with State fish and wildlife agencies and stakeholder input based on the following criteria:

 Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities.  Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior.  Minimizes or eliminates conflict with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives in an approved plan.  Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.  Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners.  Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people.  Promotes resource stewardship and conservation.  Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural resources and our role in managing and conserving these resources.  Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife.  Uses facilities that are accessible to people and blend into the natural setting.  Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs.”

In 2007, the Service declared that “connecting people with nature” is among the agencies highest national priorities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). A connection with nature, whether it’s hiking, fishing, camping, hunting, or simply playing outside, helps people develop positive attitudes and behaviors towards the environment. Positive interactions with the environment can

E-7 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 fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats.

When Service employees were asked to describe a childhood experience where they felt a connection with nature, the answers ranged from memories of riding on the laps of loved ones while mowing the lawn, to family vacations along a lake, beach, or forest, to hiking, climbing trees, and discovering insects, frogs, and birds. Many employees credit these memorable moments for placing them in the career that they are in today. Those experiences were the spark that led to a lifetime of stewardship and conservation. The Service wants to capture that spark and share it with the next generation of conservationists. The Connecting People with Nature Program goals for Region 8 include 1) Rekindle the spark, 2) Share the spark, and 3) Ignite the spark. Currently, these goals are being implemented on the Refuge.

5.1 Welcome and Orient Visitors We will assure that our Refuge is welcoming, safe, and accessible. We will provide visitors with clear information so they can easily determine where they can go, what they can do, and how to engage safely and ethically in recreational and educational activities. Facilities will meet the quality criteria defined in 605 FW 1, Section 1.6 of the Service Manual. We will treat visitors with courtesy and in a professional manner.

Our Visitors Services goal, as stated in the CCP, is to:

Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation and interpretation to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources.

5.2 Provide Quality Hunting Opportunities Hunting is a wildlife-dependent recreational use and, when compatible, an appropriate use of resources in the Refuge System. Hunting programs will meet the quality criteria defined in the Visitor Services Standards above and, to the extent practicable, be carried out consistent with State laws, regulations, and management plans. The strategies for implementing the hunting objective (CCP, Chapter 4) and to create the Refuge hunting program were developed using the Refuge System’s guiding principles for hunting programs (Service Manual, 605, FW2):

• Manage wildlife populations consistent with Refuge System-specific management plans approved after 1997 and, to the extent practicable, State fish and wildlife conservation plans. • Promote visitor understanding of, and increase visitor appreciation for, America’s natural resources. • Provide opportunities for quality recreational and educational experiences consistent with criteria describing quality found in 605 FW 1. • Encourage participation in this tradition deeply rooted in America’s natural heritage and conservation history. • Minimize conflicts with visitors participating in other compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities.

5.2.1 Hunting Objective 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.

E-8 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 of the CCP) 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 1 of the CCP). The Refuge hunting program complies with the Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, 32.1 and is managed in accordance with Service Manual 605 FW 2, Hunting. This objective 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.

5.2.2 Hunting Strategies:

1. Implement the Hunt Plan for the Refuge.

2. Add hunt program changes to California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) regulations and 50 CFR annually.

3. Provide the Refuge’s hunting brochure at the interpretive kiosks and the Refuge Headquarters.

4. Continue to coordinate the Junior Waterfowl Hunt on the Refuge with California Waterfowl Association, Ducks Unlimited, and Friends of Modoc Refuge.

5. Implement a second Junior Waterfowl Hunt on the Refuge.

6. Conduct an annual Kids Hunting Skills Field Day on the Refuge in cooperation with CDFG, Friends of Modoc Refuge, Ducks Unlimited, California Waterfowl Association, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, and National Rifle Association.

7. Monitor hunting visits and bird harvest each hunt day and annually report these hunter visits.

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.

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.

10. Hire a full-time law enforcement officer to accomplish this objective as well as Objectives 3.2-3.6.

E-9 11. Maintain hunter self check-in kiosks to effectively process hunters and provide hunter- related information.

12. Add a universally accessible goose hunting blind to Matney 9 and covert a portion of the free roam to spaced blind to accommodate the new blind.

13. Open Grandma Tract (200 acres) to waterfowl hunting. Create four assigned ponds and one universally accessible spaced blind.

5.2.3 Current Program See Chapter 3 of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

5.2.4 Proposed Change See Hunting Plan (Appendix C of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

5.2.5 Monitoring and Evaluation See Hunting Plan (Appendix C of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

5.3 Provide Quality Fishing Opportunities Fishing is a wildlife-dependent recreational use and, when compatible, an appropriate use of resources in the Refuge System. Fishing programs will meet the quality criteria defined in the Visitor Services Standards above and, to the extent practicable, be carried out consistent with State laws, regulations, and management plans.

The strategies for implementing the fishing objective (CCP, Chapter 4) and creating the fishing program were developed using the Refuge System’s guiding principles for fishing programs (Service Manual, 605, FW3): • Effectively maintain healthy and diverse fish communities and aquatic ecosystems through the use of scientific management techniques. • Promote visitor understanding of, and increase visitor appreciation for, America’s natural resources. • Provide opportunities for quality recreational and educational experiences consistent with criteria describing quality found in 605 FW 1.6. • Encourage participation in this tradition deeply rooted in America’s natural heritage and conservation history. • Minimize conflicts with visitors participating in other compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities.

5.3.1 Fishing Objective Continue to provide 547 acres at Dorris Reservoir for 3,050 annual fishing visits by 2014.

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, to the extent that it is feasible, carried out in accordance with State Regulations. The Fishing Plan (Appendix D of the CCP) 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.

E-10 Fishing Strategies: 1. Implement the Fishing Plan.

2. Update Dorris Reservoir general brochure.

3. Maintain information kiosks, restrooms, universally accessible fishing pier, and boat launches at Dorris Reservoir.

4. Monitor, collect, and annually report fishing visits.

5. Refuge staff and law enforcement officer will work cooperatively with Klamath Basin law enforcement officers and CDFG wardens to enforce Code of Federal Regulations, State Fish and Game fishing laws, and Refuge-specific regulations to provide a quality experience for all visitors.

6. Conduct an annual Kids Fishing Day at Dorris Reservoir.

7. Work with CDFG to coordinate fish stocking and fish habitat enhancement of Dorris Reservoir.

8. Conduct a survey to determine the presence of native fishes in Pine Creek and South Fork Pit River.

9. Update Fishery Management Plan for Dorris Reservoir.

10. Work with CDFG to coordinate fish stocking and fish habitat enhancement of Dorris Reservoir.

5.3.2 Current Program Fishing is permitted in Dorris Reservoir during daylight hours from February 1 through September 30. Dorris Reservoir is closed to all public access during the waterfowl hunting season (October 1 through February 1) to provide sanctuary areas for waterfowl. 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. Approximately 3,000 fishing visits occurred in 2007.

5.3.3 Proposed Change See Fishing Plan (Appendix D of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

5.3.4 Monitoring and Evaluation See Fishing Plan (Appendix D of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

5.4 Provide Quality Wildlife Observation Visitors of all ages and abilities will have an opportunity to observe key wildlife and habitat on the Refuge when it is compatible with the Refuge purpose(s). Viewing wildlife in natural or managed environments should foster a connection between visitors and natural resources. The wildlife observation program will meet the quality criteria defined above in Visitor Services Standards.

E-11 The strategies for implementing the wildlife observation objective (CCP, Chapter 4) and creating the wildlife observation program were developed using the Refuge System’s guiding principles for wildlife observation programs (Service Manual, 605, FW4):

• Provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible wildlife viewing opportunities and facilities. • Promote visitor understanding of, and increase visitor appreciation for, America’s natural resources. • Provide opportunities for quality recreational and educational experiences consistent with criteria describing quality found in 605 FW 1.6. • Minimize conflicts with visitors participating in other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation activities.

5.4.1 Wildlife Observation Objective Provide quality opportunities for 6,000 annual wildlife viewing visits on 1,924 acres by 2014.

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’s encourage 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 wildlife observation program will be managed in accordance with Service Manual 605 FW 4, Wildlife Observation.

Wildlife Observation Strategies: 1. Maintain and enhance three-mile auto tour route to provide viewing opportunities of wildlife and their habitats.

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. Maintain universally accessible one-mile Wigeon Trail.

4. Open the EE area (60 acres) for wildlife observation photography from March 1 through August 31, including trail, observation deck and blind, floating dock, EE shelter, boardwalk, interpretive panels, and kiosk.

5. Continue to provide Birding Kits including binoculars, bird identification books, Refuge brochures and wildlife checklists, and Basin and Range Birding Trail brochure, to the public for use on and off-Refuge.

6. Monitor, collect, and annually report wildlife observation visits.

5.4.2 Current Program Excellent wildlife viewing opportunities can be found on the Refuge. Species 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 U.S. 395 Overlook. In addition, wildlife viewing opportunities can be found from the

E-12 roads along the perimeter of the Refuge. Approximately 4,400 wildlife observation and 900 photography visits occurred in 2007.

5.4.3 Proposed Change Open the EE area (60 acres) for wildlife observation from March 1 through August 31 including a trail, observation deck and blind, floating dock, EE shelter, boardwalk, interpretive panels, and kiosk. Increase wildlife observation visits to 6,000 annually.

5.4.4 Monitoring and Evaluation Visitors are also encouraged by refuge staff to sign their name and address in a registration book located in the visitor center. This information helps determine visitor group size and travel distance.

Refuge staff will monitor wildlife observation activities (e.g., auto tour route, walking trail, EE area, and facilities at Dorris Reservoir) and associated effects. A vehicle counter is used on the auto tour route to record the number of visits. Monitoring data will be used by the refuge manager in making necessary adjustments in regulations or other aspects of the Refuge’s wildlife observation program.

5.5 Provide Quality Photographic Opportunities Visitor of all ages and abilities will have an opportunity to photograph key wildlife and habitat on the Refuge when it is compatible with the Refuge’s purposes(s). Photographing wildlife in natural or managed environments should foster a connection between visitors and natural resources. The photography program will meet the quality criteria defined in the Visitor Services Standards above.

The strategies for implementing the wildlife photography objective (CCP, Chapter 4) and creating the wildlife photography program were developed using the Refuge System’s guiding principles for wildlife photography programs (Service Manual, 605, FW5):

5.5.1 Wildlife Photography Objective By 2014, provide quality opportunities for 50 photography blind visits and 900 wildlife photography annual visits on 1,924 acres.

E-13 foster a connection between visitors and natural resources. The wildlife photography program will be managed in accordance with Service Manual 605 FW 5, Wildlife Photography.

Wildlife Photography Strategies: 1. Maintain and enhance three-mile auto tour route to provide photographic opportunities from a vehicle.

2. Maintain one wildlife photography blind on Lower Duck Pond.

3. Open EE area (60 acres) to wildlife photography, including observation deck and blind, from June 1 through September 1.

4. Develop and implement photographer guidelines, maps, and photography blind reports.

5. Evaluate photography blind reports and implement changes annually.

6. Maintain the Refuge’s website (http://www.fws.gov/modoc) to provide information about current photographer guidelines and facilities.

7. Monitor, collect, and annually report wildlife photography visits.

5.5.2 Current Program Excellent wildlife photography opportunities can be found on the Refuge. Species 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 U.S. 395 Overlook. In addition, wildlife viewing opportunities can be found from the roads along the perimeter of the Refuge. Approximately 4,400 wildlife observation and 900 photography visits occurred in 2007.

Friends of the Modoc Refuge have constructed a photography blind located on the Duck Pond Dike. The blind is available year-round by reservation through the Refuge Headquarters.

5.5.3 Proposed Change The EE area (60 acres) will be open for wildlife photography from March 1 through August 31. This area will have an observation deck and blind, which will provide excellent areas for wildlife photography.

5.5.4 Monitoring and Evaluation The photography blind reservation process assists in monitoring the number of visits by each photographer and the day of the visit. The photographer completes photography blind reports for each visit. The forms request comments regarding name and number of bird species photographed, other wildlife observed/photographed, time of entrance and egress from the blind, and other suggestions and observations. The comments assist in our photography blind management decisions.

Refuge staff will monitor wildlife photography activities and associated effects. Monitoring data will be used by the refuge manager in making necessary adjustments in regulations or other aspects of the Refuge’s wildlife photography program.

E-14 5.6 Provide Quality Interpretations of Key Resources We will communicate fish, wildlife, habitat, and other resource issues to visitors of all ages and abilities through effective interpretation. We will tailor core recreational uses when we determine they are both appropriate and compatible. We will allow uses that are either legally mandated or occur due to special circumstances. Interpretive programs will meet the quality criteria defined in the Visitor Services Standards above.

The strategies for implementing the interpretation objective (CCP, Chapter 4) and creating the interpretation program were developed using the Refuge System’s guiding principles for interpretation programs (Service Manual, 605, FW7):

• Promote visitor understanding of, and increase appreciation for, America’s natural and cultural resources and conservation history by providing safe, informative, enjoyable, and accessible interpretive opportunities, products, and facilities. • Develop a sense of stewardship leading to actions and attitudes that reflect interest and respect for wildlife resources, cultural resources, and the environment. • Provide quality interpretive experiences that help people understand and appreciate the individual refuge and its role in the refuge System. • Provide opportunities for quality recreational and interpretive experiences consistent with criteria describing quality found in 605 FW 1.6. • Assist refuge staff, volunteers, and community support groups in attaining knowledge, skills, and abilities in support of interpretation. • Minimize conflicts with visitors participating in other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation activities.

5.6.1 Interpretation Objective Refuge staff will develop an interpretative 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.

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 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.

E-15 The interpretive program will be managed in accordance with Service Manual 605 FW 7, Interpretation.

Interpretation Strategies: 1. Use the Refuge Headquarters to provide presentations and exhibits.

2. Maintain interpretive kiosks, walking trail, auto tour route, and the Refuge Headquarters for use by Refuge visitors.

3. Provide at least five tour groups on the Refuge annually.

4. Develop a “Sense of Wonder Zone” by creating a family oriented opportunity area where people of all ages can reconnect with nature.

5. Continue to participate in or provide information to local annual events (e.g., Wings of the Warners, Children’s Fair, Modoc County Fair, etc.).

6. Write news releases for local newspapers and articles for magazines. Conduct television and radio interviews upon request.

7. Maintain the Refuge’s website (http://www.fws.gov/modoc).

8. Provide interpretive brochures at kiosks and in the Refuge Headquarters.

9. Maintain and upgrade the Refuge Headquarters’ displays and activities.

10. Utilize interns and volunteers to coordinate annual events on and off Refuge and assist with Refuge programs (e.g., facilitating school groups).

11. Monitor, collect, and annually report interpretation visits.

5.6.2 Current Program 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. 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, and Refuge staff conduct presentations and tours upon request both on and off the Refuge. In 2007, there were 150 off-site participants and 120 on- site participants.

E-16 5.6.3 Proposed Change Develop a “Sense of Wonder Zone” by creating a family oriented opportunity area where people of all ages can reconnect with nature. The interpretative program will provide 450 annual visits (300 off-site and 150 on-site).

5.6.4 Monitoring and Evaluation Refuge staff will monitor interpretation activities and associated effects. Monitoring data will be used by the refuge manager in making necessary adjustments in regulations or other aspects of the Refuge’s interpretation program.

5.7 Manage for Other Recreational Use Opportunities We may allow other recreational uses that support or enhance one of the wildlife-dependent recreational uses or minimally conflict with any of the wildlife-dependent recreational uses when we determine they are both appropriate and compatible. We will allow uses that are legally mandated to occur due to special circumstances (Service Manual 605 FW 1).

5.7.1 Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation Objective Continue to provide compatible non-wildlife dependent recreation including horseback riding, swimming, boating, and bicycling, on 556 acres of the Refuge by 2009.

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 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.

Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation Strategies: 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.

2. Continue to provide bicycling opportunities from April 1 through September 30 on roads designated for motor vehicles at Dorris Reservoir (8 acres) and year-round on roads designated for motor vehicles in the remaining portions of the Refuge.

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 year-round on roads designated for motor vehicles in the remaining portions of the Refuge.

4. Continue to provide swimming and boating opportunities at Dorris Reservoir from April 1 through September 30 (547 acres).

5. Maintain facilities and update signs and brochures regarding non-wildlife dependent recreation.

E-17 6. Prohibit waterskiing on Refuge waters within Dorris Reservoir.

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.

8. Monitor, collect, and annually report non-wildlife dependent visits.

5.7.2 Current Program Dorris Reservoir provides a number of recreational opportunities including swimming, boating, bicycling, horseback riding, and waterskiing. Dorris 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 to Dorris Reservoir is allowed 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. Bicycles and pedestrians are also permitted year-round on Refuge 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 at Dorris Reservoir. Horseback riding is also permitted year-round on Refuge roads designated for motor vehicles.

Recreational boating is open April 1 through September 30. Swimming is open June 1 through September 30. Boat launch ramps, restrooms, and walking access are provided at the north and south sides of Dorris Reservoir.

Waterskiing is from June 1 through September 30 in the designated area on Dorris Reservoir. Personal watercraft are prohibited.

5.7.3 Proposed Change Waterskiing would be prohibited on Refuge waters within Dorris Reservoir. The restriction is intended to protect non-motorized boaters, wildlife, and wildlife habitat. The restrictions are also intended to protect the earthen dam from deterioration by wave action and to reduce noise levels that could adversely affect wildlife.

5.7.4 Monitoring and Evaluation Refuge staff will monitor non-wildlife dependent activities and associated effects. Monitoring data will be used by the refuge manager in making necessary adjustments in regulations or other aspects of the Refuge’s non-wildlife dependent recreation program.

5.8 Build Volunteer Programs and Partnerships with Refuge Support Groups Volunteer and Friends organizations fortify refuge staff with their gifts of time, skills, and energy. They are integral to the future of the Refuge System. Where appropriate, refuge staff will initiate and nurture relationships with volunteers and Friends organizations and will continually support, monitor, and evaluate these groups with the goal of fortifying important refuge activities. The National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of

E-18 1998 strengthens the Refuge System’s role in developing effective partnerships with various community groups. Whether through volunteers, Friends organizations, or other important partnerships in the community, refuge personnel will seek to make the refuge an active community member, giving rise to a stronger Refuge System.

5.8.1 Volunteer Objective By 2024, increase the number of volunteers to 200 in order to support a variety of Refuge programs.

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 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.

Volunteer Strategies:

1. Recruit additional volunteers through a variety of community groups (e.g., Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and 4H).

2. Facilitate volunteer training.

3. Develop an annual work day (Brush Up Day) to clean up the Refuge’s hunt areas.

5.8.2 Current 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.

5.8.3 Proposed Change Volunteer recruitment would take place in order to increase the number of current volunteers from 118 to 200.

5.8.4 Monitoring and Evaluation Volunteers are monitored through an application process that enables refuge staff to match requested volunteer projects by refuge staff with volunteer interests and expertise. Volunteers may participate in specific work projects, special events, or on specific days/hours. Each volunteer records their hours daily within one of four categories: recreation, habitat and wildlife, maintenance, or cultural resources. The volunteer program is evaluated by work project completion and volunteer satisfaction.

E-19

5.9 Develop and Implement Quality Environmental Education Programs

Our Environmental Education goal, as stated in the CCP, is to:

Provide quality environmental education opportunities focusing on fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Pit River Watershed.

Through curriculum-based environmental education (EE) packages based on natural and State education standards, we will advance public awareness, understanding, appreciation, and knowledge of key fish, wildlife, plant, and resource issues. The Refuge will work with schools to provide an appropriate level of EE. The Refuge may support EE using facilities, equipment, educational materials, teacher workshops, programs, and study sites that are safe, accessible, and conducive to learning. EE programs will meet the quality criteria defined in the Visitor Services Standards above.

The strategies for implementing the environmental education objective (CCP, Chapter 4) and creating the environmental education program were developed using the Refuge System’s guiding principles for environmental education programs (Service Manual, 605, FW6):

• Teach awareness, understanding, and appreciation of our natural and cultural resources and conservation history. • Allow program participants to demonstrate learning through refuge-specific stewardship tasks and projects that they can carry over into their everyday lives. • Establish partnerships to support environmental education both on-and off site. • Support local, State, and national educational standards through environmental education on refuges. • Assist refuge staff, volunteers, and other partners in obtaining the knowledge, skills, and abilities to support environmental education. • Provide appropriate materials, equipment, facilities, and study locations to support environmental education. • Give refuges a way to serve as role models in other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation stewardship. • Minimize conflicts with visitors participating in other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation activities.

5.9.1 Environmental Education Objective 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.

E-20 standards; is curriculum-based such that it meets the goals of school districts adopted instructional standards; and provides interdisciplinary opportunities that link the natural world with all subject areas. The environmental education program will be managed in accordance with Service Manual 605 FW 6 Environmental Education.

Environmental Education Strategies: 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.

2. Schedule and plan annual field trips for grades K-12 of the Alturas school system.

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. Facilitate after school programs (e.g., PIT Club from Alturas High School) involving activities such as habitat restoration and student mentors for the Pit River Watershed Adoption Project.

5. Develop a partnership with the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.

6. Facilitate resource-training workshops (e.g., Wild on Wetlands) about the Refuge’s environmental education program for educators.

7. Maintain the Refuge’s website (http://www.fws.gov/modoc) to promote current educational opportunities.

8. Continue to enhance the partnership with the River Center to conduct the Pit River Watershed Adoption Project.

9. Hire a full-time interpretive specialist to accomplish this objective and support Objectives 3.1-3.6.

10. Explore opportunities to utilize interns and volunteers to facilitate the environmental education program.

5.9.2 Current Program The visitor’s center at the Refuge offers a variety of exhibits, nature collections, and mounted wildlife. Complimentary brochures, posters, and leaflets regarding the Refuge System are also available. In addition, refuge staff conduct presentations and tours both on and off the Refuge upon request.

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).

E-21 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.

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, placed-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.

5.9.3 Proposed Change The EE area (60 acres) will be opened seasonally (March 1 through August 31) for activities. Facilities will include a trail, observation deck and blind, floating dock, EE shelter, boardwalk, interpretive panels, and kiosk. Activities will include revegetation of native plants, plant inventory, wildlife inventory, water quality monitoring, and more. Over 1,500 students will participate in the project annually both on and off the Refuge. Field trips will be expanded to include ninth through twelfth grade students. An interpretive specialist will also be hired.

5.9.4 Monitoring and Evaluation Refuge staff will monitor EE activities and associated effects. Monitoring data will be used by the refuge manager in making necessary adjustments in regulations or other aspects of the Refuge’s EE program.

5.10 Partnerships Goal Our Partnerships goal, as stated in the CCP, is to:

Promote partnerships to preserve, restore, and enhance diverse, healthy, and productive ecosystems of northeastern California.

5.10.1 Partnerships Objective 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 the Upper Pit River Watershed.

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, 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.

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

E-22 wildlife species, and habitats. New partnerships will be formed as opportunities, funding, and staff are available.

Partnership Strategies: 1. Maintain good relations and open communication with partners.

2. Actively look for partnering opportunities with local and regional conservation groups, academic institutions, organizations, Tribal governments, and other local, State and Federal agencies.

3. Pursue opportunities to cost-share mutually beneficial projects with other organizations.

4. Continue to work with Friends of the Modoc Refuge.

5. Continue to enhance the partnership with the River Center to conduct the Pit River Watershed Adoption Project.

6. Continue to work with local Chambers of Commerce to participate in local events and improve dissemination of public recreation literature about the Refuge.

7. Stay actively involved in Federal, State, and local planning processes to protect Refuge resources and foster cooperative management of those resources.

8. Continue to participate in the Northeastern California Water Association.

9. Maintain active participation with the Intermountain West Joint Venture.

10. Continue partnerships with California Waterfowl Association, Ducks Unlimited, and other non-governmental conservation organizations.

11. Continue Partners for Fish and Wildlife private lands program.

12. Maintain contact with adjacent neighbors to discuss and address mutual concerns and opportunities.

5.10.2 Cultural Resources Objective 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.

E-23 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.

Cultural Resource Strategies 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.

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.

3. Consult and partner with the Tribes, universities, and other historic preservation institutions for cultural resources inventory, evaluation, and protection.

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. 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.

6. Reuse and maintain existing historic structures when compatible with Refuge facility and space needs.

7. Ensure that refuge staff receives training in historic preservation requirements and of NHPA, ARPA, and the NAGPRA.

8. Inventory and evaluate the prehistoric archaeological site that coincides with the refuge headquarters office, shop, residence, spring, and immediately adjacent area.

5.10.3 Current Program See Chapter 3 of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

5.10.4 Proposed Change The Refuge will maintain and enhance at least 20 partnerships among Federal, State, and local agencies; organizations; schools; corporations; and private landowners to promote the understanding and conservation of resources within the Upper Pit River Watershed by 2024.

E-24

The Refuge will implement strategies to protect, preserve, evaluate, and interpret the cultural heritage and resources 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.

6. Other Applicable Visitor Services Programs 6.1 Youth Conservation Corps The Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) is a well-balanced work-learn-earn program that develops an understanding and appreciation of the Nation’s environment and heritage in participating youth. The YCC program will be administered in accordance with Public Law 93-408 and an interagency Letter of Cooperation. It is administer by the Forest Service, the Service, and National Park Service. YCC offers gainful summer employment to youth 15-19 years of age, for approximately eight weeks. The organization and management of individual YCC projects will be governed by program objectives, budget limitations, and guidelines established by the Service, see Service Manual Part 141. Within these objectives, limitations and guidelines, individual program operations, public information and community relations concerning YCC will be the responsibility of the Host Site Supervisor.

6.1.1 YCC Objectives The stated purpose of the YCC is to further the development and maintenance of the natural resources of the United States by America’s youth and, in so doing, to prepare them for the ultimate responsibility of maintaining and managing these resources for the American people.

There are three equally important objectives as reflected in the law:

1. Accomplish needed conservation work on public lands. 2. Provide gainful employment for young males and females from all social, economic, ethnic, and racial classifications. 3. Develop an understanding and appreciation in the participating youth of the Nation’s natural environment and heritage.

The objectives are accomplished in a manner that provides the youth with an opportunity to acquire increased self-discipline. They learn work ethics, how to relate to peers and supervisors, and how to build lasting cultural bridges with youth from other backgrounds.

6.1.2 Current Program A 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 work project hours annually. For every eight hours of work, one hour of environmental education is provided as field trips, presentations, or discussions.

6.1.3 Proposed Change None.

6.2 Cooperating Association/Friends Groups 6.2.1 Current Program

E-25 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. They meet 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.

6.2.2 Proposed Change None.

6.3 Other In Fulfilling the Promise, the Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999) identified the need to forge new and non-traditional alliances and strengthen existing partnerships with States, Tribes, non-profit organizations, and academia to broaden citizen and community understanding of and support for the Refuge System. The Service recognizes that strong citizen support benefits the Refuge System. Involving citizen groups in Refuge resource and management issues and decisions helps managers gain an understanding of public concerns. Partners yield support for Refuge activities and programs, raise funds for projects, are activists on behalf of wildlife and the Refuge System, and provide support on important wildlife and natural resource issues.

A variety of people including, but not limited to, scientists, birders, hunters, farmers, outdoor enthusiasts, and students are keenly interested in the management of Modoc Refuge, its fish and wildlife species, and its plants and habitats; this is illustrated by the number of visitors the Refuge receives and the partnerships that have already developed. We will continue to form new partnerships with interested organizations; local civic groups, community schools; Federal, State, and County governments; and other civic organizations.

7. Implementing the Plan 7.1 Essential Staffing Needs See Chapter 5 of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

7.2 Table of Projects, Costs See Chapter 5 of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

7.3 Partnership Funding and Resources See Chapter 5 of the CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

8. Compatibility Determinations See Appendix B of CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

9. NEPA Document/Decision Document See Environmental Assessment (Appendix A of CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).

10. ESA Section 7 Consultations A Section 7 consultation on the Draft CCP/EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009), which includes hunting of waterfowl, coots, common moorhens, pheasant, and snipe will be completed to determine the effects of the CCP on threatened and endangered species.

E-26 11. Bibliography

California Department of Finance. 2002. Census 2000 California profile. Report. 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 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. Center for Economic Development. 2007. 2007 Modoc County economic & demographic profile: Center for Economic Development, CSU, Chick Research Foundation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. National outreach strategy: A master plan for communicating in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Report. 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. Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. National wildlife refuge system visitation estimation workbook. Arlington, Virginia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Banking on nature: The economic benefits to local communities of National Wildlife Refuge visitation. Division of Economics. Report. September. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Connecting people with nature: Action plan sharing the spark. California Nevada Region. Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8. Report.

E-27 Appendix F. Annual Habitat Management Plan Refuge management is guided and tracked by an annual habitat management planning process. This Appendix contains an example of the annual habitat management work plan.

Table 1. 2004 - 2005 Modoc National Wildlife Refuge annual habitat work plan Management Conservation Habitat Current Management Supporting Habitat Wildlife Unit Acres Target Objective Condition Prescription Documentation Response Response Dorris 150 Nesting and Thin junipers in Dense juniper Thin junipers in Modoc NWR FMP wintering upland; restore stand; reduced late fall '04 waterfowl, native plant understory Upland wildlife community Grandma Tract 260 Nesting and Annually Wet meadow, Flood seasonal PUP staging maintain wet seasonal wetlands April - waterfowl; meadows and wetlands, October; apply nesting sandhill seasonal Canadian and herbicides to cranes wetlands Scotch thistle thistle; plant grain fields in spring barley East Ebbe 76 Nesting and Annually Agricultural Force account PUP staging sandhill produce cereal field farming of cranes and grain forage for winter wheat, geese; upland sandhill cranes, rye, or spring wildlife Canada geese, barley; control and upland exotic plants wildlife West Ebbe 87 Nesting and Semi-annually Wet meadow Annually PUP staging sandhill maintain short- irrigate from cranes grass wet April 1 - Sept.30; meadow for Hay every other sandhill cranes year Town Field 211 Nesting and Annually Wet meadow Annually staging sandhill maintain short- irrigate from cranes and grass wet April 1 - July 15 geese meadow and Sept. 1 - Dec. 1; Hay and graze

F-1 Management Conservation Habitat Current Management Supporting Habitat Wildlife Unit Acres Target Objective Condition Prescription Documentation Response Response Town Grain 132 Nesting and Annually Agricultural Force account PUP Field staging sandhill produce cereal field farming of cranes and grain forage for winter wheat, geese; upland sandhill cranes, rye, or spring wildlife Canada geese, barley; control and upland exotic plants wildlife Godfrey Tract 469 Nesting and Maintain upland Downcut Pit Rehab vertical PUP staging sandhill habitat; restore River with downcuts, re- cranes, ducks, floodplain disconnected establish and geese; connectivity floodplain within floodplain upland wildlife sagebrush/junip connectivity; er upland control exotic plants (Scotch and Canadian thistle) Duck Ponds 58 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- PUP staging ducks, permanent wetland permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control wetland; draw cranes and other exotic plants down every 4-5 water birds years and rehab islands; control pepperweed and scotch and Canadian thistle

F-2 Management Conservation Habitat Current Management Supporting Habitat Wildlife Unit Acres Target Objective Condition Prescription Documentation Response Response Goose Pond 110 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- PUP staging ducks, permanent wetland permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control wetland; In cranes and other exotic plants 2005, draw down water birds to rehab islands; control pepperweed and scotch and Canadian thistle Bull Field 285 Nesting sandhill Maintain upland Bunch grass and Maintain native PUP cranes and component to annual grass upland ducks Goose pond community community; interspersed Reduce annual with sagebrush grasses, control scotch thistle; Rx burn every 5- 10 years Teal Pond 100 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- PUP staging ducks, permanent wetland permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control wetland; draw cranes and other exotic plants down every 4-5 water birds years and rehab islands; control pepperweed and scotch and Canadian thistle

F-3 Management Conservation Habitat Current Management Supporting Habitat Wildlife Unit Acres Target Objective Condition Prescription Documentation Response Response Wigeon Pond 14 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- PUP staging ducks, permanent wetland permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control wetland; draw cranes and other exotic plants down every 4-5 water birds years and rehab islands; control pepperweed and scotch and Canadian thistle Clark 101 Nesting and Annually Wet meadow Annually staging sandhill maintain short- irrigate from cranes and grass wet April 1 - July 15 geese meadow and Sept. 1 - 30; Hay in August Front Field 364 Nesting and Annually Wet meadow Annually staging sandhill maintain short- irrigate from cranes and grass wet April 1 - July 15 geese meadow and Sept. 1 - 30; Hay in August Headquarters 10 Upland wildlife Maintain Native and non- Reduce non- FMP Area and nesting waterfowl native upland native ducks nesting cover community composition; Rx and upland burn every 5-10 wildlife forage years and cover

F-4 Management Conservation Habitat Current Management Supporting Habitat Wildlife Unit Acres Target Objective Condition Prescription Documentation Response Response Little Goose 52 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- PUP Pond staging ducks, permanent wetland permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control wetland; draw cranes and other exotic plants down every 4-5 water birds years and rehab islands; control pepperweed and scotch and Canadian thistle Pine Creek 50 Nesting and Maintain Riparian Rx Burn in PUP, FMP Corridor staging ducks, riparian corridor corridor; reed winter 2004; geese, sandhill along Pine canary grass Maintain cranes and other Creek channel; and Canadian adequate water water birds; control exotic thistle; decadent levels Migratory plants (Canadian willows throughout passerines thistle) nesting season; control Canadian thistle Bailey 105 Nesting and Annually Wet meadow Annually staging sandhill maintain short- irrigate from cranes, geese, grass wet April 1 - July 15 and ducks meadow and and Sept. 1 - 30; associated Hay in August, nesting cover graze Oct.-Nov. South Pine 149 Nesting and Annually Wet meadow Annually Creek staging sandhill maintain short- irrigate from cranes and grass wet April 1 - July 15 geese meadow and Sept. 1 - 30; Hay in August, graze Oct.-Nov.

F-5 Management Conservation Habitat Current Management Supporting Habitat Wildlife Unit Acres Target Objective Condition Prescription Documentation Response Response Hamilton Tract 285 Nesting and Annually Wet meadow Annually Hamilton Tract staging sandhill maintain short- irrigate from EA cranes and grass wet April 1 - July 15 geese meadow and Sept. 1 - 30; Hay in August, graze Oct.-Nov.; hay or graze idle unit; plant grain field in spring barley Deer Pond 3 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- PUP staging ducks, permanent wetland; Drawn permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control down annually wetland; draw cranes and other exotic plants due to irrigation down every 4-5 water birds practices years; control pepperweed and scotch and Canadian thistle South Woods 112 Nesting and Maintain upland Pit River with Re-establish PUP staging sandhill habitat; restore portions of floodplain cranes, ducks, floodplain disconnected connectivity; and geese; connectivity floodplain control exotic upland wildlife adjacent to plants (Scotch sagebrush and Canadian upland thistle)

F-6 Management Conservation Habitat Current Management Supporting Habitat Wildlife Unit Acres Target Objective Condition Prescription Documentation Response Response Pit Marsh 39 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- staging ducks, permanent wetland; Dense permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control cattails and reed wetland; draw cranes and other exotic plants canary grass down every 4-5 water birds years and Rx burn; Draw down and disc reed canary grass throughout summer then flood till following June South Dam Pond 20 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- PUP staging ducks, permanent wetland permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control wetland; draw cranes and other exotic plants down every 4-5 water birds years and rehab islands; control pepperweed and scotch and Canadian thistle Pit Bypass Pond 12 Nesting and Maintain Permanent Maintain PUP staging ducks, permanent wetland; unit is permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control part of Pit River wetland; cranes and other exotic plants bypass, monitor for water birds therefore it is pepperweed continuously and Canadian flooded thistle

F-7 Management Conservation Habitat Current Management Supporting Habitat Wildlife Unit Acres Target Objective Condition Prescription Documentation Response Response South Grain 141 Staging and Annually Converted to Flood from mid- Field wintering provide seasonal moist soil unit in Sept. to mid- waterfowl and moist soil 2002; lacks May; apply sandhill cranes wetland flooded adequate moist smart-weed seed from Sept. to soil annuals; with no-till mid-May small infestation seeder in 2005; of cocklebur annually apply flash irrigation in late July (if possible); may need to consider low level berm to accomplish flash irrigation Rye Field 25 Nesting and Annually Agricultural Force account PUP staging sandhill produce cereal field farming of rye; cranes and grain forage for control exotic geese; upland sandhill cranes, plants wildlife Canada geese, and upland wildlife Pit River 120 Nesting and Annually Floodplain In 2005, draw Floodplain staging ducks, provide seasonal contains down in geese, sandhill wetland from monotypic January, till cranes and other Sept.-Jan. stands of reed stands of RCG water birds canary grass multiple times (RCG) over the summer, flood from Sept. to June 1; monitor RCG; evaluate and repeat in 2006, if necessary.

F-8 Management Conservation Habitat Current Management Supporting Habitat Wildlife Unit Acres Target Objective Condition Prescription Documentation Response Response North Grain 81 Nesting and Annually Agricultural Force account PUP Field staging sandhill produce cereal field farming of cranes and grain forage for spring barley;

geese; upland sandhill cranes, Add NH4SO4 at wildlife Canada geese, 300 lbs acre -1 and upland control exotic wildlife plants; flood in Oct. Sharkey 223 Nesting and Annually Wet meadow Annually staging sandhill maintain short- irrigate from cranes, geese, grass wet April 1 - July 15 and ducks meadow and and Sept. 1 - 30; associated Hay in August nesting cover Matney 1 5 Upland wildlife Provide nesting Intermediate Control PUP and migratory cover for wheat grass and Canadian birds waterfowl; Canadian thistle thistle; survey Evaluate for and other non- area for wetland wetland natives; little conversion as a wildlife value demonstration site for SubHQ Matney 2 3 Upland wildlife Provide nesting Intermediate Control PUP and migratory cover for wheat grass and Canadian thistle birds waterfowl Canadian thistle and other non- natives; little wildlife value

F-9 Management Conservation Habitat Current Management Supporting Habitat Wildlife Unit Acres Target Objective Condition Prescription Documentation Response Response Matney 3 27 Nesting and Annually Agricultural Force account PUP staging sandhill produce cereal field farming of cranes and grain forage for spring barley; geese; upland sandhill cranes, control exotic wildlife Canada geese, plants; and upland wildlife Matney 4 North 18 Nesting and Annually Agricultural Force account PUP staging sandhill produce cereal field farming of cranes and grain forage for spring barley; geese; upland sandhill cranes, control exotic wildlife Canada geese, plants; and upland wildlife Matney 4 South 18 Nesting and Annually Agricultural Force account PUP staging sandhill produce cereal field farming of cranes and grain forage for winter wheat in geese; upland sandhill cranes, 2004; control wildlife Canada geese, exotic plants; and upland flood in Oct. wildlife Matney 5 12 Nesting and Annually Agricultural Force account PUP staging sandhill produce cereal field farming of cranes and grain forage for winter wheat in geese; upland sandhill cranes, 2004; control wildlife Canada geese, exotic plants; and upland flood in Nov. wildlife

F-10 Management Conservation Habitat Current Management Supporting Habitat Wildlife Unit Acres Target Objective Condition Prescription Documentation Response Response Matney 6 23 Nesting and Annually Agricultural Leave fallow for staging sandhill produce cereal field a 3 year cycle cranes and grain forage for geese; upland sandhill cranes, wildlife Canada geese, and upland wildlife Matney 7 24 Nesting and Annually Agricultural Continue to staging sandhill produce cereal field leave fallow and cranes and grain forage for flood in Sept. geese; upland sandhill cranes, wildlife Canada geese, and upland wildlife Matney 8 27 Nesting and Annually Agricultural Continue to staging sandhill produce cereal field leave fallow and cranes and grain forage for flood in Sept.; geese; upland sandhill cranes, Attempt to level wildlife Canada geese, field to allow and upland uniform water wildlife levels House 73 Nesting and Annually Wet meadow Annually staging sandhill maintain short- irrigate from cranes, geese, grass wet April 1 - July 15 and ducks meadow and and Sept. 1 - 30; associated Hay in August nesting cover

F-11 Management Conservation Habitat Current Management Supporting Habitat Wildlife Unit Acres Target Objective Condition Prescription Documentation Response Response West Pit 105 Nesting and Annually Floodplain In 2005, draw staging ducks, provide seasonal contains down in geese, sandhill wetland from monotypic January, till cranes and other Sept.-Jan. stands of reed stands of RCG water birds canarygrass multiple times (RCG) over the summer, flood from Sept. to June 1; monitor RCG; evaluate and repeat in 2006, if necessary. If tillage is not possible due to wet conditions, then mow RCG multiple times and flood as much as possible Sub- 15 Migratory and Provide nesting Riparian area Remove some FMP headquarters nesting cover and with cottonwood slash material passerines, structure to gallery, willows and Rx burn nesting ducks nesting and white Jan. 2005; and geese, waterfowl, poplars; Encourage new raptors upland passerines, and decadent trees recruitment; wildlife raptors; staging with little Utilize students habitat for recruitment to plant trees migratory passerines

F-12 Management Conservation Habitat Current Management Supporting Habitat Wildlife Unit Acres Target Objective Condition Prescription Documentation Response Response Railroad Pond 15 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- PUP staging ducks, permanent wetland permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control wetland; draw cranes and other exotic plants down every 4-5 water birds years and rehab islands; control pepperweed and scotch and Canadian thistle Sloss Pond 8 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- PUP staging ducks, permanent wetland permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control wetland; draw cranes and other exotic plants down every 4-5 water birds years; control pepperweed and Canadian thistle North 395 Pond 19 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- PUP staging ducks, permanent wetland permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control wetland; draw cranes and other exotic plants down every 4-5 water birds years; control pepperweed and Canadian thistle Middle 395 Pond 10 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- PUP staging ducks, permanent wetland permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control wetland; draw cranes and other exotic plants down every 4-5 water birds years; control pepperweed and Canadian thistle

F-13 Management Conservation Habitat Current Management Supporting Habitat Wildlife Unit Acres Target Objective Condition Prescription Documentation Response Response South 395 Pond 23 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- PUP staging ducks, permanent wetland permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control wetland; draw cranes and other exotic plants down every 4-5 water birds years; control pepperweed and Canadian thistle West Hansen 51 Nesting and Annually Wet meadow Annually Field staging sandhill maintain short- irrigate from cranes, geese, grass wet April 1 - July 15 and ducks meadow and and Sept. 1 - 30; associated Graze Oct.-Nov. nesting cover Sandy Slough 126 Nesting and Annually Wet meadow Annually staging sandhill maintain short- irrigate from cranes, geese, grass wet April 1 - July 15 and ducks meadow and and Sept. 1 - 30; associated Hay in August nesting cover Heifer 82 Nesting and Annually Wet meadow Annually staging sandhill maintain short- irrigate from cranes, geese, grass wet April 1 - July 15 and ducks meadow and and Sept. 1 - 30; associated Hay in August nesting cover Pine Creek 327 Nesting and Annually Wet meadow Annually staging sandhill maintain short- irrigate from cranes and grass wet April 1 - July 15 geese meadow and Sept. 1 - 30; Hay in August, graze Oct.-Nov.

F-14 Management Conservation Habitat Current Management Supporting Habitat Wildlife Unit Acres Target Objective Condition Prescription Documentation Response Response Matney Marsh 41 Nesting and Annually Contains Draw down FMP staging ducks, provide monotypic every 4-5 years geese, sandhill permanent stands of reed to Rx burn cranes and other wetland canary grass water birds and cattails 395 Overlook 17 Nesting and Annually Permanent to Draw down PUP staging ducks, provide semi-permanent every 4-5 years geese, sandhill permanent wetland to allow nutrient cranes and other wetland cycling; control water birds Canadian thistle Doughnut Pond 4 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- PUP staging ducks, permanent wetland permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control wetland; draw cranes and other exotic plants down every 4-5 water birds years; control pepperweed and Canadian thistle Dump 19 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- PUP staging ducks, permanent wetland permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control wetland; draw cranes and other exotic plants down every 4-5 water birds years; control pepperweed and Canadian thistle

F-15 Management Conservation Habitat Current Management Supporting Habitat Wildlife Unit Acres Target Objective Condition Prescription Documentation Response Response Headquarters 1 Nesting and Maintain semi- Intermittent Survey pond and PUP Pond staging ducks, permanent adjacent area in geese, sandhill wetland; control order to cranes and other exotic plants hydrologically water birds tie into Teal Pond; subsequently, maintain semi- permanent wetland; draw down every 4-5 years; control pepperweed and Canadian thistle, teasle, and hemlock House Pond 5 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- PUP staging ducks, permanent wetland permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control wetland; draw cranes and other exotic plants down every 4-5 water birds years; control pepperweed and Canadian thistle Indian Pond 0.5 Nesting and Maintain semi- Semi-permanent Maintain semi- PUP staging ducks, permanent wetland permanent geese, sandhill wetland; control wetland; draw cranes and other exotic plants down every 4-5 water birds years; control pepperweed and Canadian thistle

F-16 Table 2. Project priority list 2006 Project Project Name Priority (Location) Project Description Limitations 1 South Grain Field Remove dike along river and build dike No limitations except for staff time. Will be along west side of field. completed by contractor. 2 Pit Marsh Apply RCG control and enhance any Time; Budget (fuel) wetland areas when dry. Complete during South Grain Field dike project. 3 Pit River Floodplain Continue with RCG control using Time; Budget (fuel) mechanical and chemical control methods. 4 Matney Fields Level fields 4S, 7, 8, 5, and 6. Install Marsh grant dependent. Should be able to Leveling structures into 4N and 4S. install structures regardless of grant. 5 Goose Pond Island Rehabilitate nesting and loafing islands. Time; Budget (fuel) Rehab 6 Grandma Tract Complete wetland restoration. NAWCA grant availability; DU is project Phase II manager. Some staff time required. 7 Godfrey Tract Install pump and restore wetland NAWCA grant availability; DU is project connectivity; install structures manager. Some staff time required. 8 HQ Area Wetland Enhance wetland area around HQ. Time; Budget (fuel) Enhancement 9 West Pit Rehab Donut Pond. Treat RCG. Time; Budget (fuel) 10 North Grain Field Rehab islands. Time; Budget (fuel)

F-17 Table 3. Farming schedule 2006 Grain Grain Grain Needed at Needed at Needed at 70 42 28 Field Acres lbs./acre lbs./acre lbs./acre 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 East Ebbe 30 2100 1260 840 Rye W. Wheat S. Barley Grandma Field 40 2800 1680 1120 W. Wheat S. Barley W. Wheat S. Barley North Grandma Field 10 700 420 280 W. Wheat S. Barley W. Wheat W. Wheat South Hamilton Field 28 1960 1176 784 W. Wheat S. Barley W. Wheat Head-quarters 5 350 210 140 W. Wheat S. Barley W. Wheat W. Wheat Field Matney 1 4.3 301 181 120 W. Wheat S. Barley Matney 2 3.2 224 134 90 W. Wheat S. Barley W. Wheat Matney 3 27.4 1918 1151 767 S. Barley S. Barley S. Barley S. Barley W. Wheat Matney 4N 17.7 1239 743 496 S. Barley S. Barley W. Wheat Flooded Wetland Grain Matney 4S 17.7 1239 743 496 Wetland Wetland W. Wheat W. Wheat Flooded Grain Matney 5 12.3 861 517 344 S. Barley W. Wheat S. Barley Wetland Wetland Matney 6 23 1610 966 644 S. Barley S. Barley Wetland Wetland Wetland Matney 7 24.3 1701 1021 680 Wetland Wetland Wetland Rye/Wheat Flooded Grain Matney 8 27 1890 1134 756 Wetland Wetland Wetland W. Wheat North Grain 81.2 5684 3410 2274 W. Wheat S. Barley S. Barley W. Wheat Flooded Grain Field Rye Field 25 1750 1050 700 S. Barley W. Wheat

F-18 Grain Grain Grain Needed at Needed at Needed at 70 42 28 Field Acres lbs./acre lbs./acre lbs./acre 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Town Grain 131.6 9212 5527 3685 North 1/2 W. North 1/2 S. Field Wheat; South Barley; South 1/2 Rye 1/2 W. Wheat Wheat Needed at 13,223 70 Wheat Needed at 5600 42 Barley Needed 4494 9506 at 70 Rye Needed at 0 70 Austrian Winter Pea 3736 Needed* * Plant peas with winter wheat at 40% of total rate. E.g., at 70 lbs. per acre, plant 42 lbs. wheat and 28 lbs. peas. Total 500.2 306.1 Total Wheat 186.2 188.9 Total Barley 173.9 64.2 Total Rye 65

F-19 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Plan

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Refuge Description ...... 2 1.1.1 Historical ...... 2 1.1.2 Physical ...... 2 1.1.3 Refuge Purposes and Goals ...... 5 1.2 Habitat Management Practices ...... 5 1.3 Listed Species ...... 6

2. Invasive species Control and Other Vegetation Management ...... 6 2.1 Introduction ...... 6 2.2 Species to Be Controlled ...... 8 2.2.1 Poison-Hemlock ...... 10 Physical Control ...... 10 Biological Control ...... 10 Chemical control ...... 10 2.2.2 Canada Thistle ...... 10 Physical Control ...... 11 Prescribed Burning ...... 11 Biological Control ...... 11 Chemical Control ...... 12 2.2.3 Bull Thistle ...... 12 Physical Control ...... 13 Biological Control ...... 13 Chemical Control ...... 13 2.2.4 Cocklebur ...... 13 Physical Control ...... 14 Prescribed Burning ...... 15 Biological Control ...... 15 Chemical Control ...... 15 2.2.5 Bindweed ...... 15 Physical Control ...... 15 Biological Control ...... 15 Chemical Control ...... 15 2.2.6 Scotch Thistle ...... 15 Physical Control ...... 16 Prescribed Burning ...... 16 Biological Control ...... 16

G-i Chemical control ...... 16 2.2.7 Perennial Pepperweed ...... 17 Physical Control ...... 17 Prescribed Burning ...... 17 Inundation ...... 18 Biological Control ...... 18 Chemical Control ...... 18 2.2.8 Mediterranean Sage ...... 19 Physical Control ...... 20 Biological Control ...... 20 Chemical Control ...... 20 2.2.9 Cheatgrass ...... 20 Physical Control ...... 20 Prescribed Burning ...... 21 Biological Control ...... 21 Chemical Control ...... 21 2.2.10 Reed Canarygrass ...... 21 Physical Control ...... 22 Prescribed Burning ...... 22 Biological Control ...... 22 Chemical Control ...... 22 2.2.11 Medusahead...... 23 Physical Control ...... 23 Prescribed Burning ...... 23 Biological Control ...... 23 Chemical Control ...... 24 2.3 Potential Control Methods and Materials ...... 24 3.2.1 Prescribed Burning ...... 24 3.2.2 Disking ...... 25 3.2.3 Mowing ...... 25 3.2.4 Water Management ...... 26 3.2.5 Prescribed Livestock Grazing ...... 26 3.2.6 Herbicides ...... 27 2,4-D...... 27 Aminopyrlid ...... 27 Chlorsulfuron ...... 28 Clopyralid ...... 28 Glyphosate ...... 29 Aluminum Phosphide ...... 29 Adjuvants ...... 30

G-ii 2.4 Restoration of native species ...... 30

3. Integrated Pest Management Strategy ...... 30 3.1 Assessment Protocol ...... 31 3.2 Modoc Refuge Habitat Management System ...... 33

4. Bibliography ...... 33

Figures

Figure 1. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge map ...... 3 Figure 2. Vegetation Map of ModocRefuge ...... 4

Tables

Table 1. Refuge Habitat Classifications ...... 2 Table 2. Federal and State listed species occurring at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge ...... 7 Table 3. Selected invasive, non-native, or undesirable plant species of concern at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge1 ...... 9

G-iii 1. Introduction This Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan for controlling invasive plants on the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Modoc NWR or Refuge) is developed under the authority of:

 Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, Public Law 93-629, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.)  Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.)  Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 as amended, Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)  Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Public Law 95-514 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.)  Endangered Species Act, Public Law 93-205, as amended by Public Law 100-478 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)  National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd)  National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57  Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.)  Executive Order 11514-Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, as amended by Executive Orders 11541 and 11991  Executive Order 11987-Exotic Organisms  Executive Order 13112-Invasive Species  Department of the Interior (DOI) Manual 609 DM 1, Weed Control Program  Noxious Weed Regulations, 7 CFR Part 360  Pesticide Programs, 40 CFR Subchapter E  DOI Manual, Pesticide Use Policy, 517 DM 1  Administrative Manual, Pest Management Policy and Responsibilities, 30 AM 12

This Plan also follows the requirements of the Refuge Manual, Pest Control Policy (7 RM 14), which states that it is the policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to engage in the control of wildlife and plants within the National Wildlife Refuge System to assure balanced wildlife and fish populations consistent with the optimum management of refuge habitat.

The Service pest management policy goal (30 AM 12.1) is to eliminate the unnecessary use of pesticides through the use of IPM. IPM uses a combination of biological, physical, cultural, and chemical control methods (30 AM 12.5). This approach notes environmental hazards, efficacy, costs, and vulnerability of the pest.

When plants or animals are considered a pest, they are subject to control on national wildlife refuges if: 1) 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, or State or local governments have designated the pest as noxious; 2) the pest organism is detrimental to the primary refuge objectives; and 3) 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).

A pest is defined as any terrestrial or aquatic plant or animal that interferes, or threatens to interfere, at an unacceptable level, with the attainment of refuge objectives or that poses a threat to human health (7 RM 14.4). Pest management is defined as any practice or combination of practices designed to manipulate pest or potential pest populations and to diminish pest injury or render them harmless. The objectives of pest management activities in the Refuge System (7 RM 14.3) are to

G-1  protect human health and well-being;  prevent substantial damage to significant resources;  protect newly introduced or re-established species;  control exotic species and to allow normal populations of native species to exist;  prevent damage to private property; and  provide individuals with quality wildlife-oriented recreational experiences.

1.1 Refuge Description 1.1.1 Historical The Modoc Refuge was established in 1961. It consists primarily of land formerly known as the Dorris Ranch, which was purchased by the Service in 1960. Historically, the area consisted of a complex of wetlands and riparian habitats associated with the north and south forks of the Pit River and its tributaries, such as Pine Creek. Early in the 1900s, much of the original wetlands were drained for livestock and agricultural purposes.

For a detailed description of the Refuge, please refer to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).

1.1.2 Physical Modoc Refuge is located along the South Fork 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 currently consists of 7,011 acres of wetlands, reservoir, riparian, sagebrush-steppe, and cropland habitats and 10 acres of administrative lands (Table 1 and Figure 2).

Table 1. Refuge Habitat Classifications

Habitat Type Acres Seasonal wetlands 1,062 Semi-permanent wetlands 553 Wet meadows 2,183 Reservoir 547 Woody riparian 64 Sagebrush-steppe 2,053 Croplands 549 Administrative 10 TOTAL 7,021

G-2 Figure 1. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge map

G-3 Figure 2. Vegetation Map of Modoc Refuge

G-4 The Refuge has a semi-arid climate with hot, dry summers and cold winters. Summer temperatures can reach 100 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF), but generally cool rapidly during the evening and nighttime hours. January is the coldest month of the year, with temperatures occasionally dropping below -30 ºF. 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.

Three main soil types, formed from alluvial parent material derived from basic igneous rocks, predominately 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

1.1.3 Refuge Purposes and Goals 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 forces 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 Refuges purposes and goals are described in the Draft CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).

1.2 Habitat Management Practices Currently, habitat management objectives at the Refuge focus on maximizing benefits for wildlife, emphasizing resting, nesting, and feeding areas for ducks, geese, and other migratory birds, including the greater sandhill crane. Proper water and vegetation management is considered essential to meeting the goals of the Refuge. 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.

The timing of drawdowns, irrigations, and flood-ups largely dictates plant species composition (e.g., germination and growth of desirable food and cover plants). It also governs habitat availability (i.e., how much wetland is flooded at certain times of year for certain wildlife species).

G-5 It is necessary to control certain plant and animal species that have undesirable effects on Refuge animals, plants, and habitats. The primary effect is competition with native plants for space, sunlight, nutrients, and water. When the distribution and abundance of native plants that are important to wildlife as food, shelter, and nesting areas declines, wildlife habitat suffers. For a detailed description of habitat types and management practices, please refer to the Draft CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).

1.3 Listed Species A number of Federal and/or State listed species occur on the Refuge. In many cases, invasive species management is undertaken to maintain the populations and health of listed species in a variety of habitat types. Table 2 contains a list of Federal and State threatened and endangered species on the Refuge. For a description of listed species, please refer to Chapter 3 of the Draft CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).

A Section 7 consultation on the Draft CCP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009) which includes hunting of waterfowl, coots, common moorhens, snipe, and a junior pheasant hunt will be completed to determine the effects of the CCP on threatened and endangered species.

2. Invasive species Control and Other Vegetation Management

2.1 Introduction 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)1. Depending upon the season, bird populations vary greatly in abundance and diversity, with over 240 bird species recorded on the Refuge, 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 species.

Invasive species are a significant threat to native fauna and flora on refuges and other resource areas throughout the country (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Unfortunately, exotic and invasive plant species are very common throughout California. Estimates indicate that noxious weeds are spreading at a rate of 4,600 acres per day on Federal lands alone in the western United States (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 2008). They have invaded approximately 17 million acres of public rangelands in the West – more than quadrupling their range from 1985 to 1995 (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 2008).

Invasive species occur throughout the Refuge’s habitat types and infrastructure (canals, roads, etc.). Controlling or eliminating non-native species are objectives found in many local and regional habitat management plans, endangered species recovery plans, and various weed management areas. Some native plant species can also become problematic, or even invasive due to local conditions or successional changes. In such cases, they may also be controlled, if necessary, to maintain desirable abundances and distributions to meet wildlife and habitat objectives of the Refuge. As a result, vegetation management is relatively common on the Refuge.

1 The Important Bird Areas Program (IBA) 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 Important Bird Areas are properly managed and conserved.

G-6 Table 2. Federal and State listed species occurring at or near Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Common Name General Habitat Scientific Name Status1 Description Comments Modoc sucker FE, CE Occurs in small streams. Known to occur in Turner and Catostomus microps Rush Creeks in Modoc County; not known to occur on the Refuge Oregon spotted frog FC, CSC Occurs in wet areas in Suitable habitat occurs on the Rana pretiosa mountainous woodlands and Refuge and the species has wet meadows. been recorded historically in Pine Creek and the south fork of the Pit River near Alturas (California Herps 2007). Greater sandhill crane CT, CFP Wetlands required for Common spring, summer, and Grus canadensis tabida breeding; forages in nearby fall resident; known to breed pastures, fields, and on the Refuge meadows. Western snowy plover FT, CSC Inland, breeds on barren to Rare summer resident; Charadrius sparsely vegetated ground suspected of nesting on the alexandrinus nivosus at alkaline or saline lakes, Refuge reservoirs, and ponds. Swainson’s hawk CT Breeds in stands with few Summer resident; known to Buteo swainsoni trees in juniper-sage flats, nest on the Refuge riparian areas, and oak savannah; forages in adjacent livestock pasture, grassland, or grain fields. American peregrine FD,CE, CFP Forages in many habitats; Rare migrant falcon requires cliffs for nesting. Falco peregrinus anatum Bald eagle FD, CE, CFP Occurs in riverine and open Winter resident and Haliaeetus wetland habitats. Perches occasional migrant leucocephalus high in large, stoutly limbed trees, on snags or broken- topped trees, or on rocks near water. Western yellow-billed FC, CE Nesting habitat is Rare migrant and summer cuckoo cottonwood/willow riparian resident; suspected of nesting Coccyzus americanus forest. on the Refuge occidentalis Willow flycatcher CE Occurs in wet meadow and Uncommon summer resident; Empidonax traillii montane riparian habitats. known to nest on the Refuge Bank swallow CT Nests colonially on vertical Common migrant and Riparia riparia banks or cliffs with fine- uncommon summer resident; textured soils near water. known to nest on the Refuge 1Status Key: Federal: FE = Endangered, FT = Threatened, FC = Candidate Species; FD = Delisted State of California: CE = Endangered, CT=Threatened, CSC = Species of Special Concern, CFP = Fully Protected

G-7 Specific reasons for vegetation management include maintaining biodiversity, maintaining desirable proportions of emergent vegetation in wetlands, enhancing desirable species, preparing for habitat restoration projects, and providing maintenance and safety around facilities, including protecting communities and assets at risk to wildfire. Non-native and invasive species are often a significant impediment to habitat restoration and maintenance, and without their control, many native species cannot be re-established. A variety of vegetation management techniques (mow, disk, burn, graze, spray, etc.) are used, depending on the habitat type, plant species, and resource objectives. Some are used alone, while others may be used in combination with one or more other techniques. In general, mechanical methods are preferred over herbicides, but in some cases, the opposite is true (i.e. to avoid ground disturbance an herbicide may be the most effective method). The need to use any of these techniques annually depends on species present, condition of the habitat, effects of climate on plant growth, available funding and resources, and in some cases, the extent that legal mandates allow (e.g. burning restrictions due to local air quality legislation).

The Service is required to use an integrated pest management approach for pest management activities on refuge lands (U.S. Department of Interior 2007). IPM employs a variety of control methods to control invasive species and other weeds that include various forms of physical habitat management, biological control agents, and herbicide application. The purposes of this IPM plan are to: 1) describe Refuge habitats and their role in the conservation of trust animal and plant species and 2) describe the use of vegetation control methods and materials in an IPM program that is consistent with the purposes and goals of the Refuge, and DOI and Service policy.

2.2 Species to Be Controlled Table 3 summarizes the invasive, exotic, and other undesirable plant species that are of primary concern to control or eliminate on the Refuge. The plant species targeted for treatment were chosen due to their actual or potential threat to ecosystem processes, Federally listed species, and/or their status as noxious weeds in the State of California. The full extent (current distribution and abundance) of these species are unknown. The size of an infestation, its pervasiveness, and management difficulty will determine whether the goal is eradication or containment. For instance, relatively small, separated populations of perennial pepperweed will be targeted for eradication.

Species that are not on the target species list (Table 3) will still be considered for treatment if they are found to be threatening rare and/or desirable species, or are newly established on the Refuge. The list will be reviewed and updated periodically as more information is gained.

The following profiles of targeted species include a discussion of possible treatment methods. Most of these profiles were taken directly, or slightly adapted for this document from the Cal-IPC online version of Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands (Cal-IPC 2008), information available on the California Department of Food and Agriculture Integrate Pest Control website (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2008a), University of Nevada Cooperative Extension website (2008), and The Nature Conservancy Global Invasive Species Team website (2008). For additional information on the descriptions, phenology, and other ecological characteristics of these species and other weeds, see DiTomaso and Healy (2003; 2007). Relevant information and observations from the Refuge were also included.

G-8 Table 3. Selected invasive, non-native, or undesirable plant species of concern at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge1 Species1 Common Name Habitat

APIACEAE CARROT FAMILY

Conium maculatum Poison-hemlock roadsides, fields, meadows, pastures

ASTERACEAE [Compositae] SUNFLOWER FAMILY

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle grassland, fields, levees, roadsides, ditch banks Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle grasslands, pastures, roadsides, ditches, fencelines Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle roadsides, fields, and natural areas with fertile soils Xanthium spp. Rough cocklebur wetlands, riparian habitats

CONVOLVULACEAE MORNING-GLORY FAMILY

Convolvulus spp. Bindweed fields, meadows, pastures

BRASSICACEAE [Cruciferae] MUSTARD FAMILY

Lepidium latifolium Perennial pepperweed wetland edges, riparian habitats, fields, levees, ditch banks

LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY

Salvia aethiopis Mediterranean sage roadside banks and abandoned fields

POACEAE GRASS FAMILY

Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass roadsides, fields

Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass wetlands, ditches, other sites with moist soil Taniatherum caput-medusae Medusa-head roadsides, fields

1This table contains the species with the highest priority of concern to control or eradicate; other species are also controlled as deemed necessary to meet wildlife and habitat objectives. 2Non-native plants are indicated by an italic typeface. Highest control priority plants as indicated by an underline.

G-9 2.2.1 Poison-Hemlock (Primarily from The Nature Conservancy 2008; University of California Cooperative Extension 2008)

Poison-hemlock (Conium maculatum) is a highly toxic non-native species. It reproduces from seed, both as a biennial and winter annual, and occasionally as a short-lived perennial (Goeden and Ricker 1982). The spread of poison-hemlock is by seeds, which can adhere to farm machinery, vehicles, agricultural produce, and mud and clothing as well as being carried by water and, to a limited extent, wind (Parsons 1973).

Poison-hemlock commonly occurs in sizable stands of dense, rank growth along roadside ditches, field margins, ditchbanks, and in low-lying waste areas (Goeden and Ricker 1982). It also invades native plant communities in riparian woodlands and open flood plains of rivers and streams. It may act as a pioneer species quickly colonizing disturbed sites and displacing natives during early successional seres. The presence of poison-hemlock degrades habitat quality and can indicate a management problem on an ecological preserve. It is poisonous to both humans and livestock.

Physical Control Hand pulling works easiest with wet soils and with small infestations. When grubbing, it is not necessary to remove the entire root system because the plant is not perennial. It is best to pull or grub out the plant prior to flowering (Parsons 1973). “Follow-up cultivation is necessary to deal with any seedlings, and, if possible, a vigorous pasture should be established to compete with any further seedling growth” (Parsons 1973). Poison-hemlock remains toxic for several years after being pulled.

Multiple mowings close to the ground may eventually kill poison-hemlock. “Mowing or slashing of the plants just before flowering is often effective, but sometimes new growth which requires retreatment is produced from the base” (Parsons 1973).

Biological Control The European palearctic moth or commonly called hemlock moth (Agonopterix alstroemeriana C.) may offer possibilities for biological control. The larvae of the hemlock moth can cause severe defoliation by consuming leaves, young stem tissue, flowers, and seeds. Chemical control If extensive areas are covered with poison-hemlock, chemical controls are simpler and less labor intensive. 2.4-D in moderate amounts does not kill grasses (except the more susceptible bentgrass). It is most effective against poison-hemlock when the ester form is mixed with diesel oil to allow penetration of the leaves and stems. It can be used to hand spot (the most effective technique), or to spray larger areas. Banvel (active ingredient dicamba) also works on broad- leaved plants but not as effectively as 2,4-D.

2.2.2 Canada Thistle (Primarily from Bayer 2000)

Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) is a persistent thistle that grows vigorously, forming dense colonies and spreading by roots growing horizontally that give rise to aerial shoots. Plants generally grow one to four feet tall, but on occasion may grow more than six feet tall and branch freely. Canada thistle is common throughout northern California, including the Modoc Plateau.

G-10 One of the largest infestations in this region occurs on the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge; its moist conditions are ideal habitat for this species (Bureau of Land Management et al. 2007). It grows on a variety of soil types but will not survive in saturated soil and is intolerant of shade, requiring good light conditions for aggressive growth (Moore 1975; White et al. 1993). Canada thistle infests many habitats such as cultivated fields, roadsides, pastures and rangeland, railway embankments, and lawns. It is a major pest in streamside grasslands from the Pacific Northwest eastward to the plains. It also invades moist prairies.

Canada thistle typically flowers from late June through August. It reproduces from seed, which may germinate immediately after falling from the plant if conditions are favorable, or may remain dormant in the soil for up to twenty-one years (Detmers 1927; Moore 1975; Lalonde and Roitberg 1994). Seedlings develop rapidly and plants develop lateral roots that last approximately two years before they die. In the meantime, they produce new shoots and plants resulting in a clonal infestation that spreads outward rapidly. New plants also readily emerge from small root fragments. Growth is prolific, and patches exist with 130 shoots per square meter. Within two years, plants can produce over sixty-six feet of new roots (Parsons 1992). Once established, Canada thistle is a fierce competitor for nutrients and water needed by crops or native plants.

Physical Control Cultivation is not generally recommended unless it is carried out with care and persistence, because it often increases the problem by spreading root fragments to new locations. Repeated cultivation at regular intervals of twenty days is effective in exhausting the remaining root fragments but does not kill ungerminated seeds. Care needs to be taken not to remove or disturb other desired native plants in the area. Cultivation must start as soon as the plants first emerge in late winter.

Repeated mowing at three-week intervals will weaken the plant, prevent flowering, and seed production, and generally can be timed to avoid major impacts on desirable plants growing in the infested area.

Prescribed Burning Repeat burning has shown some reduction in old, established stands of Canada thistle, but overall control generally is less than satisfactory. Removal of old plant residue resulting from fire may promote earlier seed germination of native species (Olson 1975).

Biological Control Insects and fungi: Several organisms have been intentionally introduced into the United States for Canada thistle control. However, no single agent has been successful at dramatically reducing infestations. Two agents have been released in California, Ceutorhyncus litura and Urophora cardui. Establishment of both has been very poor with little impact (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2008a). The rust species Puccinia obtegens has shown some promise for controlling Canada thistle, but it must be used in conjunction with other control measures to be effective (Turner et al. 1980).

Grazing: Sheep and cattle graze on Canada thistle when the plants are young and tender, helping to deplete the root reserves. Recent New Zealand studies show that goat grazing can be effective. Grazing and trampling can increase stress on plants, enhancing the effectiveness of other control measures such as herbicides. Livestock tend to avoid grazing in and around dense patches of older plants.

G-11 Plant competition: Vigorous competition from native plants is essential in achieving lasting control.

Chemical Control Herbicide use must be timed to the growth stage and physiology of Canada thistle (Tworkoski 1992) and is most effective when used in combination with competition from other plants. Thorough coverage of all foliage of an infestation (clones) is essential because not all shoots from infestations over two years old may be interconnected. Properly timed repeat applications of selected herbicides will always be necessary to achieve complete control of Canada thistle. Applications may be made either in spring or in fall, but fall applications have provided the most control from a single application.

Glyphosate is a non-selective foliar applied herbicide that will kill or seriously injure all growing vegetation with which it comes in contact. It has little or no soil residue except on light, sandy soil low in organic matter. Applications should be made soon after flowering when photosynthates are moving from the foliage to the roots. When the first application is properly timed, extensive injury will occur to the developing root system. A second application or another herbicide will be necessary to kill the crown and new shoots arising from old roots that were not affected by the first application.

Triclopyr, dicamba, and 2,4-D are all foliar –applied herbicides that may seriously affect grasses and other monocots as well as many dicotyledon plants. They all have some soil residual, but dicamba has the longest (up to six months). Application should be made when Canada thistle is actively growing and when photosynthates are being translocated from leaves to roots.

Clopyralid or clopyralied + 2,4-D has shown good control of Canada thistle where the root system has been disturbed. These herbicides are foliar applied and generally have a soil residual of one to two months. Repeat applications for two to four years generally have provided complete elimination of established root systems.

2.2.3 Bull Thistle (Primarily from Randall 2000)

Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) is a coarse biennial. It may be found throughout northeastern California anywhere there has been soil disturbance (Bureau of Land Management et al. 2007). It is most troublesome in recently or repeatedly disturbed areas such as pastures, overgrazed rangelands, recently burned forests and forest clearcuts, and along roads, ditches, and fences. Even small-scale disturbances such as gopher mounds promote bull thistle establishment and survival (Klinkhamer et al. 1988; Randall 1991). It can also colonize areas in relatively undisturbed grasslands, meadows, and forest openings. Bull thistle invades a variety of wildland habitats, where it competes with and displaces native species, including forage species favored by native ungulates such as deer and elk. In addition, the presence of bull thistle in hay decreases feeding value and lowers market price (McDonald 1994). In pastures and irrigated rangeland it may interfere sufficiently with livestock grazing so that live-weight gain is significantly reduced (Hartley 1983). Flowering may occur from early June until the first snowfall or hard frost; in California there is a pronounced peak in July and early August. It reproduces only by seed. Seeds may travel up to ninety feet, even on days with little wind (Klinkhamer, de Jong, and Meijden 1988; Randall unpubl. data).

G-12 Physical Control Bull thistle can be controlled by mowing or hand cutting shortly before plants flower (Harris and Wilkinson 1984; Randall 1991). If cut too early in the season, plants will resprout and flower before the first frost. The uneven flowering times may make more than one treatment necessary. Plants from Yosemite Valley that were cut at the root crown a few days after their first flowers appeared and then laid on the ground produced abundant viable seed (Randall pers. obs.). Thus, it may be important to remove cut stems from the area.

Less than 5 percent of adult thistles cut at the soil surface resprouted and mean height of plants that resprouted was less than that of control plants (Randall 1991). Variations in seed production have more influence than variations in adult mortality on population fluctuations of biennials (de Jong and Klinkhamer 1988). Thus, even if some plants resprout, manual control may reduce bull thistle populations by limiting seed production. The distance seeds are dispersed is positively correlated with the height at which they are released (Sheldon and Burrows 1973), so that cutting may reduce the spread of seed even when plants resprout and produce seed.

Biological Control Insects: Two USDA approved insects, Urophora stylata and Rhinocyllus conicus, have been released for bull thistle control in California. Neither has been successful to date, but U. stylata, a gall-forming fruit fly (Tephritidae) with a narrow host range, shows some promise in coastal sites where it was released in 1997 and 1998 (Villegas and Coombs 1999).

Rhinocyllus conicus is a weevil (Coleoptera, Curculionidae) that attacks species of Cirsium, Carduus, and Silybum. It has been used as a biocontrol agent for several species in these genera. Studies indicate that there are local populations or strains with strong preferences for particular host species (Zwolfer and Harris 1984). However, it has been found to also attack native species of Cirsium in some areas (Goeden and Ricker 1986; Louda et al. 1997; Louda 1998).

Chemical Control Bull thistle is controlled relatively easily with herbicides. Several Agricultural Extension bulletins recommend 2,4-D at 0.5 kg/ha; dicamba at 0.15 kg/ha; picloram (not registered in California) at 1 kg/ha, and various tank mixes of these chemicals for control of bull thistle (Fawcett and Nelson 1981; Harris and Wilkinson 1984). Timing of herbicide application is important, with the exact date dependent upon life cycle stage.

2.2.4 Cocklebur (Primarily from Pitcher 1989b, 1989a)

Cocklebur (Xanthium spp.) is considered one of the world's worst weeds (Holm et al. 1977). Cocklebur is often associated with open, disturbed areas, particularly flood-prone areas with good soil moisture (Martin and Carnahan 1982), but it is found in a wide variety of habitats. Cockleburs are broadleaf annuals that grow in seasonal wetlands and floodplains in many areas of California. Cocklebur seeds are easily spread, due to their ability to float or 'hitchhike' on humans and animals. The plants can quickly become dominant in an area because of their prolific seed production and high germination and survival rates. Cocklebur reproduces from seeds that are viable for several years and grow on a wide range of soils (sands to heavy clays) and available moisture. On rich soils with abundant moisture and little competition from other plants, cocklebur grows tall and luxuriant, forming pure stands. In dry, poor soils, plants may grow to only a few

G-13 centimeters high, persist through drought, and set seed. The ability to grow under a variety of conditions results in a continuous seed supply if plants are not controlled (Holm et al. 1977). Open grown plants produce 500 to 5,400 burs per plant. The number of fruits produced is dependent upon the amount of vegetative growth at the time of floral initiation. On crowded plants, production is reduced to 71 to 586 burs per plant (Weaver and Lechowicz 1983). Burs are buoyant and will float for up to 30 days (Kaul 1961), thus being easily dispersed to shorelines, downstream areas, and areas subject to flooding. The burs also become entangled in animal hair or human clothing. The burs are a serious problem in sheep production areas where they become entangled in the wool, reducing its value (Wapshere 1974). The burs contain a highly toxic substance, carboxyatractyloside, capable of killing hogs, cattle, goats, horses, sheep, and poultry.

Germination of cocklebur seeds has been extensively researched (Crocker 1906; Davis 1930; Katoh and Esashi 1975; Zimmerman and Weis 1983). More than 80 percent of cocklebur seeds are viable in most populations (Weaver and Lechowicz 1983). Plants produce seeds of two types (termed somatic polymorphism). Each bur contains two seeds, with the smaller one often pushed upwards toward the beaked end of the fruit. The lower seed has a shorter dormant period and germinates first. Dormancy in Xanthium involves the presence of a different water-soluble germination inhibitor in each seed type, to which the testa are impermeable. The presence of oxygen causes degradation of these two inhibitors and subsequent rupture of the seed coat, but apparently at very different rates in the two types. Thus, at least two batches of seeds are present in each generation to assure germination in the event the immediate environment happens to be unsuitable (Redosevich and Holt 1984).

For the purposes of this IPM Plan, cocklebur is considered invasive in managed wetlands, as it has little value for forage or cover and tends to out compete vegetation that is more desirable for waterfowl and other waterbirds.

Physical Control Cocklebur control requires that treatments be made prior to seed being set on actively growing plants. Young plants can be controlled effectively by short-term flooding, often referred to as “scalding.” Water should be turned in at a point when plants can be completely covered for a period of 7-14 days. The actual length of time it takes to kill the plants can vary based on air/water temperature, the size of the plants, and how deeply they are flooded. The warmer the temperature, the smaller the plants, and the deeper they are flooded, the quicker they will succumb. Cocklebur plants should be monitored during the scalding process, and when they turn completely black and slimy they are dead and water can be removed. This treatment will often result in the added benefit of irrigating a number of desirable aquatic species such as watergrass, sprangletop, and smartweeds. However, if plants are not fully inundated, killing them will require prolonged flooding. Often, this can mean enhancement of other undesirable species, such as Bermuda grass, and potentially cause production of mosquitoes.

The other method of controlling cocklebur is mowing plants prior to the formation of burs. Plants should be allowed to put maximum energy into vertical growth and flowers, then mowed as close to the ground as possible. In cases where significant soil moisture is still present, plants may regrow and require an additional mowing to kill them. A third option, especially with larger plants is to mow, then follow with a short inundation. Mowed plants are particularly susceptible to scalding.

G-14 Prescribed Burning Prescribed burning is an effective means to destroy spiny cocklebur seeds.

Biological Control Grazing: Because of its toxicity and unpalatability, grazing is not a useful control method.

Chemical Control Cocklebur is susceptible to a wide variety of soil- and foliar-applied herbicides commonly used for the control of broad-leaved weeds (Weaver and Lechowicz 1983).

2.2.5 Bindweed (Primarily from California Department of Food and Agriculture 2008a)

Bindweed (Convolvulus spp.), a perennial vine, is considered one of the most noxious weeds of agricultural fields throughout temperate regions of the world. Plants typically develop large patches and are difficult to control. It is troublesome in numerous crops. It also occurs in orchards, vineyards, gardens, pastures, and roadsides. Plants can harbor the viruses that cause potato X disease, tomato spotted wilt, and Vaccinium false bottom. Foliage contains tropane alkaloids and can cause intestinal problems in horses grazing on heavily infested pastures.

Physical Control Bindweed responds to plowing, discing, and rod weeding by increasing bud formation just below the tillage layer. New shoots rapidly emerge and carbohydrate reserves are replenished in a few weeks. Tillage is effective on seedlings; however, plants may form perennial buds within six weeks of emergence. Tillage used for seedling control should be conducted within the first few weeks to prevent plants from surviving. Other mechanical strategies include hand pulling or grubbing. These must be done repeatedly to be effective.

Biological Control Two biocontrol agents, the bindweed gall mite (Aceria malherbae) and bindweed moth (Tyta luctuosa), are cleared for release in the U.S. However, these biocontrol agents are not registered for use in California since uncommon native morning glory (Calystegia) species may also be susceptible to attack.

Chemical Control Chemical control of field bindweed generally requires a multiple year approach. There are a few herbicides that provide effective control, including dicamba, glyphosate, metsulfuron, 2,4-D, and glyphosate+2,4-D. These treatments work best when applied to actively growing, healthy bindweed with 6-18 inch runners. Bindweed management must be practiced on a continuous, year- to-year basis. No single treatment will eradicate bindweed.

2.2.6 Scotch Thistle (Primarily from California Department of Food and Agriculture 2008a)

Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) has a wide range of elevations in North America, from 200 to 7,000 feet. It inhabits wet meadows, pastures, small grain fields, and dry alfalfa, as well as disturbed areas in open rangeland. Scotch thistle grows best on the slope between arid rangeland and wet meadows along streams. It has also been observed to invade undisturbed sagebrush areas. The first mention of Scotch thistle in California in the literature is an article by T.C. Fuller

G-15 in 1958, stating that the Modoc County Agriculture Commissioner submitted the first sample for identification in 1957. The major area of infestation at the time in Modoc County was the Hung Estate Ranch, which had 500–600 acres. According to that report, Scotch thistle was present at that location in 1942. In 1958, plants were found in Lassen and Lake counties.

Scotch thistle is native to Europe and Asia (Cargill et al. 1998). It is a non-native vigorous biennial. Reproduction is by seed only. This species typically germinates in the fall after the first rains and exists as rosettes throughout the first year until flowering stems develop during the second spring/summer. However, some seeds can germinate year round under favorable moisture and temperature conditions. Flowering occurs between June and September. Plants grow 70 to 100 flower heads, and each flower produces 100 to 140 seeds (Young and Evans 1969). Seeds may remain viable in the soil for over 30 years. Scotch thistle occurs in natural areas, disturbed sites, roadsides, fields, and especially sites with fertile soils. Severe infestations can form tall, dense, impenetrable stands. Scotch thistle competes with native plants for resources. Infestations of Scotch thistle are uncommon, but plants can be locally abundant at infested sites. It is known to occur on the Modoc Plateau.

Physical Control Small infestations should be physically removed or cut a few inches below the soil surface. Mowing by early flowering will reduce seed production, but may require repeated treatment because populations typically exhibit a wide range of developmental stages among individual plants. Slashing should be done prior to flowering since seed may mature in the seed head after cutting. Plants should not be mowed following seed set, as this increases chances for dispersal.

Prescribed Burning Survival of the species is encouraged by low intensity burning of fields that often stimulates a flush of seed germination from the upper soil seed bank.

Biological Control Insects and fungi: To date, biological control agents have been unsuccessful in the United States. The USDA-ARS, Albany is performing host specificity tests on several potential biological control agents for Scotch thistle. The project will continue until all potential bioagents are tested. In addition, a field study is underway at two sites in Modoc County to obtain demographic data on births, deaths, and growth habit of Scotch thistle (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2008b).

Grazing: Survival of Scotch thistle is discouraged in well-managed perennial grass pastures where gaps are minimized from fall through spring. Survival is encouraged by overgrazing in grasslands. Livestock should be removed from infested areas to reduce seed dispersal and physical trampling of seed into the ground. Goats will graze Scotch thistle, reducing plant numbers and preventing seed production (Sindel 1991).

Plant competition: A dense canopy of competitive, perennial grasses may be the most effective practice for preventing establishment of Scotch thistle.

Chemical control Herbicides can successfully be used for reducing thistle populations and giving grasses a competitive advantage. However, they cannot be used as a stand alone solution. These techniques

G-16 must be linked with good grazing practices in rangeland areas. Otherwise, the thistles will recolonize and rapidly replenish the seed bank to pre-control levels.

One of the primary difficulties in chemical control of these thistles is their ability to germinate nearly year round. From fall to spring, a range of plant sizes can be found, which may result in variable chemical control. These herbicides are all very effective on seedlings and young rosettes, but control becomes more variable with increasing plant age. Seeds may persist for several years in soil. Buried seeds may persist for up to 20 years, and re-infestation is likely without yearly management. Therefore, several years of retreatment may be necessary. Dicamba and 2,4-D will inure or kill other broadleaf plants including legumes. Clopyralid is more selective for controlling plants in the Asteraceae family but will also injure or kill legumes.

2.2.7 Perennial Pepperweed (Primarily from Howald 2000)

Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) is a multi-stemmed herb that grows 3–8 feet tall with a heavy, sometimes woody, crown and a spreading underground root system. Pepperweed invades brackish to saline or alkaline wetlands throughout California, from the coast to the interior, and north and eastward into the Great Basin and Columbia Basin. According to observations by wildlife area managers and others, within the last 15 years pepperweed populations in California have expanded, and the plant has significantly increased its overall range.

Pepperweed can be distributed by seeds or by pieces of the underground stems. The small seeds have no special adaptations for long-distance dispersal. They are capable of being transported by wind, water, and possibly waterfowl. Pepperweed is an aggressive invader of coastal and interior wetlands and adjacent uplands throughout California. It forms dense monospecific stands that exclude other plants, including natives (Corliss 1993; Trumbo 1994). Pepperweed reproduces from seed, as well as vegetatively from intact root systems or from pieces of rootstock. Flowering time varies from May to July in different parts of California. Peak bloom lasts for several weeks. Seeds mature by June or July. Each mature plant has the capacity to produce thousands of seeds each year.

Physical Control Mechanical methods are unlikely to control pepperweed because new plants quickly regenerate from pieces of rootstock left in the soil (Young et al. 1995). Segments much shorter than one inch are capable of resprouting. Disking of pepperweed at Grizzly Island Wildlife Area resulted in a significant increase in distribution (Feliz, pers. comm.). Young et al. (1998) attempted to control pepperweed in native hay meadows near Honey Lake, Lassen County, in tillage experiments conducted from 1991 to 1992, using monthly disking throughout the growing season. They concluded that this treatment resulted in no permanent reduction in pepperweed cover. This conclusion was based on the finding that the year following disking, pepperweed reestablished approximately 100 percent cover.

Prescribed Burning Experiments at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in southern Oregon indicate that fire alone is unlikely to be effective in controlling pepperweed, in part because typical fuel loads in infestations of this plant are inadequate to sustain burns.

G-17 Inundation Pepperweed may be intolerant of prolonged inundation. At West Navy Marsh in Contra Costa County, pepperweed distribution and abundance were significantly reduced after a diked marsh was returned to tidal action, increasing inundation time (May 1995). Young et al (1995) report that pepperweed does not appear to survive lengthy periods of flooding during the growing season.

Biological Control Insects and fungi: Development of a biological control program seems unlikely because of risks to many important crop plants that are members of the mustard family (Brassicaceae) (Young et al. 1995; Birdsall et al. 1997). Additionally, several native Lepidium species from the western United States either are listed as endangered or are being considered for listing (Young et al. 1995). Fifteen species of Lepidium are native to California, including four that are considered rare and endangered by the California Native Plant Society (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Acknowledging these difficulties, Birdsall et al. (1997) pointed out the limitations of herbicidal control and suggested that L. latifolium-specific biocontrol agents, either insects or fungi, be sought in the many European countries with other native Lepidium species.

Grazing: Livestock, especially sheep and goats, can play a role in reducing perennial pepperweed in pastures where there is desirable vegetation (Lassen County Special Weed Action Team 2001). Careful animal management is needed to make this effective.

Chemical Control Attempts have been made to control pepperweed with chemical herbicides in California, Oregon, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. The most effective herbicides appear to be chlorsulfuron (as Telar), metsulfuron methyl (as Escort), and imazapyr (as Arsenal) based on field trials of one to four years (Cox 1997). Neither Escort nor Arsenal is registered for use in California at this time.

Trumbo (1994) reports that tests of chlorsulfuron, triclopyr, and glyphosate at Grizzly Island Wildlife Area in Suisun Marsh, California, showed that each of these compounds can provide significant control of pepperweed. Chlorsulfuron (as Telar) was most effective, with one application resulting in a reduction in cover of more than 95 percent after two years. Telar was applied at the recommended rate of 0.75-1 oz/acre, mixed in 30 gallons water with 0.5 percent non- ionic surfactant. It is selective against broadleaved plants. This was advantageous at Grizzly Island Wildlife Area because desirable grasses were not affected. After the initial test, large-scale use of Telar at Grizzly Island Wildlife Area has confirmed its effectiveness. However, retreatment may be necessary because of the regenerative ability of pepperweed. Telar exhibits some residual soil activity, and its use is not permitted near water.

Triclopyr as Garlon3A and Garlon4 provided moderate to good control after one year in tests at Grizzly Island Wildlife Area. Garlon3A was applied as a 2 percent solution with 0.5 percent non- ionic surfactant added. Garlon4 was applied as a 1.5 percent solution with 0.5 percent non-ionic surfactant added. Currently, neither formulation of Garlon is registered for use over water in California. Triclopyr is broadleaf-specific, so it generally does not affect grasses. Garlon4 does not show residual soil activity. As with chlorsulfuron, retreatment may be needed to maximize control.

Glyphosate as Rodeo and Roundup provided fair to moderate control after one year in tests at Grizzly Island Wildlife Area. Roundup was effective as a 2 percent solution. Rodeo was also used as a 2 percent solution with the addition of 0.5 percent non-ionic surfactant. Rodeo can be used over water, but Roundup cannot. Roundup and Rodeo are broad-spectrum herbicides that control

G-18 most plants, including grasses. At Grizzly Island Wildlife Area, resprouting of pepperweed the year following treatment indicated that several follow-up treatments likely are needed for full control.

In Lassen County, California, Young et al. (in press) tested the effectiveness of 2,4-D, glyphosate, and chlorsulfuron against pepperweed. They found that, while 2,4-D and glyphosate greatly reduced top growth and eliminated seed production in the year of application; they provided no permanent control, since cover returned to 100 percent by the second year after application of these compounds. One application of chlorsulfuron provided up to three years of nearly complete control of pepperweed.

In Nevada, Young et al. (1997) found that chlorsulfuron is effective in controlling pepperweed. The highest level of control was obtained from applications during the bud stage. However, in the native hay meadows where the studies were conducted, excellent control was possible with early spring or late fall applications.

At Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, chlorsulfuron and metsulfuron methyl were tested alone and in combination with either fire or disking. The herbicides were more effective when used alone, with chlorsulfuron reducing pepperweed densities by 100 percent in all three sites tested, and metsulfuron methyl resulting in density reductions of 90 to 100 percent.

In Idaho, herbicides used to control pepperweed include metsulfuron methyl, 2,4-D, dicamba (as Vanquish), imazapyr, chlorsurfuron, and picloram (Cox 1997). Metsulfuron methyl is the most commonly used and is described as “quite” effective. Other compounds noted as “successful” in controlling this species include imazapyr and chlorsulfuron (Cox 1997).

In Wyoming, metsulfuron methyl and chlorsulfuron proved most effective in controlling pepperweed. Either compound, used at the recommended rate of 0.75-1.0 oz/acre, resulted in stand reductions of 90 percent or more that persisted for four to five years.

2.2.8 Mediterranean Sage (Primarily from California Department of Food and Agriculture 2008a)

Mediterranean sage (Salvia aethiopis) is an herbaceous perennial to biennial introduced from Europe. It occurs on warm, dry, disturbed sites (often south-facing slopes) including fields, roadsides, and rangelands, and occasionally agronomic crops. Mediterranean sage is known to occur on the Modoc Plateau at elevations up to 1,650 feet. The main infestation of Mediterranean sage is located near Lakeview, Oregon spreading south into Plumas County. Generally, the further south of Lakeview the more widespread and smaller the infestation, which are scattered throughout northeastern California. However, there are beginning to be some substantial infestations around Likely (Modoc Co.) (Bureau of Land Management et al. 2007).

It flowers from June through August and reproduces by seed. A single plant can produce between 50 and 100,000 seeds (Roche and Wilson 1999). Flowering stems typically break off at a point below the panicle and disperse seed by tumbling with wind. Seedlings exist as basal rosettes through the first year and flower the second or subsequent years. Mediterranean sage is an aggressive colonizer of highly disturbed areas and may outcompete desirable rangeland and native species.

G-19 Physical Control Tillage is an effective control strategy for rosettes and bolting plants. However, tillage is generally not an option in areas these plants infest. Small infestations may be controlled by hand digging or severing the root approximately three inches below the soil surface when the plants are beginning to bolt. Cutting at a shallower depth will generally result in crown resprouting. Mowing has not been an effective control strategy due to the prostrate growth habit of the rosettes.

Biological Control The Mediterranean sage root crown weevil (Phrydiuchus tau) was introduced to Oregon in 1971 and is now established at several locations in California, Colorado, Idaho, and Oregon. This weevil feeds on the roots and crown during its larval stage and on the foliage and flowering shoots during its adult stage. Plants are greatly weakened or die under heavy feeding. The insect is readily available for distribution, or may be collected at previously established locations. Successful establishment may require about 150 adult weevils. Establishment of the weevil is favored on warm, dry, southern exposed slopes. This weevil has been successful in some areas, but may be ineffective in others. Utilizing the weevil with good perennial grass management has shown the most success.

Chemical Control There is little information regarding chemical control of Mediterranean sage. Dicamba and 2,4-D have been reported to control the species. Plants should be treated after bolting but before seed are produced. The hairy nature of the leaf surface may reduce herbicide efficacy and a surfactant should be included.

2.2.9 Cheatgrass (Primarily from Young 2000)

Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is an annual grass native to southern Europe, northern Africa, and southwestern Asia. It is widespread throughout California, and is the dominant annual grass on sagebrush rangelands on the Modoc Plateau. Cheatgrass is a weed of croplands, especially winter wheat and alfalfa. In wildlands, it is most commonly found in sagebrush/bunchgrass communities, although its distribution extends to higher-elevation juniper, pinyon-juniper, and pine woodlands. Cheatgrass grows in many climatic areas and will grow in almost any type of soil. However, it is found primarily in locations that receive 6–22 inches of precipitation. It grows in a narrow range of soil temperatures, starting growth at just above freezing and stopping when temperatures exceed 60 °F. Cheatgrass establishes by seeds only. It typically flowers from mid- April through June. Seeds can remain dormant in the soil for two to three years. Cheatgrass can germinate in fall and act as a winter annual. The primary limit to germination is adequate fall, winter, and/or spring moisture. If fall precipitation is limiting and spring moisture is adequate, germination may be delayed until the following spring. Cheatgrass displaces native vegetation. It out competes the seedlings of native and desirable species for soil moisture. It also changes the frequency, extent, and timing of wildfires, increasing the chance of ignition and the rate of spread.

Physical Control Mechanical fallows are effective controlling cheatgrass and establishing herbaceous perennial seedlings. Tillage in spring after cheatgrass is established is effective if sufficient moisture remains for perennial seedling establishment. Mowing has been shown to reduce seed production when the stand is mowed within one week after flowering. This reduces seed production, but does not eliminate it because plants that develop later and escape mowing will produce seed.

G-20

Prescribed Burning Burning of pure cheatgrass stands enhances cheatgrass dominance. This is because wildfires often occur in late summer or fall, a poor time for perennial plants to reestablish. Open ground created by fires is readily colonized by annuals such as cheatgrass. However, burning of mixed shrub- cheatgrass stands generates enough heat to kill most cheatgrass seeds and offers a one-season window for the establishment of perennial seedlings. This is why prompt revegetation after wildfires in sagebrush communities is so important. Because cheatgrass is a cool-season annual, prescribed fire in late spring might help to control this species, especially in areas where native warm-season grasses are desired. A prescribed fire should kill seedlings and further reduce the surface seedbank.

Biological Control Insects and fungi: No insects or fungi have been approved by the USDA for use on cheatgrass. Research into the biological control of cheatgrass is limited.

Grazing: Grazing management systems that favor perennial herbaceous species are excellent tools in the suppression of this pest. This is a good means to avoid the risk of extensive wildfires that cause severe ecological degradation. Late fall and early spring grazing has been shown to significantly reduce plant numbers. However, heavy grazing will promote cheatgrass invasion. Encouraging the reestablishment of native plants improves the effectiveness of grazing.

Plant competition: Biological suppression is the most cost-effective and least ecologically intrusive method of controlling cheatgrass. Cheatgrass is not competitive with established perennials, particularly grasses. Establishing native perennials is easiest after cheatgrass is removed by other control methods.

Chemical Control Several effective herbicide techniques used in the past are no longer available. The registrations for these herbicides have either been lost or not renewed because of cost to the manufacturing companies. Glyphosate (as Roundup, Rodeo) applications control cheatgrass, but its effectiveness is limited by the environmental conditions during the cold early spring when glyphosate should be applied. Several newer herbicides are being tested for selective control of cheatgrass in perennial broadleaf seedling stands.

Most of the work on the chemical control of cheatgrass has focused on infestation in agricultural crops. Chemical control research in prairies has been primarily limited to atrazine. Herbicides active on cheatgrass in various crops include diclofop, atrazine, simazine, amitrole, imazapyr, sulfometuron, paraquat, and glyphosate. Many herbicides are specific to cheatgrass or may not be specifically licensed for this use.

2.2.10 Reed Canarygrass (Primarily from The Nature Conservancy 2008)

Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) is a robust, cool-season, sod-forming (Hutchinson 1992) perennial grass. It spreads within sites by creeping rhizomes and forms dense and impenetrable mats of vegetation. New sites are colonized by seeds. Reed canarygrass is valued as a forage grass and for revegetating denuded ditchbanks. However, it can also overgrow irrigation ditches and

G-21 small natural watercourses and alter soil hydrology. It is poor forage for domestic stock when fresh, and invades native vegetation where it out competes desirable native species. Almost any moist, fertile habitat is suitable for this species. Reed canarygrass invades and dominates wetland and riparian areas. Anthropogenic disturbance and alteration of water levels encourage reed canarygrass invasion (Hoffman and Kearns 1997).

There is debate about whether this species is native to North America (Meriglian and Lesica 1998). Modern populations in the Pacific Northwest may be a mixture of agronomic cultivars and native material. The invasive character of some populations may be the result of agronomic breeding for vigorous growth and drought tolerance (Meriglian and Lesica 1998). The actual threats reed canarygrass poses to conservation targets (and its possibly native status) should be considered before it is targeted for control, especially since large stands are difficult to kill without harming desirable native plants. A combination of management strategies over several years will yield the best results.

Physical Control For low quality sites, discing or tilling may be effective, especially if used in combination with competitive crop planting. Hand-pulling is recommended only for small populations. Covering the plants with mulch or plastic may work but is unreliable and labor intensive. Cutting is effective and the dried “harvest” may be used as hay.

Prescribed Burning Prescribed fire generally does not kill mature reed canary grass, and similar to occasional mowing, actually appears to stimulate additional stem production unless the fire burns through the entire reed canary grass sod layer down to the mineral soil (which in turn, may create other problems). The timing of burns is important. Henderson (1991) found that early spring burns accelerate the spread of reed canary grass while late spring burns weakened reed canary grass stands. Unfortunately, these late season burns can harm other species. Late autumn burns are also beneficial.

Prescribed fire can, however, be used as a pretreatment to tillage, shade cloth, or prior to herbicide application for good results, since the fire will remove the aboveground dead litter and standing vegetation. Prescribed burning allows native species that are present or seeded-in to compete successfully.

Biological Control Insects and fungi: Biocontrol agents have not yet been identified.

Grazing: Grazing is unreliable, and reed canarygrass can cause indigestion or illness to livestock.

Plant competition: If a healthy native seedbank is not present, successful elimination of reed canarygrass may have to be followed by seeding with desirable species. Otherwise, erosion or re- infestation by reed canarygrass or other weed species may occur.

Chemical Control Some herbicides are effective.

G-22

2.2.11 Medusahead (Primarily from California Department of Food and Agriculture 2008a)

Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) is a noxious winter annual that typically invades rangeland communities. Dense stands often develop, displacing desirable vegetation and wildlife, and lowering the livestock carrying capacity. Medusahead occurs on disturbed sites, grassland, openings in chaparral, oak woodlands, and agronomic fields. It grows best on clay soils or where deep soil moisture is available late in the growing season. Reproduction is by seed, and seed production is prolific. Seeds disperse locally with wind and water and to greater distances with soil movement, human activities, and by clinging to the feet and fur of animals. Medusahead is found scattered throughout most of northeastern California’s rangelands (Bureau of Land Management et al. 2007).

The serious nature of this undesirable plant is easily recognized by its ability to invade and outcompete dense stands of downy brome on degraded rangelands. Without restoration efforts combined with weed management, ranchers and land managers may unintentionally replace other exotics with the aggressive medusahead.

Physical Control Controlled grazing may be one of the few ways to prevent medusahead establishment. This includes areas where cheatgrass is the dominate forage species for winter and spring grazing. Overgrazing of cheatgrass will likely shift the balance to favor medusahead, which will result in a downward spiral of decreased grazing capacity.

Where possible, tillage for seedbed preparation will control existing medusahead plants. Tillage may also bury seed and break up deep thatch layers. However, the increased potential for soil erosion, loss of soil moisture, loss of organic matter, and loss of microbiotic crusts may outweigh the immediate benefits of tillage. Mowing is generally nonselective and fails to remove the meristems where new growth originates. Along roadsides, mowing is not recommended after seed set due to the increased potential for seed dispersal.

Prescribed Burning The use of fire has given mixed results for medusahead control. Plant community improvements have been achieved by burning cismontane areas of California. However, burning in the intermountain areas has resulted in continued medusahead dominance. These mixed results are likely due to differences in the soil seedbank and plant community recovery time following a burn. An understanding of the natural fire cycles and plant community response to fire is critical for success in medusahead management with fire. Depending on timing, intensity, and other factors, controlled burns may reduce or enhance infestations. Slow hot burns initiated when other vegetation has dried and medusahead seeds have not matured, can reduce infestations significantly.

Biological Control Very little work has focused on utilizing classical biological control for medusahead. Five soil fungi endemic to the western U.S. have been examined. However, results from that study demonstrated a general lack of host specificity for medusahead by these fungi. Winter wheat and crested wheatgrass exhibited some degree of susceptibility to all five fungi.

G-23

Chemical Control Chemical control options for medusahead are currently very limited. Glyphosate and paraquat are nonselective herbicides but will only provide variable control of medusahead. Their use is extremely limited where other sensitive species occur. Atrazine is a selective herbicide used for annual grass control and has effectively controlled medusahead and cheatgrass. However, atrazine may injure perennial grass seedlings and a fallow period prior to grass seeding is necessary. Limited chemical control options present a serious potential problem for California rangelands. Current chemical control strategies in rangelands are dominated by broadleaf herbicides. Controlling broadleaf weeds such as yellow starthistle may result in a species shift to medusahead. Thus, long-term sustainable management of rangelands susceptible to medusahead invasion will require integrated approaches involving revegetation efforts that include desirable species occupying critical niches susceptible to weed invasion.

2.3 Potential Control Methods and Materials Treatment methodologies will be based upon the best information available from pest management literature, professional expertise, and local experience. The most appropriate treatment for an infestation typically depends on the scale of the infestation and on the biology and ecology of the target species. Other considerations include effects of the treatments on desirable species. Desirable species are avoided whenever possible. In some cases, non-target species will be affected if it is determined that short-term negative impacts will be worth the long- term habitat improvements from controlling invasive or undesirable species. Listed species receive special consideration, and will be completely avoided unless it can be shown that treatments will not result in any significant impacts. Invasive plant management techniques are expected to change and become more refined as more experience is gained. Presently, the following techniques are considered for use at the Refuge. For additional information on control techniques refer to The Nature Conservancy Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas (Tu et al. 2001).

3.2.1 Prescribed Burning Prescribed burning is used in both wetland and upland habitats to remove rank vegetation and control non-native invasive species, as well as to enhance and maintain habitat values. Burning in wetland areas is generally used to reduce perennial vegetation that has expanded to a point that decreased wildlife use and overall productivity has resulted. Examples include wetlands where long-term expansion of hard-stemmed bulrush and cattail growth have exceeded the optimum range of emergent vegetation and open water, or where reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) has replaced the majority of annual moist-soil food plants, thus reducing use by many wildlife species. Prescribed burns can be applied to managed wetlands during various times of the year, but most occur from late spring through fall. Depending on conditions and habitat objectives, both dry and overwater burning can be successful. Disking is often used to ensure that roots of target species (hard-stemmed bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), cattail (Typha spp.), reed canary grass, etc.) are killed and to enhance germination of desirable species. The result is a desirable mix of vegetation species, stature, and distribution; a recycling of nutrients; and a successional stage that is more productive. The frequency of burning wetland units depends on habitat type, vegetation species composition, soil type, and tendency for growth. In some cases, this may be as often as once every 5 years and in others, it may be one in 20 to 30 years.

G-24 Prescribed burns in sagebrush-steppe habitats are used to reduce invasive species (cheatgrass) and to stimulate native plant species. Resource benefits include maintaining biodiversity, especially native plant communities and the wildlife they support. For optimal control of invasive grasses, it is most effective to burn in the fall, winter, or spring.

Annually, 200 to 400 acres of wetland and sagebrush-steppe habitats are burned on the Refuge. Prescribed burns are consistent with the Fire Management Policy (621 FW 1-3 of the Service Manual) and with approved habitat and fire management plans for the Refuge. 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.

3.2.2 Disking Disking is an important management tool that has a variety of uses. It is most commonly used in managed wetlands to reduce vegetation that has exceeded beneficial quantities or distributions required for wildlife use objectives. Used by itself, or in combination with burning or spraying, disking helps control bulrushes, cattails, reed canary grass, and other perennial plant species. In addition to controlling undesirable plants, disking also creates a seedbed conducive to both increased germination and seed production of desirable moist-soil plants in seasonal wetlands (Naylor 2002). Caution must be exercised in some wetlands, where disking can enhance or spread invasive species such as cocklebur and pepperweed. Disking is often used in thick vegetation to create openings that facilitate improved wildlife use, better visibility for disease monitoring and carcass removal, and increased wildlife viewing opportunities. Waterfowl loafing areas can be greatly enhanced by removing vegetation on islands and levees.

Disking is typically conducted during summer or early fall months when wetlands are dry. Target species/areas may be disked one or more times to ensure that roots are dead, reducing the need for more frequent treatments. Vegetation succession is set back in disked areas, and typically desirable moist-soil plants and open water areas replace the species that are removed. Multiple disk passes are sometimes necessary to break up large clods for optimal germination.

Circumstances dictate how much of an area will be disked. In most cases, a mosaic pattern is created, leaving equal proportions of emergent cover plants and open areas with annual moist-soil plants. The amount left undisked may be altered if special needs for certain species are identified. Examples include leaving more emergent vegetation in units that have historical use by colonial nesting birds such as white-faced ibises, or less vegetation in units that support large numbers of open water species such as pintails or shorebirds. In cases of widespread problem vegetation, sometimes the most cost-effective treatment is for the majority of a unit to be disked, realizing that the benefits will last a minimum of 3-5 years.

Disking is rarely used in upland areas, as ground disturbance typically results in invasions or expansions of non-native species. However, it is sometimes used to prepare native habitat restoration sites.

3.2.3 Mowing Mowing is used to control a variety of invasive species, enhance wetlands, reduce fire risk, and accomplish general weed maintenance around facilities. It is conducted with a tractor pulling a

G-25 large mowing implement, but may also be accomplished with smaller equipment such as push mowers or string trimmers.

Mowing is used for keeping islands and selected sections of levees clear of vegetation to provide optimal loafing and resting sites for waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wildlife. Whenever possible, mowing is used instead of disking in order to minimize ground disturbance, erosion, and invasive species expansion. Some invasive vegetation in upland habitats is also managed with mowing.

A number of roads, levees, and areas around buildings and other facilities are mowed during the summer to minimize risk of wildfires by allowing safer access for habitat management tasks (i.e., checking water control structures), conducting biological surveys, and general maintenance.

3.2.4 Water Management Water management is the most important tool for vegetation enhancement and control in managed wetlands. The timing, depth, and duration of flooding can be manipulated to enhance desirable moist-soil plants and to reduce certain undesirable species. Short-term irrigations conducted in the summer can greatly increase the amount of moist-soil plant seed production and vegetative stature in managed seasonal wetlands.

3.2.5 Prescribed Livestock Grazing Historically, grazing by native wildlife species has shaped the botanical and zoological resources of the California landscape (Edwards 1992, 1996). Currently, well managed livestock grazing is an important method of vegetation management (Griggs 2000; Barry 2003) on the Refuge. Benefits associated with the grazing program include the reduction of plant material; reduction in non- native invasive weeds (Thomsen et al. 1993); increases in native plants, including special-status plant species due to reduced competition for sunlight, and with non-native annual grasses for water and nutrients (Davis and Sherman 1992; Menke 1992; Muir and Moseley 1994; Coppoletta and Moritsch 2001); increased primary production and resultant increases in plant biomass (McNaughton 1985); and increases in native grassland wildflowers (Marty 2004, 2005), with consequent increases in macro-invertebrate populations, including native pollinators of native plants, and prey items for Refuge wildlife such as migratory land birds like the horned lark and savanna sparrow. Grazing provides optimal shorebird and sandhill crane foraging habitat by reducing grass height and contributing organic matter for the prey base (Colwell and Dodd 1995; Knopf and Rupert 1995) and also provides short, nutritious grasses for grazing migratory waterfowl (Buchsbaum et al. 1986) and local deer. Grazed areas support increased numbers of primary burrowing mammals such as pocket gophers and secondary burrowing animals such as burrowing owls and various snakes.

Long-term benefits from the grazing program include continued annual native plant production, non-native invasive plant species control, and maintenance of annual or seasonal use of Refuge habitat by migratory birds and resident deer herds. Periodic grazing can also lessen the threat of wildfire near rural structures and agricultural industrial facilities. Overall, the short-term impacts of seasonal grazing on local ground-nesting birds and some small mammals would be mitigated by the long-term improvements to Refuge plant species composition and structure, native plants and overall wildlife habitat quality that would benefit migratory birds, resident deer herds, and nesting habitat condition. Grazing is conducted through the Special Use Permit process.

G-26 3.2.6 Herbicides Due to differences in species susceptibility and the variety of habitats within the Refuge, a number of potentially available herbicides are necessary in order to choose the one that is most effective for a particular species in a particular environment. Examples of considerations in making these choices are: 1) effectiveness on species in question (this is often related to the growth form of the plant, such as a grass, shrub, or tree; or a perennial rhizomatous species versus a small annual species); 2) broad-spectrum (kills many species of grasses, other monocots, and broad-leaved plants) versus broadleaf-specific; and 3) approved for use in aquatic or only terrestrial sites.

There is a process for using herbicides on the Refuge that includes development and approval of Pesticide Use Proposals (PUPs). PUPs are developed by Refuge staff, and then reviewed by appropriate Service staff. Depending on the product/chemical proposed, PUPs can be approved at the refuge manager level, or some products require review and approval by Service IPM specialists at the regional or national level. PUPs must also be consistent with other Service and DOI policies, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA). Table 2 indicates the Federally listed species and their habitats on the Refuge. Conditions specified in PUPs include application methods, rates, and timing; maximum number of applications allowed per season; and measures to be taken to avoid sensitive areas. With an approved IPM plan, PUPs can be valid for up to five years.

Currently, six herbicides have been approved for use at the Refuge. Summarized below is specific information regarding each chemical, including product names, how they work, and potential risks to the environment. The properties, behaviors, persistence, and toxicities of commonly used herbicides are summarized below. For a more in-depth discussion of the properties of these products, see The Nature Conservancy Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas – Chapter 7 (Tu et al. 2001) and the Herbicide Handbook Eighth Edition (Vencill 2002).

2,4-D Common name: 2,4-D Chemical name: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid Common product names: Weedar 64, Weedone

2,4-D is the most widely used herbicide worldwide and has been used for over 50 years. It is a plant hormone (auxin) mimic that kills the plant by causing rapid cell division and abnormal growth. It is a systemic herbicide and can be absorbed through the roots, although it is most often applied to foliage. Depending on the formulation, 2,4-D is recommended for control of terrestrial and aquatic broadleaf weeds with little or no activity against grasses. Salt formulations are registered for use against aquatic weeds, but ester formulations are toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. The World Health Organization (1984) concluded that 2,4-D does not accumulate or persist in the environment.

Aminopyrlid Common name: Aminopyrlid Chemical name: 2-pyradine carboxylic acid, 4-amino-3,6-dichloro-2-pyradinecarboxylic acid Common product names: Milestone

G-27 Aminopyrlid is an auxin growth regulator used to control susceptible broadleaf weeds, including Russian knapweed and yellow starthistle, at very low labeled use rates compared to other herbicides with the same mode of action. It translocates throughout the entire plant and accumulates in the meristematic tissues, including the roots, disrupting plant growth metabolic pathways and affecting the growth process of the plant. Broad-leaved species are controlled with little or no injury to cool- and warm-season grasses. It has great potential for use at the Refuge due to its low toxicity to animals (practically non-toxic to birds, fish, honeybees, earthworms, and aquatic invertebrates), non-volatile formulation, and low use rates. Milestone™ is registered under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Reduced Risk Pesticide Initiative. This program is reserved for compounds that demonstrate lower risk to humans and the environment than other available alternatives. It has also demonstrated a low risk of resistance development compared to herbicides with other modes of action.

Chlorsulfuron Common name: Chlorsulfuron Chemical name: 2-chloro-N-[(4-methoxy-6-methly-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl) aminocarbonyl] benzenesulfonamide Common product names: Telar

Chlorsulfuron is used as a pre- and post-emergent herbicide to control a variety of weeds on cereal grains, pasture and rangeland, industrial sites, and turf grass. It controls many broadleaf weeds including Russian thistle and mustards. It is the only herbicide that effectively controls perennial pepperweed (Young et al. 1998), which is a common invasive species of concern at the Refuge. Chlorsulfuron is rapidly absorbed through both leaves and roots. It inhibits a key enzyme in the biosynthesis of certain amino acids. Plant death occurs from events that take place in response to the enzyme inhibition, but the actual sequence of processes is unclear.

Chlorsulfuron is likely to be persistent and highly mobile in the environment. It is not for use in aquatic sites. It is practically nontoxic to freshwater fish, birds, mammals, and honeybees on an acute exposure basis (Environmental Protection Agency 2005). The EPA determined ecological risks to be low except for non-target plants, and, therefore, the agency requires that it be applied in a manner that minimizes spray drift.

Clopyralid Common name: Clopyralid Chemical name: 3,6-dichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid, monoethanolamine salt Common product names: Transline

Clopyralid is an auxin-mimic type herbicide. It is used to control broadleaf weeds, but is more selective than some other herbicides using the same mode of action. Clopyralid has little effect on grasses and other monocots, but also does little harm to mustards and several other groups of broadleaf plants. It is effective on members of the sunflower (Asteraceae), legume (Fabaceae), nightshade (Solanaceae), knotweed (Polygonaceae), and violet (Violaceae) families. Clopyralid has been used on yellow starthistle with excellent control at low rates when used on seedlings prior to bud stage.

Clopyralid is considered non-toxic to fish, birds, mammals, and other animals; however, it is relatively persistent in soil, water, and vegetation making it potentially highly mobile and a

G-28 contamination threat to water. Although of low toxicity to mammals, direct contact with the eye can cause severe eye damage including permanent impairment.

Glyphosate Common name: Glyphosphate Chemical name: N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine Common product names: Rodeo, Aquamaster, Aquaneat, Roundup, Buccaneer, Alecto

Glyphosphate is a broad-spectrum, nonselective, systemic herbicide that kills or suppresses many grasses, herbaceous plants, brush, vines, shrubs, and trees. Applied to foliage, it is absorbed by leaves and rapidly moves through the plant. It can also be applied to green stems and cut-stems (cut-stumps), but cannot penetrate woody bark. It tends to accumulate in plant regions with actively dividing cells and acts by preventing the plant from producing several essential amino acids. This reduces the production of protein in the plant, and inhibits plant growth. Roundup and equivalent formulations are approved for terrestrial sites only. Rodeo and equivalent formulations are approved for aquatic use. Glyphosate by itself is essentially non-toxic to submersed plants. It is the adjuvants (surfactants) often sold with glyphosate that may be toxic to aquatic plants and animals and these formulations are not registered for aquatic use. Aquatic-approved glyphosate is used to control water primrose (Ludwigia sp.), non-native watermilfoils (Myriophyllum sp.), and other weeds in or near water. Application timing is critical for effectiveness on most broadleaf plant species.

Because glyphosate is a nonselective herbicide, extra care must be taken to prevent it from being applied to desirable, native plants. Glyphosate by itself is of low toxicity to mammals and earthworms; and is practically nontoxic to birds, fish, aquatic invertebrates, and honeybees. The chemical is essentially immobile in soil and is readily degraded by soil microbes (Environmental Protection Agency 1993). When used as an aquatic herbicide in non-flowing water (e.g., ponds and lakes), only ⅓ to ½ of the water body should be treated at any one time to prevent fish kills caused by dissolved oxygen depletion.

Aluminum Phosphide Common name: Aluminum phosphide Chemical name: Aluminum phosphide Common product names: Fumitoxin

Aluminum phosphide is a fumigant used to control insects and rodents. It is primarily used for indoor fumigation of raw agricultural communities, animal feeds, processed food commodities, and non-food commodities in sealed containers or structures, and for outdoor fumigation of burrows to control rodents and moles in non-domestic areas, non-cropland, and agricultural areas. Aluminum phosphide is a restricted use chemical.

Aluminum phosphide reacts with moisture in the atmosphere to produce phosphine gas, which is the substance that is active as a pesticide. It appears to be non-persistent under most environmental conditions, and is non-mobile in soil because of its instability at atmospheric moisture contents. Other products of hydrolysis are aluminum hydroxides. The aluminum hydroxide residue can further react to produce mineral phases that are known to occur naturally in the environment. Inorganic phosphate and other phosphorous oxyacids are expected to be other products formed from the oxidation of phosphine gas in soils.

G-29 Given the use patters of this pesticide and its characteristics, aluminum phosphide is not expected to pose a significant ecological risk to non-target organisms or to water resources under most circumstances, with the notable exception of some endangered species that may be found in burrows being treated with this chemical (Environmental Protection Agency 1998).

Adjuvants An adjuvant is any compound that is added to an herbicide formulation or tank mix to facilitate the mixing, application, or effectiveness of that herbicide. Spray adjuvants often improve spray retention and absorption by reducing the surface tension of the spray solution, allowing the spray droplet to spread more evenly over the leaf surface. Herbicide absorption may be further enhanced by interacting with the waxy cuticle on the leaf surface. They are sometimes included in the formulations of herbicides (e.g., Roundup), or they may be purchased separately and added into a tank mix prior to use (Tu et al. 2001).

Adjuvants are chemically and biologically active, not chemically inert, compounds. Some adjuvants have the potential to be mobile and pollute water. The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for an adjuvant and the herbicide label (if the adjuvant is included in the formulation) should be checked for conditions in which the adjuvant should not be used.

2.4 Restoration of native species Where appropriate, native vegetation is restored using a variety of grasses, forbs, shrubs, or tree species depending on habitat and wildlife objectives (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). A combination of the above vegetation management techniques may be used for weed control in preparation for re-establishing (cultivating) native species. Planting seeds, plugs, and cuttings are the most common methods for establishing native vegetation that will, often with some management, out compete non-native species over the long-term. The use of local genetic stocks for any plantings helps to increase the chance of success.

Table 4 summarizes current preferred treatments for initial control and maintenance control of selected invasive and undesirable species at the Refuge.

3. Integrated Pest Management Strategy The components of a successful IPM program include:

 Identification of pests and natural enemies.  A monitoring and record keeping system for regular sampling of pest and natural enemy populations. Monitoring is an ongoing activity throughout any IPM program.  Setting injury levels or determining the size of the pest population correlated with an injury sufficient to warrant treatment. Setting action levels (the pest population size along with other variables such as weather) from which it can be predicted that injury levels will be reached within a certain time if no treatments are undertaken.  An integration of treatment methods that are effective against the pest, least disruptive to natural controls, and least hazardous to human health and the environment.  An evaluation system to determine the outcome of treatment actions.

The ongoing monitoring of treatments and results of an IPM program is critical to the adaptive management approach. Information provided by the monitoring component shall be used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment methods in light of site conservation goals. Managers shall use this information to adjust priorities, modify treatments, and improve planning and budgeting.

G-30

3.1 Assessment Protocol A prioritization strategy is necessary to utilize effectively the limited funds available to eradicate or control the non-native species found throughout the 7,021-acre Refuge. The following criteria, based on An Invasive Species Assessment Protocol (Morse et al. 2004), a collaborative effort of NatureServe and The Nature Conservancy, will be considered when assessing invasive species impacts and prioritizing target species and treatment sites:  ecological impact: impacts on native plant and animal populations, ecosystem processes, ecological community structure and composition; and the significance of those species and communities that are affected (i.e., rare, endemic, keystone, or threatened and endangered species; unique ecosystems)  current distribution and abundance: size of infestation, proximity to valuable resources, and diversity of habitats or ecological systems invaded  trend in distribution and abundance: the potential for spread, especially to new, uninfested areas; the rate of spread; reproductive characteristics  management difficulty: susceptibility to treatment/difficulty to control, accessibility of sites, potential for control methods to affect non-target species

G-31 Table 4. Potential control methods and order of preference considered for use on selected invasive species at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Control Method/General Order of Preference1 Initial Control2 Maintenance Control3 Species 1 2 3 1 2 3 Poison-hemlock Herbicide Herbicide Bio-control Mechanical - mowing Canada thistle Herbicide Herbicide Bull thistle Mechanical – Herbicide Mechanical – Herbicide hand pulling hand pulling Scotch thistle Mechanical – Herbicide Mechanical – Herbicide hand pulling hand pulling Rough cocklebur Mechanical – Herbicide Mechanical – mowing, flooding mowing, flooding Bindweed Herbicide Herbicide Perennial Mechanical – Herbicide Herbicide pepperweed hand pulling Mediterranean Mechanical – Herbicide Mechanical – Herbicide sage hand pulling hand pulling Cheatgrass Herbicide Native species restoration Reed canarygrass Mechanical – Herbicide Native species tilling, flooding restoration Medusahead Herbicide Native species restoration 1Additional specific information on formulations, application rates and methods, etc. can be found in the text of this document. 2Initial control is defined as the first treatment on a new species infestation, new infestation sites, or the first treatment of the season. 3Maintenance control is defined as follow up treatments on an infestation site during the same season or treatment on established infestation sites.

G-32 3.2 Modoc Refuge Habitat Management System The above IPM Strategy components and Assessment Protocol are considered and included in the annual habitat management process at the Refuge. Overall Refuge management is determined, guided, and tracked by this same process (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Among other information, vegetation control in general, and the control of invasive species in particular, are included in detail in an annual habitat management plan (AHMP). Identification of target species, their location, specified control methods, and monitoring of treatments is included in the plans. The planning cycle starts in the late winter/early spring. The Refuge is toured by staff, during which time each management unit is visited and evaluated. Each unit is evaluated based upon what was planned for the year vs. what actually was accomplished in terms of management activities (e.g., water regimes, vegetation control, public use improvements), repairs (e.g., levee construction or replacement of water control structures), and the resulting habitat condition, wildlife use, or other resource data. Data and observations collected by all refuge programs are presented and discussed. Nearly all of this data is collected by unit, so it can be compared and evaluated in relation to past years and/or other units. Examples include vegetation species composition, wildlife survey data, disease mortality, wetland drawdown and flood-up dates, vegetation control measures conducted (prescribed fire, grazing, mowing and disking, irrigation, herbicide application, etc.), quality of public use opportunities (wildlife observation on tour routes, hunting success, etc.), and law enforcement issues. Information gathered and decisions made on the tours are then used to generate the next year’s AHMP for the Refuge. The decisions made during this process also involve a number of other considerations including, but not limited to, Refuge purposes, Service management directives (e.g., Improvement Act), historic habitat conditions, other regional habitat plans, Flyway management plans, endemic species conservation, endangered species recovery plans, and specific resource needs.

The result is a document that is distributed to all staff members to provide direction and furnish a reference, as well as a place to keep notes on their respective programs and responsibilities. The AHMP identifies physical attributes of the unit, habitat objectives, specifies management activities to make any necessary repairs or improvements; emphasizes positive results from previous years; and notes special management considerations (i.e., presence of special-status species or other significant wildlife use). The AHMP also includes a prioritization of management activities and projects based on the overall condition of the unit, which would include the degree to which invasive species were present or threatening other priority species. Data is maintained in a computer database, which serves to generate the AHMPs and can be queried to evaluate a variety of biological data that is collected on the Refuge. In summary, the AHMP facilitates the adaptive management process for controlling invasive species, as well as other resource objectives. It allows for modification within or between years based upon changing conditions, serves as a place to input current data from all refuge programs to be considered together, and helps to ensure that informed management decisions are made.

4. Bibliography

Barry, S. 2003. Using planned grazing to manage for native grasslands. In Grazing techniques and strategies for using native grass and graminoids in revegetation and restoration: California Native Grass Association. Bayer, D. 2000. Canada thistle. In Invasive plants of Californias wildlands, edited by C. C. Bossard, J. M. Randall and M. C. Hoshovsky. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

G-33 Birdsall, J., C. Quimby, T. Svejcar, and J. Young. 1997. Potential for biocontrol of perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium L.). In Management of perennial pepperweed (tall whitetop). Special Report 972. Corvallis, Oregon: USDA Agricultural Research Service and Agricultural Experimental Station, Oregon State University. Buchsbaum, R., J. Wilson, and I. Valiela. 1986. Digestibility of plant constituents by Canada geese and Atlantic brant. Ecology 67:386-393. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, Lassen County, Modoc County, Northern Deputy Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association, T. G. T. Company, and California department of Food and Agriculture. 2007. Selected noxious weeds of northeastern California. A field identification guide. Cal-IPC. 2008. Invasive plant inventory. http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php (cited March 28, 2008). California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2008a. Encycloweedia: Data sheets. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/weedinfo/winfo_list-pestrating.htm (cited March 31, 2008). California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2008b. Biocontrol: Weed projects. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/biocontrol/84weed_proj-summ.htm (cited May 19, 2008). California Herps. 2007. California reptiles and amphibians. http://www.californiaherps.com/index.html (cited June 21, 2007 Cargill, L. M., D. P. Montgomery, D. L. Martin, and J. D. Jamison. 1998. Efficacy of postemergent herbicides for Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) control along roadsides in Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society 51:192. Colwell, M. A., and S. L. Dodd. 1995. Waterbird communities and habitat relationships in coastal pastures of northern California. Conservation Biology 9:827-834. Coppoletta, M., and B. Moritsch. 2001. Talking steps toward long-term preservation of the Sonoma spineflower. Fremontia 29(2):23-25. Corliss, J. 1993. Tall whitetop's crowding out the natives. Agricultural Research May (16). Cox, T. 1997. Perennial pepperweed in Idaho. In Management of perennial pepperweed (tall whitetop). Special Report 972. Corvallis, Oregon: USDA Agricultural Research Service and Agricultural Experimental Station, Oregon State University. Crocker, W. 1906. Pole of seed coat in delayed germination. Botanical Gazette 42:265-291. Davis, L. H., and R. J. Sherman. 1992. Ecological study of the rare Chorizanthe valida (Polygonaceae) at Point Ryes National Seashore, California. Madrono 39(4):271-280. Davis, W. E. 1930. The development of dormancy in seed of cocklebur (Xanthium). American Journal of Botany 17:77-87. de Jong, T. J., and P. G. Klinkhamer. 1988. Seedling establishment of the biennials Cirsium vulgare and Cynoglossum officinale in a sand-dune area: The importance of water for differential survival and growth. Journal of Ecology 76:393-402. Detmers, F. 1927. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense Tourn.), field thistle, creeping thistle. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin (414).

G-34 DiTomaso, J. M., and E. A. Healy. 2003. Aquatic and riparian weeds of the west. University of California Ag. and Nat. Resources Publication 3421. DiTomaso, J. M., and E. A. Healy. 2007. Weeds of California and other western states. University of California Ag. and Nat. Resources Publication 3488. Edwards, S. W. 1992. Observations on the prehistory and ecology of grazing in California. Fremontia 20(1):3-11. Edwards, S. W. 1996. A Rancholabrean-age latest-Pleistocene bestiary for California botanists. Four Seasons 10:5-32. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Glyphosate reregistration eligibility decision. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/old_reds/glyphosate.pdf (cited April 1, 2008). Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Aluminum and magnesium phosphide pesticide reregistration. www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0025fact.pdf (cited April 1, 2008). Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Chlorsulfuron reregistration eligibility decision. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/thidiazuron_red.pdf (cited April 1, 2008). Fawcett, R. S., and J. E. Nelson. 1981. Weed control - biennial thistles: Bull, Musk, Tall. Iowa State University Cooperative Extension. Pm-722. Goeden, R. D., and D. W. Ricker. 1982. Poison hemlock, Conium maculatum, in southern California - an alien weed attacked by few insects. Annals of Entomological Society of America 75:173-176. Goeden, R. D., and D. W. Ricker. 1986. Phytophagous insect faunas of the two most common native Cirsium thistles, C. californicum and C. proteanum, in southern California. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 79:953-962. Griggs, F. T. 2000. Vina Plains Preserve eighteen years of adaptive management. Fremontia 27(4):48-51. Harris, P., and A. T. Wilkinson. 1984. Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten., bull thistle (Compositae). In Biological control programmes against insects and weeds in Canada 1969-1980. Franham Royal, Slough, England: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. Hartley, M. J. 1983. Effect of Scotch thistles on sheep growth rates. Paper read at New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference. Henderson, R. A. 1991. Reed canary grass poses threat to oak savanna restoration and maintenance (Wisconsin). Restoration and Management 9(1):32. Hoffman, and Kearns. 1997. Wisconsin manual of control. Recommendations for ecologically invasive plants. Holm, L. G., D. L. Pluncknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1977. The world's worst weeds. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Howald, A. 2000. Perennial pepperweed. In Invasive plants of Californias wildlands, edited by C. C. Bossard, J. M. Randall and M. C. Hoshovsky. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Hutchinson, M. 1992. Vegetation management guideline: Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.). Natural Areas Journal 12(3):159.

G-35 Katoh, H., and Y. Esashi. 1975. Dormancy and impotency of cocklebur seeds. I. CO2, C2H4, O2, and high temperature. Plant and cell physiology 16:72-87. Kaul, V. 1961. Water relations of Xanthium strumarium L. Sci. Cult. 27:495-497. Klinkhamer, P. G., T. J. de Jong, and v. d. Meijden. 1988. Production, dispersal and predation of seeds in the biennial Cirsium vulgare. Journal of Ecology 76:403-414. Knopf, F. L., and J. R. Rupert. 1995. Habits and habitats of mountain plovers in California. The Condor 97:143-751. Lalonde, R. G., and B. D. Roitberg. 1994. Mating system, life-history, and reproduction in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense; Asteraceae). American Journal of Botany 81:21-28. Lassen County Special Weed Action Team. 2001. Perennial pepperweed. Louda, S. M. 1998. Population growth of Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Cucurliondiae) on two species of native thistles in prairie. Environmental Entomology 27(4):834-841. Louda, S. M., D. Kendall, J. Connor, and D. Simberloff. 1997. Ecological effects of an insect introduced for the biological control of weeds. Science 277:1088-1090. Martin, R. J., and J. A. Carnahan. 1982. Distribution and importance of Noogoora and Bathurst burs in eastern Australia. Australian Weeds 2:27-32. Marty, J. 2004. Vernal pools are at home on the range. National Wetlands Newsletter 26(4):13-14. Marty, J. 2005. Effects of cattle grazing on diversity in ephemeral wetlands. Conservation Biology 19:1626-1632. May, M. 1995. Lepidium latifolium L. in the San Francisco Estuary: Dept. of Geography, University of California, Berkeley. Unpublished report. McDonald, P. M. 1994. Biological control of bull thistle. http://ipm_www.ncsu.edu/ncda/bcbull.html (cited 2008). McNaughton, S. J. 1985. Ecology of a grazing ecosystem: The Serengeti. Ecological Monographs 55:259-294. Menke, J. W. 1992. Grazing and fire management for native perennial grass restoration in California grasslands. Fremontia 20(2):22-25. Meriglian, M. F., and P. Lesica. 1998. The native status of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L). in the inland Northwest, U.S.A. Natural Areas Journal 18:223-230. Moore, R. J. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. 13. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 55:1033-1048. Morse, L. E., J. M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert, and S. Lu. 2004. An invasive species assessment protocol: Evaluating non-native plants for their impact on biodiversity. Version 1. NatureServe. Muir, P. S., and R. K. Moseley. 1994. Responses of Primula alcalina, a threatened species of alkaline seeps, to site and grazing. Natural Areas Journal 14:269-279. Naylor, L. W. 2002. Evaluating moist-soil seed production and management in Central Valley wetlands to determine habitat needs for waterfowl. Master's thesis, University of California, Davis, California.

G-36 Olson, W. W. 1975. Effects of controlled burning on grassland within the Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge. Master's thesis, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota. Parsons, W. T. 1973. Noxious weeds of Victoria. Melbourne, Australia: Inkata Press, Ltd. Parsons, W. T. 1992. Noxious weeds of Australia. Melbourne, Australia: Inkata Press. Pitcher, D. 1989a. Element stewardship abstract for Xanthium spinosum spiny cocklebur. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/xantspi.pdf (cited May 19, 2008). Pitcher, D. 1989b. Element stewardship abstract for Xanthium strumarium rough cocklebur. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/xantstru.html (cited May 21, 2008). Randall, J. M. 1991. The ecology of an invasive biennial, Cirsium vulgare, in California. Dissertation, Ecology Graduate Group, University of California, Davis, California. Randall, J. M. 2000. Bull thistle. 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. Redosevich, S. R., and J. S. Holt. 1984. Weed ecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Roche, C. T., and L. M. Wilson. 1999. Mediterranean sage. In Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds, edited by R. Sheley and J. Petroff. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press. Sheldon, J. C., and F. M. Burrows. 1973. The dispersal effectiveness of the achene-pappus units of selected Compositae in steady winds with convection. New Phytologist 72:665-675. Sindel, B. M. 1991. A review of the ecology and control of thistles in Australia. 31 189-201. Skinner, M. W., and B. M. Pavlik, eds. 1994. Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. 5th ed. Sacramento: Griffin Printing Company. The Nature Conservancy. 2008. The Global Invasive Species Team. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/Phalarun.html (cited March 31, 2008). Thomsen, C. D., W. A. Williams, M. P. Vayssieres, F. L. Bell, and M. R. George. 1993. Controlled grazing on annual grassland decreases yellow starthistle. California Agriculture 47:36-40. Trumbo, J. 1994. Perennial pepperweed: A threat to wildland areas. California Exotic Pest Plant Council News 2(3):4-5. Tu, M., C. Hurd, and J. M. Randall. 2001. Weed control methods handbook. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html (cited March 28, 2008). Turner, S., P. Fay, E. Sharp, B. Sallee, and D. Sands. 1980. The susceptibility of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) ecotypes to a rust pathogen (Puccinia obtegens). Paper read at Western Society of Weed Science. Tworkoski, T. 1992. Developmental and environmental effects on assimilate partitioning in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Science 40:79-85. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 2008. Noxious Weeds of the Alturas Field Office. http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/alturas/altweed.html (cited April 2, 2008). U.S. Department of Interior. 2007. Integrated pest management policy. U.S. Department of Interior Departmental Manual part 517 DM1(effective date May 31, 2007).

G-37 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. National strategy for management of invasive species. Fulfilling the Promise National Invasive Species Management Strategy Team. September 10, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. University of California Cooperative Extension. 2008. Weed research & information center. http://wric.ucdavis.edu/information/information.html (cited April 1, 2008). University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. 2008. Welcome to UNCE. http://www.unce.unr.edu/ (cited April 1, 2008). Vencill, W. K., ed. 2002. Herbicide handbook. Lawrence, Kansas: Weed Science Society of America. Villegas, B., and E. Coombs. 1999. Release of the bull thistle gall fly, Urophora stylata, on bull thistle in California. In Biological control program annual summary, 1988, edited by D. M. Woods. Sacramento, California: California Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. Wapshere, A. 1974. An ecological study of an attempt at biological control of Noooora burr (Xanthium strumarium). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 25:275-292. Weaver, S. E., and M. J. Lechowicz. 1983. The biology of Canadian weeds. 56. Xanthium strumarium L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 63:211-225. White, D. J., E. Haber, and C. Keddy. 1993. Invasive plants of natural habitats in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Canada and Canadian Museum of Nature. World Health Organization. 1984. 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), environmental health criteria 29. United Nations Environment Programme. Young, J. 2000. Cheatgrass. 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. Young, J. A., and R. A. Evans. 1969. Germination and persistence of achenez of Scotch thistle. Weed Science 20:98-101. Young, J. A., C. E. Turner, and L. F. James. 1995. Perennial pepperweed. Rangelands 17(4):121- 124. Young, J. A., D. E. Palmquist, and R. R. Blank. 1998. The ecology and control of perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium L.). Weed Technology 12:402-405. Zimmerman, J. K., and I. M. Weis. 1983. Fruit size variation and its effects on germination and seedling growth in Xanthium strumarium. Canadian Journal of Botany 61:2309-2315. Zwolfer, H., and P. Harris. 1984. Biology and host specificity of Rhinocyllus conicus (Froel.) (Col., Curculionidae), a successful agent for the biocontrol of the thistle, Carduus nutans L. Z. Angew. Entomol. 97:36-62.

G-38 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. National strategy for management of invasive species. Fulfilling the Promise National Invasive Species Management Strategy Team. September 10, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. University of California Cooperative Extension. 2008. Weed research & information center. http://wric.ucdavis.edu/information/information.html (cited April 1, 2008). University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. 2008. Welcome to UNCE. http://www.unce.unr.edu/ (cited April 1, 2008). Vencill, W. K., ed. 2002. Herbicide handbook. Lawrence, Kansas: Weed Science Society of America. Villegas, B., and E. Coombs. 1999. Release of the bull thistle gall fly, Urophora stylata, on bull thistle in California. In Biological control program annual summary, 1988, edited by D. M. Woods. Sacramento, California: California Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. Wapshere, A. 1974. An ecological study of an attempt at biological control of Noooora burr (Xanthium strumarium). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 25:275-292. Weaver, S. E., and M. J. Lechowicz. 1983. The biology of Canadian weeds. 56. Xanthium strumarium L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 63:211-225. White, D. J., E. Haber, and C. Keddy. 1993. Invasive plants of natural habitats in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Canada and Canadian Museum of Nature. World Health Organization. 1984. 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), environmental health criteria 29. United Nations Environment Programme. Young, J. 2000. Cheatgrass. 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. Young, J. A., and R. A. Evans. 1969. Germination and persistence of achenez of Scotch thistle. Weed Science 20:98-101. Young, J. A., C. E. Turner, and L. F. James. 1995. Perennial pepperweed. Rangelands 17(4):121- 124. Young, J. A., D. E. Palmquist, and R. R. Blank. 1998. The ecology and control of perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium L.). Weed Technology 12:402-405. Zimmerman, J. K., and I. M. Weis. 1983. Fruit size variation and its effects on germination and seedling growth in Xanthium strumarium. Canadian Journal of Botany 61:2309-2315. Zwolfer, H., and P. Harris. 1984. Biology and host specificity of Rhinocyllus conicus (Froel.) (Col., Curculionidae), a successful agent for the biocontrol of the thistle, Carduus nutans L. Z. Angew. Entomol. 97:36-62.

G-38 Appendix H. Wildlife and Plant List for Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

Table 1. Birds that occur on Modoc Refuge (* – non-native species; 1B – breeding, NB – nonbreeding, A – accidental, M – migrant, SR – summer resident, WR – wintering resident, YR – year-round resident; 2w – wetland, r – riparian, s – sagebrush-steppe)

BREEDING/ ORDER MIGRATORY HABITAT COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS1 TYPES2 Gaviiformes (loons) Common loon Gavia immer NB/M w Podicipediformes (grebes) Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps B/YR w Horned grebe Podiceps auritus NB/M w Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis B/SR w Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis B/SR w Clark's grebe Aechmophorus clarkii B/SR w Pelicaniformes (pelicans and cormorants) American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos NB/SR w Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus NB/SR w Ciconiiformes (ibis, herons, and egrets) American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus B/SR w Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis A w Great blue heron Ardea herodias NB/YR w Great egret Casmerodius albus B/SR w Snowy egret Egretta thula B/SR w Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis NB/M w Green heron Butorides striatus NB/SR w Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax B/SR w White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi B/SR w Anseriformes (ducks, geese, and swans) Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator NB/M w Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus NB/M w Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons NB/M w,g Snow goose Chen caerulescens NB/M w Ross's goose Chen rossii NB/M w Canada goose Branta canadensis NB/YR w,g Wood duck Aix sponsa B/SR w Gadwall Anas strepera B/YR w American wigeon Anas americana NB/YR w,g

H-1

BREEDING/ ORDER MIGRATORY HABITAT COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS1 TYPES2 Eurasian wigeon Anas penelope NB/M w Mallard Anas platyrhyncos B/YR w Blue-winged teal Anas discors B/SR w Garganey Anas querquedula A w Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera B/YR w Northern shoveler Anas clypeata B/YR w Northern pintail Anas acuta B/YR w Green-winged teal Anas crecca B/SR w Canvasback Aythya valisineria B/YR w Redhead Aythya americana B/YR w Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris B/YR w Greater Scaup Aythya marila NB/M w Lesser scaup Aythya affinis B/YR w Surf scoter Melanitta persoicillata A w White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca NB/M w Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus A w Long-tailed duck Clangula hyernalis A w Bufflehead Bucephala albeola NB/YR w Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula NB/WR w Barrow's goldeneye Bucephala islandica NB/M w Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus NB/WR w Common merganser Mergus merganser NB/WR w Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis B/YR w Tufted duck Aythya fuligula A w Falconiformes (vultures, hawks, eagles, and falcons) Turkey vulture Cathartes aura NB/SR g Osprey Pandion haliaetus NB/SR r White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus NB/SR g,w Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus NB/YR w,r Northern harrier Circus cyaneus B/YR w,g Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus NB/YR r,w Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii NB/YR r,w Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis NB/M w Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus NB/M r Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni B/SR g,r Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis B/YR g,r Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis NB/M g

H-2

BREEDING/ ORDER MIGRATORY HABITAT COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS1 TYPES2 Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus NB/WR g Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos NB/YR g,r American kestrel Falco sparverius B/YR g,r Merlin Falco columbarius NB/M w,g Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus NB/YR g Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus NB/M w,r Galliformes (turkey, quail, and pheasants) Chukar Alectoris chukar A g Ring-necked pheasant* Phasianus colchicus* B/YR g,w,r Sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus NB/YR g California quail Callipepla californica B/YR g,r Mountain quail Oerortyx pictus A g Gruiformes (cranes and rails) Virginia rail Rallus limicola B/SR w Sora Porzana carolina B/SR w American coot Fulica americana B/YR w Sandhill crane Grus canadensis B/SR w,g Charadriiformes (shorebirds and gulls) Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola NB/M w Snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus NB/SR w Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus NB/M w Killdeer Charadrius vociferus B/YR w,g Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus B/SR w American avocet Recurvirostra americana B/SR w Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca NB/YR w Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes NB/M w Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria NB/SR w Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus B/SR w Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia B/SR w Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus B/SR w,g Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa NB/M w Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla A w Western sandpiper Calidris mauri NB/SR w Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla NB/SR w Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos A w Dunlin Calidris alpina NB/M w

H-3

BREEDING/ ORDER MIGRATORY HABITAT COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS1 TYPES2 Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus NB/SR w Wilson's snipe Gallinago gallinago B/SR w Wilson's phalarope Phalaropus tricolor B/SR w Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus NB/M w Franklin's gull Larus pipixcan A w Bonaparte's gull Larus philadelphia NB/M w Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis NB/YR w California gull Larus californicus NB/YR w Caspian Tern Sterna caspia NB/SR w Forster's tern Sterna forsteri B/SR w Black tern Childonias niger B/SR w Columbiformes (pigeons and doves) Rock pigeon* Columba livia* B/YR g,r Mourning dove Zenaida macroura B/YR g,r Cuculiformes (cuckoos and roadrunners) Western yellow-billed Coccyzus americanus cuckoo occidentalis NB/SR r Strigiformes (owls) Barn owl Tyto alba B/YR r Great horned owl Bubo virginianus B/YR r,g Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia B/SR g Great gray owl Strix nebulosa A g Long-eared owl Asio otus NB/YR r Short-eared owl Asio flammeus B/YR g Caprimulgiformes (goatsuckers and nighthawks) Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor NB/SR r,g Apodiformes (swifts and hummingbirds) Black swift Cypseloides niger A g Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi NB/SR g Black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri NB/SR r Calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope NB/SR r Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus NB/SR r

Coraciiformes (kingfishers) Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon NB/YR w, r Piciformes (woodpeckers)

H-4

BREEDING/ ORDER MIGRATORY HABITAT COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS1 TYPES2 Lewis' woodpecker Melanerpes lewis NB/M r Red-breasted sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber NB/M r Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis NB/M r Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens B/YR r Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus B/SR r Northern flicker Colaptes auratus B/YR r Passeriformes Flycatchers Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi A r Western wood pewee Contopus sordidulus NB/SR r Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii B/SR r Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus A r Hammond's flycatcher Empidonax hammondii NB/SR r Gray flycatcher Empidonax wrightii NB/SR r Dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri NB/M r Pacific-slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis NB/M r Say's phoebe Sayornis saya NB/M g Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens B/SR r Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis B/SR r,g Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus NB/SR g Shrikes Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus NB/YR g Northern shrike Lanius excubitor NB/WR g Vireos Cassin's vireo Vireo cassinii NB/SR r Hutton's vireo Vireo huttoni A r Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus NB/SR r Corvids Gray jay Perisoreus Canadensis A g,r Steller’s jay Cyanocitta stelleri NB/M g,r Western scrub jay Aphelocoma californica NB/YR r Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus A g,r Black-billed magpie Pica pica B/YR r American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos NB/SR r Common raven Corvus corax NB/YR g,r Larks, Swallows and Chickadee Horned lark Eremophila alpestris NB/YR g

H-5

BREEDING/ ORDER MIGRATORY HABITAT COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS1 TYPES2 Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor B/SR r, w Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina NB/SR r, w Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis B/SR w,g Bank swallow Riparia riparia B/SR w Cliff swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota B/SR w Barn swallow Hirundo rustica B/SR r, w Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus A r Mountain chickadee Poecile gambeli NB/YR r Titmice and Bushtit Juniper titmouse Baeolophus griseus NB/YR r Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus NB/WR r Nuthatches and Creeper Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis NB/SR r Brown creeper Certhia americana NB/M r Wrens, Kinglets, Bluebirds, and Thrushes Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus NB/SR g Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii NB/M r House wren Troglodytes aedon B/SR r Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes NB/M r Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris B/YR w Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa NB/M r Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula NB/M r Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea NB/M r Western bluebird Sialia mexicana NB/M r, g Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides NB/YR g Townsend’s solitare Myadestes townsendi NB/WR r Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus NB/M r Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus NB/SR r American robin Turdus migratorius B/YR r Varied thrush Ixoreus naevius A r Thrashers, Pipits, Waxwings, and Starlings Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos A r Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus B/SR g European starling* Sturnus vulgaris* B/YR r American pipit Anthus rubescens NB/WR g,w Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum NB/WR r Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus A r

H-6

BREEDING/ ORDER MIGRATORY HABITAT COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS1 TYPES2 Warblers Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina A r Orange-crowned warbler Vermicora celata NB/M r Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla NB/M r Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia B/SR r Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica A r Magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia A r Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata NB/WR r Black-throated gray warbler Dendroica nigrescens NB/M R Townsend’s warbler Dendroica townsendi NB/M r Hermit warbler Dendroica occidentalis A r Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum A r Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata A r,w Black and white warbler Mniotilta varia A Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla A r,w Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis A r,w MacGillivray's warbler Oporornis tolmiei NB/M r Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas B/SR r,w Wilson's warbler Wilsonia pusilla NB/M r Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens NB/SR r American redstart Setophaga ruticilla A r Tanagers, Grosbeaks, and Buntings Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana NB/M r Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus NB/SR r Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena NB/SR r Towhees and Sparrows Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus NB/M r Rufous-sided towhee Pipilo maculatus NB/WR California towhee Pipilo crissalis A r American tree sparrow Spizella arborea NB/WR r Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina NB/WR r Brewer's sparrow Spizella breweri NB/SR g Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus B/SR g Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus B/SR r,g Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli NB/SR g

H-7

BREEDING/ ORDER MIGRATORY HABITAT COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS1 TYPES2 Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis B/YR g Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca NB/M fr Song sparrow Melospiza melodia B/YR r, w Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza lincolnii NB/M r Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana A w White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis NB/M r,g White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys NB/WR r,g Golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla NB/M r,g Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis NB/WR r Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus A g Blackbirds, Meadowlarks, and Orioles Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus A g Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus B/YR w,g Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor B/SR w,g Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta B/YR g Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus B/YR w Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus B/YR r,g Great-tailed grackle Quiscalus mexicanus A w Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula A Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater B/SR r,g Scott’s oriole Icterus parisorum A r Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii B/SR r Finches Grey-crowned rosy- finch Leucosticte tephrocotis A r Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus A r House finch Carpodacus mexicanus B/YR r Common redpoll Carduelis flammea A r Pine siskin Carduelis pinus NB/WR r Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria B/YR r American goldfinch Carduelis tristis NB/YR r Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus NB/YR r House sparrow* Passer domesticus* B/YR r

H-8

Table 2. Mammal species occurring on Modoc Refuge (*– non-native species)

ORDER/COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Insectivora (shrews and moles) Merriam shrew Sorex merriami Broad-footed mole Scapanus latimanus Chiroptera (bats) Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus California bat Myotis californicus Western small footed bat Myotis ciliolabrum Western long-eared bat Myotis evotis Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus Fringed bat Myotis thysanodes Yuma bat Myotis yumanensis Long-legged bat Myotis volans Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis Rodentia (rodents) California ground squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi Belding’s ground squirrel Spermophilus beldingi Yellow-bellied marmot Marmota flaviventris Townsend's pocket gopher Thomomys townsendii Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides Ord kangaroo rat Dipodomys ordii Chisel-toothed kangaroo rat Dipodomys microps Great Basin pocket mouse Perognathus parvus Beaver Castor canadensis Bushy-tailed woodrat Neotoma cinerea Northern grasshopper mouse Onychomys leucogaster Brush mouse Peromyscus boylii Canyon mouse Peromyscus crinitus Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Pinyon mouse Peromyscus truei Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis Sagebrush vole Lagurus curtatus Montane vole Microtus montanus Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Black rat* Rattus rattus*

H-9

ORDER/COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Norway rat* Rattus norvegicus* House mouse* Mus musculus* Western jumping mouse Zapus princeps Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Lagomorpha (rabbits and hares) Black-tailed jack rabbit Lepus californicus Nuttall’s cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii Pygmy rabbit Sylvilagus idahoensis Carnivora (carnivores) Coyote Canis latrans Mountain lion Felis concolor Bobcat Lynx rufus Raccoon Procyon lotor Mink Mustela vison Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Badger Taxidea taxus Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis Spotted skunk Spilogale gracilis River otter Lontra canadensis Artiodactyla (hoofed mammals) Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Pronghorn antelope Antilocapra americana

H-10

Table 3. Amphibian and reptile species occurring on Modoc Refuge (*– non-native species)

FAMILY/COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

AMPHIBIANS Hylidae (treefrogs) Pacific treefrog Pseudacris regilla Ranidae (true frogs) Bullfrog* Rana catesbeiana* Bufonidae (toads) Western toad Bufo boreas Scaphiopodidae (spadefoots) Great Basin spadefoot Spea intermontana

REPTILES Emydidae (turtles) Red-eared slider* Trachemys scirpta* Northwestern pond turtle Clemmys marmorata marmorata Phrynosomatidae (iguanid lizards) Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis Sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus Short-horned lizard Phrynosoma douglasii Side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana Crotaphytidae (collard lizards) Collard lizard Crotaphytus collaris Long-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia wislizenii Scincidae (skinks) Western skink Eumeces skiltonianus Teiidae (ground lizards) Western whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris Boidae (boas) Rubber boa Charina bottae Colubridae (Colubrid snakes) Western yellow-bellied racer Coluber constrictor Gopher snake Pituophis catenifer Striped whipsnake Masticophis taeniatus Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis Western terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans Viperidae (vipers) Western rattlesnake Crotalis viridis

H-11

Table 4. Fish species occurring on Modoc Refuge (*– non-native species; A – anadromous, R – resident)

FAMILY/COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Petromyzontidae (lamprey) Pit-Klamath brook lamprey Lampetra lethophaga Salmonidae (salmon and trout) Rainbow Trout* Oncorhynchus mykiss* Brown trout* Salmo trutta* Goose Lake redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss spp. Cyprinidae (minnow) Tui chub Gila bicolor Hardhead Mylopharodon conocephalus Sacramento pike minnow Ptychocheilus grandis Speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus Pit roach Lavinia symmetricus Catostomidae (sucker) Sacramento sucker Catostomus occidentalis Ictaluridae (catfish) Brown bullhead* Ictalurus nebulosus* Channel catfish* Ictalurus punctatus* Centrarchidae (sunfish) Bluegill* Lepomis macrochirus* Green sunfish* Lepomis cyanellus* Largemouth bass* Micropterus salmoides* Sacramento perch* Archoplites interruptus Crappie Pomoxis spp. Cottidae (sculpin) Pit sculpin Cottus pitensis

H-12

Table 5. Plant species occurring on Modoc Refuge (* – non-native species)

Common Name Scientific Name White fir Abies concolor Yarrow Achillea millefolium Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides Letterman's needlegrass Achnatherum lettermani Needlegrass Achnatherum occidentalis Needlegrass Achnatherum spp Thurbers needlegrass Acnatherum thurberianum Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum Alta fescue (tall fescue) Agropyron spp. Corn-cockle Agrostemma githago Redtop Agrostis alba Short-awn foxtail Alopecurus aequalis Meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis Foxtail barley Alopecurus spp. Allysum Alysum alyssoides Pigweed Amaranthus spp. Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia Pussytoes Antennaria spp. Dogbane Apocynum spp. Black sage Artemisia arbuscula White sagebrush Artemisia ludoviciana Big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata Aster Aster spp. Milkvetch Astragalus spp. Tobacco weed Atrichoseris spp. Cutleaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza macrophylla Arrowleaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata Sloughgrass Beckmannia syzigachne Rattlesnake brome Bromus briziformis California brome Bromus carinatus Smooth brome Bromus inermis Japanese brome Bromus japonicus Chess brome Bromus secalinus Cheatgrass* Bromus tectorum Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens Mariposa lily Calochortus spp. Sun cups Camissonia tanacetifolia Lesser panicled sedge Carex diandra Nebraska sedge Carex nebrascensis Sedge Carex spp. Beaked sedge Carex utriculata Indian paintbrush Castilleja affinis Mouse-ear chickweed Cerastium spp. Mountain mahogany Cercocarpus betuloides

H-13

Common Name Scientific Name Mountain mahogany Cercocarpus ledifolius Chenactis Chaenactis spp. Lamb's quarter Chenopodium album Rubber rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Bull thistle* Cirsium vulgare Canada thistle* Cirsium arvense Maiden blue eyed Mary Collinsia parviflora Poison hemlock* Conuim maculatum Bindweed* Convolvulus spp. Hawksbeard Crepis spp. Cryptantha Cryptantha crassisepala Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata California oatgrass Danthonia californica One-spike oatgrass Danthonia unispicata Wild carrot Daucus carota Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa Slender hairgrass Deschampsia elongata Tansy mustard Descurainia sophia Teasel* Dipsacus fullonum Saltgrass Distichlis spicata Spring draba Draba verna Watergrass Echinochloa crus-galli Spikerush Eleocharis spp. Squirreltail Elymus elymoides Blue wildrye Elymus glaucus Willow herb Epilobium spp. Horsetail Equisetum spp. Daisy Erigeron spp. Annual buckwheat Eriogonum anuum Wild buckwheat Eriogonum spp. Filaree Erodium spp. Cranes bill Erodium spp. Button celery Eryngium spp. Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis Annual fescues Festuca spp. Bedstraw Galium spp. Kitchenweed Gayophytum racemosum Guaphalium Gnaphalium spp. Gumplant Grindelia spp. Mannagrass Gylceria spp. Woolly weed Hieracium scouleri Marestail Hippurus vulgaris Meadow barley Hordeum brachyantherum Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum Wild flag iris Iris setosa Poverty weed Iva axillaris

H-14

Common Name Scientific Name Rush Juncus balticus Sierra juniper Juniperus occidentalis Junegrass Koeleria macrantha Chinese lettuce Lactuca sativa Wild pea Lathyrus spp. Clasping pepperweed Lepidium perfoliatum Perennial pepperweed* Lepidium latifolium Peppergrass Lepidium spp. Prickly phlox Leptodactylon californicum Lewisia Lewisia rediviva Giant wildrye Leymus cinereus Beardless (creeping) wildrye Leymus triticoides Meadowfoam Limnanthes spp. Puccoon Lithospermum caroliniense Hairyseed lomatium Lomatium foeniculatum subsp. macdouglii Birds-foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus Lupine Lupinus spp. Inchigh lupine Lupinus uncialis Mallow Malva spp. Hoarhound Marrubium vulgare Marsilea Marsilea spp. Blazing star Mentzelia spp. Mat muhly Muhlenbergia richardsonis Forget-me-not Myosotis spp. Yellow pond lily Nuphar lutea polysepala Scotch thistle* Onopordum acanthium Penstemon Penstemon spp. Phacelia Phacelia spp. Reed canary grass* Phalaris arundinacea Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa Plectritis Plectritis spp. Bulbous bluegrass Poa bulbosa Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis Sandburg's bluegrass Poa secunda Alkali bluegrass Poa secunda juncifolia Nevada bluegrass Poa secunda nevadensis Smartweed Polygonum spp. Rabbitfoot grass Polypogon monspeliensis Wild dill Polytaenia nuttallii Cottonwood Populus fremontii Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides Cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis Cinquefoil Potentilla spp. Chokecherry Prunus virginiana Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata Tuber starwort Pseudostellaria jamesiana Bitterbrush Purshia tridentata

H-15

Common Name Scientific Name Gooseberry Ribes spp. Wild rose Rosa spp. Sheep sorrel Rumex acetosella Dock Rumex spp. Willow Salix spp. Mediterranean sage* Salvia aethiopis Burnet Sanguisorba spp. Greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus Tule Schoenoplectus acutus Chairmakers bulrush Schoenoplectus americanus Hedge mustard Sisymbrium spp. Idaho blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium idahoense European burreed Sparganium emersum Chickweed Stellaria spp. Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus Medusa-head* Taniatherum caput-medusae Horse brush Tetradymia spp. Intermediate wheatgrass Thinopyrum intermedium Pennycress Thlaspi arvense Goatsbeard Tragopogon dubius Salsify Tragopogon porrifolius Spanish clover Trifolium gemellum Cattail Typha latifolia Stinging nettle Urtica dioica Mullein Verbascum spp. Flannel mullein Verbascum thapsus Water speedwell Veronica anagallis-aquatica Mules ears Wyethia spp. Cocklebur* Xanthium spinosum Death camas Zigadenus spp.

H-16 Appendix I. Applicable Laws and Executive Orders and Relationships to Federal, State, and Local Policies and Plans This appendix contains an overview of laws, executive orders, polices, and plans created by Federal, State and local agencies with jurisdiction in the vicinity of Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Table 1 contains a list of applicable laws and executive orders that may affect the Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s implementation of the CCP. A brief description of the law, executive order, policy, or plan is included as well as how it relates to the CCP.

Federal Government

Table 1. Applicable laws and executive orders Law, Regulation, or Guideline Description Relation to the CCP

Agency Coordination

Executive Order No. 12372, Requires that Federal agencies afford Copies of this environmental Intergovernmental Review other agencies review of documents assessment were sent to the of Federal Programs. associated with Federal programs. California State Clearinghouse, Federal and State agencies, and local governments.

Human Rights Regulations

Executive Order 12898, Requires Federal agencies to consider the The proposed action will not Environmental Justice. effects of projects and policies on minority have a disproportionately high February 11, 1994 and lower income population. Provides for and adverse human health or Americans with Disabilities access to Federal facilities for the disabled. environmental effect on Act of 1990 minority populations and low- income populations. The proposed action promotes reasonable and appropriate uses of the land that preserve the natural character and protect the natural resources of the area.

Cultural Resources Regulations

Antiquities Act of 1906 This act authorizes the scientific The Service will continue to investigation of antiquities on Federal comply with this Act under land. It prohibits and provides penalties the CCP. for unauthorized search for or collection of artifacts or other objects of scientific interest. The Act also authorizes the president to establish national monuments and cultural areas on Federal lands. Archaeological Resources Protects materials of archeological interest The Service will continue to Protection Act of 1979 (PL from unauthorized removal or destruction comply with this Act under 96-95; 93 STAT 722; 16 USC and requires Federal managers to develop the CCP. 470aa-47011), as amended plans to locate archeological resources.

I-1 Law, Regulation, or Guideline Description Relation to the CCP Executive Order No. 11593, States that if the Service proposes any The Service will continue to Protection and development activities that may affect comply with this Order under Enhancement of the archaeological or historical sites, the the CCP. Cultural Environment Service will consult with Federal and State Historic Preservation Officers to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Native American Graves Regulations for the treatment of Native The Service will continue to Protection and Repatriation American graves, human remains, funeral comply with this Act under Act of 1990 (PL 101-601; 25 objects, sacred objects, and other objects the CCP. USC 3001 et seq.) of cultural patrimony. Requires consultation with Native American Tribes during Federal project planning. Executive Order 13007, Provides for access to, and ceremonial use The Service will continue to Indian Sacred Sites. 24 of, Indian sacred sites on Federal lands comply with this Order under May, 1996 used by Indian religious practitioners and the CCP. direction to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sites. American Indian Religious Provides for freedom of Native Americans The Service will continue to Freedom Act 1978 (PL 95- to believe, express, and exercise their comply with this Act under 341; 92 STAT 469; 42 USC traditional religion, including access to the CCP. 1996) important sites. Archaeological and Historic Provides for the preservation of historical The Service will continue to Preservation Act of 1974 buildings, sites, and objects of national comply with this Act under (PL 93-291; 88 STAT 174; 16 significance. the CCP. USC 469) National Historic Requires Federal agencies to consider the The Service will continue to Preservation Act of 1966 effects of any actions or programs on comply with this Act under (PL 89-665; 50 STAT 915; 16 historical properties. the CCP. USC 470 et seq.; 36 CFR 800), as amended

Biological Resources Regulations

Endangered Species Act of Provides for protection of plants, fish, and An Intra-Service Section 7 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.), wildlife that have a designation as will be completed with the as amended threatened or endangered. Service and with NOAA- Fisheries for endangered and threatened species on the Refuges. National Environmental Requires analysis, public comment, and The public has been notified of Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC reporting for environmental impacts of the availability of the draft 4321 et seq) Federal actions. Environmental Assessment and had a 45-day period to provide comments.

I-2 Law, Regulation, or Guideline Description Relation to the CCP Executive Order 13186, Instructs Federal agencies to conserve The Service has incorporated Responsibilities of Federal migratory birds by several means, the strategies and Agencies to Protect including the incorporation of strategies recommendations of the listed Migratory Birds. Jan. 10, and recommendations found in Partners in management plans into the 2001. Flight Bird Conservation Plans, the North CCP to conserve migratory American Waterfowl Plan, the North birds. The Service will American Waterbird Conservation Plan, continue to comply with this and the United States Shorebird Order under the CCP. Conservation Plan, into agency management plans and guidance documents. Fish and Wildlife Requires the Service to monitor non-game The Service will continue to Conservation Act of 1980 bird species, identify species of comply with this Act under (16 USC 661-667e), as management concern, and implement the CCP. amended conservation measures to preclude the need for listing under ESA. The Bald and Golden Eagle Provides protection for bald and golden The Service will continue to Protection Act of 1940 (16 eagles. comply with this Act under USC 668 et seq.) the CCP. Migratory Bird Treaty Act Provides protection for bird species that The Service will continue to of 1918, as amended migrate across state and international comply with this Act under boundaries. the CCP. Clean Air Act of 1963, as Provides for the protection of air quality. The Service will continue to amended ( USC Regulates air emissions from area, comply with this Act under stationary, and mobile sources. the CCP. The Clean Water Act of Provides for protection of water quality. The Service will continue to 1972, Section 404 (33 USC comply with this Act under 1344 et seq.), as amended the CCP. Fish and Wildlife Act of Provides Secretary of Interior with The Service will continue to 1956 (16 USC 742a-743j) authority to protect and manage fish and comply with this Act under wildlife resources. the CCP. National Wildlife Refuge Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 The Service will continue to System Volunteer and to promote volunteer programs and promote volunteer programs Community Partnership community partnerships for the benefit of and community partnerships Enhancement Act (1998) national wildlife refuges, and for other under the CCP. purposes. Fish and Wildlife Requires equal consideration and The Service will continue to Coordination Act of 1958 coordination of wildlife conservation with comply with this Act under other water resource development the CCP. programs. Emergency Wetlands Promotes the conservation of migratory The Service will continue to Resources Act of 1986 waterfowl and offsets or prevent the comply with this Act under serious loss of wetlands by the acquisition the CCP. of wetlands and other essential habitats.

I-3 Law, Regulation, or Guideline Description Relation to the CCP Federal Noxious Weed Act Requires the use of integrated The Service will continue to of 1990 management systems to control or contain comply with this Act under undesirable plant species, and an the CCP. interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other Federal and State agencies. Executive Order 13112, Directs federal agencies to prevent The Service will continue to Invasive Species, 1999 introduction and provide control of comply with this Act under invasive species. the CCP. Rivers and Harbor Act of Requires authorization by the U.S. Army The Service will continue to 1899 Corps of Engineers prior to any work in, comply with this Act under on, over, and under a navigable water of the CCP. the U.S.

Hazardous Materials Regulations

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Provides oil pollution policies and The Service will continue to (PL 101-380; 33 USC 2701, protections. comply with this Act under et seq.) the CCP. Comprehensive Provides mechanism for hazardous waste No evidence of contaminants Environmental Response, clean up. or hazardous waste was Compensation, and Liability identified in the project area. Act of 1980 (PL 96-510; 42 USC 9601, et seq.)

Land and Water Use Regulations

The National Wildlife Administration, management, and The Service determined that Refuge System planning for National Wildlife Refuges, hunting, wildlife observation, Administration Act of 1966 Amends the National Wildlife Refuge photography, environmental (16 USC 668dd-668ee), System Administration Act of 1966. education, interpretation, National Wildlife Refuge Requires development of CCPs for all research, grazing, plant System Improvement Act of refuges outside of Alaska. gathering, bicycling, 1997 (PL 105-57) commercial photography, and mosquito and other vector control are compatible with the purposes for which the Refuges were established. This document will satisfy this Act.

I-4 Law, Regulation, or Guideline Description Relation to the CCP Executive Order No. 11988, Provides for the support, preservation, and No structure that could either Floodplain Management enhancement of the natural and beneficial be damaged by or values of floodplains. significantly influence the movement of floodwater in the project area is planned for construction by the Service, thus the proposed action is consistent with this Order. Executive Order No. 11990, Provides for the conservation of the The Service plans no Protection of Wetlands natural and beneficial values of wetlands detrimental impacts to and their associated habitats. wetlands but plans to preserve wetlands in the project area, thus the proposed action is consistent with this Order. The Refuge Recreation Act Provides for recreation use that is The Service determined that of 1962, as amended compatible with the primary purpose of a hunting, wildlife observation, refuge. photography, environmental education, interpretation, research, grazing, plant gathering, bicycling, commercial photography, and mosquito and other vector control are compatible with the purposes for which the Refuges were established. This document will satisfy this Act. Fish and Wildlife Improves administration of fish and The Service will continue to Improvement Act of 1978 wildlife programs and amends earlier laws comply with this Act under including Refuge Recreation Act, NWRS the CCP. Administration Act, and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. Authorizes the Secretary to accept gifts or real and personal property on behalf of the U.S. Also authorizes use of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out a volunteer program. Refuge Revenue Sharing Section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935, (49 The Service will continue to Act (16 U.S.C. 715s) Stat. 383) provided for payments to comply with this Act under counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues the CCP. derived from the sale of products from refuges.

I-5 Law, Regulation, or Guideline Description Relation to the CCP Land and Water This act provides funding through receipts The Service will continue to Conservation Fund Act of from the sale of surplus federal land, comply with this Act under 1948 appropriations from oil and gas receipts the CCP. from the outer continental shelf, and other sources of for land acquisition under several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be used for matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and for land acquisition by various federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. Migratory Bird Established the Migratory Bird The Service will continue to Conservation Act of 1929 Conservation Commission. The comply with this Act under (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, Commission approves acquisition of land the CCP. 715e,715f-715r) and water, or interests therein, and sets the priorities for acquisition of lands by the Secretary for sanctuaries or for other management purposes. Wilderness Act of 1964 Directs the Secretary of the Interior to The Refuges do not contain (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136; 78 review, within ten years, every roadless 5,000 acres of roadless land. Stat. 890) area of 5,000 acres or more and every roadless island regardless of size within the National Wildlife Refuge System and to recommend suitability of each such area.

Fish and Wildlife Service Plans, Policies and Programs Modoc Refuge is managed as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System within a framework provided by legal and policy guidelines reviewed in Chapter 1 of this CCP. The role of the Service is introduced in Chapter 1, as well as the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Service’s policies on Compatibility, Planning, Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1977 are also discussed in Chapter 1, which also provides a general overview of regulatory context. The CCP process is discussed in Chapter 2.

The Service is actively involved in the development and implementation of a number of conservation plans for migratory bird species, including the Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North American Waterbird Conservation Management Plan. Regional step-down plans specific to the area are discussed below.

I-6 North American Waterfowl Management Plan (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American Waterfowl Management Plan. U. S. Dept. of Int., Washington, D.C. 19 pp.)

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan documents the strategy between the United States, Canada, and Mexico to restore waterfowl populations through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. Implementation of the plan is at the regional level. The Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter Refuges are covered by the Central Valley Joint Venture. The Central Valley, from Red Bluff in the north to Bakersfield in the south, is the single most important waterfowl wintering area in the Pacific Flyway, supporting 60 percent of the total migrating population. Hundreds of thousands of wintering and breeding shorebirds and a host of other migratory and resident birds also depend on the wetland and agricultural resources of this region for survival. The Central Valley Joint Venture is currently in the process of updating its implementation plan, and will include goals for the conservation of breeding and wintering waterfowl, breeding and wintering shorebirds, grassland and riparian birds, and other waterbirds.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan Goals (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. Dept. of Int., Washington, D.C. 34 pp.)

 Enhance the capability of landscapes to support waterfowl and other wetland-associated species by ensuring that Plan implementation is guided by biologically based planning, which in turn is refined through ongoing evaluation.  Define the landscape conditions needed to sustain waterfowl and benefit other wetland- associated species, and participate in the development of conservation, economic, management, and social policies and programs that most affect the ecological health of these landscapes.  Collaborate with other conservation efforts, particularly migratory bird initiatives, and reach out to other sectors and communities to forge broader alliances in a collective search for sustainable uses of landscapes.  Maintain the current diversity of duck species throughout North America and achieve a continental breeding population of 62 million ducks during years with average environmental conditions, which would support a fall flight of 100 million.  Increase or reduce goose populations to sustainable levels listed in Appendix 1.  Reduce western tundra swan population to 60,000, and increase Pacific Coast trumpeter swan population to 43,200.  In the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture Area, protect 80,000 acres, restore 120,000 acres, and enhance 735,000 acres.

Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in California (Intermountain West Joint Venture. 2005. Coordinated implementation plan for bird conservation in California. 31pp.)

The mission of the Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) is to facilitate the long-term conservation of key avian habitat including planning, funding, and developing habitat projects that benefit all biological components of Intermountain ecosystems.

I-7 They achieve this mission by developing partnerships with private and public landowners who support habitat conservation. The IWJV promotes the restoration and maintenance of all bird populations and fosters the protection, restoration, and enhancement of wetlands, riparian habitats, and the widely diverse uplands characteristic of the region.

The habitat goals and objectives for the IWJV portion of California, which relate to Modoc Refuge, are as follows:

Priority A Habitats High overall rating: high to medium value to birds, high to medium threat, high to medium opportunity for protection, restoration, and or enhancement of habitat.

Wet Meadow Goal: Protect wet meadow habitat wherever it occurs within California Bird Habitat Conservation Areas (BHCA) in the IWJV. Objective: Protect wet meadow within California BHCAs (12,069 acres) at a rate of 10 percent (1,209 acres) per year between 2005 and 2015.

Palustrine Emergent Wetlands Goal: Protect palustrine emergent wetland habitat wherever it occurs within California BHCAs in the IWJV.

Objective: Protect palustrine emergent wetland habitat within California BHCAs (25,871 acres) at a rate of 10 percent (2,587 acres) per year between 2005 and 2015.

Riparian/Riverine Wetlands Goal: Protect riparian/riverine wetland habitat wherever it occurs within California BHCAs in the IWJV.

Objective: Protect riparian/riverine wetland habitat within California BHCAs (6,397 acres) at a rate of 10 percent (640 acres) per year between 2005 and 2015.

Grasslands Goal: Protect native grassland habitat wherever it occurs within California BHCAs in the IWJV.

Objective: Protect native grassland habitat within California BHCAs (30,521 acres) at a rate of 10 percent (3,052 acres) per year between 2005 and 2015.

Sagebrush/Bitterbrush Goal: Protect sagebrush/bitterbrush habitat wherever it occurs within California BHCAs in the IWJV.

Objective: Protect sagebrush/bitterbrush habitat within California BHCAs (237,961 acres) at a rate of 10 percent (23,796 acres) per year between 2005 and 2015.

I-8 Priority B Habitats Medium overall rating: one criterion may be high (habitat value, threat, opportunity) but generally of medium importance to birds statewide.

Partners in Flight (PIF) Bird Conservation Plan (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. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, and T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American landbird conservation plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, New York)

The North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et. al 2004) summarizes geographic and habitat priorities for 449 species of landbirds across the continent. This plan includes, for the first time anywhere, estimates of continental population sizes and future population objectives for all landbirds. This plan will not replace Bird Conservation Plans, but rather will initiate a new round of dialogue on population and habitat objectives at continental, national, regional, state, and local levels. The highest priority birds (102 species) constitute the new Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List. Also included in the plan is a list of characteristic species, which include species that may not be rare or declining but which are integral to the biotic integrity of large habitats or regions. These species, along with the Watch List species, are addressed as species suites in the plan. PIF’s objective is to help land managers use the PIF plans, along with those from other bird initiatives, to undertake effective habitat conservation actions in the proper geographic context in North America.

California Partners in Flight (CalPIF) began in 1992 to promote the conservation of resident and migratory landbirds and their habitats in California through research, monitoring, education, and collaboration among public and private landowners and managers, government agencies, non- government organizations, individuals, and other bird conservation efforts. The CalPIF program has completed six habitat and bioregion based Bird Conservation Plans (BCPs) for Riparian, Oak Woodlands, Coastal Scrub and Chaparral, Grasslands, Coniferous Forests, and the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. A Shrub Steppe Plan is currently in review and a Desert Plan is in development.

CalPIF initiated the Riparian Habitat Joint Venture (RHJV) project in 1994. The goal of the RHJV is to conserve, increase, and improve riparian habitat in order to protect and enhance California's native resident birds and Neotropical migratory birds. The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan (RHJV 2004) emphasizes a suite of 17 bird species chosen because of their conservation interest and as focal species representative of riparian habitats in the state. This Conservation Plan focuses on data concerning bird species associated with riparian habitat, but conservation recommendations, if implemented, should benefit many riparian associated species.

The six objectives of the RHJV are to (1) Compile existing information on riparian habitat throughout the state to identify key riparian areas, as well as information gaps. Promote and coordinate efforts to obtain the information. (2) Develop guidelines for the protection of existing riparian habitat on public lands and recommend alternatives for protection of habitat on private lands. (3) Restore riparian habitat on public and private lands using commonly accepted, scientifically valid restoration techniques. (4) Enhance the productivity and biodiversity of riparian communities using appropriate management techniques. (5) Establish a network of high- quality riparian habitats throughout California to enhance and protect native birds. (6) Educate

I-9 the general public and resource managers about the status and value of California's riparian habitat.

Riparian Bird Conservation Plan (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture (RHJV). 2004. Version 2.0. The riparian bird conservation plan: A strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/pdfs/riparian_v- 2.pdf.)

 Increase the breeding range of native birds and safeguard healthy bird communities with high productivity.  Maximize riparian ecosystem health, promote a self-sustaining functioning system, and maximize the cost-effectiveness of riparian conservation activities.  Increase the overall breeding range and/or abundance of native riparian birds by designing and implementing horticultural restoration projects that mimic natural riparian plant diversity and “patchiness”. Such plantings will most quickly support a diverse community of bird species that can successfully nest in the restored habitat.  Increase the value of existing/ongoing habitat and restoration projects for bird species.  Ensure that large landscape-scale management and flood control projects maximize benefits to wildlife in conjunction with benefits to agriculture and urban populations. Achieving numerous goals simultaneously would maximize the overall value of such projects to the people of California.  Implement and time land-management activities with the goal of maximizing bird species productivity or “source” populations.  Protect, recreate, or minimize interruptions of natural processes, particularly hydrology and associated high-water events to allow/promote/facilitate the natural cycle of channel movement, sediment deposition, and scouring that results in a diverse mosaic of riparian vegetation classes.

Sagebrush Bird Conservation Plan (California Partners in Flight. 2005. Version 1.0. The sagebrush bird conservation plan: A strategy for protecting and managing sagebrush habitats and associated birds in California. PRBO Conservation Science, Stinson Beach, California. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans/)

Eleven species of birds were selected for consideration in this Bird Conservation Plan. Species were chosen to represent the full range of structural conditions of sagebrush communities in California. The species include: greater sage-grouse, gray flycatcher, loggerhead shrike, juniper titmouse, sage thrasher, green-tailed towhee, Brewer’s sparrow, vesper sparrow, lark sparrow, sage sparrow, and western meadowlark.

Specific goals of the Sagebrush Bird Conservation Plan are to  present an overview of the complex conservation issues affecting California’s sagebrush habitats including altered fire regimes, loss of habitat, and woodland expansion;  promote the evaluation of impacts to landbirds when making planning decisions and carrying out management activities;  provide resources and technical support for land managers for the development of Resource Management Plans and updates and for the evaluation of management activities; and

I-10  provide resources and technical support for foundations supporting conservation work, agencies, private landowners, and conservation organizations.

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown, S., Hickey, C., Harrington, B., and Gill, R. 2001. United States shorebird conservation plan, second ed. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts. 64 pp.)

The United States Shorebird Conservation Plan was developed through a partnership effort by State and Federal agencies, non-government organizations (NGOs), academic institutions, and individuals committed to restoring and maintaining stable shorebird populations in the U.S. and throughout the Western Hemisphere (Brown et al. 2001). The Southern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan (Hickey et. al 2003) establishes regional goals and objectives for the western California Coast and Central Valley. Important shorebird habitats identified under this plan in the Central Valley include managed wetlands, agricultural fields and vernal pool rangelands.

Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan (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. 55 pp.)

The IMW plan has five goals and associated objectives and strategies. These goals are as follows:  Habitat Management. Maintain and enhance diverse landscapes that sustain thriving shorebird populations by working to protect, restore and manage shorebird habitat.  Monitoring and Assessment. Acquire information on shorebird distribution and abundance needed for shorebird conservation, by developing monitoring and assessment programs responsive to local, regional and national needs.  Research. Gather new information to facilitate shorebird conservation. This information will deal with the ecology of salt lakes and playas, major shorebird predators, and shorebird species of special conservation concern.  Outreach. Develop an informed and supportive constituency for long-term shorebird conservation through implementation of region-wide outreach programs.  Planning. Achieve regional cooperation for shorebird conservation by developing a process to facilitate planning among states and agencies, and working toward integration of shorebird concerns with land management plans.

Modoc Refuge falls into the Great Basin BCR. The Great Basin BCR is an extremely important region that includes the interior drainage systems of Nevada (entire state except extreme south), western Utah, eastern California, southeastern Oregon, and southern Idaho. The Great Basin BCR also includes areas of northeastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and southern Idaho that are outside of the Great Basin proper, thus extending beyond the true hydrological Great Basin. The area includes numerous small and large wetlands, a number of which are among the most important on the continent for shorebirds. Other wetlands in the area may be of slightly lesser import to shorebirds but are very heavily used by other wetland bird species. Numerous areas are of moderate importance to breeding and transient shorebirds. Thousands of ephemeral wetlands and streams, and numerous man-made lakes occur in the region. The Great Basin is not important as a wintering area for shorebirds.

I-11 Breeding shorebirds in the Great Basin include: snowy plover, long-billed curlew, American avocet, black-necked stilt, killdeer, willet, spotted sandpiper, Wilson’s phalarope, and Wilson’s snipe. Enormous numbers of shorebirds stage in or pass through the Great Basin including: Wilson’s phalarope, red-necked phalarope, American avocet, long-billed dowitcher, marbled godwit, western sandpiper, and least sandpiper.

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan, J. A., M. J. Steinkamp, K. C. Parsons, J. Capp, M. Acosta 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, Washington, D.C., 78 pp.)

The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP) provides an overarching continental framework and guide for conserving waterbirds. It sets forth goals and priorities for waterbirds in all habitats from the Canadian Arctic to Panama, from Bermuda through the U.S. Pacific Islands, at nesting sites, during annual migrations, and during non-breeding periods. It advocates continent-wide monitoring; provides an impetus for regional conservation planning; proposes national, state, provincial and other local conservation planning and action; and gives a larger context for local habitat protection.

The vision of the NAWCP is the distribution, diversity, and abundance of breeding, migratory, and non-breeding waterbirds are sustained or restored throughout North America, Central American, and the Caribbean. Four goals were established in the plan (Kushlan et. al 2002) to accomplish this vision: (1) species and population goal, (2) habitat goal, (3) education and information goal, and (4) coordination and integration goal. A regional step-down plan for the Pacific Coast will focus on key species and habitats and develop specific goals and objectives for management, monitoring, research and outreach.

Species and Population Strategies  Determine population status for all species of waterbirds throughout North America, Central America, and the Caribbean.  Institute a large scale, dispersed, partnership-based population monitoring system.  Initiate monitoring of demography, habitats, wintering range, and important threats, such as seabird bycatch, as appropriate for species and areas.  Develop analytical tools and analytical schemes to determine and assess population trends against trend thresholds for each species.  Define sustainable population goals for all species, at regional scales as possible and as needed, and eventually at the continental scale.  Determine the extent and root causes of public perception of waterbirds, particularly locally abundant species, and develop programs that help bring public perception in line with scientific and economic findings.  Energize Joint Ventures and agencies to take responsibility for setting and achieving population goals through appropriate management.  Develop a global perspective on populations to aid in interpretation of population trends.  Synthesize information to identify key factors affecting populations in order to take appropriate conservation action.

I-12 Habitat Strategies  Identify key marine, freshwater, and terrestrial habitats for waterbirds, including breeding, wintering, migratory, roosting, and foraging habitats.  Implement conservation and management actions that secure important habitats.  Increase understanding of waterbird habitat requirements, threats to habitat quality, and habitat interaction at different scales.  Develop and implement habitat management plans for waterbirds for each planning unit.  Identify, inventory and document key sites that potentially qualify as global, continental, national, or state Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and other key sites for waterbirds.  Refine and continually update the list and description of IBAs for waterbirds.

Education and Information Strategies  Ensure that information on waterbird conservation is available in a form that is useful for planning, implementation, and management purposes.  Increase effectiveness of communication by partnering with outreach activities for other birds and for other environmental programs.  Develop relationships with educators of all levels and participate in programs that increase awareness and improve education.  Develop and widely distribute educational information on habitat conservation strategies.  Work with users of waterbird habitats to promote practices and policies that reduce impacts on the birds.

Coordination and Integration Strategies  Establish cooperative actions with organizations concerned with the conservation, research, and management of waterbirds and their habitats.  Establish cooperative actions with other bird conservation initiatives, particularly through common goal setting, and multi-species approaches such as advocated by North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI).  Establish cooperative linkages with other bird conservation initiatives concerned with aquatic habitats.  When initiatives for other aquatic bird groups are not underway, catalyze simultaneous planning and conservation of all water-dependent bird species.  Seek to achieve integrated bird conservation action that incorporates the needs of waterbirds.  Exchange information and expertise with international, national, regional state/provincial and local partners, and establish networks between conservationists, scientists, and habitat managers.  Develop waterbird plans, where appropriate, at national, regional, JV, and state/provincial levels.  Influence environmental policies and programs to positively affect waterbird conservation.  Participate in international programs in ways that enhance the conservation of waterbirds.  Increase human and financial resources available for waterbird conservation.

I-13 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (IWWCP) (Ivey, G. L., and C. P. Herziger, coordinators. 2005. Intermountain West waterbird conservation plan—A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas initiative, version 1.0. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region, Portland, Oregon.)

The ultimate measure of success of the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (IWWCP) will be how well it meets the stated goal of “maintenance of healthy populations, distributions, and habitats of waterbirds throughout the Intermountain West region.” A number of actions will be required to achieve this goal and further waterbird conservation in the Intermountain West, including the following:

 Acquiring sufficient information about the population dynamics, population trends, breeding, migration and staging strategies, and habitat preferences of waterbirds in the region to make knowledgeable management recommendations.  Preserving and enhancing sufficient high-quality habitat to support healthy populations in the region and securing the water needed to support these habitat values.  Ensuring that coordinated conservation efforts (regional, national, and international) are in place to address the key conservation priorities of waterbirds. Collaboration should occur between partners within and between states, BCRs, and other regions, as well as internationally, to achieve conservation objectives.  Facilitate communication by informing the public, decision-makers, and all those involved in land management in the region about the importance of the region to waterbirds, and about the biology, trends, and management of waterbird species. Lobby for legislation and funding to further aquatic bird conservation.  Implement regional monitoring, coordinated at all levels and support priority research projects. Develop statistically sound, defensible estimates of abundance and population trends for key waterbird species in the Intermountain West.  Resolve conservation issues at important sites.  Update the IWWCP and refine population and habitat objectives and conservation strategies.  An inventory of existing wetland habitats is also needed to further this plan. Partners should lobby for complete National Wetland Inventory coverage in this region.  Track accomplishments and celebrate successes.

State of California California Wildlife Action Plan, California Wildlife Conservation Challenges (California Department of Fish and Game. 2005c. California wildlife conservation challenges, California’s wildlife action plan. Prepared by U.C. Davis Wildlife Health Center for the California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. 624 pp.)

Conservation actions were considered for each region, based on the stressors and circumstances of the regions. Statewide conservation actions are those actions that are important across most or all regions. The following are recommended statewide conservation actions:

 The State should develop policies and incentives to facilitate better integration of wildlife conservation considerations into local and regional planning and land-use decision-making.  Permitting agencies, county planners, and land management agencies should work to ensure that infrastructure development projects are designed and sited to avoid harmful effects on sensitive species and habitats.

I-14  The State should develop policies and incentives to better integrate wildlife conservation into state and regional transportation planning. Wildlife considerations need to be incorporated early in the transportation planning process.  State and Federal agencies should work with cities and counties to secure sensitive habitats and key habitat linkages.  State and local agencies should allocate sufficient water for ecosystem uses and wildlife needs when planning for and meeting regional water supply needs.  Federal, State, and local agencies should provide greater resources and coordinate efforts to control existing occurrences of invasive species and to prevent new introductions.  Federal, State, and local agencies and nongovernmental conservation organizations, working with private landowners and public land managers, should expand efforts to restore and conserve riparian communities.  Federal, State, and local agencies and nongovernmental organizations, working with private landowners, should expand efforts to implement agricultural and rangeland management practices that are compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation.  In their conservation planning and ecosystem restoration work, state and Federal wildlife agencies and land managers should consider the most current projections of the effects of global warming.  The State and Federal governments should give greater priority to wildlife and natural resources conservation education.  The State should strengthen its capacity to implement conservation actions and to assist local agencies and landowners with planning and implementation of wildlife and habitat restoration and conservation efforts.

The following are recommended conservation actions for the Modoc Plateau Region:

 Federal land management agencies should more effectively manage forest, shrub, aspen, meadow, and riparian habitat to enhance ecosystems and conditions for wildlife.  Federal land management agencies should implement modifications to grazing management on public lands that are conducive to recovery of key habitats for restoring and conserving wildlife.  The Bureau of Land Management should update the Resource Management Plans (RMPs) to include provisions to restore and conserve wildlife diversity.  Feral horse numbers should be maintained at levels that meet the constraints imposed by law, and funds should be provided for BLM and the Forest Service to meet the standards in place for the protection of meadows and riparian areas.  The Cooperative Sagebrush Steppe Restoration Initiative and the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) should design juniper-removal projects to benefit wildlife diversity and ecosystem health.  Public forest lands should be managed to maintain healthy ecosystems and wildlife diversity, including thinning to restore diverse habitats and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. State and Federal forest managers and wildlife agencies should work cooperatively to develop a vision for the future forest condition.  Regarding forest management conservation actions, see Conservation Actions d, e, f, and g in Chapter 13, Sierra Nevada and Cascades Region.  Land management and wildlife agencies and conservation NGOs should develop an aquatic multispecies conservation plan for the Pit River watershed.

I-15 County The Modoc Refuge is located in Modoc County. Modoc County is a multi-purpose government structure directed by an elected Board of Supervisors. There are also numerous special districts within each county, which are limited-purpose governmental agencies, such as fire districts, mosquito and vector control districts, irrigation districts, and reclamation districts. Local land use policies are established in the general plans of each county, which are adopted by the respective Boards of Supervisors. The Modoc County General Plan (1988) – The Refuge is entirely within the “Conservation and Open Space” Land use designation.

The local land use polices of Modoc County that relate to management of the Refuge are summarized below.

GOAL: To preserve, protect, and enhance the valuable natural, cultural, and historical resources of the county.

Wildlife

 Support the efforts of public land management agencies to protect wildlife habitat on public lands.  Maintain countywide consistency in the types of fish and wildlife protection measures for mitigating adverse impacts on critical or sensitive wildlife habitats on a case-by-case basis. Similar consistency is desirable for protection measures for threatened and endangered species.  Specific requirements to be considered for mitigation adverse impacts on critical or sensitive wildlife habitats, including habitat important to threatened and endangered species, shall be on a case-by-case basis with adequate consideration given to landowner needs.  Continue to implement the Day Areas Specific Plan.

Water

 Encourage the increased development and use of surface water.  Cooperate with responsible agencies and organizations to solve water quality problems particularly septic system related problems.  Work with the agricultural community to resolve any groundwater overdraft problems.  Adopt as part of the General Plan, the Surprise Valley Ground Water Recharge Protection Areas map, to assure the continued protection of the identified areas through the development permit process. The criteria for review are contained in the action program.  Require adequate domestic water supply for all rural subdivisions.

Timber/Vegetation

 Enhance the timber resources through a county-wide conservation program.  Ensure compatibility of rural development with valued timberland resources.  Protect timber resources through vegetation programs.  Protect timber resources for its wildlife habitat and scenic resources.  Protect officially listed rare and endangered plants in Modoc County which contribute to the natural diversity of plant life.

I-16 Minerals

 Preserve, wherever practical, the mineral resources of the county through limitations on incompatible development on or adjacent to identified resource areas.  Minimize unattractive views through reclamation of mined sites.

Geothermal

 Encourage the wise use of geothermal resources in the county.  Continue efforts to use geothermal energy for public building space heating and warm water use.  Designate industrial land uses adjacent to appropriately located geothermal resources.

Parks and Recreation

 Support enhancement of existing park and recreation resources for both tourist and resident use.  Encourage the development of private recreation facilities.

Historic Development

 Develop a program to preserve and enhance historic and cultural building and places of significance.  Minimize impacts of cultural and historic sites for any proposed development, including the protection of sites on Federal and State historic lists.

Archeological

 Minimize the loss of archeological resources through the development review and approval process.

I-17 Appendix J. List of Planning Team Members and Persons Responsible for Preparing this Document

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Core Planning Team

Steve Clay Project Leader, Modoc NWR Sean Cross Assistant Manager, Modoc NWR Jacqueline Ferrier Refuge Planner, Sacramento NWRC

Richard Shinn Wildlife Habitat Supervisor, California Dept. of Fish and Game

Contractor

Paul Uncapher Program Manager, North State Resources, Inc. Ginger Bolen Project Manager, North State Resources, Inc. Charles Shoemaker GIS Manager

Reviewers

Dave Goheen Fire Management Officer, Klamath Basin NWRC Barry Christenson Refuge Operations, Region 8 Nancy Hoffman Asst. Refuge Supervisor, Region 8 Margaret Kolar Assistant Regional Director for Refuges, Region 8 Mark Pelz Chief of Refuge Planning, Region 8 Anan Raymond Chief of Cultural Resources, Region 1 Patricia Roberson NEPA/Policy Coordinator, Region 8 Art Shine Chief of Visitor Services, Region 8 Richard Smith Refuge Planning, Region 8 Scott Stevens Chief of Refuge Law Enforcement, Region 8 Doug Waggoner Fire Management Coordinator, Region 8 Dan Walsworth Refuge Supervisor, Region 8

J-1 Appendix K. Response to Comments

1. Introduction This appendix contains a detailed summary of all comments that were received in response to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) during the official public comment period. Public comments on the Draft CCP/EA were accepted from June 15, 2009 to July 30, 2009. Any additional comments received up until August 17, 2009 were also accepted and analyzed.

All comments were reviewed and organized so that an objective analysis and presentation of the comments could be made (Section 2). Note that for the sake of simplicity, the word “letter” is generally used throughout this appendix to refer to any comment received, whether by letter, fax, postcard, email, comment sheet, or telephone call. A database was created to help analyze the nature and extent of the range of comments received. Refuge responses are included in Section 3. The names and affiliations of all of the people who commented are listed in Section 4. Section 5 explains and summarizes the changes made between the Draft and Final versions of the CCP/EA. In cases where a letter pointed out a minor typographical or editorial error in the Draft CCP/EA, the change was made in the Final CCP/EA but no response is included in this summary.

2. Quantitative Analysis of Comments Received

2.1 Summary of Comments Received on the Draft CCP/EA and the Response Process

The Refuge received 82 comment letters (via letter, fax, postcard, email, comment card, phone conversation, and flipchart comment) on the Modoc Refuge CCP/EA during the comment period.

1.2.1 Public Meetings

To facilitate public review and comment on the Draft CCP/EA, the Refuge hosted a public meeting on July 1, 2009 at the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge. Refuge staff made formal presentations and provided time for questions and comments at the meeting. Refuge staff and visual aids were also available at each topical station to facilitate dialog. Hardcopies and CDs of the Draft CCP/EA were available for the public to review and take with them.

At the meeting, the public was invited to provide comments on the contents of the Draft CCP/EA. Comment sheets were provided and comments were recorded on flipcharts. The public meeting was attended by a wide range of people, including staff from Federal, State, and local agencies; representatives of organizations; neighbors of the Refuge; and other members of the public. The meeting was held in the evening from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

1.2.2 Affiliations

Table 1 provides a summary of the affiliation of commenters. Names and entities of the commenters are listed in Section 4. Many of the comments received had letterhead and signatures from various agencies, organizations, and businesses; however, unless the entity was specifically represented in the comment, the comment was left in the general public affiliation type.

K-1 Table 1. Commenter Affiliation Affiliation Type Number of Letters Received

Federal Agencies 2 Local Agencies 2 Organizations 1 77 (includes 35 flip chart General Public comments) TOTAL 82

1.2.3 Comment Media

Comments were received in a variety of formats during this process, including letters, e-mails, faxes, phone conversations, and comment cards distributed by refuge staff (primarily at the public meeting) to facilitate the comment process. Flipchart comments and questions recorded during the public meeting have also been included in this summary. A hardcopy of the Draft CCP/EA was placed at local libraries (Modoc County Library and Cedarville Branch Library) for review.

The distribution of media type is summarized below in Table 2. If an individual submitted a comment letter using more than one type of media, then it was counted as a single entry in Table 2. For example, if an individual emailed a comment letter and sent the same letter via fax, then it was counted as one entry in this analysis. The Refuge considered all comments received as part of the decision-making process.

Table 2. Type of Media Used Type of Media Number Received Letter 2 E-mail 39 In person 4 Phone 1 Comment Card 1 Flipchart Comment 35 TOTAL 82

2.2 Quantitative Summary of Comments Received

Section 3 of this Appendix presents a summary of specific comments received, followed by the Refuge’s responses. However, it is first useful to present a general summary of the nature of comments received, based on issue type. The information presented in this section includes a

K-2 relatively quantitative analysis of the information received and analyzed. From the letters and flipcharts, comments were identified. If an individual made the same comment more than once or in more than one type of media, it was counted as one comment in this analysis. For example, if an individual made a comment recorded on the flipcharts during the public meeting and then submitted the same comment via email, then this was counted as one comment. Refuge staff have read and reviewed every letter received during the comment process, and the information contained in those comments was used to help develop the final CCP/EA and refine the Preferred Alternative.

Table 3 contains a list of issues that were specifically mentioned in the comments received. It is important to note that comment letters may have contained more than one issue. Within a single comment letter, there may have been multiple comments on multiple issues. Each of these comments was placed into one of the seven general categories identified in Table 3 for this analysis.

After reviewing the 82 comment letters and flipchart comments, 146 comments within seven general issue areas were identified. Many of these issues were also identified during the CCP scoping process. Out of the 146 comments, the majority dealt with hunting and fishing (64 comments or 44 percent).

Table 3. Comments Concerning Specific Issue Comment Category Number of Comments Wildlife and Habitat 11 Wildlife 6 Invasive Species 5 Visitor Services 93 Hunting/Fishing 63 Water Dependent 25 Recreation Other 5 Partnership 8 Project Alternatives 3 Refuge Management 9 Water Management 6 Text Corrections 16

TOTAL 146

K-3 3. Summary of Comments and Refuge Responses

This section provides a summary of the individual comments received on the Draft CCP/EA, followed by the Refuge’s responses to those comments. The comments were organized into seven general topic areas, as identified in Table 3. The topic areas include the following:

A. Wildlife and Habitat 1. Wildlife 2. Invasive Species B. Visitor Services 1. Hunting/Fishing 2. Water Dependent Recreation 3. Other C. Partnership D. Project Alternatives E. Refuge Management F. Water Management G. Text Corrections

In many cases, the comment text is a quote from a particular letter; in some cases, very similar comments were paraphrased to make them more concise. Every effort was made to present all substantive comments in this summary; the specific comments presented here are a representative sample of all the comments received. A comment that addressed several issues was sometimes placed in a single bullet, in the section to which it was most closely related. Therefore, there is some overlap between topics. The Refuge response follows each comment. A copy of all of the original comments received on the Draft CCP/EA is maintained on file at Modoc National Wildlife Refuge headquarters.

A. Wildlife and Habitat

A1. Wildlife

A1-1. Comment: The figures 11 and 12 on page 46 are six to eight years old. No more current data available?

Refuge Response: No. However, as stated in the CCP (Objective 1.1.9) an objective of the Refuge is to hire a full-time wildlife biologist who would conduct annual surveys for migrating and breeding waterfowl.

A1-2. Comment: Section 6.4, Gulls and Terns, page 48. No mention of the large colony of gulls that nest on Dorris Reservoir, which may be deleterious to other species such as frogs in local wetlands and pastures because of their numbers. The colony population appears to be increasing.

Refuge Response: This is an item of concern to the Refuge as well. The gull colony has expanded over the past five years and has taken over the islands. These islands were traditionally used by nesting waterfowl, terns, and other bird species. Gulls are known to

K-4 be predators to a variety of wildlife species. Staff will continue to monitor the colony and its effects on other wildlife.

A1-3. Comment: West section of the Refuge – please describe what the upland restoration will entail.

Refuge Response: Upland restoration in the Godfrey Tract will initially entail the selective removal of western juniper from the unit by mechanical means. Ultimately, the area may undergo some level of native grass restoration in selected areas.

A1-4. Comment: Does the Refuge manage for pheasants? Do we plant pheasants for the youth pheasant hunt?

Refuge Response: The Refuge indirectly manages for pheasants through habitat management. Pheasants can be found foraging in the agricultural areas and nesting in nearby shrubs. No, we are not allowed to plant pheasants on the Refuge.

A1-5. Comment: Ravens have increased in the area.

Refuge Response: Comment noted. Staff will continue to monitor wildlife on the Refuge.

A1-6. Comment: Explain the wildlife sanctuary percent of Refuge closed seasonally.

Refuge Response: Within the 7,021-acre Modoc Refuge, 3,845 acres (55 percent) is not open to the public and provides wildlife sanctuary. The hunt area and Dorris Reservoir (2,977 acres) are closed seasonally to provide sanctuary for wildlife.

A2. Invasive Species

A2-1. Comment: I hope Plan C also includes increased management plans for invasive non- native species.

Refuge Response: Alternative C includes the treatment of 2,000 acres of the Refuge annually for invasive species (compared to the No Action Alternative, which includes treatment of 1,000 acres annually).

A2-2. Comment: In Chapter 3, Section 5.2.6, Control of Invasive Species, page 44. The phrase “the acceptable level of damage by the pest has been exceeded”. What are the guidelines the refuge manager uses or is this a case-by-case situation?

Refuge Response: This is handled on a case-by-case basis depending on the pest species and what the level of damage is occurring.

K-5

A2-3. Comment: Did not include “white top” in list of invasive species. What about hoaryweed?

Refuge Response: The CCP refers to the invasive species known as white top (Lepidium latifolium) by its other common name, perennial pepperweed. Hoary cress (Cardaria draba), which is also called white top, not known to occur on the Refuge.

A2-4. Comment: Canada thistle – will the Refuge be working harder to control this species? Especially near Refuge neighbors?

Refuge Response: Yes, the Refuge has an aggressive control plan for all nonnative thistle species on the Refuge. If any of our neighbors have problems or concerns, please contact the Refuge and we will work with you to try to resolve the issue.

A2-5. Comment: Does the Refuge use “Milestone” to control invasives? Can the Refuge use helicopters to spray/aerial application?

Refuge Response: Yes, the Refuge uses Milestone to control invasive species. While the Refuge can use helicopters for the purpose of aerial application of herbicides, we do not have any infestations of weeds of the size and or density that would warrant this type of application.

B. Visitor Services

B.1. Hunting/Fishing

B1-1. Comment: Support hunting on the Modoc Refuge (11 comments).

Refuge Response: Comment noted. The preferred alternative supports hunting opportunities on the Refuge.

B1-2. Comment: Support enhancing or expanding hunting on the Modoc Refuge (7 comments).

Refuge Response: Comment noted. The preferred alternative enhances and increases hunting opportunities on the Refuge.

B1-3. Comment: Support hunting and fishing on the Modoc Refuge (10 comments).

Refuge Response: Hunting and fishing have been allowed on the Refuge since its establishment in 1960, and will continue to be allowed, at various levels, under all four of the Alternatives described in the Draft CCP/EA.

B1-4. Comment: Opposed to hunting on Refuge lands (6 comments).

K-6

Refuge Response: National wildlife refuges exist primarily to safeguard wildlife populations through habitat preservation and management. The word “refuge” includes the idea of providing a haven of safety for wildlife, and as such, hunting might seem an inconsistent use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). However, habitat that normally supports healthy wildlife populations produces harvestable surpluses that are a renewable resource.

One of the five goals of the Refuge System is “To foster understanding and instill appreciation of native fish, wildlife, and plants and their conservation, by providing the public with safe, high-quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Such uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.” The Service recognizes hunting as an acceptable, traditional, and legitimate form of wildlife-oriented recreation and, in some instances, as a management tool to effectively control wildlife population levels.

In the 1997 amendments to the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, Congress identified hunting as one of six priority public uses of the Refuge System. The priority uses are to receive enhanced consideration, in planning and management, over all other public uses. All uses must also be determined to be compatible with Refuge purposes before they can be allowed. Appendix B contains the compatibility determinations for all of the uses on the Refuge including: bicycling, recreational boating and swimming, commercial photography, environmental education and interpretation, fishing, grazing, haying, horseback riding, hunting, plant material gathering, research, and wildlife observation and photography. Each of these uses was found compatible on the Modoc Refuge.

The Service must coordinate hunting on refuges with other compatible wildlife-dependent public uses to minimize conflicts. We may use time and space scheduling to ensure quality experiences for both hunters and non-hunters. Hunting is monitored, regulated, and designed to ensure that harvest does not reduce populations to unsustainable levels or have adverse impacts on non-game species, particularly threatened and endangered species.

The Proposed Action represents a balanced approach for wildlife-dependent recreation, providing areas for wildlife sanctuary, wildlife observation, and hunting.

B1-5. Comment: Need more turnouts along the roadways at Dorris Reservoir to make easier and increased shore access for fisherman.

Refuge Response: Comment noted. Currently, there are six parking areas at Dorris Reservoir. In addition, there are two areas where you can launch boats and access the shoreline. The Refuge has the responsibility to balance its wildlife first mission with priority public uses, including fishing. At this time, the Refuge does not plan to add more parking areas or turnouts at Dorris Reservoir.

K-7 B1-6. Comment: Why does the fishing program absorb the total gate opening contract cost (Table 2, page D-7)?

Refuge Response: The Refuge does not receive any “fishing program” funding. The cost for the gate opening contract is paid for with “base” operational funding from our visitor services subactivity. Table 2 reflects the costs to run the program not the source of funding.

B1-7. Comment: Would like information on purchasing a tag for this area.

Refuge Response: The Modoc Refuge is closed to big game hunting and waterfowl hunting on the Refuge does not require the purchase of a tag or permit.

B1-8. Comment: Is there any explanation why in the last 5 years the duck harvest has exceeded the average while the goose harvest the last 14 years has been below average?

Refuge Response: The Refuge does not have any scientific data why this has occurred for ducks or geese. In general, over the past five years, there has been good flyway and local production of ducks, liberal bag limits have been in effect, and we have had good habitat conditions on the Refuge. All of these factors have most likely resulted in an increased duck harvest.

B1-9. Comment: Agree with the placement of the parking lot on the Grandma tract.

Refuge Response: Comment noted.

B1-10. Comment: How large will the parking lot be for hunters on the Grandma tract?

Refuge Response: The gravel parking lot currently is approximately 100 x 100 feet. The size may need to be adjusted in the future to provide adequate parking space. Currently, there is sufficient space for approximately eight vehicles (2 per assigned pond).

B1-11. Parking area on the Grandma tract – this plan covers the next 15 years – will there by any other parking areas after that time?

Refuge Response: Parking for hunters at the Grandma tract will be dictated by the growth, if any, of the hunt program on that unit. At this time it is not anticipated that any further parking areas will be needed. A parking spot specifically for the ADA field blind may be designated at a site closer to the blind location.

B1-12. Comment: Will the closed zone on the Grandma Tract be fenced or signed? Where/how much parking will be available for the Grandma Tract? (5 comments)

K-8

Refuge Response: The closed zone on the Grandma Tract will be fenced and signed. There is a dike separating the zones.

B1-13. Comment: Where is the parking area on the Grandma Tract? Will it be improved or finished? (2 comments)

Refuge Response: The parking area at the Grandma Tract is located in the Southeast corner of the unit, just inside the boundary fence and west of the Dorris canal. The parking area is improved with a packed gravel surface. Weeds will need to be removed seasonally prior to the opening of waterfowl season.

B1-14. Can the parking lot on the Grandma Tract be moved to the west at the crossing:

Refuge Response: At this time, we do not see a need to move the parking lot. Its current location provides the best access point to the entire unit, while keeping the parking location somewhat removed from the hunting area.

B1-15. What precludes a hunter from hunting the fence line at the Grandma Tract?

Refuge Response: The boundaries of all hunting areas will be posted/signed. Closed areas, or buffers, have been designated on the east and west Refuge boundaries of the Grandma Tract to protect adjacent landowners. We discussed adding buffer at the northern boundary with the landowner and it was decided that a buffer was not needed at this time.

In addition, as per Fish and Game regulations, it is unlawful to hunt or discharge while hunting, any firearm or deadly weapon within 150 yards of any occupied dwelling house, residence, or other building or any barn or other outbuilding used in connection therewith. The 150-yard area is a “safety zone”.

B1-16. Comment: What about ADA blind access from the parking area at the Grandma Tract?

Refuge Response: Hunters will be allowed to vehicle access the blind to drop off and pick up a disabled hunter. However, the vehicle must be parked in the designated parking area during the hunt.

B1-17. Comment: How do disabled hunters know if a blind has been reserved unless they call ahead?

Refuge Response: Hunters using the ADA blinds must park in the numbered stall corresponding to the blind they are using. Blinds that have been reserved will have a “reserved” sign at the numbered parking space.

K-9

B1-18. Comment: Is access from the parking area only by foot? So you can’t drop anybody off along the road and they can walk in?

Refuge Response: Yes. The Grandma Tract will be fenced and access available only by foot from the parking area.

B1-19. Comment: Explain how the assigned ponds will work. Will there be a draw?

Refuge Response: Hunting on the opening weekend is by reservation only, with hunters selected through a drawing conducted by the Refuge. After opening weekend, waterfowl hunting is conducted through a self-check-in/out system. There is no quota or fee after opening weekend.

Up to four hunters are permitted in each assigned pond. Hunters may hunt any where within their assigned pond. Each assigned pond will be numbered. In the parking area, there will be a numbered parking space for each pond with room for at least two vehicles.

B1-20. Comment: Page C-15, bullet 4: Is there existing signage indicating pedestrian hunters only in the hunt area or will new signage be required?

Refuge Response: Yes, there is existing signage stating that no vehicles are allowed beyond the parking lot. Disabled hunters may use their vehicle to access the ADA blinds. Furthermore, refuge specific hunting regulations state that access to the hunt area is by foot, bicycle, and non-motorized cart traffic only.

B1-21. Comment: What would be anticipated administrative conflicts with the cost of the program (page C-16)?

Refuge Response: As stated in the CCP (page C-16), there are no administrative conflicts with the hunting program at this time.

B1-22. Comment: Appendix E, Visitor Services Plan. Hunting strategies – number 12 on page E- 9 - Matney 9 field. Map shows fields 1-8. Access will be from which parking lot? This specific location of a goose hunting blind (Matney 9 field) should be mentioned by name in the Hunt Plan.

Refuge Response: Figure 10 has been corrected. Rye Field has been changed to Matney 9.

B1-23. Comment: Describe the second youth waterfowl hunt proposed in the CCP. When/where would this occur?

K-10

Refuge Response: A second youth waterfowl hunt would be conducted during the regular waterfowl season for the Refuge and would occur within the hunt area. The hunt would most likely occur on a traditional non-hunting day.

B1-24. Comment: What about having a youth hunt in the closed zone?

Refuge Response: Closed zones function as sanctuaries for wildlife. They provide places where human-caused disturbances are minimized, thereby increasing wildlife activities such as foraging, resting, and breeding. Sanctuaries play an important role in maintaining the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge as required under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Therefore, the Refuge will not conduct a youth hunt in the closed zone.

B1-25. Comment: Is hunting allowed on the Hamilton Tract?

Refuge Response: Hunting is not allowed on the Hamilton Tract.

B1-26. Comment: The Draft CCP/EA for the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge suffers from the same lack of an adequate cumulative impacts analysis as those NEPA documents issued for the hunting expansions in the rules currently at issue in the following lawsuit: The Fund for Animals, et al. v. Hall et al. 448 F. Supp. 2d 127 (D.D.C. 2006). The cumulative impacts analysis in the EAs at issue in the lawsuit failed to consider impacts to target and non-target species, and non-consumptive users, from expansion of hunting in multiple refuges found in the same complex, region and/or flyway. The expansion of hunting activities proposed in the Draft CCP/EA should not be implemented until the outcome of the litigation is finally determined.

Refuge Response: The Service does not agree with this comment. The EA did analyze the cumulative impacts of hunting on target (Section 2.3) and non-target (Section 2.15) species, and non-consumptive users (Section 3.2), from expansion of hunting in multiple refuges found in the same region and/or flyway (Section 7.3). Furthermore, the ongoing litigation does not preclude the Service from opening new areas to hunting.

B1-27. Comment: There is no indication that the FWS ensured the availability of sufficient funds before it approved sport hunting initially at the Refuge and must, therefore, do so now if the FWS intends to continue to authorize and/or expand hunting under the EA.

Refuge Response: Since the Refuge was established in 1960 waterfowl hunting has been an integral part of the visitor services program. Sufficient funds have been available to operate and maintain the hunting program on Modoc Refuge for 49 years. Furthermore, the availability of resources required to administer and manage the expanded hunting program (less than 200 acres) was analyzed in the Hunting Compatibility Determination

K-11 (Appendix B). The analysis shows that there are funds currently available through the Service budget process to operate and maintain the hunt program.

B1-28. Comment: Expanding hunting in the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge implicates several of these factors, including potential impacts on "public ... safety" and "endangered or threatened species," "[u]nique characteristics of the geographic area," the "highly uncertain" and "unique or unknown risks" associated with the action, and the "highly controversial" nature of the action.

Refuge Response: The Service does not agree with this comment. The Service has addressed these factors in the Draft CCP/EA. The EA addresses potential biological, social, and economic impacts to the human environment. The Hunting CD (Appendix C) further addresses impacts to the biological environment.

The Section 7 (Appendix L) states there will be no effect on endangered or threatened species from implementation of this CCP, including hunting, on Modoc Refuge. In addition, there are no known threatened or endangered species that occur on Grandma Tract.

Furthermore, the Service does not agree that expanding hunting on Modoc National Wildlife Refuge is a “highly controversial” action. The Refuge’s hunting program is not expanding by a significant amount, nor is it adding additional species. The CCP will add approximately 200 acres of recently restored wetland habitat to the existing waterfowl hunting program. During the public scoping and Draft CCP comment period for this CCP, the Service only received comments from six commenters that opposed hunting. The comment process for a CCP is public process. There are notices published in the Federal Register, legal notices posted in local area newspapers, press releases sent out to the media, letters and/or planning updates sent to large mailing lists, copies of the documents are sent to local and some non-local libraries, and the documents themselves are placed on the Refuge’s webpage which are accessible to everyone with access to the internet.

B1-29. Comment: The Draft CCP/EA must take into account not only the effects of hunting on other wildlife species in the Refuge, but also the cumulative impacts of hunting on wildlife, migratory birds, and non-hunting visitors locally, regionally, along flyways and other migratory corridors, and in wildlife refuges system wide before expanding hunting activities.

Refuge Response: The EA did analyze the impacts of hunting on waterfowl, coots, and moorhens on a flyway, regional and local scale as well as Wilson snipe and ring-neck pheasant on a regional and local basis (See Sections 2.3-214). In addition, the effect of hunting on non-hunted wildlife was discussed in Section 2.15. Section 3.2 discussed the effects of hunting on other Refuge wildlife-dependent recreation (e.g. non-hunters).

K-12 never longer or larger than the State regulations. In fact, based upon the findings of an EA developed when a refuge opens a new hunting activity, season dates and bag limits may be more restrictive than the State allows. The harvest management procedures that are in place at a National and State level take into consideration the status of waterfowl populations prior to determining the appropriate level of harvest permitted that year.

B1-30. Comment: In addition to accurately and adequately addressing the adverse impacts of hunting on wildlife and other users of the Refuge, the FWS should also consider the beneficial impacts of non-consumptive visitors of the Refuge.

Refuge Response: See Refuge Response B1-31.

B1-31. Comment: The FWS must begin to realize the revenue potential of non-consumptive wildlife patrons and begin to reform their revenue base around this rapidly increasing segment of the population. The Refuge should conduct a survey of consumptive versus non-consumptive visitors to the Refuge in order to assess the economic input of each group. These data may be used to assess whether hunting is an economically viable option for the refuge or if it is simply retained as a means to appease a vocal minority.

Refuge Response: We recognize the importance of both consumptive and non- consumptive wildlife patrons. As stated in the Draft CCP/EA, the report Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007) detailed the findings from 80 national wildlife refuges, including Modoc Refuge. Modoc Refuge had approximately 15,005 visits in 2006. Refuge visitors enjoyed a variety of activities, including wildlife viewing, hiking, and migratory bird hunting. The majority of visits (7,885 or 52 percent) were for non- consumptive recreation, 5,500 (37 percent) for fishing, and 1,620 (11 percent) for hunting. Residents accounted for 82 percent of all Refuge visits.

In 2006, local spending by visitors was estimated at $314,000 with residents accounting for $187,800 or 60 percent of total expenditures (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). Despite being a small percentage of the visitor total, expenditures on hunting accounted for 33 percent of all expenditures. Expenditures on fishing accounted for 34 percent of all expenditures and non-consumptive recreation at 33 percent. Modoc Refuge generated $0.65 of recreation-related benefits for every $1 of Refuge budget expenditure during 2006. Local economic effects associated with recreation visits totaled $343,100 with associated employment of five jobs, $112,100 in employment income and $56,700 in total tax revenue.

Based on IMPLAN modeling results, Refuge operations generated about 33 full-time and part-time jobs in Modoc County (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). 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 (the secondary impact of input purchases by the Refuge from local suppliers (indirect), and the effect of the additional spending on the income of employees and owners of local

K-13 businesses (induced). The income directly and indirectly generated by the Refuge accounted for about 0.8 percent of total countywide income in 2007.

B1-32. Comment: Opposed to the expanded hunting proposed in the Draft CCP/EA and believes that the action proposed represents a continuing violation of federal law, including the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act, especially given the FWS ongoing failure to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on its national wildlife refuge sport-hunting program or, more broadly, its overall refuge recreation program.

Refuge Response: Expanding hunting opportunities on Modoc Refuge is not a violation of the Improvement Act. The Improvement Act states the Secretary of the Interior shall provide increased opportunities for families to experience compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, particularly opportunities for parents and their children to safely engage in traditional outdoor activities, such as fishing and hunting. National Environmental Policy Act has also not been violated. The Refuge prepared an EA (Appendix A) that included analyzing the impacts of the expanded hunting program (approximately 200 hundred acres) on Modoc Refuge.

B1-33. Comment: Do not believe that sport hunting is compatible with the purposes for which many refuges were created. See 16 U.S.C. § 460k. The Modoc Refuge National Wildlife Refuge was created for the purpose to "protect, enhance, restore and manage an appropriate distribution and diversity of wetland ecosystems and other habitats for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife in North America" Thus, hunting of migratory birds and other wildlife for sport is inimical with the Refuge's purpose.

Refuge Response: The 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)

• "... 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

K-14 conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ..." 16 U.S.C. 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended).

• "... 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 Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ..." 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

Before activities or uses are allowed on a refuge, uses must be found to be “compatible” through a written compatibility determination. A compatible use is defined as a proposed or existing 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 (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57). Sound professional judgment is defined by the Improvement Act 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 Act, and other applicable laws.

The Improvement Act states that “the Refuge System was created to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats and this conservation mission has been facilitated by providing Americans opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including fishing and hunting, on System lands and to better appreciate the value of and need for fish and wildlife conservation.” It also states that “when managed in accordance with principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and environmental education in national wildlife refuges have been and are expected to continue to be generally compatible uses.”

Hunting on Modoc Refuge has been determined to be compatible (Appendix C), therefore will not detract from the Refuge System mission or the purposes of the Refuge.

B2. Water Dependent Recreation

B2-1. Comment: Opposed to “no-wake” restriction at Dorris Reservoir (5 comments)

Refuge Response: The Final CCP has been modified to remove all language referring to a no wake restriction on boats at Dorris Reservoir.

B2-2. Comment: Opposed to the elimination of waterskiing on Dorris Reservoir (3 comments).

Refuge Response: To be considered an appropriate use, as defined by 603 FW 1, a proposed or existing use on a refuge must meet at least one of the following four conditions:

(1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act.

K-15 (2) The use contributes to fulfilling 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. (3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. (4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11.

The refuge manager must find a use is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility determination (603 FW 2). If a proposed use is not appropriate, then we will not allow the use and will not prepare a compatibility determination.

Waterskiing is not a wildlife-dependent recreational use as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and it does not contribute to fulfilling the refuge purposes, Refuge System mission, or goals and objectives of the Final CCP. Therefore, waterskiing is not an appropriate use on Modoc Refuge.

B2-3. Comment: Concerned with any alternative that would not allow any water skiing, ice skating, swimming, kayaking, or boating of any kind (motor or non-motor) on Dorris Reservoir (4 comments).

Refuge Response: The Refuge has not proposed any changes to swimming, kayaking, or non-motorized boating. The Draft CCP proposed a no wake restriction; however, this restriction has been removed in the Final CCP. Ice skating has never been allowed on the Refuge owned portion of Dorris Reservoir.

B2-4. Comment: Further restriction to public use at the reservoir will have an economic impact on the City and adjoining landowners (2 comments).

Refuge Response: The Refuge does not agree with this comment. As noted by five commenters, “there has been very little to no motor boat activity in the last 15 years (there has maybe been a ski boat once every five years)”. Restriction of this use within the Refuge boundary will have a negligible effect on the economy of Alturas or the adjoining landowners. Table 9 in the economic analysis (Appendix 1 of the EA) shows the estimated employment and income in Modoc County generated by visitors to Modoc Refuge under the four alternatives described in the EA. Alternative A, the no action alternative, includes waterskiing, while the preferred alternative (Alternative C) does not include waterskiing. The estimated jobs increases by 0.6 and the estimated income increases by $20,700 in Alternative C.

B2-5. Comment: Since the acquisition of the Refuge, public use at Dorris Reservoir has been greatly restricted. I believe the use should not be restricted further.

Refuge Response: Comment noted. The only new public use restriction in the Final CCP is the elimination of waterskiing at Dorris Reservoir. See Refuge Responses B2-1, 2-2, and 2-4.

K-16

B2-6. Comment: Although there has been very little to no motor boat activity in the last 15 years (there has maybe been "a" ski boat once every five years), we believe to curtail any such activity is contrary to the intent, promise, permission provided the families that initially sold property to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Stephens and Dorris families certainly) and those of us still retaining property (3 comments).

Refuge Response: The Refuge does not control any activities that occur on Dorris Reservoir outside the Refuge boundary, including waterskiing, ice skating, and other types of recreation.

In addition, since the Refuge was established there have been numerous laws and policies developed (Appendix M). The Service has reviewed waterskiing in accordance with the Appropriate Refuge Uses policy (603 FW 1) and found that it is not an appropriate use on Modoc Refuge.

B2-7. Comment: I do not believe there is any boating activity during the year that interferes with bird migration and/or nesting. Therefore, to curtail, police, and patrol that small amount of activity that does still continue makes no financial/economic sense given the scarce resources that are more critically needed elsewhere (5 comments).

Refuge Response: The Refuge does not agree with this comment. Boating at Dorris Reservoir does have disturbance impacts to wildlife at any level of use (Recreational Boating Compatibility Determination, Appendix C).

The Final CCP is not restricting non-motorized boating on the Reservoir. Waterskiing, however, is being prohibited in the Final CCP (see Refuge Response B2-2 and B2-3).

The Refuge has an obligation to monitor all activities regardless of the level of use to ensure compatibility with the purposes of the Refuge and the Refuge System mission.

B2-8. Comment: If you launch a boat at the boat ramp at Dee’s Point, and travel out of the Refuge, can you waterski there?

Refuge Response: Yes. We do not control activities off the Refuge.

B2-9. Comment: Mark dangerous areas of the reservoir with buoys.

Refuge Response: Most hazardous area of the reservoir that are within the boundaries of the Refuge have been marked with buoys. Refuge staff will look for any unmarked hazards as water levels allow.

B2-10. Comment: Seems that since the buoys were placed in Dorris Reservoir designating the ski zone, the water levels in the Reservoir have not been high enough to ski.

K-17

Refuge Response: 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 irrigation needs of the Refuge cause large seasonal fluctuations in water levels. Dorris Reservoir may be drawn to minimum pool by the end of the irrigation season (April 1 – September 30). See Refuge Response F3.

B3. Visitor Services

B3-1. Comment: Like the bicycle trail described in Alternative D.

Refuge Response: Comment noted.

B3-2. Comment: Is walking still ok on the auto tour route? Dog walking?

Refuge Response: Yes, these activities are still permitted on the Refuge. The text in Chapter 3 of the Final CCP has been modified to make it clear that dog walking (on leash) is allowed on the auto tour route.

B3-3. Comment: Visitor Services Plan states we will add an ADA blind to Matney 9 – where is that on the map?

Refuge Response: Figure 10 in the Final CCP has been corrected and the Rye Field has been changed to Matney 9. Figure 1 in the Visitor Services Plan shows the additional blind located near the restrooms on the southern half of the hunt area.

B3-4. Comment: Why not add a second photo blind in Alternative C?

Refuge Response: Based upon Refuge staff observations there is not a need for a second photo blind at this time. There are a number of wildlife observation blinds that are being developed which can be used as photo blinds as well. Not having a second photo blind mentioned does not preclude the Refuge from putting in another blind if warranted through increasing use.

B3-5. Comment: Bike trail – just leave enough space for a bike to go through.

Refuge Response: Comment noted.

C. Partnership

C1. Comment: Contact the appropriate regional archaeological information center for a record search.

K-18 Refuge Response: The Service conducted a record search as part of the background research for Chapter 3 of the CCP. The Service conducted an exhaustive record search when it prepared a cultural resource overview.

C2. Comment: If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey.

Refuge Response: The Service has and will continue to conduct cultural resource identification efforts including field surveys as necessary for undertakings in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.

C3. Comment: Contact the Native American Heritage Commission for: A Sacred Lands File Check; a list of appropriate Native American contacts for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in the mitigation measures.

Refuge Response: The Service conducted a record search as part of the background research for Chapter 3 of the CCP. The Service conducted an exhaustive record search when it prepared a cultural resource overview.

C4. Comment: Lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archaeological resources.

Refuge Response: The Cultural Resources Office, with assistance from the Refuge, will prepare an inadvertent archaeological discovery protocol in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and NAGPRA within two years of completion of the CCP.

C5. Comment: Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the disposition of recovered artifacts, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.

Refuge Response: The Service will consult with the affected Tribes when it plans for the disposition of artifacts under Service control and recovered from the Refuge.

C6. Comment: Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains in their mitigation plan.

K-19 C7. Comment: What is the work that is going to be done on the south dam? Request to be notified when a plan is made to change the dam.

Refuge Response: The Refuge continues to pursue funding to retrofit and /or replace the South and Sharkey dams to make them more functional and safer to operate. The specific work that would be done is not known at this time and is entirely dependent on funding. The Refuge will contact affected neighbors as requested.

C8. Comment: Were adjoining landowners notified of this meeting?

Refuge Response: The Refuge did not send individual letters to every Refuge neighbor. However, the Refuge did utilize several methods to notify the public about the meeting and the Draft CCP. A planning update, containing information about the meeting, was sent to a mailing list of over 90 people, a notice of availability was published in the Federal Register, a legal notice was published in local newspapers on two different dates, a press release was distributed to six newspapers, copies of the document were placed in local libraries, Refuge Headquarters, and on the Refuge’s website, and flyer was posted at the Alturas Post Office. Furthermore, a second press release was distributed after the public meeting.

D. Project Alternatives

D1. Comment: In terms of alternative in refuge management plans, I recommend that no action be taken – Alternative A.

Refuge Response: Comment noted.

D2. Comment: I am in favor of Plan C.

Refuge Response: Comment noted.

D3. Comment: Alternative C: Proposed Action – I believe this will be a step in the right direction for an already wonderful Refuge.

Refuge Response: Comment noted.

E. Refuge Management

E1. Comment: Refuge does not put enough funds into improvements at Dorris Reservoir.

Refuge Response: The Refuge accomplishes a vast amount of maintenance projects at Dorris Reservoir every year including grading the road, repairing and maintaining the restrooms, rebuilding the south boat ramp, and rebuilding the fishing pier after it was

K-20 vandalized. Furthermore, the Refuge is seeking additional funding to make larger scale improvements to the infrastructure at Dorris Reservoir.

E2. Comment: Out of all the NWR in CA, Modoc is my favorite. Not only is the staff very helpful but they take pride in their management of the Refuge and habitat improvement projects and it shows.

Refuge Response: Comment noted. Thank you.

E3. Comment: Remove old steel posts from reservoir NE of Messenger Place.

Refuge Response: Refuge staff will look into this and take appropriate action as water levels in the reservoir allow.

E4. Comment: When will the Section 7 consultation be completed and what personnel are involved with that process?

Refuge Response: In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the Service conducted an intra-agency review to determine the effects of implementing the CCP on special status species occurring on the Refuge (USFWS 2009) and will include it in the Final CCP. The personnel involved in this process are those comprising the CCP planning team.

E5. Comment: There should be some mention of keeping dogs on leashes for other activities such as the swimming section. Dogs have been observed unattended in parking lots and along shorelines by fishers and swimmers and this is normally during nesting and brood activity, which could negatively impact those activities. There are signs indicating dogs to be leashed but I think the plan needs to support that restriction.

Refuge Response: Pets must be on a leash and under the owner’s control at all times to protect wildlife. This regulation is posted in the Refuge’s brochure, at the kiosks, and on signs throughout the Refuge. In addition, the text of the CCP has been modified to emphasize that pets must be leashed at all times.

E6. Comment: Law enforcement on the Refuge – new position?

Refuge Response: Yes. One of the goals for the Refuge is to hire a full-time law enforcement officer for the Refuge.

E7. Comment: Page 5 of the CCP – If a use is found compatible, the refuge manager can still say the use will not occur – is that true?

K-21 Refuge Response: Yes. Although a refuge use may be both appropriate and compatible, the refuge manager retains the authority to not allow the use or modify the use. For example, on some occasions, two appropriate and compatible uses may be in conflict with each other. In these situations, even though both uses are appropriate and compatible, the refuge manager may need to limit or entirely curtail one of the uses in order to provide the greatest benefit to refuge resources and the public. See the compatibility policy (603 FW 2) and appropriate use policy (603 FW 1).

E8. Comment: Agree with many of the proposed changes to the management of the Refuge.

Refuge Response: Comment noted.

E9. Comment: In the EA (page 60 chapter 4). Under this discussion of impacts of climate change, it would be helpful if the Refuge indicated what resources are most likely to be adversely affected.

Refuge Response: A discussion of resources likely to be affected by climate change can be found in Chapter 3 (page 28) and Chapter 4 (pages 83 & 84) of the CCP.

F. Water Management

F1. Comment: Improved water storage capacity in Dorris Reservoir for those lean rainfall years.

Refuge Response: The Service has the legal right to divert 11,500 acre feet of water from North Fork Pit River and Pine Creek for storage in the reservoir. The current capacity of Dorris Reservoir is sufficient to contain the amount of water the Service has the legal right to store.

F2. Comment: What does the Refuge plan to do to address water shortages as a result of drought and climate change?

Refuge Response: Drought and water shortages are a common occurrence in the western United States. The Refuge has a number of wells that can be used to augment the water supply as needed and as funding permits. The Refuge actively modifies its habitat management by prioritizing wetlands and wet meadows for flooding. Climate change may bring further challenges to management of Refuge water resources and the Refuge will adapt as needed.

F3. Comment: Keep water level in Dorris reservoir as high as possible for fish and waterfowl habitat.

Refuge Response: 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

K-22 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 use the Reservoir are protected.

F4. Comment: During the July 1st public meeting, an adjoining landowner expressed concern of wildlife (waterfowl) impacting his farming operation when water is low on the Refuge. This landowner changed his farming operation (wild rice) well after the Refuge was established. So I may have empathy for the family but it’s the old ‘move next to the airport and then complain about the airplane noise’ line.

Refuge Response: Comment noted.

F5. Comment: Encroachment of birds on neighboring land/water management on the Refuge (2 comments).

Refuge Response: In order to alleviate waterfowl and sandhill crane depredation of neighboring private crops, portions of the Refuge are farmed in order to attract birds onto the Refuge. We encourage and support 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.

G. Text Corrections

G1. Comment: Appendix A page 8 alternatives, features common to all alternatives. Under invasive plants should emphasize that there is frequent searches for noxious weeds.

Refuge Response: The suggested text was added.

G2. Comment. CCP page 23. I recommend clarifying the statement about the Refuge being on the western edge of the Great Basin. Technically, the physiographic Great Basin begins on the east side of Warner Mts. because it has internal drainage and the Pit/Sacramento River flows to the Pacific.

Refuge Response: Correction made.

G3. Comment: CCP pages 39 & 40. The list of neotropical birds includes song sparrow, house finch, and house wren, which of course are not neotropicals.

Refuge Response: Correction made.

G4. Comment: CCP page 43. scotch thistle should be Scotch thistle.

K-23 Refuge Response: Correction made.

G5. Comment: CCP page 50. Sacramento squawfish is now Sac. pike minnow.

Refuge Response: Correction made.

G6. Comment: Appendix A page 67 chapter 5 under the list of FWS contacts, perhaps you might want to include the new Regional Director and new field supervisor, Laurie Sada, from the Klamath Falls Field Office.

Refuge Response: The suggested text was added.

G7. Comment: CCP page 123. The definition of shorebirds needs to include the short-legged peeps like sandpipers.

Refuge Response: The suggested text was added.

G8. Comment: Appendix G page G-7. The title of this table should be changed to clarify that some of these species only occur near the Refuge and not on the Refuge.

Refuge Response: Correction made.

G9. Comment: Appendix H page H-12, Scientific name of crappie should be Pomoxis spp. Scientific name of rainbow trout is Oncorhynchus mykiss and that of the Goose Lake redband is Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.

Refuge Response: Correction made.

G10. Comment: CCP chapter 5, Funding and Staffing, Table 8 page 103 Total Staff Cost figure, $1,596,386. Should it be $798,625?

Refuge Response: Yes. Correction made.

G11. Comment: CCP chapter 5, 3.2, Fishing Plan page 104 uses the word “hunting”.

Refuge Response: The word “hunting” has been replaced with “fishing”.

G12. Comment: Appendix B Anticipated Impacts of Use. Page B-60, The paragraph that starts, “The use of retrieving dogs…” The last sentence mentions “Implementing the prescribed

K-24 restrictions outlined in the Stipulations section” I didn’t find any mention of the above paragraph content in the stipulations on pages B-60-63.

Refuge Response: Correction made.

G13. Comment: Appendix C 6.1 Biological Conflicts – page C-15, bullet 8. Language may have to be modified with new firearm rules for parks/refuges.

Refuge Response: Correction made.

G14. Comment: Appendix C Outreach Plan page C-18 hunting of pheasants on T, Th, Sat:

Refuge Response: The word “pheasants” has been removed from the list of species for which hunting is allowed on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays.

G15. Comment: Pine Creek Ditch on the maps in the CCP should be changed to Pine Creek.

Refuge Response: Correction made.

G16. Comment: CCP chapter 1 – include private land partners in the list of Refuge partners on page 12.

Refuge Response: The suggested text was added.

K-25 4. List of People and Entities That Provided Comments

4.1 Federal Agencies

Agency Signature U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service R. Larson

4.2 State Agencies

Agency Signature California Native American Heritage Commission K. Sanchez

4.3 Local Agencies

Agency Signature Modoc County Fish and Game Commission J. Kerr City of Alturas J. Dederick

4.4 Organizations

Organization Signature The Humane Society of the United States A. Page

4.5 General Public

Signature

C. Albright D. Hart G. and K. Potnic G. Alonso J. Howe W. Powell G. Bagnaschi G. Kampa R. Prevette F. Bianchi L. Keldsen J. Richardson M. Biselli W. Kelliher R. Rohe J. Bromley J. Kelsey T. Rust S. Buck G. Leath K. Seabrook E. Castro B. Lewis H. Stauff F. Dieterele M. Lorentzen M. Wolter R. Foster B. Madison A. Woodward Marzion R. Gaylord D. Mallia P. Woodward G. Greenlee R. Messenger D. Gustafson G. Pedrola

K-26 5. Summary of Changes

This section explains and summarizes the major changes made between the Draft and Final versions of the CCP.

5.1 Comprehensive Conservation Plan See Section 4G for text corrections made in the Final CCP and its appendices. The following changes were also made:

. Added two paragraphs to Chapter 3 section 3.1 Climate and Air Quality regarding the Service’s Draft Climate Change Strategic Plan.

. In Chapter 3 section 6.12 Threatened and Endangered Species, add section 6.12.9 Modoc Sucker and 6.12.10 Oregon Spotted Frog.

. In Chapter 3 section 8.5 Wildlife Observation and Photography, added a sentence clarifying that pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, and horseback riders are permitted to use the auto tour route and that dogs on a leash are permitted on roads and trails open to the public.

. In Chapter 4 Objective 3.6 Non-wildlife Dependent Recreation, eliminated the proposal to implement a no wake speed limit on Dorris Reservoir.

. In Chapter 4, added Objective 5.2 Cultural Resources Objective to protect, preserve, evaluate, and interpret the cultural heritage and resources of the Refuge.

. In Chapter 5, added section 3.6 Cultural Resources Overview describing this step-down plan.

5.2 Environmental Assessment . Eliminated all references to the proposal to implement a no wake speed limit on Dorris Reservoir in Alternative C and D.

5.3 Appendices . In Appendices B, D, and E, eliminated all references to the proposal to implement a no wake speed limit on Dorris Reservoir.

. In Appendix C, added the final rule language about carrying concealed weapons in national wildlife refuges.

. In Appendix E, added Objective 5.2 Cultural Resources Objective to protect, preserve, evaluate, and interpret the cultural heritage and resources of the Refuge.

. Inserted Appendix L, Compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

K-27 Appendix L. Compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 EVALUATION

Originating Unit: Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) Date: July 10, 2009 (530) 233-3572

I. Region: 8

II. Service activity: Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Modoc National Wildlife Refuge

III. Pertinent Species and Habitat

A. Listed species and/or their critical habitat within the action area:

1. Within the action area that will or may be affected: NONE

2. Within the action area that will not be affected: • Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) • Modoc sucker (Catostomus microps)

B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat: NONE

1. Within the action area that will or may be affected: NONE

2. Within the action area that will not be affected: NONE

C. Candidate species within the action area: 1. Within the action area that will or may be affected: • Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis)

2. Within the action area that will not be affected: • Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa)

D. Include species/habitat occurrence on a map.

No map attached. Modoc suckers and Oregon spotted frogs are not known to occur on the Refuge. Western snowy plovers and western yellow-billed cuckoos may occasionally occur in suitable habitat on the Refuge; however, no nest sites have been documented on the Refuge.

IV. Geographic area or station name and action:

The proposed action is to implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Modoc National Wildlife Refuge.

L-1 V. Location (maps attached):

A. Central Valley/San Francisco Bay Ecoregion

B. County and State: Modoc County, California

C. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge – 3 miles south of Alturas, California

VI. Description of the proposed action: See Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 2009).

VII. Determination of effects

A. Explanation of effects of the action:

The management goals, objectives, and strategies specified in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment for Modoc National Wildlife Refuge will not effect endangered, threatened, or candidate species nor will they adversely modify critical habitat or essential fish habitat for listed species. In the long-term, habitat restoration and management, habitat and wildlife surveys (inventory and monitoring), and research described within the CCP will benefit listed species. Wildlife-dependant public use (wildlife observation, environmental education, interpretation, photography, fishing, and hunting) and compatible non-wildlife dependent public use (horseback riding, recreational boating, etc) will likely increase awareness of refuge natural resources, including listed species.

Modoc suckers and Oregon spotted frogs are not known to occur on the Refuge. Western snowy plovers and western yellow-billed cuckoos may occasionally occur in suitable habitat on the Refuge; however, no nest sites have been documented on the Refuge. Moreover, the western snowy plovers that nest at inland sites are not considered part of the listed Pacific coast population. Existing riparian habitat will not be impacted by restoration activities; therefore, no adverse effects on the western yellow-billed cuckoo are anticipated. Restoration of additional riparian habitat is expected to provide a benefit to the species. No adverse impacts to western snowy plover, Modoc sucker, western yellow-billed cuckoo, and Oregon spotted frog are anticipated.

A diversity of wildlife exists in the area. Species listed by Federal as endangered or threatened on or potentially near Modoc Refuge include:

Western snowy plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) The Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover was listed as threatened on March 5, 1993. On September 29, 2005, the Service designated 12,145 acres of critical habitat along the shoreline of California, Oregon, and Washington. The Pacific coast population of the snowy plover is defined as those individuals that nest adjacent to tidal waters of the Pacific Ocean, and includes all nesting birds on the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore islands, adjacent bays, estuaries, and coastal rivers of the Pacific coast from southern Washington to southern Baja

L-2 California, Mexico (USFWS 2007a). Wintering birds may remain at their breeding sites or move north or south to other wintering sites along the Pacific coast. Current estimates project that there are roughly 2,100 western snowy plovers along the Pacific Coast from Washington to Baja and only 28 major nesting areas remain (USFWS 2007a).

The primary threat to western snowy plovers is habitat loss and degradation which can be attributed to human disturbance, urban development, introduced beachgrass (Ammophila spp.), and expanding predator populations (USFWS 2007a).

Snowy plovers that nest at inland sites are not considered part of the Pacific coast population, although they may migrate to coastal areas during winter months. Western snowy plovers are a rare summer visitor at Modoc 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.

Modoc sucker (Catostomus microps) 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 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 (Catostomus occidentalis), 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.

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) The western yellow-billed cuckoo is a Federal candidate species. They require dense, large tracts of riparian woodlands with well-developed understories for breeding. Yellow-billed Cuckoo breeds in scattered locations where suitable habitat is available throughout California, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah. In Mexico it breeds south to the Cape region of Baja California, Sinaloa, and Chihuahua. 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 cuckoos are rare summer visitors to the riparian habitat on the Refuge. Nesting has not been verified, but is suspected to have occurred.

L-3 Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretisoa) 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.

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 2007b). 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.

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 2007b).

Even though suitable habitat may occur, Oregon spotted frogs are not known to occur on the Refuge.

L-4

L-5 References

California Department of Fish and Game. 2005. The status of rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals of California 2000-2004.

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.

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. 2007a. Background and Q&As Final Recovery Plan Pacific coast population of western snowy plover. September 007. http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/WSP/plover.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form for Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa). March 2007.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8.

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.

L-6

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge PO Box 1610 Alturas, CA 96101 Telephone:530/233-3572 Fax: 530/233-4143 http://fws.gov/modoc California Relay Service TTY: 1 800/735-2929 Voice: 1 800/735-2922 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1 800/344-WILD http://www.fws.gov December 2009