Section 6 SIX Restoration Alternatives
[6-1](#section-6-6-restoration-alternatives)

6.1 Summaries of the Individual Actions That Received Detailed
Evaluation
[6-1](#summaries-of-the-individual-actions-that-received-detailed-evaluation)

6.1.1 Fishing and Fish Habitat Restoration Actions
[6-2](#fishing-and-fish-habitat-restoration-actions)

6.1.2 Bald Eagle Restoration Actions
[6-6](#bald-eagle-restoration-actions)

6.1.3 Peregrine Falcon Restoration Actions
[6-8](#peregrine-falcon-restoration-actions)

6.1.4 Seabird Restoration Actions [6-9](#seabird-restoration-actions)

6.2 Restoration Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative
[6-15](#restoration-alternatives-including-the-preferred-alternative)

6.2.1 Development of Alternatives [6-15](#development-of-alternatives)

6.2.2 Allocation of Restoration Funds Among Resource Categories
[6-16](#allocation-of-restoration-funds-among-resource-categories)

6.2.3 Alternative 1 (No Action) [6-17](#alternative-1-no-action)

6.2.4 Alternative 2 (Preferred) [6-17](#alternative-2-preferred)

6.2.5 Alternative 3 [6-20](#alternative-3)

6.2.6 Summary of the Alternatives [6-23](#summary-of-the-alternatives)

6.3 Uncertainties [6-24](#uncertainties)

**Tables**

Table 6-1 Restoration Actions for Which this Programmatic EIS/EIR
Constitutes Complete NEPA/CEQA Review

Table 6-2 Comparison of Restoration Alternatives

Figures

Figure 6-1. Changes in fish community structure with the placement of an
artificial reef.

Figure 6-2. Baja California Pacific Islands.

Figure 6-3. Illustration of the collective restoration actions and
funding distributions proposed under Alternative 2 (Preferred) and
Alternative 3.

# Section 6 6 Restoration Alternatives

This section describes the 17 individual restoration actions that
underwent detailed evaluation and National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)/California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis. Because the
full evaluations of all 17 actions are lengthy, only their summaries are
provided here (Section 6.1); the complete write-ups have been placed
into four appendices:

-   Appendix A (Fishing and Fish Habitat Restoration Actions)

-   Appendix B (Bald Eagle Restoration Actions)

-   Appendix C (Peregrine Falcon Restoration Actions)

-   Appendix D (Seabird Restoration Actions)

The reader is directed to these appendices for a more thorough
discussion of each of the 17 restoration actions.

To facilitate review of this Restoration Plan, the Natural Resource
Trustees for the Montrose case (Trustees) assembled different
combinations of these individual restoration actions into two
comprehensive restoration plan alternatives and a "no action"
alternative that address the entire range of resources and services to
be restored. These three alternatives are evaluated and compared in
Section 6.2 to illustrate the trade-offs involved in emphasizing
different restoration priorities. The alternatives consist of
Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 2 (Preferred), and Alternative 3.

Section 7 presents the NEPA/CEQA analysis of potential environmental
consequences, including the cumulative impact analysis and the other
discussions mandated by NEPA/CEQA for the three alternatives.

## SummariES of the Individual Actions That Received detailed evaluation

This section provides summaries of the 17 restoration actions resulting
from the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations. Ten of the restoration actions
are of a sufficient level of detail and specificity that they will not
need further NEPA/CEQA environmental review beyond this Restoration
Plan. The remaining seven restoration actions are still under
development and will require supplemental NEPA and/or CEQA documentation
before implementation (Table 6-1).

The discussions of costs that accompany the descriptions of the
restoration actions are not action-specific allotments of Montrose
Settlements Restoration Program (MSRP) funding, as they do not reflect
potential cost-sharing opportunities and do not factor in contingencies.
Even without contingencies factored in, the sum of all of these
individual cost estimates exceeds the available MSRP funding. The
Trustees will fund \$25 million in restoration work during Phase 1 of
implementation (years 2005--2010), allocated among actions that restore
fishing and fish habitat, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and seabirds.
The Trustees will also pursue funding partnership opportunities where
appropriate.

+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Table 6-1\                    |   |               |                  |
| Restoration Actions for Which |   |               |                  |
| this Programmatic EIS/EIR\    |   |               |                  |
| Constitutes Complete          |   |               |                  |
| NEPA/CEQA Review              |   |               |                  |
+===============================+===+===============+==================+
| Restoration Actions\          | A |               | Actions That     |
| Evaluated in Tier 2           | c |               | Would Require    |
|                               | t |               | Additional NEPA  |
|                               | i |               | and/or CEQA      |
|                               | o |               | Analysis if      |
|                               | n |               | Pursued          |
|                               | s |               |                  |
|                               | f |               |                  |
|                               | o |               |                  |
|                               | r |               |                  |
|                               | W |               |                  |
|                               | h |               |                  |
|                               | i |               |                  |
|                               | c |               |                  |
|                               | h |               |                  |
|                               | t |               |                  |
|                               | h |               |                  |
|                               | i |               |                  |
|                               | s |               |                  |
|                               | P |               |                  |
|                               | l |               |                  |
|                               | a |               |                  |
|                               | n |               |                  |
|                               | R |               |                  |
|                               | e |               |                  |
|                               | p |               |                  |
|                               | r |               |                  |
|                               | e |               |                  |
|                               | s |               |                  |
|                               | e |               |                  |
|                               | n |               |                  |
|                               | t |               |                  |
|                               | s |               |                  |
|                               | t |               |                  |
|                               | h |               |                  |
|                               | e |               |                  |
|                               | C |               |                  |
|                               | o |               |                  |
|                               | m |               |                  |
|                               | p |               |                  |
|                               | l |               |                  |
|                               | e |               |                  |
|                               | t |               |                  |
|                               | e |               |                  |
|                               | N |               |                  |
|                               | E |               |                  |
|                               | P |               |                  |
|                               | A |               |                  |
|                               | / |               |                  |
|                               | C |               |                  |
|                               | E |               |                  |
|                               | Q |               |                  |
|                               | A |               |                  |
|                               | A |               |                  |
|                               | n |               |                  |
|                               | a |               |                  |
|                               | l |               |                  |
|                               | y |               |                  |
|                               | s |               |                  |
|                               | i |               |                  |
|                               | s |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Fishing and Fish Habitat      |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Construct artificial reefs    |   |               |                 |
| and fishing access            |   |               |                  |
| improvements                  |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Provide public information to |  |               |                  |
| restore lost fishing services |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Restore full tidal exchange   |   |               |                 |
| wetlands                      |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Augment funds for             |  |               |                  |
| implementing Marine Protected |   |               |                  |
| Areas in California           |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| **Bald Eagles**               |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Complete the NCI Bald Eagle   |   |               |                 |
| Feasibility Study before      |   |               |                  |
| deciding on further           |   |               |                  |
| restoration actions           |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Complete the NCI Bald Eagle   |  |               |                  |
| Feasibility Study; regardless |   |               |                  |
| of its outcome, continue      |   |               |                  |
| funding Santa Catalina Island |   |               |                  |
| Bald Eagle Program            |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| **Peregrine Falcons**         |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Restore peregrine falcons to  |   |               |                 |
| the Channel Islands           |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Monitor the recovery of       |  |               |                  |
| peregrine falcons on the      |   |               |                  |
| Channel Islands               |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Restore peregrine falcons to  |  |               |                  |
| the Baja California Pacific   |   |               |                  |
| Islands                       |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| **Seabirds**                  |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Restore seabirds to San       |   |               |                 |
| Miguel Island                 |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Restore alcids to Santa       |  |               |                  |
| Barbara Island                |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Restore seabirds to San       |   |               |                 |
| Nicolas Island                |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Restore seabirds to Scorpion  |  |               |                  |
| and Orizaba Rocks             |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Restore seabirds to Baja      |  |               |                  |
| California Pacific Islands    |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Create/enhance/protect        |   |               |                 |
| California brown pelican      |   |               |                  |
| roost habitat                 |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Implement an entanglement     |  |               |                  |
| reduction and outreach        |   |               |                  |
| program to protect seabird    |   |               |                  |
| populations                   |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| Restore ashy storm-petrels to |  |               |                  |
| Anacapa Island                |   |               |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+
| CEQA = California             |   | NCI =         |                  |
| Environmental Quality Act     |   | Northern      |                  |
|                               |   | Channel       |                  |
| EIR = Environmental Impact    |   | Island        |                  |
| Report                        |   |               |                  |
|                               |   | NEPA =        |                  |
| EIS -- Environmental Impact   |   | National      |                  |
| Statement                     |   | Environmental |                  |
|                               |   | Policy Act    |                  |
+-------------------------------+---+---------------+------------------+

### Fishing and Fish Habitat Restoration Actions

#### Construct Artificial Reefs and Fishing Access Improvements

Constructed reefs have often been employed as a means of recruiting
and/or producing fish as mitigation for environmental impacts. An
MSRP-constructed reef program would have the added specific objectives
of recruiting and/or producing fish lower in DDTs and PCBs for anglers
to catch and displacing highly contaminated soft-bottom species from a
fishing location (Figure 6‑1). For this reason, the geographic placement
of reefs will require that the predominant reef-dwelling species in the
area not be limited or less limited by fish consumption advisories than
the predominant soft-bottom species. Several critical design
considerations will also guide the location and development of all
restoration reefs (including degree of sediment contamination, existing
fishing pressure and accessibility, suitability for kelp recruitment and
establishment, and consideration of other human uses). Thus, in this
Restoration Plan, constructed reefs and fishing access improvements are
evaluated as a general action in Tier 2 rather than as a set of
site-specific actions. This action will require supplemental analysis,
siting, design, and public and environmental review prior to
implementation.

A complementary part of this action will be to implement various fishing
access improvements (e.g., improvements to piers) to facilitate and
encourage fishing in the areas where habitat manipulation is performed.
Together, reef construction and fishing access improvements can target
fishing sites where the continued impact of contamination is greatest
(i.e., where fish consumption advisories are in effect), measurably
improve the opportunities for catching fish lower in contamination, and
do so in a self-sustaining manner. Access improvements can also act as
compensatory restoration for past losses in fishing opportunities
resulting from fish consumption advisories by enhancing the quality of
the fishing experience.

The costs of this action are scalable. That is, the more funds that are
made available, the more reef and access improvements that can be
implemented. Depending on reef size, whether and what type of fishing
access improvements are included, and potential cost sharing with
partners, the Trustees estimate potential costs of \$1 million to \$4
million per site, and propose an objective of constructing two to three
reefs in the initial implementation phase of the Restoration Plan.

Additional information on this action can be found in Appendix A1.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.686805555555556in"
height="3.3027777777777776in"}

Figure 6-1. Changes in fish community structure with the placement of an
artificial reef.

#### Provide Public Information to Restore Lost Fishing Services

The goal of this action is to build on the public outreach and education
work initiated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through
the establishment of the Fish Contamination Education Collaborative
(FCEC). The FCEC is a federal, state, and local partnership project that
addresses public exposure to contaminated fish in the Southern
California coastal area. The FCEC focuses on educating the public about
the human health hazards associated with DDT and PCB contamination in
fish. In particular, the FCEC provides information to help people reduce
their exposures to DDTs and PCBs from the fish they eat.

The Trustees will expand this ongoing effort to increase fishing
services by providing information to anglers that allows them to make
sound decisions about where and for which species to fish. The Trustees
will also provide outreach materials that establish the link between the
ecology and life history of a particular species and its tendency to
bioaccumulate contaminants. This information will enable people to make
knowledgeable choices about where, when, and for which species to fish
and in doing so will minimize anglers' exposure to contaminants,
regardless of where they fish. This action has a strong nexus to the
ongoing loss of natural resource services caused by the contaminants of
the case (which have led to the imposition of state fishing advisories
and other limitations on the human use values of fish).

The costs of this action, which will include both public information
work and periodic monitoring of fish to supplement the fish
contamination survey currently being completed, are scalable. Clear
opportunities exist to collaborate with the ongoing EPA-funded efforts
to inform the public about fish contamination and safe fish preparation
and consumption. This action will expand these efforts by focusing on
the link between fish ecology and life history and the risks they impose
on their consumers. In particular, the action will identify the fish
species that are free of consumption advisories and the locations where
anglers can catch them. Thus, this action would directly and effectively
address the human use fishing losses associated with the Montrose case.

Additional information on this action can be found in Appendix A2.

#### Restore Full Tidal Exchange Wetlands

Wetlands restoration was evaluated as a general action that will require
further planning and site selection. Because large-scale wetlands
restoration is costly and numerous entities are involved in coastal
wetlands restoration in the Southern California region, the presumption
is that MSRP funds will be used to augment efforts at a specific
larger-scale restoration project in the region. In particular, MSRP
funding will be directed at habitat restoration that seeks to promote
the production of commonly caught coastal fish species, such as the
California halibut. Several wetland restoration sites in the region at
different stages of planning and funding could serve this purpose.

The benefits from estuarine wetlands habitat restoration and improved
fish catch services for anglers who fish in surrounding coastal areas
are not as readily measurable or likely as substantial as the benefits
from constructed reefs. However, the restoration of coastal estuarine
wetlands contributes to the overall restoration of fish and their
habitats, as identified in the Montrose consent decree. By including
wetland restoration among the fishing and fish habitat actions, the
Trustees will provide a more diverse method of addressing the ongoing
injuries and lost services and compensating for interim losses. It is
also conceivable that fishing benefits could be derived from coastal
wetlands restoration if they are designed to create new fishing sites.

The costs of this action are scaleable and proportional to the size and
complexity of the action undertaken. Existing large-scale wetlands
restoration work involving significant engineering (such as the work at
Bolsa Chica in Orange County) can cost several tens of millions of
dollars, not including land acquisition costs. Given the limits of MSRP
funding, restoration funds will be best used to complement funding from
other sources in achieving larger-scale habitat improvements. The
specifics of the site and the nature of the wetlands restoration work
will be guided by the MSRP goals and objectives for restoring fishing
and fish habitat. The Trustees will inventory current coastal wetlands
restoration planning efforts and funding gaps in Southern California and
identify a project or projects where MSRP funds will help realize
broad-scale accomplishments. Once a specific project is identified,
further NEPA and/or CEQA analysis will be performed. Such analysis will
likely be part of the broader documentation by the lead agency or
agencies for the overall wetlands restoration effort to which MSRP funds
will be contributed.

Additional information on this action can be found in Appendix A3.

#### Augment Funds for Implementing Marine Protected Areas in California

The goal of this action is to improve the fish habitat function in
Southern California by augmenting funds needed to evaluate and implement
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as part of an ecosystem-based management
approach for fishery resources. The primary focus of this action will be
to provide needed funds for implementation of the recently established
Channel Islands network of MPAs to ensure that they provide the best
possible basis for further implementations of MPA networks throughout
California. Although this action will provide specific benefits to the
fish habitats adjacent to the Northern Channel Islands, the action will
also provide longer-term benefits for fishing and fish habitats
throughout California by helping to generate sound empirical
underpinnings for the site and design of future networks of MPAs. The
recently established network of MPAs in the Channel Islands is currently
the most appropriate area for such an effort because those MPAs were
specifically designed to evaluate the utility of using MPAs as a
management tool. If MPA networks are established along mainland coasts
in the future, the Trustees will consider directing additional funds to
their implementation and/or evaluation during the next phase of
restoration, particularly if they are established in southern
California.

Through this action, MSRP funds will contribute to the goals of (1)
ensuring that the MPAs function as intended (i.e., through effective
public awareness and enforcement efforts) and (2) measuring the impacts
(positive and negative) of MPAs on fishing services. The Trustees
propose to contribute approximately \$500,000 toward these MPA efforts
over five year to fill, in part, funding gaps identified by the
implementing agencies. Depending on the findings of the monitoring
efforts, the effective management of MPAs in the Northern Channel
Islands may ultimately lead to the expanded use of this fisheries
management tool throughout California, including the Palos Verdes Shelf
region.

Additional information on this action can be found in Appendix A4.

### Bald Eagle Restoration Actions

Bald eagle restoration throughout the Channel Islands presents a special
situation because the bald eagles introduced to and currently nesting on
Santa Catalina Island continue to exhibit reproductive injuries caused
by ongoing exposures to DDTs and PCBs. Also, even though bald eagles
historically inhabited most of the Channel Islands, we do not yet know
if they would have greater success reproducing on islands other than
Santa Catalina Island (none of the Santa Catalina Island bald eagles has
established territories on any of the other Channel Islands). Thus,
selecting restoration actions requires consideration of interrelated
factors and depends ultimately on the outcome of the ongoing Northern
Channel Islands (NCI) Bald Eagle Re-establishment Feasibility Study
(referred to as the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study). This section
describes the two contrasting options for bald eagle restoration
addressed in this plan.

Complete the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study Before Deciding on Further
Restoration Actions

Under this course of action, the Trustees will defer making longer-term
decisions on bald eagle restoration until the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility
Study results are known (in or around 2008). Also, the Trustees will
discontinue funding for the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program
during the interim period until the results of the NCI Bald Eagle
Feasibility Study are known. At that point, the Trustees will
re-evaluate all potential options for bald eagle restoration, including
actions that might be taken even if bald eagles are not able to
reproduce on their own anywhere in the Channel Islands. The remaining
bald eagle restoration funds could then be used on any of the Channel
Islands. This action conserves limited restoration funds until
sufficient information is known on the ability of the environments on
the different Channel Islands to support bald eagles.

This course of action is modified from the one proposed in the draft
Restoration Plan and programmatic EIS/EIR, which was released for public
comment in April 2005. The modification is a result of the Trustees'
consideration of the public comments received. In the draft Restoration
Plan and programmatic EIS/EIR, the Trustees had proposed that the
restoration of bald eagles proceed only if it was ultimately found that
they are able to reproduce on their own in the Northern Channel Islands.
If the results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study indicated that
there were no territories in the Channel Islands where bald eagles could
reproduce unaided, the preferred course of action proposed in the draft
Restoration Plan called for the bald eagle restoration efforts to cease
and the remaining funds to be either set aside or used for seabird
restoration.

The Trustees received diverse and opposing public comments on the
advisability of bald eagle restoration given the continued observation
of contaminant effects on Santa Catalina Island. However, predominantly
the public comments expressed the desire to maintain the presence of
bald eagles on the Channel Islands regardless of whether or not they can
reproduce successfully on their own. After considering the public
comments and the evaluation criteria for this Restoration Plan
(particularly the preference that actions have long-term benefits and
minimal ongoing operation and maintenance requirements), the Trustees
modified the preferred action for bald eagles to provide for a
re-examination of all options once the results of the NCI Bald Eagle
Feasibility Study are known, rather than predetermining subsequent
actions. The re-examination will be conducted with opportunity for
public review and comment in a subsequent document.

The results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study are expected to be
known in or around 2008. If the results show that the birds released on
Santa Cruz Island are able to fledge chicks without human intervention,
the Trustees may continue releasing and monitoring bald eagles on Santa
Cruz Island. The Trustees anticipate that if eagles can successfully
reproduce on the Northern Channel Islands, then eagles will eventually
repopulate the rest of the Channel Islands, including Santa Catalina
Island. The general methods for additional hacking and monitoring would
be the same as those outlined in the Feasibility Study for
Reestablishment of Bald Eagles on the Northern Channel Islands (MSRP
2002).

In light of the continuing high levels of contamination in bald eagles
on Santa Catalina Island, continued funding of the Santa Catalina Island
Bald Eagle Program over the near term is unlikely to achieve the goal of
long-term restoration of bald eagles to the Channel Islands. Thus,
during the interim period until the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study is
completed, the Trustees have chosen to focus restoration efforts on the
Northern Channel Islands, which continue to hold the potential for
long-term restoration, and discontinue funding of the Santa Catalina
Island Bald Eagle Program.

Even without continued Trustee funding for the current Santa Catalina
Island Bald Eagle Program, it is highly likely that bald eagles will
remain on the island for several years despite their inability to hatch
offspring naturally. Bald eagles in the wild typically live for 25 to 30
years, and Santa Catalina Island currently supports 15 to 20 birds of a
wide range of ages. There are currently five active bald eagle nesting
territories on the island, and the Institute for Wildlife Studies
reports that two birds are currently establishing a new territory near
Avalon. Even assuming that the Santa Catalina Island bald eagles fail to
hatch new chicks in the coming years, bald eagle experts do not expect
that the eagles will immediately break their pair bonds and abandon
their Santa Catalina Island territories. Rather, it is likely that bald
eagles will remain on the island, with their numbers diminishing
gradually over a period of as many as 10 years or longer as some of the
birds die and are not replaced by others or certain bald eagle pairs
break their pair bonds and leave after several years of failing to
produce chicks.

Thus, the Trustees anticipate that bald eagles will still inhabit
several of the Channel Islands, including Santa Catalina Island, when
the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study results are known in or around
2008. If the results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study indicate
that bald eagles throughout the Channel Islands still experience
reproductive impairment due to the persistence of DDTs and PCBs in their
diets, the Trustees would explore various options for further bald eagle
restoration on one or more of the Channel Islands, including Santa
Catalina Island. Some options may not be as costly as the current egg
manipulation and chick fostering work being conducted on Santa Catalina
Island. For example, the Trustees could fund a monitoring and hacking
program to maintain a non-breeding bald eagle presence on the Channel
Islands (and thus maintain their human use and ecological services) for
as long as funds remain available or until contaminant levels decline to
a level that would support naturally reproducing eagles.

The Trustees will release a subsequent NEPA/CEQA document for public
review and input once the results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility
Study are known. The document will be released between 2008 and 2010 and
will outline the next steps for bald eagle restoration on the Channel
Islands.

To fund this course of action, a total of \$6.2 million will be
allocated for bald eagle restoration on the Channel Islands. This
allocation would cover the costs of the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle
Program through 2005 (approximately \$1.2 million spent since 2001) and
the ongoing NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study (approximately \$3.3
million). After funding these two efforts, the balance remaining would
be approximately \$1--2 million. The Trustees will defer a decision on
how to use these remaining funds until the results of the NCI Bald Eagle
Feasibility Study are known. At that time, the Trustees will consider a
range of restoration options and decide on the best course of action.
Additional funds could be used on any of the Channel Islands.

Additional information on this course of action can be found in Appendix
B.

Complete the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study; Regardless of its
Outcome, Continue Funding Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program

This course of action would continue to maintain bald eagles on Santa
Catalina Island through human intervention (e.g., egg manipulation,
incubation, and chick fostering) for as long as funds remain available.
Under this course of action, which is not an interim but a longer-term
action, efforts to restore bald eagles to the Channel Islands would
focus on the continuous maintenance of the Santa Catalina Island bald
eagle program for as many years as funds are available, with the hope
that eventually the Santa Catalina Island birds' exposures would decline
to a level that would allow them to reproduce on their own. Maintenance
of the bald eagles on Santa Catalina Island would be favored over
efforts to repopulate the Northern Channel Islands due to the existing
infrastructure and ongoing program on Santa Catalina Island. Under this
course of action, financial support of the Santa Catalina Island program
would continue after 2005. The NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study would
also continue until its results were known.

Under this course of action, the Trustees propose to allocate a total of
\$10 million for bald eagle restoration on the Channel Islands.
Approximately \$4 million would be used through the end of the NCI Bald
Eagle Feasibility Study (supporting both the NCI and Santa Catalina
Island programs), leaving approximately \$6 million to place into a
long-term endowment or other financial mechanism to support the
continuation of the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program for as long
as possible or until such time as the birds are able to reproduce
successfully on their own. The \$6 million would fund approximately 22
years of restoration efforts on Santa Catalina Island if the average
annual cost remains at approximately \$270,000. This estimate does not
include any interest that may be generated.

Additional information on this course of action can be found in Appendix
B.

### Peregrine Falcon Restoration Actions

#### Restore Peregrine Falcons to the Channel Islands

The goal of this action is to accelerate the recovery of peregrine
falcons to the Channel Islands. For the last several years, the number
of peregrine falcon pairs has been steadily increasing on the islands,
though recolonization on the Southern Channel Islands has been slower
than on the Northern Channel Islands for reasons not yet fully
understood. Because the majority of the known occupied territories in
2004 occurred on the Northern Channel Islands (18 of 21), this 5‑year
action would involve active restoration of peregrine falcons to the
Southern Channel Islands through hacking techniques. Implementation of
this action would consist of releasing 10 birds per year on Santa
Catalina Island, for a total of 50 birds over a 5-year period. A
monitoring component would also be developed for this action. Should
this action be selected, further action-specific NEPA and/or CEQA
analysis would be prepared. A 5-year active restoration program for
peregrine falcons on the Southern Channel Islands would cost an
estimated \$603,000 plus the costs of additional monitoring.

Additional information on this action can be found in Appendix C1.

#### Monitor the Recovery of Peregrine Falcons on the Channel Islands

This action proposes to develop a comprehensive program to monitor the
recovery of the peregrine falcon on the Channel Islands. This program
would monitor the distribution, number of pairs, reproductive success
(i.e., productivity), recruitment, foraging behavior, and dispersal of
peregrine falcons on the Channel Islands. An essential part of this
program would also include contaminant analysis of addled eggs and
eggshell measurements, particularly in light of the lack of current data
on levels of eggshell thinning and the potential ongoing effect of DDT
contamination. The monitoring program would be designed such that data
are comparable to previous studies on the Channel Islands (such as the
study conducted in 1992). The scope of the monitoring program (including
its frequency and intensity) would be developed in consultation with
experts. The estimated cost for comprehensive monitoring to occur twice
within Phase 1 of implementation is \$250,000.

Additional information on this action can be found in Appendix C2.

#### Restore Peregrine Falcons to the Baja California Pacific Islands

The goal of this 5-year action is to restore peregrine falcons on the
Baja California Pacific Islands. Possible actions would include
comprehensive surveys of the islands, efforts to reduce impacts from
human disturbance, and habitat enhancement. Peregrine falcons have
historically nested on the Baja California Pacific Islands but
experienced a sharp decline similar to peregrine falcons nesting in the
United States. Although peregrine falcons have resumed nesting on some
Baja California Pacific Islands, the current status of this species on
these islands is largely unknown. The estimated cost for this action
over 5 years is \$547,000.

Additional information on this action can be found in Appendix C3.

### Seabird Restoration Actions

Eight actions for restoring seabirds and their habitats were evaluated
in detail. One of the eight actions, Restore Seabirds to Baja California
Pacific Islands, was subdivided into four separate sets of actions
addressing seabird restoration in four separate island groups.

#### Restore Seabirds to San Miguel Island

This action aims to restore seabird nesting habitat on San Miguel Island
in the Channel Islands National Park by eradicating the introduced black
rat (*Rattus rattus*) over a period of approximately 5 years. San Miguel
Island and its associated islets, Prince Island and Castle Rock, support
regionally important and diverse seabird colonies, including one-third
of the breeding seabirds in the Channel Islands. Introduced rats are
responsible for approximately 40 to 60 percent of all bird and reptile
extinctions from islands and are known to have ecosystem-wide impacts on
California islands. Target bird species for restoration include
burrow/crevice nesting seabirds such as the ashy storm-petrel, Cassin's
auklet, and Xantus's murrelet, as well as other seabirds such as the
western gull, Brandt's cormorant, and pigeon guillemot. Eggshell
thinning and/or elevated levels of DDTs were documented in the eggs of
all of these species in the Southern California Bight (Kiff 1994, Fry
1994).

Because of the presence of several endemic species on San Miguel Island,
including the federally endangered island fox, this action will require
substantial planning and the development of a comprehensive mitigation
program. The National Park Service, with the assistance of the Trustees,
will prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for this
action that will undergo public review and comment. The supplemental
document will detail the specific methodologies of the action, the
expected benefits and impacts, and the proposed mitigation measures to
reduce potential impacts. Estimated costs for this action are \$2.5
million to \$3 million.

Additional information on this action can be found in Appendix D1.

#### Restore Alcids to Santa Barbara Island

The goal of this action is to re-establish, over a period of 5 years, a
once-active Cassin's auklet breeding population on Santa Barbara Island
that was decimated by cats brought to the island in the late 1800s.
Efforts to re-establish this colony will include using social
facilitation methods (e.g., vocalization playback systems to attract
other individuals), installing nest boxes, and improving habitat through
the removal of non-native vegetation from historical nesting areas and
revegetation with native plants. The state-threatened Xantus's murrelet
will also be targeted for restoration on the island. Santa Barbara
Island is home to the largest colony of Xantus's murrelets in California
despite a documented population decline over the last 20 years. Because
some Xantus's murrelet nest sites have been lost due to reduction in
shrub cover on the island, this action will provide secure nesting area
for this species. The main objectives of this habitat restoration effort
will be to benefit Cassin's auklets and Xantus's murrelets by: (1)
increasing recruitment, (2) increasing reproductive output, and (3)
decreasing egg and chick mortality by providing safe breeding habitat.
Eggshell thinning and/or elevated levels of DDTs were documented in the
eggs of both of these species in the Southern California Bight (Kiff
1994, Fry 1994). The estimated cost of this action is \$602,000.

Additional information on this action can be found in Appendix D2.

#### Restore Seabirds to San Nicolas Island

The goal of this action is to restore western gull and Brandt's
cormorant colonies on the U.S. Navy--owned San Nicolas Island by
eradicating feral cats over a period of approximately 4 years. Eggshell
thinning and /or elevated levels of DDTs were documented in the eggs of
both of these species in the Southern California Bight (Kiff 1994, Fry
1994).

Introduced predators, particularly feral cats and rats, are one of the
greatest threats to seabird populations on islands. Feral cats are
directly responsible for a number of extinctions and extirpations on
islands across multiple taxa. The U.S. Navy has funded limited cat
removal on San Nicolas Island in the past to protect endangered species
and sensitive seabird colonies. This action will include expanding these
efforts with the goal of eradicating cats from the island.

The successful eradication of cats from the island would result in
increases in the currently reduced western gull and Brandt's cormorant
colonies on the island. In addition to seabirds, San Nicolas Island
supports a large number of endemic species, including at least 20 plant
species, 25 invertebrates, one reptile, three birds, and two mammals.
Collateral benefits to the island ecosystem are anticipated from the cat
removal. The estimated cost of this restoration action is \$1.8 million.

Additional information on this action can be found in Appendix D3.

#### Restore Seabirds to Scorpion and Orizaba Rocks

The goal of this 5-year effort on Scorpion and Orizaba Rocks (off Santa
Cruz Island) is to restore seabird habitat through the removal of
non-native vegetation, the installation of artificial nesting boxes, and
reductions in human disturbance. This action will directly benefit the
following nesting or roosting species: Cassin's auklet, ashy
storm-petrel, Xantus's murrelet, California brown pelican, and
double-crested cormorant. Eggshell thinning and/or elevated levels of
DDTs were documented in the eggs of these species in the Southern
California Bight (Kiff 1994, Fry 1994). This action will also directly
benefit rhinoceros auklets.

This action will involve the elimination of invasive plants (e.g., ice
plant) and the restoration of native plants such as tree sunflower,
buckwheat, and purple needlegrass*.* Nest boxes will be installed to
provide a stable and secure nesting area for Cassin's auklets, Xantus's
murrelets, and ashy storm-petrels. Disturbance reduction efforts will be
implemented to protect nesting and roosting seabirds from human
disturbance. Signs will be deployed around the rocks and at the visitor
center on Santa Cruz Island informing the public about the nesting
seabirds and the closure of the rock. The estimated cost of this
restoration action is \$326,000.

Additional information on this action can be found in Appendix D4.

#### Restore Seabirds to Baja California Pacific Islands

The Baja California Pacific Islands in Mexico support 17 species and 8
subspecies of breeding seabirds, 10 of which also breed on the
California Channel Islands. These birds range freely across the
U.S./Mexico border. Of these 10 shared species or subspecies, 5 have
special status listings in the United States as endangered species,
threatened species, or species of special concern. Restoration efforts
would target a suite of seabirds, including the Cassin's auklet,
Brandt's cormorant, double-crested cormorant, California brown pelican,
ashy storm-petrel, and Xantus's murrelet. Nine of the ten islands
identified in Figure 6-2 are being considered for seabird restoration,
as described below.

Additional information on these actions can be found in Appendix D5.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="4.526388888888889in"
height="4.736805555555556in"}

Figure 6-2. Baja California Pacific Islands.

Identification of Islands: (1) Coronado (2) Todos Santos (3) San Martín
(4) San Jeronimo (5) Guadalupe (6) San Benito (7) Cedros (8) Natividad
(9) San Roque (10) Asunción. The solid line indicates the islands
located within the Southern California Bight.

##### Coronado and Todos Santos Islands

The goal of this action is to restore seabird populations on Coronado
and Todos Santos Islands. These islands are oceanographically considered
part of the Southern California Bight. To maximize restoration efforts
on these islands, which are in close proximity to each other, a combined
5-year restoration action is proposed. Restoration actions will include
using social attraction techniques (including decoys and vocalizations),
improving nesting opportunities with artificial nests, shielding lights,
and reducing human disturbance. The target species for restoration on
these islands are Brandt's cormorants, double-crested cormorants,
California brown pelicans, western gulls, Cassin's auklets, ashy
storm-petrels, and Xantus's murrelets. Eggshell thinning and/or elevated
levels of DDTs were documented in the eggs of these species in the
Southern California Bight (Kiff 1994, Fry 1994). This action will also
directly benefit pelagic cormorants and black storm-petrels.

Recent eradication efforts have been undertaken on Coronado and Todos
Santos Islands to remove non-native fauna and restore the island
ecosystem. The success of these efforts provides a unique opportunity to
facilitate seabird recolonization and recovery on these islands. The
estimated cost of this restoration action is approximately \$1 million.

##### Guadalupe Island

The goal of this 4-year action is to eradicate feral cats and restore
seabird populations on Guadalupe Island. This action will target a suite
of seabirds, including Cassin's auklet, Brandt's cormorant, Xantus's
murrelet, and western gull. Eggshell thinning and/or elevated levels of
DDTs were documented in the eggs of these species in the Southern
California Bight (Kiff 1994, Fry 1994). Although outside of the Southern
California Bight, Guadalupe Island is biogeographically affiliated with
coastal Southern California and a part of the critically endangered
California coastal sage and chaparral ecoregion. World renowned for its
high level of biodiversity, Guadalupe Island supports 34 endemic plants,
2 endemic subspecies of seabirds, 10 endemic land birds, 11 endemic land
snails, and at least 18 endemic insects.

Feral cats are a significant threat to seabird populations on Guadalupe
Island. Introduced prior to 1880, cats are responsible for the likely
extinction of the endemic Guadalupe storm-petrel and the likely
extirpation of many other seabird populations from the main island of
Guadalupe. Proven techniques used worldwide in recent cat removal
programs will be employed in this action. This effort will have both
immediate and permanent conservation benefits for seabirds that use the
Southern California Bight as well as for the unique ecosystem of
Guadalupe Island. The estimated cost of this restoration action is
approximately \$1.1 million.

##### San Jeronimo and San Martín Islands

The goal of this 5-year action is to enhance the recovery of seabird
colonies following the removal of introduced species on San Jeronimo and
San Martín Islands. San Martín Island is oceanographically considered
part of the Southern California Bight, whereas San Jeronimo Island is
just south of this boundary. To maximize restoration efforts on these
islands, a combined action is proposed. Activities on San Martín Island
would focus on restoring the California brown pelican, double-crested
cormorant, and Brandt's cormorant colonies by reducing human disturbance
through signage, public education, and a re-design of the trail system
on the island to avoid the colonies. Efforts on San Jeronimo Island
would focus on restoring the extirpated Brandt's cormorant colony
through social attraction efforts (e.g., decoys) and reducing human
disturbance. Additional restoration actions for Cassin's auklets and
Xantus's murrelets will include shielding light sources, constructing a
boardwalk to stop the destruction of burrows by fisherman walking
through the colony, and controlling waste on the island. Eggshell
thinning and/or elevated levels of DDTs were documented in the eggs of
these species in the Southern California Bight (Kiff 1994, Fry 1994).
The estimated cost of this action is \$751,500.

##### San Benito, Natividad, Asunción, and San Roque Islands

The goal of these 5-year actions is to restore seabird colonies on the
central Baja California Pacific Islands. The San Benito, Natividad,
Asunción, and San Roque Islands are clustered around the Vizcaíno
Peninsula in central Baja California. Restoration efforts will target a
suite of seabirds, including Cassin's auklet, Brandt's cormorant,
double-crested cormorant, California brown pelican, and Xantus's
murrelet. Eggshell thinning and/or elevated levels of DDTs were
documented in the eggs of these species in the Southern California Bight
(Kiff 1994, Fry 1994). These 5-year restoration actions include
rehabilitation of degraded habitat, social attraction of target species
(both decoys and playback systems), use of artificial burrows, reduction
in human disturbance through signage, shielding of lights around fishing
villages, and waste management.

The estimated budgets for these actions range from approximately
\$700,000 to \$1,000,000.

#### Create/Enhance/Protect California Brown Pelican Roost Habitat

The goal of this action is to restore critical non-breeding habitat for
the California brown pelican by enhancing and protecting coastal roosts
along the Southern California mainland. Eggshell thinning and/or
elevated levels of DDTs were documented in the eggs of this species in
the Southern California Bight (Kiff 1994, Fry 1994). Improvements to
communal roosts will provide positive benefits to California brown
pelicans by reducing the energy costs associated with commuting between
prey and roosts as well as flushing and relocating due to human
disturbance. This action will consider the creation of new roost
habitat, such as a floating dock or a similar structure. Several
locations are under consideration for the creation of new habitat,
including Batiquitos Lagoon in San Diego County. This action is scalable
and the costs can have a considerable range. The estimated costs range
from \$50,000 to \$2 million, depending on the type of action.

Additional information on this action can be found in Appendix D6.

#### Implement an Entanglement Reduction and Outreach Program to Protect Seabird Populations

The goal of this action is to benefit the California brown pelican and
other seabirds by reducing injury from entanglement with fishing line.
Entanglement in fishing line and the hooking of California brown
pelicans by anglers is a major factor affecting their survival. Seabirds
may eat the same fishes being targeted by anglers or may be attracted to
the bait at the end of the fishing lines. This action would involve
expanding the American Trader Trustee Council's Seabird Entanglement
Education and Outreach Program to the fishing piers and wharfs in
Southern California where entanglement is a concern. The goal of the
program is to provide information in the form of brochures, signs, and
wildlife guides that heighten public awareness about the potential
hazards to seabirds from fishing tackle and monofilament line. The signs
will help promote public awareness and educate anglers about ways to
reduce their chances of hooking birds and what to do if one is hooked.
The seabirds that will benefit from this action include California brown
pelicans, cormorants, and gulls. Eggshell thinning and/or elevated
levels of DDTs were documented in the eggs of these species in the
Southern California Bight (Kiff 1994, Fry 1994). The estimated cost for
this action is \$22,000.

Additional information on this action can be found in Appendix D7.

#### Restore Ashy Storm-Petrels to Anacapa Island

The goal of this 5-year action is to facilitate breeding for populations
of the rare ashy storm-petrel on Anacapa Island. Eggshell thinning
and/or elevated levels of DDTs were documented in the eggs of this
species in the Southern California Bight (Kiff 1994, Fry 1994). The
suitability of Anacapa Island as breeding habitat for the ashy
storm-petrel has been significantly enhanced due to the eradication of
the black rat in 2003. Black rats were known to occupy prime nesting
habitat on Anacapa Island and likely prevented the ashy storm-petrels
from breeding over large portions of suitable habitat. Ashy
storm-petrels were mist-netted on Anacapa Island in 1994, but to date no
active nests have been found (Whitworth et al. 2003). Recorded
vocalizations and nest boxes will be used to attract the ashy
storm-petrels. Ashy storm-petrels are also known to nest on the adjacent
Santa Cruz Island (Carter et al. 1992).

This action will benefit a priority seabird that is limited in
distribution and has experienced significant population declines. The
establishment of a breeding colony of ashy storm-petrels on Anacapa
Island will contribute to the recovery of this species. The estimated
cost of this action is \$609,000.

Additional information on this action can be found in Appendix D8.

## RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

### Development of Alternatives

Under NEPA, CEQA, and the federal National Resource Damage Assessment
regulations (Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations \[CFR\] Part
11.82(c)), the Trustees must consider a range of possible restoration
alternatives, including a natural recovery alternative with minimal
management actions (i.e., a "no action" alternative). The 17 individual
actions evaluated in detail represent a range of options for addressing
the specific injuries of the Montrose case. As a final step in
developing this Restoration Plan, the Trustees assembled different
combinations of the individual restoration actions from Tier 2 into
comprehensive alternatives for comparison and analysis.

Not all 17 actions can be included within a single comprehensive
Restoration Plan alternative, as some are mutually exclusive (e.g., the
two bald eagle actions) and available funding is not sufficient to cover
all the actions. The ultimate aim of this Restoration Plan is to
identify alternative combinations of these individual actions and to
select one preferred alternative that optimizes restoration of natural
resources and services within the constraints of available funds.
However, one or more actions that are included in the preferred
alternative may later unexpectedly prove to be infeasible. If this
happens, then actions from the Tier 2 list that were not included in the
original alternatives may be substituted as replacements, since all were
found to satisfy the evaluation criteria.

Recognizing that this Restoration Plan covers a set of actions that are
broad in scope and in some cases still only conceptual, this document
has been prepared as a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This programmatic EIS/EIR
undertakes general analysis of the restoration program and will be
linked to any further action-specific environmental documentation as
necessary. The Trustees will proceed by implementing a specific set of
actions for the first 5-year phase of restoration (Phase 1). At the end
of Phase 1, progress will be assessed and the remaining restoration
funds will be allocated. The planning for this subsequent phase of
restoration (i.e., Phase 2) will be conducted in or around 2010 with
public involvement; however, the Phase 2 planning will not necessarily
require the preparation of a new programmatic EIS/EIR.

### Allocation of Restoration Funds Among Resource Categories

One important consideration in this Restoration Plan is how available
funds should be distributed between the different natural resources and
services identified for restoration in the final Montrose consent
decree. The decree itself did not specify how restoration funds should
be allocated. During the natural resource damage assessment in the
1990s, the Trustees attempted to estimate the costs of restoring injured
natural resources and lost services to their baseline level (primary
restoration) and compensating for interim lost natural resource services
(compensatory restoration). These previous restoration scaling estimates
are a part of the administrative record for the damage assessment. They
do not provide a useful guide for allocating restoration funding at this
stage because: (1) the final settlement was not based on the scaling
estimates per se, (2) the recovery status of the injured natural
resources has changed in the intervening years since the scaling was
performed, and (3) the Trustees have developed a more specific
understanding of potential restoration actions in each resource category
targeted for restoration.

The final settlements provided a principal amount of approximately \$30
million for natural resource restoration. Interest accruing in the
settlement accounts provides an additional source of restoration
funding. In addition, additional settlement funds (\$10 million plus
interest) that may be used for EPA response actions could instead be
allocated to natural resource restoration depending on the outcome of
the EPA's ongoing remedial investigation (see Section 4.3). These funds
are referred to as "swing money," as they may be used by either the EPA
or the Trustees depending on the EPA's final cleanup decision.

In the summer of 2004, the Trustees commissioned an audit of the
Montrose settlement accounts to determine their current balances and
interest rates and to develop a reasonable projection of funds available
in the future. The audit identified an estimated balance of restoration
funds in the settlement accounts of \$38 million as of July 2004 (not
including the swing money). Interest is currently accruing at 1.75%,
adding approximately \$700,000 per year to the accounts. Ongoing
restoration program operating costs are comparable to the interest
currently accruing. The Trustees propose to commit approximately \$25
million during the first 5 years (2005--2010) of restoration
implementation under this Restoration Plan. After 5 years, several
uncertainties should be resolved, including the outcome of the NCI Bald
Eagle Feasibility Study and the EPA's cleanup decision. The Trustees
will then assess progress and allocate the remaining restoration funds
in Phase 2.

The Trustees have allocated the \$25 million for Phase 1 among the four
restoration categories: fishing and fish habitat, bald eagles, peregrine
falcons, and seabirds. Consideration was given to the potential costs of
restoring those resources still experiencing injuries due to the
contaminants of the case. The continued presence of DDTs and PCBs in the
marine environment and the uncertain outcomes of ongoing data gap
studies (Section 4.2.1) limit the Trustees' ability to accurately
project these costs. Considering the likely costs of actions and the
uncertainties, the Trustees reached consensus on a proposal to allocate
the initial \$25 million on an approximately equal basis between fishing
and fish habitat restoration and bird restoration as follows:

-   \$12 million for fishing and fish habitat restoration actions, and

-   \$13 million for bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and seabird
    restoration actions.

This overall commitment (approximately \$25 million) and its allocation
are built into the restoration alternatives discussed below. The costs
of the fish and bald eagle data gap studies presently being conducted
were assumed to be a part of the overall \$25 million to be earmarked
for Phase 1.

### Alternative 1 (No Action)

For the purposes of this plan, the No Action Alternative assumes that
the Trustees would not intervene to restore injured natural resources
and compensate for lost services for any of the affected resources of
the Montrose case. Instead, the Trustees would rely on natural processes
for the gradual recovery of the injured natural resources and would only
take the limited action of monitoring natural recovery.

The principal advantages of this approach are the ease of implementation
and the absence of monetary costs. Although natural recovery may
eventually occur for many of the injured resources, the recovery may
take a significantly longer period of time than would recovery under an
active restoration scenario. Also, the interim losses of natural
resource services would not be compensated under the No Action
Alternative. In addition, certain events, such as the extirpation of
bald eagles and the introduction of exotic species in the Channel
Islands, have led to consequences for other natural resources that may
not be addressed under a natural recovery alternative. Because feasible
restoration actions have been identified that would address the injuries
and lost services of the case, the No Action Alternative as an overall
approach across all resource categories does not fulfill the goals of
this Restoration Plan. However, this does not preclude selection of
natural recovery as an option for specific resources (e.g., peregrine
falcons) within the overall framework of a comprehensive restoration
alternative.

### Alternative 2 (Preferred)

After considering the 17 potential restoration actions evaluated in
detail and the available funds, the Trustees assembled the following
diverse set of actions to generate Alternative 2:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Fishing and Fish Habitat Restoration**                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Construct artificial reefs and fishing access improvements*          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Provide public information to restore lost fishing services*         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Restore full tidal exchange wetlands*                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Augment funds for implementing Marine Protected Areas in California* |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Bald Eagle Restoration**                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Complete the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study before deciding on     |
| further restoration actions*                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Peregrine Falcon Restoration**                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Monitor the recovery of peregrine falcons on the Channel Islands*    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Seabird Restoration**                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Restore seabirds to San Miguel Island*                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Restore alcids to Santa Barbara Island*                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Restore seabirds to San Nicolas Island*                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Restore seabirds to Scorpion and Orizaba Rocks*                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Restore seabirds to Baja California Pacific Islands*                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   *Coronado and Todos Santos Islands*                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The Trustees have concluded that conducting these actions will most
effectively address the continuing injuries and lost services of the
Montrose case and compensate for past injuries within the limits of
funding allocated during Phase 1 of restoration implementation. This
combination of actions represents the Trustees' preferred alternative.
Further explanation of why this collection of actions is preferred
follows.

#### Fishing and Fish Habitats 

For the fishing and fish habitat resource category under this
alternative, the Trustees will conduct a diverse set of four actions
that addresses both the restoration of human uses (fishing services) and
the restoration of fish habitats. In particular, one of the actions,
"construct artificial reefs and fishing access improvements,"
effectively addresses both the need to restore lost fishing services and
the need for fish habitat in close proximity to areas affected by the
contaminants of the case. For this reason, this action will receive
greater funding emphasis within this category than the other three
actions (see Appendix A).

The degree to which each of these four actions fulfills all six of the
MSRP evaluation criteria varies, but all of the actions are considered
sufficient to satisfy the criteria for selection. "Construct artificial
reefs and fishing access improvements" rates high for nexus, resource
benefits, and ecological benefits. "Provide public information to
restore lost fishing services" rates high for nexus, feasibility,
resource benefits, and cost. "Restore full tidal exchange wetlands"
rates high for feasibility and ecological benefits. "Augment funds for
Marine Protected Areas in California" rates high for feasibility,
resource benefits, and ecological benefits.

#### Bald Eagles

For the bald eagle resource category under this alternative, the
Trustees fund the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program only through
2005, complete the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study to determine whether
bald eagles placed on the Northern Channel Islands can reproduce on
their own, and only then decide what additional bald eagle restoration
will be conducted. This alternative discontinues funding for the Santa
Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program during the interim period until the
results of the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study are known (in or around
2008). At that point, the Trustees will re-evaluate all potential
options for bald eagle restoration, including measures that may be taken
even if bald eagles are not able to reproduce on their own anywhere in
the Channel Islands (see Section 6.1.2).

This bald eagle restoration approach better fulfills the restoration
goals and objectives and the MSRP evaluation criteria than the bald
eagle restoration approach considered under Alternative 3, which would
continue funding the Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program even
though these birds cannot reproduce on their own. The bald eagle
restoration approach under Alternative 2 better fulfills restoration
goals and objectives because the MSRP evaluation criteria give
preference to actions that have a long duration under the resource
benefits criterion and actions that require less ongoing operation and
maintenance under the feasibility criterion. In other words, the
preferred bald eagle restoration approach, which focuses on restoring
naturally reproducing bald eagles on the Channel Islands, has greater
potential to realize long-term, self-sustaining benefits.

#### Peregrine Falcons

For the peregrine falcon resource category, this alternative provides
for recovery with monitoring. This approach recognizes the evidence
that, with the aid of prior release efforts and natural recruitment,
peregrine falcons are recovering on the Channel Islands. The number of
breeding pairs on the Channel Islands has increased from nine pairs in
1992 (Hunt 1994) to approximately 21 breeding pairs in 2004 (PBRG 2004).
Lack of successful breeding on the Southern Channel Islands might be
indicative of continuing contaminant-caused injuries in that region;
however, if this were the case, further hacking of peregrine falcons
would not effectively address this issue. The Trustees also recognize
that peregrine falcons benefit from seabird restoration, as an increase
in the numbers of seabirds increases the availability of the preferred
prey of peregrine falcons. For these reasons, the Trustees did not
include active restoration of peregrine falcons to the Channel Islands
as part of the preferred alternative; however, restoration funds will be
used to monitor the continued recovery of this species on the Channel
Islands.

#### Seabirds

For the seabird resource category, this alternative incorporates a
diverse set of actions that provides significant benefits to several
species of seabirds. Evaluation of past data indicates that the seabird
species benefiting from these actions have demonstrated eggshell
thinning and/or elevated levels of DDTs in their eggs (Kiff 1994, Fry
1994). Although the seabird actions not included in this alternative
also have a strong nexus to the Montrose case and would benefit seabirds
injured by the contaminants of the case, insufficient funding is
available at this time to fund all the restoration actions evaluated in
Tier 2. Among the MSRP evaluation criteria, the degree of resource
benefits best distinguishes the different seabird actions. Therefore,
the Trustees have selected those actions that they consider to provide
the greatest restoration benefits within the limits of funding.

Should one or more of the seabird actions requiring supplemental
analysis later be determined to be inadvisable to pursue, the MSRP will
provide public notice and use the available funds to proceed with one or
more of the other seabird actions that met the Tier 2 criteria but were
not incorporated into this alternative. The Trustees will also seek
partnerships to reduce the costs of individual actions. Depending on the
level of cost sharing, the Trustees may be able to implement additional
seabird actions not currently included in Alternative 2.

#### Summary of Alternative 2

After consideration of the restoration goals and objectives, the MSRP
evaluation criteria, the current status of injured resources, and the
continuing presence of contamination, the Trustees believe that
Alternative 2 represents the optimal distribution of funding for natural
resource restoration across the demonstrated injury categories and for
the purposes of both primary and compensatory restoration (Figure 6-3).

### Alternative 3

The Trustees assembled another comprehensive alternative for
consideration and comparison in this Restoration Plan. Alternative 3
consists of the following set of actions:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Fishing and Fish Habitat Restoration**                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Construct artificial reefs and fishing access improvements*          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Provide public information to restore lost fishing services*         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Bald Eagle Restoration**                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Complete the NCI Bald Eagle Feasibility Study; Regardless of its     |
| Outcome, Continue Funding Santa Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program*   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Peregrine Falcon Restoration**                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Monitor the recovery of peregrine falcons on the Channel Islands*    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Seabird Restoration**                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Restore alcids to Santa Barbara Island*                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Restore seabirds to Scorpion and Orizaba Rocks*                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Restore seabirds to Baja California Pacific Islands*                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   *Coronado and Todos Santos Islands*                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Restore ashy storm-petrels to Anacapa Island*                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

In this alternative, the Trustees would fund a narrower range of actions
that would place greater emphasis on primary restoration of injuries and
lost services. For the actions that are scaleable (e.g., the two fishing
restoration actions), greater levels of funding would be available to
each individual action identified in Alternative 3 than in Alternative
2, as available funds within that category would be distributed across
fewer actions.

For the fishing and fish habitat category under this alternative, the
Trustees focus restoration efforts on the two actions that most directly
address the continuing loss of fishing services from contaminated fish.
The remaining two actions evaluated in the fishing and fish habitat
category, Restore Full Tidal Exchange Wetlands and Augment Funds for
Implementing Marine Protected Areas in California, are not included in
this alternative, as they restore fish habitats in ways that are not as
directly linked to the continuing loss of fishing services of the
Montrose case but instead serve to restore fish habitats as specified in
the Consent Decree.

For the bald eagle category under this alternative, the Trustees would
fund the continued human intervention (i.e., egg manipulation and chick
fostering) needed to sustain a bald eagle presence on Santa Catalina
Island for many years to come. The Trustees would also complete the NCI
Feasibility Study. Funds for seabird restoration would be commensurately
reduced. This bald eagle restoration option, considered in the broader
context of the need to restore a wide range of injured resources, does
not rate as high against the MSRP evaluation criteria as the preferred
bald eagle option under Alternative 2. This is because the MSRP
evaluation criteria give preference to actions with long term benefits
that do not require continuous operations and maintenance. Since it
remains to be determined whether DDTs and PCBs have attenuated
sufficiently in the Northern Channel Islands to allow bald eagles to be
self-sustaining, the Trustees prefer to await the conclusion of the NCI
Study before committing further restoration funding for bald eagles.

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="6.497222222222222in"
height="7.809027777777778in"}

Figure 6-3. Illustration of the collective restoration actions and\
funding distributions proposed under Alternative 2 (Preferred) and
Alternative 3.

**Back of FIGURE 6-3**

### Summary of the Alternatives

Table 6-2 lists the 17 potential restoration actions that received
detailed evaluation and indicates how they are assembled into the two
comprehensive alternatives and the No Action Alternative for this
Restoration Plan and programmatic EIS/EIR. Each alternative allocates
approximately \$25 million in restoration funding to cover data gap
studies and the initial 5 years of restoration implementation (Phase 1).
Alternative 2 distributes funding across a wide range of actions that
are both primary and compensatory in nature. Alternative 3 focuses
greater effort on primary restoration by (1) targeting fish restoration
for human use (fishing) benefits and (2) reserving greater funding for
long-term intervention to maintain bald eagles in the Channel Islands
despite continuing reproductive injuries (thus reducing funds available
for seabird actions). The Trustees' preferred alternative is Alternative
2.

+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Table 6-2\                             |         |         |         |
| Comparison of Restoration Alternatives |         |         |         |
+========================================+=========+=========+=========+
| **Potential Restoration Actions**      | **Alte  | **Alte  | **Alte  |
|                                        | rnative | rnative | rnative |
|                                        | 1\      | 2       | 3\***   |
|                                        | (No     | (       |         |
|                                        | Ac      | Preferr |         |
|                                        | tion)** | ed)\*** |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Fishing and Fish Habitat             |         | \$12    | \$12    |
| Restoration**                          |         | million | million |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Construct artificial reefs and        |         |        |        |
| fishing access improvements*           |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Provide public information to restore |         |        |        |
| lost fishing services*                 |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Restore full tidal exchange wetlands* |         |        |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Augment funds for implementing Marine |         |        |         |
| Protected Areas in California*         |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Bald Eagle Restoration**             |         | \$6.2   | \$10    |
|                                        |         | million | million |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Complete the NCI Bald Eagle           |         |        |         |
| Feasibility Study Before Deciding on   |         |         |         |
| Further Restoration Actions*           |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Complete the NCI Bald Eagle           |         |         |        |
| Feasibility Study; Regardless of its   |         |         |         |
| Outcome, Continue Funding Santa        |         |         |         |
| Catalina Island Bald Eagle Program*    |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Peregrine Falcon Restoration**       |         | \$0.3   | \$0.3   |
|                                        |         | million | million |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Restore peregrine falcons to the      |         |         |         |
| Channel Islands*                       |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Monitor the recovery of peregrine     |         |        |        |
| falcons on the Channel Islands*        |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Restore peregrine falcons to the Baja |         |         |         |
| California Pacific Islands*            |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Seabird Restoration**                |         | \$6.5   | \$2.7   |
|                                        |         | million | million |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Restore seabirds to San Miguel        |         |        |         |
| Island*                                |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Restore alcids to Santa Barbara       |         |        |        |
| Island*                                |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Restore seabirds to San Nicolas       |         |        |         |
| Island*                                |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Restore seabirds Scorpion and Orizaba |         |        |        |
| Rocks*                                 |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Restore seabirds to Baja California   |         |        |        |
| Pacific Islands*                       |         |         |         |
|                                        |         | *Co     | *C      |
| -   *Coronado and Todos Santos         |         | ronado* | oronado |
|     Islands*                           |         | *and*   | and     |
|                                        |         | *Todos* | Todos   |
| -   *Guadalupe Island*                 |         | *       | Santos  |
|                                        |         | Santos* | I       |
| -   *San Jeronimo and San Martín       |         | *I      | slands* |
|     Islands*                           |         | slands* |         |
|                                        |         |         |         |
| -   *San Benito Islands*               |         |         |         |
|                                        |         |         |         |
| -   *Asunción and San Roque Islands*   |         |         |         |
|                                        |         |         |         |
| -   *Natividad Island*                 |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Create/enhance/protect California     |         |         |         |
| brown pelican roost habitat*           |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Implement an entanglement reduction   |         |         |         |
| and outreach program to protect        |         |         |         |
| seabird populations*                   |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Restore ashy storm-petrels to Anacapa |         |         |         |
| Island*                                |         |         |         |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

\*The budgets shown in this table reflect the estimated costs of data
gap studies and the initial 5 years of restoration implementation.

## uncertainties

Several uncertainties are inherent in the restoration actions described
in this Restoration Plan. As stated in Section 4, the Trustees' strategy
is to approach restoration planning as an iterative, adaptive process,
and this Restoration Plan will be updated in the future as restoration
progress is assessed and new information becomes available. Some of the
uncertainties that the Trustees have identified are:

-   All of the actions are subject to obtaining the required permits and
    authorizations (if necessary) before proceeding.

-   The budgets assembled for each action in Appendices A--D are
    estimates and do not include contingencies. These estimates will be
    refined once the actions approach the stage of implementation and
    potential funding partners are identified.

-   Although all of the actions selected as part of Alternative 2
    (preferred) are considered feasible for implementation, unforeseen
    issues could potentially arise that might prevent implementation.
    Because all 17 actions evaluated in Tier 2 meet the restoration
    criteria, in the event that certain actions in Alternative 2 cannot
    go forward or cost savings are realized that leave funding
    available, the Trustees would consider pursuing one or more of the
    remaining Tier 2 actions. The Trustees would document such changes
    and provide opportunity for public review and comment.

-   The outcomes of the ongoing fish contamination and bald eagle data
    gap studies are not known at the time that this Restoration Plan is
    being prepared. It is possible that these studies might provide
    unanticipated new information and cause the Trustees to reconsider
    the actions of the restoration program.

-   Funding beyond that on which this Restoration Plan is based may be
    made available in the future, depending on the EPA's upcoming
    determination on the potential in situ response action (see Section
    4.3).