Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North

Home , Rancho Bosquejo

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment June 2015 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. Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Prepared By: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region Refuges - Natural Resources Division 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, California 95825-1846 and Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex 752 County Road 99W Willows, California 95988

June 2015

Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations �� xi

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ��1 1. Introduction ��1 2. Need for this CCP ��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...... 4 3.4 Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health Policy...... 5 4. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ��5 5. The National Wildlife Refuge System ��5 6. The Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex ��6 7. Wildlife Management Areas ��7 8. Butte Sink WMA ��8 9. Willow Creek-Lurline WMA ��9 10. North Central Valley WMA ��9 11. WMA Purposes ��14 11.1 Butte Sink WMA ��14 11.2 Willow Creek-Lurline WMA ��14 11.3 North Central Valley WMA ��14 12. Vision Statement ��15 13. Existing and New Partnerships ��15 13.1 Central Valley Joint Venture ��16 14. Geographic Setting ��16 14.1 Wilderness Review ��16 Chapter 2. The Planning Process ��19 1. Introduction ��19 2. The Planning Process ��19 3. Planning Hierarchy ��20 4. The Planning Team ��20 5. Pre-Planning ��20 6. Public Involvement in Planning ��21 7. Public Outreach ��21 8. Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ��22 9. Development of the Refuge Vision ��23 10. Determining the Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ��23 10.1 Goals ��23 10.2 Interim Refuge Goals ��23 10.3 Objectives, Rationale, and Strategies ��23 11. Development of the Refuge Management Alternatives ��24 12. Plan Implementation ��24

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan v Table of Contents

Chapter 3. The Refuge Environment ��25 1. Wildlife Management Area Descriptions ��25 1.1 Butte Sink WMA...... 25 1.1.1 Butte Sink Unit ��25 1.2 Willow Creek-Lurline WMA...... 25 1.3 North Central Valley WMA...... 27 1.3.1 Llano Seco Unit ��27 2. Ecosystem Setting ��28 2.1 Butte Sink WMA Ecosystem...... 33 2.2 Willow Creek-Lurline WMA Ecosystem...... 34 2.3 North Central Valley WMA Ecosystem...... 34 3. Physical Environment ��35 3.1 Climate and Air Quality...... 35 3.1.1 Climate ��35 3.1.2 Climate Change ��36 3.1.3 Air Quality ��36 3.2 Water Supply...... 37 3.2.1 Butte Sink WMA ��37 3.2.1.1 Butte Sink Unit ��38 3.2.2 Willow Creek-Lurline WMA ��38 3.2.3 North Central Valley WMA ��39 3.2.3.1 Llano Seco Unit ��39 3.3 Contaminants and Water Quality...... 40 3.3.1 Butte Sink WMA...... 41 3.3.1.1 Butte Sink Unit ��42 3.3.2 Willow Creek-Lurline WMA...... 42 3.3.3 North Central Valley WMA...... 42 3.3.3.1 Llano Seco Unit ��43 3.4 Geology, Hydrology, and Soils...... 43 3.4.1 Butte Sink WMA ��44 3.4.1.1 Butte Sink Unit ��44 3.4.2 Willow Creek-Lurline WMA ��44 3.4.3 North Central Valley WMA ��44 3.4.3.1 Llano Seco Unit ��45 4. Habitat ��45 4.1 Vegetation ��45 4.1.1 Wetlands ��46 4.1.1.1 Seasonal Wetlands ��46 4.1.1.2 Semi-permanent and Permanent Wetlands ��47 4.1.1.3 Unmanaged Wetlands ��47 4.1.1.4 Vernal Pools/Alkali Meadows ��47 4.1.2 Grasslands ��49 4.1.3 Riparian Habitats ��49 4.1.4 Agricultural Croplands ��50 4.2 Butte Sink WMA ��51 4.2.1 Butte Sink Unit ��52 4.3 Willow Creek-Lurline WMA ��52 4.4 North Central Valley WMA ��52 4.4.1 Llano Seco Unit ��53 vi Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Table of Contents

4.4.2 Agricultural Easements �� 54 5. Habitat Management �� 55 5.1 Habitat Restoration �� 56 5.2 Wetland Enhancement �� 58 5.3 Water Management �� 58 5.3.1 Seasonal Wetlands �� 59 5.3.2 Irrigated Seasonal Wetlands �� 59 5.3.3 Semi-permanent and Permanent Wetlands �� 60 5.3.4 Vernal Pools and Alkali Meadows �� 60 5.3.5 Water Management on Easements �� 61 5.3.6 Water Management on Service-owned Lands �� 61 5.4 Vegetation Management �� 62 5.4.1 Prescribed Burning �� 62 5.4.2 Disking �� 63 5.4.3 Mowing �� 64 5.4.4 Spraying �� 64 5.4.5 Water Management (for vegetation control) �� 64 5.4.6 Vegetation Restoration �� 65 5.4.7 Prescribed Livestock Grazing �� 65 5.4.8 Vegetation Management on Easements �� 66 5.4.9 Vegetation Management on Service-owned Lands �� 66 5.5 Control of Invasive, Exotic, or Pest Species �� 67 5.5.1 Control of Invasives on Easements �� 67 5.5.2 Control of Invasives on Service-owned Lands �� 68 5.6 Mosquito Management �� 69 5.6.1 Mosquito Management on Easements �� 70 5.6.2 Mosquito Management on Service–owned Lands �� 70 6. Fish and Wildlife �� 71 6.1 Waterfowl �� 71 6.2 Breeding Waterfowl �� 75 6.3 Shorebirds �� 76 6.4 Waterbirds-Wading Birds/Diving Birds/Secretive Marsh Birds �� 76 6.5 Waterbirds-Gulls/Terns �� 77 6.6 Birds of Prey �� 77 6.7 Upland Game Birds �� 77 6.8 Other Landbirds �� 77 6.9 Mammals �� 78 6.10 Amphibians and Reptiles �� 78 6.11 Fish �� 78 6.12 Invertebrates �� 78 6.13 Threatened and Endangered Species �� 79 6.13.1 Fleshy (=succulent) Owl’s-Clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta) and its critical habitat �� 80 6.13.2 Hoover’s Spurge (Chamaesyce hooveri) and its critical habitat �� 80 6.13.3 Soft Bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis) �� 81 6.13.4 Palmate-bracted Bird’s-Beak (Cordylanthus palmatus) �� 81 6.13.5 Contra Costa Goldfields Lasthenia( conjugens) �� 82 6.13.6 Butte County (Shippee) Meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica) and its critical habitat �� 83

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan vii Table of Contents

6.13.7 Colusa Grass (Neostapfia colusana) and its critical habitat ��83 6.13.8 Hairy Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia pilosa) and its critical habitat ��84 6.13.9 Slender Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia tenuis) and its critical habitat ��84 6.13.10 Sacramento Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia viscida) and its critical habitat ��85 6.13.11 Hartweg’s Golden Sunburst (Pseudobahia bahiifolia) ��85 6.13.12 Keck’s Checker Mallow (Sidalcea keckii) ��85 6.13.13 Greene’s Tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei) and its critical habitat ��86 6.13.14 Solano Grass (Tuctoria mucronata) and its critical habitat ��86 6.13.15 Conservancy Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio) and its critical habitat ��87 6.13.16 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and its critical habitat ��87 6.13.17 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) and its critical habitat ��88 6.13.18 Delta Green Ground Beetle (Elaphrus viridis) and its critical habitat ��89 6.13.19 Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) and its critical habitat ��89 6.13.20 California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica) ��90 6.13.21 North American Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) ��91 6.13.22 Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) and its critical habitat ��91 6.13.23 Chinook Salmon, Sacramento River Winter-run ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and its critical habitat ��92 6.13.24 Chinook Salmon, Central Valley Spring-run ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and its critical habitat ��92 6.13.25 Steelhead, Central Valley ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and its critical habitat �93 6.13.26 California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and its critical habitat ��93 6.13.27 California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii) and its critical habitat ��94 6.13.28 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) ��95 6.13.29 Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) and its proposed critical habitat ��96 6.13.30 Riparian Brush Rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius) ��96 7. Fish and Wildlife Management ��97 7.1 Migratory Bird Management ��97 7.1.1 Migratory Bird Management on Easements ��97 7.1.2 Migratory Bird Management on Service-owned Lands ��97 7.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Management ��97 7.2.1 Endangered Species Management on Easements ��98 7.2.2 Endangered Species Management on Service-owned Lands ��98 7.3 Game Management ��99 7.3.1 Game Management on Easements ��99 7.3.2 Game Management on Service-owned Lands ��99 7.4 Monitoring and Research ��100 7.4.1 Monitoring and Research on Easements ��100 7.4.2 Monitoring and Research on Service-owned Lands ��100 7.5 Wildlife Disease Monitoring and Treatment ��101 7.5.1 Wildlife Disease Monitoring and Treatment on Easements ��102 7.5.2 Wildlife Disease Monitoring and Treatment on Service-owned Lands ��102 8. Recreation on Easements ��102 9. Visitor Services on the Llano Seco Unit ��102 9.1 Visitor Services and Management Policy ��102 9.2 Visitor Data ��103 viii Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Table of Contents

9.3 Hunting ��104 9.5 Fishing ��104 9.5 Wildlife Observation ��104 9.6 Wildlife Photography ��104 9.7 Environmental Education ��105 9.8 Interpretation and Outreach ��105 9.8.1 Website and Social Media ��105 10. Cooperation with Adjacent Landowners ��106 10.1 Working with Adjacent landowners on Easements ��106 10.2 Llano Seco Joint Management Committee ��106 10.3 Butte Sink Landowner Annual Meetings, MOUs, etc. ��107 11. Fire Management ��107 11.1 Historic Role of Fire ��107 11.2 Fire Management on Easements ��108 11.3 Fire Management on Service-owned Lands ��108 12. Law Enforcement and Resource Protection ��109 12.1 Law Enforcement on Easements ��110 12.2 Law Enforcement on Service-owned Lands ��110 13. Facilities Maintenance ��110 13.1 Facility Maintenance on Easements ��111 13.2 Facility Maintenance on Service-owned Lands ��111 14. Safety ��111 15. Cultural Resources ��112 15.1 Regional Prehistory and History ��112 15.2 Land Use History and Known Cultural Resources of the WMAs ��113 15.3 Compliance with Historic Preservation Laws on Easements ��115 15.4 Compliance with Historic Preservation Laws on Service-owned Lands ��115 16. Social and Economic Environment ��115 16.1 Regional Economic Setting ��115 16.2 Population and Density ��115 16.3 Ethnicity, Race, Employment, and Income ��116 16.4 Agriculture ��117 16.5 Cover Types, Land Use, and Changes ��118 16.6 Transportation ��118 Chapter 4. Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ��121 1. Overview of Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ��121 2. Organization ��121 3. WMA Management Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ��122 Chapter 5. Plan Implementation ��149 1. Funding and Staffing ��149 2. Step-Down Management Plans ��152 3. Compatibility Determination ��152 4. Compliance Requirements ��153 5. Partnership Opportunities ��153 6. Monitoring and Evaluation ��153 7. Adaptive Management ��153 8. Plan Amendment and Revision ��154 References ��155

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan ix Table of Contents Figures Figure 1. Sacramento NWR Complex Location ��2 Figure 2. Butte Sink WMA ��10 Figure 3. Willow Creek-Lurline WMA ��11 Figure 4a. North Central Valley WMA-North Section ��12 Figure 4b. North Central Valley WMA-South Section ��13 Figure 5. Watershed/Ecosystem Setting ��17 Figure 6. The CCP Process. ��19 Figure 7. Hierarchical relationship of refuge goals and objectives to other aspects of the planning process. ��20 Figure 8. Relationships between Service and other planning efforts. ��20 Figure 9. Butte Sink WMA, Butte Sink Unit, Habitat Management ��26 Figure 10. Llano Seco Rancho: Historic Map and Current Conservation Ownership ��29 Figure 11. North Central Valley WMA, Llano Seco Unit, Habitat Management ��30 Figure 12. Changes in California Central Valley Wetlands, 1900 to 1990 ��31 Figure 13. California Mid-Winter Indices for Pintail vs. “All Other Ducks” in California 1965–2013 ��72 Figure 14. Trends of wintering arctic goose populations in California, 1979–2013. ��72 Figure 15. Proposed Wetland and Agricultural Easement Acquisition Areas ��119

Tables Table 1. Public scoping meetings. ��21 Table 2. WMA issues identified through public comment. ��21 Table 3. Acreage and habitats of Service-owned lands on Llano Seco and Butte Sink Units ��53 Table 4. Approximate number of acre-feet of water required monthly for each acre of wetland habitat on Service-owned lands. ��57 Table 5. Average duck densities (per acre with sample size in parentheses) by habitat type on managed wetlands at Llano Seco Unit of the North Central Valley WMA and the Butte Sink Unit of the Butte Sink WMA. ��75 Table 6. Population estimates and trends for the 12-county area surrounding Butte Sink, Willow-Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley WMAs ��116 Table 7. Proposed wetland easement acreage objectives for Counties within the North Central Valley WMA. ��124 Table 8. Proposed agricultural easement acreage objectives for counties within the North Central Valley WMA. ��125 Table 9. Estimated initial capital outlay to fully implement the CCP. ��150 Table 10. Estimated annual cost to fully implement the CCP ��151

x Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Table of Contents Appendices A. Environmental Assessment B. Compatibility Determinations C. Conservation Easements in the Wildlife Management Areas D. Soils E. Migratory Bird Surveys F. Invasive Plant Species G. Resource Inventory and Monitoring Plan H. Habitat Management Plan I. Fire Management Plan J. Regional Economic Effects K. Wildlife and Plants L. Special Status Species M. Endangered Species Act Compliance N. Applicable Laws and Executive Orders and Relationships to Federal, State, and Local Policies and Plans O. Planning Team Members and Persons Responsible for Preparing this Document P. Wilderness Review

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan xi

Acronyms and Abbreviations AHMP Annual Habitat Management Plan BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice BOR Bureau of Reclamation BSWMA Butte Sink Wildlife Management Area CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan CD Compatibility Determination CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly Department of Fish and Game) cfs Cubic feet per second CFR Code of Federal Regulations CLMA Cooperative Land Management Agreement CVJV Central Valley Joint Venture Complex Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex CWA California Waterfowl Association CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act Delta Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta region EA Environmental Assessment ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit HMP Habitat Management Plan Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 IPM Integrated Pest Management JMC Joint Management Committee LSU Llano Seco Unit MID Maxwell Irrigation District MOU Memorandum of Understanding MVCD Mosquito Vector Control District NAWCA North American Wetlands Conservation Act NCVWMA North Central Valley Wildlife Management Area NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NWR National Wildlife Refuge (also Refuge) Point Blue Point Blue (formerly PRBO) PRBO Point Reyes Bird Observatory, PRBO Conservation Science (now Point Blue) PUP Pesticide Use Permit RAPP Refuge Annual Performance Plan Refuge National Wildlife Refuge (also, NWR) Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System (also NWRS)

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan xiii Acronyms and Abbreviations

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, USFWS) SLE St. Louis encephalitis virus SUP Special Use Permit USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, Service) USGS U.S. Geological Survey WCMWC Willow Creek Mutual Water Company WEE Western equine encephalomyelitis virus WLWMA Willow Creek-Lurline Wildlife Management Area WMA Wildlife Management Area WNV West Nile Virus WUI Wildland Urban Interface

xiv Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1. Introduction The CCP provides a description of the desired future conditions and the long-range guid- This document is a Draft Comprehensive ance to accomplish the purposes for which Conservation Plan (CCP) which is designed the WMAs were established. The CCP and to guide management of Butte Sink, Willow accompanying Environmental Assessment Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley (EA) address Service legal mandates, policies, Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) for goals, and National Environmental Policy Act the next fifteen years. The U.S. Fish and (NEPA) compliance. The EA (Appendix A) Wildlife Service (Service) manages the presents a range of land protection and habitat WMAs as part of the Sacramento National management alternatives that consider issues Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex), located and opportunities on the WMAs. The Service’s in the Sacramento Valley of California initial proposal for future management of the approximately 90 miles north of the city of WMAs is presented in the EA. The final CCP Sacramento (Figure 1). The WMAs consist will be developed through modifications made primarily of private lands protected by per- during the internal and public review processes. petual conservation easements and also some Service-owned lands. Conservation easements Existing plans that remain applicable to are voluntary realty transactions in which the Service-owned lands are: Annual Habitat Service purchases a property’s development Management Plans for the Llano Seco Unit rights from the landowner to protect wet- of North Central Valley WMA and Butte Sink lands and other resource values on private Unit of Butte Sink WMA; Fire Management lands. Easement and Service-owned lands Plan; Resource Inventory and Monitoring in the WMAs are considered components Plan; Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan; of the National Wildlife Refuge System. and Integrated Pest Management Plan.

Managed freshwater marsh, Llano Seco Unit. Photo: USFWS

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1 Chapter 1

Figure 1. Sacramento NWR Complex Location

2 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Introduction and Background 2. Need for this CCP international treaties. Service-owned lands and conservation easement interests acquired The National Wildlife Refuge System within the WMAs are components of the Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57) Refuge System and are subject to applicable (Improvement Act) requires that all Federal laws and regulations. It is important to note refuges, including WMAs, be managed in that not all Refuge System laws and regulations accordance with an approved Comprehensive apply to conservation easements. For example, Conservation Plan (CCP). Moreover, the regulations controlling public use are not appli- WMAs currently have no integrated plan that cable to conservation easements because these guides the management of all its resources and rights have not been purchased by the Service. uses. In order to meet the dual needs of com- plying with the Improvement Act and providing Relevant guidance includes the National long-term integrated management guidance Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of for the WMAs, the Service proposes this CCP. 1966, as amended by the Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, selected Guidance within the CCP will be in portions of the Code of Federal Regulations, the form of goals, objectives, strate- and the Service Manual. WMAs are also gov- gies, and compatibility determinations. erned by a variety of other laws, treaties and The purposes of this CCP are to: executive orders pertaining to the conservation Provide a clear statement of direction for and protection of natural and cultural resources the future management of the WMAs; (refer to Appendix N for additional information about these laws and executive orders). Provide long-term continuity in WMA management; 3.1 National Wildlife Refuge Communicate the Service’s man- System Improvement Act agement priorities for the WMAs to The Improvement Act of 1997, which easement landowners, partners, neigh- amends the National Wildlife Refuge System bors, visitors, and the general public; Administration Act of 1966, provides com- Provide an opportunity for the prehensive legislation on how the Refuge public to help shape the future System should be managed and used by management of the WMAs; the public. The Improvement Act: Ensure that management programs on Identified a new mission state- the WMAs are consistent with the man- ment for the Refuge System; dates of the National Wildlife Refuge Established six priority public uses System (Refuge System) and the purposes (hunting, fishing, wildlife observa- for which the WMAs were established; tion and photography, environmental Ensure that the management of the education and interpretation); WMAs are consistent with Federal, Emphasized conservation and State, and local plans; and enhancement of the quality and diver- Provide a basis for budget requests sity of fish and wildlife habitat; to support the WMAs’ needs for Stressed the importance of partner- staffing, operations, maintenance, ships with Federal and State agencies, and capital improvements. Tribes, non-governmental organiza- 3. Legal and Policy Guidance tions, industry, and the general public; Mandated public involvement in WMAs are guided by the purposes of the decisions on the acquisition and individual WMAs, the mission and goals of the management of refuges; Refuge System, and Service policy, laws and

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3 Chapter 1

Required, prior to acquisition of new the use without determining compatibility. If refuge lands, identification of existing a use is determined to be an appropriate use, compatible wildlife-dependent uses that the refuge manager will then determine if the would be permitted to continue on an use is compatible (see Compatibility section interim basis pending completion of com- below). Although a use may be both appro- prehensive conservation planning. priate and compatible, the refuge manager retains the authority to not allow or modify The Improvement Act also establishes the the use. Uses that have been administratively responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior determined to be appropriate are hunting, for managing and protecting the Refuge wildlife observation and photography, envi- System; requires a CCP for each refuge ronmental education, interpretation, plant System unit by the year 2012; and provides material gathering, grazing, research, mos- guidelines and directives for the administration quito monitoring and management, and take and management of all areas in the Refuge of fish and wildlife under State regulations. System, including refuges, WMAs, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife 3.3 Compatibility Policy threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, or waterfowl production areas. Service-owned lands within the Refuge System are different from other multiple use public 3.2 Appropriate Use Policy lands in that they are closed to all public uses unless specifically and legally opened. The This policy describes the initial decision process Improvement Act states “... the Secretary shall the refuge manager follows when first consid- not initiate or permit a new use of a refuge or ering whether or not to allow a proposed use on expand, renew, or extend an existing use of a a refuge or WMA. The refuge manager must refuge, unless the Secretary has determined find a use appropriate before undertaking a that the use is a compatible use and that the compatibility review of the use. An appropriate use is not inconsistent with public safety”. use, as defined by the Appropriate Use Policy (603 FW 1 of the Service Manual), is a proposed In accordance with the Improvement Act, the or existing use on a refuge or WMA that meets Service has adopted a Compatibility Policy at least one of the following four conditions: (603 FW 2 of the Service Manual) that includes guidelines for determining if a use proposed The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational on a refuge or WMA is compatible with the use as identified in the Improvement Act; purposes for which the refuge or WMA was The use contributes to the fulfilling of established. A compatible use is defined in the the WMA purpose(s), the Refuge System policy as “a proposed or existing wildlife-de- mission, or goals or objectives described pendent recreational use or any other use of in a refuge management plan approved a refuge that, based on sound professional after October 9, 1997, the date the judgment, will not materially interfere with Improvement Act was signed into law; or detract from the fulfillment of the Refuge The use involves the take of fish and System mission or the purposes of the ref- wildlife under State regulations; uge”. Sound professional judgment is defined as “a finding, determination, or decision that The use has been found to be appro- is consistent with the principles of sound fish priate as specified in section 1.11 (603 and wildlife management and administration, FW 1 of the Service Manual). available science and resources (funding, If an existing use is not appropriate, the ref- personnel, facilities, and other infrastructure), uge manager will eliminate or modify the use and applicable laws.” The Service strives to as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is provide priority public uses when they are not appropriate, the refuge manager will deny compatible. If financial resources are not

4 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Introduction and Background available to design, operate, and maintain a in concert with refuge/WMA purposes and priority use, the refuge manager will take rea- the Refuge System mission. When evaluat- sonable steps to obtain outside assistance from ing the appropriate management direction the State and other conservation interests. for refuges/WMAs, refuge managers will use sound professional judgment to determine When a determination is made as to whether a the specific refuge’s/WMA’s contribution to proposed use is compatible or not, this deter- biological integrity, diversity, and environ- mination is provided in writing and is referred mental health at multiple landscape scales. to as a Compatibility Determination (CD). An opportunity for public review and comment is 4. The U.S. Fish and required for all CDs. For compatibility determinations prepared concurrently with a CCP Wildlife Service or step-down management plan, the opportu- The mission of the Service is: “to work with nity for public review and comment is provided others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, during the public review period for the draft wildlife and plants and their habitats for the plan and associated NEPA document. The CDs continuing benefit of the American people”. included in the Appendix B to the CCP include: Environmental Education, Grazing, Mosquito The Service is the primary Federal agency Monitoring and Management, Plant Material responsible for conserving, protecting, and Gathering, Research, and Wildlife Observation, enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats Wildlife Photography and Interpretation. for the continuing benefit of the American people. Although the Service shares this 3.4 Biological Integrity, Diversity and responsibility with other Federal, State, Environmental Health Policy Tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific responsibilities for migratory In addition, the Improvement Act directs the birds, threatened and endangered species, Service to “ensure that the biological integ- anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and rity, diversity, and environmental health of certain marine mammals. These are referred the Refuge System are maintained for the to as Federal trust species. The Service also benefit of present and future generations of manages the Refuge System, national fish Americans...”.To implement this directive, the hatcheries, enforces Federal wildlife laws Service has issued the Biological Integrity, and international treaties on importing and Diversity and Environmental Health Policy exporting wildlife, assists State fish and (601 FW 3 of the Service Manual), which wildlife programs, and helps other countries provides policy for maintaining and restoring, develop wildlife conservation programs. where appropriate, the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 5. The National Wildlife Refuge System. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while Refuge System achieving refuge or WMA purpose(s) and the The Refuge System is the world’s largest Refuge System mission. It provides for the con- collection of lands and waters set aside spe- sideration and protection of the broad spectrum cifically for the conservation of wildlife and of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found ecosystem protection. The Refuge System on refuges/WMAs and associated ecosystems. consists of over 554 national wildlife refuge Additionally, it provides refuge managers with units (including WMAs) that provide import- an evaluation process to analyze their refuge/ ant habitat for native fish, wildlife and plants, WMA. Furthermore, the policy recommends including many threatened and endangered direction to prevent further degradation of species. The mission of the Refuge System, environmental conditions and, where appro- as stated in the Improvement Act, is “to priate, restore lost or degraded components administer a national network of lands and

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5 Chapter 1 waters for the conservation, management, Wildlife-dependent uses involving hunting, and where appropriate, restoration of the fishing, wildlife observation, photogra- fish, wildlife and plant resources and their phy, interpretation, and education, when habitats within the United States for the compatible, are legitimate and appro- benefit of present and future generations priate uses of the Refuge System; of Americans” (16 USC 668dd et seq.). Partnerships with those who want The goals of the Refuge System are to: to help us meet our mission are wel- come and indeed essential; Preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when prac- Employees are our most valuable ticable) all species of animals and resource. They are respected and plants that are endangered or threat- deserve an empowering, mentoring, ened with becoming endangered; and caring work environment; and Perpetuate the migratory bird resource; We respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of our neighbors. Preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on refuge lands; and 6. The Sacramento National Provide an understanding and appreci- Wildlife Refuge Complex ation of fish and wildlife ecology and the human role in the environment and to For thousands of years the Sacramento provide refuge visitors with high-quality, Valley has provided a winter haven for safe, wholesome, and enjoyable recre- ducks, geese, swans, shorebirds and other ational experiences oriented toward waterbirds. Waterfowl migrate here by the wildlife to the extent that these activ- millions from as far away as the Arctic regions ities are compatible with the purposes of Alaska, Canada, and Siberia. The five for which the refuge was established. National Wildlife Refuges and three WMAs of the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge In addition, the guiding principles of the Complex (Complex) represent islands of nat- National Wildlife Refuge System are: ural habitat in a sea of agriculture (Figure 1). We are land stewards, guided by Aldo The Complex provides a significant amount Leopold’s teachings that land is a com- of the wetland, upland, and riparian forest munity of life and that love and respect habitat that supports waterfowl, shorebirds, for the land is an extension of ethics. waterbirds and many other migratory birds We seek to reflect that land ethic in our in the Sacramento Valley. The Complex cur- stewardship and to instill it in others; rently supports nearly 300 species of birds. More information about the birds within and Wild lands and the perpetuation of diverse and abundant wildlife are essen- around the WMAs is provided in Chapter 3. tial to the quality of the American life; Established in 1937, Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge is the oldest refuge in the We are public servants. We owe our employers, the American people, hard Complex. Three additional refuges were estab- work, integrity, fairness, and a voice in lished in the 1940s through the 1960s, including the protection of their trust resources; Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter Refuges. These four refuges were established primarily to pro- Management, ranging from preservation to vide wintering habitat for waterfowl and in some active manipulation of habitats and popula- cases to reduce crop damage by waterfowl. tions, is necessary to achieve Refuge System Together, they contain approximately 23,000 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service missions; acres of wetland, vernal pool, alkali meadow, grassland, and riparian habitats. Most recently,

6 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Introduction and Background

private lands protected with conservation easements and 2,465 acres of Service-owned lands. These lands and conservation easements were primarily purchased to protect existing and restored wetlands for waterfowl, other migratory birds and wetland-dependent wildlife. Both private lands and Service-owned lands provide Sacramento NWR Complex visitor center. Photo: USFWS managed wetlands and associated upland and riparian Sacramento River Refuge was established in habitat that provide food, water and cover for a 1989 to help protect and restore riparian habitat diverse array of wildlife species. Managed wet- along the Sacramento River between Red Bluff lands are those managed for wetland functions and Colusa. These refuges are not included and where water is intentionally and actively in this CCP, but were recently addressed applied annually through a managed process in their own CCPs in 2005 (Sacramento (USFWS and Reclamation 2000). For the pur- River Refuge) and 2009 (Sacramento, poses of this CCP, wetlands that receive water Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter Refuges). only from rainfall, runoff, or other natural sources are not considered managed wetlands. This CCP will cover all easement lands and most Service-owned lands in the Butte Sink, As of 1970, only 5 percent of historic wetlands Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central remained in the Central Valley of California Valley WMAs. Four Service-owned parcels of and 60 percent of these were privately owned the North Central Valley WMA were previously (CVHJV 1990). Given the importance of these addressed in the Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, remaining wetlands to waterfowl, the Service and Sutter Refuges Final CCP (USFWS 2009), developed the Concept Plan for Waterfowl and therefore, will not be covered in this CCP. Wintering Habitat Preservation in 1977 These properties include four Service-owned (USFWS 1978). This document recognized parcels (646 acres) adjacent to Colusa Refuge, conservation easements as an effective tool for which are administered as part of the Refuge. protecting private wetlands in perpetuity in a Similar to these four parcels, an additional timely and cost efficient manner. In addition, 388 acres of Service-owned land adjacent to conservation easements were looked upon Colusa Refuge was acquired in 2009 under favorably as they maintained lands in private the North Central Valley WMA. This parcel ownership and landowners retained responsi- will also be managed as part of the Colusa bility for State and local property taxes. The Refuge and will be addressed in an amend- Concept Plan ultimately led to the development ment to the Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and of the WMAs, which focused on protecting Sutter Refuges Final CCP (USFWS 2009). private wetlands with perpetual conservation easements. While fee-title acquisition is not the 7. Wildlife Management Areas primary emphasis of the WMAs, in some cases, such as the establishment of a wildlife sanctu- The WMAs differ from the National Wildlife ary, it is determined to be more appropriate for Refuges (NWRs) in that they consist pri- the Service to purchase and manage the lands. marily of private wetlands protected with conservation easements and secondarily of The Service acquires interest in lands through Service-owned lands. Currently, the WMAs purchase by fee or perpetual conservation consist of a combination of 30,910 acres of easement. The Service’s policy is to work

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7 Chapter 1 only with willing sellers. When purchas- or State agencies and/or private conserva- ing conservation easements, the Service tion organizations. Typical cost-share habitat acquires the development rights and neces- improvement programs will pay for a percent- sary water resources to protect waterfowl age of the agreed upon habitat restoration and/ and migratory bird habitat in perpetuity. At or enhancement activities. In turn, the land- the landowner’s request, the Service initi- owner agrees to maintain the improvements for ates the easement appraisal process, which the life of the agreement (a 10-year minimum). includes an appraisal written to Federal standards that determines the value of the 8. Butte Sink WMA rights being acquired. To ensure property The Butte Sink WMA is located in Butte, acquired by the Service is suitable for inclu- Colusa, and Sutter counties. The WMA includes sion in the National Wildlife Refuge System, 34 conservation easements on approximately all acquisitions require a Level 1 pre-acqui- 10,236 acres and 733 acres of Service-owned sition environmental site assessment to be lands referred to as the Butte Sink Unit performed. Following the completion and (Figure 2). The acquisition objective of 11,000 review of the appraisal, the Service presents acres for the Butte Sink WMA has been met the landowner with an offer. If accepted, the (USFWS 1979a). While the Butte Sink WMA Service finalizes the easement document and acquisition objective has been met, it does not pursues funding from the Migratory Bird preclude the acquisition of additional properties Conservation Fund (e.g., Federal Duck Stamp in the same geographic area under the North funds) or Land and Water Conservation Central Valley WMA. See Appendix C for a Funds (LWCF) to complete the purchase. list of the existing conservation easements and Once the conservation easement is purchased, Service-owned lands in the Butte Sink WMA. the landowners maintain a number of rights, The Butte Sink WMA was established in including: trespass, grazing, wetland man- 1979 with the primary purpose of preserv- agement, hunting, and other undeveloped ing native wetland habitat to perpetuate the recreation. Landowners are not required to migratory waterfowl resource in the Central flood or manage their easement wetlands, Valley and the Pacific Flyway. Other objec- however, the Service reserves the right, but tives of the WMA include assuring adequate not the obligation, to flood them at government water conditions for wintering waterfowl, cost. Accordingly, an appropriate amount of preserving wetland habitat for a broad spec- water (e.g., “easement waters”) to flood the trum of migratory wildlife, and establishing easement wetlands to historic fall and win- and maintaining a wildlife sanctuary on the ter levels must be maintained with the land. Butte Sink Unit. In accordance with deed While not required to flood or manage their restrictions, there is no public use allowed properties, easement owners are responsible on the Service-owned Butte Sink Unit. for meeting a number of obligations. Some of the more important wetland easement The Butte Sink is located immediately west obligations are provided in the Sacramento of the Sutter Buttes Mountain Range and Valley Easement Guidelines (Appendix C). represents the largest contiguous block of wetlands in the Sacramento Valley. These wetlands Although not required for new or existing annually support up to two million wintering easements, some conservation easements waterfowl, with the Butte Sink Unit alone host- need habitat restoration or enhancement to ing concentrations of up to one million ducks provide appropriate management capabilities. and geese. In addition, the Butte Sink WMA Funding for these activities is commonly pro- supports large numbers of greater sandhill vided through habitat improvement cost-share cranes, which are State-listed as threatened. programs. Cost-share programs are available to private landowners through various Federal

8 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Introduction and Background

Butte Sink WMA. Photo: USFWS 9. Willow Creek-Lurline WMA 10. North Central Valley WMA The Willow Creek-Lurline WMA is located The North Central Valley WMA has an acqui- in Colusa and Glenn counties and currently sition boundary which includes 11 counties consists of 85 conservation easements on (Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Glenn, Placer, approximately 5,859 acres (USFWS 1983) San Joaquin, Solano, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo and (Figure 3). The approved acquisition objective Yuba) and encompasses most of the Valley for the Willow Creek-Lurline WMA is 8,000 floor from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta acres (USFWS 1985). See Appendix C for a to Red Bluff (Figure 4a). Although within the list of the existing conservation easements. boundary of the WMA, Sacramento County was not included in the project. The North The Willow Creek-Lurline WMA was estab- Central Valley WMA focuses on wetland lished in 1985 with the primary purpose of protection at a landscape scale and, while its preserving wetland habitat for wintering larger acquisition boundary encompasses waterfowl and other wetland-dependent the smaller and older Butte Sink WMA and wildlife. The WMA is located in the Colusa Willow-Creek Lurline WMA, its easement Basin, and consists of two distinct wet- objectives are in addition to the objectives land divisions: the Willow Creek Division of the other WMAs. In recent years, the located between Sacramento and Delevan North Central Valley WMA has been active Refuges, and the Lurline Division located in Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sutter, and Yolo between Delevan and Colusa Refuges. The counties. It includes 28 conservation ease- wetlands of the Willow Creek-Lurline WMA ments on approximately 14,740 acres and provide an important corridor of natural 2,765 acres of Service-owned lands (Figures habitat helping to link the three Refuges. 4b-c). Of the 2,765 acres of Service-owned The Willow Creek-Lurline WMA supports tens lands, 1,732 acres comprise the Llano Seco of thousands of wintering waterfowl including Unit; the remaining 1,033 acres are covered a significant portion of the tule greater white- under a prior CCP and its amendment (see fronted goose population. In addition, the section 6, above). The North Central Valley Lurline wetlands regularly support breeding WMA has an approved acquisition objective of tricolored blackbirds, a California Bird Species 55,000 acres (48,750 acres conservation ease- of Special Concern (Shuford and Gardali 2008). ment; 6,250 acres fee-title) with individual

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9 Chapter 1

Figure 2. Butte Sink WMA

10 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Introduction and Background

Figure 3. Willow Creek-Lurline WMA

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11 Chapter 1

Figure 4a. North Central Valley WMA-North Section

12 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Introduction and Background

Figure 4b. North Central Valley WMA-South Section

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13 Chapter 1 acreage objectives for each of the 11 counties document, or administrative memorandum involved (USFWS 1991). Chapter 4 describes establishing, authorizing, or expanding a ref- the focus areas, acquisition areas, and acreage uge, refuge unit, refuge subunit, or WMA. The objectives addressed by this CCP. Appendix Service defines the purpose of a refuge or WMA C provides a list of the existing conserva- when it is established or when new land is added tion easements and Service-owned lands. to an existing refuge. These purposes, along with the Refuge System mission, are the driving When established in 1991, the North Central force in developing refuge vision statements, Valley WMA was seen as an integral compo- goals, objectives and strategies in the CCP. The nent in accomplishing the wetland protection purposes also form the standard for determin- goals of the 1990 Central Valley Habitat ing if proposed refuge uses are compatible. Joint Venture Implementation Plan. It is important to note that wetland protection The purposes for which the WMAs in accomplishments of the Central Valley Joint this CCP were established are: Venture partners count toward meeting the county acreage objectives of the North 11.1 Butte Sink WMA Central Valley WMA (USFWS 1991). “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or The North Central Valley WMA was estab- for any other management purpose, lished with the primary purpose of preserving for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d wetland habitat for wintering waterfowl and (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929) other wetland-dependent species. Most of the “...for the development, advancement, WMA’s conservation easements lie within the management, conservation, and protection Butte, Yolo, and Sutter Basins. Made up of of fish and wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. mostly managed wetlands, these easements 742f(a)(4) “... for the benefit of the United support hundreds of thousands of winter- States Fish and Wildlife Service, in per- ing waterfowl, as well as tens of thousands forming its activities and services. Such of migrating and wintering shorebirds and acceptance may be subject to the terms thousands of State-listed threatened greater of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, sandhill cranes. Included in these easements or condition of servitude ...” 16 U.S.C. are some of the most important privately-owned 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) waterfowl sanctuaries in the Central Valley. 11.2 Willow Creek-Lurline WMA The Llano Seco Unit supports large populations of wintering waterfowl, greater sandhill cranes, “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or and bald eagles. A popular destination for for any other management purpose, visitors, the Llano Seco Unit provides oppor- for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d tunities for wildlife observation, photography, (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929) environmental education and interpretation. There is a half-mile walking trail and two obser- 11.3 North Central Valley WMA vation platforms open to the public from one “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset. for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d 11. WMA Purposes (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929) The Service acquires Refuge System lands “...for the development, advancement, under a variety of legislative acts and adminis- management, conservation, and protection trative orders. The official purpose or purposes of fish and wildlife resources ...” 16 U.S.C. for a refuge or WMA are specified in or derived 742f(a)(4) “... for the benefit of the United from the law, proclamation, executive order, States Fish and Wildlife Service, in per- agreement, public land order, donation forming its activities and services. Such

14 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Introduction and Background

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) “...the conservation of wetlands in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conven- tions...” 16 U.S.C. 3921 Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986

“...protection, restoration, and man- Waterfowl at Butte Sink. Photo: USFWS agement of wetland ecosystems...” 16 U.S.C. 4401-4412 North American Environmental education and compat- Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989 ible wildlife-dependent recreation on appropriate Service-owned lands within 12. Vision Statement the Wildlife Management Areas foster a A vision statement is developed or revised greater understanding and appreciation for each individual refuge or WMA unit as of Central Valley wetland ecosystems and part of the CCP process. Vision statements the National Wildlife Refuge System.” are grounded in the unifying mission of the Refuge System, and describe the desired 13. Existing and New Partnerships future conditions of the refuge unit in the In Fulfilling the Promise (USFWS 1999c), the long term (more than 15 years), based on Service identified the need to forge new and the refuge’s specific purposes, the resources non-traditional alliances and strengthen exist- present on the refuge, and any other rele- ing partnerships with States, Tribes, non-profit vant mandates. This CCP incorporates the organizations, and academia to broaden citizen following vision statement for the WMAs: and community understanding of and support “Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, for the Refuge System. The Service recognizes and North Central Valley Wildlife that strong citizen support benefits the Refuge Management Areas help to conserve System. Involving citizen groups in resource an important network of private and management issues and decisions helps ref- public wetland, upland, and ripar- uge managers gain an understanding of public ian habitats in the Central Valley of concerns. Partners yield support for refuge California. This network protects some activities and programs, raise funds for proj- of the most important wintering areas ects, act as activists on behalf of wildlife and for waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway the Refuge System, and provide support for and North America. These lands also important wildlife and natural resource issues. protect and enhance habitat for other A variety of people including, but not lim- migratory birds, threatened and endan- ited to, scientists, hunters, farmers, birders, gered species, and resident wildlife. outdoor enthusiasts and students are keenly Through cooperation with landowners interested in the management of the WMAs, and other conservation partners, the their fish and wildlife species, and their plants Wildlife Management Areas are one and habitats. This interest is demonstrated by of the premier examples in the nation the number of partnerships that have already of private land partnerships promot- developed. We will continue to form new part- ing fish and wildlife conservation. nerships with interested organizations, local

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15 Chapter 1 civic groups, community schools, Federal, State, Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Point Blue and County governments, Tribes, and other (PRBO) Conservation Science, River Partners, civic organizations. Some of our existing part- The Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public ners include: California Department of Fish Land, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. and Wildlife, California Wildlife Conservation Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Bureau of Board, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Reclamation, U.S. Environmental Protection Service, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Natural Resources Conservation Science, Survey, California Department of Water and U.S. Geological Survey. These partners Resources, Local Resource Conservation have combined their efforts to cooperatively Districts , Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, address the habitat needs of all migrant and Willow Creek Mutual Water Company, Maxwell resident bird species in the Central Valley Irrigation District, The Nature Conservancy, of California. The CVJV updated their River Partners, Trust for Public Lands, Implementation Plan in 2006 (CVJV 2006). Ducks Unlimited, California Waterfowl, California Audubon, Point Blue (formerly 14. Geographic Setting PRBO) Conservation Science, California The Central Valley stretches over 400 miles Rice Commission, Butte Sink Waterfowl from north to south, and is on average 40 Association and numerous private land owners. miles wide from west to east. It is bordered 13.1 Central Valley Joint Venture by the foothills of the Coast Range on its west and the Sierra Nevada on its east. The In 1988, the Central Valley consists of two adjoining valleys, each Valley Habitat Joint drained by California’s two largest rivers: the Venture (CVHJV) Sacramento River in the north and the San was formed to help Joaquin River in the south. The Sacramento implement the North Valley is drained southward by the Sacramento American Waterfowl River and the San Joaquin Valley, which forms Management Plan the southern portion of the Central Valley, is (NAWMP). In 1990, the drained northward by the San Joaquin River. CVHJV partnership The confluence of these two rivers occurs in developed its first stra- the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta, east of tegic plan, the Central San Francisco Bay. These rivers converge in a Valley Habitat Joint Venture Implementation maze of channels, marshes and islands known Plan (CVHJV 1990), to deliver partner- as the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. These ship-based waterfowl habitat conservation. The waters eventually reach the San Francisco Bay North Central Valley WMA was established in and empty into the Pacific Ocean (Figure 5). 1991 to help accomplish the goals of this plan. 14.1 Wilderness Review Renamed in 2004, the Central Valley Joint Venture (CVJV) is comprised of twenty-two As part of the CCP process, lands within State and Federal agencies and private con- the boundaries of the Butte Sink, Willow servation organizations including: Audubon Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley California, California Association of Resource WMAs were reviewed for wilderness suit- Conservation Districts, California Department ability. No lands were found suitable for of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of designation as wilderness as defined in the Water Resources, California Resources Agency, Wilderness Act of 1964. The majority of California State Parks, California Waterfowl, the lands within the WMAs are privately California Wildlife Conservation Board, owned and under conservation easement. Defenders of Wildlife, Ducks Unlimited, Pacific See Appendix P for the Wilderness Review.

16 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Introduction and Background

Figure 5. Watershed/Ecosystem Setting

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17 Chapter 1

Bolander’s sunflower, Llano Seco Rancho. Photo: USFWS

18 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Chapter 2. The Planning Process

Public 1. Introduction Initiate Study Input PreplanningPre-planning The CCP for the Butte Public Scoping & Review and Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, Identify Issues and North Central Valley Revise the CCPPlan WMAs is intended to comply with the requirements of the Improvement Act and The CCP Develop Vision NEPA. Refuge planning Implement CCPPlan Statement & Goals policy guided the process and Andand Monitor Process development of this CCP, as outlined in Part 602, Chapters 1, 3, and 4 of the U.S. Fish DevelopDevelop Objectives, and Wildlife Service Manual. Final AlternativeStrategies, Objectives & CCPPlan AndAlternatives Strategies Service policy, the Prepare Draft Improvement Act, and NEPA CCPPlan Public provide specific guidance Public Input for the planning process, Input such as seeking public involvement in the preparation of the EA. Figure 6. The CCP Process. The development and analysis of “reasonable” management alternatives within the 2. The Planning Process EA include a “no action” alternative that reflects current conditions and manage- Part of comprehensive conservation planning ment strategies on the WMAs. Management includes preparation of a NEPA document. alternatives were developed as part of Key steps in the CCP planning process (Figure this planning process and can be found in 6) and the parallel NEPA process include: Appendix A: Environmental Assessment. Preplanning and team formation The planning process for this CCP began Public scoping in September 2009 with pre-planning meet- Identifying issues, opportunities, and concerns ings, coordination, and the formation of CCP teams. Initially, members of the Refuge staff Defining and revising vision state- and planning team identified a preliminary ment and Refuge or WMA goals list of issues, concerns, and opportunities that Developing and assessing alternatives were derived from wildlife and habitat monitoring, field experience, past management, Identifying the preferred alternative plan and history of the WMAs. This preliminary Draft CCP and EA list was expanded during public scoping and then refined and finalized through the plan- Revising draft documents and releasing ning process to generate the vision, goals, final CCP objectives, and strategies for the WMAs. Implementing the CCP Monitoring / feedback (adaptive management)

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19 Chapter 2

Refuge Refuge National Ecosystem Refuge Goals Objectives Strategies Monitoring System Purpose(s)* and Goals and Vision and Mission Regional Objectives Feedback Goals and (Adaptive Priorities Management)

Figure 7. Hierarchical relationship of refuge goals and objectives to other aspects of the planning process.

3. Planning Hierarchy National and Regional The Service’s planning hierarchy that Plans and Guidance determines the direction of the goals, objectives and strategies is a natural progression from the general to the Ecoregion Plans/State Fish and specific (Figure 7). Described as a Wildlife Conservation Plans/Other Landscape-Level Plans linear process, the planning hierarchy is, in reality, a multi-dimensional flow that is linked by the WMA purposes, Land Protection Plans/ missions, laws, mandates, and other Conceptual Management Plans statutory requirements (Figure 8). In practice, the process of developing vision, goals, and objectives is repeti- Comprehensive Conservation Plan tive and dynamic. During the planning Refuge Goals, Objectives, Strategies process, or as new information becomes Adaptive Management Monitoring and Evaluation available, the plan continues to develop. 4. The Planning Team Step-Down Management Plans

Feedback Support/Modify Objectives and Strategies Habitat, Public Use, Fire, Safety, Etc. Management Actions, Appropriateness of Objectives Status and Trends, Research Results, Effectiveness of Status and Trends, The CCP process requires close team- work with the staff, planners, and other partners to accomplish the necessary Budget Development and planning steps, tasks, and work to gen- Project Implementation erate the CCP document and associated EA. The planning team is responsible for the CCP’s content and will ensure that when implemented it will achieve Figure 8. Relationships between Service and other the purposes of the WMAs and help planning efforts. fulfill the Refuge System mission. The planning team is responsible for the ini- sections of the CCP. The team members also tiation and completion of all planning steps, worked independently in producing their including public involvement and NEPA. Team respective CCP sections, based on their area of members are responsible for researching and expertise. Multi-tasking by team members is a generating the contents of the CCP document standard requirement since work on the CCP and participating in the entire planning pro- occurs in addition to their regular workload. cess. The CCP planning team consists of a refuge planner, refuge managers, biologists, 5. Pre-Planning and visitor services staff for the Complex Pre-Planning involved forming the planning (Appendix O). The team meets regularly to teams, developing the CCP schedule, and gath- discuss and work on the various steps and ering data. The team determined procedures,

20 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Planning Process work allocations, and outreach strategies. The Table 2. WMA issues identified through team also created a preliminary mailing list. public comment. 6. Public Involvement in Planning Issue Number of Percentage Categories Comments of Total Received1 Comments Non-breeding waterfowl habitat - 10 19% Water issues Non-breeding waterfowl habitat - 7 14% Easement acreage goals Breeding waterfowl 7 14% habitat 2009 Scoping meeting. Photo: USFWS Climate change 6 13% Public involvement is an important and nec- Crop depredation 4 7% essary component of the planning process. Partnerships 3 6% Public scoping meetings allow the Service to Law enforcement 3 6% provide updated information about the Refuge Landscape 3 6% System and the WMAs. Most important, these protection meetings allow the refuge staff to hear pub- Other comments 8 15% lic comments, concerns, and opportunities. and questions These public meetings provide valuable discus- sions and identify important issues regarding Total 51 100% the Refuge and the surrounding region. 1 Total number of comments received is greater than the total number of people comment- The Service hosted public meetings in Colusa, ing since each of the letters, emails, faxes, Gridley, and Davis, California in December 2009 comments cards, and flipchart comments (Table 1). Each meeting began with a presenta- received may contain more than one comment. tion introducing the WMAs, provided an open forum for public comment, and ended with a breakout session consisting of various tables 7. Public Outreach with Refuge staff and information available to During the planning process, Refuge staff address questions. In addition to comments continued to actively participate with the made by participants and noted on flip charts various working groups and agency teams at the meetings, comments were also received concerning the areas within the WMAs. by written comment cards, email, faxes, and Informational letters called “Planning letters. These comments were analyzed and Updates” were also mailed to the public. These used to further identify issues and revise CCP periodic publications were created to provide goals, objectives, and strategies (Table 2). the public with up-to-date planning information Table 1. Public scoping meetings. and progress on the CCP process, as well as request input throughout the planning process. Meeting Date Attendance The Planning Updates are also made avail- Location able on the Complex’s website, in the visitor Colusa, CA December 1, 2009 7 center, and at various outreach meetings. Gridley, CA December 2, 2009 7 Davis, CA December 3, 2009 5

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21 Chapter 2 8. Issues, Concerns, and determine whether those rights are sufficient to meet the purposes of the WMAs and secure Opportunities long-term water supply for the WMAs. Through the scoping process and team dis- Breeding waterfowl habitat received the cussions, the planning team identified issues, second-most number of comments. These concerns, and opportunities. During the comments focused on finding additional part- internal scoping process, issues included nerships to provide breeding waterfowl habitat urban encroachment, conversion to crops with and financial incentives for private landowners fewer benefits to wildlife, and uncertainty to provide breeding habitat on easement lands. regarding water availability due to drought and climate change. In undeveloped areas Six comments urged the Service to dis- adjacent to existing urban areas, it is reason- cuss global climate change within the CCP. ably foreseeable that urban encroachment These comments stated that the CCP into existing farmlands could occur and crop should address climate change in the vision conversion may continue away from wild- statement for the WMAs and through its life-friendly crops (small grains, pasture) to goals, objectives and strategies related to permanent crops (orchards, vineyards). inventory and monitoring, environmental education and non-climate stressors. During public scoping, nineteen people attended the three public scoping sessions held Four comments were received regarding in December 2009. Sixteen people/organizations crop depredation issues. These comments provided 51 comments as of February 2010 urged the Service to consider the impacts (Table 2) for consideration in identifying issues and compensate landowners for damage and opportunities for the CCP. The team cat- caused to crops by migratory birds. egorized the comments into eight main areas The importance of maintaining and creating of interest: non-breeding waterfowl habitat new partnerships received three comments. (17), breeding waterfowl habitat (7), climate The need for and support of both State change (6), crop depredation (4), partnerships and Federal law enforcement officers in (3), law enforcement (3), landscape protection California also received three comments. (3), and other questions and comments (8). Landscape protection also received three Non-breeding waterfowl habitat received the comments. These comments urged the most comments. The category was subdivided Service to find a balance between into easement acreage goals (7) and water issues (10). One comment about the easement acreage goals stated that the Service should determine the unprotected wetland acreage within the WMA and attempt to protect it with conservation easements. Another comment stated that the Service should use the restoration goals of the Central Valley Joint Venture Implementation Plan (2006) as a minimum for determining easement objectives. Water issue comments included: recommending the Service conduct a water resources assessment for the WMAs, inventory water rights and their quantity and quality, 2009 Scoping meeting. Photo: USFWS

22 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Planning Process providing for wildlife and causing eco- System mission, ecosystem guidelines, nomic stress to farmers and ranchers. and refuge purposes. This is accomplished during the CCP process through the devel- The remaining eight comments in the “other” opment of goals, objectives, and strategies. category ranged in subject matter from inquiries about whether there is a minimum 10.1 Goals size for an easement to what type of funding is used to acquire the easements. A youth The Service defines a goal as a “descriptive, hunt on the Llano Seco Unit of the North open-ended, and often broad statement of Central Valley WMA was also suggested. desired future conditions that conveys a purpose, but does not define measurable units” In addition to the issues discussed above, (602 FW 1 of the Service Manual). Goals are additional threats to migratory birds, threat- a means to achieving refuge purposes. Goals ened and endangered species, wetland habitats translate to one or more objectives that define and other priority conservation targets these conditions in measurable terms. A include: water quality, wildlife disease, agri- well-written goal directs work toward achieving cultural pesticides, mosquito management, a refuge’s vision and ultimately the purpose(s) altered sediment loads, invasive plants, and of a refuge. Collectively, a set of goals is a human disturbance. Threats and stressors framework within which to make decisions. to priority conservation targets are discussed further in Chapter 3, The Refuge 10.2 Interim Refuge Goals Environment, and in the environmental assess- The 1997 interim goals for Butte Sink ment (Appendix A). Strategies to address WMA, the Willow Creek-Lurline WMA, many of the threats are presented in the goals, and the North Central Valley WMA were: objectives, and strategies in Chapter 4. Provide a diversity of wetland habitats for 9. Development of the an abundance of migratory birds, partic- Refuge Vision ularly waterfowl and other water birds; Provide natural habitat for and manage- A vision statement is developed for each refuge ment to restore and perpetuate endangered, or complex as part of the CCP process. Vision threatened, or species of special concern; statements are grounded in the unifying mission of the Refuge System and describe the Preserve a natural diversity and desired future conditions of the refuge unit abundance of flora and fauna; in the long term (more than 15 years). They Provide opportunities for the understand- are based on the refuge’s specific purposes, ing and appreciation of wildlife ecology the resources present on the refuge, and and the human role in the environment; any other relevant mandates. Please refer to and provide high-quality wildlife-depen- Chapter 1 for the WMAs’ vision statement. dent recreation, education, and research. 10. Determining the Refuge Goals, Through the CCP process these interim goals have been evaluated and revised Objectives, and Strategies and are detailed in Chapter 4. The purpose for creating the WMAs is established by law (see Chapter 1). The 10.3 Objectives, Rationale, Improvement Act directs that the planning and Strategies effort develop and revise the management Once the WMA goals are reviewed and focus of the Refuges/WMAs within the revised then various objectives, a ratio- Service’s planning framework, which nale, and strategies are determined includes: the Service mission, the Refuge to accomplish each of the goals.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23 Chapter 2

Objectives: The Service defines an objective developed to represent reasonable options that as “a concise statement of what we want to address the specific WMA issues and chal- achieve, how much we want to achieve, when lenges. A “no action” or continuation of current and where we want to achieve it, and who is management alternative is required by NEPA. responsible for the work” (602 FW 1 of the A range of other alternatives was studied Service Manual). Objectives are incremen- and are described in the EA (Appendix A). tal steps we take to achieve a goal. They are derived from goals and provide a foundation 12. Plan Implementation for determining strategies, monitoring refuge This Draft CCP and EA will be provided accomplishments, and evaluating success. The for public review and comment. Comments number of objectives per goal will vary, and in received by the Service will be incorporated some cases an implementation schedule may where appropriate and perhaps result in be developed. All objectives must possess the modifications to the preferred alternative or following five properties: specific, measurable, selection of one of the other alternatives. The achievable, results-oriented, and time-fixed. alternative that is ultimately selected will Rationale: The rationale describes back- become the basis of the ensuing Final CCP. ground, history, assumptions, and technical This document then becomes the basis for details so that the reader can understand how guiding management over the coming 15-year the objective was formulated. The degree of period. It will guide the development of more documentation will vary, but at a minimum, it detailed step-down management plans for should include logic, assumptions, and sources specific resource areas and will also under- of information. This promotes informed pin the annual budgeting process for refuge debate on the objective’s merits, provides operations and maintenance (Chapter 5). Most continuity in management through staff turn- importantly, it lays out the general approach over, and allows reevaluation of the objective to managing habitat, wildlife, and people at as new information becomes available. the Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley WMAs that will direct Strategy: The Service defines a strategy as day-to-day decision-making and actions. “a specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used A review of the CCP will take place approx- to meet unit objectives” (602 FW 1 of the imately every five years and the CCP Service Manual). Multiple strategies can will be updated every fifteen years. 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 identification of the preferred management alternative are fully described in the c EA (Appendix A). Alternatives were

24 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Chapter 3. The Refuge Environment 1. Wildlife Management Federally-listed as threatened spring-run Chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead. Area Descriptions Because the easement properties of the 1.1 Butte Sink WMA Butte Sink WMA are under private ownership, public access is not permitted. The Butte Sink WMA was established in 1979 (USFWS 1979a) with the primary purpose 1.1.1 Butte Sink Unit of preserving native wetland habitat to per- The Service manages the Butte Sink Unit petuate the migratory waterfowl resource in 10 individual management cells. Managed in the Central Valley and the Pacific Flyway. wetlands comprise 93 percent of the total acre- Other objectives of the WMA include assur- age, and consist mainly of seasonally flooded ing adequate water conditions for wintering wetlands (Figure 9). The remaining acreage waterfowl, preserving wetland habitat for is comprised of grasslands and riparian for- a broad spectrum of migratory wildlife, est habitats. The Butte Sink Unit alone can and establishing and maintaining a wild- host wintering waterfowl in excess of 500,000 life sanctuary in the Butte Sink Unit. ducks and 40,000 geese, occasionally reaching Located immediately west of the Sutter a peak population of over one million birds Buttes in the lower Butte Basin, the Butte (USFWS 1989-2014, unpublished data). Sink WMA consists of 34 conservation ease- In accordance with deed restrictions (Grant ments protecting approximately 10,236 Deed 15050, Sutter County, CA) “no sport acres of privately-owned land, and one 733- hunting will be permitted” and “the paramount acre Service-owned property known as the purpose of the United States in acquiring this Butte Sink Unit (Figure 2). Managed wet- area is to create a sanctuary for, and protec- lands comprise approximately 90 percent of tion of, wildlife”, therefore no public use is the WMA and consist primarily of seasonal allowed on the Butte Sink Unit. The Service wetlands with fewer semi-permanent and has access to the Unit via Laux Road extension, permanent wetlands. The wetlands occur in a through the Colusa Shooting hunt club. Grant floodplain and are characterized by a strong Deed 15050 also states that Stack Club has “(i) riparian forest and emergent vegetation the right to maintain the existing open area component. Butte Creek and its tributar- between the West boundary of Parcel “B” and ies meander through the WMA providing the tree line on the East side of Parcel 3; (ii) the a water source for many of the wetlands. right to maintain the density of trees now exist- The Butte Sink WMA represents the largest ing on the lands described in Exhibit B”; (iii) contiguous block of wetlands in the Sacramento the right to retrieve dead and crippled migra- Valley and typically supports up to 2 million tory waterfowl from the open area described in wintering waterfowl and large numbers of (i) above”. El Anzar hunt club has access rights the State-listed threatened greater sand- to their property through the Butte Sink Unit. hill crane (USFWS California Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey reports, 1955-2014). These 1.2 Willow Creek-Lurline WMA wetlands also support significant populations The Willow Creek-Lurline WMA was estab- of breeding herons, egrets, and other water- lished in 1985 (USFWS 1979b) with the birds. Butte Creek and its associated wetlands primary purpose of preserving wetland habitat also support anadromous fish, including

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25 Chapter 3

Figure 9. Butte Sink WMA, Butte Sink Unit, Habitat Management

26 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment for wintering waterfowl and other wetland-de- wetland-dependent plants and wildlife. pendent wildlife. Located in the Colusa Basin, The North Central Valley WMA has an the Willow Creek -Lurline WMA consists acquisition boundary which includes six of two distinct wetland divisions: the Willow basins (Butte, Colusa, American, Sutter, Creek Division located between Sacramento Yolo and Delta) and encompasses most of and Delevan Refuges, and the Lurline Division the Valley floor from the Sacramento-San located between Delevan and Colusa Refuges. Joaquin Delta to Red Buff (Figure 1). These provide an important corridor of natu- Currently, the North Central Valley ral and managed wetland habitat connecting WMA is active in Butte, Sutter, and Yolo Sacramento, Delevan and Colusa Refuges. basins, and consists of approximately In 1978, these lands represented the last 1,732 acres of Service-owned lands (Llano private wetlands within the Colusa Basin. Seco Unit) and 28 conservation easements They were reduced from 15,000 acres in 1952 on approximately 14,740 acres of private to less than 6,000 acres in 1982 (1952 and 1978 lands (Figures 4a-c). The North Central maps, Land Ascertainment Report, Land Valley WMA has an approved acquisition Acquisition Ascertainment Report for the objective of 55,000 acres (48,750 acres con- Colusa Basin Wetlands (USFWS 1979b)). servation easement; 6,250 acres fee-title). The Willow Creek-Lurline WMA currently These easements consist of restored and consists of 85 conservation easements on existing wetlands which annually support approximately 5,859 acres of private lands hundreds of thousands of migrating and win- (Figure 3). The Willow Creek Division con- tering waterfowl, and include some of the sists of 3,707 acres and the Lurline Division most important privately owned waterfowl consists of 2,150 acres. The approved sanctuaries in the Central Valley. In addition, acquisition objective for the Willow conservation easements can support tens of Creek-Lurline WMA is 8,000 acres. thousands migrating and wintering shorebirds, large numbers of greater sandhill cranes, and Approximately 85 percent of the WMA con- numerous species of management concern, sists of managed seasonal, semi-permanent, including long-billed curlews, white-faced ibis, and permanent wetlands. The remaining American bitterns and white-tailed kites. acreage is comprised of unmanaged wetlands, alkali meadows, grasslands, riparian willow 1.3.1 Llano Seco Unit scrub, and other habitats. These habitats The Llano Seco Unit is part of the historic support many species of wintering waterfowl, Llano Seco Rancho, the last intact Mexican shorebirds, waterbirds (herons, egrets, ibis, land grant in California (Figure 10). This his- pelicans, etc.), and other wetland-dependent toric area is bounded by the Sacramento River wildlife. Special status species supported by to the west and is bisected by Angel Slough in these wetlands include wintering tule greater the center and Little Chico Creek to the east. white-fronted geese and breeding tricolored This diverse landscape includes riparian flood- blackbirds (both California species of special plains, uplands and wetland basin habitats. concern – Shuford and Gardali 2008), giant garter snakes (Federally-listed as threatened Almost the entire Llano Seco Rancho area species), and palmate-bracted bird’s-beak is now protected through multiple conser- (Federally-listed as endangered species). vation partnerships involving the Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1.3 North Central Valley WMA The Nature Conservancy, and the Northern The North Central Valley WMA was estab- California Regional Land Trust (Figure lished in 1991 to preserve existing and 10). This conservation partnership forms, in restored wetlands for waterfowl and other part, the Llano Seco Joint Management

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27 Chapter 3

The Llano Seco Unit supports large populations of wintering waterfowl, as well as other species such as bald eagle, mountain lion, bobcat; Federal and/or State listed species include greater sandhill cranes, Swainson’s hawks, giant garter snakes, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and vernal pool fairy shrimp; species of concern include, but are not limited to, California linderiella and Ferris’s milk-vetch. 2. Ecosystem Setting The Central Valley totals about 10 million acres, California hibiscus, Llano Seco Rancho, Angel or 10 percent of the State, and includes por- Slough. Photo: USFWS tions of 19 counties. Prior to the mid-1800s, the Committee whose goal is to coordinate con- Valley contained more than 4 million acres of servation and management activities. wetland habitat (CVJV 2006). In 2006, just over 205,000 acres of managed wetlands remained in Henceforth, “Llano Seco Unit” refers to the the Central Valley (Figure 12), and of these, two Service-owned portion. “Llano Seco Ranch” thirds are in private ownership (CVJV 2006). refers to lands that remain under private Most of these wetlands were bordered by grass- ownership. The California Department of land and riparian habitats. Many wetlands were Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) also has a “Llano seasonal in nature and were filled with rainfall Seco Unit,” which is located in the south- and subsequent over-bank flooding of rivers western corner of the historic Rancho. This and streams that inundated large areas of the area will be referred to as “CDFW Llano Valley during winter and spring. Estimates Seco Unit.” There is obviously potential for from the 1800s suggest these habitats sup- confusion among these areas, and Figure ported between 20 to 40 million waterfowl 10 identifies their location and ownership. annually (CVJV 2006) and other migratory The Service-owned Llano Seco Unit in the birds, grizzly bear, and vast herds of deer, elk, North Central Valley WMA consists of two and pronghorn. Natural habitat was replaced distinct areas: Sanctuary I (967 acres) and by rice and other crops with the development Sanctuary II (765 acres) which are managed of agriculture during the late 1800s and early by the Service as 30 individual management 1900s. Waterfowl consumed some of these crops units (Figure 11). Managed wetlands comprise as a substitute for their original wetland foods, nearly half of the total acreage, and consist resulting in serious crop losses for farmers. mostly of seasonally flooded wetlands, with In its pristine state, the Central Valley was some semi-permanent and permanent wet- characterized by over 25 plant communities lands. The remaining acreage is comprised of providing habitats for a great diversity of grasslands, vernal pools, and irrigated pasture plants and animals (Holland 1986). These with some riparian forest habitats. Sanctuary communities consisted of various riparian I has no public use and is an inviolate sanc- scrubs, forests, woodlands and savannas; tuary. Sanctuary II has non-consumptive perennial grasslands; annual wildflower fields; wildlife-dependent public use including wild- interior dune lands; vernal pools; alkali sinks, life observation, photography, environmental meadows, and scrubs; and fresh and brackish education and interpretation. There is a water marshes. Central Valley vegetation and half-mile walking trail and two observation habitats have been altered by human activity platforms open to the public from one hour more than any other geomorphic province in before sunrise to one hour after sunset.

28 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

Figure 10. Llano Seco Rancho: Historic Map and Current Conservation Ownership

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29 Chapter 3

Figure 11. North Central Valley WMA, Llano Seco Unit, Habitat Management

30 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

Figure 12. Changes in California Central Valley Wetlands, 1900 to 1990

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31 Chapter 3 the State. In 1987, a report for the California Central Valley/San Francisco Bay Ecoregion Senate (Airola and Messick 1987) depicted (Figure 5). These regions are extremely that the valley grassland community was important to waterfowl, supporting over more than 99 percent gone, the freshwater 45 percent of the Pacific Flyway’s win- marsh community was more than 94 percent tering waterfowl population (USFWS gone, and the riparian woodland was about 1955-2014, Collins and Trost 2010). 89 percent gone. In addition, approximately Seasonal wetlands in these regions play a 75 percent of all vernal pools in the Central significant role in supporting wintering and Valley were lost by 1997 (Holland 1998). migrating shorebird and waterbird species, The over-bank flooding that once character- with the Sacramento Valley designated as a ized the Valley is largely gone. Reservoirs part of the Western Hemispheric Shorebird and constructed levees now harness rivers Reserve Network (WHSRN) and noted for its for irrigation and flood control, preventing importance in both the United States Shorebird most natural flooding of wetlands. The Valley Conservation Plan (Brown et al., 2001) and the is now an extensive agricultural area and North American Waterbird Conservation Plan lands that surround the WMAs consist pri- (Kushlan et al., 2002). These regions are also marily of irrigated rice lands and orchards. an important breeding area for several spe- Various row crops, safflower, barley, wheat, cies of waterfowl, shorebirds and waterbirds. alfalfa, and some dairy production are also On a more local level, these regions support a present. Predominant soil types range from variety of migratory, resident, and breeding deep loams to poorly drained alkaline clays. wildlife species, native plants, and their hab- Early losses were primarily related to con- itats. Some are quite common in the Central version to agricultural croplands. More Valley, the Flyway, and in North America. recent losses have been a result of conver- These would include a number of egret and sion from historic cattle grazing lands to heron species, white-faced ibis, black-tailed more intensive agricultural uses and wide- deer, and a variety of grassland and ripar- spread urbanization (USFWS 2005a). ian birds. Other species are quite restricted in range and may be rare, or in some cases Non-native invasive plant and animal spe- listed as Federally- and/or State- listed as cies now dominate many natural habitats endangered or threatened. For example, the throughout the Central Valley. Agricultural tricolored blackbird (California Bird Species development, urban expansion, alteration of of Concern) and giant garter snake (Federally- hydrologic regimes, and introduced plants and and State-listed as threatened) are species that animals have all contributed to the destruction occur almost exclusively in the Central Valley. of native habitats (Gilmer et al.,1982, Katibah 1984). See also Chapter 1, Geographic Setting. Similarly, there are seven threatened or endangered species that occur in rare vernal pool The WMAs represent a small portion of the or alkali meadow habitats within the WMAs, vast seasonal wetlands, grasslands and riparian including three vernal pool invertebrates and forests that once existed in the Sacramento four plants. As habitat acres decrease with Valley. The remaining intensively managed the expansion of agricultural and urban devel- wetlands and associated agricultural habi- opment, areas such as the WMAs become tats now support an average of 5.5 million increasingly important to the conservation of waterfowl annually (CVJV 2006). Few places these species. Appendix K provides a list of on earth have greater concentrations of win- wildlife and plant species within the WMAs, tering waterfowl than the Central Valley. and describes their migratory and breeding The WMAs are located within the Sacramento status. Appendix L provides a list of spe- Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta cial status species and notes whether they regions and also fall within the Service’s are listed as endangered or threatened.

32 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

Grazing cattle and wild geese near vernal pool, Llano Seco. Photo: USFWS

In summary, the WMAs play a significant, and Valley Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes in some cases, critical role at the ecosystem (PFC 1997); Partners in Flight North American level. The WMAs support abundance, diversity, Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al., 2004); or, in some cases, single species conservation. Riparian Bird Conservation Plan (RHJV 2004); Whether permanent or seasonal wetlands, ver- Draft Grassland Bird Conservation Plan (CPIF nal pools or alkali meadows, simply protecting 2000); United States Shorebird Conservation these habitats is not sufficient to maintain their Plan (Brown et al., 2001), Southern Pacific function in the ecosystem. Proper management Shorebird Conservation Plan (Hickey et al., of these habitats is required to ensure that the 2002); North American Waterbird Conservation abundance and health of the valued resources Management Plan (Kushlan et al., 2002); they support is maintained and enhanced Conservation Plan for the Tricolored Blackbird (see Chapter 3, for current management). (Tricolored Blackbird Working Group 2009); Partners in Flight Tri-National Vision for The Service is actively involved in the devel- Landbird Conservation (Berlanga et al., 2010); opment and implementation of a number of Anadromous Fish Restoration Program and conservation plans for migratory birds and the California Wildlife Action Plan (CDFG other fish and wildlife within the ecosystem 2005c). Regional step-down plans specific including the: North American Waterfowl to the area are discussed in Chapter 5. Management Plan (USFWS et al., 1986, 1998, 2012); Central Valley Joint Venture 2.1 Butte Sink WMA Ecosystem Implementation Plan (CVJV 2006); Pacific Flyway Management Plans, prepared by the Located in the center of the Sacramento Valley, Pacific Flyway Council (PFC) for: Cackling the Butte Sink lies west of the Sutter Buttes Canada Geese (PFC 1999), Aleutian Canada and east of the Sacramento River. Prior to Geese (PFC 2006a), Pacific Flyway Population 1920, the Butte Sink consisted primarily of of Greater White-fronted Geese (PFC 2003), grasslands with a few permanently flooded Tule Greater White-fronted Geese (PFC 1991), sloughs and wetland basins. Butte Creek and Wrangel Island Population of Lesser Snow its tributaries meandered through the Butte Geese (PFC 2006b), Western Arctic Population Sink floodplain, providing riparian and wet- of Lesser Snow Geese (PFC 2013), Ross’ Geese land habitats for a host of wildlife, including (PFC 1992), Western Population of Tundra anadromous fish, waterfowl, and many other Swans (PFC 2001), Pacific Flyway Population migratory birds. Historically, this area received of Sandhill Cranes (PFC 1983), and Central natural flooding between December and March

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33 Chapter 3 from the Butte Creek and Sacramento River of managed seasonal and semi-permanent drainages (Jones & Stokes 2001). Early land- wetlands and native uplands surrounded use consisted of grazing, grain crop farming, by rice agriculture. Heavy alkali soils influ- and waterfowl hunting. As rice agriculture ence the wetlands and uplands of this region, developed north of the Butte Sink in the often resulting in sparse emergent vegeta- early 1900s, agricultural drain water became tion and salt-tolerant plant communities. more prevalent during the summer and fall months. This extended hydroperiod brought 2.3 North Central Valley about an expansion of managed wetlands and WMA Ecosystem riparian habitats, resulting in a shift in land- The North Central Valley WMA includes use from agriculture to waterfowl hunting. the majority of the Sacramento Valley and Today this area consists primarily of man- the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region aged seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands, (Delta), covering an area approximately 200 and associated riparian habitats. The wet- miles long and 30 miles wide (USFWS 1991). lands are characterized by interspersed More specifically, the North Central Valley riparian forest, emergent vegetation, and WMA covers the Sacramento Valley floor, moist-soil vegetation components. from Red Bluff to the Delta, and overlaps the Butte Sink and Willow Creek-Lurline WMAs. 2.2 Willow Creek-Lurline The North Central Valley WMA also includes WMA Ecosystem portions of the major watersheds that drain the Central Valley. The Sacramento River and In the 1850s and 1860s, the area southeast its main tributaries - the Feather, Yuba, and of Willows, west of Princeton, and north of American Rivers - flow from the north through Colusa (known as the Colusa Plains) was the Sacramento Valley and into the Delta, characterized by alkali soil and sparse vegeta- southwest of the city of Sacramento. The San tion (Hinds 1952). These areas were dry most Joaquin River, which drains the San Joaquin of the year or sometimes for entire seasons, Valley, enters the Delta from the south and but during major rain and flood events they joins the Sacramento River at the west bound- were inundated and formed shallow lakes. ary of the Delta. The combined waters of the These alkali plains were dotted with ver- Sacramento and San Joaquin River flow past nal pools and lakes of all sizes, and provided the Suisun Marsh and into San Francisco Bay. feeding and roosting habitat for many wintering waterfowl and other migratory birds. The Sacramento Valley is mostly flat with a slight drainage gradient from north to south. Winter wheat was introduced to the plains in Its large rivers and tributaries historically the 1870s. Native pasture and winter wheat formed natural levees of alluvium which were provided prime winter and early spring heavily forested. During winter storm events forage habitat for hundreds of thousands and spring run-off these rivers routinely topped of small Canada geese. The development their banks and flowed into numerous basins of irrigation systems brought rice agricul- creating extensive wetlands. In addition to ture to the Sacramento Valley in the 1910s. flood basin wetlands, extensive vernal pool/ The conversion to rice attracted an addi- grassland complexes occurred when annual tional abundance of waterfowl to the plains precipitation ponded on basin rims and ter- and dramatically increased waterfowl use races. Today, flood flows are largely controlled during the late summer and fall months. by dams, levees and flood control bypasses, Today, the properties in the Willow Creek- and many of the original wetlands and vernal Lurline WMA represent some of the last pool complexes have largely been converted privately-owned historic wetlands in the to agricultural crops. Remnant existing and Colusa Basin. These lands consist of a mosaic restored public and private wetlands still

34 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

the rivers’ watersheds because of its legal status and use as a conveyance system for upstream water. Within the Delta, Federal (Central Valley Project or CVP) and State (State Water Project or SWP) pumping plants move water from the Delta to a system of canals and reservoirs for use by agriculture, communities, and wildlife refuges in the San Joaquin Valley, Bay Area, Central Coast, and southern California (CDWR et al., 2003). 3. Physical Environment Sandhill Crane. Photo: USFWS 3.1 Climate and Air Quality exist in the basins and flood bypasses. These 3.1.1 Climate are typically managed freshwater emergent The climate of California’s northern Central wetlands that are owned and managed as Valley is classified as Mediterranean (Köppen wildlife refuges or private hunting properties. climate classification: Csa, McKnight and Together with adjacent rice lands, managed Hess 2005), with cool wet winters and hot dry wetlands provide important habitat for a great summers. The annual average precipitation is diversity and abundance of migratory birds. 16-18 inches. Fog is common during the win- The Delta is mostly flat with a slight drainage ter months, while thunderstorms, hail, and gradient from east to west. Historically, the snow are rare occurrences. The mean annual Delta consisted of expansive tidal freshwater temperature is 61.7°F with extremes of 118°F wetlands that were interspersed with numerous and 15°F. South winds are associated with interconnected river and slough channels. In storms in the winter and cooling trends in the the early 1900s, levees were developed along summer. North winds are usually indicative the river and slough channels creating large of dry periods following winter storms, and islands that were converted from wetlands hot and dry periods during the summer. to agriculture. Today, the Delta consists of a The climate in the Sacramento-San Joaquin mosaic of interconnected river and slough chan- Delta region is spatially variable, but is also nels, farmed islands protected by levees, and generally characterized as Mediterranean. remnant tidal wetlands dominated by emergent Climate becomes milder from east to west due vegetation. Agriculture on the islands consists to influence from the Pacific Ocean. Summers mainly of corn and other row crops. Much of are hot (average daily highs are in the upper the harvested corn fields are winter-flooded 80s to lower 90s °F) with little precipitation for waterfowl hunting. Together, managed and low humidity. Heat waves are common in wetlands and post-harvest flooded corn, on the summer months during which temperatures islands, and remnant tidal wetlands provide can reach near 100oF for consecutive days. The important waterfowl, shorebird and water- “Delta breeze” often occurs during summer bird habitat in the Delta region. In addition, evenings when cool, humid air from the ocean restored wetlands, irrigated pasture and small moves on shore and can cool the Delta by up grain crops along the eastern perimeter of the to 7°F (Pierce and Gaushell 2005). Winters are Delta are crucial for sandhill cranes, long-billed mild (average daily highs in the mid-50s to mid- curlews and many other migratory birds. 60s °F) and wet. Approximately 80 percent of Although the Delta lies at the confluence of annual precipitation occurs between November the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, the and March. The primary source of precipita- Delta Region is considered separate from tion is seasonal low pressure disturbances

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35 Chapter 3 from the Pacific Ocean. Dense fog is common conditions in the Sacramento Valley will be in the Delta region during winter months. warmer winter temperatures (PRBO 2011). Local land-use and landcover may interact with 3.1.2 Climate Change climate change to exacerbate changes in local The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate temperatures. In 2011, there was more uncer- Change has concluded that warming of the tainty about the precipitation projections for climate system is unequivocal, as is now evi- temperature in the Sacramento Valley, but with dent from observations of increases in global some evidence for a slightly drier future climate average air and ocean temperatures, wide- relative to current conditions (PRBO 2011). spread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (IPCC 2007). The U.S. 3.1.3 Air Quality Department of the Interior issued an order in The WMAs are primarily located in California’s January 2001 requiring its land management Sacramento Valley Air Basin. The Sacramento agencies to consider potential climate change Valley Air Basin encompasses 15,043 square impacts as part of long-range planning endeav- miles including Butte, Colusa, Glenn, ors. The increase of carbon within the earth’s Sacramento, Shasta, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise Yuba counties, the western portion of Placer in surface temperature commonly referred County, and the eastern portion of Solano to as global warming. In relation to compre- County. The Butte County Air Pollution Control hensive conservation planning for national District and the Colusa County Air Pollution wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration consti- Control District are the agencies responsible tutes the primary climate-related impact to be for ensuring compliance with Federal and State considered. The U.S. Department of Energy’s air quality standards in the basin where the report “Carbon Sequestration Research and Service-owned Llano Seco Unit and the Butte Development” (USDOE 1999) defines carbon Sink Unit are located, respectively. Portions sequestration as “...the capture and secure of the WMAs are in two other California Air storage of carbon that would otherwise be Basins: San Joaquin County is in the northern emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Contra Costa and western Solano Counties Terrestrial biomes of all sorts – grasslands, for- are in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. ests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice and desert – are effective both in preventing carbon emis- The Federal and State governments have each sion and acting as a biological “scrubber” of established ambient air quality standards for atmospheric carbon monoxide. The Department several pollutants. Most standards have been of Energy’s report notes that ecosystem pro- set to protect public health. However, stan- tection is important to carbon sequestration dards for some pollutants are based on other and may reduce or prevent the loss of carbon values, such as protecting crops and materials, currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. and avoiding nuisance conditions. Currently, Although climate change is already affecting Sutter County is Federally-classified as a wildlife throughout the state (Parmesan and non-attainment area for ground-level ozone. Galbraith 2004), and its effects will continue to A non-attainment area is defined as any area increase, it has particular significance for this that does not meet ambient air quality stan- region’s major river and estuarine systems. dards for a pollutant. In addition, Glenn, Butte, Colusa, and Sutter, Contra Costa, Placer, The WMAs are located in the Sacramento Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Tehama, Valley Ecoregion (PRBO 2011). Snyder and Yolo, and Yuba Counties are classified by the Sloan (2005) projected mean annual tempera- State of California as non-attainment areas ture in the Sacramento Valley would increase for both ozone and particulate matter at the by 2.4°C by the end of the 21st century. The 10-micron level or smaller (PM10) standards. projected impacts of climate change on thermal Only three counties in the entire State are not

36 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment classified as non-attainment areas for PM10. problems than the general public. Residential All counties with WMA lands are in attain- areas are also considered to be sensitive recep- ment (or are unclassified) for carbon monoxide tors because residents tend to be home for (CO). Classification as a non-attainment area extended periods of time, resulting in sus- means that the State must develop an imple- tained exposure to any pollutants present. mentation plan to outline methods for reaching identified air quality standards. Permitting, 3.2 Water Supply scheduling, and restrictions on some activi- Due to drastic changes in natural hydrology, ties may be required. Currently, individual nearly all wetlands in the WMAs are managed counties require smoke management plans wetlands that require water to be artificially and limit acreage burned on prescribed burns applied and maintained. Managed wetland conducted easement and service-owned lands. properties within the WMAs receive water Ozone, the main component of photochemical from a variety of sources depending on their smog, is formed through a complex series of location and water rights. The most common chemical reactions between reactive organic water sources for wetland properties include: 1) gasses (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). water diverted from adjacent rivers and creeks On-road motor vehicles and other mobile using riparian water rights, 2) water diverted sources are the largest contributors to NOx from non-contiguous water bodies under appro- emissions in the Sacramento Valley. On-road priative water rights deeded to the property, 3) motor vehicles, area-wide sources, and sta- water secured and purchased under contract tionary sources are significant contributors to with an irrigation or water districts, 4) agricul- ROG emissions. Once formed, ozone remains tural drain water from upstream properties, in the atmosphere for one or two days. As a and 5) groundwater pumped from deep wells. result, ozone is a regional pollutant and often 3.2.1 Butte Sink WMA impacts a large area. Ozone’s main effects include damage to vegetation, chemical dete- Wetlands in the Butte Sink WMA are flooded rioration of various materials, and irritation with a combination of: 1) agricultural drain and damage to the human respiratory system. water, 2) delivered water secured through the 1922 Agreement with Western Canal Water PM10 is produced by stationary point sources Company, 3) water purchased from adjacent such as fuel combustion and industrial pro- agricultural water districts, 4) water diverted cesses; fugitive sources, such as roadway dust directly from Butte Creek through riparian from paved and unpaved roads; wind erosion water rights and 5) water from deep wells. from open land; and transportation sources, such as automobiles. The primary sources of In the early 1900s, an excess of agricultural PM10 in the Sacramento Valley are fugitive drain water from irrigated farmland in the dust from paved and unpaved roads and agri- upper Butte Basin was negatively affecting cultural operations, and smoke from residential farming and ranching operations in and around wood combustion and seasonal agricultural the Butte Sink. These conditions led to law- burning. Soil type and soil moisture content are suits, which eventually required upstream important factors in PM10 emissions. Federal farmers to develop permanent drainage works and State PM10 standards are designed to pre- and enter into a series of agreements, collec- vent respiratory disease and protect visibility. tively referred to as the “1922 Agreement”, with the Butte Sink landowners. In the 1922 Certain land uses are considered more sensitive Agreement, Butte Sink landowners gave the to air pollution than others. Locations, such upstream farming interests the right to flow as schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes, agricultural drainwater over their lands, and are labeled sensitive receptors because their in exchange, the Butte Sink landowners were occupants are more susceptible to respiratory provided with water, free of charge, to maintain infections and other air quality-related health

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37 Chapter 3 their properties in a flooded condition through In addition to the 1922 Agreement, the Service the waterfowl hunting season. These agree- has two water rights on Butte Creek (Water ments also resulted in the construction of Right IDs: A014316 and A012437, State water conveyance infrastructure in the Butte Water Resources Control Board, Division of Sink including the: Bifurcation Dam, North Water Rights). Both have a diversion sea- Weir, Cross Cut Canal, End Weir, and exten- son of May 1 through September 1, and the sions to the Cherokee Canal and 833 Drain. maximum direct diversion rates are 2.40 and 4.46 cfs, respectively. Total diversions for Today, easement properties which are party these water rights are 590.3 and 1,097 acre- to the 1922 Agreement use agricultural drain feet. There is a lift pump on Butte Creek water diverted from Butte Creek for the initial located near the southwest corner of the flooding of their wetlands. Generally, easement unit to allow for exercising these rights. properties receive drain water from mid-August through September. Once drain water begins 3.2.2 Willow Creek-Lurline WMA to diminish, a designated representative of the The majority of easement properties within the Butte Sink landowners (currently the manager Willow Creek Division are members of Willow of the Wild Goose Club) will call Western Canal Creek Mutual Water Company (WCMWC) Water District and order the delivery of water which supplies water to easement wetlands. to maintain wetland water levels. As a condi- WCMWC has limited water rights and has tion of the 1922 Agreement, Western Canal historically depended on “surplus” water Water District is obligated to deliver up to 200 purchased from Provident Water District, cubic feet per second (cfs) through December agricultural drain water, and water pumped of each year to maintain Butte Sink wetlands. from deep wells to flood easement lands. In While the majority of the wetland water sup- recent years, WCMWC has become more ply in the Butte Sink is provided through the active in pursuing a reliable surface water 1922 Agreement, there are a variety of other supply. Their actions helped lead to a long-term water sources. Some easement properties agreement (25 years, with the option to renew) receive water through other agricultural water signed in 2007 that conveyed 1,470 acre-feet districts, including Reclamation District 1004 of pre-1914 water rights owned by BLM to which services many wetland properties west of the Service for use on easement properties Butte Creek. Many properties which are adja- within the WCMWC. Additionally, in 2010 cent to Butte Creek maintain riparian rights WCMWC entered into a short-term agree- and will occasionally use low lift pumps to divert ment (3 years) with BOR to annually purchase water for wetland purposes. Finally, Butte Sink up to 3,000 acre feet of water for easement properties which don’t have water rights and properties. Despite these accomplishments, are not party to the 1922 Agreement generally water shortages remain a real concern for depend on deep wells to flood their wetlands. Willow Creek easement properties and secur- 3.2.1.1 Butte Sink Unit ing a reliable water supply is a high priority. The Butte Sink Unit’s primary water supply Within the Willow Creek Division, there is received as part of the 1922 Agreement are several easement properties which described above in section 3.2.1. This water typ- are not serviced by the WCMWC. These ically becomes available from the Sacramento properties generally receive their water Outing Club to the north and is initially through Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District received in late August or early September. or pump ground water using deep wells. Typically, by March or April, inflow has stopped Most easement properties within the Lurline and, if water levels in Butte Creek allow, the Division belong to Maxwell Irrigation District Unit is drawn down. Water is also sometimes (MID), which supplies water to easement available in the spring for wetland irrigations. wetlands. MID has secure water rights and

38 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment diverts water directly from the Sacramento Chico Creek and the Sacramento River, on the River. Properties which are not supplied by east bank of the Sacramento River just south MID rely on a combination of agricultural of the Bidwell-Sacramento River State Park at drain water pumped from adjacent drains river mile (RM) 193, approximately six miles and groundwater pumped from deep wells. southwest of the City of Chico. It provides a reliable water supply to approximately 15,000 3.2.3 North Central Valley WMA acres of farm and conservation lands, including With easement properties located through- over 4,000 acres of wetlands and associated out the Sacramento Valley, the water supply habitats owned or managed by the Service and for North Central Valley WMA wetlands is CDFW. The relocation was part of an effort diverse and varied. The most common water to reduce the risk of mortality to native anad- sources for easement wetlands include: 1) romous salmonids, including special-status water diverted from adjacent rivers and species within the Sacramento River Basin. creeks using appropriative and riparian water The relocated diversion was designed with rights, 2) water secured under contract with a state-of-the-art fish screen system, which an irrigation or water district, 3) agricultural supplies private ranches, the Service’s Llano drain water from upstream properties and Seco Unit and CDFW Llano Seco Unit with a 4) groundwater pumped from deep wells. total conveyance capacity of 150 cfs. As part While easement properties do rely on a vari- of the relocation, the M&T Chico Ranch/Llano ety of water sources, there are some general Seco Rancho agreed to not divert 40 cfs of trends in wetland water supply based on their water right from Butte Creek (October property location. For instance, properties 1 through June 30) to support Butte Creek located in the Butte Basin (adjacent to the fisheries as long as replacement water would Butte Sink WMA) are generally members be guaranteed from the Central Valley Project of and are supplied water by local irrigation at the new facility on the Sacramento River. districts. Properties located in and around the A second water source comes from a “foreign Sutter Bypass generally rely on appropriative water re-diversion” off of Butte Creek and con- and riparian rights and pump water out of the veyed through Crouch Ditch and Edgar Slough east or west toe drains of the Sutter Bypass. to the M&T Ranch. From the M&T Ranch, the Similarly, properties located in the Yolo Bypass Butte Creek water comingles with Sacramento generally rely on appropriative and riparian River water and is distributed through the rights and pump water out of the Yolo Bypass canal system to the Llano Seco Rancho and Toe Drain and or other adjacent drains. ultimately the Service’s Llano Seco Unit. 3.2.3.1 Llano Seco Unit Since 2001, USFWS, CDFW, M&T and Llano Seco Ranches have been investigating alterna- The Llano Seco Unit receives water through tives to address Sacramento River sediment an existing system of canals, ditches, and deposition in the immediate vicinity of the siphons that have been operating since the Facility intake. An upriver gravel bar adjacent late 1800s. The water delivery system has to the Bidwell-Sacramento River State Park two primary water sources. A majority of the continues to migrate toward the vicinity of the water is pumped via riparian water right from fish screened diversion and the Chico Waste the Sacramento River near the mouth of Big Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) outfall, and Chico Creek. Now known as the M&T Chico the deposition and subsequent meander of the Ranch/Llano Seco Rancho Fish Screen and River threatens the operation of the Facility. Pumping Facility (Facility), this pump station The intake screens (fish screens) could poten- originated on Big Chico Creek during the 1920s tially be covered by sediment, which could and was relocated from Big Chico Creek to the cause a reduction in approach and sweeping Sacramento River in 1997. The current Facility velocities across the screens, and ultimately is located downstream of the confluence of Big

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39 Chapter 3 impact the screens’ ability to prevent fish from snow is pure, much of the Sacramento River being harmed by the Facility operation. As a and its large tributaries have low concentra- result, a reduction in approach or sweeping tions of dissolved minerals. Although water velocities would render the screens out of quality of the Sacramento River is good most of compliance with the National Marine Fisheries the year, seasonal events, such as agricultural Service and CDFW fish screen criteria. In addi- runoff or runoff from historical mining operation, immediately downstream of the Facility, tions, may affect this quality. Variable climatic the City of Chico WWTP outfall diffusers conditions and variation in amounts of rainfall, also are threatened by the ongoing sediment coupled with competing demands for water deposition associated with the upriver gravel uses, affect the aquatic ecology of this basin. bar and river migration (USFWS and CDFW Due to the lack of a secure water supply, ease- 2013). Several alternatives were studied and ment properties in the Sacramento Valley will be analyzed in a separate environmen- often utilize drain water from surrounding tal document (USFWS and CDFW 2013). agricultural lands to flood and maintain wet- Some other components of the water convey- land habitats. Even delivered water from local ance system are in disrepair. There are two irrigation districts can be previously used Redwood Siphons located on the north end “upstream”, most commonly for growing rice. of the Llano Seco Rancho that are critical The California Department of Fish and Wildlife structures along the main “arteries” of the (CDFW) initiated a selenium verification study water conveyance and distribution system for in 1985 and concluded that selenium concen- the Llano Seco Rancho, the Service’s Llano trations in water and fish occurred at less Seco Unit and the CDFW-Llano Seco Unit. than harmful levels in the Sacramento Valley The Redwood Siphons were constructed (White et al., 1987). Fish kills in the Colusa in 1926, and according to an engineering Basin Drain during the early 1980s indicated evaluation completed by Sverdrup Civil, high concentrations of molinate and the herbi- Inc. (prepared for the Service) in 1997, are cide thiobencarb (associated with rice farming in need of repair/replacement. Llano Seco practices) in fish and water samples collected Rancho, Ducks Unlimited, and the Service throughout the agricultural drains and in have conducted additional evaluations of the the Sacramento River downstream of drain condition of the siphons, and identified sev- inflow. California’s Department of Pesticide eral “breeches” in the siphons that threaten Regulation implemented the Rice Pesticide both the capacity to convey designed flows Program in 1983, which established perfor- as well as a complete failure of the system. mance goals for molinate and thiobencarb in Several alternatives are currently being 1990 and the insecticides methyl parathion studied and evaluated, and will be consid- and malathion beginning in 1991. County ered in a separate Environmental Document agricultural commissioners, with the use of once the studies have been completed. restricted materials permits, implemented 3.3 Contaminants and Water Quality program requirements for molinate, thiobencarb, methyl parathion, and malathion in 2001. The water quality of the Sacramento River and its major tributaries supports beneficial uses, Water quality and potential contaminants were including drinking and irrigation water, recre- also a concern on the Complex. To further ation, and protection of fish and other aquatic address these concerns, a collaborative study life. Most of the water in the Sacramento River was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, and its major tributaries, such as the Feather U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Bureau and American Rivers, is derived from melting of Reclamation entitled “Reconnaissance snow that enters the rivers by managed dis- Investigation of Water Quality, Bottom charges of water from reservoirs. Because the Sediment, and Biota Associated with Irrigation Drainage in the Sacramento National Wildlife

40 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

Refuge Complex, California, 1988-89” (Dileanis works with the MVCDs to minimize chemi- et al., 1992). The report concluded, “…there cal treatments, use the least toxic products, is some degradation of water quality related and avoid or buffer sensitive areas whenever to agricultural drainage in the region, and possible. However, some of these pesticides elevated concentrations of some chemical are toxic to aquatic organisms in very small constituents were detected in water, sedi- quantities, and contamination of wetlands ment, and biological samples. These elevated and impacts to non-target species from mos- concentrations were only slightly greater quito control continues to be a concern. than Service guidelines for possible effects on In 2003, the Central Valley Water Quality wildlife.” Of greatest interest were the DDT Control Board made it a requirement that all family of organochlorine compounds detected managed wetlands which drain into waters in all bottom-sediment samples from canals of the State obtain a discharge permit or a containing drain water; the DDE (byproduct Conditional Waiver from waste discharge of DDT) content of white-faced ibis and black- requirements. Managed wetlands, including crowned night herons (Colusa Refuge); and the Service’s fee-title and easement properties, thiocarbamate herbicide molinate (rice field were able to obtain a Conditional Waiver use) that was detected in all 21 samples (one by participating in the Sacramento Valley exceeding the State of California guideline Water Quality Coalition. Beginning in 2005, for the protection of aquatic habitat) timed the Refuges and most Easement properties to coincide with peak spring water releases. began membership/participation in three In addition, a number of ground water wells, groups (Colusa Basin Subwatershed Program, both those already in existence in the 1980s Solano-Yolo Water Quality Coalition and Butte- (especially at Sutter Refuge) and BOR Yuba-Sutter Water Quality Coalition) of the exploratory test wells completed in the early Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. 1990s (Sacramento Refuge), documented These groups provide water quality monitor- levels of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and ing required by the Central Valley Regional boron that exceeded recommended limits. Water Quality Control Board’s Irrigated Lands Conditional Waiver Program. The program Local mosquito and vector control districts requires anyone owning lands that have (MVCD) conduct mosquito control activities on irrigation return water and/or storm water certain areas of the Complex annually. MVCDs runoff leaving their lands to complete water treat both Refuge and WMA lands with a quality monitoring. To date, no water quality variety of pesticides to kill adult and larval problems related to Service-owned fee-title mosquitoes generally between the months of or easement lands have been documented. April to October to reduce public health risk and severe nuisance in accordance with Service Methyl mercury associated with sea- policy. In some areas, mosquito larvae are sonal wetlands has also become an controlled by directly applying methoprene, increased concern in some areas within Bacillus sp., larvicidal oil or other pesticides the Central Valley (Domagalski 1998). to wetlands. Pyrethroid and organophos- 3.3.1 Butte Sink WMA phate compounds are applied with ultra-low volume sprayers via ground or air for adult Overall water quality in Butte Creek is con- mosquito control (adulticides). In some cases, sidered to be good to excellent in the upper applications are made to widespread areas, portions of the watershed (i.e. upstream of such as the Butte Sink. These applications Chico), and degrades in quality lower in the are designed to drift over wetlands and other system. Water quality can vary seasonally, habitats to target adult mosquitoes; however, corresponding to precipitation and diversions. some of the material is deposited into aquatic It can also vary year to year depending on dry areas (Lawler et al., 2008). The Complex staff or wet conditions. Large storm events can

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41 Chapter 3 influence water quality, increasing turbidity Butte Sink Unit arrives via upstream ease- and mobilizing pollutants and salts. Similarly, ment wetlands per the 1922 Agreement. low flows can reduce water quality by concen- 3.3.2 Willow Creek-Lurline WMA trating contaminants and increasing water temperatures, particularly in the late summer. Easement lands within the Willow Creek Division flood their wetlands with a combina- As indicated in section 3.2.1, managed tion of delivered water from the Sacramento wetlands in the Butte Sink WMA are River, drain water from upstream agricultural partly flooded with agricultural drain- lands, and ground water from deep wells. water, most notably as they are initially While the overall quality of water from the filled in the late summer and early fall. Sacramento River is good, there are poten- The majority of the Butte Sink WMA is tial concerns with the quality of agricultural typically treated three to six times in the drain water and groundwater. A variety of fall for adult mosquitoes. There is concern pesticides and fertilizers are used on neigh- with adulticides being deposited in wetlands boring agricultural lands, and while recent due to their potential effects on non-target annual water quality monitoring results show invertebrate and fish resources. Deposition few problems (Sacramento Valley Water of compounds or their byproducts has been Quality Coalition 2014) there have been issues documented in water or sediment sam- with some pesticides in the past (Dileanis et ples at Butte Sink WMA (Central Valley al., 1992). While the quality of the ground- Water Quality Coalition 2005, 2006) and at water has not been monitored in the Willow nearby Colusa NWR (Lawler et al., 2008). Creek Division, Bureau of Reclamation In a potentially related issue, there has been tests on groundwater from nearby wells on a dramatic increase in waterfern (Azolla Sacramento Refuge exhibited elevated lev- Mexicana, A. filiculoides), a native aquatic plant els of arsenic, cadmium, boron and mercury in the Butte Sink, in the last ten years. An (Sacramento/Delevan CCP, USFWS 2009). initial investigation indicates that the primary While most easement properties within the weevil species that typically controls this plant Lurline Division flood their wetlands with good has seen a significant population reduction, quality water delivered from the Sacramento which may have resulted in the plant’s expan- River, there are a few properties which depend sion and subsequent negative effects on the solely on agricultural drain water. Very few wetland community (Carruthers and Grewell, Lurline properties use deep wells to flood unpublished data). One hypothesis for the their properties, and the quality of ground increase in Azolla is that pesticide applications water in this area is not well documented. for mosquito control (which has intensified The Willow Creek-Lurline WMA is not in since 2003 when West Nile Virus appeared in the immediate boundaries of local MVCDs, California) may be negatively impacting weevil and as a result the area has rarely received populations. Other hypotheses involving water chemical treatment for mosquitoes. quality include the possibility that agricultural pesticides in drain water and/or increased water 3.3.3 North Central Valley WMA temperatures of drain water may be negatively In 2004 through 2006, a Contaminant impacting weevil populations. A combination Assessment Process (CAP) was conducted of the above conditions is also a possibility. for the North Central Valley WMA. In sum- 3.3.1.1 Butte Sink Unit mary, contaminant issues for the WMA include The Butte Sink Unit is subject to the same pesticide drift, run-off and discharge from water quality and contaminant issues as municipalities. Water quality and contaminants the rest of the Butte Sink WMA. In most issues on easement lands vary throughout the years, all water that is used to flood the North Central Valley WMA based on location.

42 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

Most easement properties in the Butte Basin the Parrott-Phelan Diversion Dam. None flood their wetlands with delivered water of the water utilized is a secondary use (i.e., from the Sacramento and Feather rivers. The no agricultural drain water or runoff). A water quality from these rivers is generally discussion of overall water quality in Butte good within the Butte Basin. Many ease- Creek is provided in section 3.3.1 above. ment properties in the Sutter Basin depend The Parrott-Phelan Diversion Dam is located on water pumped from the toe drains of the in the lower portion of Butte Creek Canyon, Sutter Bypass. Water in the Sutter Bypass toe near the mouth of the canyon. Here, riparian drains generally consists of a mixture of Butte vegetation acting as a canopy over the stream Creek water and agricultural drain water. begins to diminish as the creek channel has a Similar to the Sutter Basin, easement proper- broad cross-sectional shape and vegetation is ties in the Yolo Basin largely flood their lands often quite far from the stream. Direct solar with water pumped from the Yolo Bypass exposure and slow moving water (due to a toe drain. Located in the north Delta, the lower gradient) combine to raise water tem- water in the Yolo Bypass toe drain consists peratures. June records from 1991 and 1992 of a mixture of agricultural drain water and show no minimum daily temperatures above natural flows which are tidally influenced. In 70° Fahrenheit (F), with maximum tempera- addition to concerns regarding agricultural tures of 72.5°F and 78.8°F respectively. The chemicals in the toe drain there are also con- highest temperatures recorded during 1990 cerns regarding legacy mercury which enters data collection were 80.6°F on both August the system as result of old mining practices 8 and 9. July 30, 1991 marked the highest on lower Sacramento River tributaries. It is recorded temperature for the study, 81.5°F suggested that this mercury source is lead- (Butte Creek Draft ECR) (CSUC 1998). ing to elevated levels of methyl mercury in Mosquito control is relatively infrequent at the some seasonal wetlands (Wood et al., 2008). Llano Seco Unit. Fall flooding of seasonal wet- Almost all easement properties in the North lands typically does not start here until early Central Valley WMA fall within the jurisdic- October, when temperatures are cooler and tion of local MVCDs. Accordingly, most of mosquito production is reduced; however, some these properties are chemically treated for larval mosquito control is conducted annually. mosquitoes on an annual basis. While chemical type and application methodology varies 3.4 Geology, Hydrology, and Soils among individual MVCDs, larvicide and The area between Red Bluff and Sacramento adulticide pesticides are generally applied to is underlain by sedimentary and volcanic wetlands between April and October using deposits associated with the Tehama, Tuscan, aerial and or ground spraying equipment. Red Bluff, and Riverbank formations. On top There are concerns regarding how these of these formations lie younger fan deposits pesticides affect non-target invertebrate and of the Modesto formation, as well as basin, aquatic resources on easement wetlands. marsh, and floodplain alluvial deposits asso- 3.3.3.1 Llano Seco Unit ciated with the Sacramento River, North Coast Range, southern Cascade and north- Water delivered to the Llano Seco Unit ern Sierra Nevada streams (Harwood and wetlands comes from two direct sources. A Helley 1982; Helley and Harwood 1985). majority of the water comes directly from the Sacramento River via the M&T Chico The North Central Valley WMA covers a large Ranch/Llano Seco Rancho Fish Screen and area, from Red Bluff to Sacramento and it Pumping Facility, with the remainder being includes areas in the Delta. Soils in this area supplied through a diversion on the upper are associated with the Sacramento Valley’s end of the Butte Creek drainage via river floodplains, basins, basin rim, low alluvial

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43 Chapter 3 fans, low remnant terraces, and organic soils of end of the basin) where they are predominately the Delta. This area also includes soils land- strongly saline-alkali Willows clay, Willows scapes of the Willow Creek-Lurline WMA, silty clay, and Riz silty clay loam (Begg 1968). Butte Sink Unit and Llano Seco Unit. Soils These are wetland soils associated with a high described for these areas come from the most water-table, and are subjected to occasional detailed soil survey information, the Soil to frequent flooding. See Appendix D (Table Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) which D-2) for descriptions of the soil associations compiles soil survey data at a scale of 1:12,000 and their characteristics. A variety of salt-tol- to 1:24,000 (Appendix D, Table D-1). This scale erant wetland plants naturally occur in this is useful for habitat restoration and manage- arid, alkali landscape (Oswald and Silveira ment planning efforts. The U.S. General Soil 1995). These soils are of limited agricultural Map (STATSGO) interprets soil survey data at productivity, but support rice agriculture a scale of 1:250,000, which provides sufficient through maintenance of summer water, which detail for a general description of the North translocates salts deep into the soil profile. Central Valley WMA and is useful for large Prior to land reclamation and flood control, scale planning efforts (Appendix D, Table D-2). the Colusa Basin flooded at occasional to 3.4.1 Butte Sink WMA frequent intervals. Because of the WMA’s Basin Rim location, flood waters quickly The Butte Sink WMA is located at the south- receded into the natural troughs and ern end of the Butte Basin and lies within sloughs, which eventually drained into the the Butte Sink. This area drains Butte Creek Sacramento River or large freshwater wet- and is characterized by low gradient sloughs land sinks (Holmes et al., 1915). This once and ponds consisting of basin marsh deposits extensive marshland habitat supported abun- (fine-textured soils high in organic matter) dant and diverse native fish and wildlife. which historically supported emergent and willow scrub vegetation. Areas of higher Most floodwater was off the Basin Rim during elevation on better drained soils supported the growing season, resulting in a barren, grassland and Valley oak. See Appendix alkali, and windswept plain (Silveira 2000, D (Table D-2) for descriptions of the soil 2001). A relatively dense aggregation of associations and their characteristics. large intermittent lakes, vernal pools, mima mounds, and alkali sinks and flats character- 3.4.1.1 Butte Sink Unit ized the Colusa Basin (Holmes et al., 1915), Soils consist almost entirely of Capay silty and were historically known as the “Colusa clay. These soils are located on the basin Plains”. These natural wetlands filled with floor, frequently flooded (slopes between 0 winter rains, providing abundant waterfowl and 2 percent), moderately well drained, and and shorebird habitat. In the springtime, an non-saline. The top 36 inches consist of silty expanse of wildflowers carpeted the Colusa clay, with clay loam occurring below to 60 Plains (Hanson 1944; Silveira 2000, 2001). inches. Minor soil components include Clear Lake clay, frequently flooded, poorly drained 3.4.3 North Central Valley WMA soils composed of clay to a depth of at 60 As explained in section 3.4, the North Central inches. These are wetland soils associated Valley WMA covers a large and geographi- with a high water table. (http://websoilsurvey. cally diverse landscape. Accordingly, this area nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx). includes a wide range of soil landscapes with equally diverse soil characteristics, which influ- 3.4.2 Willow Creek-Lurline WMA ence potential natural vegetation and restored/ Willow Creek–Lurline WMA is located in the created habitats. Soils of the WMAs are pre- Colusa Basin. Here WMA soils are located at sented in Appendix D (Table D-2). Identifying the higher elevations of the basin (i.e., the top

44 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

White geese on disked, puddled rice fields near Sutter NWR. Photo: USFWS soil characteristics is among the first steps Much of the Llano Seco Unit is comprised of in planning habitat conservation projects. Dodgeland silty clay loam soils and Lofgren- Blavo Complex soils that were converted to 3.4.3.1 Llano Seco Unit rice agriculture in the second quarter of the The Llano Seco Unit of the North Central 20th century. In the early 1990s, rice fields Valley WMA is located at the northwest end were converted to managed freshwater wet- of the Butte Basin. This area is characterized land habitats by the Refuge since these soils by uplifted basin deposits in Sanctuary I and contain properties consistent with ponding basin marsh deposits in the eastern half of water (fine texture and poor drainage). Sanctuary II. Sanctuary I is bisected by Angel Slough, an ancient channel of the Sacramento 4. Habitat River. The southwestern corner of Sanctuary II lies within the Little Chico Creek floodplain. 4.1 Vegetation Soils of the Llano Seco Unit are diverse and The lands of the North Central Valley WMA, vary within and across the geologic landscape, Willow Creek-Lurline WMA, and Butte Sink and with the natural and managed hydrology, WMA consist mostly of managed wetlands create equally diverse patterns of vegetation with much smaller amounts of unmanaged and wildlife habitats (Appendix D - Soils, Table wetlands, vernal pools, grasslands, riparian D-1; Appendix K - Wildlife and Plants). forest, and other riparian and floodplain habitats. Figure 9 (Butte Sink Unit) and Figure The potential natural vegetation for Sanctuary 11 (Llano Seco Unit) show the habitat types I would be Valley oak/elderberry savanna, managed for on the Service-owned units within perennial grasslands, and vernal pool annual the WMAs. Representative quantities of habi- grasslands. The potential natural vegeta- tat types on Service-owned lands are listed in tion for Sanctuary II would be annual vernal Table 3. Descriptions of the habitats and their pool grassland at the western half and fresh- associated plant and wildlife species follow. A water emergent marsh at the eastern half comprehensive list of plant species occurring (Burkett and Conlin 2006, Oswald and Ahart in these habitats can be found in Appendix K. 1996, Silveira 2006, Silveira et al., 2003).

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45 Chapter 3

4.1.1 Wetlands and threatened species, as well as many other wetland-dependent wildlife species. The Sacramento Valley has lost 90 to 95 percent of its original wetlands that existed in the Many easement and Service-owned lands in late 1800s (Holland 1978; Gilmer et al., 1982; the WMA have been restored from agricultural Frayer et al., 1989; Kempka and Kollasch 1990). lands to managed wetlands. Many of these Many of the original wetlands occurred along lands had previously been farmed to rice or rivers and creeks, where over-bank flooding other crops, and were leveled to promote higher seasonally inundated large expanses of wet- yields. In order to restore them to wetlands, lands during major rain events and spring techniques for de-leveling rice fields were runoff. In areas farther away, isolated vernal developed (Strong et al., 1990) and have since pools were also filled directly from precipita- been modified to enhance existing managed tion, creating significant wetland landscapes. wetlands. Restoration and enhancement efforts often involve the excavation of swales and pot- When first explored by the Spanish, the holes throughout the pond bottoms in order to Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta was a vast establish a variety of water depths, vegetation freshwater tidal marsh with significant stands types, and open water areas. Other resto- of hard-stemmed bulrush (see Appendix K for ration and enhancement techniques include listing of scientific names of all species). By planting and establishing native wetland and the end of the Gold Rush, levees were built riparian vegetation, and creation of islands. to reclaim the land for farming. Beginning in the early 1900s, much of the natural overland Although agriculture and managed wetlands flooding was lost due to the construction of have replaced much of the historic “plains” the flood control and bypass systems along landscape in the Sacramento Valley, significant the Sacramento/ San Joaquin Rivers and their areas of vernal pool and alkali meadow hab- tributaries. Because the large Federal and itats, and some remnant sloughs and ponds State water conveyance projects altered the still persist. They are important habitats in nature of California’s hydrology, nearly all of their natural state for waterfowl, shorebirds, the remaining wetlands in the Sacramento and a number of rare and endemic species, Valley and Delta are managed, including those especially in late winter and spring. Therefore, on the WMAs. For the most part, managed these areas are not intentionally flooded, wetlands are artificially created and main- drained, or irrigated. Early attempts were tained, with the majority having at least some made to farm or flood some of these areas, perimeter and interior levees, water control but most failed due to high soil alkalinity. structures, and water delivery and drainage 4.1.1.1 Seasonal Wetlands canals. Most of the water used to flood these wetlands is delivered to individual property Seasonal wetland is the most common habitat boundaries via local irrigation districts. In on the WMAs, comprising 85-90 percent of some instances, deep wells are also utilized to the total managed wetlands on Service-owned provide water to managed wetlands, where lands (Table 3). Seasonal wetlands provide delivered surface water is either insufficient the greatest quantity and diversity of food or not available (see section 3.2, Water Supply, and cover for waterfowl and other migra- for further details). The majority of the lands tory birds. Consequently, they support the within the WMAs are utilized as waterfowl greatest abundance and diversity of wildlife hunting properties. Their wetland habitats are species over the course of a year. During the intensively managed to maximize resources non-breeding season (September-April), sea- to directly support the annual abundance of sonal wetlands can support up to three times migratory waterfowl, but they also indirectly the average waterfowl densities of semi-perma- benefit other migratory birds, endangered nent wetlands and 10 times that of permanent wetlands (M. Wolder, unpublished data). These

46 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment wetlands are intensively managed, with the of the summer, as well as most of the rest of timing and depths of water and vegetation the year. Semi-permanent and permanent manipulated to meet resource management wetlands comprise up to 15 percent of the objectives. In general, they are wet from fall total managed wetlands on easement lands through spring and dry during the summer. and up to 10 percent of Service-owned lands (Table 3). Vegetation includes an abundance Characteristic plants include emergent spe- of perennial emergents (cattails and bul- cies, such as hard-stemmed bulrush, cattail, rushes), floating-leaved submergents such alkali bulrush, tuberous bulrush, and river as burhead (Echinodorus cordifolius) and bulrush. Annual moist-soil plants (species that arrowheads (Sagittaria sp.), etc., and sub- provide the most waterfowl food resources) merged aquatics such as sago and horned which commonly occur on seasonal wetlands pondweeds (Potamogeton pectinatus and include swamp timothy, smartweed, and water- Zannichellia palustris, respectively). Semi- grass. The ratio of open water to emergent permanent and permanent wetlands provide plants often determines the species that will important breeding habitat for waterfowl use a particular area. For example, northern and many other wetland-dependent species pintail (pintail), northern shoveler (shoveler), including egrets, bitterns, ibis, grebes, rails, American wigeon (wigeon), most geese, and tricolored blackbirds, giant garter snakes, shorebirds are attracted to wetlands which have and northwestern pond turtles. They are more open water and less emergent cover, while also important water sources for all wild- mallards, wood ducks, rails, bitterns and other life during the summer, when most seasonal secretive marsh birds prefer wetlands with wetlands within the WMAs are dry. more emergent vegetation and less open water. When seasonal wetlands are dry during the 4.1.1.3 Unmanaged Wetlands summer, bulrushes and other vegetation func- Wetlands, other than vernal pools, that are tion as habitat for some ground-nesting birds. largely natural and have little or no artificial Irrigated Seasonal Wetlands water management capabilities are referred to as “unmanaged wetlands.” These include A large percentage of seasonal wetlands are oxbow lakes, sloughs, and other watercourses. irrigated during the spring or early summer, They are typically permanent or semi-perma- and are referred to as irrigated seasonal wet- nent wetlands that are heavily vegetated. The lands. Seasonal wetlands are often irrigated limited acres of unmanaged wetlands pro- to optimize the growth and seed production vide habitat for giant garter snakes, western of moist-soil plants such as smartweeds and pond turtles, wood ducks, and other species. watergrass. They typically contain a high Unmanaged wetlands generally make up a density of moist-soil plants that produce large very small percentage of the total wetlands. volumes of seeds and support high numbers of aquatic invertebrates that are sought-after 4.1.1.4 Vernal Pools/Alkali Meadows by waterfowl. Along with other seasonal wet- Vernal pools are seasonally flooded depressions lands, irrigated seasonal wetlands play a major found on ancient soils with an impermeable role in providing food resources to replenish layer (duripan) such as a hardpan or claypan waterfowl energy reserves for migration, that perches rainwater above the water table. feather molt, and winter survival. In addi- They are generally filled and maintained with tion, these wetlands provide an alternate food rainwater in the winter and early spring, and resource in the early fall to help alleviate crop then evaporate as temperatures warm and depredation on private agricultural lands. north winds blow in late spring. While tem- 4.1.1.2 Semi-permanent and Permanent Wetlands porary wetlands such as vernal pools occur throughout the world, those of California are Semi-permanent and permanent wetlands unique due to a Mediterranean (winter provide wetland habitat during all or part

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47 Chapter 3 wet–summer dry) climate; thus the flora and some of the fauna of vernal pools are unique to California (Holland and Jain 1988). Since vernal pools support a significant amount of endemic and rare flora and fauna, they add significantly to the biotic diversity of WMA lands (Silveira 2000, Eriksen and Belk 1999, Thorpe and Leong 1995); as a result, they are a high conservation priority. A sample of vernal pool endemics occurring or potentially occurring within the WMAs include: Fremont’s goldfields (Lasthenia fremontii) and alkali goldfields (Lasthenia platycarpha), Scribe’s popcornflower (Plagiobothrys scriptus), Hoover’s downingia Fremont’s goldfields, Llano Seco Rancho. (bella) and folded downingia (Downingia Photo: USFWS ornatissima), vernal pool saltbush (Atriplex persistens), Hoover’s spurge (Chamaesyce Aquatic insects and crustaceans produce cysts hooveri), cleistogamous spike primrose and eggs, and plants produce seeds which (Epilobium cleistogamum), tiny mouse-tail are all buried in the muddy pool bottom and (Myosurus minimus), Colusa grass (Neostapfia then remain dormant in the dry pools until colusana), hairy Orcutt grass (Orcuttia pilosa), they are flooded again the following winter. Green’s tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei) Solano grass In their dry phase, vernal pools are really (Tuctoria mucronata), California clam shrimp “banks” full of resting seeds, cysts, and eggs (Cyzicus californicus), California fairy shrimp that are adapted to survive through sum- (Linderiella occidentalis), Conservancy fairy mer, and even through extended droughts. shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), and vernal Alkali and salt tolerant vegetation grows on pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi). Basin Rim landforms, which are elevated slightly above the Valley or basin floor. Here, As winter rains fill the pools, a variety of the plant rooting zone and soil surface is crustaceans and other invertebrates emerge, near the water table, so salts are carried to develop, and reproduce, completing their the rooting zone or to the surface forming entire life cycle in a single wet season. Vernal white-crusted alkali scalds and “fluffs.” Alkali pools provide habitat for the greatest diver- meadows are characterized by halophytes sity of fairy shrimp on earth, and most of (salt-tolerant plants) and form a unique habi- these species are endemic to California tat, which is sparsely vegetated and relatively (Eriksen and Belk 1999). Vernal pools and short. Alkali meadows are often found in their surrounding plant communities provide association with vernal pools. While they do not important habitats for a variety of migratory pond water like vernal pools, the soil becomes birds, including waterfowl and shorebirds completely saturated with winter and spring (Bogiatto and Karnegis 2006, Bogiatto et al., rainfall. Similar to vernal pools, they support 2009, Wolder et al., 1999, Silveira 1998). a variety of native endemic plant and animal As water evaporates in the spring, flowering species that are uniquely adapted to their plants produce the brightly colored concen- environment. Examples of California alkali tric rings of flowers for which vernal pools meadow/vernal pool endemics include: papoose are famous. Host-specific native bees nest spikeweed (Hemizonia parryi), Heckard’s in the plant communities, and pollinate pool pepper-grass (Lepidium latipes), heart-scale flowers; many of these native pollinators are (Atriplex cordulata), brittlescale (Atriplex endemic species (Thorpe and Leong 1995). depressa), Ferris’s milk-vetch (Astragalus

48 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment tener var. ferrisiae), palmate-bracted bird’s- wildflowers (forbs) are currently being tested beak (Cordylanthus palmatus), and the Delta for use in grassland restoration projects, such green ground beetle (Elaphrus viridis). as, tarweeds, phacelias, blue curls and other lupines. Perennial and annual grassland cover On easement and Service-owned lands, ver- provides important nesting habitat for ducks, nal pools are known to occur at the Llano ring-necked pheasants, western meadowlarks, Seco Unit (Table 3) and the Llano Seco Ranch burrowing owls, northern harriers, American easement. Llano Seco vernal pools are within bitterns, savanna and grasshopper sparrows, the Northeastern Sacramento Valley Vernal and other grassland species. Preliminary Pool Region. Vernal pools in this region have monitoring of native grass restoration work at duripans which perch water. These include Colusa Refuge indicated comparable duck nest basalt and mudflow bedrock contact on the densities with other off-refuge areas, but with table lands and mudflows, iron-silica pans on overall higher nest success (Loughman et al., the high and low terraces, and clay-silica pans 2004). During the winter and spring, grasslands on the low terraces and uplifted basins. Other provide green browse for geese, wigeon, and vernal pool regions within the boundary of American coots (coots). These areas also sup- the North Central Valley WMA include the port significant numbers of insects, rodents, Northwestern Sacramento Valley, Solano– and reptiles, which, in turn, are important Colusa, and Southeastern Sacramento Valley forage items for raptors and other birds. Many vernal pool regions. Vernal pools are technically of the non-native grass species are invasive wetlands, but have been historically considered and pose a threat to alkali meadow vegetation part of the overall “uplands” habitat group. and the rare, endemic, and native species that 4.1.2 Grasslands grow there. As a result, they are controlled in Annual grasslands are generally dominated some areas. Annual and perennial grasslands by introduced non-native grass species such represent a relatively small proportion of as annual rye-grass (Lolium multiflorum), Service-owned lands with the WMAs (Table 3). wild oats (Avena fatua), soft chess (Bromus Vernally wet grassland is another type of hordeaceus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), grassland that exists solely at the Llano Seco medusa-head (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), Unit and consists of annual grassland which foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum), and fes- is flooded during late winter and early spring. cues (Vulpia sp.). Other species include forbs This is described further in section 4.4.1. such as dock (Rumex sp.) and aster (Aster sp.). Perennial grasslands include remnant 4.1.3 Riparian Habitats patches of native grasslands, restored native Riparian habitats comprise a relatively small grasslands, and introduced non-native species proportion of the WMAs, though they are more such as tall wheatgrass (Elytrigia pontica) prevalent in the Butte Sink WMA. Riparian and Harding/perlagrass (Phalaris aquatica) habitats within the WMAs include willow-scrub, (Silveira et al., 2003). Typical native grass spe- cottonwood-willow, mixed riparian forest, Valley cies used for restoration include local ecotypes oak riparian forest, and Valley oak woodland. of creeping (or alkali) rye-grass (Leymus triti- Willow-scrub consists of open-to-dense coides), blue wild-rye (Elymus glaucus), purple shrubby willow-dominated thickets with lit- needle-grass (Nassella pulchra) and meadow tle to no understory vegetation (Holland barley (Hordeum brachyanterum). Other 1986). It is characterized by Goodding’s black species used include Santa Barbara (or basket) willow (Salix gooddingii), Arroyo willow sedge (Carex barbarae), clustered field sedge and narrow-leaved willow (Salix exigua). (Carex praegracilis), Great Valley gumplant (Grindelia camporum), Bolander’s sun- Cottonwood-willow is forested habi- flower (Helianthus bolanderi), and sky lupine tat containing open–to-dense stands (Lupinus nanus). Other spring and summer

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49 Chapter 3

sometimes forming large contiguous patches of riparian habitat. The Llano Seco Rancho easement (North Central Valley WMA) contains impressive remnant stands of Valley oak woodland and savanna; some Valley oak woodland has been restored there as well. Riparian habitats provide breeding, wintering and migration stop-over habitats for many species of landbirds. They are used by a great variety of resident and neotropical migratory bird species, both cavity and open cup nesters with diverse foraging guilds including tree swallow, brown creeper, yellow-billed cuckoo, yellow-rumped warbler, black phoebe, black-headed grosbeak and spotted towhee. Because of their close proximity to water, riparian habitats attract a large array Common sunflower and native blister beetles, Llano of wetland-dependent species, such as the Seco Rancho. Photo: USFWS northwestern pond turtle, great blue heron and great egret, wood duck, common yel- co-dominated by willows and Fremont’s lowthroat, song sparrow, beaver, black-tailed cottonwood (Populus fremontii). deer and river otter. This habitat supports Mixed riparian forest consists of later suc- multiple nesting rookeries of great blue her- cessional species (Holland 1986; Holland and ons, great and snowy egrets, black-crowned Roye 1989); in this habitat type, Valley oak night-herons, and double-crested cormorants. accounts for less than 60 percent of the can- 4.1.4 Agricultural Croplands opy coverage with black walnut and Oregon ash also present; willow and cottonwood Irrigated cereal grains (primarily rice and may also be present in relatively low abun- corn), alfalfa, and pasture provide important dance; the dense understory often consists of foraging habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds Oregon ash, box elder, poison oak, and wild and waterbirds within and around the WMAs. grape; California wild rose is also a common There are approximately 500,000 acres of rice understory plant and blue elderberry grows annually grown within the WMAs, and it is in light gaps and at the edges of the canopy. estimated that up to 350,000 acres of this rice has been winter flooded for straw decomposi- Valley oak riparian forest is dominated tion and migratory bird habitat since burning by Valley oak (Quercus lobata) and rice stubble has been phased out during the includes an understory of box elder (Acer last two decades. An additional 200,000 acres negundo), wild rose (Rosa sp.), poison oak of corn is annually planted within the WMAs, (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and alkali with approximately 30,000 acres winter (creeping) ryegrass (Holland 1986; Holland flooded in the Delta Basin for waterfowl hab- and Roye 1989). Valley Oak Woodland is itat. Significant acreage within the WMAs is dominated by Valley oak, poison oak, Santa also planted to alfalfa and irrigated pasture. Barbara sedge, and blue elderberry. Agricultural foraging habitat is threatened by a Willow-scrub and cottonwood-willow occur number of factors including urbanization, water within managed wetlands. Along with availability, water sales, conversion to perma- mixed riparian forest and Valley oak ripar- nent crops such as orchards and vineyards, ian forest, they also occur along the creeks, and other changing agricultural practices. sloughs, and canals throughout the WMAs,

50 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

Waterfowl in the project area depend heav- Rice farming historically occurred on the ily on harvested grain fields (primarily rice original 440-acre portion of the Butte Sink and corn) for winter food, with agriculture Unit when it was established in 1979. This providing almost 70 percent of all waterfowl was pursuant to a deed restriction, which food resources in the Central Valley (CVJV permitted farming to continue for a period of 2006). The 2006 CVJV Implementation Plan ten years after the Unit was purchased. This assumes that waste rice and corn in har- was a cooperative operation that required vested fields will still provide up to 50 percent 25 percent of the crop (mostly rice) to be left of the food needs for wintering ducks and unharvested for waterfowl use and allowed geese when wetland habitat objectives are the farmer to harvest the remainder. When met. Waste grain in these fields also provides the deed restriction expired in 1989, farm- crucial food for wintering lesser and greater ing ended and those fields were converted to sandhill cranes. Similarly, winter flooded managed wetlands (USFWS 1937-1995), years rice fields provide abundant invertebrate 1980-1989. Grain crops have not been cultivated foods for numerous wintering shorebirds and on the Service’s Llano Seco Unit since it was waterbirds. In addition to providing crucial acquired by the Service. Commercial farming, wintering habitat, rice fields provide important which historically took place on Sacramento, habitat for breeding waterfowl, shorebirds, Delevan, Colusa and Sutter NWRs, was and waterbirds during the growing season. phased out during the 1980s (USFWS 2009). Irrigated pasture and alfalfa also provide 4.2 Butte Sink WMA important wintering habitat for migratory birds. New growth grasses provide an essential, The majority of the habitat found in the Butte late winter, protein source for grazing water- Sink WMA consists of managed seasonal and fowl such as geese and wigeon, while wintering semi-permanent wetlands with smaller compo- and migrating shorebirds forage on inverte- nents of permanent wetlands, grasslands and brates in irrigated or shallowly flooded pasture riparian habitats. Wetlands within the Butte and alfalfa. Irrigated pasture and alfalfa also Sink WMA are dominated by thick stands of provide essential foraging habitat for winter- emergent vegetation, such as cattail, harding sandhill cranes within the project area. stemmed bulrush and river bulrush, as well as moist soil plants like smartweed, watergrass. While generally not allowed to grow commer- Undesirable species include Bermuda grass cial crops, many wetland easement owners (Cynodon dactyton) and cocklebur (Xanthium plant agricultural food plots for wildlife on strumariam). Mature groves of riparian forest, their lands. Easement owners are allowed to made up of Fremont cottonwood, black willow, plant up to 5 percent of their easement acreage sandbar willow, Valley oak, box elder, Oregon to agricultural food plots as long as it is con- ash and button willow (Cephalanthus occiden- tained in existing upland areas and they receive talis) can be found throughout the wetlands written authorization from the Easement and along the many sloughs, channels, and Manager prior to establishment. The majority canals located within the Butte Sink WMA. of food plots consist of one to five-acre stands Understory riparian species common to the of safflower, milo or corn which is planted to WMA include, poison oak, mugwort (Artemisia provide foraging habitat for upland game. douglasiana), California wild rose, California In addition to food plots on wetland easement grape and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus lands, there are three agricultural easement discolor). Grasslands within the Butte Sink properties where various commercial crops are WMA are predominantly made up of perennial grown for the benefit of wildlife. Commercial native grasses such as creeping rye-grass, blue crops grown on these lands include corn, wild-rye, meadow barley and Santa Barbara beans, wheat, rice, and irrigated pasture. sedge with smaller amounts of non-native annual grasses making up the remainder.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51 Chapter 3 4.2.1 Butte Sink Unit 4.3 Willow Creek-Lurline WMA The Service-owned land of the Butte Sink The habitats found within the Willow Creek- WMA consists mostly of managed wetlands Lurline WMA consist mostly of managed with a much smaller amount of unman- permanent, semi-permanent and seasonally aged wetlands, grasslands, and riparian flooded wetlands (irrigated and non-irrigated forest habitats (Figure 9, Table 3). seasonally flooded). The alkalinity of the soils The Butte Sink Unit is bounded on its west within the Willow Creek-Lurline WMA results side by Butte Creek, with the topography in wetlands that are more open in nature and generally sloping from the northwest cor- less dominated by emergent cover and riparian ner towards the southeast corner. There is vegetation. Common emergent plants found also some fall from the southwest corner in the wetlands of the Willow Creek-Lurline to the north and northeast. Along the west WMA include hard-stemmed bulrush, cat- boundary are annual grasslands that gradu- tail and alkali bulrush. While smartweed and ally slope down into the wetlands. This area watergrass are present throughout the WMA, is characterized by short to medium stature swamp timothy and pricklegrass (Crypsis forbs and non-native grasses such as dock, vaginiflora) comprise the majority of the moist marsh aster, foxtail barley, annual rye-grass, soil plant community. Infrequent stands of prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola) and peren- black willow, arroyo willow and cottonwoods nial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium). dot the otherwise treeless landscape and are generally located along canals and ditches. The majority of the Butte Sink Unit is com- The small area of uplands found in the Willow prised of seasonal wetlands, with smaller Creek-Lurline WMA include alkali meadows, portions that have been infrequently man- annual grasslands, remnant native perennial aged as semi-permanent wetlands. These grasslands and introduced non-native peren- wetlands are typified by moderate to dense nial grasslands. The various grasslands are cover intermixed with areas of open water. dominated by saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), Primary cover species include medium-stat- Bermuda grass, annual ryegrass, creeping ure emergent plants such as river bulrush, rye-grass, tall wheat grass and perla grass. perennial smartweed, black willow, and hard-stemmed bulrush. Common moist soil 4.4 North Central Valley WMA plants include annual smartweeds, water- Due to the large geographic area in which it grass, and swamp timothy. Bermudagrass, covers, the habitats throughout the North jointgrass (Paspalum distichum), and cock- Central Valley WMA are extremely diverse. lebur are common undesirable species. Other While the habitats in the aforementioned Butte less abundant wetland plants include sweet Sink and Willow Creek-Lurline WMAs are clover (Melilotus sp), sticktight (Bidens fron- indicative of the habitats found on easement dosa), and sprangletop (Leptochloa sp). lands in the Sacramento Valley, the North The perimeter of the Butte Sink Unit is charac- Central Valley WMA also encompasses the terized by a band of mixed riparian forest and northern portion of the Delta region. Habitats stands of cottonwood-willow, which intermingle within the Delta region are generally made with the wetlands in the northeast and south- up of managed permanent, semi-permanent west corners of the property. These habitats and seasonally flooded wetlands (irrigated and are densely vegetated by a mixture of trees, non-irrigated seasonally flooded), with a nota- shrubs and vines such as black willow, cotton- ble difference of being under tidal influence. wood, sandbar willow, Oregon ash, Valley oak, Although the majority of the wetlands in this box elder, wild grape, poison oak, and wild rose. area are considered managed wetlands, small portions are subject to daily freshwater and brackish tide cycles. Vegetation in the Delta

52 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment region varies from dense stands of emergent amounts of unmanaged wetlands, vernal and moist soil plants typical to the rest of the pools, riparian habitats, and other flood- WMA, to a more saline tolerant plant commu- plain habitats (Figure 11, Table 3). nity within the brackish tidally influenced areas. The Llano Seco Unit lies within the flood basin Dominant vegetation within these tidal fresh- just west of the Sacramento River’s active water emergent wetlands is made up of big floodplain. The west half of Sanctuary I is leaf sedge (Carex amplifolia), redroot nut- comprised of perennial grassland and Valley grass (Cyperus erythrorhizos), tules, cattails, oak savanna, which are bounded to the east common reed (Phragmites australis) and by the riparian habitat of Angel Slough. East watergrass (CDWR et al 2003). Vegetation of Angel Slough, annual grassland and irri- found in the saline emergent areas of the Delta gated pasture gradually slope southeast down include brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia), towards the wetlands. Sanctuary II lies to fat hen (Atriplex triangularis), pickleweed the east of Sanctuary I, and is comprised of (Salicornia virginica), cordgrass (Spartina annual grassland, vernally wet annual grass- sp.), glasswort (Salicornia depressa) and salt- land, vernal pools, and managed wetlands. wort (Batis maritime) (CDWR et al., 2003). The perennial grasslands here are charac- The remaining habitats within the North terized by creeping rye-grass, blue wild-rye, Central Valley WMA are comprised of purple needle-grass, meadow barley, sedges unmanaged wetlands, alkali meadows, ver- and gumplant. Annual grasslands are char- nal pools, grasslands, and riparian habitats. acterized by short to medium stature forbs/ non-native grasses and forbs such as foxtail 4.4.1 Llano Seco Unit barley, annual ryegrass, soft chess, rip-gut The Service-owned lands of the North brome, wild oats, medusa-head grass, yellow Central Valley WMA consist mostly of man- star-thistle, dock species, and prickly lettuce. aged wetlands and grasslands (including Within Sanctuary II, the annual grasslands irrigated pasture), with much smaller are dotted with 11 restored vernal pools. The

Table 3. Acreage and habitats of Service-owned lands on Llano Seco and Butte Sink Units

Acreage2 WMA Total1 Managed Wetlands Unmanaged Vernal Grasslands5 Riparian Other7 4 6 Unit Seasonal Semi- Wetlands Pool Forest Wetlands3 Permanent /Permanent Wetlands Llano 1,732 750 16 27 13 771 104 51 Seco Butte 733 638 0 4 0 42 39 10 Sink TOTAL 2,465 1,388 16 31 13 813 143 61 1 Official WMA acres. 2 Acres calculated with Global Information System from 2014-15 Annual Habitat Management Plans. 3 Includes irrigated and non-irrigated seasonally-flooded wetlands. 4 Includes creeks, oxbows and sloughs 5 Includes annual and perennial grasslands, vernally wet annual grasslands, and irrigated pasture 6 Includes mixed riparian forest, cottonwood willow, willow scrub, and valley oak riparian forest. 7 Includes roads, facilities, and other miscellaneous areas.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53 Chapter 3

intermixed with areas of open water. Areas of moderate cover are composed of medium stature emergent and moist soil plants such as smartweeds, redstem ammania (Ammannia coccinea), watergrass, river bulrush, spikerush (Eleocharis sp.), Bermuda grass, jointgrass, and cocklebur. Areas of open water are commonly dominated with short stature moist-soil plants Valley oak savanna, Llano Seco Unit. Photo: USFWS such as swamp timothy/ pricklegrass spike primrose (Epilobium pyg- 200 acres of irrigated pasture on the Llano maeum), loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolium), Seco Unit is managed to provide short grass and popcorn flowers. Other common but less foraging habitat for sandhill cranes, waterfowl, abundant plants include cattail, hard-stemmed and shorebirds. The vernally wet grassland bulrush, and white sweet clover. There are found in Tract 17 is a former irrigated pasture some scattered black willows and Fremont’s which reverted to annual grassland when the cottonwoods that occur in interior areas. previous landowners and managers ceased to irrigate it. A levee was constructed down- The mixed riparian forest of Angel Slough slope at the end of the old pasture and a water are densely vegetated by a mixture of control structure was installed at the southwest trees, shrubs and vines such as black wil- corner. The water control structure is man- low, cottonwood, sandbar willow, Oregon aged to provide shallow ponding on about 25 ash, valley oak, box elder, wild grape, poison percent of the pasture during late winter and oak, wild rose, and Himalayan blackberry. early spring. This has resulted in abundant 4.4.2 Agricultural Easements use by wintering waterfowl, especially wigeon, green-winged teal, Canada, white-fronted, While production of commercial agriculture lesser snow, Ross’s and cackling geese, sandhill crops on easement lands is generally prohib- cranes, shorebirds, and bald eagle. Additionally, ited, it has been allowed on three easement after the first managed water cycle, Ferris’ properties in the North Central Valley WMA milk-vetch was observed at the toe of the worn to support specific wildlife resources. The checks in the saturation zone above the shelves. 594-acre Rancho Caleta agricultural easement was purchased in 2004 to maintain wildlife The Valley oak savanna that is found in the friendly crops to support migrating and win- northwest corner of Sanctuary I consists tering Aleutian Cackling Geese. This easement of a native grass understory (purple nee- requires that a majority of the easement acre- dle-grass, creeping rye-grass, blue wild-rye) age be planted to corn, beans, winter wheat and open canopy of Valley oak, box elder, or rice to provide foraging habitat for geese. blue elderberry, and California rose. Greater sandhill cranes also use these lands The majority of the managed wetlands in the regularly. Similarly, the Llano Seco Ranch Llano Seco Unit are seasonal, with a few ponds easement allows a portion of the property to being managed as semi-permanent, perma- remain in irrigated pasture to provide for- nent, and irrigated seasonal wetlands. These aging and or roosting habitat for migrating/ wetlands are typified by moderate cover wintering greater sandhill cranes and geese.

54 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

This agricultural practice was in place when habitat within the legal framework of the Grant the easement was purchased and is seen as of Easement. In addition, the Service also important in maintaining roosting and for- conducts annual easement compliance flights aging habitat for greater sandhill cranes and to ensure private lands are being managed geese. Lastly, in 2010 the Birdhaven Ranch in accordance with easement requirements donated a 126-acre agricultural easement on The Service also helps facilitate habitat res- rice lands it owns to help protect and com- toration and enhancement on easement lands pliment wetland habitat on the ranch. through cost-share programs, habitat incen- 5. Habitat Management tive programs, or other funding sources. Examples of programs active within the Habitat management on the WMAs is rel- WMAs include North American Wetlands atively intensive, especially on managed Conservation Act Grant Program (NAWCA), wetlands. Many of the same vegetation Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, USDA- and water management techniques used on Wetland Reserve Program, and the CDFW Service-owned wetlands are also used on California Waterfowl Habitat Program. easement lands, although to varying degrees On Service-owned lands within the WMAs, depending on the location. Maintaining bio- wetlands and other habitats are managed by logical productivity, controlling invasive Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex species, and providing optimal water levels staff. There are approximately 40 separate at proper times of the year requires regular management units on the Llano Seco and Butte “hands-on” management and physical manip- Sink Units (USFWS 1988–2014). Intensively ulation of the ground, vegetation, and water. managed wetlands comprise the majority of On easement lands, habitat management those units, with lesser acres of grasslands, irri- is conducted largely by private landowners gated pasture, vernal pools, and riparian forest. and their managers or caretakers. While the Neither the Llano Seco Unit nor the Butte Sink Service does not engage in active habitat man- Unit are hunted, however the Llano Seco Unit agement on easement lands, it does provide has a public use program including two obser- technical assistance, offers annual landowner vation platforms and a half-mile walking trail. workshops, and engages in research and moni- To more effectively maintain, manage, and toring to provide information related to habitat monitor these units, a habitat management restoration, enhancement, and management system was implemented in the early 1980s issues. The Service is also responsible for (Mensik and O’Halloran 1990). Refuge man- reviewing and providing written authoriza- agement is determined, guided, and tracked tion for certain habitat management activities by an annual habitat management planning that may affect the wetland character and process (USFWS 2002a; USFWS 1988–2014, migratory bird use of easement properties. USFWS 2009). The annual cycle of this process The primary management activities requiring starts in the spring with the generation of an Service authorization include wetland enhance- Annual Habitat Management Plan (Appendix ment and restoration projects that involve the H) for each Refuge. Refuges are toured by mechanical movement of earth, the removal staff in the late winter, during which each or installation of water control structures, and management unit is visited and evaluated. Staff the planting of vegetation not included on the on these tours includes the refuge manager, current approved plant list (See Appendix biologist, work leader, irrigator, outdoor rec- C-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grant of reation planner, fire management officer, and Easement). When reviewing and authorizing law enforcement officer. Each unit is evaluated management activities, the Service works based upon what was planned the previous year closely with easement owners to ensure that compared to what actually was accomplished in projects meet the needs of owners and the terms of management activities (such as water

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55 Chapter 3 regimes, vegetation control, visitor service improvements), repairs (i.e., levees or replacement of water control structures), and the resulting habitat condition, wildlife use, or other resource data. Data and observations collected during the year are presented and discussed. Nearly all of this data is collected by unit, so it can be compared and evaluated. Examples include vegetation species composition, wildlife survey data, disease mortality, wetland drawdown and flood-up dates, vegetation control measures conducted (i.e., prescribed burning, disking), quality of visitor service Mowing for vegetation management prior to fall flood-up, Llano opportunities (i.e., wildlife observa- Seco Unit. Photo: USFWS tion, hiking), and law enforcement issues. Annual Habitat Management Plans the unit, water management regimes (i.e., (Appendix H) are then generated for each flood-up and drawdown schedules), and avail- of the Butte Sink and Llano Seco Units with able resources such as manpower and funding. participation, input, and review from the above Examples of management activities include staff. This process also involves a number of facilities maintenance (e.g., levees, water other considerations including, but not limited control structures, roads, fire breaks, fences, to, refuge purposes, Service management direc- gates, boundary signs), vegetation manage- tives (i.e. Improvement Act), historic habitat ment (e.g., herbicide application, prescribed conditions, other regional habitat plans (i.e., fire, grazing, mowing and disking, irriga- Central Valley Joint Venture Implementation tion), biological surveys, habitat restoration, Plan), Flyway management plans, endemic research, visitor service monitoring and facili- species conservation, endangered species ties maintenance, and law enforcement issues. recovery plans, and specific resource needs. The result is a document that is distributed to Data, reports, and documents that are used in all staff members for reference and to serve as the plan are stored and generated in a com- a place to keep notes on their respective pro- puter database. These plans identify individual grams and responsibilities. Their information is management units that consist of tracts of land then used to help assess implementation of the which have common management constraints, current year and generate the following year’s conditions, and visitor service activities. The plan. In summary, the habitat management plan habitat management plan identifies physi- facilitates the adaptive management process. It cal attributes of the unit, habitat objectives, allows for modification within or between years specifies management activities to make any based on changing conditions, serves as a place necessary repairs or improvements; empha- to input current data from all Refuge programs sizes positive results from previous years; and to be considered together, and helps to ensure notes special management considerations (i.e., that informed management decisions are made. presence of special status species or other significant wildlife use). It also prioritizes 5.1 Habitat Restoration management activities and projects based on Many of the easement and Service-owned the overall condition and functionality of lands acquired within the WMAs are former

56 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment agricultural lands which require habitat res- a water delivery and drain system to provide toration. When planning habitat restoration efficient and independent water management for specific properties a number of factors capabilities for each wetland; 3) excavating are taken into consideration, including: 1) the potholes and interconnecting swales within natural or historic hydrologic conditions, 2) wetlands to create diverse wetland topography the current availability of water, 3) the soil and enhance water management capabilities; capabilities, 4)the location of the property 4) constructing perimeter levees, upland pen- with respect to existing habitat, and 5) the insulas, loafing islands and submerged berms management objectives of private landown- within wetlands; 5) installing flash-board ers and the Service. Since most easement and riser or screwgate water control structures in Service-owned lands are located in historic wetlands for precise and independent water flood plains, have hydric soils, and have a control; 6) where appropriate, transplanting migratory waterfowl management objec- hard-stemmed bulrush to provide emergent tive, wetlands are the primary habitat type cover for migratory birds and other wetland restored. While the majority of properties dependent species; 7) where appropriate, are restored to wetlands, riparian forest planting native cottonwood and willow tree and native upland habitats are also restored cuttings throughout the wetland; and 8) where where appropriate and can be significant appropriate, planting native grasses on levees, components of some restoration projects. peninsulas and islands. While other practices are often incorporated into wetland restoration Since the natural wetland hydrology of the projects the above activities represent the region has been severely altered, most proper- foundation of managed wetland restoration. ties have been restored to managed wetlands where wetland managers largely control the Riparian forest habitat is often incorporated water management. Restoration of managed into habitat restoration when properties wetlands differs from natural wetlands in many have loam soils and are located near existing respects, and generally includes the following waterways/riparian habitat. In areas where practices: 1) removing unneeded levees, roads the natural hydrology has been significantly and water control structures; 2) constructing altered, supplemental irrigation and weed

Table 4. Approximate number of acre-feet of water required monthly for each acre of wetland habitat on Service- owned lands. Totals Approximate Water Use (acre-feet/acre)1 (acre-feet/ acre) HABITAT Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Yearly Seasonal 0.50 wetland Flood 2.00 1.00 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 5.50 -up

Irrigated 1.50 2.00 seasonal 1.00 Irriga- Flood 1.00 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 7.50 wetland tion -up

Semi- 2.00 permanent 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Flood 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 9.00 wetland -up Permanent 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.00 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 13.25 wetland 1 This amount can vary widely based on weather and soils.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57 Chapter 3 control during a three year establishment Some of the more common wetland enhance- period is essential for successful restoration. ment practices which help maintain wetland Riparian forest restoration generally con- infrastructure and enhance wildlife values sists of: 1) disking and grading restoration include: 1) replacing or installing new water area to prepare for planting; 2) installing an control structures to enhance water delivery irrigation system to water plantings during and water level management; 2) rebuilding or the three year establishment period; 3) plant- constructing new perimeter levees to safely ing appropriate native trees and shrubs (see and efficiently pond water; 3) rebuilding or Approved Plant List in Appendix C for list of constructing new islands and submerged potential trees and shrubs) ; 4) installing tree berms to maintain loafing, nesting, and forag- protectors on each planting to protect from ing habitat; 4) re-excavating or constructing herbivores; 5) reducing weed competition new interconnected swales and potholes to through mechanical and or chemical control diversify wetland topography, improve water prior to and during the three year establish- delivery and improve wetland drawdown ment period; and 6) removing irrigation system capabilities; 5) planting native emergent at the end of three year establishment period. wetland vegetation to diversify vegetative structure and provide cover for wildlife (see Lands that are out of the flood plain and/or Approved Plant List in Appendix C for list cannot receive supplemental water are often of potential emergent wetland plants); and 6) restored to native uplands. Similar to ripar- planting native riparian tree species to diver- ian forest restoration, native uplands require sify vegetative structure and provide cover for weed management over a three year estab- wildlife (see Approved Plant List in Appendix lishment period to ensure success. Native C for list of potential trees and shrubs). upland restoration generally consists of: 1) disking and grading restoration area to pre- 5.3 Water Management pare for planting; 2) controlling non-native weeds (through mechanical and chemical Proper water management is considered methods) for at least one year prior to plant- essential to maintaining high quality wet- ing to decrease weed competition; 3) planting lands and meeting the purposes, goals, and appropriate native grasses and forbs using a objectives of the WMAs. This includes max- native grass no-till seed drill (see Approved imizing benefits for wildlife, and enhancing Plant List in Appendix C for list of potential feeding and resting areas for wintering native grasses and forbs); and 4) controlling waterfowl and other migratory birds. weeds by mowing or herbicide treatment Water management is the most important during the three year establishment period. tool for vegetation production and control in wetlands. The water management regime, 5.2 Wetland Enhancement specifically the timing, depth, and duration of The infrastructure of managed wetlands peri- inundation, is often the greatest contributor odically needs to be enhanced or repaired to the resulting wetland vegetation, whether to maintain productivity and management desirable or undesirable (Mensik and Reid capabilities. A survey of resource profession- 1995). Spring drawdown dates largely deter- als conducted by the CVJV indicated that mine the species that germinate in seasonal the infrastructure of managed wetlands in wetlands (Strong et al., 1990). If drawdowns are the Central Valley should undergo some level conducted too early, less desirable cool season of enhancement every 10 to 15 years (CVJV emergent vegetation and upland grasses will 2006). In addition to repairing and enhancing dominate. Conversely, if conducted too late, wetland infrastructure, there are a number of pond bottoms dry too quickly and wetland plant management activities that simply enhance germination and survival may be poor. Water the wildlife value of existing wetland habitat. level management is also critical to providing

58 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment available foraging to a diversity of wildlife with peak drawdown acres occurring in April throughout the year (Helmers 1992; Isola 1998). to coincide with the spring shorebird migra- For example, providing a variety of shallow tion and when conducive to moist soil plant water levels from 0.3 to 13.4 inches (0.8 to 34 germination conditions. As water is removed, cm) offers attractive foraging habitat for most migrating shorebirds and other waterbirds dabbling ducks (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988) utilize the shallow water areas and mudflats to and shorebirds (Isola 1998). Conversely, deeper feed on invertebrates, fish, and other food items wetlands are needed to support diving birds, that are concentrated in the receding water. such as diving ducks, grebes, cormorants, and Seed-producing moist-soil plants germinate and pelicans. Managed wetlands typically provide a grow to maturity on the moist pond bottoms range of shallow to deep-water areas, but res- during the spring and then remain dry for most toration and enhancement techniques (Strong or all of the summer. During this dry period, et al., 1990) are used to create and maintain any prescribed vegetation management such this diversity in previously leveled sites. as disking or mowing will be conducted. In the fall, seasonal wetlands are flooded between late Most managed wetlands are maintained as August and November, making wetland habi- man-made impoundments, using water that tat available to fall migrating birds and other is delivered through local irrigation dis- wildlife as their numbers increase. Flood-up tricts, pumped from adjacent waterways and drawdown schedules on Service-owned or pumped from deep wells. Most wetlands management units are generally coordinated, are flooded up and drawn down with near where private wetlands are more independent complete control through inlet and outlet of each other; however, they do occur at the structures. Adequate flows of water through same general time as Service-owned lands. wetland units are maintained to promote good water quality and, at Butte Sink WMA and 5.3.2 Irrigated Seasonal Wetlands portions of the North Central Valley WMA, An irrigated seasonal wetland is simply a to provide passage for migrating juvenile seasonal wetland that receives late spring or salmonids. On Service-owned lands, flood- summer irrigation as part of the management ing regimes are designed to mimic historic regime. Irrigated seasonal wetlands are usu- wetland patterns as closely as possible, given ally drawn down between March and May to water availability. Easement wetlands have germinate moist-soil plants such as smartweed a similar pattern, but fall flood-up schedules and watergrass. Typically a single irrigation are often determined by the opening of water- is applied sometime between May and early fowl hunting season (typically mid-October). July, depending on weather patterns and phe- The approximate amount of water needed nology (stage of growth) of target beneficial each month to manage various wetland plant species (Mensik 1993b) or target pest habitat types is based upon when they plant species (Mensik and Reid 1995). Rapid are flooded and how long they are main- irrigations are desirable, ideally lasting 7-10 tained over the course of a year (Table 4). days (Olson in draft) to minimize both mos- 5.3.1 Seasonal Wetlands quito production and the growth of undesirable plant species such as jointgrass or Bermuda During the fall and winter months, water levels grass (Kwasny et al., 2004). Properly timed in most seasonal wetlands are kept relatively irrigation can also be an effective tool to control shallow (<12 inches), with portions of some cocklebur, as small plants cannot withstand units up to 36 inches. In the spring, water levels extended flooding (see more in section 5.2.5). in individual seasonal wetlands are slowly During irrigation and drawdown periods, drawn down to mostly mudflat, ideally over a these wetlands are readily used by duck period of 10 to 20 days. These drawdowns are broods, long-legged waterbirds and shore- staggered over the period of March-May, birds (e.g., egrets, herons, ibis, long-billed

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59 Chapter 3 curlews, black-necked stilts), and giant garter typically drawn down every three to five snakes, among other species, for foraging and years to recycle nutrients, discourage carp cover. Following irrigations, wetlands remain populations, and conduct any required infra- dry until flooded up in the fall, sometime structure maintenance or vegetation control. between August and November. During this Semi-permanent and permanent wetland water dry period, any prescribed vegetation man- depths range from 12 to 48 inches. Water levels agement such as disking or mowing will be are maintained at consistent levels, to the conducted. These habitats provide abundant extent possible, to minimize negative impacts seed food resources for wintering water- to birds that build their nests over the water, fowl, help to reduce fall crop depredation growth of undesirable vegetation, and mos- on surrounding agricultural crops, are used quito production. A flow-through of water is extensively by white-faced ibis for night roosts, also desirable to maintain water quality, reduce and support good numbers of secretive water- potential for avian botulism outbreaks, and birds such as American bitterns and rails. help control some undesirable species (e.g., On Service-owned lands, irrigated seasonal Azolla sp.). During the non-growing season wetlands currently comprise approximately (i.e., November-April, varies with year), both 10-15 percent of all managed wetlands. While semi-permanent and permanent wetlands can no accurate survey exists, we estimate that be drawn down to shallower water levels to over 70 percent of the seasonal wetlands on encourage use by wintering waterfowl and easement properties may receive annual other wildlife. This strategy is common on spring and or summer irrigations to promote both easement and Service-owned wetlands. the production of moist-soil vegetation. Rotation of wetland water regimes in managed 5.3.3 Semi-permanent and wetlands may be employed periodically to Permanent Wetlands encourage growth of emergent or other desirable plants in sparsely vegetated units. For Semi-permanent wetlands are kept flooded example, a seasonal wetland may be converted into the summer and then drawn down in to a semi-permanent or permanent wetland for mid-July to mid-August, after the breeding a season to encourage additional bulrush or cat- season of most migratory birds. Staggered tail to enhance certain wildlife use or diversity. drawdowns on these units during this time attract and support shorebirds during 5.3.4 Vernal Pools and Alkali Meadows important fall migration periods (CVJV Management of vernal pool and alkali meadow 2006). Newly available and concentrated habitat is much less intensive than managed prey created during these drawdowns also wetlands. Water management on vernal pools/ provide significant foraging for breeding alkali meadows is not artificially manipu- and post-breeding herons, egrets, ibis, and lated and, in fact, special emphasis is made a variety of other waterbirds. The units are to restore and maintain natural hydrology then re-flooded during mid-to-late fall. as much as possible (Silveira 2007; USFWS Permanent wetlands are flooded and main- 1999b; Ducks Unlimited 2005a, 2005b, 2008). tained throughout the year. They may be These areas are allowed to flood and dry nat- maintained for up to five years or more. urally, based on precipitation or natural flood Without periodic drawdowns however, their events and evaporation. This cycle is what productivity decreases over time. In addi- helps maintain the abundance and variety of tion, emergent vegetation grows relatively rare and endemic plant and animal species fast, and its density can become a problem. that exist on these sites. Prescribed grazing, Excessive carp populations can also become burning, and some spot herbicide treatments detrimental to aquatic vegetation and light may be used to control non-native vegeta- penetration. As a result, these wetlands are tion and enhance native species. Methods

60 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment that result in excessive soil disturbance (i.e. 10 percent are managed as semi-perma- disking), even for fire breaks, are avoided. nent or permanent wetlands (CVJV 2006). Within the WMAs, vernal pools are only While the Service is not directly involved with known to currently exist at the Llano Seco water management, we reserve the right to Unit and the Llano Seco Ranch Easement. flood easement properties to historic levels Alkali meadow habitat is present but uncom- (using any of the properties water resources) mon in the Willow Creek-Lurline WMA. from October 1 to March 1, if the landowner fails to do so. To this end, enough water must 5.3.5 Water Management on Easements be maintained with easement lands to flood Water management on easement properties the wetlands during this time period. While is largely controlled by the landowner and the this amount of water will differ by prop- Service has little direct involvement on individ- erty, it is generally assumed that it will take ual easement properties. However, the Service approximately 4 acre-feet per acre to flood does provide technical assistance to easement wetlands during this time period. To date, landowners regarding water management and this right has not been implemented, and it does encourage easement properties to enroll would be at the Service’s expense if executed. in various incentive programs (California Waterfowl Habitat Program, Conservation 5.3.6 Water Management on Reserve Program, etc.) that require landown- Service-owned Lands ers to follow wetland/water management plans. Sacramento NWR Complex staff has responsi- Currently, 90 percent of the habitat acreage bility for water management on Service-owned enrolled in the Service easement program is lands, including the Butte Sink and Llano considered managed wetlands (CVJV 2006). Seco Units. Because water management is the While water management on these areas most critical element to maintaining wetland can change on an annual basis, it is esti- quality, there are dedicated irrigators on staff mated that 90 percent of easement wetlands for both Llano Seco and Butte Sink Units. are managed as seasonal wetlands and At the Butte Sink Unit, there is not much control over when water is available in the fall. Per the 1922 Agreement (sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.1.1), agricultural drainwater is used to flood upstream private wetlands, and when it reaches the Butte Sink Unit, it must be taken. Service-owned wetlands are flooded, and the water is allowed to flow through onto the Colusa Shooting Club, which is also part of the Agreement. Depending on flows, all of the managed wetlands are flooded on the Butte Sink Unit within 2-3 weeks. Wetlands will remain flooded until March or April, then drawn down. Precipitation, run-off, and subsequent natural flood events may alter planned Prescribed cattle grazing in restored native grassland, Llano Seco water schedules, and in some Unit. Photo: USFWS

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61 Chapter 3 wet years natural flood events may keep the communities and assets at risk to wildfire. A majority of the Butte Sink flooded until May or variety of vegetation management techniques June. Occasionally, one of the smaller units may (mowing, disking, burning, spraying, grazing, be maintained as semi-permanent into the sum- etc.) are used, depending on the habitat type, mer using the lift pump located on Butte Creek. target plant species, and resource objectives. Some techniques are used alone, while others At the Llano Seco Unit, water is typically may be used in combination with one or more applied to managed wetlands in the fall begin- other techniques (i.e., burning followed by ning October 1. This water regime is about one disking to manage hard-stemmed bulrush). month later than most other Service-owned In general, mechanical methods are pre- wetlands on the Complex, with the primary ferred over herbicides, but in some cases, the intention to help minimize mosquito produc- opposite is true (i.e., to avoid ground distur- tion and subsequent pesticide applications by bance an herbicide may be the most effective the local mosquito and vector control district. method). The need to use any of these tech- Most of these wetlands remain flooded until niques annually depends on species present, spring, and typically 1-2 units will be main- condition of the habitat, effects of climate on tained as semi-permanent into the summer plant growth, available funding and resources, to improve marsh vegetation structure and and in some cases, the extent to which legal provide food, cover and breeding habitat for mandates allow the selected technique (i.e., waterfowl and other waterbirds. In addition, burning may be restricted at certain times one unit is maintained as irrigated pasture of year due to local air quality regulations). and grazed by cattle to provide waterfowl/ waterbird habitats; it is irrigated by Llano Seco 5.4.1 Prescribed Burning Ranch under a Cooperative Land Management Prescribed burning is used in wetland, vernal Agreement a number of times over the summer. pool/alkali meadow, and grassland habitats to 5.4 Vegetation Management remove hazardous fuel loads, control non-native invasive species, as well as to enhance and Vegetation management is relatively com- maintain habitat values. Burning in wetland mon on the WMAs, and is used to control areas is generally used to reduce perennial the abundance/distribution of certain plant vegetation that has expanded to a point that species and to enhance desirable plant spe- decreased wildlife use and overall productivity cies (Mensik 1990; Mensik and Reid 1995). has resulted. Examples include wetlands where A number of invasive species (Appendix F) expansion of hard-stemmed bulrush (tule) and occur throughout the WMAs’ habitat types cattail growth have exceeded the optimum pro- and infrastructure (e.g., canals, levees, portion of emergent vegetation and open water, roads), requiring different levels of control. or where invasive Bermuda grass or jointgrass The Central Valley’s mild climate creates a has replaced the majority of desirable annual year-round growing season that results in moist soil food plants, thus reducing the use by the germination and expansion of a variety many wildlife species (Mensik 1990). Prescribed of undesirable species throughout the year. burns can also serve to break up large stands Reasons for vegetation management include of continuous fuel beds that can result in larger maintaining biodiversity, maintaining desirable more destructive wildfires. Prescribed burns proportions of emergent vegetation and moist can be applied to managed wetlands during soil food plants in wetlands, enhancement of different times of the year, depending on con- desirable species, reduction of invasive and ditions and habitat objectives. Both dry and other undesirable species, preparation for overwater burning can be successful. Fire lines habitat restoration projects, reducing mos- are created around the burn area and around quito breeding habitat, and maintenance and any sensitive areas to be saved. The firing pat- safety around facilities including protecting tern allows for an avenue or direction of escape

62 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment for wildlife. Follow-up disking is often used after wetland burns to ensure that roots of target species (e.g., hard-stemmed bulrush, cattail, jointgrass) are killed and enhance germination of desirable species (Mensik 1990; Mensik and Reid 1995). The objective is a desirable mix of vegetation species, stature, and distribution; a recycling of nutrients; and a successional stage that is more productive and reduces the risk to life and property from larger more destructive wildfires. The frequency of burning wetland units depends on habitat type, vegetation species composition, soil type, Disking for vegetation management. Photo: CDFW and tendency for growth. In some cases, this may be as often as once every five years. or grazing, disking helps control bulrushes, Prescribed burns in grasslands, alkali mead- cattails, Bermuda grass, jointgrass, water ows, and vernal pools are used to reduce primrose (Ludwigia sp.), and other perennial invasive species and stimulate native plant plant species (Mensik 1990; Mensik and Reid species (Pollak and Kan 1998; Wight 2002). 1995). In addition to controlling undesirable Resource benefits include maintaining biodiver- plants, disking also creates a seedbed condu- sity (especially native plant communities and cive to both increased germination and seed the wildlife they support), providing browse production of desirable moist soil plants in for waterfowl, and general maintenance of seasonal wetlands (Naylor 2002). Caution must habitat for short grass wildlife species (e.g., be exercised in some wetlands, where disking sandhill crane, meadowlark, Swainson’s hawk, can enhance or spread invasive species, such as burrowing owl). These burns also reduce the cocklebur and perennial pepperweed. Disking risk of large unwanted wildfires by reducing the is often used in thick vegetation to create open- accumulation of hazardous fuels and establish- ings that facilitate increased bird use, disease ing a mosaic of fuel loads. Burns may occur at monitoring and carcass removal, and enhanced any time of year, depending on specific objec- wildlife viewing opportunities. Loafing areas tives and condition of the habitat. Fall or winter can be greatly enhanced by disking vegeta- burns are usually used when sensitive plants tion on islands or interior levees. As the use of are present because they are dormant at that prescribed burning has declined due to local air time. For optimal control of non-native annual quality restrictions, disking has become a more grasses, it is most effective to burn in the late frequent vegetation control option. Disked fuel spring/early summer, when seeds remain on the breaks are used in appropriate areas to protect plants and can be easily consumed by the fire. life and property from the spread of wildfire off of and onto the Service-owned lands. More information about prescribed fire policy and use on Service-owned Disking is typically conducted during late lands is provided in section 5.2.9. spring, summer or early fall months when wetlands are dry. Target species/areas may 5.4.2 Disking be disked one or more times to ensure that Disking is an important management tool that roots are dead, reducing the need for more has a variety of uses. It is commonly used in frequent treatments. Vegetation succession managed wetlands to reduce vegetation that is set back in disked areas, and typically has exceeded beneficial quantities or distribu- desirable moist soil plants and open water tions required for wildlife use objectives. By areas replace the species that are removed. itself, or in combination with burning, spraying Multiple disk passes are sometimes necessary

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63 Chapter 3 to break up large clods and prepare a seed grasses such as annual ryegrass can be bed for optimal moist-soil plant germination. significantly reduced by mowing, but timing is critical (Thomsen et al., 1997). Circumstances dictate how much of an area will be disked. In most cases, a mosaic pattern is Roads, levees, and areas around buildings created, leaving equal proportions of emergent and other facilities are mowed during the cover plants and open areas with annual moist spring and summer to minimize risk of wild- soil plants. The amount left undisked may be fires by allowing safer access to complete altered if special needs for certain species are habitat management tasks (i.e. checking identified (Mensik and Reid 1995). Examples water control structures), conduct biological include leaving more emergent vegetation surveys, and perform general maintenance. in units that have historical use by colonial 5.4.4 Spraying nesting birds, such as tricolored blackbirds or white-faced ibis, or leaving less vegetation There are situations where herbicide treat- in units that support large numbers of open ments are the most effective, efficient, and least water species, such as pintails or shorebirds. disturbing method to control unwanted vegeta- In cases of widespread problem vegetation, tion. Other methods listed in this section such sometimes the most cost-effective treatment as mowing, disking, burning, or grazing will not is for the majority of a unit to be disked, real- work to control all species, may not be appro- izing that the benefits will last a minimum priate to use in some areas, may cause more of 3 to 5 years (Mensik and Reid 1995). weed problems due to soil disturbance, may not be cost effective, or otherwise may be ineffi- 5.4.3 Mowing cient. There are a variety of herbicides available Mowing is used to control a variety of invasive to treat invasive or otherwise undesirable plant species, enhance wetlands, reduce fire risk, species to improve habitat quality. Herbicides and accomplish general weed maintenance can be used to control a wide range of perennial around facilities. It is usually conducted with a and annual plants. Most formulations are only tractor pulling a large mowing implement, but for use on terrestrial (dry) areas, but there are may also be accomplished with smaller equip- also some that are approved for use around ment, such as push mowers or weed eaters. water for aquatic species such as invasive water primrose. There are also herbicides that are Mowing is a common technique used to create selective for certain broadleaf plants that will an optimal mosaic of open water to emergent not harm grass or bulrush species. Products vegetation that attracts migratory birds. It such as 2-4,D can be effective in controlling is also used for keeping islands and selected yellow star-thistle, black mustard, and a host sections of levees clear of vegetation for opti- of other broadleaf plants in native grass res- mal loafing and resting sites for waterfowl, toration sites without harming the grasses. shorebirds, and other wildlife. In wetlands, There are also a number of ways herbicides can mowing is a primary tool for controlling be applied to precisely target certain species. cocklebur, an invasive species that can over- For example, a cut-stump application (cutting take seasonal wetlands and crowd out more the stem and “painting” the stump) may be the desirable species (Mensik and Reid 1995). most effective way to achieve control on some By mowing prior to the plants setting seed, non-native trees such as Eucalyptus species. cocklebur can be kept under control, resulting in a greater diversity of desirable species, 5.4.5 Water Management (for while reducing the need to use herbicides. vegetation control) Invasive vegetation in upland habitats can As described in section 5.1, water manage- also be managed with mowing, although ment is the most important tool for vegetation burning or grazing are preferred in most enhancement and control in wetlands. The cases. Yellow star-thistle and non-native

64 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment timing, depth, and duration of flooding can be wildlife-friendly non-native species that land- manipulated to enhance desirable moist soil owners can plant without Service authorization. plants and reduce certain undesirable species. 5.4.7 Prescribed Livestock Grazing Short-term irrigations (7-10 days) conducted in the spring and summer can greatly increase Historically, grazing by native wildlife spe- the amount of moist soil plant seed production cies has shaped the botanical and zoological (Naylor 2002) and vegetative stature in seasonal resources of the California landscape (Edwards wetlands. One irrigation is typically all that is 1992, 1996). Currently, well managed livestock necessary to bring seedling plants to maturity. grazing is an important method of vegetation management (Barry 2003; Griggs 2000) on Cocklebur, a common invasive species in sea- the Complex. The grazing program provides sonal wetlands, is particularly susceptible many benefits for vegetation and wildlife to control by flooding (sometimes referred habitat management, such as the reduction of to as “scalding”) at a critical point in its life thatch and standing dead plant materials and cycle. As with many desirable species, such the reduction of non-native invasive weeds as watergrass or smartweeds, cocklebur (Thomsen et al., 1993). Native plants, includ- seedlings also germinate on seasonal wetland ing special status plant taxa, increase due to pond bottoms as they dry in spring. To con- reduced competition for sunlight and reduced trol cocklebur, re-flooding the wetlands for competition with non-native annual grasses for one to two weeks at the right time can kill water and nutrients (Coppoletta and Moritsch young cocklebur plants, while at the same 2001; Davis and Sherman 1992; Menke 1992; time encouraging the growth of desirable Muir and Moseley 1994). Grazing increases species. This technique can also be used on primary production which also increases plant white sweet clover, another common undesir- biomass (McNaughton 1985). Cattle grazing able species in managed seasonal wetlands. increases native vernal pool flora and prolongs While irrigations can be used effectively for the hydroperiod (time inundated), which is vegetation control and enhancement, prolonged beneficial to vernal pool macro-invertebrates or too frequent irrigation can cause problem (Marty 2005; Pyke and Marty 2005). With the species such as Bermuda grass or jointgrass reduction of non-native annual grasses, flow- to rapidly encroach, resulting in decreased ering plants increase and evapotranspiration overall productivity for wildlife and potentially decreases and this increases both terrestrial unacceptable levels of mosquito production. and aquatic macro-invertebrate populations– 5.4.6 Vegetation Restoration specifically native pollinators of native vernal pool and grassland plants and invertebrate Where appropriate, and depending on the prey items for refuge wildlife such as migratory habitat and wildlife objectives, native vegeta- birds. Grazing provides optimal shorebird and tion is restored on the WMAs using a variety sandhill crane foraging habitat by reducing of grasses, forbs, shrubs, or tree species. grass height and contributing organic matter Planting seeds, plugs, and cuttings are the for the prey base (Colwell and Dodd 1995; most common methods for establishing native Knopf and Rupert 1995) and also provides vegetation. The use of the most local genetic short, nutritious grasses for grazing migratory stocks for any plantings helps to increase waterfowl (Buchsbaum et al., 1986) and local the chance of success. Native species are deer. Aquatic invertebrates, insects, and special used exclusively for restoration plantings on status species associated with vernal pool and Service-owned lands. For easement lands, the vernal pool/alkali meadow complexes benefit Service provides and attaches to the Grant of from grazed herbaceous habitats (Bratton 1990; Easement documentation a list of approved Bratton and Fryer 1990; Panzer 1988; Germano plant species, which includes both native and et al., 2001), especially cattle grazing (Marty 2004, 2005; Wingo 2009). Grazed areas support

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65 Chapter 3 increased numbers of primary burrowing mam- management practices. Responsibility for mals such as the California ground squirrel and prescribed fire remains with private property secondary burrowing animals, such as burrow- owners and local fire departments unless a ing owls and various snakes. Periodic grazing specific fire management agreement trans- can also lessen the threat of wildfire near rural fers that responsibility to the Service. structures and agricultural industrial facilities. The most common vegetation management Grazing also has the potential to negatively techniques used on easement lands are disking, impact some habitats and wildlife, including mowing and spraying. These practices are com- reducing nesting cover for ground nest- monly used to control invasive species, set back ing waterfowl and songbirds, (Kirsch 1969; the seral stage of wetlands, promote the growth Krueper 1993), as well as for the northern and production of beneficial most-soil plants, harrier and American bittern. Grazing in and to provide open water habitat for waterfowl wetlands could also reduce moist-soil seed and other migratory birds. Another, common production and seed availability to waterfowl practice on easement wetlands is to discourage (reference). Mammals which burrow through cocklebur growth through extended irrigations thatch, such as California meadow vole, would in spring/summer (water management). Once likely decrease with grazing. However, these very popular, this vegetation practice has fallen impacts would be short-term due to seasonal from favor in some areas because of mosquito grazing rotations associated with the Refuge production concerns. While some easement grazing program (Appendix B, Grazing properties use prescribed burns to control Compatibility Determination). Grazing plans emergent vegetation, most easement owners are developed annually for the Llano Seco Unit. are discouraged by the liability and air quality The plan, which is developed by the wildlife issues associated with burning. Finally, while a refuge manager, wildlife biologist and grazing few easement properties graze cattle to control cooperator, provides grazing targets and pre- vegetation, most properties do not have the scriptions for each tract and includes specific infrastructure necessary for managed grazing projects associated with plan implementation. and many easement owners feel cattle compete directly with wildlife for food and cover. 5.4.8 Vegetation Management on Easements Vegetation management on easement prop- 5.4.9 Vegetation Management on erties is largely controlled by the landowner Service-owned Lands and the Service has little direct involvement in On Service-owned lands, vegetation manage- managing vegetation on individual easement ment is a primary component of the Annual properties. Easement landowners are allowed Habitat Management Plans, where control to use a number of vegetation management and enhancement objectives are identified and practices on their properties including: disk- treatments are prescribed to achieve them. ing, mowing, spraying, burning and grazing. Prescribed fire, mowing, disking, spraying, These practices can be used to control woody water management, and vegetation resto- and herbaceous vegetation that encroach on ration are all techniques used for vegetation wetlands and interfere with the use of ease- management on both the Butte Sink and ment lands as waterfowl and migratory bird Llano Seco Units (see sections 5.2.1-5.2.6). The habitat. While not directly involved, the Service Complex has an Integrated Pest Management does provide technical assistance to easement (IPM) Plan (USFWS 2009) that identifies the landowners regarding vegetation management most effective and environmentally friendly and does encourage easement properties to strategies and techniques to control certain enroll in various incentive programs (California vegetation species on Service-owned lands. Waterfowl Habitat Program, Conservation To date, grazing (section 5.2.7) has only been Reserve Program, etc.) that require land- used on the Llano Seco Unit, which has owners to implement various vegetation

66 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment implemented an annual grazing plan for more A total of 509 acres have been treated with than 20 years in order to control invasive prescribed burning at the Llano Seco Unit species, enhance native plants, and maintain from 2000 to 2009, with a range of 0-413 acres short-grass habitat. Grazing is facilitated burned annually. To date, prescribed burning through the Cooperative Land Management has not been used at the Butte Sink Unit. Agreement (CLMA) or Refuge Special Use Permit (SUP) with a private cooperator. 5.5 Control of Invasive, Exotic, Benefits of the CLMA program are the coop- or Pest Species erator’s shared responsibilities in maintaining It is necessary to control certain plant and corals, fences, gates, cattle water systems, animal species that have undesirable effects on conducting pasture irrigations, and vegeta- WMA wildlife, plants, and their habitats or that tion management/invasive weed control. pose a health risk. Invasive plant species com- On Service-owned lands, prescribed burns pete with desirable plants for space, sunlight, are conducted in accordance with both nutrients, and water. They have detrimental Department of the Interior and Service Fire effects on the distribution and abundance of Management Policy (621 FW 1-3 of the Service plants that are important to wildlife as food, Manual). Use of prescribed burns for habitat shelter, and nesting areas. In some cases, management and hazardous fuel reduction certain plants may be desirable in modest is consistent with both the approved habitat proportions, but can be detrimental to diversity and Fire Management Plans for the Complex and productivity if they become dominant. (USFWS 2009, Appendix J). All prescribed 5.5.1 Control of Invasives on Easements burns will be planned, implemented, and managed in accordance with all applicable Landowners are not required to control inva- policy, guidance, and standards including: sive species on their easement lands; however it is generally in the best interest of the habi- Review and Update of the 1995 tat to do so. To this end, the Service provides Federal Wildland Fire Management technical assistance, and, in some cases, Policy (January 2001) cost-share funding to help easement owners Federal Wildland Fire Management control invasive species on their properties. Policy and Program Review, Final The most common invasive plant species occur- Report, December 18, 1995. ring on easement wetlands include Bermuda National Interagency Mobilization grass, jointgrass, cocklebur, water primrose and Guide (NFES 2092). water fern (Azolla mexicana and A. filiculoi- Prescribed Fire Complexity Rating System des). Bermuda grass, jointgrass and cocklebur Guide (NWCG, NFES 2474, PMS 424) are most commonly found in managed seasonal wetlands where they can out-compete more Prescribed Fire Smoke Management beneficial moist-soil plants and emergent wet- Guide (NWCG, NFES 1279, PMS 420-1). land vegetation. These plants can generally be Interagency Strategy for the controlled using wetland management tech- Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire niques such as disking and water manipulation. Management Policy (June 20, 2003). Water primrose and waterfern are primarily found in semi-permanent wetlands, permanent NWCG PMS 310-1 Wildland Fire and wetlands and irrigation ditches, but can also Prescribed Fire Qualifications System Guide. invade seasonal wetlands. They are aquatic Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning weeds that can cover wetlands and ditches, and Implementation Procedures out-competing beneficial vegetation and and Reference Guide (2008). impeding water management. Being aquatic in nature, these species are harder to control,

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67 Chapter 3 but there has been some success with water The Service Pest Management Policy goal manipulation (occasionally drying impacted (30 AM 12.1 of the Administrative Manual) areas) and chemical treatment with herbi- is to eliminate the unnecessary use of pes- cides certified for overwater use. There are ticides through the use of Integrated Pest currently ongoing studies to investigate man- Management (IPM). IPM uses a combination of agement and control of water primrose in the biological, physical, cultural, and chemical con- Sacramento Valley (Grewell et al., in draft) and trol methods (30 AM 12.5 of the Administrative waterfern in the Butte Sink (USFWS 2010). Manual). This approach notes environmental hazards, efficacy, costs, and vulnerability of the The most problematic invasive plants occurring pest. An Integrated Pest Management Plan has on easement uplands are yellow star-thistle been developed for the Complex (USFWS 2009) and perennial pepperweed. Yellow star-this- to control invasive, exotic, or pest plant species. tle most often dominates dry upland habitats This plan applies to Service-owned lands, but that receive little flooding, while perennial the information is shared with private land- pepperweed often invades upland habitats owners where appropriate and applicable. located in active flood plains. The immediate control of these plants is generally achieved When mechanical or biological methods are with the application of chemical herbicides, ineffective or impractical, herbicides may be while the long-term control is often accom- used for invasive plant control. All herbicide plished by restoring native perennial grasses use is reviewed and approved through the which out compete the invasive weeds. The same Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) process Service often cost-shares with easement land- (7 RM 14 of the Refuge Manual). A PUP is owners to restore native grasses in upland prepared for each material used. It identifies areas impacted by these invasive plants. target species; reason for application; application rate, timing, and method; sensitive areas Herbicide use is not controlled by the and species that may be affected and measures Service on easement lands, but applica- to avoid impacts to them. PUPs are reviewed tors must comply with product labels and and can be approved by the refuge manager, standard Federal and State regulations. regional office, or Washington office, depending 5.5.2 Control of Invasives on on the type of material used. For more infor- Service-owned Lands mation, see the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan for the Complex (USFWS 2009). On Service-owned lands, when plants or animals are considered a pest, they are subject The most common invasive species controlled to control if the pest organism represents a on Service-owned lands are similar to those threat to human health, well-being, or private on easement lands (section 5.3.1), but the property; the acceptable level of damage by the Complex’s IPM Plan (USFWS 2009) identifies pest has been exceeded; State or local govern- a more comprehensive list of invasive species ments have designated the pest as noxious; of concern that are controlled on Service- the pest organism is detrimental to primary owned lands (Appendix F). Specifically on Refuge objectives; and the planned control the Butte Sink Unit, Bermuda grass and program will not conflict with the attainment of cocklebur are continuous problem species. Refuge objectives or the purposes for which the The high water table and annual re-supply Refuge is managed (7 RM 14.2 of the Refuge of new seeds and rhizomes of these species Manual). All of the same techniques that are during flood events results in annual efforts described for use in vegetation management to keep them under control. Bermuda grass in section 5.2 (fire, mowing, disking, spray- and cocklebur are also common species at the ing, water management, restoration, grazing) Llano Seco Unit, with the addition of water are also used to control invasive species. primrose. A combination of burning, mowing, disking, spraying, and water management

68 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment are generally used to control these wetland The Service’s 2009 CCP for the Sacramento, pest species. At the Llano Seco Unit, upland Delevan, Colusa and Sutter NWRs includes species are abundant, and there is compara- an IPM Plan for Service-owned lands. The tively more emphasis on controlling upland IPM Plan outlines a risk-based, hierar- pest species such as yellow star-thistle, milk chical approach to mosquito management thistle (Silybum marianum), and perennial (USFWS 2009). This approach uses an pepperweed. A combination of burning, spray- understanding of mosquito biology and ecol- ing, vegetation restoration, and grazing are ogy whereby intervention measures depend effective in managing upland pest species. on continuous monitoring of mosquitoes. 5.6 Mosquito Management The IPM approach ensures legitimate human, fish, and wildlife health concerns are addressed. Local mosquito and vector control districts It incorporates a combination of using best have identified a need to conduct mosquito management practices (BMPs) in managed wet- monitoring and, if necessary, control activ- lands (Kwasny et al., 2004), biological controls, ities on easement and Service-owned lands and a select group of pesticides, if warranted. in order to protect the public from mosquito Treatment thresholds (i.e., adult and larval borne diseases. While mosquitoes are con- mosquito population levels, and disease activity) sidered a nuisance because of their biting, and appropriate corresponding responses are some species are known vectors of serious identified in the compatibility determination diseases in California. There are primarily four for mosquito monitoring and management mosquito species of concern that are poten- (Appendix B). Under this program, if mos- tially produced or harbored on easement and quito monitoring and disease surveillance Service-owned lands: Culex tarsalis, Aedes indicate that human health thresholds are melanimon, A. nigromaculis, and A. vexans. exceeded, the use of larvicides, pupacide, and/ Although 15 mosquito-borne viruses are known or adulticides may become necessary. In some to occur in California, only West Nile virus cases, emergency actions may be required. (WNV), western equine encephalomyelitis The Service understands that mosquitoes are virus (WEE) and St. Louis encephalitis virus a natural component of wetlands, but we also (SLE) are significant causes of human disease recognize that they may pose a threat to human (California Dept. of Public Health et al., 2015). and/or wildlife health. NWRS policy allows Culex tarsalis is the main vector identified native mosquitoes to exist unless they pose a in the transmission of these diseases. The specific wildlife and/or human health threat. other mosquito species listed above can also The Refuge Complex staff works cooperatively potentially transmit WEE, SLE, and WNV, with the local mosquito and vector control dis- but are less competent vectors compared to tricts (MVCD) to manage mosquito populations C. tarsalis. Historically, Aedes melanimon, a on the Service-owned lands within the WMAs. common floodwater mosquito, played a role The Refuge Complex is striving to responsibly in a secondary transmission cycle of WEE address risks to public health and safety and to involving rabbits. Additional mosquitoes such protect trust resources from mosquito-borne as Aedes vexans could be important bridge diseases and the impacts of mosquito pesticides (i.e. bird to mammal) vectors in transmis- on wildlife and the ecosystem. Currently, there sion (California Dept. of Public Health et are varying levels of mosquito control that al., 2015). Public concern over human health occur, depending on location, annual condi- issues related to mosquito-borne disease tions, such as weather and detection of disease. has intensified on the west coast with the Depending on the local MVCD, larvicides advance of WNV across the United States, or adulticides may be the preferred control and its detection in California in 2003. method if wetland management techniques are unsuccessful. Adulticide use is particularly

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69 Chapter 3 common in the Butte Sink WMA, with aerial The Butte Sink WMA is within the jurisdiction applications made regularly in the fall. In the of the Butte County MVCD and the Colusa upper Butte Basin, larvicide use is more com- Mosquito Abatement District. The Butte mon. The level of mosquito control activities in County MVCD is responsible for the north- other parts of the WMAs is largely unknown ern portion of the Butte Sink WMA which lies and not regulated by the Service. Impacts to in Butte County, while the Colusa Mosquito non-target species are still a major concern, Abatement District (MAD) is responsible for particularly to aquatic invertebrates and the southern portion which lies in Colusa and anadromous fish in the Butte Creek system. Sutter Counties. Both districts promote the use of best management practices to reduce mos- 5.6.1 Mosquito Management on Easements quito production on wetlands, however when Mosquito control is conducted by local MVCDs mosquito population thresholds are exceeded on easement lands within the WMAs in accor- they will use chemical pesticides to control dance with the California Health and Safety mosquito production. Both Butte County Code (CDPH 2012). Under this process, land- MVCD and Colusa MAD annually apply chem- owners may be charged for mosquito control ical pesticides to easement wetlands at the activities by the MVCDs. While easement cost of the landowner. Butte County MVCD owners retain responsibility for managing has traditionally treated easement wetlands mosquitos on their lands, the Service does during summer irrigations and fall flood-up not have the authority to control these activ- with larvicides, while Colusa MAD has aerially ities; however, it works cooperatively with applied adulticides during the fall flood-up. landowners and MVCDs to provide technical Given its large size, the North Central Valley assistance to help reduce mosquito production WMA falls within the jurisdiction of many on easement properties. In 2004, Refuge Staff different MVCDs. Generally, easement lands and the CDFW worked with the Mosquito in the Butte Basin are covered by the Butte and Vector Control Association to produce County MVCD, lands in the Sutter Basin the “Technical Guide to Best Management are covered by the Sutter-Yuba MVCD, and Practices for Mosquito Control in Managed lands in the Yolo Basin are covered by the Wetlands of California”. This document was Sacramento-Yolo MVCD. While the MVCD’s published by the Central Valley Joint Venture promote the use of best management prac- (Kwasny et al., 2004) and distributed to all tices, they will treat easement wetlands with easement properties. The goal of this publi- chemical pesticides if mosquito production cation was to provide wetland management thresholds are exceeded. The type of pesticides options and techniques that minimized mos- used and associated cost to landowners will quito production while maintaining productive vary between years and MVCDs involved. wetlands. In addition to the publication, Refuge staff and MVCD representatives have Easement lands within the Willow Creek- given multiple presentations on mosquito Lurline WMA may be subject to mosquito control and best management practices at control by local MVCDs under certain cir- the Refuge’s annual landowner workshops. cumstances. Historically, there have not been significant issues with mosquito production on The Service coordinates with local MVCDs in easement wetlands in this area, and they have planning wetland restoration and enhancement rarely been treated with chemical pesticides. projects within their jurisdiction and provides them with the opportunity to comment on proj- 5.6.2 Mosquito Management on ect plans. The Service has also met in the field Service–owned Lands with easement landowners and MVCD rep- The Service has developed an IPM Plan for the resentatives to cooperatively address specific Complex, which applies to all Service-owned mosquito control issues on easement properties. lands including Service-owned lands in the

70 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

WMAs (Butte Sink and Llano Seco Units). israelensis (Bti) and a single-brood granular The IPM Plan is included in the appendices formula of methoprene have been the most to the CCP for the Sacramento, Delevan, commonly used products. Seasonal wetlands Colusa, and Sutter NWRs (USFWS 2009). do not start flooding here until October 1, The IPM Plan advocates a process to control which minimizes mosquito production and mosquitoes, when necessary, using the least need for chemical control. Some applica- toxic methods first (i.e., wetland manage- tions have also been made on the irrigated ment techniques, biological controls) and only pasture in Tract 2 following irrigations. using chemical pesticides if less aggressive Refuge staff works cooperatively with the methods are ineffective. A significant compo- local MVCDs in the appropriate management nent of the plan is the implementation of best of mosquitoes on the Service-owned lands management practices for minimizing mos- within the WMAs. They continue to work quito production and mosquito control, which with the MVCDs to use wetland manage- includes a variety of techniques for water and ment BMPs (Kwasny et al., 2004), minimize vegetation management and design features adulticide use, and look for additional ways for managed wetlands (Kwasny et al., 2004). to conduct mosquito control that are less The Service policy (7 RM 14 of the Refuge toxic, such as using biological larvicide alter- Manual) dictates that Pesticide Use Proposals natives. Cost is often the reason MVCDs (PUP) must be developed and reviewed prior cite that larvicides are not more commonly to the application of any pesticide on Service- used, and continues to be a major factor in owned lands. PUPs are developed annually trying to further implement their use. on the Complex with input from the Districts. A PUP is prepared for each material used. It 6. Fish and Wildlife identifies target species; reason for application; Given the variety of habitats on the WMAs, application rate, timing, and method; sensitive a great diversity of animal and plant species areas and species that may be affected and occur here. While many species are common measures to avoid impacts to them. Depending year-round, others are here only during migra- on the type of material used, PUPs are tion, for the winter, or during the spring and reviewed and can be approved at the refuge summer months to breed. An overview of wild- manager, regional office, or Washington office life use of the WMAs follows, and Appendix K level. All PUPs are reviewed by the refuge contains a complete list of fish and wildlife spe- manager for consistency with Departmental, cies that occur or potentially could occur there. Service, regional, and State policies. The Butte Sink Unit is typically treated by the 6.1 Waterfowl Colusa Mosquito Abatement District during The Central Valley of California has always September and October annually (along with been a major wintering area for Pacific much of the rest of the Butte Sink WMA), Flyway waterfowl. Populations have fluctu- primarily using aerial adulticide. Naled has ated over the last century, with some species been the primary pesticide used here in recent experiencing significant declines, others years, after mosquitoes became resistant to showing dramatic recoveries, and still oth- malathion in the late 1990s. Potential impacts ers that have shifted their distribution away from mosquito control on anadromous fish from California. During the 1970s, California in Butte Creek continue to be a concern. mid-winter waterfowl populations, as indexed At the Llano Seco Unit, mosquito control is by the Mid-winter Survey, routinely estimated comparatively light. In some years, the Butte between four and six million ducks and five County MVCD makes several small appli- to six hundred thousand geese. At that time, cations of larvicides on seasonal wetlands pintails comprised the majority of ducks, in October. Bacillus thuringiensis var. outnumbering all other species combined.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71 Chapter 3

Following the 1970s, extended droughts in Presently, peak wintering numbers in the Canadian prairie breeding areas caused California occur during late November through significant declines in breeding ducks and January, when 3-4 million ducks and over 1.5 production. These declines were also reflected million geese have been present in recent in wintering numbers in California’s Central years (USFWS 1955-2014). The Central Valley. Comparatively, in the last 25 years, Valley supports the majority of these birds, wintering ducks in California (of which most which also accounts for about 59 percent of are in the Central Valley) have fluctuated the wintering waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway. between two and four million ducks, includ- More specifically, the Sacramento Valley and ing only about one to one and a half million Delta together support about 47 percent of pintails (USFWS 1955-2014, Figure 13). all wintering waterfowl in the Flyway. Peak However, when the droughts in the prairies populations at the Butte Sink Unit have been ended in the 1990s, most other duck estimated to exceed one million ducks alone. species showed significant increases, 7,000,000 but pintails showed only modest increases. There is evidence that 6,000,000 changes in agricultural practices in 5,000,000 the Canadian prairies initiated in 4,000,000 the 1970s have negatively impacted Pintails the early nesting habitats of pintails 3,000,000 and are thought to be the primary 2,000,000 reason for the their lagging recov- 1,000,000 ery (Miller et al., 2003, Guyn 2004). All Other Ducks 0 Despite declines in historic waterfowl numbers and habitat, millions 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 10 Year of waterfowl still concentrate in the Source: USFWS Central Valley of California. In the Figure 13. California Mid-Winter Indices for Pintail vs. “All Other Sacramento Valley these birds are Ducks” in California 1965–2013 largely supported by a combination of wetlands and post-harvest 1,400,000 flooded rice (CVJV 2006). The primary waterfowl use of the WMAs is by 1,200,000 wintering ducks and geese, accounting 1,000,000 for over 95 percent of all waterfowl use-days. Ducks breeding in areas 800,000 to the north (mostly from Alaska, 600,000 other Western states, and Western 400,000 Canada) start migrating into the Sacramento Valley in August, and by 200,000 early October, hundreds of thousands 0 of both ducks and geese are present. 79 83 87 91 95 99 03 07 11 Many birds arrive via the Klamath Year Basin, one of the most important White-fronted Geese White Geese (Snow & Ross’) migration staging areas in the Pacific Flyway (Gilmer et al., 2004). Many Aleutian Geese Cackling Geese birds also migrate through the Great Source: USFWS Salt Lake and along the Pacific Figure 14. Trends of wintering arctic goose populations in Coast to reach the Central Valley. California, 1979–2013.

72 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

Ross’ and Lesser Snow Geese grazing in Llano Seco Unit. Photo: USFWS

The Llano Seco Unit and Llano Seco Ranch dramatically. Although cackler populations easement wetlands together have peaked have increased to a level of 150,000-200,000 at over 450,000 ducks. The most common birds, very few still winter in California. wintering duck species include northern Historically, about 90 percent wintered in the pintail, mallard, American wigeon, green- Central Valley and 10 percent in the Willamette winged teal, gadwall, northern shoveler, and Valley, Oregon. Today, this distribution has ring-necked duck. The most common goose essentially reversed, largely due to turf agri- species include lesser snow, Ross’s, and Pacific culture in Oregon attracting the majority of and tule greater white-fronted geese. wintering cacklers. Figure 14 shows population trends of arctic-nesting geese in California. In general, goose populations have undergone some significant changes and shifts in the Pacific greater white-fronted goose populations last thirty years. White-fronted and cackling have increased tremendously in recent years goose (cackler) populations reached their to 784,000 birds in 2010, as indexed by the lowest levels in the early 1980s, due mainly Flyway-coordinated special fall whitefront sur- to over harvest on both wintering and arctic vey. At certain times of the fall and winter, the breeding areas. Following the implementa- majority of the Flyway’s portion of the population of more restrictive harvest regulations, tion of Pacific greater white-fronted geese will both of these populations have rebounded be present in the Sacramento Valley (USFWS

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73 Chapter 3

1955-2014). Most of these geese nest on that have occurred in most other North the open tundra of the Yukon-Kuskokwim American white goose populations (USFWS Delta in Alaska. However, within that overall 2001). The most recent species ratio esti- whitefront population exists the tule greater mate shows that lesser snow geese comprise white-fronted geese (tule geese). Tule geese approximately 69-80 percent of white are a subspecies of whitefronts that nest in geese in California (Weaver 2009, 2012). river valleys (often forested) including those Tundra swans are also common, with the in Alaska’s Susitna River drainage off the majority of the Pacific Flyway population Cook Inlet. They are much less numerous wintering in the Central Valley within the than their Pacific relatives, and more dif- Sacramento Valley and Delta regions. Since ficult to estimate their population; CDFW 1999, mid-winter survey estimates have has employed an indirect survey method typically ranged between 60,000 and 100,000 using radio neck collars, that has resulted birds. While wintering in the Central Valley, in an estimate of 10,000-12,000 tule geese swans occur most commonly on flooded (CDFW 2014). Sacramento, Delevan, and agricultural habitats (rice and corn), and Colusa Refuges, the Willow Creek-Lurline use wetlands here to a much lesser extent. WMA, and ricelands in the immediate vicinity comprise the core wintering area for tule Waterfowl use of the WMAs’ habitats var- greater white-fronted geese (Hobbs 1999). ies by species and includes many factors including level of human disturbance, water Aleutian cackling geese (Aleutian goose) depth, ratio of open water to emergent represent another successful recovery vegetation, food availability, access to loaf- story. On the brink of extinction with only ing sites, and tradition. Over 95 percent about 800 birds in 1975, Aleutian goose of the waterfowl that occur on the WMAs populations have rebounded to over 120,000 are dabbling ducks and geese, which all today (USFWS 2010). This has largely prefer relatively shallow water. Only one been the result of removing non-native to 5 percent are diving duck species, which predators and repopulating geese on their prefer deeper water. Pintail, wigeon, green- key breeding areas in the Aleutian Islands winged teal, shovelers, and other species (Pacific Flyway Study Committee 1999; prefer more open water, whereas mallards USFWS 1982). Once on the endangered and gadwall will use wetlands with denser species list, they were delisted in 2001. cover (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). Large wintering populations of lesser snow Managed seasonal wetlands contain abun- (snow) and Ross’s geese (collectively “white dant seeds, vegetative food items (leaves, geese”) also winter in the Central Valley. stem, tubers), and invertebrates preferred Most of these snow geese nest in the west- by foraging waterfowl. They are diverse in ern Canadian Arctic, Banks Island having the amount and distribution of emergent the largest colonies, with a significant num- vegetation (bulrushes, cattails) they pro- ber also on Wrangel Island, off the coast of vide, and also contain bare islands, levees, Siberia, Russia. Ross’s geese nest primarily and open shorelines that provide excellent in the central Canadian Arctic, with the waterfowl loafing sites. Not surprisingly, largest colonies located in the Queen Maud the majority of wintering waterfowl select Gulf area. White goose (snow and Ross’s this habitat type above all other wet- combined) populations in the Pacific Flyway lands (Table 5). Waterfowl survey data have been increasing, with recent surveys collected on the Complex indicates that indicating 800,000 to one million birds. While managed seasonal wetlands support sig- the Pacific Flyway’s portion of the popu- nificantly greater waterfowl densities lations has increased, they have not (yet) shown the dramatic increases in white geese

74 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment compared to semi-permanent and permanent the most common waterfowl species on the wetlands (M. Wolder, unpublished data). WMAs, are less abundant as human disturbances increase, and show strong differences Vernal pools are also heavily used by water- in use patterns (densities and disturbance fowl once they fill during the winter and reactions) among units adjacent to auto tour spring, especially by mallards, wigeon, routes, hunting units, and undisturbed units green-winged teal and shovelers (Bogiatto on Refuges within the Complex (Wolder and Karnegis 2006, Silveira 1998). In addi- 1993). Waterfowl compensate for this, in part, tion, geese and wigeon will readily forage by feeding at night in areas (i.e., rice fields, in alkali meadows and short grass uplands hunted wetlands) that are disturbed during as soon as green browse is available in the the day. Some waterfowl also tend to use fall (Silveira 1998, USFWS 1955-2014). denser habitats during the hunting season, Table 5. Average duck densities (per acre with presumably because they feel more secure sample size in parentheses) by habitat type due to the heavier vegetation that buffers on managed wetlands at Llano Seco Unit of both the sight and sounds of human activity the North Central Valley WMA and the Butte (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988; Wolder 1993). Sink Unit of the Butte Sink WMA. Tradition is an important, but somewhat Wetland Llano Seco Butte Sink subjective factor of habitat use, and is most Type Unit Unit apparent with geese, especially with roosting Permanent sites. Some areas are used year after year 53.5 (1284) NA Wetland by species such as tule greater white-fronted Semi- geese. Large numbers of pintail, wigeon, and permanent 32.0 (40) NA other species have developed traditional use Wetland patterns at specific undisturbed wetlands Irrigated in the Butte Sink and Llano Seco Units. Seasonal 158.1 (1376) 225.3 (64) Wetland 6.2 Breeding Waterfowl Seasonal A small percentage of ducks relative to win- 97.4 (4087) 183.9 (1396) Wetland tering populations remain in the Central Valley through the spring and summer Human activity plays a significant role in the months to nest. Overall, California is a distribution of waterfowl on the Refuges. significant breeding area for mallards Disturbance from auto tour routes, walking (McLandress et al., 1996). The estimated trails, hunting areas, and adjacent off-refuge long-term average size of the mallard activities can significantly affect bird use pat- breeding population for the state is about terns (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988; Wolder 368,000; on average, the Sacramento Valley 1993). For example, green-winged teal are and Delta regions account for about 134,000 particularly sensitive to human disturbance. and 9,000 breeding mallards, respectively. Despite the fact that they are one of the most common wintering duck species, they are very In addition to mallards, the most common uncommon along auto tours and walking trails, breeding waterfowl include cinnamon teal, tending to choose the most isolated areas within gadwall, wood duck, western Canada goose, the sanctuaries (closed areas). Conversely, redhead, and ruddy duck. On the WMAs, shovelers are less sensitive to disturbance these species nest in a variety of uplands and relative to other species, and are more common wetlands. Most are ground-nesting species in disturbed areas, including hunting areas that nest in grasslands, drawn-down sea- (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). Other spe- sonal wetlands, or islands in semi-permanent cies tend to fall in the middle in terms of their and permanent wetlands. Redheads and sensitivity to human disturbance. Pintails, ruddy ducks nest over water in permanent

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75 Chapter 3 or semi-permanent wetlands. Wood ducks are years, managed wetlands on the WMAs can exclusively cavity nesters, with most nest- be particularly important for spring migrants ing in human-made wood duck boxes located based on habitat conditions in other parts along rivers and streams, canals or wetlands. of the Valley (Wolder et al., 1999). The most Permanent and semi-permanent wetlands common migrants and wintering birds include provide crucial brood rearing and molting western and least sandpipers, dunlin, long- habitat for locally nesting waterfowl. Some billed dowitchers, long-billed curlews, and waterfowl broods also take advantage of sea- greater yellowlegs. A few shorebird species sonal wetlands that are in the spring drawdown will stay through the spring and early sum- phase or receiving spring/summer irrigations. mer to breed on the WMAs, including killdeer, black-necked stilts, and American avocets. 6.3 Shorebirds Shorebirds are present on the WMAs year- 6.4 Waterbirds-Wading Birds/Diving round, but as with most other migratory Birds/Secretive Marsh Birds waterbirds, the greatest numbers are present Many wading, diving and secretive marsh birds during the non-breeding portions of the year. are present on the WMAs year-round, utilizing Surveys of the Central Valley in the mid- several different habitats for foraging, roosting, 1990s indicated that the greatest numbers and nesting. Great blue heron, great egret, and occur during winter and spring, when they double-crested cormorant rookeries exist in are using a combination of flooded harvested riparian forests at various locations throughout rice fields and managed wetlands (Shuford the WMAs. Other rookeries occur in permanent et al., 1998). Shorebirds typically peak on the and semi-permanent wetlands, where species WMAs during spring as most pass through to including white-faced ibis, snowy and cattle their northern breeding grounds in the arctic egrets, and black-crowned night-herons nest tundra of Alaska. During this period, seasonal in hard-stemmed bulrush and cattail patches. wetlands and vernal pools provide abundant Other breeding species include American and shallow water habitat that the birds use to least bitterns, green herons, Virginia rails, feed on aquatic invertebrates. During dry soras, common moorhens, American coots, and pied-billed and western grebes. All of these species will also forage and roost in WMA wetlands during the non-breeding season. American white pelicans can be present in significant numbers, but they currently do not breed in the Central Valley. White-faced ibis have been of particular interest because of their relatively recent increases in abundance. Extremely rare in the Sacramento Valley as of the 1970s, the white- faced ibis has increased dramatically, with tens of thousands of birds now Pintails in rice. Photo: USFWS

76 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment using the area, and significant breeding colonies birds in the California hunting regulations. and wintering birds on the WMAs. Seasonal Mourning doves occur year-round, as a com- wetlands provide large communal night roost mon nester in forested areas during the spring areas for ibis during the non-breeding season. and summer, and a less common winter resident. Wilson’s snipe is primarily a migrant 6.5 Waterbirds-Gulls/Terns species and is most common in fall through Ring-billed and herring gulls are the most spring in shallow wetlands. Eurasian collared common gulls, occurring primarily during doves have recently expanded their range fall and into spring. Forster’s and Caspian into the Sacramento Valley, and continue to terns are often seen migrating in small num- increase in abundance. They are considered bers during the spring and fall. Black terns an upland game bird, although their harvest are present during the summer and nest in has been significantly liberalized in hunting some areas of the Sacramento Valley, mostly regulations due to their invasive status. in rice fields, and occasionally in wetlands. 6.8 Other Landbirds 6.6 Birds of Prey The WMAs provide a variety of habitats for a A wide variety of raptor species use the WMAs great diversity of migratory and resident land- throughout the year. The most common breed- birds (Gilmer et al., 1998) (Appendix K). Habitat ing species include red-tailed, red-shouldered, diversity, structural complexity, and proximity and Swainson’s hawks, osprey, northern harri- to wetlands are important habitat features. The ers, American kestrels, and common barn and Sacramento Valley is an important migration great horned owls. Overall raptor abundance is corridor that provides stopover resting and greatest in the winter. Raptors gather because feeding habitat for landbirds that breed in the of the abundant prey base of waterfowl, other nearby foothills and mountains. It also contains wintering birds, and rodents. With the excep- important breeding and wintering area for a tion of Swainson’s hawks and osprey, all of the variety of migratory and resident songbirds breeding species are also present during the and other landbirds. Many of these species are winter in greater numbers, especially red-tailed priority or focal species in conservation plans hawks and northern harriers. Other regular or on Federal or State priority species lists. wintering species include American bald eagle, One particular species of concern is the tricol- turkey vulture, white-tailed kite, peregrine ored blackbird, a mainly California endemic falcon, and Cooper’s hawk. Occasionally, small species (Shuford and Gardali 2008). These numbers of golden eagles, rough-legged and colonial birds occasionally nest in wetlands ferruginous hawks, prairie falcons and merlins on the WMAs and feed in grasslands and are also seen during the wintering period. seasonal wetlands. They will readily use 6.7 Upland Game Birds upland areas grazed by livestock. Colonies periodically occur on all the WMAs and, in Upland game birds occupy various habitats some years, large colonies have occurred on on the WMAs. California quail, ring-necked wetlands in the Willow Creek-Lurline WMA pheasants, and wild turkeys are resident (south of Delevan NWR) and wetlands in the species that use a variety of grassland, ripar- Yolo Bypass. Tricolored blackbirds are itiner- ian, and wetland habitats throughout the year. ant breeders, with birds breeding in the San Grasslands are used for nesting and forag- Joaquin Valley early in the season around ing, and riparian forest and wetlands provide April, then moving up to the Sacramento Valley roosting sites and escape cover. Mourning around late May to early June to breed again doves and Wilson’s snipe (a shorebird, formerly if conditions are conducive (Hamilton 1998). “common” snipe) are technically migratory Non-native European starlings, house spar- birds, but are also classified as upland game rows, and Eurasian collared doves are common

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77 Chapter 3 and often compete with native species for are all part of the Sacramento River watershed nesting sites. In addition, several native North and share many of the same species (Appendix American species whose populations have K). Most fish are non-native warm water res- grown or expanded considerably, including ident species. Native anadromous fish include American crow, common raven, and great- steelhead and four distinct runs of Chinook tailed grackle, are of concern because of their salmon. Three of the four Chinook salmon runs potential predation impacts on other species. are considered unique Evolutionary Significant Units (ESU). These include the Sacramento 6.9 Mammals River winter-run ESU, Central Valley spring- Many mammalian species are year-round run ESU, and Central Valley fall-run and residents of the WMAs. Wetlands and asso- late-fall-run ESU Chinook salmon. The Central ciated waterways support beaver, mink, and Valley ESU steelhead is also a unique race. river otter. Other native species include the Anadromous fish are migratory, using the open broad-footed mole, ornate shrew, big brown ocean, bays, estuaries, deltas, main river chan- bat, Brazilian free-tailed bat, California myo- nels, floodplains, and tributaries. Anadromous tis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, black-tailed fish spawn in freshwater environments and jackrabbit, desert cottontail, California vole, spend their adult life in marine environments. deer mouse, Botta’s pocket gopher, California During periods of high flows in the Sutter and ground squirrel, western harvest mouse, Yolo Bypass, significant numbers of Chinook coyote, long-tailed weasel, raccoon, striped salmon and steelhead can migrate through skunk, and black-tailed deer. Other large inundated wetlands of the Butte Sink WMA carnivores, including mountain lion, bobcat, and the North Central Valley WMA. Likewise, and black bear occur in smaller numbers, adult Chinook salmon and steelhead pass with most observations being in riparian for- through the Butte Sink WMA to spawning ested areas along larger waterways Derugin areas in upper Butte Creek, while migrating 2013). Non-native species include muskrat, juveniles pass back through the area en route Virginia opossum, black rat, Norway rat, to the Pacific Ocean. Screened diversions and house mouse, feral pigs and feral house cat. adequate flows of water through the wetland 6.10 Amphibians and Reptiles units within the Butte Sink are maintained to minimize entrapment and facilitate passage of Reptiles are common residents on the WMAs, migrating juvenile and adult salmonids when and include common and giant garter snake, they are present (Jones & Stokes 2001). For gopher snake, western yellow-bellied racer, more information on salmonids and other listed California kingsnake, western fence lizard, fish species, refer to sections 6.13.24 to 6.13.29. western pond turtle, and red-eared slider (a The above fish resources support a wide non-native species). These reptiles mostly occur array of fish-eating birds and mammals, in upland habitats; however, the giant garter including pelicans, grebes, cormorants, snake (a Federally-listed threatened species) bald eagles, osprey, and river otters. and western pond turtle are wetland-dependent and occur commonly in permanent wetlands, 6.12 Invertebrates sloughs and canals. The Pacific treefrog and American bullfrog (a non-native species) are the Invertebrates present on the WMAs are an only amphibians known to occur on the WMAs. important resource based on their contribution to biotic diversity and their vital function in the 6.11 Fish food chain for many fish and wildlife species. They occur in all habitat types, both aquatic Fish species are present in the WMAs through- and terrestrial. Some are abundant, such as out the water delivery systems, drainage many species of zooplankton and midges, while ditches, natural creeks and rivers. These areas others are quite rare, such as some vernal

78 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment pool shrimp. A variety of endemic species We have identified areas within the 8 counties occurs in vernal pool/alkali meadow habitats with habitats that are suitable for wetland or in association with endemic plant species. agricultural conservation easements (wetlands and lands with historic hydric [wetland] In combination with seeds and other vegeta- soils). These habitats are not suitable for the tion, aquatic invertebrates are an essential following Federally-listed species (although part of many waterbird diets at various times suitable non-wetland habitat may exist else- of the year, as they provide a balance of amino where in the counties), nor is there suitable and fatty acids to facilitate fat and protein habitat for these species within the WMA storage (Euliss and Harris 1987; Miller 1987; program areas: Lange’s metalmark butterfly Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). Invertebrates (Apodenmia mormo langei), Ione manza- provide energy for migration, protein to replace nita (Arctostaphylos myrtifolia), Stebbins’s molted feathers, and calcium for the produc- morning glory (Calystegia stebbinsii), Pine tion of eggs. Central Valley wetlands support a Hill ceanothus (Ceaothus roderickii), west- wide variety of aquatic invertebrates, including ern snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrines water fleas, snails, clams, dragonflies, damsel- nivosus), Ione buckwheat (Eriogonum flies, water boatmen, backswimmers, beetles, apricum var. apricum), Irish Hill buck- midges, mosquitoes, worms, clams, snails, wheat (E. a. var. prostratum), Contra Costa crayfish, fairy shrimp, and various species of wallflower (Erysimum capitatum ssp. zooplankton (Severson 1987, Sefchick 1992, angustatum) and its critical habitat, El Lawler et al., 1997, Silveira 1998, Eriksen Dorado bedstraw (Galium californicum and Belk 1999). While many of these species’ ssp. sierra), Antioch dunes evening prim- larvae occur in wetlands, the adult stages are rose (Oenothera deltoids ssp. howellii) and often aerial and provide an important food its critical habitat, Lahontan cutthroat trout source for landbirds and bats. Terrestrial (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi), coho invertebrates are also an important food base salmon (O. kisutch), northern California for many migratory and resident bird species, steelhead and its critical habitat (O. mykiss and include numerous species of grasshop- Northern California DPS), California clap- pers, beetles, butterflies, moths, ants, spiders, per rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), and other insects. In addition, many of these mountain yellow legged frog and its pro- invertebrates play key roles in plant pollina- posed critical habitat (Rana sierrae), salt tion, including many rare and endemic species marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys that have been documented on the Sacramento raviventris), California least tern (Sternula NWR Complex (Thorpe and Leong 1995). antillarum) (=Sterna =albifrons) browni), 6.13 Threatened and northern spotted owl and its critical hab- Endangered Species itat (Strix occidentalis caurina), Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), and San The WMAs provide habitat for a number of Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Federal and State threatened and endangered Plant names in the CCP are based species and species of special status. Special on the taxonomic nomenclature of status species and their presence on the WMAs The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants are presented in Appendix L. This section of California, First Edition, 1993. includes species accounts for species Federally- listed as threatened or endangered, or proposed Species lists and Federal Endangered for listing that are known to occur or may Species Act compliance documentation will occur within the WMAs’ program areas, which be provided in Appendix M of the Final CCP. include portions of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79 Chapter 3

events as noted in the 2005 Recovery Plan (USFWS 2005a, USFWS 2011). Of the 8 counties within the proposed easement acquisition area, fleshy owl’s clover is believed to occur in Sacramento County (USFWS 2014) (http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/home.action). 6.13.2 Hoover’s Spurge (Chamaesyce hooveri) and its critical habitat Hoover’s spurge (Federal-listed threatened species) is a prostrate, tap-rooted, annual herb in the spurge family. It forms mats from a few inches to a few feet across. The flowering struc- Fleshy owl’s-clover. Photo: USFWS ture in Hoover’s spurge has petal-like glands that are red to olive in color. Blooms appear in July. This species is readily distinguished from Plants other species of Chamaesyce by characteristics 6.13.1 Fleshy (=succulent) Owl’s-Clover of growth habit, plant color, and leaf shape. (Castilleja campestris ssp. Hoover’s spurge grows in relatively large, deep succulenta) and its critical habitat vernal pools among the rolling hills, remnant Fleshy owl’s-clover, also known as succu- alluvial fans, and depositional stream terraces lent owl’s-clover (Federal-listed threatened at the base of the Sierra Nevada foothills in and State-listed endangered species) is in Tulare, Merced, Stanislaus, and Butte coun- the figwort family. It has intricate flowers ties (Southern Sierra Foothills and Northeast which can occupy more than half the plants Sacramento Valley vernal pool regions), and height). It is similar in appearance to field the base of the Cascade Foothills in Tehama owl’s-clover (C. campestris ssp. campes- County (Northeast Sacramento Valley Vernal tris), but has thick, fleshy easily broken Pool Region. It also occurs in the saline-alkali leaves near the top of the stem, while those Basin Rim vernal pools in Glenn and Merced of field owl’s-clover are thin and flexible. counties (Solano–Colusa and San Joaquin Valley vernal pool regions). The main remain- Succulent owl’s-clover has 92 occurrences in ing area of concentration for Hoover’s spurge Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin is in the northeastern Sacramento Valley. The counties, and one possibly extirpated occur- Vina Plains of Tehama and Butte counties rence in Fresno County. Threats to past and contains 14 (53.8 percent) of the 26 known present populations include activities associ- extant occurrences (USFWS 2005a). One ated with land conversions to agriculture and other site in the same region is near Chico in urbanization, and competition from invasive Butte County. Seven of the extant occurrences species (USFWS 2005a). Habitat loss and are in the Southern Sierra Foothills, includ- fragmentation is the single largest threat ing five in the Visalia-Yettem area of Tulare to the survival and recovery of fleshy owl’s County and two in the Hickman-La Grange clover among other listed species addressed area of Stanislaus County. Three other occur- in its Recovery Plan (USFWS 2005a). rences are on the Sacramento Refuge in Glenn Since the final listing rule, an additional County (Silveira 1992-2006b). The one other threat to fleshy owl’s clover is that many of extant occurrence is on the Bert Crane Ranch its populations are small in number. A small in Merced County (USFWS 2005a). Threats population size makes a population more to past and present populations include activ- vulnerable to extirpation from chance ities associated with land conversions to

80 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

latter occurring at inland saline-alkaline basin rim landscapes (alkali meadow, alkali sink scrub). Northern salt marsh bird’s-beak (C. maritimus ssp. palustris) also occurs in San Francisco Bay Estuary tidal marshes, but nearer the bay, mainly in Marin County, only overlapping slightly in historical range (USFWS 2010). Soft bird’s-beak is threatened by habitat loss (tidal marsh drainage) through extensive diking for land reclamation, invasive plant species, especially perennial pepperweed Hoover’s spurge. Photo: USFWS (Lapidium latifolium), alteration of salinity regimes to increase agriculture and urbanization, and competition local water quality standards, refined petro- from invasive species (USFWS 2005a). The leum pollution (crude oil spills) and volatile plant is also threatened by grazing, agricul- refined petroleum pollution (USFWS 2010). ture, and non-native plants (CNPS 2014). 6.13.4 Palmate-bracted Bird’s-Beak Designated vernal pool critical habitat for (Cordylanthus palmatus) Hoover’s spurge, Unit 2, is in Butte County, along the west side of State Highway 99, Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak (Federal and north of Durham Dayton Highway (Federal State-listed endangered species) is an annual Register Vol. 71 No. 28 February 10, 2006). herb in the figwort family (Scrophulariaceae). Molecular phylogenetic analysis separates 6.13.3 Soft Bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus certain members of the genus Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis) (C. maritimus, C. mollis and C. palmatus) into the genus Choropyron (Tank et al., Soft bird’s-beak (Federal-listed endangered 2009). The revised Jepson manual will reflect and State-listed rare species) is an annual these taxonomic changes however recov- herb in the figwort family (Scrophulariaceae). ery plans associated with these species will Molecular phylogenetic analysis separates retain old nomenclature (USFWS 2010). certain members of the genus Cordylanthus (C. maritimus, C. mollis and C. palmatus) The plants are 4-12 inches tall and highly into the genus Choropyron (Tank et al., branched. The stems and leaves are gray- 2009). The revised Jepson manual reflects ish green with small pale whitish flowers, these taxonomic changes, however recov- ½-inch to 1 inch long, are arranged in dense ery plans associated with these species will clusters (spikes) and densely surrounded retain old nomenclature (USFWS 2010). by herbaceous leaf-like bracts. Like other Cordylanthus species, the petals are divided Soft bird’s-beak superficially appears like pal- into two lips. The upper one is shaped like mate-bracted bird’s-beak. It grows at the inland a bird’s-beak, leading to the common name side of the San Francisco Bay Estuary, in high of the genus. Seedlings grow in late March tidal areas and along the edges of brackish tidal or April. Flowers bloom from late spring marshes; therefore it could occur in the Delta through summer. Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak area of the North Central Valley WMA. Soft is partially parasitic (hemiparasitic) on the bird’s-beak is geographically separated from roots of other plants, including salt grass. hispid bird’s-beak (C. mollis ssp. hispidus), the

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81 Chapter 3

population of this species. Populations also likely persist on easement properties in the Lurline Division of the Willow Creek-Lurline WMA. The plant is threatened by agriculture, urbanization, vehicles, altered hydrology, grazing, and development (CNPS 2014). 6.13.5 Contra Costa Goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens) Contra Costa goldfields (Federal-listed endangered species) is in the sunflower family. The flower heads occur singularly and like most goldfields are daisy-like con- Palmate-bracted bird’s beak. Photo: USFWS sisting of central disc flowers and surrounding ray flowers. Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak grows on sea- Contra Costa goldfields are closely related (and sonally flooded, saline-alkali soils in lowland resemble) Burke’s goldfields (L. burkei) and plains and basins at elevations of less than Fremont’s goldfields (L. fremontii) and are 500 feet (Mason 1957). Within these areas, distinguished in hand, by the relative lengths it grows primarily along the edges of chan- of their (freed and fused) phyllaries and pres- nels, drainages, and vernal pools with a ence or lack of a pappus on the disc flowers. few individuals scattered in seasonally wet Contra Costa goldfields historically occurred depressions, alkali scalds (barren areas with in seven vernal pool regions (Central Coast, a surface crust of salts) and grassy areas. Lake–Napa, Livermore, Mendocino, Santa Historically, the species is known from scat- Barbara, Santa Rosa, and Solano–Colusa). tered locations in Fresno and Madera counties There are 31 documented occurrences through- in the San Joaquin Valley, San Joaquin, Yolo, out its historic range, except for the Santa and Colusa counties in the Sacramento Valley Barbara Vernal Pool Region. The largest and the Livermore Valley area of Alameda aggregation of occurrences is in the Solano– County. It is currently known to occur in seven Colusa Vernal Pool Region, especially east of locations including Sacramento, Delevan, and Fairfield, with 11. Threats include activities Colusa Refuges (Silveira 1992-2006a), the associated with urbanization, including urban Woodland area, Springtown Alkali Sink near expansion, discing and grading, filling, ditch Livermore, western Madera County, and the construction, urban runoff and competing from combined Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve and invasive species, especially annual ryegrass Mendota Wildlife Management Area. The (Lolium multiflorum) (USFWS 2005a). total occupied surface area over the seven Vernal pools, which are suitable habitat locations is estimated at less than 741 acres for Contra Costa goldfields, are present (CFDG 2005a). Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak in multiple counties in the WMAs. There was included in one of the first ecosystem is no designated vernal pool critical hab- recovery plans by the Service (USFWS 1998). itat for Contra Costa goldfields within Populations on Delevan and Colusa Refuges the WMAs’ 8-county action area (Federal currently comprise the majority of the entire Register Vol. 71 No. 28 February 10, 2006).

82 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

6.13.6 Butte County (Shippee) Meadowfoam Highway 99, mostly north of Highway (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica) 32; and on the west side of Highway 99 and its critical habitat north of Highway 70 (Federal Register Vol. 71 No. 28 February 10, 2006). 6.13.7 Colusa Grass (Neostapfia colusana) and its critical habitat Colusa grass (Federal-listed threatened and State-listed endangered species) is in the tribe Orcuttieae of the grass family. Colusa grass occurs in vernal pools in Merced, Stanislaus, Solano and Yolo counties, rep- resenting the Southern Sierra Foothills, San Joaquin Valley and Solano–Colusa vernal pool regions. The type specimen was collected in Colusa County in 1898; however, this species has apparently been extirpated from Colusa County (USFWS Butte County meadowfoam. Photo: ©1990 Dean 2005a). Currently, about 45 populations Wm. Taylor (occurrences) remain extant. Threats to past and present populations include activities Butte County meadowfoam is Federally- and associated with land conversions to agricul- State-listed as endangered. Butte County ture and urbanization (USFWS 2005a). meadowfoam is found at 165-1,167 feet in elevation (CNDDB 2007). In 2008, the Service found Historic accounts of this species (and its that the range of the subspecies lies entirely name) indicate that it likely occurred on within Butte County, California (USFWS or near Sacramento, Delevan, and Colusa 2008b). Butte County meadowfoam is found Refuges, perhaps in the large vernal lakes primarily on the margins of vernal swales and that occupied this portion of the Colusa to a lesser extent on the margins of vernal pools Basin prior to agricultural conversions to located on alluvial terraces in annual grasslands winter wheat, then rice. As a result, there with mima mound topography. Mima mounds is a possibility Colusa grass could poten- are soil mounds of unknown origin that are tially still be present in small amounts. a few feet high. The species is restricted to a Monitoring of other rare endemic plant narrow 28-mile strip along the eastern flank of species on the Refuges indicate that there the Sacramento Valley from northwestern to is a significant amount of variability in central Butte County. During the 5-year review their occurrence from year to year and, in in 2008, the Service found the range of the fact, certain species may not occur in some species remained largely unchanged (USFWS years or for a period of years (Silveira 2008b). At this writing, Butte County mead- 1992-2006b). The plant is threatened by owfoam is believed to also occur in Glenn and agriculture, development, overgrazing, Tehama counties (USFWS 2014). The bloom flood control, non-native plants, and habi- period for this annual herb is March through tat fragmentation and loss (CNPS 2014). May. The plant is threatened by urbanization, Designated vernal pool critical habi- road construction, grazing, non-native plants, tat for Colusa grass, Unit 1, is in Yolo vehicles, and agriculture (CNPS 2014). County, south of Interstate 80, east of the Designated vernal pool critical habitat for intersection of Tremont Road and Road Butte County meadowfoam, Units 1-4, are in 104/Mace Boulevard (Federal Register Butte County, along the east side of State Vol. 71 No. 28 February 10, 2006).

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83 Chapter 3

6.13.8 Hairy Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia uses has been the primary factor leading to the pilosa) and its critical habitat decline of this species (CDFG 2005a; USFWS 2005a). California Native Plant Society con- Hairy Orcutt grass (Federally- and State-listed siders this plant to be seriously threatened endangered species) is in the tribe Orcuttieae by agriculture, urbanization, overgrazing, of the grass family. It inhabits vernal pools in non-native plants, and trampling (CNPS 2014). rolling topography on remnant alluvial fans and stream terraces in the Central Valley– Designated vernal pool critical habitat for Tehama, Glenn, Stanislaus, Merced, and hairy Orcutt grass, Unit 2 is in Butte County, Madera counties. It is found on both acidic and along the west side of State Highway 99, saline-alkaline soils. It is a small (6-8 inches north of Durham Dayton Highway (Federal tall) annual in the grass family. Foliage is Register Vol. 71 No. 28 February 10, 2006). grayish with soft, straight hairs. Hairy Orcutt 6.13.9 Slender Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia grass flowers from May through September. tenuis) and its critical habitat The historical range includes the eastern mar- Slender Orcutt grass (Federally- and State- gins of Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys listed endangered species) is in the tribe from Tehama County south to Stanislaus Orcuttieae of the grass family. It inhabits County and through Merced and Madera vernal pools in Sacramento, Lake, Tehama, and counties. Only 27 of 40 historically known Shasta, Lassen, and Plumas counties, primar- populations exist, including a new population ily of volcanic ashflow and mudflow origin. It in Merced County found in 2001 and a trans- appears similar to hairy Orcutt grass, but has plant population (CDFG 2005a). More than narrower stems and leaves, larger spikelets one third of the remaining populations occur which are not crowded, larger seeds, a differed in Tehama County. Others are in Butte, Glenn, number of chromosomes and flowers earlier. Madera and Stanislaus counties. Populations of hairy Orcutt grass are found at the Sacramento Populations are still present throughout its Refuge in Glenn County (Silveira 1992-2006b). historical range, totaling 79, of which 73 are Conversion of vernal pool habitat to irrigated presumed extant. The largest concentration (28 agriculture, vineyards, or orchards, or to urban populations; 43 percent) of slender Orcutt grass occurs in the vicinity of Dales, Tehama County. Conversion of vernal pool habitat to irrigated agriculture, vineyards, or orchards, or to urban uses have been the primary factor leading to the decline of this species, and in addition off-road vehicle use is threatens the Redding and Modoc Plateau populations (CDFG 2005a; USFWS 2005a). California Native Plant Society considers this plant to be seriously threatened by agriculture, residential development, grazing, trampling, vehicles, recreational activities, logging, fire, and non-native plants. Species management Hairy Orcutt grass. Photo: USFWS guidelines have been

84 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment adopted by BLM and U.S. Forest Service’s Wilton near Highway 104, respectively (Federal Lassen National Forest (CNPS 2014). Register Vol. 71 No. 28 February 10, 2006). Vernal pools, which are suitable habitat for 6.13.11 Hartweg’s Golden Sunburst slender Orcutt grass, are present in multiple (Pseudobahia bahiifolia) counties in the WMAs. Unit 6 of the designated vernal pool critical habitat for slender Orcutt Hartweg’s golden sunburst is an annual herb grass is in Sacramento County, northeast of the that is Federally- and State-listed as endan- intersection of Excelsior Road with Highway gered. It grows in clay, often acidic soils and 16 (Federal Register Vol. 71 No. 28 February its blooming period is March through April. 10, 2006). Designated critical habitat Unit 6 Habitat for Hartweg’s golden sunburst includes is more than 20 miles from and separated by cismontane woodland and Valley and foothill urban areas from potential easement acquisi- grassland. It grows in parts of Fresno, Madera, tions (from willing sellers) where easements Merced, Stanislaus and Tuolumne counties, would be most beneficial in Sacramento County, but is presumed extirpated or unknown in the as buffers to the existing Stone Lakes NWR. Yuba City quadrangle (primarily northeast of Yuba City), in Yuba County. Many occurrences 6.13.10 Sacramento Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia of Hartweg’s golden sunburst are very small. viscida) and its critical habitat Hartweg’s golden sunburst occurs almost Sacramento Orcutt grass (Federally- and entirely in non-native grasslands. The majority State-listed endangered species) is in the of the occurrences (regions of distribution) are tribe Orcuttieae of the grass family. It is associated with mima mound topography. The endemic to vernal pools in the Southeastern plants are nearly always found on the north Sacramento Valley Vernal Pool Region occur- or northeast-facing slopes of the mounds with ring only in Sacramento County. The plants highest plant densities on the upper slopes are very viscid, beginning while young, and where grass cover is minimal. The species was are densely tufted, bluish-green, and hairy. first collected in 1847 at the present-day site of Marysville in Yuba County (Stebbins 1991). Eight of nine historic occurrences are extant. Hartweg’s golden sunburst is now known Five occurrences contain over 70 percent of the from 19 extant occurrences (USFWS 2007). occupied habitat in an area of about 2.3 square California Native Plant Society considers miles east of Mather Field in Rancho Cordova. this plant to be seriously threatened by seri- Threats are similar to those for hairy Orcutt ously threatened by development, agriculture, grass and slender Orcutt grass, but activities overgrazing, and trampling (CNPS 2014). and factors associated with urbanization are the primary threats. These include runoff from 6.13.12 Keck’s Checker Mallow lawns, ball fields and roads, landscape waste (Sidalcea keckii) dumping, invasion of garden plants and non-native mannagrass (Glyceria spp.), horseback Keck’s checker mallow, also known as Keck’s riding, off road vehicle use, vandalism. Small checkerbloom (Federally-listed endangered populations are subject to extinction from species) is an annual herb in the mallow fam- random, catastrophic events (CDFG 2005a; ily. While it is endemic to grassy slopes of the USFWS 2005a). California Native Plant Society Sierra Nevada foothills, its habitat also includes considers this plant to be seriously threatened Valley and foothill grassland. Of the 8 counties by agriculture, urbanization, overgrazing, within the proposed easement acquisition area, vehicles, and non-native plants (CNPS 2014). Keck’s checker-mallow is known to or believed to occur in Colusa County (in Manor Slough Designated vernal pool critical habitat for quadrangle, which extends into the Valley and Sacramento Orcutt grass, Units 1, 2 and 3 are others outside the easement acquisition area), in Sacramento County: east of Hazel Avenue, Sacramento County, and Yolo County (in north of State Highway 16, and southeast of

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85 Chapter 3

Tehama and Butte counties in the northern Sacramento Valley, and extended from San Joaquin County to Tulare County in the San Joaquin Valley. About half of the approximately 40 known occurrences of Greene’s tuctoria have been extirpated through habitat conversion to irrigated agriculture and intensive cattle grazing (CDFG 2005a). The species apparently no longer occurs in Fresno, Madera, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties. The remaining populations are in Shasta, southern Springtime vernal pool, Llano Seco Rancho. Photo: UFWS Tehama, Butte, Glenn, and eastern Merced counties Monticello Dam quadrangle, which extends into (USFWS 2005a). Populations of Green’s tucto- the Valley). Additional portions of the range ria are found on Sacramento Refuge. Refuge for the species within California still need to surveys (Silveira 1992-2006b) have not detected be refined (USFWS 2014) (http://ecos.fws.gov/ Greene’s tuctoria since 1996, a trend found ecos/home.action); therefore, it may occur in throughout the species range. Greene’s tucto- other counties within the proposed easement ria is known to occur on Colusa, Delevan, and acquisition area. It is threatened by agricultural Sacramento NWRs. The plant is threatened and urban land conversions, non-native invasive by agriculture, urbanization, overgrazing, and plant species, and random events, which can habitat fragmentation and loss (CNPS 2014). extirpate local populations (USFWS 2011). Designated vernal pool critical habitat for 6.13.13 Greene’s Tuctoria (Tuctoria Greene’s tuctoria, Unit 3 is in Butte County, greenei) and its critical habitat along the west side of State Highway 99, north of Durham Dayton Highway (Federal Greene’s tuctoria (Federally-listed endangered Register Vol. 71 No. 28 February 10, 2006). and State-listed rare species), which is also known as Greene’s Orcutt grass, is in the tribe 6.13.14 Solano Grass (Tuctoria mucronata) Orcuttieae of the grass family. It is a small, and its critical habitat tufted annual which has several to many stems Solano grass (Federal and State-listed endan- 2 to 6 inches tall, each ending in a spike-like gered species), also known as Crampton’s inflorescence that may be partly enfolded in the tuctoria, is in the tribe Orcuttieae of the grass upper leaf. The genus Tuctoria is distinguished family. Solano grass is endemic to saline-alkali from the closely related Orcutt grasses, by the vernal pools of the Solano–Colusa Vernal Pool spiral arrangement of the spikelets (flowers) Region. It appears similar to Green’s tuctoria, and other characteristics of its flower parts. but the inflorescence of Solano grass is par- Greene’s tuctoria is restricted to small or shal- tially hidden by its leaves even when mature. low vernal pools or the early drying sections of Solano grass is know from three populations: large, deep vernal pools in the Central Valley. Olcott Lake and another site 2.5 miles to the Its historical range included parts of Shasta, southwest in the Jepson Prairie in Solano

86 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

County; and the largest population occurs to environmental stimuli trigger them to hatch. the west on Department of Defense telecom- Resting fairy shrimp eggs are known as cysts. munications lands in Yolo County. Only four They are capable of withstanding heat, cold plants were found at Jepson Prairie in 1993, and prolonged desiccation. When the pools and none in 1994-1996, 1998, 2000 and later; refill, some, but not all, of the cysts may hatch. site presumed extirpated in 2005. Population The cyst bank in the soil may contain cysts threats include land conversion, over collect- from several years of breeding. Hatching can ing, discing and grading, herbicide runoff, begin within the same week that a pool starts salt applications, and industrial contaminants to fill. Average time to maturity is forty-nine (CDFG 2005a; USFWS 2005a). The plant is also days. In warmer pools, it can be as little as threatened by non-native plants (CNPS 2014). nineteen days (Eriksen and Belk 1999). Designated vernal pool critical habitat The Conservancy fairy shrimp is currently for Solano grass, Unit 1 is in Yolo County, known from several disjunct populations: the south of Interstate 80, east of the inter- Vina Plains in Tehama County, south of Chico section of Tremont Road and Road 104/ in Butte County; the Jepson Prairie Preserve Mace Boulevard (Federal Register and surrounding area in Solano County; Vol. 71 No. 28 February 10, 2006). Sacramento Refuge in Glenn County (Silveira 2005); Mapes Ranch west of Modesto, San Invertebrates Luis Refuge, and the Haystack Mountain/ 6.13.15 Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Yosemite Lake area in Merced County; and (Branchinecta conservatio) two locations on the Los Padres National and its critical habitat Forest in Ventura County (USFWS 2005a). Conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy Designated vernal pool critical habitat for the shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and ver- conservancy fairy shrimp, Unit 1E is in Butte nal pool tadpole shrimp occur exclusively in County, northeast of State Highway 99 (Federal vernal pool habitats that are flooded with Register Vol. 71 No. 28 February 10, 2006). rainwater. They occur as eggs in summer 6.13.16 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta and fall dry periods, hatching and growing lynchi) and its critical habitat into breeding adults during their wet cycle following rain during winter and spring. The vernal pool fairy shrimp (Federal-listed Vernal pool habitat occurs at the Llano Seco threatened species) is a small crustacean that Unit and the Llano Seco Ranch easement. occupies a variety of different vernal pool habitats, from small, clear, sandstone rock The Conservancy fairy shrimp (Federal-listed pools to large, turbid, alkaline, grassland valley endangered species) is a small crustacean floor pools. Although the species has been that ranges in size from about ½ to one inch collected from large vernal pools, including one long. They have delicate elongate bodies, large exceeding 25 acres, it tends to occur in smaller stalked compound eyes, no carapaces, and pools. It is most frequently found in pools eleven pairs of swimming legs. Conservancy measuring less than 0.05 acre. These are most fairy shrimp inhabit rather large, cool-water commonly in grass or mud bottomed swales, vernal pools with moderately turbid water or basalt flow depression pools in unplowed (Eriksen and Belk 1999). The pools generally grasslands. Vernal pool fairy shrimp have been last until June. Female fairy shrimp carry collected from early December to early May. their eggs in a ventral brood sac. The eggs are either dropped to the pool bottom or remain in The vernal pool fairy shrimp is widespread the brood sac until the mother dies and sinks. but not abundant. Known populations extend When the pool dries out, so do the eggs. They from Stillwater Plain in Tehama County remain in the dry pool bed until rains and other through most of the length of the Central Valley to Pixley National Wildlife Refuge in

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87 Chapter 3

Tulare County. Along the central coast, they range from northern Solano County to Pinnacles National Monument in San Benito County. Four additional, disjunct populations exist: near Soda Lake in San Luis Obispo County; in the mountain grasslands of northern Santa Barbara County; in the Santa Rosa Plateau in Riverside County; and near Rancho California in Riverside County. Vernal pool fairy shrimp are found on Sacramento Refuge (Silveira 2005). The vernal pool fairy shrimp was identified relatively recently, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Photo: USFWS in 1990. There is little information on its historical range. However, since it associated of the Sacramento and San Joaquin is currently known to occur in a wide range valleys. It is found only in association with its of vernal pool habitats, the historic distri- host plant, the blue elderberry (Sambucus mex- bution may have coincided with the historic icana). The species spends its entire life cycle distribution of Central Valley and Southern on the host plant. Adults emerge in spring (late California vernal pools (USFWS 2005a). March through early May) and feed on foliage from March through June, during which time Designated critical habitat for the vernal pool they mate and the females lay their eggs. Eggs fairy shrimp, Units 7D-F and Unit 9 are in are laid on leaves, branches, bark crevices, and the northwestern part of Butte County mostly trunks and hatch within a few days. Larvae between State Highways 99 and 32; Unit 11 in bore through the stem pith, creating a pupa- Yuba County, south of State Highway 20; Unit tion gallery. After one to two years, the larva 12 in northwestern Placer County near State chews a hole to the stem surface and returns Highway 65; and Units 13 and 14 in Sacramento to the chamber to pupate (Barr 1991, Halstead County, southeast of Sacramento (Federal and Oldham 1990). When the host plant begins Register Vol. 71 No. 28 February 10, 2006). to flower, the pupa emerges as an adult and 6.13.17 Valley Elderberry Longhorn exits the chamber through a characteristic Beetle (Desmocerus californicus exit hole. Upon emergence, the adults occupy dimorphus) and its critical habitat foliage, flowers, and stems of the host plant. Valley Elderberry Longhorn beetle (Federal- At the time of listing, the Valley elderberry threatened species) is in the longhorn beetle longhorn beetle was known from less than (Cerambidae) family. They have long brightly 10 locations, occurring at American River, colored black and red bodies, the sexes showing Putah Creek, and the Merced River. There are different color patterns, and they have anten- almost 200 records of the beetle, based pri- nae 2/3 (or more, for males) their body length. marily on exit holes. The species decline is due The males are smaller and more active than the to a drastic decline of riparian and floodplain females. Body length minus antennae length wetlands. Current threats includes contin- for males is ½ to ¾ inch and for females, ¾ to ued habitat loss through levee construction, 1 inch. The Valley elderberry longhorn beetle bank armor (rip-rap), channelization, bank is endemic to riparian floodplain habitats and levee vegetation removal, agricultural,

88 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment urban, and recreational development, and plowed. This species may have been more non-native invasive Argentine ants, which widespread in the Central Valley, but agricul- prey on the beetle larvae (USFWS 2006a). tural, industrial, and urban developments have eliminated most of the wetland and grassland Sacramento River NWR was established, in habitat associated with this, and other vernal part, to protect and restore habitat for the pool species. Current threats include natural Valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Since gas exploration, lack of grazing which results 1989, over 118,000 elderberry bushes have in tall overgrowth of non-native annual grasses been planted in over 4,500 acres of ripar- which does not provide good habitat for the ian and floodplain habitats at the Refuge. ground beetle or its prey, and illegal collecting Restoration sites at Sacrament River (USFWS 2005a). Since its listing in 1980, the NWR have been documented to support following three threats to the species have VELB populations through colonization been identified: non-native plants, wastewater (River Partners 2004) in a variety of res- sludge applications as fertilizer, and climate toration planting designs (Gilbart 2009). change (potential for increased winter flooding The Valley elderberry longhorn beetle is and drought in spring and summer) (USFWS currently being considered for delisting. 2009b). Of the 8 counties within the proposed In 1980, the Service designated two zones in easement acquisition area, the Delta green Sacramento County as critical habitat for the ground beetle is known to or believed to occur Valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Both zones in Sacramento and Yolo counties (USFWS are in or adjacent to the American River park- 2014) (http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/home.action). way near densely urbanized areas (Federal In 1980, the Service designated two zones in Register Vol. 45 No. 155 August 8, 1980). Solano County as critical habitat for the Delta Although the host plant (S. Mexicana) may green ground beetle. Although the beetle may be found within the WMAs’ 8-county action occur in Sacramento County, there is no des- area, there is no designated critical habitat ignated critical habitat for the beetle where for the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle WMA easements may be acquired (Federal where WMA easements may be acquired. Register Vol. 45 No. 155, August 8, 1980). 6.13.18 Delta Green Ground Beetle (Elaphrus 6.13.19 Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp (Lepidurus viridis) and its critical habitat packardi) and its critical habitat Delta green ground beetle (Federally-listed as threatened) is a bright metallic green and bronze ground beetle (Carabidae), which cryptically blends with green vernal pool grassland and alkali meadow vegetation. It superficially resembles a tiger beetle (Cicindelidae), with large mandibles and black eyes. It preys on springtail. Delta green ground beetle range overlaps with other ground beetles (E. californicus, E. finitimus), but the Delta green ground beetle is easily distinguished by its bright metallic colors. It is the only known California Elaphrus species which has adults that are active in winter. The Delta green ground beetle is only known Vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Photo: USFWS from the Jepson Prairie area in south-central Solano County. One known collection The vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Federal-listed site from the mid-1970s has been diked and endangered species) is a small crustacean with

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89 Chapter 3 compound eyes, a large shield-like carapace Designated critical habitat for the vernal pool (shell) that covers most of the body, and a pair tadpole shrimp, Unit 3, is in Butte County, east of long cercopods (appendages) at the end of of State Highway 99 and north of Highway the last abdominal segment. Vernal pool tad- 32; Unit 4 is in Butte County mostly along pole shrimp adults reach a length of 2 inches Highways 99, 149, 191, and 70; Unit 6 is in in length. They have about 35 pairs of legs central Colusa County, near the Sutter County and two long cercopods. This species superfi- line; Unit 7 is in Yuba County, north of Erle cially resembles the rice field tadpole shrimp. Road; Unit 8 is in eastern Sacramento County north of Highway 16; Unit 9 is in southeast- Tadpole shrimp climb or scramble over objects, ern Sacramento County; and Unit 10 is in as well as plowing along or within bottom southern Yolo County, south of Interstate sediments. Their diet consists of organic debris 80, east of the intersection of Tremont Road and living organisms, such as fairy shrimp and and Road 104/Mace Boulevard (Federal other invertebrates. This animal inhabits vernal Register Vol. 71 No. 28 February 10, 2006). pools containing clear to highly turbid water, ranging in size from 54 square feet in the for- 6.13.20 California freshwater shrimp mer Mather Air Force Base area of Sacramento (Syncaris pacifica) County, to the 89-acre Olcott Lake at Jepson Prairie in Solano County (USFWS 2005a). The California freshwater shrimp (Federal- listed endangered species) is a decapod The life history of the vernal pool tadpole crustacean of the family Atyidae and is shrimp is linked to the seasonal cycle of the believed to be the only extant species of the vernal pool. After winter rainwater fills the genus. They are generally less than 50 milli- pool, the population is reestablished from cysts meters (2.17 inches) (Eng 1981) in postorbital that lie dormant in the dry pool sediments. length (from eye orbit to tip of tail). Juveniles Sexually mature adults have been observed and males typically appear translucent to in vernal pools three to four weeks after the nearly transparent while mature females are pools had filled. Some cysts hatch immedi- often brown with a tan dorsal stripe. They are ately and the others remain dormant in the found in low elevation, low gradient, fresh- soil to hatch during later rainy seasons. water, perennial streams in Marin, Napa, The vernal pool tadpole shrimp is known and Sonoma counties, California. During the from eighteen populations in the Central winter, habitat includes shallow margins of Valley, ranging from east of Redding in Shasta stream pools containing undercut banks and County south to Tulare County, and from a single vernal pool complex on the San Francisco Bay Refuge in the City of Fremont, Alameda County (USFWS 2005a). Vernal pool tadpole shrimp are found on Sacramento Refuge (Silveira 2005). Sacramento Refuge is a Priority 1 recovery area for vernal pool tadpole shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, Conservancy fairy shrimp, Hoover’s spurge, Green’s tuctoria, and hairy Orcutt grass, which are all included in the Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon (USFWS 2005a). California freshwater shrimp. Photo: USFWS

90 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment exposed living fine-root material that provide (Southern DPS) rivers. A lack of data has made shelter and refuge from high water velocities quantification of spawning habitat loss over associated with winter storm events. During time difficult; however investigations (e.g., the summer months, California freshwater tagging and habitat modeling) are underway. shrimp are often associated with submerged Another concern is the general lack of infor- leafy branches. It is believed both winter mation regarding abundance trends over time. and summer habitat components need to The only source of long-term fishery-indepen- be found in close proximity in order for this dent data exists for the Southern DPS and species to persist for prolonged periods. suggests a negative trend in juvenile green sturgeon abundance over the last 30 years The California freshwater shrimp is a true in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. freshwater shrimp, inhabiting freshwater The principal threat to green sturgeon in the streams in Napa, Sonoma, and Marin coun- Southern DPS is the reduction of available ties California. The California freshwater spawning habitat due to the construction of shrimp is also known or believed to occur barriers along the Sacramento and Feather in Colusa and Yolo counties (USFWS 2014) Rivers. Other threats are insufficient flow (http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/home.action). rates, increased water temperatures, water Although there is habitat for the California diversion, entrainment, non-native species, freshwater shrimp on WMA lands, it is not poaching, pesticide and heavy metal contami- known whether it occurs on WMA lands. nation, and past and present commercial and Fish recreational fishing. Potential threats in the 6.13.21 North American Green Sturgeon Northern DPS are also related to destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat, (Acipenser medirostris) southern but are believed to be less severe or non-ex- Distinct Population Segment (DPS) istent in the Northern DPS compared to the In North America, the green sturgeon Southern DPS (NOAA 2005, USFWS 1996). ranges from the Bering Sea to Ensenada, Of the 8 counties within the proposed ease- Mexico, a range that includes the entire ment acquisition area, the Southern DPS coast of California. Green sturgeon south- is known to or believed to occur in Butte, ern DSP (Federal-listed threatened species) Colusa, Glenn, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, occurs in the San Francisco Bay Estuary, and Yuba counties. Additional portions of Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, Sacramento its range within California still need to be River and Feather River. The Green stur- refined (USFWS 2014) (http://ecos.fws. geon is superficially similar in appearance gov/ecos/home.action); therefore, the spe- to white sturgeon (Acipenser transmonta- cies may occur in other counties within the nus), with which they co-occur. Spawning for proposed easement acquisition area. the southern DSP occurs in the Sacramento River, while it is much reduced on the Feather 6.13.22 Delta Smelt (Hypomesus River with the construction of Oroville Dam transpacificus) and its critical habitat and the thermal barriers at the Thermalito Delta smelt (Federal-listed threatened and Afterbay (NOAA 2005, USFWS 1996). State-listed endangered) is endemic to the A major concern for the green sturgeon is upper Sacramento–San Joaquin estuary. The uncertainty surrounding the potential reduc- taxonomy and life history of the species is tion in size and geographic range of spawning covered in Moyle (2002). They primarily occur populations in North America. The updated in the Delta below Isleton on the Sacramento 2005 status review suggests it is likely that River and Mossdale on the San Joaquin River. spawning habitat has been lost in the Eel The species is euryhaline (tolerates a wide (Northern DPS), Sacramento, and Feather range of salinities), but rarely occur in water

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91 Chapter 3 over 10 to 12 parts per thousand salinity, 6.13.23 Chinook Salmon, Sacramento River about one-third that of sea water. Spawning Winter-run ESU (Oncorhynchus (January to July) and rearing can occur in tshawytscha) and its critical habitat the Sacramento River (to Sacramento), the Mokelumne River system, Cache Slough Chinook salmon, the Sacramento River region, the Delta, and Montezuma Slough winter-run ESU (Federal and State-listed area of the estuary. During high flows they endangered species), only occurs in the are washed into San Pablo Bay, but do not Sacramento River watershed in California establish breeding populations. Since 1982, and most spawning is limited to the main the Delta smelt population center has been stem of the Sacramento River. Adult salmon in the northwestern Delta in the Sacramento leave the ocean and migrate through the River; however they recolonized the Suisun Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and upstream Bay in 1993 during high flows. Prior to the into the Sacramento River from December 1880s when levees were constructed to cre- through July. Downstream migration of ate the Delta Islands, a vast fluvial marsh juvenile winter-run Chinook salmon occurs system characterized the Delta estuary: the from November through May. Winter-run Delta smelt likely reared in the upstream Chinook salmon can rear as fry in the follow- areas of fresher water (USFWS 1996). ing areas on the Sacramento River: above Red Bluff Diversion Dam (moving down- Delta smelt were once the most abundant stream as smolts), and probably in the lower pelagic (living in open water away from the river between river mile 70 and 164 (moving bottom) fish in the Sacramento–San Joaquin downstream as fry). Water temperatures estuary. The causes of decline are multiple determine juvenile rearing locations and river and have had synergistic effect in population conditions strongly influence movement. declines. They include: reduction of outflows through water storage and diversions; In 1993, critical habitat was designated for entrainment losses to water diversions; high the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook outflows which can flush smelt and plankton salmon (58 CFR 33212, June 16, 1993). This out of the system; changes in food organ- species occurs in the Butte Sink WMA in the isms through non-native invasive copepods Butte Creek system, and the North Central (Sinocalanus doerrii and two species of Valley WMA including the east and west Sutter Pheudodiaptomus), while the dominant native Bypass channels, the Yolo Bypass and the euryhaline copepod Eurytemora affinis, has Sacramento River. Winter-run Chinook salmon declined; toxic substances; disease, competition are monitored by the CDFW (CDFG 2005b). and predation; and, loss of genetic integrity. 6.13.24 Chinook Salmon, Central Valley The single greatest factor in the decline of Spring-run ESU (Oncorhynchus Delta smelt is habitat loss in the Delta and tshawytscha) and its critical habitat Suisun Marsh through reduced outflows from water diversions (USFWS 1996). Chinook salmon, the Central Valley spring- run ESU (Federal and State-listed threatened In 1994, the Service designated certain waters species), occurs in the main stem of the and submerged lands in the Sacramento/ Sacramento River and the Mill Creek, Deer San Joaquin Delta area as critical habitat Creek, Big Chico Creek, and Butte Creek for the Delta smelt (Federal Register Vol. 59 tributaries. Adult salmon leave the ocean and No. 242, December 19, 1994). Although the migrate through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta smelt occurs in Sacramento County, Delta, upstream into the Sacramento River there is no designated critical habitat where from March through September. Downstream WMA easements lands may be acquired. migration of juvenile spring-run Chinook salmon occurs from March through June, while yearlings move downstream from November

92 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment through April. Most spawning occurs in head- during the spring and early summer after at water tributary streams. Critical habitat least one year of rearing in upstream areas. designation for this ESU is under development. Populations have greatly declined over much This species occurs in the Butte Sink WMA in of the species’ range, including the Sacramento the Butte Creek system, and the North Central River basin, due to blockage of upstream Valley WMA including the east and west Sutter migration by dams and flood control projects, Bypass channels, the Yolo Bypass and the agricultural and municipal diversions, harmful Sacramento River. Spring-run Chinook salmon temperatures in the Sacramento River, reduced are monitored by the CDFW (CDFG 2005b). availability of spawning gravels, and toxic discharges. This species occurs in the Butte In 2005, the NMFS designated critical hab- Sink WMA in the Butte Creek system, and itat for two Evolutionarily Significant Units the North Central Valley WMA including the (ESUs) of Chinook salmon, including the east and west Sutter Bypass channels, the Yolo Central Valley spring run Chinook salmon Bypass and the Sacramento River. Steelhead and other fish. Critical habitat is designated are monitored by the CDFW (CDFG 2005b). for the ESU of the Central Valley spring-run Chinook in 7 of the 8 counties that are within In 2005, the NMFS designated critical habitat WMA boundaries: Butte, Colusa, Glenn, for five ESUs of Oncorhynchus mykiss, includ- Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba. Critical ing the Central Valley O. mykiss and other fish. habitat includes the stream channels within NMFS used the species’ scientific name rather the designated stream reaches, extending than ‘‘steelhead’’ because at the time they were to the ordinary high water mark (Federal being proposed for revision to include both Register Vol. 70 No. 170, September 2, 2005). anadromous (steelhead) and resident (rainbow/ redband) forms of the species (Federal Register 6.13.25 Steelhead, Central Valley Vol. 70 No. 170, September 2, 2005). Critical ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) habitat is designated for the Central Valley and its critical habitat ESU of the steelhead in 7 of the 8 counties that Steelhead, the Central Valley ESU (Federal- are within WMA boundaries: Butte, Glenn, listed threatened species), is an anadromous Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba. form of rainbow trout. This species has tra- Amphibians ditionally supported a major sport fishery in the Sacramento River system. Their his- 6.13.26 California Tiger Salamander torical range in the Central Valley has been (Ambystoma californiense) reduced by dams and water diversions that and its critical habitat now restrict the species to the lower portions California tiger salamander (Federal and State- of major rivers, where habitat is less favorable listed threatened species) is an amphibian in for steelhead spawning and rearing. Steelhead the family Ambystomatidae. The species is use the Sacramento River as a migration restricted to grasslands and low foothill regions corridor to and from spawning grounds in the where lowland aquatic sites are available for main stem of the river above the Red Bluff breeding. They prefer natural ephemeral Diversion Dam, the tributary streams, and the pools or ponds that mimic them (stock ponds Coleman National Fish Hatchery. They are that are allowed to go dry). Larvae require present in the Sacramento River year-round, significantly more time to transform into either as smolts migrating downstream or juvenile adults than other amphibians such adults migrating upstream or downstream. as the western spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus Upstream migration begins in July, peaks in the hammondii) and Pacific tree frog Pseudacris( fall, and continues through February or March. regilla). Compared to the western toad (Bufo Most spawning occurs from January through boreas) or western spadefoot toad, California March. Juvenile migration generally occurs tiger salamanders are poor burrowers. They

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93 Chapter 3 require refuges provided by ground squir- rainy season. Louisiana swamp crayfish, mos- rels and other burrowing mammals in which quito fish, green sunfish and other introduced to enter a dormant state called estivation fishes also prey on adult or larval salamanders. during the dry months (USFWS 2011). Reduction of ground squirrel populations to low levels through widespread rodent control This species is restricted to California and programs may reduce availability of burrows does not overlap with any other species of tiger and adversely affect the California tiger sal- salamander. California tiger salamanders are amander. Poison typically used on ground restricted to vernal pools and seasonal ponds, squirrels is likely to have a disproportionately including constructed stock ponds, in grassland adverse effect on California tiger salamanders, and oak savanna plant communities, predomi- which are smaller than the target species and nantly from sea level to 2,000 feet (610 meters), have permeable skins. Use of pesticides, such in central California. California tiger salaman- as methoprene, in mosquito abatement may ders require large contiguous areas of vernal have an indirect adverse effect on the California pools (vernal pool complexes or comparable tiger salamander by reducing the availability of aquatic breeding habitat) containing multiple prey. Various nonnative subspecies of the tiger breeding ponds to ensure recolonization of salamander within the Ambystoma tigrinum individual ponds. In the Coastal region, pop- complex have been imported into California for ulations are scattered from Sonoma County use as fish bait. The introduced salamanders in the northern San Francisco Bay Area to may out-compete the California tiger salaman- Santa Barbara County (up to elevations of ders, or interbreed with them to create hybrids 3,500 feet/1067 meters), and in the Central that may be less adapted to the California cli- Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills from Yolo mate or are not reproductively viable past the to Kern counties. The Sonoma population first or second generations. Contaminated run- appears to have been geographically isolated off from roads, highways and agriculture may from the remainder of the California tiger adversely affect the species (USFWS 2011). salamander population by distance, mountains and major waterway barriers for more than There is no designated critical habi- 700,000 years (USFWS 2011). The California tat in counties where WMA easements tiger salamander is known to occur or lands may be acquired. believed to occur in all 8 of the counties within 6.13.27 California Red-legged Frog (Rana the WMA acquisition area (Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sacramento, Sutter, Placer, Yolo and draytonii) and its critical habitat Yuba). Additional portions of its range within California red-legged frog (Federal-listed California still need to be refined (USFWS threatened species) is the largest native frog 2014) (http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/home.action). in the western United States, ranging from The primary cause of the decline of California 1.5 to 5 inches long. Adults are brown, olive, tiger salamander populations is habitat loss gray to reddish with small black flecks and and fragmentation of habitat from land conver- larger irregular dark blotches, and mostly sions to agriculture, industrial, and residential red abdomen and hind legs. The California development. All of the estimated seven genet- red-legged frog requires a combination of ically distinct populations have significantly specific aquatic and riparian habitat compo- declined. Nonnative predators, especially nents, including slow moving to still water bullfrogs are a threat. Although bullfrogs are with deep pools and shrubby, overhanging unable to establish permanent breeding pop- vegetation mixed with emergent plants, such ulations in vernal pools, dispersing immature as cattails, along the edges. Like the California frogs from permanent water bodies within two tiger salamander, adults also experience a miles take up residence and prey on adult or dormant period, using rodent burrows and larval salamanders in these areas during the dense leaf litter for shelter (USFWS 2002c).

94 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

The California red-legged frog is endemic to Reptiles California and Baja California, Mexico, at ele- 6.13.28 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) vations ranging from sea level to approximately 5,000 feet (1,524 meters). Records indicate a The giant garter snake (GGS) (Federal-listed California distribution from Riverside County and State-listed threatened species) is an to Mendocino County along the Coast Range, endemic species to the valley floors of the from Calaveras County to Butte County in Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys (USFWS the Sierra Nevada. California red-legged 1999a). Although the boundaries of its original frogs are still locally abundant in parts of distribution are uncertain, giant garter snakes the San Francisco Bay area, including Marin probably historically occurred from Butte County, and the central coast. Only isolated County in the north, southward to Buena Vista populations have been documented in the Lake in Kern County (USFWS 1999a). The Sierra Nevada, northern Coast, and northern present distribution is from Chico to central Transverse ranges. The species is believed to Fresno County. Loss, degradation, and frag- be extirpated from the southern Transverse mentation of habitat are the primary threats and Peninsular ranges, but is still present in to the giant garter snake. Conversion of wet- Baja California, Mexico (USFWS 2002c). The lands for agriculture and urban and industrial California red-legged frog is known to occur or development has resulted in the loss of more believed to occur in all 8 of the counties within than 90 percent of suitable habitat for this the WMA acquisition area (Butte, Colusa, species in the Central Valley (CDFG 2005a). Glenn, Sacramento, Sutter, Placer, Yolo and The GGS requires freshwater wetlands, Yuba). Additional portions of its range within such as marshes and low gradient streams. California still need to be refined (USFWS Permanent wetlands are of particular impor- 2014) (http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/home.action). tance, as they provide habitat over the California red-legged frogs are currently summer and early fall, when seasonal wet- threatened by habitat loss and degradation lands are dry. The GGS also inhabits rice through industrial, residential and other urban fields, irrigation and drainage canals, sloughs, developments, mining, improper management ponds, small lakes, low gradient streams, of grazing, recreation, water impoundments and adjacent uplands in the Central Valley. and diversions, degraded water quality, inva- The Service prepared a draft Recovery Plan sion of nonnative plants, and introduced for this species in 1999. The plan identified predators. These threats have resulted in four recovery units within the range of the the isolation and fragmentation of habitats giant garter snake (Sacramento Valley, Mid- within many watersheds, which can prevent Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and South Valley) dispersal between sub-populations. Habitat and proposes recovery criteria. The recov- fragmentation and nonnative species repre- ery criteria include adaptive management sent the most significant current threats to and monitoring; successful reintroduction California red-legged frogs (USFWS 2002c). within the historic range of the species; Of the 8 counties within the easement acqui- documentation of successful breeding and sition area, designated critical habitat for the survivorship in 90 percent of the subpopula- California red-legged frog is in Butte, Placer, tions in the recovery units; and maintenance and Yuba counties; however, the critical habitat of connectivity between subpopulations. is in the higher elevations of the counties, above GGSs occur on all of the Refuges in the the easement acquisition area on the floor of the Complex. Intensive monitoring efforts by U.S. Central Valley. Easement acquisition on the val- Geological Survey (USGS) between 1996 and ley floor is generally below 200 feet elevation. 2005 indicated thriving populations particularly at Colusa and Sacramento Refuges, and along the Colusa Basin Drain (Carpenter

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95 Chapter 3

1999; Wylie et al., 2006). These investigations also documented a positive response from GGS to wetland restoration and management on Colusa Refuge, including increased Refuge populations, decreased exposure to mortality factors, and reduced home range size (Wylie et al., 2006; USFWS 1999a). Birds 6.13.29 Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) and its proposed critical habitat The western yellow-billed cuckoo, a Federal- listed and State-listed threatened species, requires dense, large tracts of riparian woodlands with well-developed understories for breeding. Cuckoos nest in larger trees, such as Fremont’s cottonwoods, located in close proximity to foraging habitat (mixed riparian forest and willow and herbaceous scrublands). Their breeding range in California includes the Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo. lower Colorado, Kern, and Sacramento rivers. Photo: ©G. Ron Austing

The western yellow-billed cuckoo is threat- Llano Seco and Butte Sink Units, and on Sutter ened by loss and degradation of its habitat due NWR and adjacent areas (Isola 2000). It also to land clearing, fire, flood control projects, occurs on the Sacramento River and Sutter surface water diversions and groundwa- NWRs that are a part of the Refuge Complex. ter pumping, and overgrazing by livestock (CDFG 2005a). Such disturbances often Mammals foster the establishment of invasive non-na- 6.13.30 Riparian Brush Rabbit (Sylvilagus tive plants, such as tamarisk and giant reed. bachmani riparius) The resulting fragmentation reduces the size and quality of habitat for the cuckoo. Riparian brush rabbit (Federal and State- listed endangered species) is a medium to The current population in California is about small cottontail in the Leporidae family. There 60 to 100 pairs (Halterman et al., 2001). A are 13 subspecies of brush rabbit, distributed statewide survey of yellow-billed cuckoos from the Columbia River to the tip of Baja in California conducted during 1986 and California. The riparian subspecies can be 1987 found a total of 30 to 33 pairs and 31 distinguished by color and cheek structure. unmated males at nine localities (Laymon and Brush rabbits can be distinguished from Halterman 1989). The majority of the cuckoos desert cottontails by their smaller, incon- were concentrated along the upper Sacramento spicuous tail and uniformly colored ears, River from Red Bluff to Colusa (18 pairs and lacking the black tips) (USFWS 1998). 19 unmated males) and at the South Fork Kern River (7 pairs and 3 unmated males) (Laymon Riparian brush rabbit habitat is charac- 1998). During a study conducted in 1999 and terized by riparian vegetation dominated 2000, cuckoos were located within portions of by willow thickets (Salix spp.), California the Sacramento River NWR (Hammond 2011; wild rose (Rosa californica), Pacific black- Dettling and Howell 2011), adjacent to the berry (Rubus vitifolius), wild grape

96 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

(Vitis californica), Douglas’ coyote bush wintering waterfowl. The habitat management (Baccharis douglasii) and various grasses. described in the Habitat section (section 4) contributes to achieving that purpose on easement Brush rabbits have small home ranges that and Service-owned lands. The combination of usually conform to the size of available brushy managed habitat types supports millions of habitat. Avoiding large openings in shrub cover, migratory birds and a variety of species, both they frequent small clearings, where they feed breeding and non-breeding, abundant and rare. on a variety of herbaceous vegetation, including grasses, sedges, clover, forbs, shoots and leaves. 7.1.1 Migratory Bird Management Grasses and other herbs are their most import- on Easements ant food, including green clover (Trifolium wormskioldii) (USFWS 1998). The riparian One of the primary purposes for easement brush rabbit is known or believed to occur in acquisition is to protect and provide habi- Sacramento County. Additional portions of tat for waterfowl and other migratory birds. the range for the species within California The motivating interest behind most ease- still need to be refined (USFWS 2014) (http:// ment landowners is waterfowl hunting, and ecos.fws.gov/ecos/home.action); therefore, the this interest often drives habitat restoration, species may occur in other counties within enhancement and management on easement the proposed easement acquisition area. lands. The Complex’s private lands staff will often provide technical assistance as well Historical population declines were a result as cost-share funding (through Partners for of statewide reduction of riparian communi- Fish and Wildlife Program, NAWCA grants, ties by nearly 90 percent due to wood cutting, etc.) to help easement owners restore and agricultural land conversions, flood control enhance their lands for waterfowl and other and land reclamation activities including dam migratory birds. The Easement Manager building, channelization, and water diversions, also reviews all proposed habitat projects and ground water pumping, and commercial and other relevant activities on easement prop- urban development (USFWS 1998). Current erties to ensure they don’t negatively affect potential threats to this species include habitat migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. conversion to agriculture, wildfire, disease, predation, flooding, drought, clearing of riparian In addition to implementing habitat proj- vegetation, use of rodenticides and browsing ects, many easement properties support and trampling by ungulates (USFWS 1998). other migratory bird activities including: wood duck nest box programs, waterfowl 7. Fish and Wildlife Management egg salvage programs, local waterfowl banding projects, and various migratory Fish and wildlife management on these WMAs bird research and monitoring projects. is mostly accomplished through habitat management, restoration, and enhancement. 7.1.2 Migratory Bird Management Habitat restoration and management can on Service-owned Lands improve the overall health and productivity Migratory bird management on Service- of fish and wildlife populations by increas- owned lands consists of primarily ing and enhancing breeding, staging, and surveys and monitoring projects, which wintering areas that provide food, cover and are described under section 7.4. shelter. Habitat and management needs can be designed to benefit certain target spe- 7.2 Threatened and Endangered cies or, more commonly, multiple species. Species Management 7.1 Migratory Bird Management The WMAs provide habitat for a num- One of the WMAs’ primary purposes is to pro- ber of threatened, endangered, and vide habitat for migratory birds, particularly sensitive species that occur across a variety of habitat types (Appendix L).

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97 Chapter 3

7.2.1 Endangered Species are implemented to reduce frequency of dis- Management on Easements turbance, while conducting these activities. Natural hydrology and other natural pro- While not explicitly managed for threatened cesses (i.e., grazing and fire) are emphasized. and endangered species, easement lands provide similar habitats as Service-owned lands Certain management activities that are benefi- and, as a result, support many of the same cial to some species or habitats may negatively special status species (Appendix L). Many impact others. Because of the many manage- habitat restoration and enhancement activi- ment activities that regularly occur here, the ties targeting migratory birds on easement Complex has consulted with the Service’s lands (restoration of semi-permanent /per- Ecological Services on operations and main- manent wetlands and riparian forest) provide tenance activities of the Refuges to ensure ancillary benefits to threatened and endan- that their implementation complies with the gered species. With this in mind, the private Endangered Species Act. The resulting bio- lands staff works with interested landowners logical opinion stated these activities would to incorporate the needs of threatened and not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species into habitat restoration Federally-listed endangered or threatened and enhancement projects on easement lands. species on the Complex (USFWS 1999d). As When providing cost-share funding or tech- required by Service policy, the Refuges also nical assistance on habitat projects through incorporate State-threatened and endan- the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, gered species into planning activities. Endangered Species Act compliance is obtained As discussed above, BMPs have been devel- through the “Programmatic Intra-Service oped to accommodate Refuge management Formal Section 7 Consultation on Partners of activities’ special requirements for endangered Fish and Wildlife Program Proposed Actions, and threatened species and their habitats. For Fiscal years 2010 through 2020.” This consul- example, BMPs are identified for ditch and tation allows the Service and landowner to canal maintenance activities in giant garter conduct wetland, upland and riparian habitat snake habitat in the Llano Seco Unit AHMP. restoration as long as specific avoidance mea- Specific protocol is identified in the AHMP sures are implemented to reduce the impact which allows Refuge maintenance to proceed on threatened and endangered species. while minimizing and eliminating potential 7.2.2 Endangered Species Management impacts to snake habitat including winter hiber- on Service-owned Lands nacula. BMPs are conducted in accordance with the Sacramento NWR Complex Programmatic On Service-owned lands, specific management Intra-Service Formal Section 7 Consultation. activities for these species and their habitats include vegetation manipulation (e.g., burning, Endangered and threatened species man- grazing), population monitoring, and research agement includes inventory and monitoring efforts that are implemented through the same surveys to gather baseline data and informa- annual habitat management planning process as tion to assess Refuge habitat restoration and other biological resources (see section 4). Any management activities and programs. It also special requirements are considered and doc- includes research investigations designed to umented in the Annual Habitat Management address questions and hypotheses of Refuge Plan (AHMP). Management of these habitats habitat restoration and management effects typically includes periodic treatments of burn- on various aspects of endangered species ing, grazing, and herbicide applications to management, including habitat characteris- reduce and control non-native invasive plants tics and population status and health (Garcia and improve habitat for native wildlife and 2009, Gilbart 2009, Hammond 2011, Wingo plants. Best management practices (BMPs) 2009, Wylie et al., 2006, Wight 2002). Examples of surveys include vernal pool plant and

98 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

inches (23.5 cm) deep. Wetland restoration and management for crane roosts should be designed with water depths closer to the 6.10 inches (15.5 cm) average and minimize tall emergent vegetation. 7.3 Game Management Game species commonly occurring on the WMAs include black-tailed deer, California quail, mourning dove, wild turkey, ring-necked pheasant, various waterfowl species, and Wilson’s snipe. Riparian forests, grasslands, seasonal wetlands, and semi-perma- Sandhill Cranes, Llano Seco Rancho. Photo: USFWS nent/permanent wetlands all contribute to nesting cover invertebrate monitoring at the Llano Seco for upland game birds and other wildlife. Unit and adjoining Llano Seco Ranch. Not Well-distributed semi-permanent and perma- only are these surveys useful for tracking nent wetlands also provide essential water Refuge natural resources through time and sources for game species during summer various habitat treatments (e.g., prescribed months, when the WMAs are relatively dry. grazing), but, along with basic soil inventory 7.3.1 Game Management on Easements data collected from the site (Burkett and Conlin 2005), this information was used to In addition to wetland management for water- restore vernal pool topography and hydrol- fowl (described in section 5, above), easement ogy at Llano Seco Unit Tract 17 (Ducks landowners provide upland cover and food Unlimited, Inc. 2008). To increase restoration plots managed for game species. Food plots value for endangered species, research is can be planted on up to 5 percent of the being conducted to introduce vernal pool easement acreage and must be contained in plants (e.g., Green’s tuctoria) at the Tract upland areas. These planting typically consist 17 vernal pools (Gottschalk Fisher 2013). of safflower, milo, and corn crops primarily This research also addresses vernal pool managed to benefit doves, pheasant and deer. recovery activities developed by the Service Game management and hunting opportuni- to protect, restore, and manage vernal pool ties on private lands are authorized under ecosystems in California (USFWS 2005a). State fish and wildlife regulations and seasons. Some easement properties are licensed A recently completed study of State-listed with the state as private pheasant clubs. threatened greater Sandhill Cranes assessed topographic features of wetlands used by 7.3.2 Game Management on cranes at the Llano Seco and Butte Sink Units, Service-owned Lands and other sites within the Sacramento NWR Hunting is not allowed on the Service-owned Complex (Shaskey 2012). Results indicated Butte Sink and Llano Seco Units. Other than that cranes selected open wetland areas with waterfowl, game species are not managed for water averaging 6.10 inches (15.5 cm), tol- explicitly, and food plots are not grown on any erating maximum water depths up to 9.25 Service-owned lands. However, deer and upland

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 99 Chapter 3 game species receive incidental benefits from (e.g., auto tour, walking trail). Other monitor- the habitats that are managed for other pri- ing programs include disease surveillance, ority Refuge resources. Game populations are operational waterfowl banding, and facilitation monitored through regular wildlife surveys. of management-oriented research projects. 7.4 Monitoring and Research This information is stored, tracked, and analyzed in a database and used to develop Monitoring and research projects are Annual Habitat Management Plans, where conducted by Refuge biological staff or coop- projects designed to rehabilitate, enhance, and eratively with principle investigators from restore wildlife habitat are identified, priori- government agencies, universities, and private tized, and project implementation is tracked conservation organizations. Monitoring and and management actions are evaluated. research are the foundation for management decisions on Service-owned lands, as well In addition, special surveys are conducted for as for providing management information/ a variety of rare or special status species or guidance to easement landowners. Many of species of management concern. Examples these investigations and long-term monitor- include surveys for endemic vernal pool plants ing projects help provide feedback to broader and invertebrates and various migratory birds. management actions involving the State or Study proposals are evaluated by refuge staff even the Pacific Flyway (Appendix G). to assure that the research is compatible with 7.4.1 Monitoring and Research the goals of the Service-owned land(s) and that on Easements some aspect of the results will contribute to wildlife and habitat management. A Special Most of the monitoring and research activ- Use Permit (SUP) is issued to each research ities involving easement properties occur investigator. The SUP identifies and describes as part of Valley or State-wide monitor- individual projects, provides contact informa- ing efforts (Appendix E). The majority of tion, identifies where research activities will these surveys are conducted by aircraft take place, and describes special conditions to (such as the Mid-winter Waterfowl Index), assure the health and safety of the environment but may also be conducted by ground if and those who visit the Service-owned land. access and other arrangements are made Because of the number of researchers that in consultation with the landowner. may be working on the Service-owned lands at 7.4.2 Monitoring and Research on any one time, coordination among the projects and with normal USFWS operations is essen- Service-owned Lands tial. Researchers have come from universities On Service-owned lands, a number of bio- such as California State University Chico, logical surveys are conducted to determine the University of California (UC) Berkeley, and track the distribution and abundance of UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz, Sonoma State biological resources and their use of habitats. University, San Francisco State University, The regular wildlife surveys are the corner- Exeter University and the University of Saint stone of these surveys. They are conducted by Andrews. Federal and State agencies such as ground vehicle on standardized routes for the the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), USFWS, Butte Sink Unit and Llano Seco Unit. Species California Department of Water Resources, and and numbers of waterfowl and other water- CDFW also conduct research on the Service- birds, raptors, and other birds and mammals owned lands. Researchers investigate a wide that can be seen readily are estimated and range of biological and physical phenomenon. recorded for each management unit. This level These include topics on wildlife biology (dis- of data collection allows for the evaluation tribution/abundance, reproductive success, of wildlife use by habitat type, management predation, and impacts from contaminants), treatment, and type of adjacent visitor use vegetation analysis (growth rates, species

100 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment composition, succession, and exotic species Samuel 1995; Samuel et al., 1999). While a wide impacts), water quality, soils analysis, geol- variety of other wildlife diseases have been ogy, fluvial geomorphology, and hydrology. documented or could potentially occur on the WMAs, botulism and cholera account for the 7.5 Wildlife Disease Monitoring majority of disease management operations. and Treatment In the last decade, annual mortality from botu- Because the WMAs are a concentration area lism and cholera in the Sacramento Valley has for migratory birds and other wildlife, there decreased and may be related to restoration is elevated potential to have significant dis- efforts and increases in waterfowl habitat in ease outbreaks and mortality events. Historic the Central Valley (Eddings and Eadie 2003, disease losses on the Refuges are described M. Wolder, unpublished data). Other diseases in the Waterfowl Disease Contingency of concern that have not yet been detected Plan for the Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, or have not been documented to affect many and Sutter NWRs (USFWS 2009). animals at the WMAs include West Nile Virus, Chronic Wasting Disease, and Duck Viral Avian botulism (Type C) and avian cholera Enteritis. Since 2005, there have been increas- are the two most common wildlife diseases ing concerns about highly pathogenic Asian that affect migratory birds within the WMAs. H5N1 avian influenza (HPAI H5N1) reaching Botulism is generally a warm weather dis- North America from Asia or Europe, possi- ease that usually occurs between July and bly via inter-Flyway movements of migratory October. Botulism spores from the bacteria birds. Because of the potential of this disease Clostridium botulinum occur naturally in to affect people, surveillance of migratory wetlands and can reproduce under the right birds and their habitats for this disease has environmental conditions, including low oxy- increased significantly as of 2005 (Interagency gen levels and warm temperatures (Sandler Asian H5N1 Early Detection Working Group et al., 1993; Rocke and Samuel 1999). These 2006; Pacific Flyway Council 2006c; CDFG bacteria produce a powerful neurotoxin that et al., 2006). Because of the Complex’s con- affects the central nervous system of waterfowl centration of waterfowl, a number of Federal and other waterbirds resulting in paralysis and State surveillance efforts continue to be and eventually death. During warm months, facilitated here. As of September 2013, HPAI the disease can be spread rapidly through H5N1 had not been detected in North America. a carcass-maggot cycle where maggots that have fed on carcasses concentrate botulism One new disease that has been recently iden- toxin in their bodies and then are consumed tified in the Sacramento Valley is hair-loss readily by other birds, leading to their demise syndrome in black-tailed deer. The condi- (USGS 1999). Outbreaks during winter or tion is caused by a heavy infestation with a spring months are possible, but much less Eurasian louse of poorly defined taxonomic common and less severe in terms of mortality. status in the genus Damalinia (Cervicola) sp. When black-tailed deer become infested, Avian cholera is typically a cold weather dis- they tend to develop a hypersensitivity (severe ease that typically occurs between the months allergic) reaction to the lice, which causes of November and March. With cholera, the irritation of the skin and excessive groom- bacteria Pasturella multocida infects and ing by the deer. Eventually, this excessive directly attacks birds’ internal organs and grooming leads to loss of the guard hairs, respiratory system. Recent studies indicate leaving yellow or white patches along the that cholera does not persist long in the envi- sides. Infestations are heaviest during late ronment (Samuel et al., 2004). Outbreaks are winter and early spring, and many affected more likely started via carrier birds and trans- deer, especially fawns, die during this time. mitted primarily bird-to-bird (Mensik and

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101 Chapter 3

7.5.1 Wildlife Disease Monitoring resulting in losses of thousands of birds and Treatment on Easements have occurred on Complex refuges, but the magnitude and frequency of these out- On easement lands, there is typically no breaks has declined in recent years. organized monitoring effort for disease outbreaks. However, occasionally outbreaks 8. Recreation on Easements occur and are reported by easement owners. CDFW is the primary agency responsible The Service has not purchased public access for addressing and responding to disease or other rights pertaining to recreation events on easement lands. However, depend- in the acquisition of conservation ease- ing on the situation, Sacramento NWR ments. As a result, easement owners Complex staff may assist CDFW in respond- largely control the types of recreation that ing to disease outbreaks on private lands. are pursued on their properties. 7.5.2 Wildlife Disease Monitoring and The Service conservation easement does Treatment on Service-owned Lands specifically state that hunting or operation of a hunt club is considered consistent with the On Service-owned lands, wildlife disease mon- management of easement lands. The specific itoring is conducted regularly throughout inclusion of hunting as a retained right under- the year. Wetland units and other areas are scores the importance of hunting on easement inspected regularly and opportunistically for lands. Currently (as well as historically) the dead or sick animals while conducting other field majority of easement lands are used as hunting work. During months of greater outbreak prob- properties, which support recreational water- ability, some wetland units with notable disease fowl hunting, and to a lesser degree upland histories are periodically surveyed via airboat game (ring-necked pheasants, mourning dove, to detect any problems early. During outbreaks, California quail, turkey) and big game (deer) dead birds are located and removed using air- hunting, during the fall and winter months. All boats to systematically cover all areas within a hunting activities on easement lands must be unit. Standard safety precautions are followed done in accordance with State and Federal laws when picking up carcasses or conducting other regulating hunting on privately owned lands. In disease surveillance (USGS 1999; USFWS addition to Federal and State laws, many ease- 2006b). Monitoring includes documentation of ment properties have their own, self-imposed the number and condition of dead and sick ani- rules which: 1) limit the number of hunters mals by management unit, tracking of effort, and using the property, 2) limit the number of days shipment of diagnostic specimens to the USGS hunted per week, 3) establish bag limits lower National Wildlife Health Center, in Madison, than State regulations and 4) establish invio- Wisconsin, where the carcasses are necrop- late wildlife sanctuaries on their properties. sied and tested to confirm the cause of death In addition to hunting, other recreational (USGS 1999). Other carcasses may be saved activities on easement lands include for scientific or educational activities or incin- fishing, bird watching, wildlife photog- erated. When appropriate, results are shared raphy, hiking and “quiet enjoyment”. with other Service divisions (Law Enforcement, National Forensics Laboratory at Ashland, 9. Visitor Services on the Oregon) and CDFW (game wardens, Wildlife Investigations Laboratory at Rancho Cordova). Llano Seco Unit Avian cholera outbreaks involving hundreds 9.1 Visitor Services and and sometimes thousands of waterfowl Management Policy mortalities have occurred periodically at the Butte Sink Unit and occasionally at the There are a variety of sources for policy and Llano Seco Unit. Avian botulism outbreaks guidance to manage visitor service programs

102 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment on Refuges and other Service-owned lands. A Llano Seco Unit visitor (visitor) is a per- The Service Manual (605 FW 1-7) provides son that participates in at least one of the the policy for wildlife-dependent recreation wildlife-dependent recreation activities. including hunting, recreational fishing, wildlife Visitors do not include staff, volunteers, observation, wildlife photography, environmen- researchers, contractors, people with tal education, and interpretation. The policy special use permits, or people who are trav- also provides guiding principles for each of eling through the Llano Seco Unit to reach the wildlife-dependent recreation programs. another non-Llano Seco Unit location. In 2007, the Service declared that “con- A visitor is not the same as a Llano Seco necting people with nature” is among the Unit visit (visit). A single visitor may make agency’s highest national priorities (USFWS several visits to the Llano Seco Unit on a 2008a). A connection with nature, whether single day by participating in several differ- it’s hiking, fishing, camping, hunting, or sim- ent activities. The total amount of visits on a ply playing outside, helps children develop given day is a count of only individuals. The positive attitudes and behaviors towards the amount of time for each individual visit is not environment. Positive interactions with the accounted for; whether it is minutes or hours. environment can lead to a life-long interest It should be noted that there is no accu- in enjoying and preserving nature. People’s rate method of counting all visitors or visits. interest in nature is crucial to the Service Therefore, the numbers of visitors or visits mission of conserving, protecting, and enhanc- reported are estimates, although the Service ing fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. strives for consistency and quality of esti- Other initiatives implemented at the Refuge mation monitoring methods to improve the Complex include: Birder Friendly Refuge/ accuracy of the information collected. National Birding Initiative and Youth Initiative (Youth Conservation Corps and Chico State The hiking trail visits, which include wildlife Field School volunteer opportunities). observation, and the photography visits are recorded separately and added to the vehicle 9.2 Visitor Data counts that are recorded by a traffic counter at The Complex utilizes a variety of methods the Llano Seco Unit entrance. Interpretation for estimating the number of annual wild- and environmental education visits are life-dependent visits. The types of estimation observed, planned or lead by Refuge staff. methods used are direct observation, traffic A survey conducted by California State counters, trail counters, surveys, and estima- University – Chico students at the Sacramento tion based on professional judgment. From NWR provided the following information about these estimates, the numbers of visitors 446 visitors sampled from November through and visits are used to manage and improve early March in 1997-1998 and primarily on the Complex’s visitor services program. Sundays: 43 percent were new visitors and 38 The National Wildlife Refuge System percent had visited 3 or more times previously; Visitation Estimation Workbook (USFWS 48 percent stayed overnight; 87 percent of the 2005b) provides basic principles and defi- overnight visitors spent one or two days vis- nitions that have been used to describe the iting the refuge; 45 percent were in groups of Complex’s visitation estimation program. two, 19 percent as groups of three, 17 percent as groups of 4, 6 percent as individuals, and Recreational or educational activities that are 9 percent as groups of five or more; and for allowed and monitored on the Llano Seco Unit highest level of education 11 percent of visitors include wildlife-dependent recreation (e.g., were high school, 30 percent completed college, wildlife observation, photography, environ- 18 percent part of college, and 40 percent had mental education, and interpretation). Wildlife post graduate education. In 2010, the visitor observation includes hiking trail visits.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 103 Chapter 3 log book at Sacramento NWR’s visitor center wildlife. These facilities provide unique wildlife included where the visitors were traveling viewing opportunities, especially at the Track from. Most visitors that enter the visitor center 12 wildlife viewing platform and along the hik- are first time visitors, visitors with friends and ing trail at Track 12 and Track 14 (T12 and T14 family to show off exhibits, or want to purchase in Figure 11). The Llano Seco Unit is one of the items from the bookstore. However, the data few quality and regular spots for visitors to see collected showed that local visitors who live sandhill cranes from October through February. within 75 miles made up 22 percent, north- Several local birding organizations includ- ern California (excluding locals) 57 percent, ing Altacal Audubon Society, Chico State southern California 6 percent, other states Birding Club, Northern California Birding 12 percent, and other countries 2 percent. Friends, and the Snow Goose Festival, 9.3 Hunting utilize the area for birding events throughout the fall and winter months. Currently, there is no public hunting on the Service-owned Llano Seco Unit. As part of the 9.6 Wildlife Photography coordinated efforts of the Llano Seco Ranch The wildlife viewing platforms and hiking Joint Management Committee (see section trails on Llano Seco Unit provide excel- 10.2), an agreement was developed stating lent photographic opportunities. The best that CDFW would provide public hunting time of year for photography occurs from opportunities on the CDFW-owned Llano Seco November through February, when a variety Unit of the Upper Butte Basin State Wildlife of waterfowl, sandhill cranes, bald eagles, Management Area. Alternatively, the Service and shorebirds are present. The ducks here agreed to provide wildlife sanctuary and other have been able to habituate to visitors to a types of “non-consumptive” recreational certain degree, and photographers are often opportunities including wildlife observation, able to take pictures of ducks at close range. photography, interpretation, and educational programs. These programs have been in Refuge staff provides annual photogra- place for more than a decade and continue to phy field trips to the Llano Seco Unit provide high quality visitor opportunities. every fall, as well as a photography workshop and field trip associated with the 9.5 Fishing Snow Goose Festival in late January. Currently, there is no public fishing on the Llano Seco Unit. There are no permanent water bodies to provide fishing opportunities on the Service-owned lands located within the Llano Seco Unit. 9.5 Wildlife Observation Wildlife observation opportunities are available on the Llano Seco Unit (i.e., favorable circumstances for seeing wildlife). Two viewing platforms offer panoramic views of the wetlands and wildlife. The Llano Seco Unit provides a parking area and a fully accessible restroom. Platforms are designed to allow wheelchair access. A half-mile hiking trail meanders along seasonal marshes providing visitors with close-up access to undisturbed Young photographer. Photo: USFWS

104 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment 9.7 Environmental Education and Nature Initiative, Connecting People with Nature (USFWS 2008a) strives to ensure Environmental education teaches students that America’s children have enjoyable and or adults about natural history topics, their meaningful experiences in the out-of-doors environment, and their interactions with and develop strong life-long connections humans. It is often lead by Service staff, vol- with the natural world. The Llano Seco Unit unteers or teacher/leaders of the group in the also strives to meet this initiative by provid- classroom or on-site at a refuge. Hands-on ing quality, wildlife-dependent recreational activities cover a wide range of subjects, meet facilities and interpretive opportunities. State standard curriculum, and are designed to inspire discovery, promote fact-finding. From November through February, refuge Activities also develop problem-solving skills staff and volunteers offer planned visitor that lead to informed decisions, personal programs and regularly provide roving inter- involvement and action. The Service pro- pretation for visitors. In the 2012-2013 winter vides staff-lead programs for kindergarten season, volunteers roved over 73 hours on 30 through twelfth grade and college students. different days, and spoke with 647 visitors at the Llano Seco Unit. Roving volunteers Although the Llano Seco Unit is open to the provide interpretation involving unscripted, public from 1hour before sunrise to 1 hour after personal communication with visitors in an sunset, we encourage groups to make reser- informal setting that is dictated by the location, vations for staff-lead activities to ensure that resources, and the visitor’s needs and interests. they will have the best possible experience and that needed resource materials are available. Refuge-related information is provided at annual local festivals or during special events In addition to staff-guided tours local col- held in the general region surrounding Llano leges and universities utilize the kiosk, Seco Unit, such as the Snow Goose Festival, wildlife viewing platforms, and hiking trail National Wildlife Refuge Week, Coleman during educational field trips for a variety National Fish Hatchery Return of the Salmon of course work. California State University- Festival, Duck Days, California Junior Duck Chico regularly utilizes the site for Waterfowl Stamp Program, and Chico Endangered Ecology & Management, General Ecology, Species Fair. During 2013, approximately Riparian & Wetland Ecology & Restoration, 5,000 individuals attended the presenta- Plant & Soil Science, and photography and tions and saw exhibits at these events. art courses. Butte Junior College utilizes the site for similar activities including a 9.8.1 Website and Social Media Natural Resources Management course. Refuge staff maintains websites for each 9.8 Interpretation and Outreach Refuge and WMA in the Complex: http://www. fws.gov/refuge/North_Central_Valley. Events, Interpretation involves participants of all ages wildlife survey data, planning documents, and who voluntarily learn to make an intellectual information about the Llano Seco Unit, and or emotional connection with the natural or other Service-owned lands are posted on the cultural resources. Interpretation commu- website. The Complex also has a Facebook nicates science in a more thought provoking page, which as of February 2014, has over way than just providing facts and figures. A 1,300 “likes”. Since its inception in July 2012, firsthand experience often deepens a visitor’s 799 people have been engaged and several personal connection and leads them to dis- items of interest are posted on the Facebook cover more. This may occur through a variety page per week. The average follower is 25-34 of methods including programs led by staff years old and lives in the Sacramento area. or volunteers, multimedia, kiosks, brochures, signs, and exhibits. The Service’s Children

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 105 Chapter 3 10. Cooperation with interest, the Service may help facilitate coordination between easement landowners and Adjacent Landowners neighbors. In these situations the Service The WMAs are part of a mosaic of public uses a cooperative approach to help find and private land in the Sacramento Valley. solutions that protect the Service’s interest Public lands consist primarily of wetland, while meeting the needs of both easement upland, and riparian forest habitat man- landowners and neighboring properties. aged as National Wildlife Refuges and State Wildlife Areas, while private lands are mostly 10.2 Llano Seco Joint agricultural land (rice, orchards, row crops) Management Committee and managed wetlands (duck-hunting clubs), During the late 1980s and early 1990s a sig- with some farmsteads, businesses, trailer nificant portion of the Llano Seco Rancho parks, and isolated homes. To maximize our was protected through easement or fee-title conservation efforts the Complex encour- acquisition by several conservation agencies ages and supports the cooperative approach and groups. The easement and fee-title inter- to problem solving by working with neigh- ests acquired by the Service fell under the bors on common issues (e.g., trespass, fire authority of the North Central Valley WMA. and fuel break management, drainage). The In 1991, a contractual agreement was signed refuge manager is the primary contact for by the each of the parties holding conserva- the cooperation with adjacent landowners. tion interest in the land, establishing the Joint 10.1 Working with Adjacent Management Committee (JMC). The original members included the Service, CDFW, The landowners on Easements Nature Conservancy and Parrott Investment While there is no formal process for work- Company. In 2008, additional lands within the ing with landowners adjacent to easement Ranch were protected under both conserva- lands, coordination and cooperation with tion and agricultural easements by the State neighboring landowners is encouraged and of California. These lands are administered pursued. In most cases, the acquisition of a by the Northern California Regional Land conservation easement on existing wetlands Trust (NCRLT). Since that time, the NCRLT does not change land management practices has also been a participant in the JMC. and has almost no effect on neighboring The purpose of the JMC was to allow the parties lands. In these circumstances, there is to coordinate activities in a manner to meet rarely coordination with respect to easement their conservation, resource management, acquisition. When purchasing conservation outdoor recreation and habitat preservation easements on agricultural lands that require goals and objectives. The JMC agreement also restoration, subsequent changes in habitat addresses issues related to water delivery, infra- and management on easement properties structure maintenance, access, drainage, etc. can potentially affect adjoining lands. As a result, when habitat restoration is required, To facilitate coordination and communica- coordination with neighboring landowners tions between the parties on management is encouraged prior to easement acquisition activities, budgets, and restoration work, and throughout the restoration process. the JMC agreement requires, at a minimum, an annual meeting to be held with at least There are occasions when the management one representative designated by the signa- of easement properties and neighboring tory members. Issues typically discussed at lands conflict. In these cases, we encourage these meetings includes, but are not limited easement landowners to work cooperatively to proposed improvements, planting pro- with their neighbors to address issues. When grams, water needs, and any other major issues directly affect the Service’s easement activity that could affect other members.

106 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment 10.3 Butte Sink Landowner Annual Complex Fire Management Plan (USFWS Meetings, MOUs, etc. 2009, Appendix J). With all fire management activities, the protection of firefighter The Service, Colusa Shooting Club, and the and public safety is the first priority. Stack Farms hunting club have entered into an agreement (identified as a “Land Usage 11.1 Historic Role of Fire Agreement) regarding 75 acres of land (iden- Little is known about past fire regimes in tified as Parcel 3) in the southeast portion California’s Central Valley grasslands, ripar- of the Butte Sink Unit. This parcel was pur- ian woodlands, and freshwater marshes; chased by the Service from Colusa Shooting however, evidence suggests a history of fre- Club and Stack Farms. The parties agree quent, low-intensity fires that burned large that “Parcel 3 will be maintained as natural expanses of the landscape in a mosaic pat- habitat and the Service will manage the den- tern. Native Americans are known to have sity and height of plants and trees so as to used fire frequently in the summer and fall encourage maximum use by waterfowl. The months to improve hunting areas, increase agreement states that a management com- the abundance and quality of plants used mittee comprised of one representative each for food, medicine, fiber, and basketry, and from Service, Colusa Shooting Club, and Stack to improve defense against other tribes Farms will be formed to coordinate water and (Anderson 2005, 2006). During certain times land management issues of common interest of the year, riparian and wetland corridors on Parcel 3, such as water flow between the were used as barriers to limit fire spread. respective properties, and fall flood-up sched- Lightning occurs at a low density in the ule. The agreement states that the committee valley and likely did not contribute signifi- will meet at least once annually on or about cantly to the overall fire regime (Wills 2006). January 15th to discuss land and water man- Potential fire frequency in the Central Valley agement issues for the forthcoming year. before Euro-American settlement is esti- The Service has an easement and agreement mated to have been 1-3 years (Frost 1998). with Butte Creek Farms for use and mainte- In the past 200 years, the Central Valley’s nance of Laux Road extension to access the natural habitats and their fire regimes have Butte Sink Unit. The Service is responsible for been altered dramatically. It is estimated that 25 percent of the cost of maintaining the Laux the dominant vegetation types now occupy only Road extension. The Service provides labor and 10 percent of their former range due to land equipment to contribute its share of the cost. use conversion and fragmentation (Wills 2006). The Butte Sink Waterfowl Association Widespread conversion of native perennial holds an annual meeting (typically in grasslands to non-native annual grasslands December) to discuss and address issues has resulted in fires that are typically higher of concern in the Butte Sink. The Service intensity and severity and often occur much attends this meeting and provides infor- earlier in the growing season (Reiner 2007). mation regarding the Butte Sink Unit and Fire suppression, intensive grazing, and elim- easement lands in the Butte Sink WMA. ination of Native American ignitions have greatly decreased fire frequency in some areas 11. Fire Management (Reiner 2007). Near urban areas, fire frequency has generally increased in annual grasslands The term Fire Management includes wildland due to accidental ignitions. However, habitat fire suppression, prevention, investigation, fragmentation limits fire size and most fires are suppression repair, rehabilitation, prescribed contained at less than 4 ha (10 ac) (Wills 2006). fire, and hazardous fuels management. Details of Fire Management activities can be found Prescribed fire is now commonly used by land in the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge managers as a tool to maintain and or restore

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 107 Chapter 3

and countywide agreements to facilitate mutual aid. All non-wildland fire emergencies including structure fires, vehicle fires, medical aides, and hazardous materials remain the responsibility of local government fire departments. Complex fire prevention programs focus on preventing the threat of unwanted human caused fires to Service-owned lands. Popular activities have included Junior Firefighter Program, Smokey Bear Program, and prevention Prescribed fire in annual grassland, Llano Seco Unit. Photo: USFWS activities at community events. wetlands, native grasslands and other habi- Hazard reduction programs are intended to tat types in the Central Valley. Fire, usually protect lives, property, and resources from in combination with mechanical, chemical, or unwanted wildfire. Projects are given high- other methods, is also used to reduce hazardous est priority to Wildland Urban Interface fuels and protect communities from wildfires. (WUI) areas. The WUI program is part of the National Fire Plan and is designed to reduce 11.2 Fire Management on Easements the potential for wildfire damage in zones Where the Service has purchased conserva- where wildlands and infrastructure (assets tion easements on private lands, responsibility at-risk) mix. The WUI program emphasizes for fire management remains with local fire pre-fire management around communities departments unless a specific fire manage- that are listed as “at-risk” to wildfire in the ment agreement transfers that responsibility Federal Register and by the state of California. to the Service. Fire management staff may Prescribed burns are conducted in accordance collaborate with private partners to pro- with both Department of the Interior and vide them information on best management Service Fire Management Policy (621 FW practices for fire management activities. 1-3 of the Service Manual). Use of prescribed 11.3 Fire Management on burns for habitat management and hazardous fuel reduction is consistent with both the Service-owned Lands approved habitat and Fire Management Plans The Service assumes responsibility for wild- for the Complex. Prescribed fire use from 2000 land fire management on Service-owned WMA to 2009 on WMA lands include: 509 acres on the lands unless otherwise specified in a manage- Llano Seco Unit, with an annual range of 0 to ment agreement. The Complex maintains a 413 acres; and 0 acres for the Butte Sink Unit. permanent and seasonal wildland firefighting The Complex has recorded a range of 2 to 18 staff that manages three engines, a fire station wildland fires annually for the past ten years. and fire cache. Their responsibilities include Wildland fire sizes range from 1/10th acre the full range of fire management activities to 900 acres with most fires controlled below including, fire suppression, fire prevention, 5 acres. The Llano Seco Unit has a 10-year and hazard fuels reduction. The Service is a history of 10 wildfires totaling 12 acres, and signatory to all California state-wide wildland Butte Sink Unit has had 2 wildfires totaling fire management agreements as well as local

108 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment only 1 acre. Nearly all wildfires have been thereto within the confines of the Service lands human-caused, including: escaped fires from involved and in the immediate vicinity thereof. the burning of fields, ditches, or natural A. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as vegetation, trains, mowers and agricultural amended (16 U.S.C. 703-712) equipment, electrical lines, discarded ciga- rettes, fireworks and intentional/suspicious B. Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation ignition. Only one lightning caused fire has Stamp Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. been recorded in the past ten years. Complex 718-718h) fire crews have also responded to threat fires C. National Wildlife Refuge System adjacent to Refuge property, off-Refuge assign- Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 ments throughout the United States, and U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) international assignments to other Countries. D. Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as 12. Law Enforcement and amended (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) Resource Protection E. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531- 1543) The Service Division of Refuge Law Enforcement is charged with providing for F. Lacey Act and 1981 Amendments (18 the preservation and protection of wildlife U.S.C. 42, 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378) and migratory birds on Service lands and G. Assault Act of 1948, as amended (18 the protection and safety of visitors using U.S.C.111) the Refuge facilities, including Service- owned lands within WMAs. The Refuge law H. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as enforcement program will focus on obtaining amended (16 U.S.C. 1361-1384, 1401-1407) compliance with laws and regulations neces- I. Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and sary for proper administration, management Refuge Act of 1924, as amended (16 U.S.C. and protection of the National Wildlife Refuge 721-731) System. To effectively carry out these duties, J. Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge Act of close coordination and cooperation with the 1928, as amended (16 U.S.C. 690-690h) local law enforcement departments is essential. Federal Wildlife Officers (FWOs) may be K. Fish and Wildlife Recreation Act of 1962, as vested with California peace officer powers amended (16 U.S.C. 460k) by Section 830.8(b) of the California Penal L. Airborne Hunting Act of 1971, as amended Code when enforcing applicable state, or local (16 U.S.C. 742j-742l) laws on property owned or possessed by the Service. By agreement and or Memorandum M. Tariff Classification Act of 1962, as amended of Understandings (county Sheriff, California (19 U.S.C 1202) State Parks and Department of Fish and N. Archaeological Resources Protection Act of Wildlife), selected law enforcement depart- 1979, as amended ( 16 U.S.C 460aa-460ll) ments may be called upon to assist Refuge officers on the Refuge within their jurisdiction. O. State Department of Fish and Wildlife Laws (Enforcement of these laws off-ref- FWOs are authorized to protect Service prop- uge should only be performed when: (1) erty by enforcing and investigating wildlife consistent with Regional/California Nevada and public use laws and regulations in the local Operations Office (CNO) policy and (2) area, or as directed. However, some of the under proper State authority). wildlife laws are extremely complex and require extensive investigation. For that reason, FWOs FWOs of the Complex may be authorized to are generally limited to enforcement of the fol- enforce California Fish and Game laws, State lowing statutes and regulations issued pursuant and local laws under the following codes:

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 109 Chapter 3

A. California Penal Code – 830.8(b) B. Fish and Game Code – 856(a) C. California Penal Code – 830.2(g) 12.1 Law Enforcement on Easements Law enforcement issues on easement properties are generally under the jurisdiction of State and local authorities. However, Refuge law enforcement staff have jurisdiction over issues related to migratory birds and the Service’s easement interest on easement lands. With regard to easement compliance, the Service’s primary approach is to use outreach Easement landowners workshop tour. Photo: USFWS to remind and educate landowners of their easement obligations. Along these lines, the one dual-function officer. These officers are Service provides technical assistance, annual responsible for all law enforcement issues mailings, and landowner workshops to help on Sacramento River, Sacramento, Delevan, encourage easement compliance. To ensure Colusa, and Sutter Refuges, and on Service- compliance, the Service also spends a signifi- owned lands of the Butte Sink WMA, and cant amount of time reviewing and authorizing North Central Valley WMA. The dual-function habitat projects and other pertinent activities officer conducts law enforcement in addi- on easement lands. The Service also conducts tion to their primary responsibilities, such an annual aerial survey flight on which all ease- as an assistant refuge manager. The regional ment properties are monitored for compliance. Northern California Zone Officer also assists When potential easement compliance issues with law enforcement issues on the Complex. are discovered the initial course of action is for Law enforcement on the Refuges and Service- the Easement Manager to contact the land- owned WMA lands is used both for protection owner and visit the easement property. If an and for prevention. Law enforcement safe- easement violation has occurred, the Easement guards the visiting public, staff, facilities, Manager will work with the landowner to and natural and cultural resources from remedy the situation (for example, restore criminal action, accidents, vandalism, and habitat or remove structures). If the landowner negligence. As prevention, law enforcement is unwilling to cooperate with the Easement inhibits incidents from occurring by provid- Manager, the Easement Manager will work ing a law enforcement presence. Regular cooperatively with Refuge Law Enforcement patrols occur depending on the amount and staff to address the easement violation. types of activity occurring on the WMAs. The 12.2 Law Enforcement on FWOs are responsible for coordinating their activities and cooperating with other local, Service-owned Lands state, and Federal law enforcement officials. The staff of the Sacramento NWR Complex recognizes the obligation that has been 13. Facilities Maintenance entrusted to them—the care of valuable Annual maintenance funding is to provide natural and cultural resources—and they for the upkeep of refuge facilities and equip- take this responsibility very seriously. ment by completing on time repairs rather The Complex has a law enforcement staff than adding additional items to the deferred that consists of two full-time FWOs and maintenance backlog. Annual maintenance

110 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment funds may be spent for supplies, materials, 13.1 Facility Maintenance on Easements and contracts needed to complete preventive maintenance, repair facilities in the year Easement landowners are responsible for in which deficiencies occur, and perform the maintenance and repair of facilities and cyclical maintenance. Funds may also be infrastructure on easement properties. used to replace small equipment on sched- 13.2 Facility Maintenance on ule (generally less than $5,000, as small and heavy equipment replacements are funded Service-owned Lands in separate accounts). No permanent staff The Llano Seco Unit is administered by the may be funded from annual maintenance Sacramento River NWR staff, and headquar- dollars; however, temporary and contract ters’ facilities consist of an on-site shop, office, personnel may be paid with maintenance and equipment storage building and parking funding to complete specific maintenance area (in Sanctuary I). A visitor parking area, projects. Permanent staff should be coded wheelchair accessible restroom, kiosk, walking to 1262 base funds. Items of equipment that trail, and two viewing platforms are available are operational in nature such as computers, to the public (Sanctuary II). In addition, a office equipment and furniture cannot be system of levees, water control structures, and purchased or maintained with these funds. roads serve to maintain wetlands and provide Operational services such as lawn care, snow access for habitat maintenance and operational removal, and office janitorial services may not needs. These areas require frequent mainte- be funded with annual maintenance funding. nance and repair. Currently, the Refuge has The Asset Business Plan is a report devel- two wage grade positions that are responsible oped to help the Service better understand for maintenance and operations. General road and manage their assets as they relate to maintenance, including grading and mowing, the mission of the Service. Understanding is required on a number of the Tracts on the the relevance and importance of how facility Llano Seco unit to provide safe access for management supports the Service mis- visitors and staff through the area. Some addi- sion is a key factor in continued success tional upland areas require mowing to reduce in meeting our mission statement. Proper fire hazards, provide weed suppression, and planning, effective tracking, and accurate provide access for maintenance or monitoring reporting of our service assets assist in projects during the spring and summer months. the justification of funding used to repair, The Butte Sink Unit is administered out of rehabilitate, replace, and construct assets the Colusa NWR headquarters located on needed to conserve, protect, and enhance the north end of Colusa NWR. Service facil- fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the ities on the Butte Sink unit include gates, continuing benefit of the American people. roads, levees, water control structures and Operations and maintenance (O&M) a lift pump. These facilities require frequent includes work activities performed to meet maintenance and repair. General road main- daily station operational needs, as well tenance, including grading and mowing, is as recurring and preventive maintenance required on a number of the roads/levees. activities and associated utility/custodial costs. There are two critical steps in the 14. Safety O&M development process: 1) establishing Safety is important both for the Complex requirements at the constructed asset level staff and for Refuge visitors. Staff safety using O&M models or historical station meetings are held monthly at the Refuge records and 2) comparing the require- Headquarters. The intent of the meetings ments to existing O&M actual costs so that is to update and train personnel, as well as O&M priorities can be set and executed. to resolve any safety concerns that arise.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 111 Chapter 3

Sample topics include Lyme’s Disease, West Euro-American contact with native tribes in Nile Virus, and Hantavirus Safety, Tractor the region began with the Spanish Moraga Safety, Hazardous Dump Sites, Boating Safety, expedition of 1808. In the 1820s, fur trappers CPR/First Aid, Hypothermia, Low visibility such as Jedediah Smith were working in the Driving, Heat Stress, and Respiratory Safety. area. By the 1830s, smallpox and malaria had decimated the native population. The The Complex has a Safety Plan, updated annu- following decades brought increasing col- ally, that describes the safety program and the onization to the area and the beginnings responsibilities of the refuge staff and volun- of the modern agricultural pattern. teers. The Safety Plan provides an extensive amount of safety information in its appendices. American colonization of the Sacramento Valley A safety committee comprised of a collateral began during the Mexican Rancho era. John duty safety officer and five additional people Bidwell, Peter Lassen, and Sebastian Keyser meets regularly throughout the year to discuss were among those awarded Mexican Land safety issues and coordinate safety inspections. Grants, which included Rancho del Arroyo Chico, Rancho Bosquejo, and Rancho Llano 15. Cultural Resources Seco, respectively. Statehood came soon after gold was discovered by James Marshall at 15.1 Regional Prehistory and History Sutter’s Mill on the American River. Thousands From the late Pleistocene, more than 10,000 of fortune seekers immigrated to California years ago, to present time, humans have and those supplying goods and services to the occupied northern California and utilized its miners realized economic success. The early generous natural resources. Many diverse ranches and farms provided vital agricultural and complex cultures developed during this commodities which helped expand settle- time, culminating in the Native American ment. People and freight were transported Tribes recorded by early ethnographers. by wagon and steamboat. Thirteen ferries were located along the Sacramento River Wintun (Nomlaki) occupied both banks of the between Red Bluff and Colusa. River travel Sacramento River and the valley and foothills by steamboat was a practical mode of trans- west of the River. The northwest Maidu lived portation because river boats could efficiently in the valley, east of the River, along Butte and transport agricultural freight and the valley Big Chico Creeks, and had territories extend- oak forests and woodlands supplied an abun- ing into the eastern foothills and mountains. dance of fuel to power these paddle-wheeled The southernmost Yana tribe (Yahi) occupied steam boats. Ferries, river boat landings, and lands east of the River, north of the Big Chico bridges all played a key role in the locations Creek. The territories of these tribes over- of towns and the development of a system of lapped seasonally. For example, during the roads. Improved roads and the railroad sys- summer months the Nomlaki moved from the tem eventually replaced river boat travel. alluvial plain of the Sacramento River onto the alluvial fan of adjacent eastern foothills, while Agriculture was first and foremost the central Yahi and northwest Maidu moved east, into the economic force in the Sacramento Valley. Dry southern Cascade and northern Sierra Nevada land grain farming was the earliest agricul- Mountains, respectively. These people fished tural practice. Row crops, orchards, rice, and for Chinook salmon and hunted for tule elk, irrigated pasture flourished when abundant pronghorn, black-tailed deer, rabbits, California water from the Sacramento River and its quail, and waterfowl. They also harvested tributaries irrigated the fertile alluvial soils acorns and a variety of seeds, roots, tubers, of the floodplain and basins. Water was dis- and bulbs from native plants (Goldschmidt tributed to farms through a system of river 1978; Johnson 1978; Riddell 1978). and stream diversions and water delivery canals. The development of the centrifugal

112 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment pump in the early 20th century facilitated the of the parcels within the WMA were leveled in expansion of irrigated lands through ground the 1960s and converted to rice cultivation. water pumping. Finally, State and Federal While there are no Service-owned parcels water projects for land reclamation, irriga- within the boundaries of the Willow Creek- tion and urban water supply, and flood control Lurline WMA, Sacramento NWR and Delevan allowed for further agricultural and urban NWR are located immediately adjacent to expansion and the industries that followed. the WMA boundaries. Both refuges have 15.2 Land Use History and Known been subject to varying degrees of archaeological survey in the past. At Delevan NWR, Cultural Resources of the WMAs all surveys have returned negative results Butte Sink WMA: The Butte Sink Unit is (Raymond 1990, Valentine 1996a, Parks 1999a). located two miles west of Sutter Buttes, a At Sacramento NWR, the land use history is landform that figures prominently in the reflected in the Refuge infrastructure built creation myths of several Native American by the Civilian Conservation Corps between groups and which is considered sacred to 1937 and 1942, including housing structures, those groups (Windmiller 1995:8). A sample roads, canals, dams, and other projects archaeological survey conducted on the unit designed to improve habitat for wildlife. in 1995 identified no prehistoric or historic Surveys: resources. However, it was noted that the area should be considered sensitive for the Bourdeau (USFWS 1998b): 185 acres surveyed. presence of resources associated with Butte Negative results. Creek and historic hunting activity. Cultural Bourdeau (USFWS 1998c): 25 acres surveyed. resources could exist at depths below the Negative results. present surface not only on the Service-owned lands but also within the easements, as has North Central Valley WMA: Though the been demonstrated at other low-lying areas boundary of the North Central Valley WMA of the valley along the Sacramento River includes an extensive area on either side of the and its tributaries (Windmiller 1995:9). Sacramento River bounded by the Sierra and Coast ranges, the existing easement parcels Surveys: are located on the east side of the Sacramento Windmiller 1995: 640 acres (sample survey). River and in the Yolo Bypass flood plain. Negative results. While a comprehensive record search has not been conducted for the entire area within the Bourdeau (USFWS 1998a): 145 acres (recon- approved WMA boundaries, there have been naissance survey). Negative results. numerous surveys conducted and archaeo- Willow Creek-Lurline WMA: Under natu- logical sites documented, particularly along ral conditions, the Colusa Basin, in which the the banks of the Sacramento River. At least Willow Creek-Lurline WMA is situated, was two of these are within one to 1 ½ miles of the characterized by vernal pools which supported boundaries of existing conservation easements. large numbers of waterfowl in the winter. They provide an indication of the types of sites Topographic features of the area generally were that might be expected in areas of similar not favorable for extended occupation by indig- topographic composition. A brief summary enous tribes, although temporary camps may of these sites is included for illustration: have resulted from hunting and gathering activ- CA-But-233: According to the State ities. The villages of the River Patwin (Southern Historic Preservation Office in document- Wintun) were generally concentrated along the ing the results of a 1992 record search, banks of the Sacramento River, which lies up to this was “recorded as a major prehistoric 5 miles east of the WMA at some points. Many occupation site which is known to contain

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 113 Chapter 3

human burials” (Raymond 1992: record various owners’ hands until John Parrott gradu- search results). Located on an “old bend” ally secured title to it in its entirety, a process he in the river in the vicinity of what is now started in 1861(de Tristan 1961: 14). The prop- referred to as The Lagoon, this site was erty remained in the Parrott family throughout excavated in the 1960s; however no exca- the late 19th and early 20th century, celebrat- vation report was prepared. The 1966 site ing its centennial as the Parrott Investment form does not reference burials, but it does Company in 1961. A history of the Llano Seco describe artifacts present as including Rancho compiled on the occasion of the centen- net weights, a basalt drill, a small mor- nial provides a snapshot of the land use history tar, and other ground and flaked stone. (de Tristan 1961). Timberlands on the west side of the Rancho were cleared starting in the 1930s Sanctuary Mound Site (SRCA-003, no for cultivation, and by mid-century, farming and permanent trinomial): This site occupies a livestock operations were being conducted on large mound on a terrace bracketed by old a large scale. In the 1950s, leases were signed river meander scars (White et al., 2003: 83) with Humble Oil & Refining Co to develop gas on what is referred to later in this section fields on the south end of the Rancho (Llano as the Llano Seco Riparian Sanctuary Unit Seco field) and near its center (Perkins Lake on the Sacramento River NWR. An exten- field). The Llano Seco field was abandoned sive assemblage of artifacts was recorded, by the early 1960s due to lack of pressure. In including mortar and pestle fragments, 1991, the Service, The Nature Conservancy, Olivella, clamshell disk shell beads, and his- and California Department of Fish and Wildlife toric glass. Human bone was also observed. began purchasing portions of the historic Many of the parcels that comprise the existing Rancho for the purposes of habitat restoration conservation easements of the North Central and to retain permanent conservation values. Valley WMA are private duck clubs where Martin Family Cemetery – An historic fam- few cultural resource investigations have ily cemetery containing nine grave markers been conducted. However, there are two ser- is located on the North Central Valley WMA vice-owned parcels in the northern portion of Llano Seco Unit (Sanctuary 1, Tract 1). While the WMA that have a well-documented history. it is not clear exactly when the Martin family “Llano Seco Unit” – The northernmost group- arrived at Llano Seco Rancho, or how they ing of service-owned lands and conservation acquired their land, the 1860 census indicates easements in the North Central Valley WMA that Mrs. Minerva Martin gave birth to a son are located within the area known histori- in Butte County. Some sources suggest that cally as the Llano Seco Rancho Mexican land the family arrived between 1858 and 1860 grant. The two Service-owned parcels, for- (Sacramento River Partners 2001:4). In addi- merly known as Llano Seco Sanctuary 1 and tion to seven Martin burials ranging in date Sanctuary 2, are now collectively referred to as between 1866 and 1870 (with three unknown), the Llano Seco Unit of the North Central Valley there are two burials bearing other names WMA. A third service-owned parcel, known (David Murphy, d. 1863, and J.R. Taylor, d. as the Llano Seco Riparian Sanctuary Unit, 1875). The relationship between these people is within the boundaries of Sacramento River is not known. The cemetery is protected by NWR and is not considered as part of this CCP. an exclosure fence which is maintained annu- Llano Seco (or “Dry Plain”) Rancho was granted ally by Youth Conservation Corps members. to Sebastian Keyser by the Mexican Government Surveys: in 1845. Consisting of 17,767.17 acres on the east Parks 1999b: 48 acres surveyed. side of the Sacramento River, the Rancho was Negative results. originally used for grazing cattle. For several years, portions of the Rancho passed through Raymond 1992: 144 acres surveyed. Negative results.

114 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

Valentine 1996b: 3 acres surveyed. Historic Preservation Officer/Regional Negative results. Archaeologist (RHPO/RA). The RHPO/RA reviews the activities that comprise the under- 15.3 Compliance with Historic taking, confirms the definition of the Area of Preservation Laws on Easements Potential Effects, determines whether the proposed undertaking has the potential to impact Compliance with the National Historic cultural resources, and identifies the appropri- Preservation Act (NHPA) is required for all ate level of scientific investigation necessary undertakings funded with Federal funds or to ensure legal compliance, assisting the field requiring a Federal permit. On WMA ease- station in initiating consultation with the perti- ments which are privately owned, for example, nent State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) restoration activities funded through Service and Federally recognized Tribes. The system- programs such as Partners for Fish and atic archaeological inventory and evaluation Wildlife require compliance with Section 106 of sites on Service-owned lands, irrespective of the NHPA. This is accomplished through of projects subject to Section 106 compliance, a process initiated with the submittal of the is mandated by Section 110 of the NHPA. Regional Cultural Resource Team’s Request for Cultural Resource Compliance. Projects 16. Social and Economic are reviewed by the Regional Archaeologist, who identifies the steps necessary to ensure Environment compliance with Section 106. As appropriate, cultural resource survey, identification, 16.1 Regional Economic Setting and evaluation is implemented according to The local economic region for this study is com- the procedures set forth in the terms of the prised of the 12 counties within which the North Fish and Wildlife Service Programmatic Central Valley WMA is located: Butte, Colusa, Agreement with the state of California. If the Contra Costa, Glenn, Placer, Sacramento, San Programmatic Agreement criteria do not apply, Joaquin, Solano, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and further evaluations are conducted by either Yuba. Butte Sink WMA is located in Butte, service archaeologists or certified archaeolog- Colusa, and Sutter counties; and Willow Creek- ical contractors under the supervision of the Lurline WMA is in Colusa and Glenn counties. Regional Archaeologist. If significant cultural resources are identified within the Area of 16.2 Population and Density Potential Effects, the Service, in consultation Table 6 summarizes the population estimates with the SHPO and any interested parties, and trends for the 12- county region included will develop a plan to avoid, preserve, and/or in this analysis. A 12-county area used in this mitigate the significant cultural resources. analysis includes counties of which a portion 15.4 Compliance with Historic of the county is within the existing approved acquisition boundary of one or more of the Preservation Laws on three WMAs. The combined 12-county area has Service-owned Lands more than 4.6 million residents, accounting for approximately 12 percent of California’s total The Service, like other Federal agencies, is population (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). The legally mandated to inventory, evaluate, and largest city in the study region is Sacramento protect cultural resources located on those with nearly 471,000 residents (California lands that the agency owns, manages, or con- Department of Finance 2012b). The city trols. The Service’s cultural resource policy is of Sacramento is also California’s capital delineated in 614 FW 1-5 and 126 FW 1-3 of the and the state’s sixth most populated city. Service Manual. Field stations initiate the cultural resource review and compliance process As Table 6 indicates, significant variation under Section 106 by contacting the Regional exists among the population characteristics

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 115 Chapter 3

Table 6. Population estimates and trends for the 12-county area surrounding among these coun- Butte Sink, Willow-Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley WMAs ties. The population of Placer County grew the Projected Persons Population fastest at 40 percent Population Population County per Square Change during the same time. (2010) Change Mile (2010) (2000-2010) Generally, the popula- (2010-2030) tions in the urbanized Butte 220,000 134 8% 46% counties in the study Colusa 21,419 19 14% 45% area are expected to Contra Costa 1,049,025 1,465 11% 32% continue to grow at relatively slower rates Glenn 28,122 21 6% 46% compared to the adja- Placer 348,432 248 40% 47% cent urban fringe and Sacramento 1,418,788 1,471 16% 24% northern rural counties. San Joaquin 685,306 493 22% 63% Among the 12 coun- Solano 413,344 503 5% 34% ties in the study area, the populations of the Sutter 94,737 157 20% 78% urbanized Sacramento, Tehama 63,463 22 13% 43% Contra Costa, and Yolo 200,849 198 19% 34% Solano counties are Yuba 72,155 114 20% 71% projected to grow the California 37,253,956 239 10% 26% slowest at 24 percent, 32 percent, and 34 per- California Department of Finance, 2012a (population projections) cent from 2010 to 2030, respectively (California of the 12 counties in the region. Generally, the Department of Finance 2012a). Located near counties located in the southern portion of the these southern urban counties are those that Sacramento Valley, near the Sacramento-San could be considered urban fringe counties; Joaquin River Delta, tend to have relatively here, anticipated development leads to the higher total populations and are more densely highest projected population growth among all populated than the rural counties to the north. counties within the study area. Directly north Sacramento and Contra Costa counties are of Sacramento County near the Sierra Nevada the most heavily populated with more than 1.4 foothills, Sutter, Yuba, and Placer counties are million and 1 million residents, respectively. projected to grow at 78 percent, 71 percent, These two southern counties also have the and 47 percent from 2010 to 2030, respectively. highest population densities among the 12 San Joaquin is an additional urban fringe counties in the study area, each with nearly county adjacent to the south of Sacramento 1,500 persons per square mile. Colusa and and Contra Costa counties, and is projected Glenn counties, in the north-western portion to experience population growth of 63 percent of the Sacramento Valley, are the least pop- during the same time. The populations of the ulated with approximately 21,000 and 28,000 rural northern counties of Tehama, Colusa, and residents, respectively. These 2 counties, along Glenn are projected to grow in the range of 43 with adjacent Tehama County, have the lowest percent to 46 percent over the next 20 years. population densities in the study area, each with roughly 20 persons per square mile. 16.3 Ethnicity, Race, Employment, All 12 counties in the study area experienced and Income positive population growth from 2000 to 2010 Significant differences exist among the 12 coun- (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). However, signif- ties in the study area in terms of the frequency icant differences exist in the rate of growth of residents who identify ethnically as Hispanic

116 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment or Latino. Approximately 13 percent of the pop- million jobs (Bureau of Economic Analysis ulation in Placer County identify as Hispanic 2010). Sacramento and Contra Costa or Latino, compared to 55 percent in Colusa counties have the largest number of jobs, County (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Significant accounting for approximately 35 percent differences also exist among the 12 counties in and 22 percent of total non-farm employ- terms of the frequency of residents who iden- ment in the study area, respectively. tify racially as White. The northern counties in State and local government has the highest the study area tend to have a higher frequency percentage of total non-farm employment for of the population who identify as White rela- the study area, contributing over 20 percent tive to the southern urbanized counties (U.S. of jobs. Retail trade and the heath care indus- Census Bureau 2010). Placer County has the tries both represent approximately 13 percent highest frequency of residents who identify as of total non-farm employment. Other notable White, at 84 percent of the population, followed industrial sectors for the region include pro- by Butte, Tehama, and Glenn counties with 82 fessional services, accommodation and food percent, 81 percent, and 71 percent, respec- services, administrative services, finance, tively. Comparatively, San Joaquin and Solano insurance, real estate, and construction. counties have the lowest frequency, each with 51 percent of residents who identified as White. 16.4 Agriculture Significant differences also exist among the 12 The Sacramento Valley is one the most agri- counties in the region for median household culturally productive regions in California in income, percent of persons below poverty, terms of total gross value of agricultural prod- and average unemployment rate. The median uct (California Agricultural Statistics Review household income ranges from a high of more 2011). In total, the 12-county region generates than $78,000 dollars per year in Contra Costa approximately $6 billion in gross agricultural County, to a low of $38,000 per year in Tehama product annually. Furthermore, agriculture in County (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Tehama the study area accounts for 33,900 jobs annu- also has the highest poverty rate among the ally (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2010). San counties in the study area, with 20.3 percent of Joaquin County ranks first in the 12-county the population living at or below the Federal study area, and seventh among counties in poverty line. Comparatively, Placer and Contra the state of California, generating nearly $2 Costa counties have the lowest poverty rates billion in annual gross value of agricultural at 6.6 percent and 9 percent, respectively. product. The rural counties in the northern Each of the 12 counties in the study area had portion of the Sacramento Valley are also a 2011 average unemployment rate higher highly productive. Combined, the 6 north- than the average national rate of 9 per- ern counties of Colusa, Butte, Glenn, Sutter, cent (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012). Tehama, and Yuba generate approximately However, there was significant variability in one-half of the gross agricultural product for unemployment rates between the counties the 12-county region, or $3 billion annually. in the study area. Contra Costa and Placer The 12-county region produces a diverse range counties had the lowest average unemploy- of agricultural goods. This region produces ment rates at 10.4 percent and 10.8 percent, grapes, vegetables, fruit, nuts, small grains, respectively. Other counties in the region and an assortment of animal products, includ- had substantially higher rates, most notably, ing milk (California Agricultural Statistics Yuba, Sutter, and Colusa counties with 18.2 Review 2011). In San Joaquin, the top agricul- percent, 18.8 percent and 20.4 percent aver- tural producing county in the study area, the age unemployment for 2011, respectively. 5 agricultural commodities which generate the Total non-farm employment for the 12-county most value are fluid milk, wine grapes, wal- study area accounts for more than 2.1 nuts, cherries, and almonds. However, the

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 117 Chapter 3 most significant agricultural product for the of the land cover for Placer and Butte counties, 12-county study area is rice. The Sacramento respectively, are considered forest, compared Valley is known as the principal rice growing to less than 1 percent in Sacramento County. region of the state (California Rice 2012). The This can be attributed to the northern coun- top 5 rice producing counties in California are ties having large tracts of land situated in the located in the 12-county study area discussed nearby mountains and foothills. Mixed cropland in this chapter. The economic contribution of also differs greatly between the 12 counties; local rice production and possible effects of Sutter and San Joaquin counties have mixed Service land acquisition are discussed in the cropland at 58 percent and 41 percent, whereas Environmental Assessment (Appendix A). Placer County has far less with approximately 1 percent considered mixed cropland. 16.5 Cover Types, Land Use, The loss of prime agricultural land in the and Changes study area occurred at a record pace from The easement and Service-owned lands within 2006 to 2008 (State of California Department the WMAs are bordered primarily by private of Conservation 2011). As a region, the study lands. Private lands are mostly agricultural area netted 5,500 acres of urban growth land (rice, orchards, row crops), with some during this time. San Joaquin, Sacramento, private duck-hunting clubs, farmsteads, busi- and Contra Costa primarily drove this urban nesses, trailer parks, and isolated homes. expansion, being among the top 10 counties in California for number of acres converting The 12-county study area spans more than to urban uses. Considering the variability of 9.6 million acres in the Sacramento Valley cover type and land uses (e.g., urban vs. mixed (Conservation Biology Institute 2008). Of the cropland), the projected population growth study area’s total acreage, approximately within the 12-county region may continue to 79 percent is privately owned, 16 percent is apply pressure for future conversion of historic Federally owned, 4 percent is managed by the farmland and natural features to other uses. state of California, 1 percent is city or county The effects of potential cover type and land owned, and less than 1 percent is Tribal land use changes are discussed in Appendix A. (Conservation Biology Institute 2008). WMAs are predominantly confined to the valley floor. Each of the 12 counties in which the WMAs are Because it is not easily separable, the following located has its own General Plan that outlines land cover data by county reflects not only the land use policies. The portions of the counties’ WMAs, but also the foothill areas that lie within General Plans that relate to management of the counties outside the WMAs. Land cover the Refuges are summarized in Appendix N. type differs significantly between the individual counties within the study area. This variability 16.6 Transportation in land cover type can be largely attributed to Major transportation routes in the vicinity of differences in population densities, land use, the WMAs include Interstate 5, State high- and geographic features. The highly populated ways 99, 45, 162, 20, and county route 99W. Sacramento and Contra Costa counties have 21 Many small paved county roads provide for percent and 23 percent of their total land cover local transportation, offering service access considered urban, respectively. Comparatively, to local agricultural activities. These, and Butte, Colusa, Glenn, and Tehama counties the large interstate and highways, provide located in the northern portion of the study access to the Refuge Complex’s visitor center area each have no more than 1 percent of total south of the town of Willows and Llano Seco land cover considered urban. The northern Unit’s visitor contact station and parking lot. rural counties also tend to have more forested land cover relative to the urban counties to the south. Approximately 52 percent and 39 percent

118 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas The Refuge Environment

Figure 15. Proposed Wetland and Agricultural Easement Acquisition Areas

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 119 Chapter 3

Walking trail through wetlands, Llano Seco Unit. Photo: USFWS

120 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Chapter 4. Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

1. Overview of Goals, songbirds, and other wetland-dependent species in the Central Valley. Objectives, and Strategies GOAL 2: Wildlife and Habitat One of the most important parts of the CCP process is the development and refinement Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance of the WMAs’ vision and goals. This section habitats and associated wildlife and contains the primary goals that will define the plant species, with an emphasis on management direction of the WMAs for the supporting an abundance and natural next 15 years. In addition, as part of the CCP, diversity of wintering and migrating the WMAs are expected to develop objectives waterfowl, shorebirds, other waterbirds, and strategies that, together, will help achieve birds of prey, and songbirds. the goals. Goals are broad statements of the GOAL 3: Visitor Services desired future conditions for refuge resources. On the Llano Seco Unit and other appro- WMA goals may or may not be feasible within priate Service-owned lands, provide the 15-year time frame of the CCP. Whenever visitors of all ages and abilities with qual- possible, objectives are concise statements ity wildlife-dependent recreation (wildlife of what we want to achieve, how much we observation, photography, environmental want to achieve, when and where we want to education, and interpretation) and volunteer achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. opportunities to enhance public apprecia- They should be specific, measurable, achiev- tion, understanding, and enjoyment of fish, able, results-oriented, and time-fixed, and wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources. should be feasible within the 15-year lifespan of the CCP. Strategies are specific actions, GOAL 4: Threatened and Endangered Species tools, or techniques that contribute toward Support self-sustaining populations of accomplishing the objective. In some cases, threatened and endangered species on strategies describe specific projects in enough fee-title Service-owned lands and on ease- detail to assess funding and staffing needs. ment lands with willing landowners. The five goals of the Willow Creek/ GOAL 5: Climate Change Lurline, Butte Sink and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas are Maintain and enhance current habi- outlined below to provide a context for tat values under anticipated climate the proposed management direction. change scenarios in the Central Valley. GOAL 1: Land Protection 2. Organization Protect wetlands, wetland-associ- Each objective and strategy is given a unique ated uplands and riparian habitats, numeric code for easy reference. Objectives and productive agricultural lands to have a two-digit code (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2). The support an abundance and natural first digit corresponds to the goal to which the diversity of wintering and migrating objective applies. The second digit is sequen- waterfowl, shorebirds, birds of prey, tial. Similarly, each strategy has a three-digit code (e.g., 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.1.2). The first

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 121 Chapter 4 and second digits refer to the appropriate goal Colusa NWRs to create a larger and more and objective, respectively. The third digit productive block of conservation lands. is sequential and represents the strategy. Conservation easements are recognized as an 3. WMA Management Goals, effective tool for: protecting private wetlands in perpetuity, maintaining land in private owner- Objectives, and Strategies ship, and meeting Service habitat objectives in GOAL 1: Land Protection a timely and cost efficient manner. The existing easement acquisition objective for the Willow Protect wetlands, wetland-associ- Creek-Lurline WMA is 8,000 acres (USFWS ated uplands and riparian habitats, 1979b), and to date, approximately 5,859 acres and productive agricultural lands to of wetlands have been protected. This objec- support an abundance and natural tive proposes acquiring the remaining 2,141 diversity of wintering and migrating acres of conservation easements from will- waterfowl, shorebirds, birds of prey, ing sellers to protect existing wetlands and songbirds, and other wetland-depen- future restored wetlands within the WMA. dent species in the Central Valley. This objective helps support many of the Objective 1.1: Easement – Willow Creek-Lurline habitat and wildlife population goals of the WMA Wetland Easement Acquisition. North American Waterfowl Management Plan Acquire 2,141 acres of wetland conservation (USFWS et al., 1986, 1998, 2012), the Central easements from willing sellers in Willow Valley Joint Venture (CVJV) Implementation Creek-Lurline WMA to protect existing wet- Plan (CVJV 2006) and the Central Valley and lands and future restored wetlands to help Bay-Delta Region Conservation Actions in the meet the habitat restoration and protection California Wildlife Action Plan (CDFG 2005c). objectives of the CVJV Implementation Plan Achievement of this objective is depen- (CVJV 2006) and support the waterfowl popu- dent upon the willingness of landowners to lation goals of the North American Waterfowl participate in the easement program and Management Plan (USFWS et al., 1986, 2012). available funding to acquire easements. Rationale: Strategies: The Willow Creek-Lurline WMA was estab- 1.1.1. Annually, contact landowners of remain- lished in 1985 with the primary purpose of ing unprotected wetlands and restorable preserving wetland habitat for wintering agricultural lands to assess their interest waterfowl and other wetland-dependent in the conservation easement program. wildlife (USFWS 1979b). Freshwater wetlands have declined by 90 to 95 percent in 1.1.2. Acquire up to 994 acres of conservation the Central Valley and the wetlands of the easements in Colusa County and 1,147 acres Willow Creek-Lurline WMA represent of conservation easements in Glenn County some of the last remaining wetlands in the (Land Acquisition Ascertainment Report Sacramento Valley (Holland 1978, 1998; Gilmer for the Colusa Basin Wetlands, 1979b). et al., 1982; Frayer et al., 1989; Kempka and 1.1.3. Coordinate the appraisal and acquisi- Kollasch 1990). Managed wetlands and asso- tion of potential easement properties with ciated upland and riparian habitats within the Service’s Region 8 Realty Office. the WMA provide critical food, water and 1.1.4. Pursue funding through the cover for waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, Land and a diverse array of wildlife species. The and Water Conservation Fund and other Willow Creek-Lurline WMA also provides sources for easement acquisition. an important corridor of wetland habitat which helps link Sacramento, Delevan and

122 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Objective 1.2: Easement – North Central Valley protect existing wetlands and future restored WMA Wetland Easement Acquisition. wetlands throughout the North Central Valley WMA. The proposed acquisition Objective was Acquire 15,000 acres of conservation ease- reduced from 34,043 acres to 15,000 acres to: ments from willing sellers in North Central 1) accommodate estimated demand for wetland Valley WMA to protect existing wetlands and easements over the 15-year CCP planning restored future wetlands to help meet the period, 2) enable a portion of proposed ease- habitat restoration and protection objectives ment acquisition to be focused on protecting of the CVJV Implementation Plan (CVJV agricultural land for migratory birds (see 2006) and support the waterfowl popula- Objective 1.3), and 3) realistically correspond tion goals of the North American Waterfowl to expected funding for easement acquisition Management Plan (USFWS et al., 1986, 2012). over the 15-year planning period. More infor- Rationale: mation about the conservation objectives of The North Central Valley WMA was estab- the Central Valley can be found in the Joint lished to preserve existing and restored Venture Implementation Plan (CVJV 2006). wetlands for waterfowl and other wetland-de- New wetland easement acreage objectives for pendent plants and wildlife in the Sacramento each county were developed based on CVJV Valley and Delta regions. Freshwater wet- basin wetland restoration and protection goals lands have declined by 90 to 95 percent in the (CVJV 2006), the availability of appropriate Central Valley (Holland 1978, 1998; Gilmer lands (wetlands and lands with historic hydric et al., 1982; Frayer et al., 1989; Kempka and (wetland ) soils) in the county, and the proxim- Kollasch 1990), and the protection and resto- ity of appropriate lands to protected areas and ration of wetlands is crucial to migratory bird urban lands within each county. Wetland ease- populations (CVJV Implementation Plan 2006). ment objectives were limited to seven counties Managed wetlands, and associated upland (Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Placer, Sutter, Yuba, and riparian habitat, within the North Central and Yolo) which had appropriate lands, high Valley WMA provide critical food, water and waterfowl use and historic landowner demand. cover for waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, In addition to supporting the habitat and migra- and a diverse array of wildlife species. tory bird population goals of the 2006 CVJV In 1991, the North Central Valley WMA was Implementation Plan and the North American established to help meet the habitat protec- Waterfowl Management Plan, this Objective tion and restoration goals of the 1990 Central also supports many of the action items of the Valley Habitat Joint Venture Implementation Central Valley Bay Delta Action Items of the Plan and ultimately the waterfowl popula- California Wildlife Action Plan (CDFG 2005c). tion goals of the North American Waterfowl Achievement of this objective is depen- Management Plan. In the establishment of dent upon the uncertainty regarding the the North Central Valley WMA, conservation willingness of landowners to participate easements were recognized as an effective tool in the easement program and available for: protecting private wetlands in perpetuity, funding to acquire easements. maintaining land in private ownership, and meeting Service habitat objectives in a timely Strategies: and cost efficient manner. In 1991, the autho- 1.2.1. Redefine county wetland easement rized easement acquisition objective for the acreage objectives in the North Central Valley North Central Valley WMA was 48,750 acres, WMA to better correspond with landowner of which approximately 14,707 acres have been demand and the 2006 CVJV Implementation acquired, leaving a remaining balance of 34,043 Plan’s wetland restoration and protection acres to be acquired. This Objective proposes goals for hydrologic basins in the Sacramento acquiring 15,000 acres from willing sellers to Valley (Table 7). Acquire wetland easements

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 123 Chapter 4 from willing seller in Butte, Colusa, Glenn, 2006) and support the waterfowl popula- Placer, Sutter, Yuba, and Yolo counties. tion goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (USFWS et al., 1986, 2012). 1.2.2. Increase outreach efforts to inform wetland and agricultural landowners of Rationale: easement opportunities via presenta- The agricultural easement acreage objective tions, brochures, mailings, and website. (19,043 acres) plus the wetland easement 1.2.3. Annually, contact 10-30 landowners of acreage objective (15,000 acres) equals the remaining unprotected wetlands and restor- total remaining North Central Valley WMA able agricultural lands to assess their interest easement acreage objective (34,043 acres). in the conservation easement program. Rice, corn, wheat, irrigated pasture and alfalfa (wildlife friendly agriculture) provide important 1.2.4. Coordinate the appraisal and acquisi- habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds and water- tion of potential easement properties with birds throughout the North Central Valley the Service’s Region 8 Realty Office. WMA. Approximately 68 percent of all winter- 1.2.5. Pursue funding through the ing waterfowl food resources are provided by Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, Land agricultural habitats, with post-harvest flooded and Water Conservation Fund and other rice providing the bulk (CVJV 2006). Currently sources for easement acquisition. about 500,000 acres of rice and 200,000 acres of corn are grown annually within the WMA. Table 7. Proposed wetland easement acreage objectives for Counties within the North These lands compliment Refuges and other Central Valley WMA. protected wetland areas by providing foraging and roosting habitat for migratory birds Wetland Easement and other wildlife (Elphick 1998). In fact, the County Objective (acres) 2006 CVJV Implementation Plan assumes that Butte 4,509 at least 50 percent of waterfowl food needs in the Sacramento Valley and the Delta will Colusa 863 be met by rice and corn agriculture. Long- Glenn 428 term security of these important agricultural Placer 1,917 habitats is not assured, and agricultural Sutter 3,687 easements will help meet conservation objec- Yuba 2,392 tives in each of the Valley’s basins (CVJV 2006). In addition to directly providing hab- Yolo 1,204 itat, agricultural lands provide critical open Total 15,000 space which buffers Refuges and other protected wetlands from urban encroachment. Objective 1.3: Easement – North Central Valley While agriculture currently provides signifi- WMA Agricultural Easement Acquisition. cant wildlife habitat and open space, increasing Acquire 19,043 acres of agricultural easements human populations, economic variability and from willing sellers in the North Central water issues make the future less certain. Valley WMA, to provide habitat and open This Objective proposes to acquire up to space buffers adjacent to Refuges and other 19,043 acres of agricultural easements to: 1) protected wetlands, and provide long-term ensure that wildlife friendly agricultural is protection of productive agricultural lands maintained near Refuges and other protected that support large numbers of migratory wetlands, 2) maintain open space to buffer birds and other wetland-dependent species Refuges and other protected wetlands from in the Pacific Flyway. Agricultural easements commercial and residential development, and will help meet the conservation objectives 3) provide long-term protection to productive of the CVJV Implementation Plan (CVJV

124 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies agricultural lands which traditionally sup- wildlife-friendly agricultural habitat near port large numbers of migratory birds. Refuges and other important wetland areas. Agriculture easement objectives for each 1.3.8. Coordinate the appraisal and acquisi- county were determined using geographic tion of potential easement properties with information systems (GIS) to identify the Service’s Region 8 Realty Office. agricultural lands that could provide com- 1.3.9. Pursue funding through the plimentary wildlife habitat and buffer Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, Land existing conservation lands from current and Water Conservation Fund and other and future development pressures. sources for easement acquisition. Achievement of this objective is dependent upon the uncertainty regarding the Table 8. Proposed agricultural easement acreage objectives for counties within the North willingness of landowners to participate Central Valley WMA. in the easement program and available funding to acquire easements. Agricultural Easement County Strategies: Objective (acres) Butte 2,392 1.3.1. Acquire agricultural easements in the North Central Valley WMA in strategic areas Colusa 1,844 that buffer and provide connectivity between Glenn 2,310 Refuges and other important protected Sacramento 5,000 wetlands in Butte, Glenn, Colusa, Sutter, Sutter 4,591 Sacramento and Yolo Counties (see Table 8). Yolo 2,906 1.3.2. Work with partners (conservation and agricultural organizations) and consult with Total 19,043 counties to identify and evaluate other important areas within the North Central Valley Objective 1.4: Easement – Land Protection WMA for agricultural easement acquisition. Partnership. 1.3.3 In coordination with partners, develop Work cooperatively to help partners restore an agricultural easement agreement that and protect wetlands and protect import- meets Service’s and agricultural landown- ant agricultural lands within the North er’s objectives. Appendix C provides the Central Valley WMA to help meet the hab- draft Agricultural Easement agreement. itat restoration and protection objectives of the CVJV Implementation Plan (CVJV 1.3.4. In coordination with partners, develop 2006) and support the waterfowl popula- an outreach plan to inform agricultural tion goals of the North American Waterfowl landowners of easement opportunities via Management Plan (USFWS et al., 1986, 2012). presentations, brochures, mailings and website. Rationale: 1.3.5. Contact landowners of unprotected agricultural lands near important con- The North Central Valley WMA was estab- servation area to assess their interest in lished to help implement the land protection the agricultural easement program. objectives of the CVJV. The Service represents only one of the 22 Federal Agencies, State 1.3.6. Develop and pursue agricultural Agencies, and Conservation organizations easements that focus on preserving which form the CVJV partnership. Many open space buffers around Refuges and of these CVJV partners manage important other important wetland areas. conservation programs which also protect 1.3.7. Develop and pursue agricul- wetlands and agricultural lands within the tural easements that focus on providing North Central Valley WMA. It is imperative

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 125 Chapter 4 that the Service work with these partners to American Waterfowl Management Plan. While leverage resources to help meet North Central the first priority of the North Central Valley Valley WMA and CVJV Implementation WMA was to implement a conservation ease- Plan land protection objectives. ment program, it was acknowledged that in some circumstances fee-title acquisition might Strategies: be necessary to provide minimum waterfowl 1.4.1. Continue to serve on NRCS’s Wetland sanctuary or to resolve management issues. Reserve Program (WRP) ranking team Specific management issues where fee-title to help evaluate potential properties acquisition may be considered include: 1) the for the WRP easement program. purchase of properties that improve the admin- 1.4.2. Assist NRCS in the implementation istration and management of refuge lands and of WRP and other Farm Bill Programs 2) the protection of sensitive habitats that are in accordance with the established MOU vulnerable to degradation in private ownership. (USFWS 2010) and serve on the NRCS In 1991, the fee-title acquisition of 6,250 acres State Technical Advisory Committee. was authorized for the North Central Valley 1.4.3. Assist CDFW in the implementation of WMA, with the only specified acquisition their Permanent Wetland Easement Program. being a 1,195 acre addition to Colusa NWR. Since that time, the Llano Seco Unit and the 1.4.4. Coordinate with CVJV part- majority of the Colusa NWR addition have ners and others to protect important been acquired. Of the original 6,250 acres wetlands and agricultural lands. authorized for fee-title acquisition, approxi- 1.4.5. Continue to serve on, advise, or mately 3,321 acres remain. While the focus of provide information to CVJV Working North Central Valley WMA still remains on Groups and Technical Committees. implementing a conservation easement program, the 2006 CVJV Implementation Plan Objective 1.5: Service-owned – North Central recognizes that there are still locations where Valley WMA Fee-title Acquisition. wildlife sanctuaries and fee-title acquisition Acquire in fee-title from willing sellers 3,321 may be appropriate. The Service proposes to acres of wetlands and restorable agricultural help meet the CVJV objectives by acquiring lands within the North Central Valley WMA up to 3,321 acres in appropriate locations. to help meet the conservation objectives The Service would consult with affected coun- of the CVJV Implementation Plan (CVJV ties prior to acquiring any land in fee-title. 2006) and support the waterfowl popula- In addition to supporting the habitat and migration goals of the North American Waterfowl tory bird population goals of the 2006 CVJV Management Plan (USFWS et al., 1986, 2012). Implementation Plan and the North American Rationale: Waterfowl Management Plan, this Objective also supports many of the action items of the Freshwater wetlands have declined by 90 Central Valley Bay Delta Action Items of the to 95 percent in the Central Valley (Holland California Wildlife Action Plan (CDFG 2005d). 1978, 1998; Gilmer et al., 1982; Frayer et al., 1989; Kempka and Kollasch 1990), and the Achievement of this objective is dependent upon protection and restoration of wetlands is the uncertainty of the availability of appropri- crucial to migratory bird populations (CVJV ate properties, willing sellers, and funding. Implementation Plan 2006). In 1991, the North Strategies: Central Valley WMA was established to help meet the habitat protection and restoration 1.5.1. Focus fee-title purchases from willing goals of the 1990 Central Valley Habitat Joint sellers on remaining in-holdings at Colusa Venture Implementation Plan and ultimately NWR and strategic locations within the the waterfowl population goals of the North

126 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

American, Butte & Sutter Basins per the priori- Strategies: ties in the 2006 CVJV Implementation Plan. 1.6.1. Increase aerial surveys to twice a 1.5.2 Work with conservation partners and year, to monitor easement compliance on consult with counties to identify and evalu- 100 percent of easement properties. ate lands for potential fee-title acquisition. 1.6.2. Annually, review and issue written 1.5.3 Coordinate the appraisal and acqui- letters of authorization for all proposed sition of potential fee-title properties with projects on easement properties which the Service’s Region 8 Realty Office. require Service authorization (see Easement Guidelines, Appendix C). 1.5.4. Pursue funding through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and Land and Water 1.6.3. Annually, conduct on-site visits on Conservation Fund for fee-title acquisition. at least 25 percent of easement properties to verify easement compliance and main- Objective 1.6: Easement – Easement Compliance. tain communication with landowners. Annually, attain 95 percent easement com- 1.6.4. Increase Service Law Enforcement pliance with the terms and conditions of the support and coordination with easement conservation agreements (Grant of Easement) manager on easement compliance issues. in the Butte Sink WMA, Willow Creek-Lurline WMA, and North Central Valley WMA to 1.6.5 Send annual easement compli- protect wetland resources that support migra- ance letter to all easement owners tory bird populations in the Pacific Flyway. reminding them of their easement obligations per the Easement Guidelines. Rationale: 1.6.6. Annually, document in writing results The Service’s conservation easements are of easement compliance surveys and purchased to protect wetland and agricultural site visit for all easement properties. habitats and support the wildlife resources that depend on them. The conservation ease- Objective 1.7: Easement – Water Supply. ments contain terms and conditions that were Within 5 years of CCP approval, inven- developed specifically to protect habitat for tory water rights and supply for all existing migratory birds. Generally, these terms and easement properties and all new easement conditions state that the easement owner, acquisitions to determine if adequate water or any third party, cannot alter existing resources are available to maintain wet- topography, cultivate agricultural crops (on lands on easement lands in accordance wetland easements), place any structures on with the easement agreement (Grant of easement lands, or sell/transfer any water Easement). Maintain existing agreements resources without written authorization of and water delivery infrastructure to ensure the Service (see Appendix C). Landowner water availability to WMA wetlands. compliance with these terms and conditions is paramount in the long-term protection of Rationale: habitat and wildlife resources on easement The Service’s conservation easements are lands. Given the broad geographic area of the purchased to protect wetland and agricultural WMAs, and the large number and acreage of habitats and support the wildlife resources easements, it is important that the Refuge be that depend on them. Within the WMAs, proactive in informing landowners regarding water is the most important resource affect- their easement obligations and monitoring ing habitats and wildlife. The Service’s Grant the easement properties for compliance. of Easement document protects “Easement Waters”, which are generally described as all of the Grantor’s (landowners) water resources, limited to the amount necessary to flood

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 127 Chapter 4 and maintain “Easement Lands” to historic 1.7.5. Maintain the Bifurcation Operations fall and winter seasonal levels. Through the Agreement for the long-term operation and Grant of Easement the Service also reserves maintenance of the Bifurcation Dam facility to the right, but not the obligation, to use the ensure water delivery to the Butte Sink WMA. “Easement Waters” to flood “Easement 1.7.6 Work Cooperatively with Butte Sink Lands” to historical fall and winter levels at Waterfowl Association and others to maintain the Service’s expense. In addition, the Service the “1922 Agreement” which provides water also requires landowners to receive written for the Butte Sink Unit and many easement authorization prior to selling or transfer- properties within the Butte Sink WMA. ring any “Easement Waters” to third parties (see Appendix C for easement guidelines). 1.7.7 Maintain the “Memorandum of Agreement By and Between the U.S. Bureau While the Grant of Easement contains strong of Land Management and U.S. Fish and language protecting water on easement lands, Wildlife Service Regarding Use of Water little is known or documented regarding what Acquired through Gover Acquisition and water resources are available for individual Orwick Exchange by the Sacramento NWRC” properties. Given the uncertainty of water which provides approximately 1,470 acre supplies, the agriculture/urban demand for feet of water (before line loss) to be used on water and the growth of water markets, it is easement properties within the Willow Creek imperative that the Service explicitly under- Division of the Willow Creek-Lurline WMA. stand the water resources it has acquired and protected through its easement program. 1.7.8 Maintain the “Wheeling Agreement Likewise, it is important to document the between Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, water resources on all prospective conservation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Willow easement properties to ensure that there is Creek Mutual Water Company for Conveyance enough water to provide the habitat proposed of Water to Conservation Easement Lands” for protection. This information will allow us to to ensure the delivery of up to 1,470 acre protect the water resources we have acquired feet of water to Willow Creek Mutual Water and determine if additional waters are needed Company for use on easement lands. to maintain habitat on easement lands. 1.7.9. Continue to work collaboratively with The Service is party to a number of CDFW, M&T Chico Ranch and Llano Seco Agreements to ensure the availability and Rancho to implement long-term measures delivery of water to specific Service-owned and to protect and maintain a reliable long- easement lands. It is in the Service’s interest term water supply to M&T Chico Ranch, to maintain these agreements and associated Llano Seco Rancho, Service-owned and water delivery infrastructure into the future. easement lands, and CDFW wildlife management areas and private wetlands. Strategies: 1.7.10 Upgrade Butte Sink lift pump 1.7.1. Contract water rights specialists/hydrol- facilities. See also strategy 2.14.3. ogists to inventory water rights/supply on existing easement properties within five years. GOAL 2: Wildlife and Habitat 1.7.2. Incorporate a water rights/sup- Conserve, manage, restore, and enhance ply inventory into the acquisition process habitats and associated wildlife and for all new easement properties. plant species, with an emphasis on supporting an abundance and natural 1.7.3. Determine if adequate water resources diversity of wintering and migrating are available for easement properties. waterfowl, shorebirds, other waterbirds, 1.7.4. Pursue additional water sources birds of prey, and songbirds. for easement properties if needed.

128 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Objective 2.1: Easement – Landowner Outreach. Objective 2.2: Easement – Habitat Enhancement. Annually, contact 100 percent of easement Annually, enhance 1,000 acres of managed landowners to provide habitat management wetlands and associated upland and riparian information and other technical assistance. habitat on WMA easement lands, as described in Chapter 3, section 5.2, to support migratory Rationale: birds and other wetland-dependent wildlife. The Service’s conservation easements are Rationale: primarily purchased to protect wetland and agricultural habitats and support the wildlife While Service conservation easements are resources that depend on them. While habi- primarily purchased to protect wetland and tat protection is paramount to the easement agricultural habitats, the Service recog- program, habitat management is essential nizes that habitat needs to be managed and to maximize the value of easement lands to enhanced to maximize wildlife resource values. migratory birds and other wetland-dependent In particular, the infrastructure of managed wildlife. While the Service does not purchase wetland habitat requires periodic enhance- habitat management rights through easement ment or repair to maintain water management acquisition, it is in the Service’s best interest capabilities. Specifically, the 2006 CVJV to see that easement lands are managed to Implementation Plan recognizes that water their potential. To this end, the Service will control structures, levees and water convey- employ a number of techniques to inform, ance networks on managed wetlands should educate and encourage easement owners to undergo structural enhancement every 10-15 effectively manage habitat on their lands. years. This enhancement helps ensure proper water management on wetlands that maxi- Strategies: mizes food values and foraging opportunities 2.1.1. Coordinate and conduct semi-annual for migratory birds. The Service will strive Wetland Management Workshop locally to to see that easement wetlands are enhanced disseminate current wildlife and habitat on a regular basis to maintain habitat man- management information to easement land- agement capabilities and wildlife values. owners and other conservation partners. Strategies: 2.1.2 Annually, conduct site visits on at least one 2.2.1. Work with easement owners and partners third of easement properties to evaluate and to enhance habitat on all existing and newly offer habitat management recommendations. acquired easement properties as needed. 2.1.3. Provide technical assistance to 2.2.2. Facilitate habitat enhancement proj- easement landowners as solicited. ect funding on easement properties through 2.1.4. Promote habitat incentive programs a variety of sources, including the Service’s such as CDFW’s California Waterfowl Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, the Habitat Program and NRCS’s Conservation NAWCA Grant Program, NRCS’s Wetland Reserve Program on easement lands. Reserve Program, California Wildlife 2.1.5. Participate in CDFW California Conservation Board’s Inland Wetland Waterfowl Habitat Program and NRCS Conservation Program, and others as available. Conservation Reserve Program status Objective 2.3: Easement – Wetland Restoration. reviews, visiting selected conservation Restore up to 12,535 acres of managed wet- properties and offering habitat manage- lands and associated upland and riparian ment recommendations as appropriate. habitats on newly acquired easement lands in the North Central Valley WMA and the Willow Creek-Lurline WMA, as described in Chapter

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 129 Chapter 4

3, section 5.1, to help meet conservation 2.3.3. Work cooperatively with land- objectives of the CVJV Implementation Plan owners and partners to secure all (CVJV 2006) and support the waterfowl popu- necessary permits for wetland resto- lation goals of the North American Waterfowl ration activities on easement lands. Management Plan (USFWS et al., 1986, 2012). 2.3.4. Facilitate habitat restoration funding Rationale: on easement properties through a variety of sources, including the Service’s Partners One of the main purposes the North Central for Fish and Wildlife Program, the NAWCA Valley WMA and Willow Creek-Lurline WMA Grant Program, NRCS’s Wetland Reserve were established was to protect restored Program, California Wildlife Conservation wetlands for waterfowl and other wetland-de- Board’s Inland Wetland Conservation pendent plants and wildlife in the Sacramento Program, and others as available. Valley. Accordingly, when wetland easements are purchased on agricultural property, the Objective 2.4: Service Owned-Wetland Restoration. lands must be restored to wetlands and asso- In the North Central Valley WMA, restore ciated upland and riparian habitats. The 1991 3,321 acres of wetlands and associated upland North Central Valley WMA Environmental and riparian habitat on newly acquired fee-ti- Assessment delineates historic wetland areas tle (Service-owned) lands, and on the Llano with the best potential for wetland restoration Seco Unit, restore 15 acres of grassland to within the WMA boundary. Areas identified managed seasonal wetlands, as described in as having the best potential for wetland res- Chapter 3, section 5.1, to help meet Sandhill toration in the WMA primarily included rice Crane conservation objectives (Pacific Flyway lands (USFWS 1991). When appropriate, the Council 1997), the CVJV Implementation Plan Service will work with willing sellers, conser- (CVJV 2006), and support the waterfowl popu- vation partners and other interested parties to lation goals of the North American Waterfowl restore wetlands on these lands. The 15,000 in Management Plan (USFWS et al., 1986, 2012). North Central Valley WMA and 2,141 acres in Willow Creek-Lurline WMA of restored wet- Rationale: lands represent the remaining easement acres Newly acquired Service–owned land would to be purchased for the North Central Valley need to be restored to appropriate wetland WMA and Willow Creek-Lurline WMA, respec- and associated upland and riparian habitat to tively. It is unlikely that the entire 15,000 acres provide for migratory birds and other wet- or 2,141 acres will entail restoration as many land-dependent wildlife. Historic wetlands of the easements will be purchased on existing and associated habitats in the Sacramento wetlands. It is estimated that approximately Valley have been lost to agricultural, industrial 25 percent or 535 acres of the Willow Creek- and urban land uses (refer to sections 4.1.1, Lurline WMA will require restoration and 4.1.2, 4.1.3 and 4.1.4). Habitat restoration can approximately 80 percent or 12,000 acres of the achieve maximum benefits to wildlife and the North Central Valley WMA will be restored. public through the Refuge’s habitat manage- Strategies: ment program, which accounts for adaptive management through an annual monitoring 2.3.1. Work with easement owners and part- and evaluation cycle and dedicated special- ners to restore wetlands, and associated ized staff (refer to sections 5, 7 and 9). upland and riparian habitat on all newly acquired easement properties as needed. Strategies: 2.3.2. Work cooperatively with landown- 2.4.1 Where appropriate, restore wetlands, ers and partners to survey, design and and associated upland and riparian habitat, implement site specific wetland resto- on all newly acquired Service-owned lands. ration plans on easement lands.

130 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

2.4.2 Pursue funding for wetland resto- Rationale: ration through various internal and external Managed wetlands are an essential com- sources, such as NAWCA, CVPIA Restoration ponent upon which significant numbers of Program, and California State Duck Stamp. waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds, other 2.4.3. Secure all necessary compliance doc- birds, threatened and endangered species umentation and permits for restoration rely (refer to Chapter 3, sections 4.1.1.1 and activities on Service–owned lands. 4.1.1.2). Freshwater wetlands have declined by 90 to 95 percent in the Central Valley 2.4.4. When appropriate, work with con- (Holland 1978, 1998; Gilmer et al., 1982; servation partners to survey, design, and Frayer et al., 1989; Kempka and Kollasch implement site-specific wetland resto- 1990). Managed seasonal wetlands support ration plans on Service-owned lands. the greatest abundance and diversity of 2.4.5 Restore 15 acres of shallow sea- wildlife on Service-owned lands and support sonal wetlands for Sandhill Cranes in habitat and population objectives identified Tract 4 of the Llano Seco Unit. in the Central Valley Joint Venture (CVJV) Objective 2.5: Service-owned – Managed Wetland Implementation Plan (CVJV 2006) and Habitat. North American Waterfowl Management Plan (USFWS et al., 1986, 1998, 2012), Annually, manage high quality wetland habitat respectively. This objective also helps to on Service-owned lands to provide a majority achieve Central Valley and Bay-Delta of seasonal wetlands with up to 15 percent Region Conservation Actions C and L in the semi-permanent/permanent wetlands on the California Wildlife Action Plan (CDFG 2005c). Llano Seco Unit and up to 5 percent semi-permanent/permanent wetlands on the Butte Sink Strategies: Unit to support migratory birds and other 2.5.1. Within 5 years of CCP approval, develop wetland dependent species. Greater than 75 a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) specific to percent of seasonal wetlands will be managed WMA Service-owned lands that is a subset of to: 1) contain 5 to 50 percent tall emergent the HMP for the Sacramento NWR Complex. cover, 2) contain greater than 50 percent desirable forage plant species cover, and 3) have an average depth of 12 inches (range 1 to 36 inches). Greater than 75 percent of permanent and semi-permanent wetland units will: 1) contain 20 to 70 percent cover of desirable sub- mergent or floating-leaved emergent species, 2) contain 30-80 percent tall emergent cover, and 3) have average water depths of 24 inches (range of 12-36 inches) during May thru October and less than 18 inches during November thru April.

Semi-permanent wetland. Photo: CDFW

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 131 Chapter 4

2.5.2. Consistent with the HMP, incorpo- endangered vernal pool Branchiopod crusta- rate wetland management into Annual ceans, in accordance with the Recovery Plan Habitat Planning process (see Chapter for Vernal Pool Ecosystems (USFWS 2005a). 3, section 5 – Habitat Management). Rationale: 2.5.3. Actively manipulate water lev- In combination, vernal pools and annual els on managed wetlands consistent with grassland habitats support the greatest per- Annual Habitat Management Plans. centage of rare, endemic, and Federal and 2.5.4. Annually, conduct wetland maintenance State listed species on the Service-owned lands. or enhancement practices, as described in Additionally, these areas support important Chapter 3, section 4.2, on at least 10 per- wintering arctic goose and sandhill crane cent of the wetland habitat, as needed. foraging areas (refer to sections 4.1.1.4 and 4.1.2). The Llano Seco Unit is a particularly 2.5.5. Use irrigation, mowing, disk- important area for cranes and spring goose ing, de-leveling, prescribed fire, populations have increased dramatically over herbicides, and grazing to manage veg- the last 5 years. Approximately 75 percent etation and enhance wetland habitat. of all vernal pools in the Central Valley were 2.5.6. Maintain water control infrastructure. lost by 1997 (Holland 1978, 1998). Early losses 2.5.7. Annually, conduct wet- were primarily related to conversion to agri- land vegetation evaluations. culture. Losses that are more recent have been a result of conversion of historic cattle 2.5.8. Conduct regular wildlife surveys to assess grazing lands to other uses and widespread wildlife use of the individual management units. urbanization (USFWS 1998, 2005a). Vernal 2.5.9. Support and facilitate management-ori- pool conservation, management, and resto- ented research on wetland habitat, including ration are among the mandated purposes monitoring the impacts of climate change. of the Service-owned lands. This objective also helps to achieve Central Valley and Bay- 2.5.10. Incorporate data from wildlife Delta Region Conservation Action C in the and vegetation surveys, and research California Wildlife Action Plan (CDFG 2005c). results into habitat management planning process (adaptive management). Strategies: Objective 2.6: Service-owned – Vernal Pool/Annual 2.6.1. Within 5 years of CCP approval, develop Grassland Habitat. a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (specific to WMA fee-title lands) that is a subset of the On the Llano Seco Unit, enhance and man- HMP for the Sacramento NWR Complex. age 404 acres of vernal pool/annual grassland habitat to: 1) maintain annual grasslands with 2.6.2. Consistent with the HMP, incorporate > 5 percent native wildflower cover to provide vernal pool/annual grassland management into spring and summer nectar sources for native annual habitat management planning process. pollinators, 2) maintain annual grasses at an 2.6.3. Use prescribed fire (approximately 100 average height of <4 inches over 90 percent acres/year), herbicides, and grazing as primary of annual grass cover from November through methods to reduce and control non-native and April to provide optimum foraging habitat for invasive plant species, enhance native and wintering arctic geese and Sandhill Cranes, 3) endemic plant species, and support pollina- maintain vernal pools with >20 percent cover tors in vernal pool/ annual grassland habitat. of native and endemic grasses to help support populations of endangered and threatened 2.6.4. Protect hydrology of vernal pool/ plants, and 4) maintain <10 percent non-na- annual grassland habitat by controlling tive annual grass cover to provide vernal runoff from surrounding flooded lands. pool habitat to help support threatened and

132 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

2.6.5. Manage timing of grazing, as described of California’s original grasslands remain in annual grazing plan, to promote short (Huenneke 1989) due to conversion to crop- grass (<4 inches) winter browse for win- land, development, wildfire suppression, and tering arctic geese and Sandhill Cranes. introduction of non-native plant species. The Grassland Bird Conservation Plan (CPIF 2.6.6. Restore additional acres of vernal pool/ 2000) has addressed population and habitat annual grassland habitat as opportunities objectives for healthy grassland bird pop- arise. Use plant materials derived from local ulations. Refuge management strategies ecotypes to construct natural plant com- will support these objectives. This objec- munities, which may support locally rare tive also helps to achieve Central Valley and native plants, pollinators, endemic species, Bay-Delta Region Conservation Action C and threatened and endangered species. and Statewide Conservation Action H in the 2.6.7. When restoring vernal pool/annual grass- California Wildlife Action Plan (CDFG 2005c). land habitats, implement restoration for species Strategies: identified in the Vernal Pool Recovery Plan when and where possible (refer to Threatened 2.7.1. Within 5 years of CCP approval, develop and Endangered Species Strategies). a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (specific to WMA fee-title lands) that is a subset of the 2.6.8. Conduct and evaluate regular wild- HMP for the Sacramento NWR Complex. life surveys to assess wildlife use of vernal pool/ annual grassland habitats. 2.7.2. Consistent with the HMP, incorporate grassland management into annual 2.6.9. Conduct and evaluate periodic vernal habitat management planning process. pool/ annual grassland vegetation surveys. 2.7.3. Conserve, protect, enhance, and 2.6.10. Support restoration and man- restore perennial grasslands and oak agement-oriented research on vernal savanna, where appropriate, based on pool/annual grassland habitats. soils, hydrology, or other features. 2.6.11. Incorporate data from wildlife and 2.7.4. Use mowing, prescribed fire, herbicides, vegetation surveys, and research results and grazing, or other appropriate treatments into habitat management planning and deci- to reduce and control non-native and invasion-making process (adaptive management). sive plant species, enhance and maintain Objective 2.7: Service-owned – Perennial native species composition, and provide a mix Grassland/Oak Savannah Habitat. of tall or short grassland structure on 300 On the Llano Seco Unit, restore 200 acres acres of existing grassland/oak savannah. of irrigated pasture to perennial grassland/ 2.7.5. Restore approximately 200 acres oak savannah habitat on Tract 2 to sup- of native grasslands/oak savanna using port grassland bird populations. Annually, plant materials derived from local eco- manage and enhance 300 acres of exist- types on the Llano Seco Unit. ing grassland/oak savannah to maintain 2.7.6. Enhance topographic features for >80 percent native plant species cover selected wildlife species (e.g., burrowing owl). and support grassland bird populations. 2.7.7. Conduct and evaluate regu- Rationale: lar wildlife surveys to assess wildlife Perennial grasslands/oak savanna provide use of grassland/savanna habitats. numerous important habitat components, 2.7.8. Conduct and evaluate peri- including foraging areas, nesting, and ther- odic grassland vegetation surveys. mal and escape cover, for a variety of wildlife species on the Service-owned lands (refer to 2.7.9. Support management-oriented sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3). Less than 1 percent research on grassland habitats.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 133 Chapter 4

of riparian forest remains, with virtually all of the Valley oak forest type gone (Bay Institute 1998). Riparian forests and other riparian plant communities of California’s Central Valley provide habitat for a diversity of resident and migratory terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, including rare and endangered species (refer to section 4.1.3; Gaines 1974, 1977; Moyle 2002; Riparian Habitat Joint White-fronted Geese on springtime annual grassland, Llano Seco Rancho. Venture 2004; Roberts et Photo: USFWS al., 1977; Small et al., 2000). The Partners in Flight 2.7.10. Pursue funding for 200 aces North American Landbird Conservation Plan perennial grassland and oak savanna hab- (Rich et al., 2004), the California Partners itat restoration from various sources, in Flight/Riparian Habitat Joint Venture such as CVPIA Restoration Program Riparian Bird Conservation Plan (2004), and and National Wild Turkey Federation. CVJV Implementation Plan (2006) identify 2.7.11. Incorporate data from wildlife and focal species and habitat conservation and vegetation surveys, and research results restoration needs for Central Valley birds. into habitat management planning and deci- Refuge management strategies will support sion-making process (adaptive management). these objectives. This objective also helps to achieve Central Valley and Bay-Delta Objective 2.8: Service-owned: Riparian Habitat. Region Conservation Actions C and L in the On the Butte Sink Unit, restore and enhance California Wildlife Action Plan (CDFG 2005c). 30 acres of riparian habitat to maintain >80 Strategies: percent native woody vegetation to support migratory landbirds. Manage and enhance 2.8.1. Within 5 years of CCP approval, develop existing riparian habitat on all Service-owned a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (specific lands to maintain >80 percent native woody to WMA fee-title lands) that is a subset of the vegetation to support migratory landbirds HMP for the Sacramento NWR Complex. and other riparian dependent wildlife. 2.8.2. Consistent with the HMP, incorporate riparian management into annual Rationale: habitat management planning process. Wetlands and riparian forests once covered about five million acres of the Central Valley 2.8.3. Enhance 30 acres of riparian habitat before intensive settlement began in the late on Tract 1 along Butte Creek by planting 1800s. Flood-control and subsequent conversion indigenous native trees and shrubs, using of natural wetlands to agricultural produc- local ecotypes when practicable and feasible, tion have reduced these habitats to less than on the Butte Sink Unit along Butte Creek. one-tenth their former extent (Dahl 1990). 2.8.4. Enhance riparian habitat by elimi- Less than 2 percent of the pre-1850 acreage nating or reducing non-native and invasive

134 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies trees and shrubs through manual removal Service-owned and easement lands provide and herbicide application to maintain wintering habitat for waterfowl. Monitoring >80 percent native woody vegetation. is necessary to determine population status and trends, document habitat use, assess 2.8.5. Annually, conduct and eval- restoration and management needs, and to uate wildlife surveys to assess help determine some hunting regulations. wildlife use of riparian habitats. Strategies: 2.8.6. Annually, conduct up to 5 surveys to evaluate riparian vegetation (based on 1 survey 2.9.1. One to two times a month, con- during annual habitat management planning, duct regular wildlife surveys on 1 aerial survey, and 3 surveys during invasive Service-owned lands for waterfowl. weed management in March, April, and May). 2.9.2. Coordinate with Pacific Flyway 2.8.7. Support management-oriented entities including Division of Migratory research on riparian habitats, including Bird Management, Pacific Flyway Study monitoring the impacts of climate change. Committee, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), U.S. Geological 2.8.8. Incorporate data from wildlife and Survey (USGS) National Wildlife Health vegetation surveys, and research results Lab, and other organizations to con- into habitat management planning and deci- duct survey and monitoring efforts. sion-making process (adaptive management). 2.9.3. Conduct and report results from annual Objective 2.9: Service-owned and Easement – fall and winter waterfowl surveys, including Wintering Waterfowl special tule goose, white-fronted goose, white Annually, assess trends in the abundance, goose, and mid-winter waterfowl surveys. distribution, recruitment, and health of winter- 2.9.4. Conduct periodic white-goose species ing waterfowl in the Central Valley and Pacific composition (lesser snow and Ross’ geese) Flyway by conducting annual and periodic surveys, according to Flyway Management surveys; these surveys typically occur through- Plan, currently once every three years. out the Valley floor, and occur on Service-owned and easement lands, as well as other lands. 2.9.5. Annually, monitor Aleutian cackling geese at the Butte Sink Unit. Rationale: 2.8.6. Collect data on age ratios of Migratory birds are Federal trust species Arctic nesting geese for annual Flyway under the jurisdiction of the Service. Many spe- Productivity of Geese and Swans Report. cies of migratory and resident birds depend on wetlands for winter habitat. Their conservation, 2.9.7. Monitor and control avian disease management, and restoration are among the outbreaks on Service-owned lands accord- mandated purposes of the Service-owned lands. ing to Waterfowl Disease Contingency Freshwater wetlands have declined by 90 to 95 Plan for Sacramento National Wildlife percent in the Central Valley (Holland 1978; Refuge Complex (USFWS 2009). Gilmer et al., 1982; Frayer et al., 1989; Kempka 2.9.8. Conduct or facilitate Flyway-sponsored and Kollasch 1990). The North American banding and marking of wintering waterfowl on Waterfowl Management Plan (USFWS et al., Service-owned lands for population assessment. 1986, 1998, 2012), CVJV Implementation Plan (CVJV 2006), and Pacific Flyway Management 2.9.9. Support management-oriented Plans (Pacific Flyway Council 2007) address research on wintering waterfowl. population and habitat objectives for healthy 2.9.10. Provide technical assistance to waterfowl populations. Refuge management easement owners regarding habitat strategies will support these objectives. The

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 135 Chapter 4 management and enhancement techniques 2.10.4. Evaluate waterfowl nest- that benefit wintering waterfowl. ing, brood rearing, and molting habitat on Service-owned lands. Objective 2.10: Service-owned and Easement – Breeding Waterfowl. 2.10.5. Monitor and control avian disease outbreaks on Service-owned lands accord- Annually, assess trends in the abundance, dis- ing to Waterfowl Disease Contingency tribution, recruitment, and health of breeding Plan for Sacramento National Wildlife waterfowl and their habitat on Service-owned Refuge Complex (USFWS 2009). lands and cooperating easement lands. 2.10.6. Support management-oriented Rationale: research on breeding waterfowl. Migratory birds are Federal trust species 2.10.7. Coordinate with NRCS Conservation under the jurisdiction of the Service. Many Reserve Program and CDFW California species of migratory and resident birds depend Waterfowl Habitat Program to evalu- on wetlands for breeding habitat. Their con- ate nesting and brood rearing habitat servation, management, and restoration are on participating easement lands. among the mandated purposes of the Service- owned lands. Freshwater wetlands have 2.10.8. Provide technical assistance to declined by 90 to 95 percent in the Central easement owners regarding habitat man- Valley (Holland 1978, 1998; Gilmer et al., 1982, agement and enhancement techniques Frayer et al., 1989, Kempka and Kollasch 1990). that benefit breeding waterfowl. The North American Waterfowl Management Objective 2.11: Service-owned and Easement Plan (USFWS et al., 1986, 1998, 2012) and – Shorebirds. the CVJV Implementation Plan (CVJV 2006) address population and habitat objectives for Annually, assess trends in the abundance, healthy waterfowl populations. WMA manage- distribution, and health of shorebirds in the ment strategies will support these objectives Central Valley by conducting annual and by providing breeding habitat for waterfowl on periodic surveys. Manage wetlands, uplands, easement and Service-owned lands. Monitoring and irrigated pasture to enhance shorebird is necessary to determine population status, habitat on cooperating easement lands and assess trends, and to identify habitat use as on at least 10 percent of Service-owned lands. well as restoration and management needs. Work cooperatively with private landowners to enhance shorebird habitat on easement lands. Strategies: Rationale: 2.10.1. Conduct regular wildlife surveys on Service-owned lands one to two times a month Migratory birds are Federal trust species for waterfowl during the breeding season. under the jurisdiction of the Service. Many species of migratory and resident birds 2.10.2. Provide and manage semi-per- depend on wetlands for winter habitat. manent and permanent wetlands on Freshwater wetlands have declined by 90 Service-owned lands to accommodate nest- to 95 percent in the Central Valley (Holland ing, brood-rearing, and molting waterfowl. 1978, 1998; Gilmer et al., 1982; Frayer et al., 2.10.3. As habitat is available on Butte Sink 1989; Kempka and Kollasch 1990). The U.S. and Llano Seco Units, conduct pre-season Shorebird Conservation Plan, Southern waterfowl banding in accordance with the Pacific Shorebird Conservation Plan (Hickey Pacific Flyway Project, to meet or exceed et al., 2006), and CVJV Implementation Plan established quotas for the Complex. (CVJV 2006) addresses population and habitat objectives for healthy shorebird populations. Refuge management strategies will support

136 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies these objectives. Service-owned and ease- Rationale: ment lands provide wintering, migration, and Migratory birds are Federal trust species breeding habitat for shorebirds. Monitoring under the jurisdiction of the Service. Many is necessary to determine population status, species of migratory and resident birds depend assess trends, and identify habitat use, as on wetlands for winter habitat. Freshwater well as restoration and management needs. wetlands have declined by 90 to 95 percent Strategies: in the Central Valley (Holland 1978, 1998; Gilmer et al., 1982; Frayer et al., 1989; Kempka 2.11.1. Manage water levels and vegeta- and Kollasch 1990). The North American tion in managed wetlands on Service-owned Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al., lands to promote wintering shorebird use, 2002) and the CVJV Implementation Plan and optimize shorebird habitat management (CVJV 2006) address population and habi- during peak use periods, such as spring and tat objectives for focal species of waterbirds. fall migration. Examples include employing Refuge management strategies will support staggered seasonal wetland drawdowns from these objectives. The Service-owned and mid-March to early May and timing summer easement lands provide breeding and win- wetland drawdowns (i.e., semi-permanent tering habitat for egrets, herons, rails, ibises, wetlands) to coincide with early fall migra- grebes, and other waterbirds. Monitoring is tion between mid-July and mid-August. necessary to determine population status, 2.11.2. Conduct regular wildlife sur- assess trends, and identify habitat use, as veys on Service-owned lands one to well as restoration and management needs. two times a month for shorebirds. Strategies: 2.11.3. Conduct periodic coordinated 2.12.1. Conduct regular wildlife surveys on shorebird surveys on Service-owned Service-owned lands one to two times a month and cooperating easement lands with for herons, egrets, bitterns, pelicans, grebes, Central Valley Joint Venture partners. ibis, and other waterbirds (see Appendix G). 2.11.4. Monitor and control avian disease 2.12.2. Monitor colonial waterbird rook- outbreaks on Service-owned lands. ery locations, size, and reproductive 2.11.5. Support management-ori- success on Service-owned lands. ented research on shorebirds. 2.12.3. Conduct periodic surveys with 2.11.6. Provide technical assis- cooperating agencies and NGOs on tance to easement owners regarding easement and Service-owned lands for habitat management and enhancement selected species, including sandhill crane, techniques that benefit shorebirds. white-faced ibis, and black terns. Objective 2.12: Service-owned and Easement – 2.12.4. Participate in coordinated colonial Other Waterbirds waterbird monitoring project (Migratory Annually, assess trends in the abundance, Birds Program) on Service-owned distribution, and health of other waterbirds and cooperating easement lands. in the Central Valley by conducting annual 2.12.5. Monitor and control avian disease surveys. Manage wetlands, uplands, and irri- outbreaks on Service-owned lands. gated pasture to enhance waterbird habitat on 2.12.6. Support management-ori- cooperating easement lands and on at least 10 ented research on waterbirds. percent of Service-owned lands. Work cooperatively with private landowners to enhance 2.12.7. Manage spring and summer waterbird habitat on easement lands. wetlands on Service-owned lands to

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 137 Chapter 4 optimize nesting and foraging habitat 2.13.4. Support management-ori- and successful breeding of waterbirds. ented research on landbirds. 2.12.8. Provide technical assistance to 2.13.5. Provide technical assistance to easement easement owners regarding habitat man- owners regarding habitat management and agement and enhancement techniques enhancement techniques that benefit landbirds. that benefit other waterbirds. Objective 2.14: Service-owned and Easement – 2.12.9. On Llano Seco Unit, manage and Anadromous and Native Fisheries. restore wetlands for crane habitat (includ- Annually, on the Butte Sink Unit, maintain ing roost sites) that includes average water all water control structures and fish exclu- depths of 6 inches on at least 25 percent sion structures to facilitate anadromous of the wetland acreage and minimizes tall fish passage and minimize entrapment con- emergent vegetation in those areas. sistent with the Butte Sink Cooperative Objective 2.13: Service-owned and Easement lands Management Plan. On easement lands – Landbirds within the flood plain, provide 100 percent of landowners with Best Management Annually, assess trends in the abundance and Practices to avoid fish entrapment. distribution of landbird species on Service- owned and cooperating easement lands. Rationale: Manage uplands to enhance landbird hab- The Service and the Refuge System both itat on cooperating easement lands and on identify anadromous fish conservation in their at least 10 percent of Service-owned lands. mission statements. The Sacramento River Work cooperatively with private landowners to system supports four distinct salmon runs enhance landbird habitat on easement lands. making Chinook salmon and Central Valley Rationale: steelhead important ecological, recreational, and commercial fisheries. Adult and juvenile Migratory birds are Federal trust species salmon and steelhead migrate through the under the jurisdiction of the Service. Easement Sacramento River system, including the Yolo and Service-owned lands provide habitat for and Sutter Bypass channels and the Butte migratory and resident land birds. Monitoring Sink, at various times of the year depending is necessary to determine population status, upon the run. Floodplain wetlands within this assess population trends, determine causes system are important for growth and survival for poor productivity, determine habitat resto- of immature salmonids and other native fishes. ration needs, and assess restoration success. The relatively warmer waters of floodplain Strategies: wetlands are very productive and produce an 2.13.1. Conduct regular wildlife surveys abundance of prey for juvenile fishes. Juvenile on Service-owned lands one to two times a salmonids migrate downstream through the month for raptors, upland game birds, and Butte Sink, Sutter Bypass and Yolo Bypass, other selected landbirds (see Appendix G). and depending upon flood conditions may use inundated wetlands in the Butte Sink 2.13.2. Conduct periodic surveys with cooper- WMA and North Central Valley WMA. ating agencies for selected species, including tricolored blackbird, yellow-billed cuckoo, Strategies: Swainson’s hawk, and burrowing owl on 2.14.1. Maintain the Bifurcation Dam Service-owned and cooperating easement lands. Operations Agreement to ensure that long- 2.13.3. Monitor and control avian disease term water and fisheries management in the outbreaks on Service-owned lands. Butte Sink WMA is consistent with the Butte Sink Cooperative Management Plan (Jones & Stokes 2001); see also strategy 1.7.3.

138 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

2.14.2. Consistent with the Butte Sink Service’s wildlife conservation mission. More Cooperative Management Plan, continue to than eight million acres within the Refuge provide and monitor the flow-through water System are infested with invasive weeds management system at the Butte Sink Unit (Audubon 2002). Invasive species cause wide- to prevent entrapment of native fish. spread habitat degradation, compete with native species, and contribute significantly to 2.14.3. Maintain all water conveyance systems the decline of trust species (USFWS 2002b). on Service-owned lands including anadro- The National Strategy for Management of mous fish exclusion structures on the lift Invasive Species (USFWS 2002b) has been pump and outfall pipe at Butte Creek on the developed within the context of the National Butte Sink Unit. See also strategy 1.7.10. Invasive Species Management Plan, as called 2.14.4. Implement BMPs for mosquito control for by Presidential Executive Order 13112, and and herbicide applications (Integrated Pest functions as the internal guidance document Management (IPM) Plan is an appendix to for invasive species management through- the Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter out the Refuge System. This Plan has four NWR CCP (USFWS 2009) on Service-owned goals: 1) Increase the awareness of invasive lands to minimize pesticide use and poten- species issues, both internally and externally; tial negative effects on native fisheries. 2) Reduce the impacts of invasive species to 2.14.5. Continue to promote flow-through allow the Refuge System to more effectively water management and fish-friendly meet its fish and wildlife conservation mis- water control structures in appropri- sion and purpose; 3) Reduce invasive species ate locations within the Butte Sink WMA impacts on the Refuge System’s neighbors and the North Central Valley WMA. and communities; and 4) Promote and support the development and use of safe and effec- 2.14.6. Promote riparian plantings tive integrated management techniques to in appropriate locations to provide deal with invasive species. This objective also shaded riverine aquatic habitat. helps to achieve Central Valley and Bay-Delta 2.14.7. Develop Best Management Practices Region Conservation Actions C and P in the to avoid anadromous fish entrapment and California Wildlife Action Plan (CDFG 2005c). distribute to all easement owners within the The Central Valley is occupied by a diversity floodplain; provide technical assistance to and abundance of invasive-species that are easement owners regarding habitat man- harmful because they crowd out or replace agement and enhancement techniques that native species that are important to wildlife benefit anadromous and native fisheries. habitat diversity and ecosystem function. Objective 2.15: Service-owned and Easement – These species often dominate fallow agri- Invasive Species Control. cultural fields and early successional stages of restoration sites. In addition, some late Annually, treat invasive plant species to pre- successional stages of native vegetation are vent spread and reduce abundance on up to 30 also dominated by these undesirable species. percent of Service owned lands as described As a result, habitat must be managed to con- in IPM Plan (USFWS 2009). On easement trol invasive species to favor a diversity and lands, notify 100 percent of easement land- abundance of native, indigenous plants. owners regarding new invasive plant species and provide technical information and assis- Strategies: tance on how to control invasive plants. 2.15.1. Through mailings notify 100 per- Rationale: cent of easement landowners regarding new invasive plant species; provide Invasive species have become the single outreach and technical assistance to land- greatest threat to the Refuge System and the owners on how to control these plants.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 139 Chapter 4

2.15.2. Provide information to easement Rationale: landowners on funding opportunities avail- Local mosquito and vector control districts able to control invasive species, including have identified a need to conduct mosquito the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife monitoring and, if necessary, control activ- Program, NRCS Environmental Quality ities on easement and Service-owned lands Incentive Program (EQUIP) and others. in order to protect the public from mosquito 2.15.3. Annually, evaluate and priori- borne diseases. While mosquitoes are some- tize invasive species to be controlled times considered a nuisance because of their (Appendix F) on Service-owned lands; biting, some species are known vectors of locate, map, and monitor species that serious diseases in California. There are may trigger a management response. primarily five mosquito species of concern potentially produced or harbored on ease- 2.15.4. Annually, control invasive spe- ment and Service-owned lands: Culex tarsalis, cies on up to 30 percent of Service-owned Aedes melanimon, Aedes nigromaculis, lands using prescribed fire, irrigation, Aedes vexans, and Anopheles freeborni. grazing, herbicide treatment, mowing, disking or other proven techniques as iden- The main diseases of concern for mosquito tified in the IPM plan (USFWS 2009). control programs in northern California are Western Equine Encephalitis (WEE), St. Louis 2.15.5. Conduct, facilitate, and/or support Encephalitis (SLE), California Encephalitis, research to identify invasive plant biol- West Nile Virus (WNV), and malaria (see ogy and ecology and to evaluate techniques the IPM Plan appendix in USFWS 2009). for controlling invasive plant species on Culex tarsalis is the main vector identified Service-owned and easement lands. in wetlands in the transmission of these dis- 2.15.6. Maintain current knowledge of poten- eases, with the exception of malaria, which is tial new invasive species that threaten habitat vectored by Anopheles freeborni. The other on easement and Service-owned lands by mosquito species listed above can also poten- coordinating with local weed management tially transmit WEE, SLE, and WNV, but areas, the California Early Detection Network are less competent vectors compared to C. (http://californiaedn.org/), and contacting tarsalis. WEE and SLE have caused signif- California Invasive Plant Council (CAL icant outbreaks of human disease (CA Dept. IPC) for weed alerts and lists of highly inva- of Health Services 2003). Public concern over sive plants in California (http://www.cal-ipc. human health issues related to mosquito-borne org/ip/management/alerts/index.php). disease has intensified on the west coast Objective 2.16: Service-owned and Easement – with the advance of WNV across the United Mosquito Management. States, and its detection in California in 2003. Annually, coordinate with local Mosquito and In 2009, the Complex developed an IPM Vector Control districts (MVCDs) that mon- Plan for Service-owned lands in the Refuge itor and, if necessary, control refuge-based Complex. The IPM Plan is an appendix to mosquito populations to address public health the Sacramento Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter concerns in accordance with the 2009 IPM NWRs CCP (USFWS 2009) that outlines a Plan. On easement lands, provide Best manage- risk-based, hierarchical approach to mos- ment Practices to 100 percent of landowners quito management. This approach uses an and provide technical assistance to reduce understanding of mosquito biology and ecol- mosquito production on easement wetlands. ogy whereby intervention measures depend on continuous monitoring of mosquitoes. The IPM approach ensures legitimate human, fish, and wildlife health concerns are addressed.

140 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

It incorporates a combination of using a com- Objective 3.1: Wildlife Observation. bination of best management practices (BMPs) Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide high in managed wetlands (Kwasny et al., 2004), quality wildlife observation opportunities biological controls, and a select group of pes- for wildlife viewing on the Llano Seco Unit ticides, if warranted. Treatment thresholds to approximately 25,000 visitors per year. (i.e., adult and larval mosquito population levels, and disease activity) and appropriate Rationale: corresponding responses are identified in the Wildlife observation is identified in the compatibility determination for mosquito man- Improvement Act as a priority public use agement (Appendix B). Under this program, that can be allowed when compatible with if mosquito monitoring and disease surveil- other Refuge purposes. As a result, the LSU lance indicate that human health thresholds encourages first-hand opportunities to observe are exceeded, the use of larvicides, pupacide, wildlife in their habitats. This activity will be and/or adulticides may become necessary. managed to ensure that people have opportu- Strategies: nities to observe wildlife in ways that minimize wildlife disturbance and damage to the Llano 2.16.1. Work cooperatively with the local Seco Unit’s (LSU’s) habitats. Wildlife view- mosquito and vector control districts to mon- ing will be managed to foster a connection itor and manage pest mosquitoes consistent between visitors and natural resources. The with National Policy, the Complex’s IPM wildlife observation program will be managed plan, and Compatibility Determinations. in accordance with Service Manual 605 FW 2.16.2. Implement BMPs (Kwasny et al., 2004) 4, Wildlife Observation. In 2012, there were for mosquito management on Service-owned an estimated 22,500 wildlife viewing visits. lands where and when appropriate on all Strategies: habitat and water management activities. 3.1.1. Within 5 years of CCP approval, 2.16.3. Provide technical assistance to develop a Visitor Services Plan as a step easement landowners on mosquito con- down plan to provide guidance for the Llano trol issues, including providing BMPs to Seco Unit’s Visitor Services Program. 100 percent of easement landowners. 3.1.2. Maintain the 2 wildlife viewing 2.16.4. Apprise MVCDs of new easement platform facilities and hiking trail. acquisitions and garner input when restoring wetland habitat on easement lands. 3.1.3. Within 5 years of CCP approval, replace the observation platforms to comply with 2.16.5 Meet annually with local MVCDs to dis- ADA and engineering safety requirements. cuss mosquito control and habitat management activities on Service-owned and easement lands. 3.1.4. Install a fixed-in-place spotting scope on the interior viewing platform to GOAL 3: Visitor Services improve wildlife viewing opportunities. On the Llano Seco Unit (LSU) and other 3.1.5. Maintain loafing islands to improve appropriate fee-title lands, provide visi- viewing opportunities in Tract 12 adjacent tors of all ages and abilities with quality to viewing platform and hiking trail. wildlife-dependent recreation (wildlife observation, photography, environmental 3.1.6. Maintain the Complex’s website to pro- education and interpretation) and volunteer vide information about current wildlife viewing opportunities to enhance public apprecia- program, including facilities and brochures. tion, understanding, and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 141 Chapter 4

3.2.5. Annually, trim trees around parking area viewing platform to maintain wildlife visibility. Objective 3.3: Environmental Education. Within 5 years of CCP approval, in coordination with the Sacramento NWR Complex, develop an environmental edu- Observation deck overlooking wetlands, Llano Seco Unit. Photo: USFWS cation program to Objective 3.2: Wildlife Photography. annually serve at least 500 students at the Llano Seco Unit who, by the end of their Provide high quality wildlife photography staff led program, 80 percent of visitors will opportunities on the Llano Seco Unit to recognize: (1) the types of wildlife on the approximately 7,000 visitors per year. Refuge, (2) and the importance of refuges, Rationale: and (3) refuge management activities. Wildlife photography is identified in the Rationale: Improvement Act as a priority public use Environmental education is identified in the that can be allowed when compatible with Improvement Act as a priority public use that other Refuge purposes. The Service encour- can be allowed when compatible with other ages first-hand opportunities to observe and purposes of the Llano Seco Unit. The Service photograph wildlife in their habitats. This encourages environmental education as a activity will be managed to ensure that people process of building knowledge in students. have opportunities to photograph wildlife in The Refuge staff will work with local schools ways that minimize wildlife disturbance and and universities to integrate environmen- damage to vegetation and habitats. Wildlife tal concepts and concerns into structured photography will be managed to foster a educational activities. These Service-lead or connection between visitors and natural educator-conducted activities are intended to resources. The wildlife photography program actively involve students or others in first-hand will be managed in accordance with Service activities that promote discovery and fact-find- Manual 605 FW 5, Wildlife Photography. ing, develop problem-solving skills, and lead to Strategies: personal involvement and action. Refuge staff 3.2.1. Maintain loafing habitat adjacent to will promote environmental education that: is viewing platform to provide improved pho- aligned to the current Federal, State and local tographic opportunities (i.e., loafing logs, standards; is curriculum-based and meets the islands) north of viewing platforms. goals of school districts adopted instructional standards; and provides interdisciplinary 3.2.2. Update photography guide- opportunities that link the natural world with lines and maps annually. all subject areas. The environmental educa- 3.2.3. Maintain the Complex’s website to tion program will be managed in accordance provide information about current pho- with Service Manual 605 FW 6 Environmental tography guidelines and facilities. Education. This objective also helps to achieve Statewide Conservation Action J in the 3.2.4. Offer annual photography workshops California Wildlife Action Plan (CDFG 2005c). and guided field trips on the Llano Seco Unit.

142 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Strategies: at Llano Seco Unit. The interpretive program will be managed in accordance with 3.3.1. Develop an environmental edu- Service Manual 605 FW 7, Interpretation. cation program that promotes in-depth studies of the ecological principles that In 2007, the Service declared that “connect- are associated with wetland and riparian ing people with nature” is among the agencies ecosystems and the Llano Seco Unit’s nat- highest national priorities (USFWS 2008a). ural, cultural, and historical resources. Positive interactions with the environment can lead to a life-long interest in enjoying and 3.3.2. Encourage and promote school preserving nature. People’s interest in nature group field trips to Llano Seco Unit. is crucial to the Service mission of conserv- 3.3.3. Annually, disseminate current envi- ing, protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife, ronmental education program guidelines plants, and their habitats. In 2012, there were and activities offered to teachers. an estimated 700 annual interpretive visits. 3.3.4. Maintain the Complex’s website to pro- Strategies: mote current educational opportunities. 3.4.1. Use the Complex’s visitor cen- 3.3.5. Utilize interpretive specialists, ter to provide presentations and exhibits interns, and volunteers to facilitate the that promote the Llano Seco Unit. environmental education program. 3.4.2. Improve and maintain interpre- Objective 3.4: Interpretation. tive panels, and visitor facilities. Within 5 years of CCP approval, in coordi- 3.4.3. Annually, lead 7-15 tour nation with the Sacramento NWR Complex, groups on Llano Seco Unit. develop an interpretive program to provide 3.4.4. Continue to participate in or provide at least 1,000 annual interpretive visits at information to local annual events (e.g., the Llano Seco Unit. At least 80 percent of International Migratory Bird Day, National the visitors will understand the importance Wildlife Refuge Week, Snow Goose Festival, of managing wetlands for waterfowl, sand- and Return of the Salmon Festival). hill cranes and other migratory birds. 3.4.5. Maintain the Llano Seco Unit’s interpre- Rationale: tation opportunities on the Complex’s website. Interpretation is identified in the Improvement Act as a priority public use that can be allowed Objective 3.5: Public Outreach. when compatible with other purposes of the Within 5 years of CCP approval, develop an Llano Seco Unit. As a result, the Service outreach program to attract at least 25,000 encourages interpretation as both an edu- total annual visits. The program will promote cational and recreational opportunity that public awareness and support of the Llano Seco is aimed at revealing natural relationships, Unit’s resources and management activities. examining ecosystems, and exploring how Rationale: the natural world and human activities are interconnected. Participants of all ages can Effective outreach is an important component voluntarily engage in stimulating and enjoy- of the Visitors Service Program. The WMA able activities as they learn about the issues will develop an effective outreach program confronting fish and wildlife resource man- that will provide two-way communication agement on the Llano Seco Unit. First-hand between the WMA and the public to estab- experiences with the environment will be lish a mutual understanding and promote emphasized, although presentations, audio- involvement with the goal of improving joint visual media, and exhibits will be necessary stewardship of our natural resources. The components of the interpretive program outreach program will be designed to identify

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 143 Chapter 4 and understand the issues and target audi- staff with their gift of time, skills, and energy. ences, craft messages, select the most effective Refuge staff will initiate, support, and nurture delivery techniques, and evaluate effectiveness. relationships with volunteers so that they may It will include education, interpretation, news continue to be an integral part of WMA pro- media, information products and relations with grams and management. A Visitor Services nearby communities and local, State, Federal Plan will be developed as a step down plan agencies. The WMA outreach program will to provide guidance for the WMAs’ Visitor follow the guidance of the National Outreach Services Program. The volunteer program Strategy: A Master Plan for Communicating will be managed in accordance with the in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 150, and America’s National Wildlife Refuge Chapters 1-3, “Volunteer Services Program”, System: 100 on 100 Outreach Campaign. and Part 240 Chapter 9 “Occupational Safety and Health, Volunteer and Youth Program”. Strategies: In fiscal year 2013, the Complex volunteer 3.5.1. Maintain the Sacramento Refuge program consists of 119 individuals that Complex web site to promote current contributed over 6,000 hours by assisting recreational and educational opportuni- with wildlife-dependent recreation, main- ties on the Llano Seco Unit. tenance, wildlife and habitat management, 3.5.2. Continue to participate or pro- environmental education, and cultural vide information to local events, such as resource programs. Examples of past volun- International Migratory Bird Day, Snow Goose teer activities include roving interpretation, Festival, and Endangered Species Fair. invasive weed removal, and “work days”. 3.5.3. Continue to collect and report pub- Strategies: lic use data for the RAPP, Provide Quality 3.6.1. Utilize interpretative specialists and Recreation and Education section. interns to coordinate the volunteer program. 3.5.4. Participate in fire prevention edu- 3.6.2. Recruit interns through the cation efforts to reduce fire incidence California Waterfowl, California State and damage. Provide outreach about the University Chico (CSU/Chico) intern- role and management uses of fire. ship program, and other universities. 3.5.5. Write news releases for local and 3.6.3. Recruit a variety of community groups state newspapers and articles for maga- and individuals to volunteer (e.g., CSU/Chico, zines, when appropriate. Conduct television Butte College, local high schools, Boy Scouts, and radio interviews upon request. Girl Scouts, and Altacal Audubon Society). Objective 3.6: Volunteers. 3.6.4. Host an annual volun- Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide at teer recognition dinner. least 3 different types of volunteer opportuni- 3.6.5. Facilitate volunteer training workshops. ties to support a variety of Refuge programs on the Llano Seco Unit and Butte Sink Unit. 3.6.6. Utilize the Girl Scout and Boy Scout Councils to recruit volunteers. Rationale: 3.6.7. Provide Service volunteer uniforms The National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer for all volunteers to wear when greet- and Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 ing the public or at special events. (P.L. 105-242) strengthens the Refuge System’s role in developing relationships with volun- Objective 3.7: Public Safety. teers. Volunteers possess knowledge, skills, Within 5 years of CCP approval, address and abilities that can enhance the scope of and mitigate public safety hazards and refuge operations. Volunteers enrich refuge issues on the Llano Seco Unit.

144 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Rationale: control structures and fish exclusion structures on the Butte Sink Unit to facilitate fish pas- Historically, the Llano Seco Unit public use sage and minimize entrapment of threatened facilities have been vandalized and used during Chinook salmon, Central Valley Spring Run unauthorized times resulting in potential ESU, and steelhead, Central Valley ESU. safety hazards. The remote nature of these lands presents the potential to attract vandals Rationale: and illegal activities. Providing a safe public Federally-listed threatened, endangered, environment is a priority for the Service. and candidate species are trust responsibil- Strategies: ities under the jurisdiction of the Service. Threatened and endangered species, as well as 3.7.1. Use new LE supervisor and FWOs, as those proposed for Federal listing, are those per Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa and Sutter whose continued existence may be jeopar- NWR CCP (USFWS 2009), to increase reg- dized by reducing the reproduction, numbers ular patrols on the Llano Seco Unit and or distribution of that species. Where appro- other WMA fee-title lands to protect natural priate on Service-owned lands, the Refuge resources and provide for public safety. will help to achieve goals described in the GOAL 4: Threatened and Endangered Species recovery plans for vernal pool species includ- Support self-sustaining populations of ing hairy Orcutt grass, Greene’s tuctoria, threatened and endangered species on Hoover’s spurge, Conservancy fairy shrimp, fee-title Service-owned lands and on ease- vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole ment lands with willing landowners. shrimp (USFWS 2005a), valley elderberry longhorn beetle (USFWS 1984), and giant Objective 4.1: Service-owned – Threatened and garter snake (USFWS 1999a). The Refuge will Endangered Species. also help achieve the recovery goals of threat- Protect, restore and enhance threatened and ened and endangered salmonids including endangered species (Appendix L) popula- Chinook salmon Sacramento River winter-run tions and their habitats where appropriate on Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), Chinook Service-owned lands, including: 1) protecting salmon Central Valley spring-run ESU, and and managing 404 acres of vernal pool grass- steelhead Central Valley spring-run ESU. land habitat on the Llano Seco Unit to support Threatened and endangered species popu- rare, threatened, and endangered plants lations are in decline due, in part, to habitat and branchiopod crustaceans as described degradation and destruction. Their con- in Objective 2.6, and in accordance with the servation, management, and restoration Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems are mandated purposes of the Refuges. (USFWS 2005a); 2) protecting the remain- Monitoring is necessary to determine pop- ing elderberry plants on the Llano Seco and ulation distribution, abundance, survival, Butte Sink Units to help support the recovery habitat use, and to identify restoration and of the threatened Valley elderberry longhorn management needs. This objective also beetle (VELB) in accordance with the VELB helps to achieve Central Valley and Bay- Recovery Plan (USFWS 1984); 3) maintaining Delta Region Conservation Action C in the up to 15 percent and 5 percent of managed California Wildlife Action Plan (CDFG 2005c). wetlands as semi-permanent or permanent wetlands on the Llano Seco and Butte Sink Strategies: Units, respectively, to support annual life cycle 4.1.1. Document habitat of Federal- and needs and recovery of the giant garter snake in State-listed threatened and endangered accordance with the Draft Recovery Plan for species (Appendix L) on Service-owned the Giant Garter Snake (USFWS 1999a); and lands through regular, periodic, or spe- 4) annually maintaining and managing all water cifically coordinated surveys.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 145 Chapter 4

4.1.2. Support recovery activities for 4.1.9. Coordinate with NOAA Fisheries and threatened and endangered species iden- CDFW to support actions related to conser- tified in Service recovery plans for giant vation of Federally-listed anadromous fish. garter snake, Valley elderberry longhorn 4.1.10. Develop partnerships with other agen- beetle, and vernal pool plant and animal cies, universities, or NGOs to conduct research species (USFWS 1984, 1999a, 2005a). and monitoring that supports threatened and 4.1.3. Implement giant garter snake avoidance endangered species conservation on the WMAs. measures, including conducting surveys prior 4.1.11. Support the actions identified in the to any planned work activities where hiber- various recovery plans for threatened and nation areas may be disturbed, as described endangered salmonids (NOAA 2014). in its Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 1999d). Objective 4.2: Easement – Threatened and 4.1.4. Assist with the development and imple- Endangered Species. mentation of reintroduction and introduction programs to restore extirpated populations Work with willing landowners to protect, (USFWS 2005a) for the following: hairy Orcutt restore and enhance threatened and endan- grass, Green’s tuctoria, Hoover’s spurge, gered species (Appendix L) populations vernal pool saltbush, Ferris milk-vetch, and their habitats on easement lands. Conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy Rationale: shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and other recovery plan species, where appropriate. Federally-listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species are trust responsibil- 4.1.5. Support management-oriented research, ities under the jurisdiction of the Service. such as the effects of various vegetation man- Threatened and endangered species, as well as agement techniques for the control of invasive those proposed for Federal listing, may become plant species or describe soil and water charac- extinct due to habitat destruction, habitat teristics (e.g., profile, texture, duripan, salinity, degradation and other environmental factors. alkalinity) of species-specific reference pools Easement lands provide habitats that help for vernal pool habitat restoration projects. support threatened and endangered species 4.1.6. Support research for actions identified populations and may enhance species survival. in recovery plans that promote the recovery Where appropriate, the Service will work of threatened and endangered species such cooperatively with willing easement landowners as: cooperative range-wide and directed pop- to help achieve goals and objectives described ulation status and habitat condition surveys; in the various recovery and management plans seed/cyst collections/banking; genetics and for the threatened and endangered species demography for conservation and reintro- (Appendix L) occurring within the WMAs. duction/introduction; and effects of habitat WMA easement management strategies sup- management (USFWS 2005a, 2007a). port many of the goals and objectives of Federal 4.1.7. On Service-owned lands, document all and State threatened and endangered species observations of and habitat use by species recovery and management plans. This objec- Federally-listed as threatened and endangered. tive also helps to achieve Central Valley and Bay-Delta Region Conservation Action C in the 4.1.8. Provide annual and periodic Refuge mon- California Wildlife Action Plan (CDFG 2005c). itoring survey information on listed species to appropriate State (CDFW State Office, Habitat Strategies: Conservation Planning Branch, Region 2 Office) 4.2.1. Develop suggested habitat and Federal agencies (USFWS–Sacramento management recommendations for Fish and Wildlife Office, Permit Coordinator, easement lands with regard to endan- Endangered Species and Recovery branches). gered species and their habitats.

146 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

4.2.2. Help disseminate suggested endan- Conservation Cooperative (LCC) to imple- gered species habitat management ment portions of the CVJV Monitoring and recommendations and avoidance mea- Evaluation Plans, and other relevant mon- sures to easement landowners. itoring activities that address the effects of climate change to Service trust resources. 4.2.3. Work with willing landowners to implement activities described in the var- 5.1.2. Develop partnerships with local, ious recovery plans for Federal and State state, and Federal land protection agen- listed threatened and endangered species and organizations and learn about cies on appropriate easement lands. their long-term, ecosystem goals for the Central Valley eco-region. 4.2.4. Promote incentive programs to restore and enhance endangered species habitat on 5.1.3. Collaborate with partners to implement easement lands with willing landowners. appropriate land protection and management recommendations that address climate change. GOAL 5: Climate Change 5.1.4. Facilitate research that evaluates Maintain and enhance current habi- the effects of climate change on water tat values under anticipated climate supply/availability, migratory bird use change scenarios in the Central Valley. patterns, special status species, inva- Objective 5.1: Climate Change Adaptation. sive species, and habitat changes. Within 5 years, identify and document 5.1.5. Use research results to inform ease- changes in migratory bird use patterns ment acquisition and management decisions. and modify, as needed, management objec- Objective 5.2: Climate Change Mitigation. tives for Service-owned lands and easement objectives to address the changes. Assess and minimize the carbon footprint of Service operations and management on Rationale: Service-owned lands. Reduce the Refuge’s Climate change is already affecting wildlife energy consumption 2 percent annually to throughout the state (Parmesan and Galbraith reach a 30 percent reduction in fuel and 2004), and its effects will continue to increase. electricity consumption in 15 years. It has particular significance for this region’s Rationale: major river systems. For the Central Valley, this means more intense winter flooding, Climate change is already affecting wildlife greater erosion of riparian habitats, and throughout the State (Parmesan and Galbraith increased sedimentation in wetland habitats 2004), and its effects will continue to increase. (Field et al., 1999, Hayhoe et al., 2004). For the It has particular significance for this region’s Central Valley, the effects of climate change major river systems. Depending on the are likely to include reduced snow pack, longer, model and assumptions, scientists project more frequent droughts, hotter, drier sum- that the average annual temperature in mers, and lower spring/summer river flows, California to rise between 4 and 10.5°F above may reduce water supplies and increase the the current average temperature by the end water needs of both people and wildlife. This is of the century (Hayhoe et al., 2004). Within 50 likely to translate into less water for wildlife, years, average winter time temperatures are especially fish and wetland-dependent species. expected to rise between 2 and 2.5 degrees. A Strategies: rise in this range would substantially reduce annual snowpack and increase fire frequency 5.1.1. Work with partners to assess the potential and intensity. By mid-century, the Sierra effects of climate change and adapt manage- snowpack could be reduced by 25 to 40 percent ment to address these effects. Coordinate and by as much as 70 percent at the end of the with CVJV and California Landscape

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 147 Chapter 4 century (duVair 2003). The snow season would a family or a business that involve burning be shortened, starting later and melting sooner, fossil fuels. The Refuge could also serve as a while the fire season would be longer and leader in the community to encourage neigh- hotter. The reduction of snowpack and more bors to reduce their own carbon footprints. extreme fire conditions would have cascading Strategies: effects on water resources, plant communities, and wildlife. Hotter temperatures, combined 5.2.1. Replace Service vehicles with more with lower river flows, will dramatically fuel-efficient vehicles (e.g., hybrid, electric) as increase the water needs of both people and replacement need arises and funding permits. wildlife. This is likely to translate into less 5.2.2. Retrofit existing Complex facilities to water for wildlife, especially fish and wetland increase energy efficiency (e.g., use com- species (CDFG 2005d). This objective also helps pact fluorescent bulbs, increase insulation, to achieve Statewide Conservation Action I and replace single-paned windows incre- in the California Wildlife Action Plan (CDFG mentally, as replacement need arises). 2005d). This objective meets with the Service’s climate change policy (for more information 5.2.3. Service staff will use telephone or on applicable policies, see Appendix N), which computer video conference capabilities when- recommends reducing Refuge staff carbon ever possible to reduce carbon emissions. footprint to offset climate change impacts. The 5.2.4. Continue to meet or exceed the “carbon footprint” is defined by the Federal Service’s requirements for recycling and EPA as a measure of greenhouse gases using recycled goods at the Complex. that are produced by activities of a person,

Lesser Sandhill Cranes, Llano Seco Unit. Photo: USFWS

148 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Chapter 5. Plan Implementation Once the CCP has been approved and the 1. Funding and Staffing Service has notified the public of its decision, the implementation phase of the CCP process To implement the proposed action and to will begin. During the next 15 years, the objec- achieve the objectives and goals of this CCP, tives and strategies presented in this CCP will the Service will need additional funding. Needs be implemented; the CCP will serve as the are recorded in the Service Asset Maintenance primary reference document for all Refuge Management System and Refuge Operating planning, operations, and management until Needs System (RONS) for the Refuge System. it is formally revised at the end of the 15-year Maintenance projects include repair and period. The Service will implement the final replacement of existing buildings and facilities CCP with assistance from existing and new and removal of unneeded infrastructure. RONS partner agencies, organizations, and the public. projects are proposed new projects that do not represent replacement of existing equipment CCPs provide long-term guidance for manage- or facilities. RONS projects in this CCP include ment decisions and set forth goals, objectives, habitat restoration, wildlife monitoring, and and strategies needed to accomplish refuge visitor services programs. It is important to purposes and identify the Service’s best note that additional projects proposed in this estimate of future needs. These plans detail CCP will be added to the RONS list during program planning levels that may exceed the life of this CCP. The estimated initial cap- current budget allocations and, as such, are ital outlay (one-time costs) to implement the primarily for Service strategic planning and actions described in the CCP is approximately program prioritization purposes. Plans do $1,037,000 (Table 9). Not all of these capital not guarantee a commitment of resources. expenditures would occur in the same year. Activities required to accomplish the man- The estimated annual recurring cost to fully agement strategies discussed in this CCP implement the CCP is approximately $1.1 are referred to as projects. Every effort will million (Table 10). However, costs must be be made to implement these projects by the incrementally increased for inflation and addi- deadlines established here. However, the tional activities such as new research studies. timing of implementation of the manage- The WMAs are managed from the Sacramento ment activities proposed in this document NWR Complex. While the Service’s ease- is contingent upon the following factors: ment manager is permanently assigned to Funding WMA-related duties, the WMAs also receive management, biological, law enforcement, Staffing maintenance, visitor services, and adminis- Completion of step-down manage- trative assistance from staff that support the ment plans (detailed plans) entire Sacramento NWR Complex. Salaries constitute a significant cost of implementing Compliance with other Federal regulations the CCP. Funding for 3 additional permanent Partnerships staff is needed to implement the objectives Results of monitoring and evaluation and strategies of the CCP (Table 10).

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 149 Chapter 5

The needs and costs shown in the tables expenditures are followed by a reference to below are best estimates and may not entirely the number of the strategy (from Chapter 4) reflect the costs of managing the WMAs. The that the expenditure implements or supports.

Table 9. Estimated initial capital outlay to fully implement the CCP.

Priority Expenditure (related strategies) Unit Cost [1, 2 or 3] Develop easement outreach materials for wetland and agricultural landowners $5,000 1 (presentations, brochures, mailings, website (1.2.2.) Contract with Hydrologist to inventory water rights/supply on existing $150,000 1 easement properties (1.7.1.) Restore 15 acres of seasonal wetlands on the Llano Seco Unit (2.4.1.) $15,000 1 Restore 200 acres of native grassland/oak savanna on the Llano Seco Unit $500,000 2 (2.7.5.) At Butte Sink WMA, restore and enhance riparian habitat along Butte Creek (Up to 30 acres; 10 acres riparian forest at $3,000/acre, 20 acres mixed forest/ $60,000 2 grassland at $1,500/acre) (2.8.3.) At Llano Seco Unit, replace (2) viewing platforms to comply with ADA and $300,000 1 engineering safety requirements (3.1.3.) At Llano Seco Unit, install spotting scope on interior viewing platform (3.1.4.) $5,000 3 At Llano Seco Unit, maintain loafing island in Tract 12 and enhance loafing $2,000 2 habitat near viewing platform (3.1.5., 3.2.1.) Total Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline and North Central Valley WMAs $1,037,000 CCP (estimated capital outlay)

150 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Plan Implementation

Table 10. Estimated annual cost to fully implement the CCP1

Quantity Expenditure Status Unit Total Cost (FTE) Salaries and Benefits2 Project Leader – GS-14 Existing FTE 0.20 Deputy Project Leader-GS-13 FTE 0.20 Easement Manager – GS-12 Existing FTE 1.0 Assistant Manager Sacramento River NWR-GS-12 Existing FTE .35 Assistant Manager Colusa NWR-GS-12 Existing FTE 0.15 Private Lands Wildlife Biologist – GS-11 Existing FTE 0.5 Supervisory Wildlife Biologist-GS-12 Existing FTE 0.10 Wildlife Biologist-GS-11 Existing FTE 0.40 Wildlife Biologist-GS-9 Existing FTE 0.10 Engineering Equipment Operator Colusa Existing FTE 0.15 NWR-WG-9 Maintenance Worker Sacramento River Existing FTE 0.50 NWR-WG-7 Tractor Operator Colusa NWR-WG-6 Existing FTE 0.15 Maintenance Worker-WG-7/8 Existing FTE 0.25 Park Ranger-GS-7/9 Existing FTE 0.10 Park Ranger-GS-9 Existing FTE 0.10 Law Enforcement Officer-GL-9 Existing FTE 0.15 Administrative Officer-GS-9 Existing FTE 0.10 - Vacant Budget Technician-GS-6 Existing FTE 0.10 Forestry Technician-GS-5 Existing FTE 0.20 Tractor Operator – WG-6 Proposed and FTE 1.0 To fulfill Goals 1, 2 and 4 unfunded Wildlife Biologist– GS-11 Proposed and FTE 1.0 To fulfill Goals 1, 2, and 4 unfunded Wildlife Refuge Specialist – GS-11 Proposed and FTE 1.0 To fulfill Goals 1, 2, and 4 unfunded Subtotal - Salaries and Benefits2 FTE 7.8 $684,895

Expenditures Cost

Programs Maintenance (repairs, replacement, rentals, etc.) $82,000 Water Costs3 252,000 Water Quality Monitoring $1,800 Travel/Training $10,000 Supplies $24,000

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 151 Chapter 5

Expenditures Cost

Programs Printing $2,000 Utilities $4,000 Custodial Services $4,500 Subtotal Programs $380,300 Total (annual salaries and benefits budget and annual programs budget) $1,065,195 1 Staffing and funding would be sought over the 15-year life of this Plan subject to approval and funding by Congress. 2 Estimates are based on 2014 salary levels with 30% added for benefits. Existing salaries are calculated using the current grade and step level of the position; proposed salaries are calculated using the highest grade the position will attain at a step 1 level. 3 Includes current costs at LSU and Butte Sink Unit. This reflects full build-out of future fee title wetland restoration (3,000 acres at 4ft/ac and $15/af).

2. Step-Down Management Plans activities and to ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System land and waters. The Some objectives in the CCP require more 1997 Improvement Act is the key legislation detailed planning than the CCP process on managing public uses and compatibility. is designed to provide. For these projects, the Service will refer to step-down man- Before activities or uses are allowed on a agement plans and other plans to provide refuge or in this case, Service-owned WMA additional details necessary to implement lands, uses must be found to be compatible objectives and strategies in the CCP. A through a written compatibility determination. number of step-down plans for Service- A compatible use is defined as a proposed or owned lands will be developed or updated existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or after completion of the CCP, including: any other use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional judgment, will not Visitor Services Plan materially interfere with or detract from the Resource Inventory and Monitoring Plan fulfillment of the Refuge System mission or the purposes of the refuge or WMA. Sound profes- The following step-down plans were completed sional judgment is defined as a decision that is for the Complex as part of the Sacramento, consistent with the principles of the Service’s Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter NWRs’ CCP, management and administration, available apply to the Service-owned lands in the science and resources, and adherence to the WMAs, and are incorporated by reference. requirements of the 1997 Improvement Act Habitat Management Plan and other applicable laws. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge Integrated Pest Management Plan and Service-owned lands when they are com- Disease Contingency Plan patible and not inconsistent with public safety. Fire Management Plan Compatibility determinations for environmental education and interpretation, 3. Compatibility Determination grazing, mosquito monitoring and manage- Federal law and policy provide the direction ment, plant material gathering, research, and planning framework to protect the Refuge hunting, and wildlife observation and pho- System from incompatible or harmful human tography are included in Appendix B.

152 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas Plan Implementation 4. Compliance Requirements concerted effort will be made to obtain information. With new information, goals and objectives This CCP was developed to comply with all may need modification. Public involvement will Federal laws, Executive orders, and legisla- be encouraged during the evaluation process. tive acts. For information on applicable laws and regulations, see the Legal and Policy Monitoring of visitor services programs will Guidance section in Chapter 1 and Appendix N. involve the collection of visitor use statistics. Monitoring will be done to evaluate the 5. Partnership Opportunities effects of visitor services on WMA habitat, wildlife populations, and visitor experience. Volunteer and Friends Organizations efforts are critical to the achievement of Refuge or WMA 7. Adaptive Management objectives and strategies. The Sacramento NWR Complex has partnered with governmen- An adaptive approach involves exploring tal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, alterna¬tive ways to meet management objec- and individuals to conduct wildlife monitoring, tives, predicting the outcomes of alternatives habitat restoration, and facility maintenance based on the current state of knowledge, activities. These partners play an important implementing one or more of these alterna- role in helping the Service achieve its mis- tives, monitoring to learn about the impacts sion and the Refuge’s or WMA’s goals. The of management actions, and then using the Service will continue to rely on these and other results to update knowledge and adjust partners in the future to help implement this management actions (Williams and Brown CCP and to provide input for future CCP 2012). Adaptive management promotes flex- updates. In addition, the Service will continue ible, effective decision making that can be to explore other potential avenues for part- adjusted in the face of uncertainties as out- nerships and assistance in the monitoring and comes of management actions and other restoration of the WMA Service-owned lands events become better understood. Careful and easement lands with willing owners. monitoring of these outcomes advances understanding of the system and helps adjust 6. Monitoring and Evaluation policies. Adaptive management incorporates natural variability in evaluating ecological This CCP is designed to be in effect for a resilience and productivity (Trulio et al. 2007). 15-year period. The Plan will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure that estab- Adaptive management provides the frame- lished goals and objectives are still applicable. work within which biological measures and The monitoring program will focus on issues public use can be evaluated by comparing the involving visitor services activities, habitat results of management to the expected results restoration, wildlife monitoring, and other of objectives. Under the CCP, habitat, wildlife, management activities. Monitoring and eval- and public use management techniques and uation will use the adaptive management specific objectives would be regularly evalu- process. This process includes goal and objec- ated as the results of monitoring programs, tive setting, and applying management tools new technology, and other information become and strategies, followed by monitoring and available. These periodic evaluations would be analysis to measure achievement of objec- used over time to adapt both the management tives and to refine management techniques. objectives and the strategies to better achieve management goals. Such a system embraces Collection of baseline data on native wildlife uncertainty, reduces option foreclosure, and populations will continue. This data will be provides new information for future decision used to update existing species lists, determine making, while allowing resource use. The habitat requirements, and guide manage- management scenario proposed in this CCP ment actions. Where information gaps exist, a provides for ongoing adaptive management

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 153 Chapter 5 of the Service-owned WMA lands. The CCP until they are reevaluated as part of the for- may be amended as necessary at any time mal CCP revision process. However, the in keeping with the adaptive management objectives and strategies may be revised to strategy. However, major changes to the CCP better address changing circumstances or to may require public involvement processes take advantage of increased knowledge of the and additional NEPA compliance documen- resources on the WMAs. It is the intent of the tation. The Project Leader will determine Service that this CCP apply to any new lands the appropriate public involvement and that may be acquired as part of the WMAs. NEPA compliance requirements. Plan revi- If revisions to the objectives and strategies sions are discussed in the next section. are needed, the Project Leader will determine the appropriate public involvement and 8. Plan Amendment and Revision associated NEPA compliance requirements. The CCP is intended to evolve as the WMAs The intent of the CCP is for progress toward change; to this end, the 1997 Improvement Act and/or achievement of CCP objectives during specifically requires that CCPs be formally the lifetime of the Plan. Management activities revised and updated at least every 15 years. would be phased in over time, and imple- The formal revision process would follow the mentation is contingent upon and subject same steps as the CCP creation process. In the to the results of monitoring and evaluation, meantime, the Service will review and update funding through Congressional appropri- this CCP periodically if needed, based on the ations and other sources, and staffing. results of the adaptive management program. While preparing annual work plans and updating the Refuge database, Service 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

Sacramento Valley Species. Illustration: J. Isola

154 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas References Airola, D.A. and T.C. Messick. 1987. Sliding toward extinction: the state of California’s natural heritage, 1987. Report prepared at the request of the California Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife. 123 pp. Anderson, M.K. 2005. Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and the management of California’s natural resources. University of California Press, Berkeley. Anderson, M.K. 2006. The use of fire by Native Americans in California. Pages 417-430 in: Sugihara, N.G., J.W. van Wagtendonk, J. Fites-Kaufman, K.E. Shaffer, and A.E. Thode (eds.). Fire in California’s ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley. 578 p. Audubon. 2002. Cooling the hotspots: protecting America’s birds, wildlife and natural heritage from invasive species. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83979. Barr, C. 1991. The Distribution, Habitat, and Status of the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus. Sacramento, CA. Barry, S. 2003. Using planned grazing to manage for native grasslands. Pages 1–10 in Section 14, Grazing. Techniques and Strategies for Using Native Crass and Graminoids in Revegetation and Restoration. California Native Grass Association. Bay Institute. 1998. From the Sierra to the Sea: the ecological history of the San Francisco Bay- Delta Watershed. The Bay Institute. San Francisco, CA. 240 pp. Begg, E.L. 1968. Soil Survey of Glenn County, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. Berlanga, H., J.A. Kennedy, T.D. Rich, M.C. Arizmendi, C.J. Beardmore, P.J. Blancher, G.S. Butcher, A.R. Couturier, A.A. Dayer, D.W. Demarest, W.E. Easton, M. Gustafson, E. Iñigo- Elias, E.A. Krebs, A.O. Panjabi, V. Rodriguez Contreras, K.V. Rosenberg, J.M. Ruth, E. Santana Castellón, R. Ma. Vidal, T. Will. 2010. Saving Our Shared Birds: Partners in Flight Tri-National Vision for Landbird Conservation. Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ithaca, NY. Bogiatto, R.J. and J.D. Karnegis. 2006. The use of eastern Sacramento Valley vernal pools by ducks. California Fish and Game 92(3):125–141. Bogiatto, R.J., S.M. Wright-Meyers, S.H. Kraus, J.L. Moore and J.W. Hunt. 2009. The use of eastern Sacramento Valley vernal pools by geese and swans. California Fish and Game 95(4):175–187. 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 diaphanous. Prévost (Branchiopoda: Anostraca) in Britain. Journal of Natural History 24:955–964. Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill. 2001. United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, Second Edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 64 pp. Burkett, D. and A. Conlin. 2006. Soil Survey of Butte Area California, Parts of Butte and Plumas Counties. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (in Cooperation with the Regents of the University of California and the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service), Washington, D.C.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 155 References

Buchsbaum, R., J. Wilson, and I. Valiela. 1986. Digestibility of plant constituents by Canada geese and Atlantic brant. Ecology 67:386–393. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2010. CA25N – Total full-time and part-time employment by North American Industry Classification System. http://bea.gov/itable/iTable. cfm?ReqID=70&step=1#reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1. California Agricultural Statistics Review. 2011. California Agricultural Statistics Review 2011-2012, accessed online April 23, 2012, at: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/ ResourceDirectory_2011-2012.pdf. California Department of Conservation. 2011. California Farmland Conversion Report 2006-2008. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/2006-2008.aspx. California Department of Finance. 2012a. “Interim Population Projections for California and Its Counties 2010-2050.” Sacramento, CA. http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/ reports/projections/view.php. California Department of Finance. 2012b. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State – 2011-2015 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, CA. http://www.dof.ca.gov/ research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-4/2011-20/view.php. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2005a. The Status of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of California 2000-2004. Sacramento, California. 589 pp. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2005b. Existing Program Summary: Central Valley salmon and steelhead monitoring programs. Contributors: Interagency Ecological Program Salmonid Escapement Project Work Team and Juvenile Monitoring Project Work Team; Alice Low, editor. CDFG Report, August 2005. 171 pp. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2005c. California Wildlife Conservation Challenges California’s Action Plan. Prepared by U.C. Davis Wildlife Health Center for the CDFG. Sacramento, CA. 624 pp. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2005d. California wildlife conservation challenges, California’s wildlife action plan. Prepared by the U.C. Davis Wildlife Health Center. ISBN: 978-0-9722291-2-4. http://dfg.ca.gov/SWAP/2005/docs/SWAP- 2005.pdf. California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Department of Agriculture-APHIS/Wildlife Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Point Reyes Bird Observatory, and California Waterfowl Association, in conjunction with Pacific Flyway Council, Pacific Flyway Study Committee, and Pacific Flyway Non-game Technical Committee. 2006. Draft 7/5/06, Surveillance for early detection of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI H5N1) in wild birds. 2006-07 California Sampling Plan, CDFG Report. 15 pp. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. Project update: Tule white-fronted geese, July 2014. Report submitted to Pacific Flyway Study Committee, July 2014. California Department of Public Health, Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California, and University of California. 2015. California Mosquito-borne Virus Surveillance and Response Plan. April. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/vbds/ Documents/2015CAResponsePlan.pdf. California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), Reclamation, USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. Environmental Water Account Draft

156 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas References

Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Impact Report. July 2003. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, CA. California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program. 2014. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 21 August 2014]. California Partners in Flight (CPIF). 2000. Version 1.0. The draft grassland bird conservation plan: a strategy for protecting and managing grassland habitats and associated birds in California (B. Allen, lead author). Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html. California State University, Chico (CSUC). 1998. Butte Creek Watershed Project: Existing Conditions Report. Prepared for: Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy. Prepared by: California State University, Chico. Carpenter, M. 1999. Giant garter snakes: are they really giant? California Waterfowl 26(4):41–43. Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture (CVHJV). 1990. Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture Implementation Plan – A component of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. 102 pp. Central Valley Joint Venture (CVJV). 2006. Central Valley Joint Venture Implementation Plan – Conserving Bird Habitat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. Collins, D.P., and R.E. Trost. 2010. 2010 Pacific Flyway Data Book – Waterfowl Harvests and Status, Hunter Participation and Success in the Pacific Flyway and United States, September 28, 2010. USFWS Rep. Div. of Migratory Bird Management, Portland, OR. 105 pp. Colwell, M.A. and S.L. Dodd. 1995. Waterbird communities and habitat relationships in coastal pastures of northern California. Conservation Biology 9:827–834. Conservation Biology Institute. 2008. Protected Areas Database US 1.1. Data extracted using Headwaters Economics Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit. Available at: http://www.consbio.org/products/projects/pad-us-11-cbi-edition. Coppoletta, M. and B. Moritsch. 2001. Taking steps toward long-term preservation of the Sonoma spineflower. Fremontia 29(2):23–25. Dahl, Thomas. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 13pp. Davis, L.H. and R.J. Sherman. 1992. Ecological study of the rare Chorizanthe valida (Polygonaceae) at Point Reyes National Seashore, California. Madroño 39 (4):271–280. Derugin, V.V. 2013. Response of mammalian predators to corridor restoration along the middle Sacramento River. M.S. Thesis, Department of Biology, San Francisco State University. Dettling, M.D. and C.A. Howell. 2011. Status of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo along the Sacramento River in 2010. Report to California Department of Fish and Game. PRBO Contribution #1794. Dileanis, P.D., S.K. Sorenson, S.E. Schwarzbach, and T.C. Maurer. 1992. Reconnaissance Investigation of Water Quality, Bottom Sediment, and Biota Associated With Irrigation Drainage in the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex, California, 1988-89. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 92-4036. Sacramento, CA. 79 pp.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 157 References

Domagalski, J. 1998. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 64 (1998) 277–291. Occurrence and transport of total mercury and methyl mercury in the Sacramento River Basin, California. U.S. Geological Survey, Placer Hall, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819-6129, U.S.A.. Accepted 8 June 1998. Ducks Unlimited. 2005a. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Tracts AB and C – Restoration of priority wetlands for special-status species. Proposal to the Central Valley Project Conservation Program, February 28, 2005. Ducks Unlimited, Inc., West. Reg. Office, Rancho Cordova, CA, 13 pp. Ducks Unlimited. 2005b. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Tracts G and H – Restoration of priority wetlands for special-status species. Proposal to the Central Valley Project Conservation Program, December 15, 2005. Ducks Unlimited, Inc., West. Reg. Office, Rancho Cordova, CA, 14 pp. Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 2008. Llano Seco Unit, Tract 17 Vernal Pool Restoration Engineering Plans (CA–0423–002). Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Western Regional Office, Rancho Cordova, CA. de Tristan, M. 1961. Llano Seco Rancho 1861-1961. Parrott Investment Company. Chico, CA. 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). Eddings, R. and J. Eadie. 2003. Avian Disease in the Central Valley of California: A Survey of Trends from 1980-2001. Rep. to Central Valley Joint Venture, 32 pp. Edwards, S.W. 1992. Observations on the prehistory and ecology of grazing in California. Fremontia 20(1):3–11. Edwards, S.W. 1996. A rancholabrean-age, latest Pleistocene bestiary for California botany. The Four Seasons 10(2):5–34. Elphick, C.S. 1998. Waterbird conservation and ecology: the role of rice field management in habitat restoration. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno. Eng, L.L. 1981. Distribution, life history, and status of the California freshwater shrimp, Syncaris pacifica (Holmes). California Department of Fish and Game. Inland Fisheries Endangered Species Program Special Publication 81-1. 27 pages. Eriksen, C. and D. Belk 1999. Fairy Shrimps of California’s Puddles, Pools, and Playas. Mad River Press, Inc., Eureka, California. 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. Frayer, W. E., D.D. Peters, and H.R. Pywell. 1989. Wetlands of the California Central Valley: Status and Trends 1939 to mid–1980s. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 29 pp. Frost, C.C. 1998. Presettlement fire regimes of the United States: a first approximation. Pages 70-81 in: Pruden, T.L. and L.A. Brennan, eds. Fire in ecosystem management: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 20. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. Gaines, D. 1974. A new look at the nesting riparian avifauna of the Sacramento Valley, California. Western Birds 5(3):61-79.

158 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas References

Gaines, D.F. 1977. The valley riparian forests of California: their importance to bird populations. Pages 57-85 In: A. Sands (editor), Riparian Forests of California: Their Ecology and Conservation. Institute of Ecology Publication No. 15, University of California, Davis. 122 pp. Garcia, D. 2009. Spatial and temporal patterns of the Bank Swallow on the Sacramento River. M.S. Thesis, Department of Environmental Science, California State University, Chico. 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. Gilbart, M. 2009. The Health of Blue Elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) and colonization by the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) in restored riparian habitat. M.S. Thesis, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Chico. Gilmer, D.S., M.R. Miller, R.D. Bauer, and J.R. LeDonne. 1982. California’s Central Valley Wintering Waterfowl: Concerns and Challenges. Trans. 47th N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. pp. 441-452. Gilmer, D.S., K.A. Gonzalez, M.A. Wolder, and N.R. Graves. 1998. Nongame and upland gamebird surveys on Sacramento Valley National Wildlife Refuges, 1986-1993. Western Birds 29:83-102. Gilmer, D.S., J.L. Yee, D.M. Mauser, and J.L. Hainline. 2004. Waterfowl migration on Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges 1953-2001: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2003-0004. 66 pp. Goldschmidt, W. 1978. Nomlaki. Pages 341–349 In: R.F. Heizer (editor). Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California. Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C. Griggs, F.T. 2000. Vina Plains Preserve: eighteen years of adaptive management. Fremontia 27(4) and 18(1): 48–51. Gottschalk Fisher, E. 2013. Road to recovery: introduction of two rare vernal pool grasses, Green’s tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei) and Colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana). M.S. Thesis, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Chico. Guyn, K. 2004. Canary of the Prairie. Ducks Unlimited Conservator 25-2: 16-19. Halstead, J.A. and J.A. Oldham. 1990. Revision of the near arctic Desmocerus Audinet- Serville with emphasis on the federally threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Coleoptera:Cerambycidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 76:74-76. 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 Dixon Field Station, 6924 Tremont Rd, Dixon, CA 95620. Hamilton, W. J., III. 1998. Tricolored blackbird itinerant breeding in California. Condor 100(2):218-226. Hammond, J.E. 2011. Habitat characteristics of the Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo in restored forests on the Sacramento River. M.S. Thesis, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Chico. Hanson, N.W. 1944. As I remember. Published by the author, Chico,CA.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 159 References

Harwood, D.S., and E.J. Helley. 1982. Preliminary Structure Contour Map of the Sacramento Valley, California, Showing Contours of Major Structural Features and Depth to Basement. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-737, Scale 1:250,000. 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, Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, Canada. Helley, E.J. and D.S. Harwood. 1985. Geologic Map of the Late Cenozoic Deposits of the Sacramento Valley and Northern Sierran Foothills, California. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1790, Scale 1:62,500. Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird Management Manual. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, Manomet, MA. 58pp. Hickey et al., 2002. Southern Pacific Shorebird Conservation Plan [pg 25] Hickey, C., W.D. Shuford, G.W. Page, and S. Warnock. 2002. Hickey, C., J. Wood, L. Stenzel, R. DiGaudio, G. Page, L. Culp, C. Tonra, K. Kreitinger, and G. Geupel. 2006. Avian monitoring on private lands: measuring bird response to easement, restoration, enhancement, and incentive programs in the Central Valley. PRBO Conservation Science Contribution #1255. Petaluma, CA. 209 pp. Hinds, N.E. 1952. Evolution of the California Landscape. San Francisco: California Division of Mines. Hobbs, J.H. 1999. Fall and winter distribution and habitat use of the tule greater white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons gambelli) in the Sacramento Valley, California. M.S. Thesis, Cal. State Univ., Sacramento. 84 pp. Holland, R.F. 1978. The Geographic and Edaphic Distribution of Vernal Pools in the Great Central Valley, California. Special Publication No. 4. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 12 pp. + 2 maps. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of terrestrial natural communities of California. Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Holland, R.F. 1998. Great Valley vernal pool distribution, photorevised 1996. Pages 71-75 in: C.W. Witham, E.T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (Eds.). Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems – Proceedings from a 1996 conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Holland, R.F. and S. Jain. 1988. Vernal pools. Pages 515–533 in M. Barbour and J. Major (Editors). Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Special Publication No. 9. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Holland, R.F. and C.L. Roye. 1989. Great Valley riparian habitats and the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. Pages 69-73 In: D.L. Abell (editor). Proceedings of the California Riparian Systems Conference: Protection, Management, and Restoration for the 1990s. U.S. Department of Agriculture General Technical Report PSW-110. 544 pp.

160 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas References

Holmes, L.C., J.W. Nelson and party. 1915. Reconnaissance soil survey of the Sacramento Valley. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils, Washington, D.C. Huenneke, L.F. 1989. Distribution and regional patterns of California grasslands. In: Huenneke, L.F., and Mooney, H.A. (eds). Grassland structure and function: California annual grassland. Kluwere Academic Press, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 1-12. Interagency Asian H5N1 Early Detection Working Group. 2006. An early detection system for Asian H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild migratory birds: U.S. Interagency Strategic Plan. Unpubl. Rept. Report to the Dept. of Homeland Security, Policy Coordinating Committee for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness. Isola, C.R. 1998. Habitat use by foraging waterbirds in the Grasslands of California’s Northern San Joaquin Valley. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, CA. 75 pp. Isola, J.E. 2000. Population assessment and distribution of the yellow-billed cuckoo on the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex and some surrounding areas, California. Progress Rep.-Nov. 2000. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge files, 21 pp. Johnson, P. 1978. Patwin. Pages 350–360 In: R.F. Heizer (editor). Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California. Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C. Jones & Stokes. 2001. Butte Sink Cooperative Management Plan. Final. December. (J&S 00-062.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared in association with MBK Engineers and Lennihan Law. Prepared for California Waterfowl Association, Willows, CA. Katibah, E.F. 1984. A brief history of riparian forests in the Central Valley of California. In Warner, R.E., and K.M. Hendrix (eds.). California riparian systems: ecology, conservation, and productive management. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley, CA. Kempka, R.G. and R.P. Kollasch. 1990. Recommendations for using remote sensing to evaluate waterfowl habitat in California. Pages 188–196 in: Yosemite Centennial Symposium and Proceedings of the 17th Natural Areas Conference. Concord, CA. Kirsch, L.M. 1969. Waterfowl production in relation to grazing. Journal of Wildlife Management 33:821-828. Knopf, F.L. and J.R. Rupert. 1995. Habits and habitats of mountain plovers in California. The Condor 97:743–751. Krueper, D.J. 1993. Effects of land use practices on western riparian ecosystems. Pages 321–330 in D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel (editors), Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-229, Fort Collins, CO. Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M. Acosta, 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., U.S.A., 78 pp. Kwasny, D.C., M. Wolder, and C.R. Isola. 2004. Central Valley Joint Venture Technical Guide To Best Management Practices For Mosquito Control In Managed Wetlands. 39 pp. Lawler, S.P., T. Jensen, and D.A. Dritz. 1997. Effects of ultra-low volume applications of pyrethrin, malathion, and permethrin on macro-invertebrates in the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, California. Mosquito management on national wildlife refuges ecosystem effects

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 161 References

study, Phase II, Part 1. Final Rep. to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coop. Agreement No. 14-48-0001-94582. 102 pp. Lawler, S.P., Dritz, D.A., Johnson, C.S. and Wolder, M. 2008. Does synergized pyrethrin applied over wetlands for mosquito control affect Daphnia magna zooplankton or Callibaetis californicus mayflies? Pest Management Science. 64: 843–847. doi: 10.1002/ps.1575. Laymon, S.A. 1998. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccycus americanus). In 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/htmldocs/species/ riparian/yellow-billed_cuckoo.htm. Laymon, S.A. and M.D. Halterman. 1989. A proposed habitat management plan for Yellow-billed Cuckoos in California. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110 p 272-277. Loughman, D.L., J.A. Laughlin, and E. Burns. 2004. Evaluating the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program in California. Final Report prepared by California Waterfowl Association for CDFG. Agreement No. P0180089. 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. Mason, H.L. 1957. A Flora of the Marshes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 878 pp. McKnight, Tom L. and D. Hess. 2005. Physical Geography: A Landscape Appreciation, 8/E; Tom L. McKnight, University of California, Los Angeles; Darrel Hess, City College of San Francisco. ISBN-10: 0131451391, ISBN-13: 9780131451391, Prentice Hall. McLandress, M.R., G.S. Yarris, A.E.H. Perkins, D.P. Connelly, and D.G. Raveling. 1996. Nesting biology of mallards in California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 60(1):94-107. 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. Mensik, J.G. 1990. Managing “emergent cover.” California Waterfowl 17 (Summer):30–31. Mensik, J.G. 1993b. Barnyard grass for waterfowl. California Waterfowl 20 (Spring):41–42. Mensik, J.G. and P. O’Halloran. 1990. Monitoring marsh management of the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 26:24–28. Mensik, J.G., and F.A. Reid. 1995. Managing problem vegetation. Ducks Unlimited Valley Habitats Series, Number 7, 8pp. Mensik, J.G. and M.D. Samuel. 1995. Studying snow geese and avian cholera. California Waterfowl (October/November): 16. Miller, M.R. 1987. Fall and winter foods of northern pintails in the Sacramento Valley, California. Miller, M.R., D.C. Duncan, K. Guyn, P. Flint, and J. Austin. 2003. Proceedings of the Northern Pintail Workshop, March 23-25, 2001, Sacramento, CA. Part 1 in The northern pintail in North America: The problem and prescription for recovery. 38 pp.

162 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas References

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. Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Naylor, L.W. 2002. Evaluating moist-soil seed production and management in Central Valley wetlands to determine habitat needs for waterfowl. M.S. Thesis. University California, Davis, CA. 80 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005. National Marine Fisheries Service. Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) status review (February 2005). Biological Review Team, Santa Cruz Laboratory, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries, Santa Cruz CA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014. National Marine Fisheries Service. Recovery Plan for the Evolutionarily Significant Units of Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon and Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon and the Distinct Population Segment of California Central Valley Steelhead. California Central Valley Area Office. July 2014. Olson, B. In Draft. Cost-effective moist-soil management in the Sacramento Valley: Experimental evaluation of management techniques on the Roosevelt Ranch, California. M.S. Thesis (in draft), Univ. Calif. Davis, Davis, CA. Oswald, V. H. and L. Ahart. 1996. Vascular Plants of the Llano Seco Unit, Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Willows, CA. Oswald, V.H. and J.G. Silveira. 1995. A Flora of the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge and 2003 Supplement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Willows, CA. Pacific Flyway Council. 1983. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Pacific Flyway Population of Lesser Sandhill Cranes. Subcomm. on Lesser Sandhill Cranes, Pacific Flyway Study Comm. [c/o USFWS, MBMO], Portland, OR. 22 pp. Pacific Flyway Council (PFC). 1991. Pacific Flyway management plan for the tule greater white- fronted goose. Tule Greater White-fronted Goose Subcomm., Pacific Flyway Study Comm. [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report, Portland, OR] 18 pp. Pacific Flyway Council (PFC). 1992. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Ross’ Geese. Subcomm. on White Geese, Pacific Flyway Study Comm. [c/o USFWS, MBMO], Portland, OR. Unpubl. report. Pacific Flyway Council (PFC). 1997. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Central Valley Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes, Pacific Flyway Study Comm. [c/o Pacific Flyway Representative USFWS], Portland, OR 97232-4181. Unpubl. Rept. 44pp. + appendices. Pacific Flyway Council (PFC). 1999. Pacific Flyway management plan for the cackling Canada goose. Cackling Canada Goose Subcomm., Pacific Flyway Study Comm. [c/o USFWS], Portland, OR. Unpubl. Rept. 36 pp.+ appendices. Pacific Flyway Council (PFC). 2001. Pacific Flyway management plan for the western population of tundra swans. Pacific Flyway Study Comm., Subcomm. on Tundra Swans. Unpubl. Rept. [c/o USFWS], Portland, OR. 28 pp.+ appendices.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 163 References

Pacific Flyway Council (PFC). 2003. Pacific Flyway management plan for the greater white- fronted goose. Greater White-fronted Goose Subcomm., Pacific Flyway Study Comm. [c/o USFWS], Portland, OR. Unpubl. Rept. 27 pp.+ appendices. Pacific Flyway Council (PFC). 2006a. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Aleutian goose. Aleutian Goose Subcomm., Pacific Flyway Study Comm. [c/o USFWS], Portland, OR. Unpubl. rept. 27pp.+ appendices. Pacific Flyway Council (PFC). 2006b. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Wrangel Island population of lesser snow geese. White Goose Subcomm., Pacific Flyway Study Comm. [c/o USFWS], Portland, OR. Unpubl. rept. 20 pp.+ appendices. Pacific Flyway Council (PFC). 2006c. Surveillance for early detection of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 in wild migratory birds: a strategy for the Pacific Flyway. Pacific Flyway Study Committee. [c/o USFWS], Portland, OR. Unpubl. rept. 13pp + appendices. Pacific Flyway Council (PFC). 2007. Pacific Flyway Council website, Management page. http:// pacificflyway.gov/Management.asp. Pacific Flyway Council (PFC). 2013. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Western Arctic Population of Lesser Snow Geese. Pacific Flyway Council [c/o USFWS, DMBM], Portland, OR]. Unpubl. rept. 37 pp. http://pacificflyway.gov/Documents/Wcalsg_plan.pdf. Pacific Flyway Study Committee. 1999. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Aleutian Canada goose. Prepared by the Subcommittee on the Aleutian Canada goose for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Pacific Flyway Council. 27 pp. Panzer, R. 1988. Managing prairie remnants for insect conservation. Natural Areas Journal 8(2):83–90. Parks, V. 1999a. Tract 1 Restoration (NAWCA Project), Delevan: Archaeological and Historical Resources Identification Report under Programmatic Agreement Appendix B. USFWS. Parks, Virginia 1999b. Sacramento River NWR – Llano Seco Unit, Sanctuary 1, Tracts 4 & 8 Valley Oak Savanna Restoration: Archaeological and Historical Resources Identification Report under Programmatic Agreement Appendix B. USFWS. 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). Pierce, David W. and D. Gaushell. 2005. The California delta breeze: characteristics and sub-daily forecasting. SIO/ Univ. of California, San Diego, CA; P2.3 Pollak, O., and T. Kan. 1998. The use of prescribed fire to control invasive exotic weeds at Jepson Prairie Preserve. Pages 241-249 in C.W. Witham, E.T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (Eds.). Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems – Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA 1998. Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO). 2011. Projected Effects of Climate Change in California. Ecoregional Summaries Emphasizing Consequences for Wildlife. Version 1.0. 10 February 2011. PRBO Conservation Science. Petaluma, CA. Accessed at http://data.prbo.org/apps/ bssc/climatechange. Pyke, C.R. and J. Marty. 2005. Cattle grazing mediates climate change impacts on ephemeral wetlands. Conservation Biology 19: 1619–1625.

164 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas References

Raymond, Anan. 1992. Cultural Resources Inventory for Wetland Restoration on Sanctuary II of the Llano Seco Unit, Sacramento River NWR, Butte County, California. USFWS. Reiner, R.J. 2007. Fire in California grasslands. Pages 207-217 in: Stromberg, M.R., J.D. Corbin, and C.M. D’Antonio (eds.). California grasslands: ecology and management. University of California Press, Berkeley. 390 p. 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, NY. Riddell, F. 1978. Maidu and Konkow. Pages 370–386 In: R.F. Heizer (editor). Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California. Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C. 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. River Partners. 2004. Survey of planted elderberry on Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge riparian restoration sites for use by Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetles. Tehama, Butte, and Glenn Counties, CA. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. River Partners, Chico, CA. Roberts, W.G., J.G. Howe, and J. Major. 1977. A survey of riparian forest flora and fauna in California. Pages 3-19 In: A. Sands (editor), Riparian Forests of California: Their Ecology and Conservation. Institute of Ecology Publication No. 15, University of California, Davis. 122 pp. Rocke, T.E. and M.D. Samuel. 1999. Water and sediment characteristics associated with avian botulism outbreaks in wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management. 63(4):1249-1260. Sacramento River Partners. 2001. Restoration Plan for the Martin Family Cemetery Project. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. 2014. Annual Monitoring Reports, 2005-2011; accessed online August 18, 2014, at: http://www.svwqc.org. Samuel, M.D, D.J. Shadduck, D.R. Goldberg, V. Baranyuk, L. Sileo, and J.I. Price. 1999. Antibodies against Pasteurella multocida in snow geese in the western arctic. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 35: 440–449. Samuel, M.D., D.J. Shadduck, and D.R. Goldberg. 2004. Are wetlands the reservoir for avian cholera? Journal of Wildlife Diseases 40: 377–382. Sandler, R.J., T.E. Rocke, M.D. Samuel, and T.M. Yuill. 1993. Seasonal prevalence of Clostridium botulinum Type C in sediments of a northern California wetland. S.J. Wildl. Diseases 29(4):533-539. Sefchick, J.A. 1992. Composition and stability of aquatic invertebrate populations at the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, California. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, CA. 134 pp. Severson, D.J. 1987. Macroinvertebrate populations in seasonally flooded marshes in the northern San Joaquin Valley of California. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, CA. 113 pp.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 165 References

Shaskey, L.E. 2012. Local and landscape influences on Sandhill Crane habitat suitability in the Northern Sacramento Valley, CA. M.S. Thesis, Department of Biology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Shuford, D.W., and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. West. Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, Calif., and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Shuford, D.W., G.W. Page, and J.E. Kjelmyr. 1998. Patterns and dynamics of shorebird use of California’s Central Valley. Condor 100:227-244. Silveira, J.G. 1998. Avian uses of vernal pools and implications for conservation practice. Pages 92-106 in: C.W. Witham, E.T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (Editors). Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems – Proceedings from a 1996 conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Silveira, J.G. 1992-2006a. Survey results for Cordylanthus palmatus at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 1992-2006. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge files, Willows, CA. Silveira, J.G. 1992-2006b. Survey results for rare vernal pool plants at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, 1992-2006. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge files, Willows, CA. Silveira, J.G. 2000. Alkali vernal pools at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge. Fremontia 27(4) and 28 (1):10–18. Silveira, J.G. 2001. Hunting wild geese in an era before Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge. California Waterfowl 28(5): 32–35. Silveira, J.G., F. T. Griggs, D.W. Burkett, K.Y. Buer, D.S. Efseaff , G.H. Golet, S.L. Small, R. Vega and J.E. Isola. 2003. An ecological approach to restoring riparian habitats at the Llano Seco Unit, Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge. Pages 239-252 in P.M. Faber (Editor), California Riparian Systems: Processes and Floodplains Management, Ecology, and Restoration. 2001 Riparian Habitats and Floodplains Conference Proceedings, Riparian Habitat Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA. Silveira, J.G. 2005. Survey results for vernal pool invertebrates at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex, during 1993-2005 (not all years). Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge files, Willows, CA. Silveira, J.G. 2006. Wildlife habitat. Pages 830-856 and 3337-3344 in D. Burkett and A. Conlin. Soil Survey of Butte Area California, Parts of Butte and Plumas Counties. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (in Cooperation with the Regents of the University of California and the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service), Washington, D.C. Silveira, J.G. 2007. Managing vernal pools and associated habitats at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Pages 187-209 in: R.A. Schlising and D.G. Alexander (Editors), Vernal Pool Landscapes. Studies from the Herbarium Publication Number 14, California State University Chico. Small, S.L., N. Nur, A. Black, G.R. Geupel, D. Humple, and G. Ballard. 2000. Riparian Bird Populations of the Sacramento River System: Results from the 1993-1999 field seasons. PRBO Report to The Nature conservancy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. PRBO, Stinson Beach, CA. 76 pp.

166 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas References

Stebbins, J.C. 1991. State survey of two plants endemic to the San Joaquin Valley, Pseudobahia bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii. Prepared for Jim Bartel, Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California dated January 31, 1991. 88 pp. Strong, M.A., J.G. Mensik, and D.S. Walsworth. 1990. Converting rice fields to natural wetlands in the Sacramento Valley of California. 1990 Trans. West. Sec. Wildl. Soc. 26:29-35. http:// openagricola.nal.usda.gov/Record/IND91054157. Tank, D.C., J.M. Egger, and R.G. Olmstead. 2009. Phylogenetic classification of Subtribe Castillejinae (Orobanchaceae). Systematic Botany 34(1):182-197. Thomsen, C.D., W.A. Williams, M. Vayssiéres, F.L. Bell, and M.R. George. 1993. Controlled grazing on annual grassland decreases yellow starthistle. California Agriculture 47:36–40. Thomsen, C.D., M.P. Vayssieres, and W.A. Williams. 1997. Mowing and subclover plantings suppress yellow starthistle. California Agriculture, Nov.-Dec. issue, pp 15-20. Thorpe, R.W. and J.M. Leong. 1995. Native bee pollinators of vernal pool plants. Fremontia 23(2):3-7. Tricolored Blackbird Working Group. 2009. Conservation Plan for the Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). Susan Kester (ed.). Sustainable Conservation. San Francisco, CA. Trulio, Lynne and Deborah Clark, Steve Ritchie, Amy Hutzel, Science Team. 2007. South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, Adaptive Management Plan. South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. Draft November 14, 2007. Accessed on March 25, 2011. http://www. southbayrestoration.org. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Databases, Tables and Calculators by Subject, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, accessed online March 13, 2012, at: http://www.bls.gov/lau/. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2006-2010. American Community Survey, accessed online July 11, 2012, at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview. xhtml?pid=ACS_10_5YR_DP02&prodType=table. U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. State & County QuickFacts, accessed online July 12, 2012, at: http:// quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06043.html. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1937-1995. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex Annual Narratives, 59 volumes, 1937-1995. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, Willows, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1955-2014. California Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey reports, 1955- 2014. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge files, Willows, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Concept plan for waterfowl wintering habitat preservation: Central Valley, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. 116 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979a. Land Acquisition Ascertainment Report for the Butte Sink, California. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, Oregon, March 1979. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979b. Land Acquisition Ascertainment Report for the Colusa Basin Wetlands 1979. Region 1, Portland, OR. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Aleutian Canada goose recovery plan. Prepared by the Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Team, 27 pp plus appendices.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 167 References

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Butte Sink Land Protection Plan. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Author: Jack Helvie. Portland, Oregon, August 1983. (Abbreviated Summary) 34 pgs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 62 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Willow Creek-Lurline Wildlife Management Area Land Protection Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988-2014. Annual Habitat Management Plans for Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges, Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge files, Willows, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989-2014. Unpublished data. Regular wildlife surveys, 1989-2014. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge files, Willows, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Environmental Assessment, Proposed North Central Valley Wildlife Management Area, Tehama, Butte, Glenn, Colusa, Yuba, Sutter, Placer, Yolo, Solano, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin Counties, California. August 1991. Region 1, Portland, OR. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Recovery Plan for Sacramento/San Joaquin Native Fishes. Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for the Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Portland, Oregon, 319 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998a. Butte Sink NAWCA Project: Archaeological and Historical Resources Identification Report under Programmatic Agreement Appendix B. Prepared by A. Bourdeau. Date of Record search: 6/4/1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998b. Lurline NAWCA Project: Archaeological and Historical Resources Identification Report under Programmatic Agreement Appendix B. Prepared by A. Bourdeau. Date of Record search: 6/3/1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998c. Willow Creek NAWCA Project (Koloa and Wild Duck Clubs): Archaeological and Historical Resources Identification Report under Programmatic Agreement Appendix B. Prepared by A. Bourdeau. Date of Record search: 6/3/1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnopsis gigas). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 192 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Final Environmental Assessment – Habitat Restoration Plan for Tract 24, Colusa National Wildlife Refuge, Colusa County, California. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Willows, CA, 79 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999c. Fulfilling the Promise; The National Wildlife Refuge System; Visions for Wildlife, Habitat, People, and Leadership. USFWS Division of Refuges, Washington D.C., 92 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999d. Intra-agency Formal Section 7 Consultation on Management, Operations, and Maintenance of the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

168 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas References

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Light goose management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Manage., Arlington, VA. 125 pp. plus appendices. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management Plan. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Willows, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Draft Recovery Plan for Chaparral and Scrub Community Species east of San Francisco Bay, California (November 2002). Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002c. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. Portland, Oregon. 606 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. National Wildlife Refuge System Visitation Estimation Workbook. Arlington, VA. 80 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) 5–year review: summary and evaluation (September 2006). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006b. Employee safety and health for highly pathogenic avian influenza surveillance and response activities. August 11, 2006 memo from acting USFWS Director. 8 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Pseudobahia bahiiflolia and P. peirsonii. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Region 8, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. Connecting People with Nature Action Plan, Sharing the Spark. California Nevada Region 8. Sacramento, CA. 42 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Region 8, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009. Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges, Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Vol. 1 and Vol. 2. Region 8. Sacramento, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009b. Delta Green Ground Beetle (Elaphrus viridis), 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Region 8, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Draft Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California (January 2010). Region 8, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta (Fleshy Owl’s-Clover), 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Region 8, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Environmental Conservation Online System, species profiles. Accessed on February 13 and September 9, 2014. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2000. Central Valley wetlands water supply investigations: CVPIA 3406(d)(6)(A, B) : a report to Congress : final

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 169 References

report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Denver, Colo.: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American Waterfowl Management Plan. A Strategy for Cooperation. May. 19 pp. 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. 34 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Canadian Wildlife Service, and Mexican National Institute of Ecology. 2012. North American Waterfowl Management Plan: People Conserving Waterfowl and Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS and CDFW). 2013. M&T Chico Ranch/Llano Seco Rancho Fish Screen Facility Short-Term Protection Project (SCH No. 2012092050). Draft Environmental Assessment/Initial Study. Accessed February 23, 2015 at: http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_8/NWRS/ Zone_1/Sacramento_Complex/Sacramento/Uploaded_Files/News_Releases/Draft%20 EA%20-%20Cover%20and%20TOC%20and%20Chapters1-8.pdf. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1999. Field manual of wildlife diseases – General field procedures and diseases of birds. M. Friend and J.C. Franson, Tech. Eds. Biological. Resources Division - Info. and Technology Rep. 1999-001. Valentine, N., 1996a. Cultural Resources Report for the Field 44 Project, Delevan National Wildlife Refuge, Colusa County, California. USFWS. Valentine, N., 1996b. Cultural Resources Report for the Llano Seco Unit Fields 2 & 3 Project, Butte County, California. USFWS. Weaver, M. 2009. Status of Ross’ and Lesser Snow Geese Wintering in California, December 2008. California Department of Fish and Game Report, Sacramento, CA. Weaver, M. 2012. Status of Ross’ and Lesser Snow Geese Wintering in California, December 2011. California Department of Fish and Game Report, Sacramento, CA. White, G., J. Kraft, L. Harrington, D. Coleman, and R. Allen. 2003. Cultural Resource Overview and Management Plan: Sacramento River Conservation Area, Tehama, Butte, Glenn and Colusa Counties, California. California State University, Chico, Archaeological Research Program Reports, No. 50. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy. White, J.R., P. S. Hofmann, and D. Hammond. 1987. Selenium verification study 1986. California Department of Fish and Game. Water Pollution Control Laboratory. Rancho Cordova, CA. 79 pp. Wight, N.K. 2002. Effects of prescribed burning on rare alkali plants at the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex. M.S. Thesis, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Chico. Williams, B.K., and E.D. Brown. 2012. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Applications guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Wills, R. 2006. Central Valley Bioregion. Pages 295-320 in: Sugihara, N.G., J.W. van Wagtendonk, J. Fites-Kaufman, K.E. Shaffer, and A.E. Thode (eds.). Fire in California’s ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley. 578 p.

170 Butte Sink, Willow Creek-Lurline, and North Central Valley Wildlife Management Areas References

Windmiller, R. 1995. Cultural Resources Survey Report on Butte Sink Seismic Survey Project, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Parcels 1, 2 & 3. Prepared for Slawson Exploration Company, Inc. Wingo, S.M. 2009. Targeted grazing as an effective control for non-native Lolium multiflorum among the rare species Cordylanthus palmatus in alkali meadow habitats. M.S. Thesis, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Chico. Wolder, M.A. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State Univ. 62 pp. Wolder, M.A., J.E. Isola, and C.L. Feldheim. 1999. Shorebird population and habitat use variations between a dry and wet spring on Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, California. Draft Rep., May 1999, Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge files. Wood, M.L., C. Foe, J. Cooke, S.J. Louie, and D.H. Bosworth. 2008. Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region, Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary TMDL for methylmercury. Staff Report. February 2008. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralvalley/ water_issues/tmdl/central_valley_projects/delta_hg/staff_report_feb08/tmdl_full_rpt.pdf. Wylie, G.D., M.L. Casazza, L.L. Martina, and M. Carpenter. 2006. In draft. Identification of key GGS habitats and use areas on the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Prepared for U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation by U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station, Dixon, CA. 31 pp.

June 2015 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 171 Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex 752 County Road 99W Willows, CA 95988 Telephone: 530-934-2801 FAX: 530-934-7814 http://www.fws.gov/refuge/ Sacramento/Aboutthecomplex.html

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

June 2015

Waterfowl at Butte Sink WMA Photo: USFWS