![](media/image1.png){width="4.488888888888889in"
height="3.076388888888889in"}

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***Feasibility Study for Reestablishment of Bald Eagles on***         |
|                                                                       |
| ***the northern Channel Islands, California***                        |
|                                                                       |
| **ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT**                                          |
|                                                                       |
| Montrose Settlements Restoration Program                              |
|                                                                       |
| National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and        |
| Wildlife Service, National Park Service, California Department of     |
| Fish and Game, California State Lands Commission, and California      |
| Department of Parks and Recreation                                    |
|                                                                       |
| February 25, 2002                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

######## For Further Information:

Montrose Settlements Restoration Program

501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4470

Long Beach, CA 90802

<MSRP@noaa.gov>

  -------------------------- --------------------------------------------
                             Preface

  -------------------------- --------------------------------------------

I.  **Public Meeting**

There will be a public meeting held on this draft Feasibility
Study/Environmental Assessment (FS/EA) at Ventura, California

Date- March 28, 2002

Time- 7 p.m.

Location- Channel Islands National Park Visitor Center, 1901 Spinnaker
Drive, Ventura.

The Trustees will provide a general overview of the Feasibility Study
and accept both oral and written comments on the plan at this time. This
document can also be viewed at the MSRP website at
<http://www.darcnw.noaa.gov/montrose.htm>

II. **Comments**

Following a public notice, the draft FS/EA will be available to the
public for comment beginning February 27, 2002 and ending on April 4,
2002. The Trustees will review all public comments received during the
review period and before making a decision on the Feasibility Study. In
addition, public comments will be included in the Administrative Record.

Comments should be submitted to:

Montrose Settlements Restoration Program

501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4470

Long Beach, CA 90802

or via e-mail to <MSRP@noaa.gov>

  --------------------- -------------------------------------------------
                        Executive Summary

  --------------------- -------------------------------------------------

The Montrose Settlements Restoration Program (MSRP), on behalf of its
member agencies, is developing a comprehensive restoration plan and
programmatic environmental impact statement to restore the marine
resources injured by the release of DDTs and PCBs into the marine
resources of the Southern California Bight, including the Channel
Islands National Park. The overall effort is aimed at restoring,
replacing, rehabilitating, or acquiring the equivalent of the injured
natural resources and services. The State and Federal trustees
overseeing this process have determined that, concurrent with the
overall planning effort, an approximately five-year study should be
conducted to determine the feasibility of recolonizing the northern
Channel Islands with bald eagles (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*) given the
continued presence of DDT. Information gained from this feasibility
study regarding the success of the reintroduced eagles will be
incorporated in the development of the comprehensive restoration plan.

From the late 1940s to the early 1970s, industries in the Los Angles
area discharged millions of pounds of DDTs and PCBs into ocean waters
off the Southern California coast. Almost all of the DDTs originated
from the Montrose Chemical Corporation's manufacturing plant in
Torrance, CA and were discharged into Los Angeles County sewers that
empty into the Pacific Ocean at White Point, on the Palos Verdes shelf.
Montrose also dumped hundreds of tons of DDT-contaminated waste into the
ocean near Santa Catalina Island.

In late 2000, the state and federal governments settled the final
remaining legal claims brought in 1990 against several companies for
releasing DDTs and PCBs into southern California coastal waters. A total
of \$140 million in damages has been paid under four separate settlement
agreements. These funds will be used to support two types of activities
under the Superfund Law. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the California Department of Toxic Substances Control will use a portion
of the funds to reduce exposure to DDT and PCBs, for example, by
covering contaminated sediments with clean sediments. In addition, the
Natural Resource Trustees (the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Park Service,
California Department of Fish and Game, California State Lands
Commission, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation), will
use a portion of the funds to restore natural resources that were harmed
by these releases of DDTs and PCBs into the marine environment.

Bald eagles were a resident breeding species on all eight of the
California Channel Islands. It is estimated that a minimum of 35 eagle
nest sites existed on the Channel Islands earlier in this century,
making the Channel Islands the stronghold for this species in Southern
California. Between the mid-1940s and early 1960s, bald eagles
disappeared from all of the Channel Islands. Bald eagles have not
naturally reestablished on the Channel Islands and those that have been
released by humans on Santa Catalina Island have not been able to
naturally reproduce due to DDT contamination. It is uncertain if a
breeding population of bald eagles can be successfully reestablished on
the northern Channel Islands. Bald eagles were identified as one of the
primary injured resources in the Montrose case and they continue to be
impacted by DDT contamination.

The Feasibility Study will consist of the following actions:

-   Releasing captive-bred or translocated wild nestling bald eagles on
    Santa Cruz Island using previously developed techniques.

-   Monitoring contaminants in the released birds, their eggs and their
    food to determine if concentrations of DDTs are present which may
    impact the ability of the eagles to successfully reproduce.

The trustees have drafted this Feasibility Study and Environmental
Assessment (FS/EA) and are initiating public review of the plan in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Trustee agencies invite
public comment on the alternatives discussed in this proposed FS/EA to
assist them in considering what environmental impacts implementation of
the alternatives may have.

  -------------------------- --------------------------------------------
                             Document Overview

  -------------------------- --------------------------------------------

This document is organized into the following sections:

Section 1 Purpose, Need, and Proposed Action page 5

Section 2 Affected Environment page 10

Section 3 Alternatives page 27

Section 4 Environmental Consequences page 32

Section 5 Public Involvement / Comments page 40

Section 6 Compliance with other Authorities page 41

Section 7 References page 47

Section 8 List of Preparers page 54

  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------
  Section 1               Purpose, Need, and Proposed Action

  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------

The Montrose Settlements Restoration Program (MSRP) Trustee Council is
beginning the development of a comprehensive restoration plan and
programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) to restore the
natural marine resources injured by the release of DDTs and PCBs into
the southern California bight. The overall effort is aimed at restoring,
replacing, rehabilitating, or acquiring the equivalent of the injured
natural resources and services. The State and Federal Trustees
overseeing this process are proposing that, concurrent with the overall
planning effort, an approximate five-year study will be conducted to
determine the feasibility of recolonizing the northern Channel Islands
(NCI) with bald eagles (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*) given the continued
presence of DDT contamination in the food web of the Southern California
Bight. If the trustees determine to move forward with the feasibility
study, following public input and review, the data collected will be
used in the development of the comprehensive restoration plan.

An additional purpose of this proposed *Feasibility Study for
Reestablishment of Bald Eagles on the northern Channel Islands,
California-Environmental Assessment (FS/EA)* is to comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Trustee agencies invite public
comment on the alternatives discussed in this proposed FS/EA to assist
them in considering what environmental impacts implementation of the
alternatives may have.

# Background/Overview

From the late 1940s to the early 1970s, industries in the Los Angles
(L.A) area discharged millions of pounds of DDTs and PCBs into ocean
waters off the Southern California coast. Almost all of the DDTs
originated from the Montrose Chemical Corporation's manufacturing plant
in Torrance, CA and were discharged into Los Angles County sewers that
empty into the Pacific Ocean at White Point, on the Palos Verdes shelf.
Montrose also dumped hundreds of tons of DDT-contaminated waste into the
ocean near Santa Catalina Island. DDTs refers to a mixture of similar
chemicals widely used as pesticides starting in the 1940s. The U.S.
banned the use of DDTs in 1973. PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls are a
group of 206 related chemicals once widely used in electrical
transformers, hydraulic fluids and paints.

In 1992 and 1993, surveys by the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
found that more than 100 metric tons (110 US tons) of DDTs and 10 metric
tons (11 US tons) of PCBs remained in the sediments on the ocean bottom
of the Palos Verdes Shelf (Lee et al. 1996). The highest concentrations
of DDTs and PCBs were near the mouth of the White Point sewer outfall,
at water depths from 40 to 80 m (130 - 260 ft) deep. Subsequent surveys
by the Southern California Bight Pilot Project showed that elevated
concentrations of DDTs and PCBs in bottom sediments extended from the
Palos Verdes Shelf and into Santa Monica Bay.

Numerous independent studies have shown that the DDTs and PCBs still
contaminate marine life and birds in Southern California and continue to
harm these natural resources. Sportfish in the L.A. area (approximately
50 species in eight groups) have levels of DDTs that exceed the State of
California trigger level (0.1 ppm). Several of these sportfish also have
concentrations of PCBs that exceed State of California trigger levels.
Consequently, the State of California has issued health advisories
warning consumers to limit or avoid consumption of these fish at certain
coastal locations off Los Angeles and Orange Counties. In addition, due
to the high levels of DDTs and PCBs present in white croaker, the State
imposed bag limits for this species and banned commercial fishing for
white croaker near the Palos Verdes Shelf.

By present estimates, DDTs and PCBs will continue to contaminate marine
resources and birds in Southern California for decades. According to
USGS studies (Drake et al. 1995, Lee et al. 1996, Sherwood et al. 1996),
at least half of the present mass of DDTs on the Palos Verdes Shelf is
expected to remain on the Palos Verdes Shelf through the year 2100.

**Natural Resource Claim**

In 1990, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the California
Attorney General filed a lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Ac of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund) 42
U.S.C. 9601 et seq, alleging that a number of defendants were
responsible for releasing DDTs and PCBs and other hazardous substances
into the environment. The lawsuit charged that the DDTs and PCBs injured
natural resources, including fish and wildlife that live in and around
coastal waters in Southern California.

On December 19, 2000, the state and federal governments settled the
final remaining legal claims brought in 1990 against a number of
defendants for releasing millions of pounds of DDTs and PCBs into the
coastal waters off Los Angeles. A total of \$140 million in damages have
been paid under four separate settlement agreements. As required under
the Superfund Law, the Trustees will use approximately \$30 million to
restore public resources harmed by releases of DDTs and PCBs off the
coast of Southern California. In addition, approximately half of the
funds will be used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
California Department of Substances Control to reduce exposure to DDTs
and PCBs, which may include covering contaminated sediments with clean
sediments. The remainder of the monies will cover costs incurred by the
MSRP Trustees to develop evidence and adjudicate the case.

**Natural Resource Trustees and Authorities**

Both Federal and State of California laws establish liability for
natural resource damages to compensate the public for the injury, and
the loss of such resources and or/their services resulting from the
release of hazardous materials. This Feasibility Study/Environmental
Assessment (FS/EA) is being conducted pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1990 (CERCLA),
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

This FS/EA has been prepared jointly by the MSRP Trustees: the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), National Park Service (NPS), California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG), California State Lands Commission, and California
Department of Parks and Recreation.

The MSRP Trustees are responsible for developing and carrying out the
Montrose Settlements Restoration planning process. These Trustees
represent the interests of the public in assessing damage to and
restoring the public's natural resources. A Trustee Council, consisting
of representatives of the MSRP Trustees, has been formed to oversee the
restoration planning and implementation.

# Bald eagles in southern california

##### DDTs and PCBs Injuries to Bald Eagles 

##### Bald eagles were a resident breeding species on all of the California Channel Islands from before the turn of the century until at least the 1930s (Willett 1933, Kiff 1980). Ornithologists and egg collectors reported bald eagles to be common on the northern Channel Islands between the late 1800's through the 1930's. From the 1800's to 1950, bald eagle nesting areas were reported from a minimum of 35 different locations on the islands, making the Channel Islands a stronghold for this species in Southern California (Kiff 2000). However due to the lack of systematic surveys this number is likely an underestimate. The last confirmed nesting of an eagle on the Channel Islands was in 1949 (Kiff 1980).

Little published information is available regarding the status of bald
eagles on the Channel Islands after the 1940s, but a few adult birds
continued to be observed on some of the islands into the late 1950s and
1960s. Catalina residents remember seeing eagles up until the middle to
late 1950s (Kiff 1980, Garcelon 1988). By the early 1960s, bald eagles
had disappeared from all of the Channel Islands. Timing of the decline
of eagles on the Channel Islands coincided closely with the loss of
peregrine falcons (*Falco peregrinus*) and bald eagles from other
portions of their North American range as a result of egg-shell thinning
effects of DDE (Kiff 2000, Garcelon 1988). The reduction of bald eagle
populations in many areas of the country has been correlated with high
levels of organochlorine compounds and specifically with metabolites of
DDTs (Stickel et al. 1966, Krantz 1970).

Raptor species, such as bald eagles and peregrine falcons, are
particularly susceptible to these contaminants because they are high
trophic level predators. DDE, a breakdown metabolite of the synthetic
pesticide of DDT, has been demonstrated to cause eggshell thinning and
subsequent reproductive failure in many species of birds feeding in the
marine ecosystem. DDE in the diet of the bald eagle have negatively
affected its' ability to produce young. The continuing influence of this
contaminant also accounted for the inability of these raptors to
recolonize the islands after other sources of mortality had ceased (Kiff
2000).

Because DDTs and PCBs are slow to break down and are strongly attracted
to fats, they bioaccumulate and become more concentrated in animals at
higher levels in the foodweb. When feeding on food contaminated with DDE
and PCBs, animals at the top of the foodweb, like bald eagles and
peregrine falcons, can accumulate harmful concentrations of these
chemicals. This same effect has been documented in brown pelicans
(*Pelecanus occidentalis*), peregrine falcons, and cormorants
(*Phalacrocorax* spp.).

**Additional Factors in Eagle Population Decline and Conservation
Actions**

Other factors in addition to DDTs contributed to the decline of bald
eagles in Southern California. These included historical persecution by
humans (egg collecting and shooting) (Kiff 1980), and limited nesting
opportunities on the mainland of southern California due to development
and recreation (Kiff 1980). .

Bald eagles are currently listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), but have been proposed for de-listing due to
substantial recovery of the species on the mainland. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), in its Bald Eagle Recovery Plan, set recovery
goals for bald eagles for specific zones in California. The Bald Eagle
Recovery Plan indicates that the most suitable habitat in southern
California is on the Channel Islands, especially Santa Cruz and Santa
Catalina Islands (Jurek 2000, USFWS 1986). The zone containing the
Channel Islands has not met its recovery goals with respect to the
number of breeding pairs. Successfully reestablishing eagles to the
northern Channel Islands would assist in meeting this objective.

##### Historic Bald Eagle Numbers on the Northern Channel Islands

Kiff (2000) showed a minimum of 24 different bald eagle nesting
territories on the northern Channel Islands (Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa
Rosa and San Miquel) with a maximum of 14 nesting pairs reported in the
same year on those islands. Historically, Santa Cruz Island regularly
supported a minimum of at least five pairs of bald eagles, which nested
in niches and potholes on the sea cliffs (Kiff 1980). Known nesting
areas on Santa Cruz included Pelican Bay, San Pedro Point, Blue Banks,
Valley Anchorage, Chinese Harbor, Potato Harbor, and Middle Grounds.
Nearby Anacapa Island had as many as three nesting pairs in some years.
Kiff estimates that the northern Channel Islands supported at least 10
nests, and probably more, at any one time. However, since collectors or
ornithologists did not visit large portions of these large islands very
often, if at all, these estimates are likely an underestimate. This
claim is cooperated by the fact that a boat survey of the northern
Channel Islands conducted in 1999 found a remnant bald eagle nest at Del
Mar Cove, Santa Cruz Island, that had not been previously documented.

**Ecological Role of Bald Eagles**

Bald eagles historically played an important role in the ecology of the
Channel Islands by serving as both a top carnivore and a scavenger. Bald
eagles prey primarily upon fish taken live from the ocean; however they
also feed upon seabirds and the carcasses of animals that wash up on
shore.

The bald eagle functions as a top-level coastal predator and scavenger.
There is no other species that plays the same ecological role as the
bald eagle. In the absence of bald eagles on the northern Channel
Islands, golden eagles (not native to the NCI) have become established
on Santa Cruz Islands. Nesting adult bald eagles defend territories and
would have excluded golden eagles from establishing on the islands. The
golden eagle, a terrestrial predator, has had tremendous negative
impacts on native island foxes, a species that does not have
evolutionary adaptations to avoid predation (Coonan 2001, Roemer 1999).

In addition to their role in the balance of natural systems, bald eagles
were revered by Native American cultures historically occupying the
Channel Islands and are still admired and valued by people for whom the
eagle is both a striking bird and our American symbol.

# restoration actions in Southern California for Bald Eagles 

In 1980, the USFWS and the Institute for Wildlife Studies (IWS), with
the cooperation of the CDFG and the Santa Catalina Island Conservancy
(SCIC), initiated a program to reintroduce bald eagles to Catalina
Island. Between 1980 and 1986, 33 eagles from wild nests were raised on
three different artificial nest or hacking platforms on Catalina Island
(Garcelon 1988). Once the birds were able to fly (at around 12 weeks of
age) they were released. Some of these birds matured and formed breeding
pairs on the island. The first eggs were laid in 1987. Unfortunately
they broke soon after they were laid. Subsequent contaminant analysis of
egg remains revealed DDE (a metabolite of DDT) levels sufficient to
cause complete reproductive failure (Garcelon et al. 1989). During
1991-93, IWS studied food habits of the released eagles and documented
high levels of DDE in the tissues of certain prey items commonly
consumed by these eagles (Garcelon 1997, Garcelon et al. 1997a, b).

Since 1989, the reintroduced population has been maintained through
manipulations of eggs and chicks at each nest site and through hacking
of additional birds. Because of the high DDE concentrations in the eggs,
this active program of manipulation and augmentation is necessary to
maintain the Catalina Island bald eagle population at this time.

In the egg manipulation process, structurally deficient eggs laid by the
birds affected by DDE are replaced with artificial eggs. The adult
eagles continue to incubate the artificial eggs while the real eggs are
removed and artificially incubated at the Avian Conservation Center
(ACC) at the San Francisco Zoo. Chicks that hatch from these removed
eggs, or those produced by captive adults at the ACC or by wild birds,
are then fostered back into the nests.

As part of the larger restoration effort, the MSRP Trustee Council will
be considering a long-term restoration plan for the eagles on Catalina
Island. The Feasibility Study described in this document is proposed to
generate information to assist in selecting the best restoration
approaches for the long term restoration plan.

# proposed action

The proposed action and the environmentally preferred alternative, is an
approximate five-year study to determine the feasibility of successfully
reestablishing a breeding population of bald eagles on the northern
Channel Islands given the continued presence of contamination by DDTs
and PCBs.

This FS will primarily consist of the following actions:

1.  Releasing captive-bred or translocated wild nestling bald eagles on
    Santa Cruz Island using previously developed techniques.

2.  Monitoring contaminants in the released birds, their eggs and their
    food to determine if concentrations of DDTs are present which may
    impact the ability of the eagles to successfully reproduce.

The results of the FS will be used by the MSRP Trustee Council to
evaluate whether to proceed with a full-scale program to reintroduce
bald eagles to the northern Channel Islands.

**Location and Description of the Study Area**

California's eight Channel Islands (Fig. 1) are located off the coast of
southern California. The four northern islands are located in the Santa
Barbara Channel parallel to the coast south of Point Conception; the
four southern islands are scattered offshore between Los Angeles and the
Mexican border. The five northernmost islands (Santa Barbara, Anacapa,
Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel) and the surrounding one nautical
mile of water comprise Channel Islands National Park.

*Figure 1. California's Channel
Islands*![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.6097222222222225in"
height="4.326388888888889in"}

The largest of the Channel Islands, Santa Cruz, is proposed as the
location for reintroduction of juvenile bald eagles to the northern
Channel Islands. Therefore, this document will focus in greater detail
on Santa Cruz Island than on the other three northern islands. The
eastern 15,000 acres of Santa Cruz Island, including the area known as
the "isthmus" and "east end", is owned by the NPS.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) owns the remaining three-quarters of the
island (Fig. 2). The Nature Conservancy has indicated that it is
"...very eager to see bald eagles returned to Santa Cruz Island to take
up their important place in the ecosystem, and to resume territorial
behavior and thus prevent new immigration of golden eagles from the
mainland." (TNC letter, August 2001).

![](media/image3.png){width="4.156944444444444in"
height="3.2083333333333335in"}

The island's coastline includes a variety of exposures, from protected
coves and sandy beaches to vertical cliff faces, hidden sea caves, and
dissected marine terraces. Offshore, warm southern waters mingle with
cold currents from the north, creating a significant, productive
transition zone for marine life.

The diversity of the island's topography and microclimates have given
rise to a variety of habitats, from rocky intertidal to chaparral to
pine forests. The island's biota includes many organisms endemic to the
Channel Islands, and some found only on Santa Cruz Island. Some groups,
such as terrestrial vertebrates, are decidedly reduced in numbers, and
certain organisms, lacking the usual competitors or predators, have
taken on different forms or have invaded niches unavailable to them on
the mainland. The island's seclusion, ruggedness, and history of
conscientious private stewardship have protected the island from many of
the usual impacts of heavy exploitation following European contact.

Aboriginal people, who traveled extensively between the mainland and the
islands, may have introduced other organisms to the island. Santa Cruz
Island's abundant, well-preserved archaeological sites provide insight
into past cultures and environmental conditions. A later period of
ranching is well represented in the many structures remaining from that
period.

Introduced plants and animals have greatly impacted the environment of
Santa Cruz Island. Between 1,000 and 5,000 feral pigs currently inhabit
Santa Cruz Island, and have had pervasive and insidious effects on
island resources. Pigs are one of the primary threats to the endangered
plant species on the island, and are indirectly responsible for the
recent decline of island foxes on the northern Channel Islands (Roemer
1999, Coonan 2001). The NPS and TNC are currently planning a large-scale
effort to eradicate the feral pigs, and greatly reduce stands of alien
fennel (NPS 2001). TNC removed over 37,000 sheep from Santa Cruz Island
from 1981-1989, and the NPS removed the final 9,000 sheep from the
eastern end of the island between 1997 and 2001.

The Channel Islands have a Mediterranean climate typical of the central
California coast. The bulk of the annual precipitation falls from
November to March, but rain is scarce from late May to October, when a
stable Pacific high-pressure system settles off the coast. A shallow
coastal marine layer helps lessen the impact of the common summer
drought conditions on the islands. The Channel Islands are subject to
periodic cycles of drought and torrential rains brought about by the El
Niño/southern oscillation phenomenon.

# federal conservation units

This project is proposed to occur within two federally designated
conservation units: Channel Islands National Park (CINP) and Channel
Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS). Carrying out the proposed
action would further the purposes for which Congress set aside both of
these areas. Channel Islands National Park, administered by the National
Park Service, was set aside to protect the nationally significant
wildlife and ecological values of the five park islands and surrounding
marine waters. Restoration of native ecosystems, through removal of
non-native species and reintroduction or enhancement of native species
is a significant focus of park staff effort. The proposed action will
not result in impairment of park resources.

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, administered by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is to maintain, restore, and
enhance living resources by providing places for species that depend
upon marine ecosystems to survive and propagate. The proposed action
will not impair any sanctuary resources.

# Threatened or endangered species

Table 1 (following page) lists all federally listed threatened or
endangered species that are known to occur in or near the project area.

###### 

###### Table 1. Federally listed proposed, threatened or endangered species at the northern Channel 

######  Islands

+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| *           | **Common      | **F  | *     | **    | *      | **  |
| *Scientific | Name**        | eder | *Anac | Santa | *Santa | San |
| Name**      |               | al** | apa** | C     | Rosa** | Mi  |
|             |               |      |       | ruz** |        | gue |
|             |               |      |       |       |        | l** |
+=============+===============+======+=======+=======+========+=====+
| ANIMALS     |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| Charadrius  | Western snowy | T^1^ | \-    | \-    | R^2^   | M   |
| a           | plover        |      |       |       |        |     |
| lexandrinus |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| nivosus     |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| ###### P    | California    | T    | A     | \-    | \-     | \-  |
| elicanus oc | brown pelican |      |       |       |        |     |
| cidentalis  |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| *Urocyon    | Island fox    | PE   |       | C     | R      | M   |
| littoralis* |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| PLANTS      |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| ##          | Hoffmann's    | E    | A!    | C     | R      | \-  |
| #### Arabis | rock-cress    |      |       |       |        |     |
|  hoffmannii |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| Arc         | Santa Rosa    | E    | \-    | \-    | R      | \-  |
| tostaphylos | Island        |      |       |       |        |     |
| co          | manzanita     |      |       |       |        |     |
| nfertiflora |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| Berberis    | Island        | E    | A!    | C     | R!     |     |
| pinnata     | barberry      |      |       |       |        |     |
| ssp.        |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| insularis   |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| ##          | Soft-leaved   | E    | \-    | \-    | R      | M!  |
| #### Castil | paintbrush    |      |       |       |        |     |
| leja mollis |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| ##          | \-            | T    | \-    | C     | \-     | \-  |
| #### Dudley |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| a nesiotica |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| ##          | \-            | E    | \-    | C     | \-     | M   |
| #### Galium |               |      |       |       |        |     |
|  buxifolium |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| Gilia       | Hoffmann's    | E    | \-    | \-    | R      | \-  |
| tenuiflora  | sle           |      |       |       |        |     |
| ssp.        | nder-flowered |      |       |       |        |     |
| hoffmannii  | gilia         |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| #####       | Island        | T    | \-    | C     | R!     | \-  |
| # Helianthe | rush-rose     |      |       |       |        |     |
| mum greenei |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| Ma          |               | E    | \-    | C     | \-     | \-  |
| lacothamnus |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| f           |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| asciculatus |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| ssp.        |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| nesioticus  |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| #####       | Santa Cruz    | E    | \-    | C     | R      | M!  |
| # Malacothr | Island        |      |       |       |        |     |
| ix indecora | malacothrix   |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| #####       |               | E    | A     | C     |        | M   |
| # Malacothr |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| ix squalida |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| Phacelia    | Island        | E    | \-    | \-    | R      | M   |
| insularis   | phacelia      |      |       |       |        |     |
| ssp.        |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| insularis   |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| Th          | \-            | E    | \-    | C     | \-     | \-  |
| ysanocarpus |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| co          |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| nchuliferus |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+
| ^1^ E =     |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| Endangered, |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| T =         |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| Threatened, |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| PE =        |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| Proposed    |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| Endangered  |               |      |       |       |        |     |
|             |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| ^2^ ! =     |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| Extirpated  |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| (no longer  |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| occurs), A, |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| C, R, M =   |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| Island of   |               |      |       |       |        |     |
| occurrence  |               |      |       |       |        |     |
+-------------+---------------+------+-------+-------+--------+-----+

# marine environment

The waters of Channel Islands National Park harbor an ecologically
diverse array of marine plants and animals. The western park islands,
San Miguel and Santa Rosa, are bathed by northern waters carried south
by the California Current and therefore reflect the biological
assemblages of the Oregonian province. Waters around the eastern park
islands of Anacapa and Santa Barbara come from the south along the
mainland coast and support the warm temperate biota characteristic of
the Californian province. Around Santa Cruz Island, at the boundary of
these two provinces, there is a broad transition zone where organisms
from both provinces mingle and create a special assemblage of species
adapted to the unique and variable conditions of the transition zone

Prevailing winds and the bathymetry of adjacent basins also greatly
influence marine communities in the park. Strong north winds buffet the
north sides of the islands, while the biota of the southern coasts
reflects their more sheltered positions. Upwelling nutrients from
basins, greater than 1-mile deep, to the south and west of the park
produce exceptionally productive food webs and temperature regimes that
differ significantly from the shallow northern sides of the islands. The
marine communities are rich and diverse with an abundance of marine
mammals and seabirds. The following discussion focuses on potential prey
items for bald eagles, as well as on those species likely to be affected
by bald eagles.

##### Nearshore Marine Fishes

The nearshore fish fauna in the channel south of Pt. Conception is
exceptionally diverse, due to the area's location in the transition
between the two biogeographic zones (Engle 1993). One of the more
prominent habitats surrounding the islands is the giant kelp
(*Macrocystis pyrifera*) community that inhabits relatively shallow rock
bottom areas. Over 40 % of all giant kelp beds in southern California
occur around the Channel Islands. These submarine forests, reaching the
ocean surface from depths of over 100 feet, provide food and shelter for
approximately 125 fish species. Fish assemblages in kelp forests around
Santa Cruz Island, as at other sites in CINP, are typical of southern
California kelp forests, providing habitat for such species as kelpfish,
rockfish, kelp bass, sheephead and surfperch (Kushner et al. 1999;
Kushner personal communication.). Other fish species found around the
Channel Islands generally are representative of fish assemblages that
occur along the southern California Coast with the addition of some
central California species (Hubbs 1974). Abundance of fish assemblages
is greater at the northern Channel Islands than at nearby coastal
regions of the southern California mainland due to increased primary
productivity. Zooplankton populations support exceptionally abundant
populations of small schooling species of fish such as the northern
anchovy, Pacific saury, sardine, and mackerel. Larger pelagic fish preys
upon these fish, and together they form a significant contribution to
the forage base of marine mammals and birds (Channel Islands National
Marine Sanctuary, 2001).

##### Pinnipeds

The rich marine environment of the northern Channel Islands supports a
number of marine mammals. As many as 26 species of whales and porpoises
utilize park waters. Six species of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) haul
out or breed on the northern Channel Islands (Table 2). Some 50,000
elephant seals and 80,000 California sea lions breed annually on San
Miguel Island (DeLong and Melin 2000).

On Santa Cruz Island, harbor seals haul out at sites distributed all
around the island's coastline (Koski et al. 1998). California sea lions
and northern elephant seals have been observed on Santa Cruz Island,
although neither species has been observed to breed or pup there.

Table 2. Distribution and abundance of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions)
on the northern Channel Islands (data from Koski et al. 1998).

+--------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                    | **S   | **An    | **Santa | **Santa | **San   |
|                    | tatus | acapa** | Cruz    | Rosa    | Miguel  |
|                    | ^1^** |         | I       | I       | I       |
|                    |       | **I     | sland** | sland** | sland** |
|                    |       | sland** |         |         |         |
+====================+=======+=========+=========+=========+=========+
| Northern fur seal  | \-    | \-      | \-      | \-      | B       |
|                    |       |         |         |         |         |
| *Callorhinus       |       |         |         |         |         |
| ursinus*           |       |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Northern elephant  | \-    | H^2^    | H       | B       | B       |
| seal               |       |         |         |         |         |
|                    |       |         |         |         |         |
| *Mirounga          |       |         |         |         |         |
| angustirostris*    |       |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| California sea     | \-    | H       | H       | H       | B       |
| lion               |       |         |         |         |         |
|                    |       |         |         |         |         |
| *Zalophus          |       |         |         |         |         |
| californianus*     |       |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Harbor seal        | \-    | B       | B       | B       | B       |
|                    |       |         |         |         |         |
| *Phoca vitulina*   |       |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Steller sea lion   | FT    | \-      | \-      | \-      | FP      |
|                    |       |         |         |         |         |
| *Eumetopias        |       |         |         |         |         |
| jubatus*           |       |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Guadalupe fur seal | FT,   | \-      | \-      | \-      | H       |
| *Arctostephalus    | ST    |         |         |         |         |
| townsendii*        |       |         |         |         |         |
|                    | FP    |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| ^1^F = Federal, S  |       |         |         |         |         |
| = State, E =       |       |         |         |         |         |
| Endangered, T =    |       |         |         |         |         |
| Threatened, FP =   |       |         |         |         |         |
| California         |       |         |         |         |         |
| Department of Fish |       |         |         |         |         |
| and Game -- Fully  |       |         |         |         |         |
| Protected ^2^B =   |       |         |         |         |         |
| Breeding, H =      |       |         |         |         |         |
| Haulout, FP =      |       |         |         |         |         |
| Formerly Present   |       |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

##### 

##### Seabirds

Seabirds comprise the great majority of the avifauna (43 species) that
uses the southern

California bight (Baird 1993). Eleven species nest on the Channel
Islands, eight of them on Santa Cruz Island (Table 3). The Channel
Islands are especially important habitat for seabirds, due to the
islands' lack of development compared to the adjacent mainland, the lack
of predators, and the rich marine environment. As important as the
islands are for seabirds, current numbers are less than historic numbers
because of the introduction of alien predators (rats and cats) and
grazers, past egg collecting, past military use of the islands, and
effects of overfishing on food resources (Baird 1993). Three species,
the California brown pelican, double-crested cormorant, and Brandt's
cormorant, declined because of effects of organochlorine pesticides on
egg thickness.

Several seabird species have either special legal status or are species
of concern (Table 2). The California subspecies of the brown pelican was
classified as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act in
1970, and was designated as endangered by the State of California in
1971. On the West coast of North America, pelican breeding colonies are
located on West Anacapa Island, on Santa Barbara Island and on islands
off the coast of Baja California. Pelicans also historically bred in
other areas, such as on Scorpion Rock off Santa Cruz Island and East
Anacapa Island. These colonies almost disappeared in the 1970's, due to
egg-shell thinning caused by organochlorine pesticides in the
environment (Carter et al. 1992). In 1970, only one chick successfully
fledged (Anderson and Gress 1983).

The pelican breeding colonies have subsequently recovered. The number of
birds in the breeding colony at West Anacapa Island has steadily
increased to between 4,000 and 6,000 nests per year. This is in sharp
contrast to the early 1970's in which there were only about 100 nests
per year. On Santa Barbara Island, the once ephemeral colony produces
400-700 nests every year. Breeding populations in the SCB have improved
since 1970, largely due to increased breeding effort (increased numbers
of birds and recruitment from outside the SCB) and increased fledging
rates (which are associated with the abundance of northern anchovies).
However, productivity remains low in comparison to other colonies (Gress
1997, Anderson and Gress 1983).

The double-crested cormorant has been designated a species of concern by
the California Department of Fish and Game. Both double-crested and
Brandt's cormorants are thought to be in decline over a large portion of
their range due to habitat destruction, human disturbance, and DDE
thinning of eggshells (Baird 1993), although both species have increased
in numbers at the Channel Islands (Carter et al. 1992). Double-crested
cormorants do not nest on Santa Cruz Island, but there are approximately
400 nests annually at nearby West Anacapa Island. There are several
small breeding colonies (\<100 nests) on San Miguel, as well as large
colonies (\>1,000 nests) at Fraser Point and Gull Island (Carter et al.
1992).

The entire California breeding populations of black storm-petrels nest
on the Channel Islands, as do the entire southern California populations
of ashy and leach's storm-petrels (Baird 1993). About 40% of the state's
breeding population of ashy storm-petrels breed on the Channel Islands.
Large colonies occur at Prince Island (off San Miguel) and at Santa
Barbara Island; a breeding colony of over 100 is located at Scorpion
Rock, Santa Cruz Island. The planned eradication of rats from Anacapa
Island, in progress, should greatly improve conditions for ashy
storm-petrels on that island. Ashy storm-petrels are a California
Species of Concern, on the Audubon Watch List, and the worldwide
population is thought be around 10,000 breeders.

Cassin's auklets and Xantus's murrelets are crevice-nesting seabirds.
Two very large colonies (\>2,000 and \>8,000 birds, respectively) of
cassin's auklets occur on Prince Island and Castle Rock, off San Miguel
Island. A breeding colony of over 300 cassin's auklets is located at
Scorpion Rock (Carter et al. 1992). Xantus's murrelets nest in both
southern California and in Mexico. Thousands of murrelets are thought to
breed on Santa Barbara Island, and a handful on Anacapa and Santa Cruz
Islands. Populations on Santa Barbara Island are thought to have
declined in recent years (Paige Martin, personal communication). The
ongoing eradication of rats from Anacapa Island should greatly improve
conditions for Xantus's murrelets on that island. Xantus's murrelets are
a California Species of Concern and on the Audubon Watch List.

Approximately 25,000 to 50,000 western gulls occur in the southern
California bight (Baird 1993). The western gull is the only gull species
that breeds in the southern California bight, and Carter et al. (1992)
estimated the breeding population on the Channel Islands to be about
20,000 birds. Other gull species that occur on the Channel Islands but
do not breed there include glaucous-winged gulls (*Larus glaucescens*),
ring-billed gulls (*Larus delawarensis*), herring gulls (*Larus
argentatus*), and Heermann's gulls (*Larus heermanni*).

##### Shorebirds

##### The Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover is federally listed as threatened. Western snowy plovers breed above the mean high tide line on coastal beaches, dunes, estuaries and lagoons from Washington to Baja California, and winter in coastal areas from southern Washington to Central America. Western Snowy plovers 

In southern California, snowy plovers are primarily found on San Miguel,
Santa Rosa, and San Nicolas Islands, as well as in San Diego County and
on Vandenburg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County (Baird 1993). Snowy
plovers are known to breed on Santa Cruz Island but have never been
observed in high numbers there. Counts of snowy plovers at Channel
Islands National Park have declined since 1991(Figure 3). This decline
in the park breeding population occurred concurrently with a decline in
the breeding population in southern California.

Table 3. Seabird species nesting on the northern Channel Islands (data
from Baird 1993; P. Martin, National Park Service, personal
communication.). X Indicates breeding.

+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
|                     | *    | *     | **Santa  | **Santa  | **San    |
|                     | *Sta | *Anac | Cruz     | Rosa     | Miguel   |
|                     | tus^ | apa** | Island** | Island** | Island** |
|                     | 1^** |       |          |          |          |
|                     |      | **Isl |          |          |          |
|                     |      | and** |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| ## Sto              |      |       |          |          |          |
| rm-Petrels {#storm- |      |       |          |          |          |
| petrels .MouseHdg1} |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| Ashy Storm-Petrel   | CSC  | ?     | X        | \-       | X        |
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
| *Oceanodroma        |      |       |          |          |          |
| homochroa*          |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| Black Storm-Petrel  | CSC  | \-    | \-       | \-       | \-       |
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
| *O. meliana*        |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| Leach's             |      | \-    | \-       | \-       | X        |
| Storm-Petrel        |      |       |          |          |          |
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
| *O. leucorhoa*      |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| **Cormorants**      |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| Brandt's Cormorants |      | X     | X        | X        | X        |
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
| *Phalacrocrax       |      |       |          |          |          |
| penicillatus*       |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| Double-Crested      | CSC  | X     | \-       | \-       | X        |
| Cormorant           |      |       |          |          |          |
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
| *P. auritus*        |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| Pelagic Cormorant   |      | X     | X        | X        | X        |
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
| *P. pelagicus*      |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| **Pelicans**        |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| California Brown    | FE,  | X     | X        |          | X        |
| Pelican             | SE   |       |          |          |          |
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
| *Pelicanus          | FP   |       |          |          |          |
| occidentalis*       |      |       |          |          |          |
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
| *californicus*      |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| **Gulls**           |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| Western Gull        |      | X     | X        | X        | X        |
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
| *Larus              |      |       |          |          |          |
| occidentalis*       |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| **Alcids**          |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| Cassin's Auklet     |      | \-    | X        | \-       | X        |
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
| *Ptychoramphus      |      |       |          |          |          |
| aleuticus*          |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| Pigeon Guillemot    |      | X     | X        | X        | X        |
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
| *Cepphus columba*   |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| Xantus's Murrelet   | CSC  | X     | X        | \-       | X        |
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
| *Synthliboramphus*  |      |       |          |          |          |
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
| *hypoleuca*         |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
|                     |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+
| ^1^F = Federal, S = |      |       |          |          |          |
| State, E =          |      |       |          |          |          |
| Endangered, T =     |      |       |          |          |          |
| Threatened, FP =    |      |       |          |          |          |
| California          |      |       |          |          |          |
| Department of Fish  |      |       |          |          |          |
| and Game -- Fully   |      |       |          |          |          |
| Protected, CSC =    |      |       |          |          |          |
| California Species  |      |       |          |          |          |
| of Special Concern  |      |       |          |          |          |
+---------------------+------+-------+----------+----------+----------+

![](media/image4.wmf)

Figure 3. Spring counts of western Snowy plover adults (unpublished
data, Channel Islands National Park).

# coastal environment

The Santa Cruz Island shoreline is a mixture of sand beaches and rocky
benches and cliffs. The north side of the island is mostly steep rocky
bluffs plunging straight into the water with intermittent small sandy
pocket beaches. These beaches tend not to accumulate debris or animal
carcasses. Along the south side of the island, long stretches of sand
beach are more common. In the late 1990's, at least two whale carcasses
washed ashore, one at the west end (Johnson's Beach) and one to the east
(near Sandstone Point). Harbor seals commonly use the beaches of Santa
Cruz Island but sea lions are found there only in small groups at
isolated locations.

Santa Rosa Island and San Miguel Island to the west both have a higher
proportion of sandy to rocky shoreline and both have several broad sandy
beaches that accumulate debris and dead animals. Based on marine debris
surveys between 1989 and 1993 (Cole 1998, Richards 1993), four beaches
on Santa Rosa combined had an average of four pinniped and eight seabird
carcasses per quarterly sample. San Miguel Island, with two beaches in
the study, averaged four seabird and almost ten pinniped carcasses per
sample. In that study beaches with a northwest exposure accumulated the
most animal remains as well as plastic debris. Beaches with a south
exposure were often swept clean, but occasionally would catch large
amounts of debris and animal carcasses. Both harbor seals and elephant
seals use the western and southern beaches of both islands. Sea lions
and fur seals utilize San Miguel Island beaches, particularly for
breeding in the spring and summer months.

# terrestrial environment

This section provides a description of the terrestrial component of the
northern Channel Islands, with an emphasis on Santa Cruz Island, and the
resources that would potentially be affected by implementation of a bald
eagle feasibility study. This is not a complete description of the
entire terrestrial environment; rather it is a description of the
significant conditions and trends of resources that may be affected by
the proposed project or its alternatives.

##### Vegetation

The vegetation on Santa Cruz Island is determined by the island's
topographic and geologic factors. The underlying geology of the island
is dominated by Santa Cruz Island volcanics overlain with eroded
Pleistocene terrace deposits. The headlands on eastern Santa Cruz Island
rise abruptly out of the ocean and are dominated by steep cliffs,
covered by coastal bluff scrub. Away from the cliffs the topography
flattens out and annual grasslands dominate the coastal terraces. As one
moves towards the isthmus, which links eastern Santa Cruz Island with
the main portion of Santa Cruz Island, the topography becomes quite
steep and patches of island chaparral, oak woodland, and ironwood groves
occur. Originating from these steep slopes are riparian canyons that
have cut through the coastal terraces as they drain to the sea. On the
isthmus most of the bedrock is composed of cherts and diatom-rich shales
from the Monterey Formation. This material erodes readily into a
reddish, clay-like soil. Island chaparral and oak woodland are the
dominant vegetation communities on the isthmus. The rest of Santa Cruz
Island is characterized by a large central valley, which extends
diagonally down the main part of the island. The valley is bordered by
gentle to steep slopes to the north and south. This topography is
overlain with a mosaic of plant communities.

Junak et al. (1995) describes 16 vegetation communities on Santa Cruz
Island: 1) southern beach and dune, 2) valley and foothill grassland, 3)
coastal-bluff scrub, 4) coastal-sage scrub, 5) coyote-brush scrub, 6)
island chaparral, 7) island woodland, 8) southern coastal oak woodland,
9) Bishop pine forest, 10) intertidal and subtidal marine community, 11)
coastal marsh and estuary, 12) freshwater seeps and springs, 13) vernal
ponds, 14) riparian herbaceous vegetation, 15) mule-fat scrub, and 16)
southern riparian woodland.

There are nine plant species that are federally listed as "threatened"
or "endangered" on Santa Cruz Island: *Dudleya nesiotica*, *Malacothrix
indecora*, *Malacothamnus fasciculatus* ssp*. nesioticus*, *Helianthemum
greenei*, *Galium buxifolium*, *Thysanocarpus conchuliferus*, *Arabis
hoffmannii*, *Malacothrix squalida*, and *Berberis pinnata* var*.
insularis*. The federal listing proposal for these species identified
feral pigs as a major cause of decline for each of the plant species.
The primary cause of impact to these rare species by feral pigs are
rooting, direct feeding, and soil erosion.

##### Fauna

Santa Cruz Island harbors fewer species than comparable mainland areas,
because only a subset of the mainland species successfully reached and
colonized the island. This is typical of island faunas. On the other
hand, evolution of island forms in relative isolation from their
mainland ancestors has resulted in a high degree of endemism in the
fauna of Santa Cruz Island, and for the fauna of islands as a whole.
Endemic taxa (species or subspecies) are those that are restricted to a
particular geographic locale.

##### Non-avian Vertebrates

Eight species of reptiles and amphibians have been recorded for Santa
Cruz Island (Table 4), of which three are endemic to the island or
archipelago. One reptile, the Santa Cruz gopher snake, occurs only on
Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands. Thirteen species of mammals,
including nine species of bats, have been recorded on Santa Cruz (Table
4). Three of the four non-bat mammals occur only on Santa Cruz, and the
other (the island spotted skunk) occurs only on Santa Cruz and Santa
Rosa Islands.

Table 4. Non-avian vertebrates of Santa Cruz Island.

+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| **Common Name**    | **Scientific          | **Legal   | **Endemic   |
|                    | Name^1^**             | St        | Status**    |
|                    |                       | atus^2^** |             |
+====================+=======================+===========+=============+
|                    |                       |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| AMPHIBIANS         |                       |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Blackbelly slender | *Batrachoseps         | \-        | \-          |
| salamander         | nigriventris*         |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Channel Islands    | *B. pacificus         | FSC       | Channel     |
| slender salamander | pacificus*            |           | Islands     |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Pacific tree frog  | *Pseudacris regilla*  | \-        | \-          |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
|                    |                       |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| REPTILES           |                       |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Southern alligator | *Elgaria              | \-        | \-          |
| lizard             | multicarinata*        |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Island fence       | *Sceloporus           | \-        | Channel     |
| lizard             | occidentalis beckii*  |           | Islands     |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Side-blotched      | *Uta stansburnia*     | \-        | \-          |
| lizard             |                       |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Santa Cruz gopher  | *Pituophis catenifer  | FSC, CSC  | SCI, SRI    |
| snake              | pumilus*              |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Western            | *Coluber constrictor  | \-        | \-          |
| yellowbelly racer  | mormon*               |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
|                    |                       |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| MAMMALS            |                       |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| California myotis  | *Myotis californicus  | \-        | \-          |
|                    | caurinus*             |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Big-eared myotis   | *M. evotis*           | FSC       |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Fringed myotis     | *M. thysanodes*       | FSC       |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Townsend's western | *Corynorhinus         | FSC, CSC  |             |
| big-eared bat      | townsendii            |           |             |
|                    | townsendii*           |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Big brown bat      | *Eptesicus fuscus*    | \-        | \-          |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Pallid bat         | *Antrozous pallidus   | CSC       |             |
|                    | pacificus*            |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Silver-haired bat  | *Lasionycteris        | \-        | \-          |
|                    | noctivagans*          |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Hoary bat          | *Lasiurus cinereus*   | \-        | \-          |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Red bat            | *L.borealis*          | \-        | \-          |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Mexican            | *Tadarida             | \-        | \-          |
| free-tailed bat    | brasiliensis*         |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Western mastiff    | *Eumops perotis       | FSC, CSC  | \-          |
| bat                | californicus*         |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Santa Cruz Island  | *Peromyscus           | \-        | SCI         |
| deer mouse         | maniculatus           |           |             |
|                    | santacruzae*          |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Santa Cruz Island  | *Reithrodontomys      | FSC, PE   | SCI         |
| harvest mouse      | megalotis             |           |             |
|                    | santacruzae*          |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Santa Cruz Island  | *Urocyon littoralis   | ST, PE    | SCI         |
| fox                | santacruzae*          |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Island spotted     | *Spilogale gracilis   | FSC, CSC  | SCI, SRI    |
| skunk              | amphiala*             |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| ^1^Nomenclature    |                       |           |             |
| for reptiles and   |                       |           |             |
| amphibians is from |                       |           |             |
| Collins (1990).    |                       |           |             |
|                    |                       |           |             |
| ^2^FSC = Federal   |                       |           |             |
| Species of Special |                       |           |             |
| Concern; CSC =     |                       |           |             |
| California Species |                       |           |             |
| of Special         |                       |           |             |
| Concern; ST =      |                       |           |             |
| State-listed as    |                       |           |             |
| Threatened, PE =   |                       |           |             |
| Proposed           |                       |           |             |
| Endangered. Data   |                       |           |             |
| on legal status is |                       |           |             |
| from California    |                       |           |             |
| Department of Fish |                       |           |             |
| and Game (1998).   |                       |           |             |
+--------------------+-----------------------+-----------+-------------+

Because of their unique taxonomic status and uncertain population
status, the spotted skunk and island fox are treated in greater detail.

##### Island Spotted Skunk

Island spotted skunks occur only on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands,
having been extirpated from San Miguel Island (Walker 1980). Very little
is known about the ecology of the Channel Islands spotted skunk.
Difficulty in trapping skunks has plagued the few investigations that
have been attempted. Crooks (1994) studied the comparative ecology of
the spotted skunk on Santa Cruz Island in relation to the island fox. He
found that skunks were rare and difficult to capture; that they were
habitat specialists, preferring ravines, and to a lesser extent,
chaparral-grasslands; and that they were entirely carnivorous and
nocturnal. Crooks concluded that the low population size and relatively
narrow geographic range of the skunk made the species vulnerable to
extinction.

The State of California and the National Park Service list the skunk as
a "Species of Special Concern". According to von Bloeker (1967), spotted
skunks were once very common on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands, but
by 1967 they were rarely found on either island, at least near human
dwellings. The apparent rarity of spotted skunks may reflect normal
population fluctuations, or it may reflect a real decline in numbers
(Williams 1986).

Recent observations from Santa Cruz Island and Santa Rosa Island
indicate that island spotted skunks have increased in numbers, at the
same time that island foxes have decreased (T. Coonan, NPS, unpublished
data; Crooks and Van Vuren 2000; D. Garcelon, Institute for Wildlife
Studies, unpublished data; Roemer 1999).

##### Island Fox

The island fox (*Urocyon littoralis*), a diminutive relative of the gray
fox (*U. cinereoargenteus*), is endemic to the California Channel
Islands. It occurs on six islands with each island population varying in
size from less than a hundred to a few thousand individuals. The fox
exists as a different subspecies on each of the six islands, a
distinction upheld by morphological and genetic work (Wayne et al. 1991,
Collins 1993). The subspecies on Santa Cruz Island is *U. l.
santacruzae*. Due, in part, to its limited distribution and small
numbers it has been listed as a threatened species in California
(California Department of Fish and Game 1987). The San Miguel, Santa
Cruz, Santa Rosa, and Santa Catalina Island subspecies of the Island fox
have recently been proposed for listed as a federally endangered species
(Federal Register December 10, 2001). A substantial amount is known
about this species\' population ecology and evolutionary history due to
recent work on island fox genetic variability (Gilbert et al. 1990),
evolution (Wayne et al. 1991), disease incidence (Garcelon et al. 1992),
and population status and conservation (Roemer et al. 1994, Roemer
1999).

Channel Islands National Park encompasses five of the eight California
Channel Islands and includes three islands that harbor different island
fox subspecies. Island foxes occur in virtually every habitat on the
Channel Islands and feed on a wide variety of prey (Moore and Collins
1995). They occur in valley and foothill grasslands, southern coastal
dune, coastal bluff, coastal sage scrub, maritime cactus scrub, island
chaparral, southern coastal oak woodland, southern riparian woodland,
Bishop and Torrey pine forests, and coastal marsh habitat types. Island
fox home range size varies by habitat type, season and sex of the animal
(Fausett 1982, Laughrin 1977, Crooks and Van Vuren 1995, Thompson et al.
1988, Roemer 1999). The island fox diet includes a wide variety of plant
and animal materials (Collins 1980; Laughrin 1973, 1977, Crooks and
VanVuren 1995; Moore and Collins 1995). Island foxes forage
opportunistically on any food items encountered within their home range.
Selection of food items is determined largely by availability, which
varies by habitat and island, as well as seasonally and annually.
Principal foods eaten include mice, ground nesting birds, arthropods,
and fruits.

Island fox populations on Santa Cruz and San Miguel Islands have been
annually monitored since 1993. The island fox population on San Miguel
declined beginning in 1994 (Coonan et al. 1998) with the adult
population falling from 450 in 1994 to 15 in 1999. The Santa Cruz
population declined from approximately 2000 adults in 1994 to
approximately 70 in 2001 (Coonan personal communication.) Survey data
from Santa Rosa Island (G. Roemer, New Mexico State University,
unpublished data) indicate that island foxes are underwent similar
catastrophic declines on that island as well, and decreased from over
1,300 in 1994 to 22 in 2000 (Coonan 2001, Roemer et al. 1995).

Predation by non-native golden eagles (*Aquila chrysaetos*) is the
primary mortality factor now acting upon island foxes on the northern
Channel Islands, and is likely responsible for the massive decline of
the past five years (Roemer 1999). Golden eagle predation was identified
as the cause of death for 19 of 21 island fox carcasses found on Santa
Cruz Island from 1993 to 1995. On San Miguel Island in 1998-1999, four
of eight radiocollared island foxes were killed by golden eagles in a
four-month period, and another two died of unknown causes (Coonan
unpublished data). This level of golden eagle predation is unnatural.
Until recently, golden eagles did not breed on the Channel Islands and
their recent appearance is due to a prey base, feral pigs, that was not
present prehistorically.

The absence of bald eagles, which bred historically on the islands and
whose presence may have kept golden eagles away, is another factor
contributing to island fox decline. Moreover, on much of the northern
Channel Islands, historic sheep grazing changed the predominant
vegetation from shrub to non-native grasslands, which offer much less
cover from aerial predators.

Concerned about the potential loss of three subspecies of island foxes
from its lands, the park has worked with experts since April 1999 to
consider the available information and develop strategies to recover
island fox populations to viable levels. The experts recommended that
the NPS implement the following emergency measures to safeguard island
foxes and to recover fox populations on the northern Channel Islands:

-   Relocate golden eagles from the northern Channel Islands

-   Establish fox sanctuary/captive breeding programs on Santa Rosa and
    San Miguel Islands

## Eradicate feral pigs {#eradicate-feral-pigs .MouseHdg3}

-   Reintroduce bald eagles

The NPS, TNC, USFWS and other partners are currently operating programs
to capture and relocate golden eagles and captive breed foxes on San
Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands. Captive breeding for island foxes on
Santa Cruz Island is beginning in 2002. As of fall, 2001, 19 golden
eagles had been removed from Santa Cruz Island, and four remained on the
island (Latta personal communication.). Golden eagles will likely
disperse from the mainland and winter and attempt to breed on Santa Cruz
Island until feral pigs, their primary prey base, have been removed.

##### Feral Pigs

Feral or domestic pigs are not native to North America. Domestic pigs
were brought to California by Spanish settlers in 1769 (Barrett 1999)
and were introduced to Santa Cruz Island in 1852 (Schuyler 1988). By
1857 pigs had escaped and become feral on Santa Cruz Island. Feral pigs
are found in all locations and habitat types on Santa Cruz Island
(Schuyler 1988). Reasonable pig population estimates for Santa Cruz
Island were not available until the 1980's, although it is generally
accepted that the removal of feral sheep from the island increased both
vegetative cover and the carrying capacity for feral pigs (Babbler 1982,
Sterner 1990). Annual estimates of the island's pig population have
ranged from 1,000 to 5,000. The pig population fluctuates greatly from
year to year because of the influence of climate, as well as the vast
reproductive potential of pigs.

Feral pigs are a primary threat to natural and cultural resources on
Santa Cruz Island, due to their impacts on vegetation, threatened and
endangered plants, indirect effects on island foxes, and direct impacts
to archeological sites. In collaboration with The Nature Conservancy,
the park has begun planning for removal of pigs from Santa Cruz Island
(NPS 2001). The effort is likely to take six to eight years to complete.

##### Landbirds

Forty-four species of landbirds are known to breed on Santa Cruz Island
(Table 5) (Diamond and Jones 1980). Nine of those taxa are subspecies
endemic to two or more of the Channel Islands, while one, the island
scrub-jay, is a species endemic to Santa Cruz Island. Three of the
endemics (horned lark, rufous-crowned sparrow, and loggerhead shrike)
exist at low population levels (H. Walter, University of California, Los
Angeles, unpubl. data). Several pairs of peregrine falcons, a species
formerly listed as endangered, breed annually on the island.

As mentioned above, golden eagles now breed, or attempt to breed, on
Santa Cruz Island, although they were never known to breed there
historically. One pair bred successfully above Coche Point in 1999;
three pairs began breeding in 2000 but never produced eggs, and three
pairs attempted breeding in 2001, one of those pairs producing eggs and
young ( Latta personal communication.). The three pairs that failed to
breed in 2000 were probably limited by availability of young feral pigs,
which were scarce in spring, 2000 (adult feral pigs are larger than
ideal size range of golden eagle prey). Conversely, piglets were
plentiful in spring, 2001, and one golden eagle pair produced eggs and
young.

Due to variability in the feral pig population, and general lack of
terrestrial vertebrate prey, Santa Cruz Island is probably marginal
habitat for golden eagles ( Latta personal communication.). Many of the
eagles that have been translocated from the island were in poor body
condition when captured.

Table 5. Breeding landbirds of Santa Cruz Island.

+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| **Common         | **Latin Name**     | **Legal      | **Endemic   |
| Name^1^**        |                    | S            | Status^3^** |
|                  |                    | tatus*^2^*** |             |
+==================+====================+==============+=============+
| Golden eagle     | *Aquila            | CSC, FP      | \-          |
|                  | chrysaetos*        |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Red-tailed hawk  | *Buteo             | \-           | \-          |
|                  | jamaicensis*       |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Peregrine falcon | *Falco peregrinus* | SE, FD       | \-          |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| American kestrel | *Falco sparverius* | \-           | \-          |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| California quail | *Callipepla        | \-           | introduced  |
|                  | californica*       |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Western snowy    | *Charadrius        | FT           | \-          |
| plover           | alexandrinus       |              |             |
|                  | nivosus*           |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Killdeer         | *Charadrius        | \-           | \-          |
|                  | vociferus*         |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Black            | *Haematopus        | \-           | \-          |
| oystercatcher    | bachmani*          |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| American         | *Haematopus        | \-           | \-          |
| oystercatcher    | palliatus*         |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Mourning dove    | *Zenaida macroura* | \-           | \-          |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Barn owl         | *Tyto alba*        | \-           | \-          |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Northern         | *Aegolius          | \-           | \-          |
| saw-whet owl     | acadicus*          |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Burrowing owl    | *Athene            | FSC, CSC     | \-          |
|                  | cunicularia*       |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| White-throated   | *Aeronautes        | \-           | \-          |
| swift            | saxatalis*         |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Anna\'s          | *Calypte anna*     | \-           | \-          |
| hummingbird      |                    |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Allen\'s         | *Selasphorus sasin | \-           | All Channel |
| hummingbird      | sedentarius*       |              | Islands     |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Northern flicker | *Colaptes auratus* | \-           | \-          |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Pacific-slope    | *Empidonax         | \-           | All Channel |
| flycatcher       | difficilis         |              | Islands     |
|                  | insulicola*        |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Black phoebe     | *Sayornis          | \-           | \-          |
|                  | nigricans*         |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Ash-throated     | *Myiarchus         | \-           | \-          |
| flycatcher       | cinerascens*       |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Horned lark      | *Eremophila        | \-           | All Channel |
|                  | alpestris          |              | Islands     |
|                  | insularis*         |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Barn swallow     | *Hirundo rustica*  | \-           | \-          |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Island scrub-jay | *Aphelocoma        | \-           | Santa Cruz  |
|                  | insularis*         |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Common raven     | *Corvus corax*     | \-           | \-          |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Bushtit          | *Psaltriparus      | \-           | \-          |
|                  | minimus*           |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Red-breasted     | *Sitta canadensis* | \-           | \-          |
| nuthatch         |                    |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Rock wren        | *Salpinctes        | \-           | \-          |
|                  | obsoletus*         |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Bewick\'s wren   | *Thryomanes        | \-           | Northern    |
|                  | bewickii           |              | Channel     |
|                  | nesophilus*        |              | Islands     |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Blue-gray        | *Polioptila        | \-           | \-          |
| gnatcatcher      | caerulea*          |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| American robin   | *Turdus            | \-           | \-          |
|                  | migratorius*       |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Northern         | *Mimus             | \-           | \-          |
| mockingbird      | polyglottos*       |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Loggerhead       | *Lanius            | \-           | Northern    |
| shrike           | ludovicianus       |              | islands     |
|                  | anthonyi*          |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| European         | *Sturnus vulgaris* | \-           | \-          |
| starling         |                    |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Hutton\'s vireo  | *Vireo huttoni*    | \-           | \-          |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Orange-crowned   | *Vermivora celata  | \-           | All Channel |
| warbler          | sordida*           |              | Islands     |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Black-headed     | *Pheucticus        | \-           | \-          |
| grosbeak         | melanocephalus*    |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Rufous-crowned   | *Aimophila         | \-           | Anacapa and |
| sparrow          | ruficeps obscura*  |              | Santa Cruz  |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Song sparrow     | *Melospiza melodia | \-           | Santa Cruz  |
|                  | clementae*         |              | and Santa   |
|                  |                    |              | Rosa        |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Spotted towhee   | *Pipilo maculatus* | \-           | \-          |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Chipping sparrow | *Spizella          | \-           | \-          |
|                  | passerina*         |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Red-winged       | *Agelaius          | \-           | \-          |
| blackbird        | phoeniceus*        |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Western          | *Sturnella         | \-           | \-          |
| meadowlark       | neglecta*          |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| Lesser goldfinch | *Carduelis         | \-           | \-          |
|                  | psaltria*          |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| House finch      | *Carpodacus        | \-           | All islands |
|                  | mexicanus          |              | but Santa   |
|                  | frontalis*         |              | Barbara     |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+
| ^1^Nomenclature  |                    |              |             |
| for birds is     |                    |              |             |
| from California  |                    |              |             |
| Department of    |                    |              |             |
| Fish and Game    |                    |              |             |
| (2001).          |                    |              |             |
|                  |                    |              |             |
| ^2^FSC = Federal |                    |              |             |
| Species of       |                    |              |             |
| Special Concern; |                    |              |             |
| FD = Federally   |                    |              |             |
| Delisted; CSC =  |                    |              |             |
| California       |                    |              |             |
| Species of       |                    |              |             |
| Special Concern; |                    |              |             |
| FP = Fully       |                    |              |             |
| Protected        |                    |              |             |
| (State). Data on |                    |              |             |
| legal status is  |                    |              |             |
| from California  |                    |              |             |
| Department of    |                    |              |             |
| Fish and Game    |                    |              |             |
| (2001).          |                    |              |             |
|                  |                    |              |             |
| ^3^Endemic       |                    |              |             |
| status is from   |                    |              |             |
| Johnson (1972).  |                    |              |             |
+------------------+--------------------+--------------+-------------+

# cultural resources

Santa Cruz Island contains thousands of relatively intact archeological
sites which record the almost 8,000 year occupation of the island by the
Chumash, the original inhabitants of the northern Channel Islands and
the southern California area from San Luis Obispo to Malibu. More than
630 archeological sites have been recorded on Santa Cruz Island with
intensive surveys covering perhaps 20% of the island. The entire island
probably contains about 3,000 archeological sites. The island's
archeological resources were listed on the National Register in 1978 as
the Santa Cruz Island Archeological District.

A period of ranching followed the Chumash occupation of the island, and
the ranching history is abundantly evident in the many ranching
structures that remain on the island. The long period of ranching and
agriculture, which began in the mid 19^th^ century and continued until
the end of the 20^th^ century, is reflected in the island's cultural
landscape. Additionally, numerous coastal fishing and recreational camps
flourished on the island around the turn of the 20th century. There are
also remnants of oil exploration on the island, at least one abandoned
World War II military encampment, and the remains of shipwrecks can be
found on the beaches and intertidal zone and in the waters surrounding
the island.

# Socioeconomic

All of the park islands are open to visitation and have campgrounds for
public use. Some park visitors never step onto the islands; they only
visit the marine waters within the park or the park's visitor center in
Ventura.

The park estimates numbers of marine visitors through counts at selected
anchorages that are then extrapolated to the entire park. Direct counts
are performed of "visitors ashore" (i.e., those visitors that come onto
the islands). In the years 1996, 1997, and 1998, 30,472, 36,314, and
35,169 visitors, respectively, landed on the islands.

The acquisition of eastern Santa Cruz Island caused a large change in
visitation patterns and total numbers for the park. Although all of
Santa Cruz Island is within the boundaries of CINP, TNC owns the
majority of Santa Cruz Island. The NPS currently owns the eastern 24% of
the island, while TNC owns the remaining 76%.

Visitor access is different on lands owned by NPS and lands owned by
TNC. In general, Santa Cruz Island lands owned by NPS are fully open to
visitor access and use, whereas some lands owned by TNC are available
for restricted use by the public. Eastern Santa Cruz Island has been
fully open to visitor use since 1997, and has become one of the most
popular visitor destinations in the park. The number of visitors to east
Santa Cruz Island has increased since the Park completed acquisition of
the east end in 1997. The Island Packers Company, as concessionaire,
provides boat transportation to Santa Cruz Island, landing visitors at
Scorpion Bay on a nearly daily basis. It also provides scheduled trips
to several parts of TNC's lands. A campground has been established at
Scorpion and is very popular, with heaviest use on weekends and filled
to capacity on holiday weekends. Visitor activities on east Santa Cruz
include hiking, beach-going, kayaking, and snorkeling. Private boaters
also visit all of Santa Cruz Island. A popular hike is across east Santa
Cruz from Scorpion to Smuggler's Harbor and return. Currently there is
no backcountry camping on Santa Cruz Island.

Scientific research is a primary use of TNC lands on Santa Cruz Island.
The University of California has operated a field station on Santa Cruz
Island since 1966. Santa Cruz Island Reserve is part of the University
of California Natural Reserve System. About 20 researchers carry out
projects annually on Santa Cruz Island through the UC Reserve.
Additionally, numerous school classes, primarily college and high
school, visit the island and stay at the UC Reserve facilities.

  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
  Section 3                 Alternatives

  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

# aLTERNATIVE Development process

**Scoping**

Scoping is a process the Trustees used to determine environmental issues
and alternatives for this project. Scoping was performed internally
(Trustee agency specialists), and externally (State and Federal
agencies, interested and affected public) to determine the environmental
issues and alternatives listed below.

External scoping was initiated by sending a letter that described the
proposed action to the affected and interested public. The letter asked
interested participants to send their comments, issues, or concerns
regarding the proposed action. For this project 38 scoping letters were
sent out and the Trustees received eight written comments on the project
proposal.

**Evaluation Criteria**

CERCLA requires the Trustees to use the Montrose case settlement funds
for restoring, replacing, rehabilitating, and/or acquiring the
equivalent of natural resources injured and services lost as a result of
the DDTs and PCBs at issue in the settlement agreements.

The Trustees have compiled and presented in our scoping document the
following initial set of criteria for analyzing potential restoration
projects for this case.

-   [Nexus to Injured Resources]{.underline} -- As described above,
    restoration efforts of the MSRP are directed at projects that
    restore, rehabilitate, replace, enhance or acquire the equivalent of
    the resources and services impacted by the release of DDTs and PCBs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Feasibility]{.underline} - Based on past experience or studies, the
    restoration projects must be technically and procedurally sound.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [No Duplicate or Replacement Funding]{.underline} - The Trustees
    will not fund projects that are already going to be funded or
    accomplished by other means or should be funded by more appropriate
    sources.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Legality]{.underline} - The projects must comply with all
    applicable laws

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Likelihood of Success]{.underline} -- Projects will be evaluated
    for their potential for success, including the level of expected
    return of resources and resource services. Performance criteria of
    projects will have to be clear and measurable.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Cost Effectiveness]{.underline} -- The projects will be evaluated
    by considering the relationship of expected project costs to the
    expected resource/service benefits from each project alternative.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Multiple Resource Benefits]{.underline} -- Benefits can be
    increased if proposed projects benefit more than one natural
    resource or resource service.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Duration of Benefits]{.underline} -- As described previously,
    contamination by DDTs and PCBs is expected to continue for decades.
    Long-term benefits are the objective of these projects, and the
    Trustees will evaluate project alternatives according to their
    expected duration of benefits.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Public Health and Safety]{.underline} -- Possibility that a
    proposed alternative would create a threat to the health and safety
    of the public will be part of the evaluation process.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Likelihood of Adverse Impacts]{.underline} -- Evaluation of
    projects will include examination of potential adverse impacts on
    the environment and the associated natural resources.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Opportunities for Collaboration]{.underline} -- Cost effectiveness
    can be enhanced by matching funds, in-kind services, or volunteer
    assistance as well as coordination with on-going or proposed
    projects.

    The specific objective of this FS/EA is to determine the feasibility
    of recolonizing the northern Channel Islands with bald eagles given
    the continued presence of DDT contamination in the food web of the
    southern California bight to inform the development of broader
    restoration of eagles to the Channel Islands in the comprehensive
    restoration plan. Alternatives presented in this FS/EA will be
    evaluated against the criteria presented above and the ability of
    the alternative to fulfill the objective of the FS/EA.

# aLTERNATIVE a: no action

Under this alternative, the Trustees would take no direct action to
restore injured natural resources or compensate for lost services
pending natural recovery. Instead, the Trustees would rely on natural
processes for recovery of the injured natural resources, specifically
bald eagles re-populating the northern Channel Islands. While natural
recovery of bald eagles to the northern islands might occur over time,
there would be continuing injury to the ecosystem.

The principal advantages of this approach are the ease of implementation
and the absence of monetary costs because natural processes rather than
humans determine the trajectory of recovery.

# aLTERNATIVE b: proposed action

The Proposed Action is a study to determine the feasibility of
reestablishing bald eagles on the northern Channel Islands. The
information from the Feasibility Study would be used to inform the MSRP
Trustees and the public regarding the potential for restoration of bald
eagles to the northern Channel Islands.

Bald eagles have not naturally reestablished a breeding population on
the northern Channel Islands. In searching for new territories, bald
eagles key in on the presence of other eagles. Reintroduced eagles on
northern Channel Islands would act as an indicator of suitable habitat,
and for this reason, intervention to establish bald eagles on the
northern Channel Islands may be necessary to bring this species back to
the area.

**Feasibility Study Methods**

Santa Cruz Island has been chosen as a release site because historically
it had a large population of nesting bald eagles, and the habitat is
largely unchanged since the time that eagles bred there. Additionally,
the existing feral pig (*Sus scrofa*) population on the island could be
a ready source of contaminant-free carrion for supplemental feeding of
released eagles.

Twelve eagles will be released annually on the island over a five-year
period. Bald eagles reintroduced to the northern Channel Islands will be
obtained from a captive breeding facility. If captive birds are not
available birds will be obtained from a wild population robust enough to
accommodate removal of offspring without consequences to the wild
population. The San Francisco Zoo's captive breeding program is a likely
source of eagles for reintroduction. Possible locations for removing
bald eagles from the wild include Washington, British Columbia and
Alaska.

Nestling eagles obtained for release will be reared and released from
two hack-towers to be constructed on Santa Cruz Island. Each hack-tower
site will be chosen to meet the criteria of easy access by project
personnel (road access at or near the site), suitable adjacent perching
sites, a reasonable view of the surrounding area, and the ability to
control access to the site by visitors. Locations for the release sites
will be selected in consultation with the National Park Service and The
Nature Conservancy so as to have minimal impact on their operations,
while providing a location that meets the above criteria.

Each of the two hack towers will have two boxes, and each box will hold
three nestling eagles. The two towers will be placed at separate
locations to reduce aggressive interactions among released birds and to
prevent loss of all birds in the case of local catastrophic event (fire,
storm, etc.).

A ladder located at the back of each hack tower will allow access by
project staff to a blind from which food can be provided to the birds
through chutes. The birds can also be observed through one-way glass to
monitor their development. A closed-circuit video system will be
installed to allow remote monitoring of the eagles when project
personnel are not in the blind. The birds will be fed a diet of marine
fish and feral pig, both local food sources.

When the eagles are approximately 11 weeks old, they will be equipped
with backpack-mounted telemetry transmitters, patagial wing markers, and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service metal leg bands. The telemetry
transmitters will allow personnel to track the movements of the birds
for a period of up to four years. During the early post-fledging period,
the transmitters will allow biologists to assist birds that may have
difficulties (i.e., injuries, not finding food, etc.). Over the long
term, the transmitters and markers will help all agencies involved in
the project keep track of individual birds as they move either among the
islands or off the islands to the mainland. Colored patagial wing
markers have allowed eagles released on Santa Catalina Island to be
resighted in a variety of locations in California and the Pacific
Northwest (Sharpe and Garcelon 2000).

When the eagles are approximately 12 weeks old, or when they are
demonstrating good motor skills in the hacking towers, the towers will
be opened and the birds released. Initially, food will be left inside or
on top of the towers for the birds. Later, carrion of the type the
eagles would normally be expected to find after release will be placed
on the ground in front of the towers. Gradually the carrion will be
placed farther and farther from the towers to encourage the birds to
search for prey. Approximately six weeks after fledging, the eagles
generally become independent of the hack towers and the associated food
and are foraging in other locations on their own (Garcelon 1988).

Bald eagles released on Santa Cruz Island may stay on the island, move
to other of the Channel Islands, or disperse to the mainland after they
are independent of the hacking towers. On Santa Catalina Island, most
eagles released during the first few years of the reintroduction effort
stayed on the island (Garcelon 1988). Released birds will be monitored
year-round to understand how well the birds are adjusting to their new
environment, to examine movements among the northern Channel Islands,
and to examine factors that may be contributing to mortality. Having
personnel on the island will also allow supplemental feeding of the
released eagles by leaving carrion around the island during the winter
and spring months. This continued availability of food might help keep
the eagles on the island until they develop their skills to capture live
fish and birds.

For an initial release in mid-summer, 2002, selection of hack tower
sites and construction of the towers will be completed by mid-June 2002.

**Monitoring**

A plan to monitor juvenile bald eagles released to Santa Cruz Island has
been developed based on the recommendations from several experts that
research and monitor the effects of

organochlorine contaminants in raptors and evaluate techniques for
dietary foodwebs. This monitoring plan (Appendix A) will use stable
isotope analysis, blood analysis, radiotelemetry, and trend analysis to
evaluate the sources, exposures, and risks of DDE to eagles and the
island food web. This monitoring plan is viewed as adaptive and elements
of the plan may be changed based upon usefulness and feasibility of the
collected data.

# aLTERNATIVEs that will not be evaluated further 

**Monitor bald eagles on Catalina Island to determine feasibility of
establishing bald eagles on the northern Channel Islands.**

In this alternative, bald eagles would not be reintroduced to the
northern Channel Islands. Instead, the MSRP would use the birds
currently breeding on Catalina as a model to determine whether it would
be possible to reestablish a breeding population of eagles on the
northern Channel Islands. The trustees would study the levels of DDE in
adult Catalina eagles, their eggs and their prey to determine the levels
of DDE that eagles on the northern Channel Islands may be exposed to.
The trustees do not propose to implement this alternative because the
diet of eagles on the northern Channel Islands would likely be
substantially different from the diet of eagles on Catalina Island due
to the greater diversity of species present on the northern Channel
Islands. Therefore, it would not be possible to determine the
feasibility of establishing eagles on the northern Channel Islands by
only studying the eagles on Catalina. This alternative would not allow
the Trustees to fulfill their objective of determining the feasibility
of recolonizing the northern Channel Islands with bald eagles given the
continued presence of DDT contamination in the food web of the Southern
California Bight.

**Determine feasibility of reintroducing bald eagles to the northern
Channel Islands by studying DDT contamination in likely eagle prey
items**

This alternative would involve examining the level of DDT contamination
in various eagle prey items and modeling from these levels the
feasibility of reintroducing bald eagles to the northern Channel
Islands. The trustees do not propose to implement this alternative
because there is too much uncertainty regarding the dietary composition
of eagles on the northern Channel Islands to accurately model the risk
to reintroduced eagles. In 2000, the USFWS.completed an ecological risk
assessment for the potential reintroduction of bald eagles to the
Northern Channel Islands for the trustees. The trustees found that there
was too much uncertainty regarding the components of eagle's diet to
make the results of this assessment reliable. This alternative would not
allow the Trustees to fulfill their objective of determining the
feasibility of recolonizing the northern Channel Islands with bald
eagles given the continued presence of DDT contamination in the food web
of the Southern California Bight.

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  *Section 4*                  Environmental Consequences

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

# 

# Environmental issues identified

Through the scoping process the following resource categories have been
identified that the No Action or the Proposed Action alternatives may
potentially affect:

Threatened/Endangered/Proposed species

Vegetation

Soils

Birds

Mammals

Fishes

Beach community

Socioeconomic

Cumulative Effects

# No Action Alternative - Natural Recovery 

**Threatened/Endangered/Proposed species**

The lack of bald eagles on the northern Channel Islands would have
adverse impacts, indirectly, on the island foxes. The island fox is a
listed as threatened in the State of California and is proposed for
federal listing as an endangered species. Were bald eagles to breed on
the northern Channel Islands, foxes would benefit if territorial bald
eagles deter golden eagles from breeding, wintering or roosting on the
islands. Those potential benefits would not be realized if bald eagles
are not restored to the northern Channel Islands. Until feral pigs are
removed (estimated to be completed by 2009-2011), golden eagles on Santa
Cruz Island will continue to be supported by an abundant prey base,
undeterred by bald eagles, and will prey on island foxes.

**Vegetation**

There would be no impact to vegetation under the No Action alternative.

**Soils**

There would be no impact to soils under the No Action alternative.

**Birds**

There would be no effects on other species, such as golden eagles, with
which bald eagles may become involved in agonistic or territorial
behavior. In addition, there would be no effect on seabirds, such as
Xantus's murrelets, western gulls, or ashy storm-petrels.

**Fishes**

There would be no effects of released eagles on potential prey items or
populations of potential prey items, such as marine fishes. Populations
of potential prey items will continue to be affected by ecological and
environmental factors already functioning in the ecosystems of the
northern Channel Islands (e.g., weather/climate, food availability,
etc.).

**Beach community**

Bald eagles will not be foraging on beaches and removing dead fish and
marine mammals.

**Socioeconomic**

Visitors to the islands and marine waters will not have the pleasure of
seeing bald eagles, a symbol of wilderness, at the islands. It is
unknown how much additional visitation to the islands might occur if
bald eagles were a common part of the ecosystem regularly visible to
visitors. No Action will continue the unnatural situation of not having
bald eagles resident and breeding at the northern Channel Islands.

# proposed action: feasibility study

**Threatened/Endangered/Proposed species**

This alternative will not affect the listed plant species found on Santa
Cruz. In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the
Trustees have written the USFWS regarding our findings and request their
concurrence.

The Trustees believe, for reasons listed below, that this project is
unlikely to negatively affect the bald eagles, California brown
pelicans, western snowy plovers, or the island fox

[Bald Eagles]{.underline}

There are potential impacts on bald eagles from the capturing of eagles
for blood analysis and other non-lethal sampling (e.g. feathers). The
effects on bald eagles from this activity are likely to be insignificant
because capturing techniques will be employed that have been used
successfully by biologists with other bald eagle populations. The
reintroduction effort at Catalina Island has resulted in a number of
bald eagles being added to the west coast population of bald eagles.
This feasibility study, by placing bald eagles on the northern Channel
Islands, is expected to add more eagles to this population. FWS will
consider potential effects to bald eagles of this feasibility study at
the time they review the application for the collecting permit.

Of the 44 bald eagles fostered into nests or hacked onto Catalina Island
since 1989, 6 died within the first year. This is considered to be
within the normal range of eagle survival in the wild and for a
reintroduction program. One adult eagle died, in all likelihood, due to
DDE poisoning out of 81 eagles released on Catalina over the 20 years of
reintroduction efforts (Garcelon testimony; Sharpe and Garcelon 2000).
The Northern Channel Islands are not expected to be more contaminated
than the Southern Channel Islands and so DDE exposure to bald eagles is
not expected to be greater on the Northern Channel Islands.

[California Brown Pelicans]{.underline}

There is no documentation of bald eagles preying on pelicans at any
stage in their life history. It is possible that a hunting bald eagle
could cause nesting or roosting pelicans to flush. This would likely be
a rare event (Gress 2000). Monitoring of bald eagles during the
feasibility study will provide an opportunity to determine the extent of
interaction between California brown pelicans and bald eagles. However,
on the current evidence, it is highly unlikely that bald eagles would
cause negative impacts on California brown pelicans.

[Western Snowy Plovers]{.underline}

The pacific coast population of the western snowy plover (*Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus*) is listed as threatened by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (Federal Register, 1993). Western snowy plovers would
be a small prey item for bald eagles, and would likely not be
energetically beneficial for bald eagles to hunt them. Stalmaster (1987)
indicates that bald eagles most often scavenge or steal their prey from
other animals and only resort to hunting and killing prey when their
preferred methods fail. Stalmaster also indicates that juvenile bald
eagles, the age-class that will be released to Santa Cruz Island, are
less likely to engage in hunting and killing of their prey than are
adults.

The Institute of Wildlife Studies (IWS) performed an extensive
literature review (24 different studies conducted in Alaska, Washington,
British Columbia, Oregon Nova Scotia Missouri, Maine, Nebraska,
Minnesota, Oklahoma, Florida and the Great Lakes) on the diets of bald
eagles. The results of the review concluded that no shorebirds were
found in the diet of bald eagles (Garcelon 1997).

In coastal areas, seabirds and other large birds comprised the largest
portion of the bird prey part of the bald eagle diet. In food habit
studies conducted on Catalina bald eagles between 1991 and 2000, only 3
shorebirds were documented as prey items (one surfbird, one red
phalarope and one yellowlegs). All of these species are substantially
larger than the western snowy plover.

Both the literature review and the studies on Catalina reflect an
unlikely chance that the bald eagles residing on the northern Channel
Islands would have any effect on the snowy plover. Monitoring of the
introduced bald eagles during the feasibility study will ensure that
this conclusion is tested.

**Vegetation**

Impacts to vegetation may occur at the site of the hack box structures.
The hack boxes will be constructed in areas of primarily non-native
vegetation and will be temporary structures. Therefore, the impacts to
native vegetation of this project will be negligible.

**Soils**

There will be short-term, local impacts to soils at the time of
construction and removal of hack box structures.

**Birds**

The greatest concern voiced in public comments received during the
scoping period concerned the potential impact of bald eagles on
seabirds, particularly on Xantus's murrelets and ashy storm-petrels.
Both of these birds are species of concern that may be listed as
endangered or threatened in the near future. Concern was also voiced
regarding predation by bald eagles on surface nesting seabirds, such as
western gulls, common murres (former breeders at Prince Islet), on the
federally endangered California brown pelicans and on the three breeding
species of cormorants.

Bald eagles will prey upon avian species, particularly medium to
large-sized seabirds such as gulls (*Larus* spp.), grebes, and loons.
None of theses seabirds are threatened or endangered species around the
northern Channel Islands. Based on data collected on the food habits of
bald eagles on Santa Catalina Islands, they may also occasionally take
smaller bird species, either alive or as carrion (Garcelon 1997).

Bald eagles primarily prey on fish and carrion, and are therefore
unlikely to have any major impact on other wildlife living on or around
the Channel Islands (Sharpe personal communication.). The diet of bald
eagles is likely to differ greatly according to the age of the bird
(Sharpe and Garcelon, 1999). The diet of bald eagles less than two years
of age would primarily consist of scavenged food and the birds would
have access to food located anywhere on the island because of their lack
of territoriality (Sharpe and Garcelon, 1999). If a feral animal hunting
program were initiated, their diet would consist of largely feral pigs
(Sharpe and Garcelon, 1999).

Bald eagles more than two years old would feed mainly on fish. Sharpe
and Garcelon (1999) estimated that fish would compose 86% of their diet.
This is based on diet observations of eagles on Santa Catalina Island
and the assumption that the fish abundance around the northern islands
is similar to that around Santa Catalina.

Avian species known to be in the diet of eagles on Catalina occur in
greater numbers on the northern islands. However, an increase in the
availability of these birds will not necessarily result in a
proportional increase in the eagle's diet because: 1) it is
energetically expensive for eagles to pursue and capture live birds
(Sharpe and Garcelon, 1999), 2) pursuits of birds are usually
unsuccessful (Bayer 1987, Ofelt 1975, Parrish 1995) and 3) differences
in prey per unit area between Catalina and the northern islands are not
likely as extreme as differences in total prey numbers because of the
increased area encompassed by Santa Cruz (i.e. Santa Cruz is greater in
land mass than Catalina) (Sharpe and Garcelon, 1999). Based on these
factors it is estimated that the overall bird component of the eagle's
diet would remain close to the 9% observed on Catalina but species
composition would differ among islands (Sharpe and Garcelon, 1999).

Figure 4 shows an estimate of the different components of bald eagle
diets on Santa Cruz/Anacapa Island based upon prey abundance and known
diets of eagles on Catalina Island. As the graph shows, fish are the
primary component of the bird's diet. Alcids, such as the Xantus's
murrelet and cassin's auklets, shearwaters and cormorants are found in
higher numbers on the northern islands as compared to Catalina (Carter,
1999), therefore we expect that the proportion of these species in the
eagles diet would be greater than that observed on Catalina but not in
proportion to the higher numbers of seabirds present on the northern
islands. Sharpe and Gacelon (1999) estimated that alcids would compose
2.1% of the diet of eagles on Santa Cruz Island. At these levels, the
Trustees feel that bald eagles will not have a significant impact on the
populations of these birds. The diet of reintroduced eagles will be
monitored to document any potential impacts.

Since bald eagles have had a long historical presence on the Channel
Islands prior to their extirpation and presumably coexisted with the
seabird populations there, restoration of bald eagles is not expected to
have a significant impact on current seabird populations (Gress,
personal communication). Sharpe and Garcelon (1999) also estimate that
Brandt's and other cormorant species would comprise less than one
percent of the eagles diet. This small amount is probably due to
cormorants large size and diving ability both of which makes them
difficult to capture.

![](media/image5.wmf)*Figure 4- Predicted diet of bald eagles living on
Santa Crua/Anacapa Islands based upon prey abundance and known diets of
bald eagles on Santa Catalina (Sharpe and Garcelon, 1999).*

Bald eagles have been known to prey on storm-petrel species in Alaska
and British Columbia (Slater personal communication, Rodway et al.
1991). Storm-petrel remains have been found in regurgitated eagle
pellets from the Saint Lazaria and Forrester Islands, Alaska,. Habitat,
however, on these islands is different from Santa Cruz Island. These
islands are heavily forested which may increase the bald eagles ability
to capture petrels (Slater personal communication). Also, population
studies on seabird colonies in Alaska and British Columbia were
performed during the summer months when little or no night exists.
Storm-petrels are nocturnal and with no night, they become easy prey.

Ashy storm-petrels have never been recorded in the diet of bald eagles
on Santa Catalina over almost ten years of observing their food habits
(Sharpe and Garcelon, 1999). In the 1999 report, Sharpe and Garcelon
state that they do not feel that ashy storm-petrels would be other than
incidental in the diet of eagles on Santa Cruz. Despite the larger
number of ashy storm-petrels breeding on Santa Cruz, we do not expect
this species to be a large component of the diet. This is mainly because
ashy storm-petrels are nocturnal during the breeding season and nest in
sea caves or other secluded areas, both of which makes them largely
unavailable to eagles. In addition, ashy storm-petrels are largely
pelagic in the winter. Also, ashy storm-petrels would provide very low
energy benefit for eagles due to their small size when compared to the
energy required to capture them (Sharpe personal communication).

It is estimated that western gulls and other gull species would comprise
approximately two percent of the diet of bald eagles on Santa Cruz
(Figure 4). It is unlikely that western gulls will provide a large food
source because mobbing of eagles by gulls will deter eagles from nesting
areas. Also, eggs would only be available for one to two months of the
year (Sharpe and Garcelon, 1999).

Additional scoping comments raised concerns related to disturbance by
eagles of surface-nesting seabirds. Studies on the surface-nesting
common murre along the Oregon and Washington coast demonstrated impacts
of eagles on these populations by flushing and thereby exposing their
eggs to other bird and mammal predation.

The situation in the Channel Islands, however, is substantially
different as most of the surface-nesting seabirds consist of brown
pelicans, three species of cormorants and western gulls. A bald eagle
soaring close over a colony may flush roosting birds and those in
loafing groups on the periphery of the colony, but it is unlikely that a
nesting bird would be dislodged (Gress personal communication.). Western
gulls may be more vulnerable to bald eagle predation and harassment but
it is unlikely that it will cause a significant impact, such as colony
abandonment or reduced breeding success (Gress personal communication).
Bald eagles were part of the original bird community of the Channel
Islands and historical seabird populations were not severely affected by
them (Anderson personal communication). During the feasibility study,
the eagles will be closely monitored to determine if disturbance to
these seabirds is greater than expected.

There will likely be no impacts to seabirds from the collection of
seabird eggs and adults for contaminant trend analysis as found in the
monitoring plan (Appendix A). A total of no more than 50 eggs of a
species will be collected, and it is likely that the statistical power
analysis will indicate that sufficient differences can be detected with
fewer numbers of eggs. No more than 10 adults of any species will be
collected, and no collection of adult brown pelican will occur.
Collection of seabird eggs and adults are limited and are therefore not
expected to impact the population.

**Mammals**

There are two mammal species of concern found on Santa Cruz Island.
These are the island fox, which is listed as threatened in the State of
California and is a candidate species for federal listing as endangered
species and the island spotted skunk, which is a species of special
concern in the State of California. As bald eagles feed primarily on
fish and bird species, or on mammal carrion, it is not likely that they
would have any negative impact on populations of these species.
Historically, bald eagles, island foxes and island spotted skunks were
all residents on the islands, and therefore have previously coexisted.

Island foxes are also found on Santa Catalina Island. As part of the
Catalina bald eagle reintroduction work, over 4,000 hours of prey
observations have been conducted and investigations of prey remains have
been made. In all of these observations, no predation by bald eagles on
island foxes was observed, and no island fox remains have been found in
eagle nests. The reintroduced eagles on Catalina are one of the most
intensively studied birds in the country. These food habitat studies
were conducted during the time that an epidemic of canine distemper
virus decimated the Catalina fox population. Though there were several
dead and moribund foxes present on the island; there are no indications
that bald eagles preyed upon the foxes. On one occasion a Catalina bald
eagle was videotaped returning to the nest with a live piglet. The
piglet was very small and probably only weighed 2-4 pounds, which is
less than an adult island fox (4 1/3 to 4 ¾ pounds). This is the only
occasion where an eagle was observed delivering piglets to the nest,
either alive or dead. Bald eagles do, however, readily feed upon
carcasses of dead pigs that they encounter in the wild on Catalina. The
remains of only one other terrestrial mammal, a Catalina ground squirrel
was found in an eagle nest on Catalina.

Recently, a 100-year-old bald eagle nest found on San Miguel Island was
excavated and examined for nest remains. Among the thousands of bones in
the nest were bones from a single old fox (Paul Collins personal
communication.). It is not know if the fox was preyed upon or scavenged.

Based on the information presented above and the feeding habits of bald
eagles, it is unlikely that bald eagles will adversely affect island
foxes. Nonetheless, we will monitor the reintroduced bald eagles and
their feeding habits during the feasibility study to determine if any
predation on island fox occurs. In addition, the USFWS and the NPS will
be conducting extensive work with the fox populations on the three
islands, which will provide additional opportunities to detect any
impacts of bald eagles on foxes. Restoring bald eagles to Santa Cruz
Islands may indirectly benefit island fox populations on the northern
Channel Islands.

Island foxes have undergone a catastrophic decline on San Miguel, Santa
Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands (Coonan et al. 1998, Roemer 1999). The
decline in their populations was caused largely by the recent appearance
of golden eagles as a resident species on the island. Golden eagles are
aggressive predators of terrestrial mammals, and were never known to be
year-round residents on the islands prior to the 1990s. Remains of
island foxes have been found in a golden eagle nest on Santa Cruz
Island, and evidence of predation by golden eagles on island foxes has
been documented (Roemer 1999).

The decline of foxes has resulted in only one free-ranging fox known in
the wild on San Miguel Island and Santa Rosa Island. All others foxes
are being held in captivity to prevent total elimination of the
population by golden eagles. Efforts are currently being undertaken to
remove golden eagles on the northern Channel Island by live trapping and
translocating the birds.

As bald eagles and golden eagles do not generally tolerate each other on
breeding areas, this likely explains why golden eagles were not observed
on the Channel Islands when bald eagles were a resident nesting species.
It is believed that if bald eagles are reestablished on the island,
golden eagles will be naturally excluded and the threat to island foxes
from this predator will be removed or greatly reduced.

The island spotted skunks are primarily nocturnal in their habits, and
therefore it is unlikely that eagles would have an opportunity to prey
upon them in any significant numbers

**Fishes**

Although fish comprise approximately 85-95% of the bald eagle diet, it
is unlikely that the reintroduction of bald eagles will cause any effect
on fish abundance or diversity. Bald eagles have historically fed on
fish, which are a natural prey item. Bald eagles primarily catch fish at
the surface (as opposed to diving for fish below the surface as
cormorants and pelicans do) and have been documented feeding on large
swarms of small fish such as the northern anchovy, sardines, herring and
mackerel (Rodway and Lemmon 1991, Sharpe personal communication). These
fish are especially abundant off the northern islands due to increased
primary productivity from regional upwelling (Channel Islands Management
Plan Review, 2001). Off Catalina Island, bald eagles have been seen
retrieving other species of fish such as yellow-eyed rockfish and kelp
bass that have been discarded by private and recreational fishermen
(Sharpe personal communication).

**Socioeconomic**

On Santa Cruz Island TNC and the NPS regulate visitor use. It is
unlikely that the reintroduction of bald eagles to Santa Cruz Island
would cause an increase of visitors to the Island. Even without
restricted use, visitor attendance on Catalina Island did not increase
after the bald eagle reintroduction program began (Sharpe personal
communication).

**Beach communities**

Bald eagles feed on carrion and will likely be found feeding on dead
marine mammals that wash up on shore. This behavior may interfere with
other scavenging animals but these impacts are negligible.

**Cumulative Effects**

A primary goal of Channel Islands National Park is to restore the
naturally functioning ecosystem of the park islands and surrounding
waters. Primary actions in the restoration of these ecosystems are
removal of non-native species and restoration of native species that no
longer occur in the system. The implementation of this proposed
Feasibility Study will assist the Park and it's partners in achieving
their goal. It is believed restoring bald eagles to the northern Channel
Islands will naturally repel golden eagle and remove or greatly reduce
the threat to island foxes from this predator. Because bald eagles and
golden eagles do not generally tolerate each other on breeding areas,
this likely explains why golden eagles were not observed on the Channel
Islands when bald eagles were a resident nesting species.

The park and its' partners have made tremendous progress correcting the
environmental damage that occurred on the islands. Seals and sea lions
have substantially recovered from harvesting during the 1700's and
1800's. Removal of non-native species (rabbits, cats, feral sheep,
cattle, burros, and feral pigs) has allowed substantial natural recovery
of endemic plants and animals that occur only on the Channel Islands.
The banning of DDT in the 1970's allowed for the recovery of California
brown pelican and cormorant populations, which had suffered serious
declines. Additionally, with human intervention, a portion of the
breeding population of peregrine falcons was reestablished on the
Channel Islands.

Nonetheless, the Channel Islands have not been fully restored to a
naturally functioning ecosystem. The connections among ecosystem
components are sometimes not apparent until an important species is
gone. The loss of bald eagles from the Channel Islands has had
widespread negative consequences that will not be corrected until bald
eagles are restored. The combination of the extirpation of bald eagles,
introduction of non-native pigs, and the removal of native shrublands by
grazing animals created an unnatural situation in which golden eagles,
not a native resident on the islands, could flourish. The
result---predation by non-native golden eagles has driven three
sub-species of island foxes to near extinction

The National Park Service will be carrying out the eradication of feral
pigs throughout the period of this FS. These two projects will increase
the amount of administrative activity on Santa Cruz Island including
increased human visitors, more vehicle use, and additional boat
transportation. The pig eradication project will not negatively affect
the FS. Lead bullets will be not be used when hunting the pigs so there
will be no risk of lead poisoning to bald eagles that may forage on pig
carcasses. Pig carcasses may provide occasional food to bald eagles.
However, the bald eagles on Catalina Island have made little use of pig
carcasses.

The FS may have potential short-term impacts to other on-going
restoration projects in the Southern California Bight. The American
Trader Natural Resource Settlements Trustee Council, in conjunction with
the NPS and the Island Conservation Group, is in the processing of
eradicating the black rat from Anacapa Island to benefit the threatened
Xantus's murrelet, other seabirds, native deer mice, and other plants
and animals. Introduced bald eagles may prey upon Xantus's murrelets
thereby slowing the rate of recovery of these birds following the
removal of their predator the black rat. However, as discussed above,
the trustees do not expect the impacts to murrelets to be significant.
Therefore the impacts to the Anacapa Island Restoration Project should
be negligible.

**Non-impairment of national park resources**

The NPS Organic Act and the General Authorities Act prohibit the NPS
from undertaking activities that would impair park resources. NPS
Management Policies (Sec. 1.4.5) indicate that impairments are those
actions or projects that "would harm the integrity of park resources or
values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for
the enjoyment of those resources or values."

The proposed feasibility study is a step towards correcting an
impairment that occurred to the ecosystem of the Channel Islands. The
Trustees believe that the proposed action will not affect the listed
plant species and is not likely to adversely affect the California brown
pelican, western snowy plover, or the island fox. Informal conferencing
with FWS supports this determination. A letter with this determination
will be sent to the FWS in conjunction with the FS/EA.

Bald eagles are largely scavengers, however, they do prey on birds and
fish. Bald eagles are not expected to contribute to future endangerment
of any species. In fact, predation by bald eagles in the Channel Islands
ecosystem is a natural process that contributes to sustenance of the
ecosystem. There will be short-term minimal impacts to soils and
vegetation at the site of hack box construction. This level of impact
does not rise to the level of impairment and is an unavoidable result of
reestablishing a native species.

1)  

  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------
  *Section 5*             Public Involvement / Comments

  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------

Public review of the Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment is
an integral component of the restoration planning process. Through the
public review process, the Trustees seek public comment on the specifics
of the study. This Draft FS/EA provides the public with the available
information about the proposed study and alternatives being considered.
For up-to-date information on the Feasibility Study please visit our
website at:
[www.darcnw.noaa.gov/montrose.htm](http://www.darcnw.noaa.gov/montrose.htm).

The Trustees will consider comments received during the public comment
period before completing decisionmaking regarding the Feasibility Study.
Public review of the FS/EA is consistent with all federal and state laws
and regulations that apply to the NRDA process including NEPA, as
amended (42 USC 4371 *et seq.*), and its implementing regulations (40
CFR Parts 1500-1508).

Written comments should be sent to:

Montrose Settlements Restoration Program

501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4470

Long Beach, CA 90802

or via e-mail to <MSRP@noaa.gov>

There will be a public meeting held on this FS/EA at the Channel Islands
National Park Headquarters in Ventura, California.

Date and Time: March 28, 2002; 7 pm

Location: Channel Islands National Park Visitor Center

1901 Spinnaker, Ventura, California 93001

The Trustees will provide a general overview of the plan and accept both
oral and written comments at that time. The public review period for the
FS/EA will end on April 4, 2002.

+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| *Section 6*           | Compliance with                              |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | other Authorities                            |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+

**Overview**

The three major laws guiding the restoration of the injured resources
and services for the Montrose Settlements Restoration Program are
CERCLA, CEQA and NEPA. These statutes set forth a specific process of
impact analysis and public review. In addition, the Trustees must comply
with other applicable laws, regulations and policies at the federal,
state and local levels.

The potentially relevant laws, regulations and policies are set forth
below. In addition to laws and regulations, the Trustees must consider
relevant environmental or economic programs or plans that are ongoing or
planned in or near the affected environment. The Trustees must ensure
that their proposed restoration activities neither impede nor duplicate
such programs or plans. By coordinating restoration with other relevant
programs and plans, the Trustees can enhance the overall effort to
improve the environment affected by the incident.

**Key Statutes, Regulations and Policies**

**Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund) 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.**

CERCLA provides the basic legal framework for cleanup and restoration of
the nation's hazardous substances sites. Under CERCLA, responsible
parties are liable for damages, including reasonable assessment costs,
for injuries to, or the loss of, natural resources. The term \"natural
resources\" is broadly defined by CERCLA to mean \"land, fish, wildlife,
biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water supplies, and other such
resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to,
or otherwise controlled by the United States, . . . any State or local
government, any foreign government, or any Indian tribe . . . .\" The
statute provides that parties responsible for contamination of sites and
the current owners or operators of contaminated sites are liable for the
cost of clean up and for damages to natural resources. Compensation is
used to restore, replace, rehabilitate, or acquire the equivalent of
natural resources and services. The Feasibility Study, and the
restoration effort of which it is an element, will be conducted in
accordance with CERCLA.

**California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)**

The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §§
21000-21178.1), commonly referred to as CEQA, was adopted in 1970 and
applies to most public agency decisions to carry out, authorize or
approve projects that may have adverse environmental impacts. CEQA
requires that agencies inform themselves about the environmental effects
of their proposed actions, consider all relevant information, provide
the public an opportunity to comment on the environmental issues, and
avoid or reduce potential environmental harm whenever feasible.

The CEQA process begins with a preliminary review as to whether CEQA
applies to the project in question. Generally, a project is subject to
CEQA if it involves discretionary action by an agency that may cause a
significant effect on the environment. Once the agency determines that
the "project" is subject to CEQA, the lead agency must then determine
whether the action is exempt under either a statutory or categorical
exemption, 14 Cal. Code Regs. 15061.

If the lead agency determines that the project is not exempt then an
initial study must be prepared to determine whether the project may have
a potentially significant effect on the environment. 14 Cal. Code Regs.
§§ 15063, 15102. Based on the initial study, the lead agency determines
the type of CEQA documentation that will be prepared. The test for
determining whether an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative
declaration must be prepared is whether a fair argument can be made
based on substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.

CEQA encourages the use of an EIS or finding of no significant impact or
combined state/federal documents in place of a separate EIR or negative
declaration. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21083.5, 21083.7, 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§
15221-15222.

After reviewing the proposed feasibility study, the State Trustee (CDFG)
has determined that the study will not have a substantial, or
potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical
conditions within the areas affected by the projects. Additionally, the
State Trustee considers this study to be categorically exempt pursuant
to: (1) 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15304, "Minor alterations to land,
water, or vegetation"; (2) 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15307, "Actions
by regulatory agencies for protection of natural resources", and (3) 14
Cal. Code Regs. Section 15308, "Actions by regulatory agencies for the
protection of the environment."

The Trustees have integrated both NEPA and CEQA requirements into this
feasibility study.

**National Environmental Policy Act** (NEPA), as amended, 42 USC 4321,
***et seq.*, 40**

**CFR Parts 1500‑1508**

Congress enacted NEPA in 1969 to establish a national policy for the
protection of the environment. NEPA applies to federal agency actions
that affect the human environment. NEPA established the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) to advise the President and to carry out
certain other responsibilities relating to implementation of NEPA by
federal agencies. Pursuant to Presidential Executive Order, federal
agencies are obligated to comply with the NEPA regulations adopted by
the CEQ. These regulations outline the responsibilities of federal
agencies under NEPA and provide specific procedures for preparing
environmental documentation to comply with NEPA. NEPA recommends that an
Environmental Assessment (EA) be prepared in order to determine whether
or not a proposed action may have a significant effect on the quality of
the human environment.

Generally, when it is uncertain whether an action will have a
significant effect, federal agencies will begin the NEPA planning
process by preparing an EA. The EA will undergo a public review and
comment period. Federal agencies may then review the comments and make a
determination. Depending on whether an impact is considered significant,
a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be issued.

The Trustees have integrated this Feasibility Study with the NEPA and
CEQA processes to comply, in part, with those requirements. This
integrated process allows the Trustees to meet the public involvement
requirements of NEPA and CEQA concurrently. The FS/EA is intended to
accomplish partial NEPA and CEQA compliance by: (1) summarizing the
current environmental setting, (2) describing the purpose and need for
action, (3) identifying alternative actions, (4) assessing the
alternative actions\' environmental consequences, and (5) summarizing
opportunities for public participation in the decision process.

**National Park Act of August 19, 1916 (Organic Act), 16 USC 1, et
seq.**

The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 created today's National
Park Service (NPS) within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The NPS
is charged with promoting and regulating the use of the national parks
\"by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose to
conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild
life therein and to provide for the enjoyment for the same in such
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment
of future generations.\"

To achieve this mandate, the Organic Act gives the NPS broad authority
to manage the parks, directing the Secretary of the Interior to \"make
and publish such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary or
proper for the use and management of the parks, monuments, and
reservations under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.\"

**Coastal Zone Management Act** (CZMA), 16 USC 1451, ***et seq.*, 15 CFR
Part 923**

The goal of the federal CZMA is to preserve, protect, develop and, where
possible, restore and enhance the nation\'s coastal resources. The
federal government provides grants to states with federally approved
coastal management programs. The State of California has a federally
approved program. Section 1456 of the CZMA requires that any federal
action inside or outside of the coastal zone that affects any land or
water use or natural resources of the coastal zone shall be consistent,
to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of
approved state management programs. It states that no federal license or
permit may be granted without giving the State the opportunity to concur
that the project is consistent with the state\'s coastal policies. The
regulations outline the consistency procedures.

The Trustees do not believe that the Feasibility Study will adversely
affect the state\'s coastal zone. However, to comply with the CZMA, the
Trustees intend to seek the concurrence of the State of California that
their preferred alternative is are consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies of the state coastal program.

**California Coastal Act,** **[California Public Resources Code sections
30000 *et seq.*]{.underline}**

The California Coastal Act (California Public Resources Code § 30000 et
seq) was enacted by the State Legislature in 1976 to provide long-term
protection of California\'s 1,100-mile coastline for the benefit of
current and future generations. The Coastal Act created a partnership
between the State (acting through the California Coastal Commission) and
local government (15 coastal counties and 58 cities) to manage the
conservation and development of coastal resources through a
comprehensive planning and regulatory program.

The Commission\'s authority (called federal consistency review) comes
from the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). After California\'s
Coastal Management Program (CCMP) was approved by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce
pursuant to the CZMA in 1977, all federal activities affecting coastal
zone resources became subject to the Commission\'s regulatory
jurisdiction.

The Trustees do not believe that the Feasibility Study will adversely
affect California's coastal zone resources. However, the Trustees intend
to seek California's Coastal Commission's concurrence that their
preferred alternative is consistent with California's federally approved
Coastal Management Program

**Endangered Species Act** (ESA), 16 USC 1531, ***et seq.,* 50 CFR Parts
17, 222, 224**

The federal ESA directs all federal agencies to conserve endangered and
threatened species and their habitats and encourages such agencies to
utilize their authorities to further these purposes. Under the Act, the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the USFWS publish lists of
endangered and threatened species. Section 7 of the Act requires that
federal agencies consult with these two agencies to minimize the effects
of federal actions on endangered and threatened species. Prior to
implementation of the Feasibility Study, the Trustees will conduct
Section 7 consultations with the USFWS.

**California Endangered Species Act, Fish and Game Code §§ 2050 *et
seq.***

It is the policy of the State of California that state agencies should
not approve projects as proposed which would jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the
continued existence of those species if there are reasonable and prudent
alternatives available. If reasonable alternatives are infeasible,
individual projects may be approved if appropriate mitigation and
enhancement measures are provided. Under this act, the Fish and Game
Commission established a list of threatened and endangered species based
on criteria recommended by the Department of Fish and Game.

**Magnuson‑Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act** , 16 USC
1801 ***et seq.***

The federal Magnuson‑Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) as amended and reauthorized by the Sustainable
Fisheries Act (Public Law 104‑297) establishes a program to promote the
protection of essential fish habitat (EFH) in the review of projects
conducted under federal permits, licenses, or other authorities that
affect or have the potential to affect such habitat. After EFH has been
described and identified in fishery management plans by the regional
fishery management councils, federal agencies are obligated to consult
with the Secretary of Commerce with respect to any action authorized,
funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or
undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect any EFH.

The Trustees believe that the proposed Feasibility Study will have no
adverse effect on EFH and will promote the protection of fish resources
and EFH.

**Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act** (FWCA), 16 USC 661, ***et seq.***

The federal FWCA requires that federal agencies consult with the USFWS,
NMFS, and state wildlife agencies for activities that affect, control or
modify waters of any stream or bodies of water, in order to minimize the
adverse impacts of such actions on fish and wildlife resources and
habitat. This consultation is generally incorporated into the process of
complying with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, NEPA or other federal
permit, license or review requirements.

The Trustees do not expect the Feasibility Study to implicate the FWCA,
but may consult with the appropriate agencies.

**Executive Order (EO) 12898 ‑ Environmental Justice**

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued EO 12898, Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‑Income
Populations. This EO requires each federal agency to identify and
address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities
on minority and low income populations. EPA and the CEQ have emphasized
the importance of incorporating environmental justice review in the
analyses conducted by federal agencies under NEPA and of developing
mitigation measures that avoid disproportionate environmental effects on
minority and low‑income populations. The Trustees have concluded that
there are no low income or ethnic minority communities that would be
adversely affected by the proposed Feasibility Study.

Environmental Justice further requires federal agencies to provide
opportunities for community input in the NEPA process. The Trustees will
make every effort to involve the affected community by providing notice
to members of the public and access to related documents.

**Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378, et seq.**

Under the MMPA, the Secretary of Commerce is responsible for the
conservation and management of pinnipeds (other than walruses) and
cetaceans. The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for walruses,
sea and marine otters, polar bears, manatees, and dugongs. The Secretary
of Commerce delegated MMPA authority to NMFS. Title II of the Act
established an independent Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of
Scientific Advisors to oversee and recommend actions necessary to meet
the intents and provisions of the Act. The Act provides that the
Secretary shall allow the incidental, but not intentional, taking, by
U.S. citizens engaged in activities other than commercial fishing of
small numbers of depleted as well as non‑depleted marine mammals if,
after notice and opportunity for public comment, the Secretary finds
that the total of such taking will have a negligible impact on the
affected species or stock, and prescribes regulations setting forth
permissible methods of taking, and requirements for monitoring and
reporting such taking.\" However, the 1994 Amendments provide that this
regulation requirement may be waived provided that the proposed activity
results in only harassment, and no serious injury or mortality is
anticipated.

The Trustees do not expect the Feasibility Study to "take," "harass," or
"injure" any species protected under the MMPA.

**Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. 703, et seq.**

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements four international
treaties involving protection of migratory birds, including all marine
birds, and is one of the earliest statutes (amended several times) to
provide for avian protection by the Federal Government. Among its other
provisions, it broadly prohibits actions to "pursue, hunt, take,
capture, kill, attempt to take, kill, possess, offer for sale, sell,
offer to purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped,
deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry,
or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment,
transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner,
any migratory bird\...or any part, nest, or egg of such bird."
Exceptions to these prohibitions are only allowed under regulations or
permits issued by USFWS. Hunting of game birds, including waterfowl and
certain shore birds, is annually regulated through a process in which
the USFWS sets "framework regulations" based on the best current
population data available, and States pass regulations that conform to
those Federal regulations. All other prohibited actions are only allowed
under specific permits issued by the USFWS. Criminal violations of this
Act are enforced by USFWS, and it is also the primary statute under
which USFWS and Interior have responsibility to manage all migratory
birds wherever they occur, including marine birds.

The MBTA also is the basis for USFWS oversight and permitting of
collection and preservation or rehabilitation of birds oiled during
spill response, which usually provides the primary data for determining
extent of injury to marine birds and the need for restoration.

The Feasibility Study will be conducted in full compliance with the
MBTA.

**Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 668,668 note,
668a-668d**

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. as amended, provides
for the protection of the bald eagle (the national emblem) and the
golden eagle by prohibiting, except under certain specified conditions,
the taking, possession and commerce of such birds. The 1972 amendments
increased penalties for violating provisions of the Act or regulations
issued pursuant thereto and strengthened other enforcement measures.
Rewards are provided for information leading to arrest and conviction
for violation of the Act.

Section 668a of the Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
permit the taking, possession, and transportation of eagles upon a
determination that such taking, possession, or transportation is
compatible with the preservation of the bald eagle or the golden eagle.

The Trustees will fully comply with all requirements of the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act in implementing the Feasibility study.

### **Other Potentially Applicable Laws and Regulations**

**[The Lacey Act,]{.underline}** 16 United States Code §3371 *et seq.*

The Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 make it unlawful to import, export,
transport, buy or sell fish, wildlife and plants taken or possessed in
violation of federal, state

or tribal law. Interstate or foreign commerce in fish and wildlife taken
or possessed in violation of foreign law also is illegal. The Act
requires that packages containing fish or wildlife be plainly marked.
Enforcement measures include civil and criminal penalties, cancellation
of hunting and fishing licenses, and forfeiture.

  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------
  *Section 7*             References

  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------

**Personal Communications:**

Anderson, Daniel. University of California, Davis, CA 2001

Collins, Paul. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 2001

Gress, Frank. California Institute for Environmental Studies, 2001

Martin, Paige. Channel Islands National Park, 2001

Sharpe, P. B. Institute for Wildlife Studies, 2001

Slater, Lesslie, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011

**Published References:**

American Ornithologists\' Union. 1983. Checklist of North American
Birds. 6th ed. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kans.

American Ornithologists\' Union. 1997. Forty-first supplement to the
American Ornithologists\' Union Checklist of North American Birds. Auk
114:542-552.

Anderson, D.W., and F. Gress. 1983. Status of Northern Population of
California Brown Pelicans. Condor 85: 79-88.

Baird, P. 1993. Birds. Pp. 541-603 in Dailey, M. D., D. J. Reish, and J.
W. Anderson, (eds.), Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A
Synthesis and Interpretation. University of California Press, Berkely,
CA.

Barrett, R. H. 1999. Feral swine: the California experience. Available
online at http://www.texnat.tamu.edu/symp/feral/feral-15.htm.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1987. Five-year status report on
the island fox. Unpublished report, California Department of Fish and
Game, Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2001. Special animals. CDFG
Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Database. Available online
at <http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/spanimal.pdf>.

Carter, H. R., G. J. McChesney, D. L. Jaques, C. S. Strong, M. W.
Parker, J. E. Takekawa, D. L. Jory, and D. L. Whitworth. 1992. Breeding
populations of seabirds in California, 1989-1991. Unpublished manuscript
on file at park headquarters, Channel Islands National Park. 491 pp.

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, 2001. Management Plan Review:
Affected Environment. Available online at
<http://www.cinms.nos.noaa.gov/nmpAESdeis.html>

Cole, C. A. 1998. Final Report of the National Park Marine Debris
Monitoring Program, 1993 Marine Debris Surveys: with a summary of data
from 1988-1993. Sharon Kliwinski ed. National Park Service, Contract
#1443PX0001-93-339. 72 pp.

Collins, P. W. 1980. Food habits of the island fox (Urocyon littoralis
littoralis) on San Miguel Island, California. In Proceedings of the 2nd
Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks. Volume 12:
Terrestrial Biology and Zoology. National Park Service, Washington D.C.
NTIS.P881-100133.

Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard copmmon and current scientific names for
North American amphibians and reptiles. Herpretological Circular No. 19.
Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.

Collins, P. W. 1993. Taxanomic and biogeographic relationships of the
island fox (Urocyon littoralis) and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)
from western North America. Pp. 351-390 in Proceedings of the third
Channel Islands symposium: recent advances in California Islands
research (F. G. Hochberg, ed.). Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History,
Santa Barbara, California, 661 pp.

Coonan, T. J., G. Austin, and C. Schwemm. 1998. Status and trend of
Island fox, San Miguel Island, Channel Islands National Park. Channel
Islands National Park Technical Report 98-01. National Park Service,
Ventura, California. 27 pp.

Coonan, T. J. 2001. Draft recovery plan for island foxes on the northern
Channel Islands. National Park Service, Channel Islands National Park,
Ventura, CA. 72 pp.

Coonan, T. J., C. A. Schwemm, G. W. Roemer, and G. Austin. 2000.
Population decline of island foxes (Urocyon littoralis littoralis) on
San Miguel Island. Pages 289-297 in Browne, D. K., K. L. Mitchell, and
H. W. Chaney, (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th California Islands
Symposium. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,
Pacific OCS Region.

Coonan, T. J., G. Austin, and C. Schwemm. 1998. Status and trend of
island fox, San Miguel Island, Channel Islands National Park. Channel
Islands National Park Technical Report 98-01. National Park Service,
Ventura, California. 27 pp.

Crooks, K. R. 1994. Comparative ecology of the island spotted skunk and
the island fox of Santa Cruz Island, California. Unpublished master's
thesis. University of California, Davis. 107 pp.

Crooks, K. R., and D. Van Vuren. 2000. Update on the status of the
island spotted skunk. Pp. 298-299 in Browne, D. K., K. L. Mitchell, and
H. W. Chaney, (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th California Islands
Symposium. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,
Pacific OCS Region.

Crooks, K. R. 1994. Demography and status of the Island fox and the
island spotted skunk on Santa Cruz Island, California. The Southwestern
Naturalist 39: 257-262.

DeLong, R. D., and S. R. Melin. 2000. Thirty years of pinniped research
at San Miguel Island. Pp. 401-406 in Browne, D. K., K. L. Mitchell, and
H. W. Chaney, (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th California Islands
Symposium. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,
Pacific OCS Region.

Drake, D. E. (U. S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, United States),
Sherwood, C. R. (non-survey author), Wiberg, P. L. (non-survey
author),Wheatcroft, R. A. (non-survey author), Noble, M. A., Kayen, R.
E., Wong, F. L.,Karl, H. A., Lee, H. J., Eganhouse, R. P., Jones, B. H.
(non-survey author), The fate of contaminated sediment on the Palos
Verdes shelf, CaliforniaHine, Albert C. (prefacer) (University of South
Florida, Tampa, Fl, United States), Halley, Robert B. (non-survey
prefacer), Linked Earth systems; congress program and abstracts; Vol. 1,
p. 48, 1995. Meeting: 1st SEPM congress on Sedimentary geology ; Linked
Earth systems, St. Pete Beach, FL, United States, Aug. 13-16, 1995.

Diamond, J. H., and H. L. Jones. 1980. Breeding land birds of the
Channel Islands. Pp. 597-614 in, D. M. Power, ed., The California
Islands: proceedings of a multidisciplinary symposium. Santa Barbara
Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA.

Elliott, J.E. and R.J. Norstrom. 1998. Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Contaminants and Productivity of Bald Eagle Populations on the Pacific
Coast of Canada. Environ. Tox. And Chem., 17(6):1142-1153.

Elliott, J.E. 2001. Using Blood Samples to Monitor Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon Exposure of Bald Eagles on the Northern Channel Islands of
California. A report to the Science Review Panel for the Northern
Channel Islands Bald Eagle Feasibility Study. 13 pp.

Engle, J. M. 1993. Distribution patterns of rocky subtidal fishes around
the California Islands. Pp. 475-484 in F. G. Hochberg, ed., Third
California Islands Symposium: Recent Advances in Research on the
California Islands. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. 659 pp.

Fausett, L. L. 1982. Activity and movement patterns of the island fox,
Urocyon littoralis Baird 1857 (Carnivora: Canidae). Ph. D. dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles. 132 pp.

Fry, D.M. 1994. Injury of Seabirds from DDT and PCB Residues in the
Southern California Bight Ecosystem. Expert Report. 29 pp.

Garcelon, D. K., R. K. Wayne, and B. J. Gonzales. 1992. A serologic
survey of the island fox (Urocyon littoralis) on the Channel Islands,
California. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 28(2):223-229.

Garcelon, D.K. 1997. Effects of Organochlorine contaminants on bald
eagle reproduction at Santa Catalina Island. 16 pp.

Garcelon, D.K. and N.J. Thomas. 1997. DDE poisoning in an Adult Bald
Eagle. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 33(2):299-303.

Garcelon, D.K. 1997. Survey of food habits of Bald Eagles.

Garcelon, D.K. and N.J. Thomas, 1997. DDE poisoning in adult bald eagle.
Journal of Wildlife Diseases 33:99-303.

Garcelon, D.K., J.S. Romsos, and P. Golightly. 1997a. Food habits of
bald eagles on Santa Catalina Island, January-July 1993. Unpublished
report submitted to the Damage Assessment office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Sacramento Field Office, California. 20 p.

Garcelon, D.K., S. Tomassi, D. Kristan, and D. Delaney. 1997b. Food
habits of the bald eagle on Santa Catalina Island, November 1991 -
December 1992. Report submitted to the Damage Assessment Office, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office, California. 24 p.

Garcelon, D.K. 1988. The reintroduction of bald eagles in Santa Catalina
Island, CA. M.S.C Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.

Garcelon, D.K., R.W. Risebrough, W.M. Jarman, A.B. Chartrand and E.E
Littrell, 1989. Accumulations of DDE by bald eagles (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) reintroduced to Sanata Catalina Island in Southern CA.
pages 491-494 in B.U Meyburg and R.D. Chancellor (eds.). Raptors in the
modern world. Proc. of the third world conference on birds of prey.
International Council.

Garcelon, D.K. 2000. Direct Expert Testimony of David K. Garcelon.
United States District Court, Central District of California Western
Division, United States of America, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Montrose
Chemical Corporation of California, et al., Defendants. No. CV
90-3122-R, and Errata to Testimony of David K. Garcelon.

Gilbert, D. A., N. Lehman, S. J. O'Brien,, and R. K. Wayne. 1990.
Genetic fingerprinting reflects population differentiation in the
California Channel Island fox. Nature 344:764-767.

Halvorson and G. J. Maender, eds., The Fourth California Islands
Symposium: Update on the Status of Resources. Santa Barbara Museum of
Natural History, Santa Barbara, California.

Henny, C.J. 2001. DDE/DDT Trends in Potential Bald Eagle Prey Species, A
Possible Role for the Introduction of Ospreys to Northern Channel
Islands, and Bald Eagle Releases to Historic Sites in Mexico. A Science
Review Panel Report: Northern Channel Islands Bald Eagle Feasibility
Study. 9 pp.

Hobson, K.A. 2001. Application of stable-isotope methods to monitoring
Bald Eagle restoration and management on Santa Catalina Island,
California. A report to the Science Review Panel for the Northern
Channel Islands Bald Eagle Feasibility Study. 11 pp.

Institute for Wildlife Studies. 2001. Island fox (Urocyon littoralis
santacruzae) and island spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis amphiala)
population dynamics for Santa Cruz Island, California. Unpublished
report submitted to The Nature Conservancy. On file at park
headquarters, Channel Islands National Park, Ventura, CA.

Johnson, N. K. 1972. Origin and differentiation of the avifauna of the
Channel Islands, California. Condor 74(3):295-315.

Junak, S. T. Ayers, R. Scott, D. Wilkens, and D. Young. 1995. A Flora of
Santa Cruz Island. Santa Barbara Botanical Gardens and California Native
Plant Society, Santa Barbara, CA. 397 pp

Jurek, R.M. 2000. Narrative Testimony of Factual Witness Ronald Michael
Jurek in Support of Plaintiffs. United States District Court, Central
District of California Western Division, United States of America, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. Montrose Chemical Corporation of California, et al.,
Defendants. No. CV 90-3122-R.

Kiff, L. F. Further Notes on Historical Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon
Populations on the California Channel Islands. Boise, Idaho. 38 pp.

Kiff, L. F. 1980. Historical changes in resident populations of
California Islands raptors. Pp. 651-671 614 in, D. M. Power, ed., The
California Islands: proceedings of a multidisciplinary symposium. Santa
Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA.

Koski, W. R., J. W. Lawson, D. H. Thomson, and W. J. Richardson. 1998.
Point Mugu Sea Range marine mammal technical report. Department of the
Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, Point Mugu, CA. 281
pp.

Krantz, W.C., B.M. Mulhern, G.E. Bagley, A. Sprunt, IV, F.J Ligas and
W.B. Robertson, Jr., 1970. Organochlorine and metal residues in bald
eagle eggs. Pestic. Monit. Journal 3:136-140.

Kushner, D. J., D. Lerma, S. Alesandrini, and J. Shaffer. 1999. Kelp
forest monitoring, 1998 annual report. Technical Report CHIS-99-01.
National Park Service, Channel Islands National Park, Ventura, CA.

Laughrin, L. L. 1977. The island fox; a field study of its behavior and
ecology. PhD. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. 83
pp.

Lee, H. J. (U. S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, United States),
Drake, D. E., Edwards, B. D., Hamer, M. R., Hampton, M. A., Karl, H. A.,
Kayen, R. E., Wong, F. L., Murray, C. J. (non-survey author),
Contaminated, effluent-affected sediment on the continental margin near
Los Angeles,

> California Anonymous, 1996 ocean sciences meeting, Eos, Transactions,
> American Geophysical Union, 77 (3, Suppl.), p. 37, 1996. Meeting:
> American Geophysical Union; American Society of Limnology and
> Oceanography; 1996 ocean sciences meeting, San Diego, CA, United
> States, Feb. 12-16, 1996.

Moore, C. M., and P. W. Collins. 1995. Urocyon littoralis. Mammalian
Species 489:1-7.

National Park Service. 2001. Santa Cruz Island primary restoration plan
and draft environmental impact statement. National Park Service, Channel
Islands National Park, Ventura, CA. 117 pp.

Richards, D. V. Marine Debris Monitoring Program 1993 Annual Report.
Technical Report CHIS-94-04, Channel Islands National Park, Ventura, CA.
34 p.

Rodway, M.S. and M.J.F. Lemon. 1991. British Columbia Seabird Colony
Inventory: Report #8 --- Queen Charlotte Strait and Johnstone Strait.
Technical Report Series No. 123. Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and
Yukon Region, British Columbia.

Roemer, G. W., D. K. Garcelon, T. J. Coonan, and C. Schwemm. 1994. The
use of capture-recapture methods for estimating, monitoring and
conserving island fox populations. Pp. 387-400 in W. L.

Roemer, G. W. 1999. The ecology and conservation of the Island fox.
Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. 229 pp.

Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group. 2000. Channel Islands golden
eagle research and translocation 1999 progress report. Unpublished
report submitted to the National Park Service. On file at park
headquarters, Channel Islands National Park, Ventura, CA. 6 pp.

Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group. 2001. Channel Islands golden
eagle research and translocation 1999-2000 progress report. Unpublished
report submitted to the National Park Service. On file at park
headquarters, Channel Islands National Park, Ventura, CA. 22 pp.

Schuyler, P. 1988. Feral pigs (Sus scrofa) on Santa Cruz Island: the
need for a removal program. The Nature Conservancy, Santa Barbara, CA.
Unpublished report on file at park headquarters, Channel Islands
National Park. 23 pp.

Sharpe, P. B., and D. K. Garcelon. 2000. Restoration and Management of
Bald Eagles on Santa Catalina Island, California, 1999. Contract report
submitted to the Damage Assessment Branch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. 26 pp.

Sherwood, C. R. (non-survey author) (Battelle Marine Sciences
Laboratory, Sequim, WA, United States), Wiberg, P. L. (non-survey
author), Wheatcroft, R. A.

(non-survey author), Drake, D. E., Long-term fate of waste in an urban
coastal ocean; calculations of DDE concentration in effluent-affected
sediments off the

> Palos Verdes PeninsulaAnonymous, 1996 ocean sciences meeting, Eos,
> Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 77 (3, Suppl.), p. 37, 1996.
> Meeting: American Geophysical Union; American Society of Limnology and
> Oceanography; 1996 ocean sciences meeting, San Diego, CA, United
> States, Feb. 12-16, 1996.

Stalmaster, Mark V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books, New York, New
York. 227 pp.

Sterner, J.D. 1990. Population Characteristics, Home Range and Habitat
Use of Feral Pigs on Santa Cruz Island, California. M.S. thesis,
University of California, Berkeley, CA. 110 pp.

Stickel, L.F., N.J. Chura, P.A. Stewart, C.M. Menzie, R.M. Prouty and
W.L. Reichel, 1966. Bald eagle pesticide relations. Trans. North Am.
Wildlife Natural Resources Conference. 31: 190-200.

Thompson, C. M., E. L. Stackhouse, G. W. Roemer, and D. K. Garcelon.
1998. Home range and density of the island fox in China Canyon, San
Clemente Island, California. U.S. Navy, Natural Resources Management
Branch, Southwest Div., Nav. Fac. Eng. Command, San Diego, California.
31 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald
Eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 160 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Thirteen Plant Taxa from the
Northern Channel Islands: Draft Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Region 1. Ventura, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Proposal for interim
reintroduction of bald ealges on the northern Channel Islands: 2001.
Unpublished report submitted to Southern California Damage Assessment
Trustee Council. USFWS, Sacramento. 11 pp.

Valoppi, L., D. Welsh, D. Glaser., P. Sharpe, D. Garcelon, H. Carter.
July 2000. Final Predictive Ecological Risk Assessment for the Potential
Reintroduction of Bald Eagles to the Northern Channel Islands. Prepared
for the Southern California Damage Assessment Trustee Council. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.

Valoppi, L.M., C.M. Thomas, and D. Welsh. July 1999. Final Assessment of
Toxicity of DDE and PCBs to Bald Eagles: Step One of an ecological risk
Assessment for the Potential Reintroduction of Bald Eagles to the
Northern Channel Islands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California. 49pp.

von Bloeker, Jr, J. C. 1967. Land mammals of the southern California
islands. Pages 245-264 in Philbrick, R.N., (ed.), Proceedings of the
Symposium on the Biology of the California Islands. Santa Barbara
Botanic Garden, Santa Barbara, California.

Walker, P. L. 1980. Archeological evidence for the recent extinction of
three terrestrial mammals on San Miguel Island. 1980. Pp. 703-717 in, D.
M. Power, ed., The California Islands: proceedings of a
multidisciplinary symposium. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History,
Santa Barbara, CA.

Wayne, R. K., S. B. George, D. Gilbert, P. W. Collins, S. D. Kovach, D.
Girman, and N. Lehman. 1991. A morphologic and genetic study of the
island fox, Urocyon littoralis. Evolution 45:1849-1868.

Wiemeyer, S.N. 2001. Collection of Food Habits Data of Bald Eagles to be
Released on the Northern Channel Islands. A Report to the Science Review
Panel for the Northen Channel Islands Bald Eagle Feasibility Study. 4
pp.

  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------
  Section 8               Preparers, Agencies and Persons Consulted

  ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------

**[Preparers]{.underline}**

-   Jennifer Boyce, NOAA Restoration Center, Trustee Council Alternate

-   Kate Faulkner, Channel Islands National Park, Trustee Council
    Alternate

-   Laura Valoppi, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

-   Natalie Cosentino-Manning, NOAA Restoration Center

-   Tim Coonan, Channel Islands National Park

-   Patty Velez, California Department of Fish and Game, Trustee Council
    Primary

**[Reviewers]{.underline}**

-   William Conner, N.O.A.A, Trustee Council Chairman

-   Suzanne Goode. California Department of Parks and Recreation,
    Trustee Council Alternate

-   Daniel Welsh, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Trustee Council
    Primary

-   Tim Setnicka, Channel Islands National Park, Trustee Council Primary

-   Chuck McKinely, D.O.I, Office of the Solicitor

-   Kolleen Bannon, N.O.A.A., Office of General Council

-   Jonathan Clark, Staff Counsel, Sate Lands Commission

**[Persons Consulted]{.underline}**

-   John Elliott, Canadian Wildlife Service

-   Stan Wiemeyer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

-   Chuck Henny , U.S. Geological Service

-   Keith Hobson, Canadian Wildlife Service

-   Bridget Fahey, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

-   Lynn Lozier, The Nature Conservancy

-   Erik Aschehoug, The Nature Conservancy