Channel Islands National Park 

Draft General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement 

November 2013

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Channel Islands National Park

California

i

Draft

General Management Plan / Wilderness Management Study / Environmental Impact Statement

Channel Islands National Park

Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, California

iii

HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS PLAN

Comments on this Draft General Management Plan / Wilderness Management Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS or this plan) are welcome and will be accepted 

during the 60-day public review and comment period. During the comment period, comments 

may be submitted using several methods as noted below.

• Attend the public meetings 

• Comment online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/chis

• Mail comments to: 

Greg Jarvis, Project Manager

National Park Service – Denver Service Center

12795 West Alameda Parkway

Lakewood, CO 80228

Comments will not be accepted by fax, email, or in any other way than those specified above. Bulk 

comments in any format (hard copy or electronic) submitted on behalf of others will not be 

accepted. Before including your personal information in your comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment – including your personal identifying information – may be publicly 

available at any time. Although you may request in your comment that we withhold your personal 

information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

v

SUMMARY

The purpose of this Draft General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Management 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement 

(plan/EIS or this plan) is to clearly define a 

direction for resource preservation and visitor 

experience at Channel Islands National Park 

over the next 20 to 40 years. 

Presented and analyzed within this plan are 

three alternatives for the management and use 

of Channel Islands National Park. The 

alternatives present different ways to manage 

resources and visitor use and to improve 

facilities and infrastructure at Channel Islands 

National Park. The alternatives are based on 

the purpose and significance of this 250,000-

acre park and include issues and concerns 

identified by the public and National Park 

Service (NPS) staff as part of the initial 

planning efforts.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN

A general management plan for Channel 

Islands National Park is needed to fulfill the 

following purposes:

• Confirm the purpose and significance of 

the national park.

• Clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor experiences to be achieved in 

Channel Islands National Park. 

• Provide a framework for park managers to 

use when making decisions about such 

issues as how to best protect national park 

resources, how to provide a diverse range 

of visitor experience opportunities, how 

to manage visitor use, and what kinds of 

facilities, if any, to develop in the national 

park.

• Ensure that this foundation for decision 

making has been developed in 

consultation with interested stakeholders 

and adopted by the NPS leadership after 

an adequate analysis of the benefits, 

impacts, and economic costs of alternative 

courses of action.

• Serve as the basis for later more detailed 

management documents, such as five-year 

strategic plans and implementation plans. 

The Park Service has identified five goals that 

this planning effort would address. 

Specifically, the goals of this plan are to:

• restore and maintain natural ecosystems 

and processes;

• preserve and protect cultural resources;

• provide opportunities and access for the 

public to experience and connect to the 

park; 

• promote stewardship of park resources; 

and

• administer the park efficiently and 

effectively. 

PLANNING PROCESS

The process of preparing this GMP/EIS for 

Channel Islands National Park began in 

November 8, 2001 with publication of a 

“Notice of Intent” to prepare an environmental impact statement in the Federal 

Register. A newsletter issued in October 2001 

described the planning effort. A total of 53 

electronic and mailed comments were 

received in response to that newsletter.

Public meetings were held on November 12, 

2001 (Santa Barbara); November 13, 2001 (Los 

Angeles); November 14, 2001 (Oxnard); and 

November 15, 2001 (Ventura). 

Any long-term park management program 

needs to address a number of key issues and 

questions. The major issues that were raised 

for this plan are: 
SUMMARY

vi

Access to the Islands

Access across the sea to the islands is 

expensive and difficult. The islands are only 

accessible by park concessioner boats and 

planes or private boats. The issue this plan 

needs to answer is whether more 

opportunities for public access should be 

provided to the islands. 

Access on Santa Rosa Island

This issue addresses the question of the level 

and type of access that should be provided to 

visitors. Santa Rosa is a relatively large island. 

When most visitors are dropped off at Bechers 

Bay they are now faced with walking long 

distances to see the 53,000-acre island. 

Type and Level of Recreation Development 

that is Appropriate on the Islands

This issue addresses the question of the 

appropriate balance of developments that 

should be provided for visitors (i.e., the 

general types and intensities of development 

needed to provide for public enjoyment of the 

park, while assuring negligible impacts on 

park resources).

Providing Sustainable Park Operations

This issue focuses on whether the existing 

administrative and operational facilities are 

functioning effectively and efficiently, meeting 

the needs of both park staff and visitors. 

Designation of Wilderness

To fulfill the requirements of the park’s 

enabling legislation and the Wilderness Act, 

the Park Service must determine whether any 

lands in the park should be proposed for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. 

Climate Change

This plan primarily focuses on the climate 

issue of the anticipated effects of climate 

change on the park’s resources and visitors. 

With publication of the Final General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement, the Park Service presents a range of 

alternatives, including the NPS preferred 

alternative, for managing Channel Islands 

National Park. The alternatives are 

summarized here, and explained in further 

detail in Chapter 2. 

ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives in this plan were all 

developed using the desired conditions. Some 

components of each alternative may meet the 

desired conditions more successfully than 

another alternative. 

In addition to the components of each 

alternative, management zones were 

developed to help define the management 

approaches to be achieved and maintained in 

each area of the park. Seven management 

zones have been developed for Channel 

Islands National Park, and these zones are 

applied to different islands of the park in each 

action alternative: 

Terrestrial Zones

• Backcountry

• Cultural Landscape

• Frontcountry

• Administrative

Marine Zones

• Marine Stewardship

• Marine Protected (State Marine Reserves)

• Marine Protected (State Marine 

Conservation Areas)
Summary

vii

The following sections describe the basic

concept of each of three alternatives, and 

summarizes the differences between 

alternatives. A detailed discussion of 

management zones and alternatives for each 

park area and for the park’s wilderness is 

included in Chapter 2 and summarized in 

Table 17. 

Alternative 1: The No Action Alternative

The no action alternative, alternative 1, is 

required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act and provides the baseline from 

which to compare other alternatives. Under 

this alternative, there would be no major 

change in the management direction of the 

islands. All facilities, resource programs, and 

visitor opportunities would continue as they 

are. None of the park would be proposed for 

wilderness designation.

Summary of Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative 1. Impacts resulting from the no 

action alternative would be mostly negligible 

to minor and adverse for natural resources. 

Localized moderate adverse impacts on water 

quality are possible from boat discharges in 

marine waters and disposal of human waste 

on Santa Rosa Island. Flooding in Scorpion 

Valley could have moderate impacts on 

human life and property. Moderate impacts 

on marine and terrestrial wildlife on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands due to increased 

use by boaters on beaches are possible. 

Alternative 1 may affect, but is unlikely to 

adversely affect, threatened and endangered 

species.

The visitor experience and recreational 

opportunities would remain relatively 

unchanged with minor to moderate and 

beneficial effects. Limited interpretive and 

educational media and crowding could 

detract from the visitor experience, resulting 

in minor to moderate impacts on visitor use.

No effect on the soundscape is likely except 

for localized areas where moderate adverse 

impacts are possible due to concentrations of 

visitors, boats, and park operations. The no 

action alternative would have negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on the wilderness 

character of lands eligible for wilderness.

Minor adverse impacts on archeological 

resources are possible, while minor beneficial 

effects are expected for historic structures and 

ethnographic resources. Impacts on cultural 

landscapes would be minor to moderate from 

historic vegetation removal.

Moderate adverse impacts on park operations 

would occur due to inadequate funding and 

staffing to manage the large and spread out 

marine and terrestrial park. 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 emphasizes ecosystem 

preservation, restoration, and preservation of 

large expanses in relatively pristine resource 

conditions. Resource stewardship including 

ecosystem preservation and restoration, and 

preservation of natural landscapes, cultural 

landscapes, archeological resources, and 

historic structures would continue to be 

emphasized. Increased recreational 

opportunities would be provided for visitors 

to enjoy and appreciate the park. 

Under alternative 2, 66,675 acres of the park 

would be proposed for wilderness 

designation, primarily on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands.

Minimal new development would occur on 

the islands; however, limited new facilities 

might be built on the islands for specific 

resource protection, research, management, 

or visitor services. There would be few 

changes in the transportation methods used to 

reach the islands or travel on the islands. 

Marine areas and resources would continue to 

be managed to protect ecosystems and 

biological diversity.

Partnerships would be expanded with 

governmental agencies, educational 
SUMMARY

viii

institutions, and others to bring the island 

experience to the public and facilitate 

educational opportunities, resource 

stewardship, and research. 

Commercial services that use sustainable 

practices and were more ecologically sensitive 

in their operations would be encouraged.

Summary of Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would have both 

minor to moderate adverse and beneficial 

impacts on natural resources. Closure and 

rehabilitation of roads on Santa Rosa Island 

would have beneficial effects on fresh water 

quality, while discharges from visitor boats 

would have minor effects on marine water 

quality. Restoration of the estuarine wetland 

in Scorpion Valley would have moderate 

beneficial effects on floodplain values, with 

periodic moderate adverse impacts from 

removal of sediment. This work also would 

have moderate beneficial impacts on 

wetlands. Increased backcountry use and new 

facility construction would have negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife with moderate beneficial impacts

from road closure and restoration activities. 

Designation of backcountry management 

zones, additional monitoring, and road 

closure would have minor to moderate 

beneficial effects on wildlife. Alternative 2 

may affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect, 

threatened and endangered species. Minor 

beneficial impacts on Hoffmann’s slender 

flower gilia are possible.

Increased recreation, interpretative, and 

educational opportunities would have 

moderate beneficial impacts on the visitor 

experience. For most of the park, there would 

be no impact on natural soundscape; however, 

there would be localized minor to moderate 

adverse noise impacts due to concentrations 

of visitors, boats, and park operations. 

Designation of wilderness and closure and 

restoration of roads would have a major 

beneficial effect on wilderness character.

More controlled visitor access and emphasis 

on preservation, site monitoring, education, 

and wilderness designation would benefit 

archeological resources. Additional visitors 

could result in minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on archeological sites, historic 

structures, and ethnographic resources. 

Vegetation removal at Smuggler’s Cove would 

have a moderate adverse impact on the 

cultural landscape.

Adverse impacts on park operations would 

occur from changes in facilities and new 

management actions. However, increased staff 

and funding, along with management actions 

and phased development, would have minor 

to moderate beneficial effects on park 

operations.

Alternative 3 — Preferred

As in all of the alternatives, alternative 3 is 

intended to emphasize resource stewardship, 

including ecosystem preservation and 

restoration, and preservation of natural 

landscapes, cultural landscapes, archeological 

resources, and historic structures. 

Alternative 3 would place more attention than 

the other alternatives on expanding education 

and recreational opportunities and 

accommodations to provide diverse visitor 

experiences on the islands. Visitors would 

have more opportunities to see and 

experience the islands. 

Under alternative 3, 66,675 acres of the park 

would be proposed for wilderness 

designation, primarily on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands.

There would be expanded opportunities to 

bring the park to the people through 

additional facilities and activities, including an 

expanded visitor/education center in Ventura 

Harbor and expansion of learning programs 

and video telecasts. Increased efforts would 

be made to provide educational programs that 

focus on all grade levels and adults throughout 
Summary

ix

the adjacent mainland communities, as well as 

throughout the nation through interactive

distance learning programs.

Although many roads might be removed or 

converted into trails on Santa Cruz and Santa 

Rosa islands, selected roads would continue 

to be maintained for visitors to see Santa Rosa 

Island and to administer and protect 

resources on both Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands.

Limited new facilities might be built, or 

existing facilities rehabilitated, on Santa Cruz 

and Santa Rosa islands for specific resource 

protection, management, and visitor services. 

There would be few changes in the 

transportation methods used to reach the 

islands or travel on the islands.

Partnerships would be expanded with 

governmental agencies, educational 

institutions, and others to bring the island 

experience to the public and facilitate 

educational opportunities, resource 

stewardship, and research. New concessions 

and other commercial uses might be 

permitted to expand visitor experiences on 

the islands. These businesses could include 

lodging with food service and vehicle tours 

(both on Santa Rosa Island), rentals (snorkel 

and kayak gear), guided camping, pinniped 

viewing on San Miguel Island, and 

environmental education throughout the 

park.

Summary of Impacts from Implementing 

Alternative 3. Impacts under alternative 3 

would be similar to alternative 2 for most 

resources. Water quality, floodplain values, 

wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, and threatened 

and endangered species would have the same 

range of adverse and beneficial effects as 

described for alternative 2. 

The diversity of visitor experiences, including 

recreational, interpretative, and educational 

opportunities, would have moderate 

beneficial impacts on the visitor experience. 

Increased recreational opportunities on Santa 

Cruz and Santa Rosa islands, a new visitor 

center in Ventura Harbor, a new educational 

camp and campground on Santa Rosa Island, 

a new campground on Santa Cruz Island, and 

guided multiday trips on San Miguel Island 

would contribute to the beneficial impacts. 

Additional visitors to Santa Rosa Island could 

have minor to moderate adverse impacts due 

to perceived crowding. Similar to alternative

2, there would be no impact on the natural 

soundscape for most of the park; however, 

there would be localized minor to moderate 

adverse noise impacts due to concentrations 

of visitors, boats, and park operations. 

Designation of wilderness and closure and 

restoration of roads would have a major 

beneficial effect on wilderness character.

Increased visitors and new developments 

would have minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on archeological resources, historic 

structures, and the cultural landscape, and 

slightly greater adverse impacts on 

ethnographic resources than alternative 2. 

Impacts on park operations would be the 

same as alternative 2, with adverse impacts 

from changes in facilities and new 

management actions. Increased staff and 

funding, along with management actions and 

phased development, would have minor to 

moderate beneficial effects on park 

operations.

THE NEXT STEPS

Following distribution of this Final General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement and a 60-day no-action period, a 

“Record of Decision” approving a final plan 

will be signed by the NPS regional director. 

The “Record of Decision” documents the 

NPS selection of an alternative for 

implementation. With the signed “Record of 

Decision,” the plan can then be implemented, 

depending on funding and staffing.
SUMMARY

x 

FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION 

STRATEGIES

A “Record of Decision” does not guarantee 

funds and staff for implementing the 

approved plan. The Park Service recognizes 

that this is a long-term plan and in the 

framework of the plan, park managers would 

take incremental steps to reach park 

management goals and objectives. Although 

some of the actions can be accomplished with 

little or no funding, some actions would 

require more detailed implementation plans, 

site-specific compliance, and additional funds. 

The park would actively seek alternative

sources of funding, but there is no guarantee 

that all the components of the plan would be 

implemented.
xi

CONTENTS

Summary v

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

A Guide to this Document 3

Brief Description of the Park 4

Parkwide Description 4

Island Descriptions 5

Purpose and Need for the Plan 11

Purpose and Need for the Wilderness Study 12

Scope of the General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / EIS 12

Overview of the NPS Planning Process 14

Foundation for Planning and Management 15

Park Purpose 15

Park Significance 15

Fundamental and Other Important Resources and Values 16

Primary Interpretive Themes 18

Park Goals 19

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 20

Servicewide Laws and Policies 22

Other NPS Plans and Related Guidance 24

Planning Issues/Concerns 25

Access to the Islands 25

Access on Santa Rosa Island 25

Appropriate Type and Level of Recreation Facilities 25

Effective and Efficient Operation of the Park 26

Designation of Wilderness 26

Climate Change 26

Issues Beyond the Scope of the Plan /Wilderness Study 29

Management of Marine Waters 29

Next Steps and Implementation of the Plan / Wilderness Study 31

General Management Plan 31

Wilderness Study 32

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative 33

Introduction 35

Formulation of the Alternatives 35

Identification of the NPS Preferred Alternative 36

Consideration of Boundary Adjustments 36

Management Zones 37

User Capacity 41

Commercial Services 44

Wilderness Study and Proposal 46

Wilderness Eligibility 46

Public Comments on Wilderness 48

Options Analyzed in this Wilderness Study 48

Alternative 1 — Parkwide 50
CONTENTS

xii

Concept 50

Natural Resources 50

Cultural Resources 51

Management Zoning 51

Wilderness Proposal 52

Visitor Access 52

Visitor Uses, Overnight Accommodations, and User Capacity 52

Overnight Accommodations 52

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services 53

Commercial Services 54

Park Operations and Facilities 55

Costs 58

Alternative 1 — The Mainland 59

Alternative 1 — Anacapa Island 61

Natural Resources 61

Cultural Resources 61

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services 61

User Capacities (Day Use and Overnight) 61

Park Operations and Facilities 62

Alternative 1 — Santa Cruz Island 64

Natural Resources 64

Cultural Resources 64

Natural–Cultural Resources 64

Wilderness Proposal 64

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services 64

User Capacities (Day Use and Overnight) 65

Park Operations and Facilities 65

Alternative 1 — Santa Rosa Island 73

Natural Resources 73

Cultural Resources 73

Wilderness Proposal 73

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services 73

User Capacities (Day Use and Overnight) 73

Park Operations and Facilities 73

Alternative 1 — San Miguel Island 81

Natural Resources 81

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services 81

User Capacities (Day Use and Overnight) 81

Park Operations and Facilities 81

Alternative 1 — Santa Barbara Island 83

Natural Resources 83

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services 83

User Capacities (Day Use and Overnight) 83

Park Operations and Facilities 83

Alternative 2 — Parkwide 85

Concept 85

Natural Resources 86

Cultural Resources 86

Management Zones 87

Wilderness Proposal 87
Contents

xiii

Visitor Access 87

Visitor Uses, Overnight Accommodations, and User Capacity 88

Overnight Accommodations 88

User Capacity 89

Visitor Orientation, Interpretation, and Education 89

Commercial Services 90

Park Operations and Facilities 91

Alternative 2 — The Mainland 96

Visitor Center 96

Other Visitor Contact Stations 96

Park Operations and Facilities 96

Alternative 2 — Anacapa Island 98

Natural Resources 98

Cultural Resources 98

Management Zones 98

Wilderness Proposal 98

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services 98

User Capacities (Day Use and Overnight) 99

Park Operations and Facilities 99

Alternative 2 — Santa Cruz Island 101

Natural Resources 101

Cultural Resources 101

Natural–Cultural Resources 102

Management Zones 102

Wilderness Proposal 103

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services 103

User Capacities (Day Use and Overnight) 105

Park Operations and Facilities 105

Alternative 2 — Santa Rosa Island 113

Natural Resources 113

Cultural Resources 113

Management Zones 113

Wilderness Proposal 113

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services 113

User Capacities (Day Use and Overnight) 115

Park Operations and Facilities 115

Alternative 2 — San Miguel Island 123

Natural Resources 123

Management Zones 123

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services 123

User Capacities (Day Use and Overnight) 124

Park Operations and Facilities 124

Alternative 2 — Santa Barbara Island 126

Natural Resources 126

Management Zones 126

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services 126

Wilderness Proposal 126

User Capacities (Day Use and Overnight) 126

Park Operations and Facilities 126

Alternative 3 (Preferred) — Parkwide 128
CONTENTS

xiv

Concept 128

Natural Resources 129

Cultural Resources 129

Management Zones 130

Wilderness Proposal 131

Visitor Access 131

Visitor Uses, Overnight Accommodations, and User Capacity 132

Overnight Accommodations 132

Visitor Orientation, Interpretation, and Education 133

Commercial Services 133

Park Operations and Facilities 135

Alternative 3 (Preferred)— The Mainland 140

Other Visitor Contact Stations 141

Alternative 3 (Preferred)— Anacapa Island 143

Natural Resources 143

Cultural Resources 143

Management Zones 143

Wilderness Proposal 143

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services 144

User Capacities (Day Use and Overnight) 144

Park Operations and Facilities 144

Alternative 3 (Preferred)— Santa Cruz Island 147

Natural Resources 147

Cultural Resources 147

Natural–Cultural Resources 148

Management Zones 148

Wilderness Proposal 149

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services 149

User Capacities (Day Use and Overnight) 151

Park Operations and Facilities 151

Alternative 3 (Preferred)— Santa Rosa Island 159

Natural Resources 159

Cultural Resources 159

Management Zones 159

Wilderness Proposal 159

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services 159

User Capacities (Day Use and Overnight) 161

Park Operations and Facilities 161

Alternative 3 (Preferred)— San Miguel Island 169

Natural Resources 169

Management Zones 169

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services 169

User Capacities (Day Use and Overnight) 170

Employee Housing and Park Operations 170

Alternative 3 (Preferred)— Santa Barbara Island 172

Natural Resources 172

Management Zones 172

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services 172

Wilderness Proposal 172

User Capacities (Day Use and Overnight) 172
Contents

xv

Park Operations and Facilities 172

Mitigative Measures 174

Natural Resources 174

Cultural Resources 177

Sustainable Design and Aesthetics 179

Development of Cost Estimates of the Alternatives 180

Future Plans and Studies Needed 181

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 183

Consistency of the Alternatives with the Purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act 

184

Planning Actions/Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed Further 185

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 211

Introduction 213

Natural Resources 229

Soils 229

Paleontological Resources 232

Water Quality 233

Floodplains (Scorpion Valley and Lower Reach of Cañada del Puerto) 235

Wetlands (Scorpion Valley and Prisoners Harbor) 236

Terrestrial Vegetative Communities and Flora 238

Terrestrial Wildlife, Seabirds, and Pinnipeds 249

Federally and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 263

Soundscape 270

Cultural Resources 272

Historical Overview 272

Aids to Navigation 280

Military Activities 280

Era of Conservation — Evolution of the National Park 281

Properties Listed in, or Potentially Eligible for Listing in, the National Register of Historic 

Places 282

Description of Park’s Cultural Resources 282

Visitor Use, Interpretation, and Education 292

Current Visitor Use 292

Visitor Access 293

Principal Visitor Recreational Activities 293

Interpretation and Education 294

Wilderness Character 295

Natural 295

Undeveloped 296

Untrammeled 296

Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive and Unconfined Recreation and Opportunities 

297

Other Features of Value 299

Park Operations 300

Park Roads 302

Other Infrastructure and Facilities 302
CONTENTS

xvi

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 303

Introduction 305

Assumptions 306

Climate Change 306

Methodology for Analyzing Impacts 307

Negligible Impact Requirement 307

Natural Resource Methodology and Definitions 308

Impacts on Cultural Resources and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

312

Cultural Resource Methodology and Definitions 313

Visitor Experience, Interpretation, and Education Methodology and Definitions 315

Wilderness Character 316

Park Operations 317

Duration 317

Cumulative Impacts 317

Impacts of Alternative 1 (No Action) 320

Natural Resources 320

Cultural Resources 331

Visitor Experience, Interpretation, and Education 336

Wilderness Character 338

Park Operations 339

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 340

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 341

The Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long-Term 

Productivity 341

Impacts of Alternative 2 342

Natural Resources 342

Cultural Resources 361

Visitor Experience, Interpretation, and Education 366

Wilderness Character 370

Park Operations 372

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 374

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 374

The Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long-Term 

Productivity 374

Impacts of Alternative 3 376

Natural Resources 376

Cultural Resources 394

Visitor Experience, Interpretation, and Education 399

Wilderness Character 403

Park Operations 405

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 407

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 408

The Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long-Term 

Productivity 408

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 411

Summary of Public Involvement 413
Contents

xvii

Public Meetings and Newsletters 413

Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation 413

Consultation with Native Americans 413

Consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 

414

Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination and Consultation 414

Future Compliance Requirements 414

Agencies and Organizations to Whom this Document was Sent 418

Federal Agencies 418

U.S. Senators and Representatives 418

California State Agencies 418

California State Officials 418

American Indian Tribes with Potential Cultural Affiliation to the Park 418

Local, City, County, and Regional Governments 419

Organizations and Businesses 419

Media 420

Libraries 421

Appendixes, Selected References, Preparers and Consultants, Index 423

Appendix A. Summary of Legislative History for Channel Islands National Park 425

Appendix B. Servicewide Mandates and Policies Pertaining to Channel Islands National Park 

426

Appendix C. Uses, Developments, and Management Actions Permitted and Prohibited in 

Wilderness 447

Appendix D. Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to this General Management Plan 449

Appendix E. Species Lists 456

Appendix F. Letters from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries 

Service on Threatened and Endangered Species in Channel Islands National Park 464

Appendix G. Statement of Findings for Scorpion Creek 470

Appendix H. List of Classified Structures 476

Selected References 478

Preparers 487

Index 490

MAPS

Map 1. Park Region and Vicinity 10

Map 2. Park Headquarters – Alternative 1 60

Map 3. Anacapa Island – Alternative 1 63

Map 4. Santa Cruz Island – Alternative 1 67

Map 5. Scorpion Valley – Alternative 1 69

Map 6. Prisoners Harbor – Alternative 1 71

Map 7. Santa Rosa Island – Alternative 1 75

Map 8. Bechers Bay – Alternative 1 77

Map 9. Johnson’s Lee – Alternative 1 79

Map 10. San Miguel Island – Alternative 1 82

Map 11. Santa Barbara Island – Alternative 1 84

Map 12. Park Headquarters – Alternative 2 97
CONTENTS

xviii

Map 13. Anacapa Island – Alternative 2 100

Map 14. Santa Cruz Island – Alternative 2 107

Map 15. Scorpion Valley – Alternative 2 109

Map 16. Prisoners Harbor – Alternative 2 111

Map 17. Santa Rosa Island – Alternative 2 117

Map 18. Bechers Bay – Alternative 2 119

Map 19. Johnson’s Lee – Alternative 2 121

Map 20. San Miguel Island – Alternative 2 125

Map 21. Santa Barbara Island – Alternative 2 127

Map 22. Park Headquarters – Alternative 3 142

Map 23. Anacapa Island – Alternative 3 146

Map 24. Santa Cruz Island – Alternative 3 154

Map 25. Scorpion Valley – Alternative 3 155

Map 26. Prisoners Harbor – Alternative 3 157

Map 27. Santa Rosa Island – Alternative 3 163

Map 28. Bechers Bay – Alternative 3 165

Map 29. Johnson’s Lee – Alternative 3 167

Map 30. San Miguel Island – Alternative 3 171

Map 31. Santa Barbara Island – Alternative 3 173

TABLES

Table 1. Management Zones 37

Table 2. Commercial Services Evaluation Criteria 45

Table 3. Continuing Commercial Services for Visitors in Channel Islands National Park under 

Alternative 1 54

Table 4. Existing Infrastructure and Facilities in Channel Islands National Park 55

Table 5. Permanent Park Staffing Levels (in FTEs), 2010 57

Table 6. Channel Islands National Park Operational Costs, Fiscal Year 2010 58

Table 7. Commercial Services Provided for Visitors in Channel Islands National Park under 

Alternative 2 90

Table 8. Changes in Infrastructure and Facilities in Channel Islands National Park under 

Alternative 2 91

Table 9. Changes in Permanent Park Staffing Levels from Current Management (in FTEs) 93

Table 10. Cost and Phasing for Alternative 2 95

Table 11. Commercial Services Provided for Visitors in Channel Islands National Park under 

Alternative 3 134

Table 12. Changes in Infrastructure and Facilities in Channel Islands National Park under 

Alternative 3 135

Table 13. Changes in Permanent Park Staffing Levels from Current Management (in FTEs) 137

Table 14. Cost and Phasing for Alternative 3 139

Table 15. Cost Estimates and Staffing for Full Implementation of the Action Alternatives 180

Table 16. Island Use Limits (Day Use and Overnight) 187

Table 17. Summary of Alternatives 190

Table 18. Summary of the Wilderness Study 198

Table 19. Summary of Key Impacts 199

Table 20. Impact Topics Retained or Dismissed 214

Table 21. Number of Vascular Plant Taxa on the Channel Islands 238

Table 22. Nonnative Vertebrates at Channel Islands National Park 260

Table 23. Visitor Data 2008–2009 292
Contents

xix

Table 24. Existing Park Staffing 2011 301

Table 25. Implementation Actions that Could Affect Cultural Resources and Associated SHPO 

and ACHP Compliance Requirements 416
xx

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT

1998 Concessions Act NPS Concessions Management and Improvement Act of 1998

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

ASMIS NPS Automated Site Management Information System

ATMP Air Tour Management Plan

CDF&G California Department of Fish and Game (now known as California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife) 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMAR Coastal Maritime Archeological Resources

Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CUAs commercial use authorizations

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DO Director’s Order 

DOI Department of the Interior 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESF Essential Fish Habitat

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FTE full-time equivalent

GIS Geographic Information Systems 

GMP General Management Plan 

IPCC United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

MLPA Marine Life Protection Act 

MPA Marine Protected Area

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS National Park Service 

PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

park Channel Islands National Park

PL Public Law

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

TNC The Nature Conservancy

USC United States Code 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Chapter 1: Introduction

Channel Islands National Park Ch

3

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement (this plan) is organized in 

accordance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) implementing 

regulations for the National Environmental 

Policy Act and the National Park Service’s 

(NPS) Director’s Orders (DO) on 

Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact 

Analysis, and Decision Making (DO-12) and 

Wilderness Preservation and Management

(DO-41).

Chapter 1: Introduction sets the framework 

for the entire document. It describes why the 

plan and wilderness study are being prepared 

and what needs they must address. It gives 

guidance for the alternatives that are being 

considered, which are based on the park’s 

purposes, significance, and NPS Management 

Policies. 

The chapter also describes park policies and 

practices that would continue to guide 

management of the park, and identifies the 

issues and concerns that were raised during 

public scoping meetings. The chapter 

describes the scope of the environmental 

impact analysis, specifically what impact 

topics were or were not analyzed in detail. 

This chapter concludes by identifying special 

mandates and administrative commitments 

that affect planning for and management of 

Channel Islands National Park.

Chapter 2: Alternatives begins by describing 

how the alternatives were developed for this 

plan. It then describes the management zones 

used in the alternatives and the approach to 

addressing user capacity. The wilderness 

eligibility and study process is described next. 

A no action alternative (alternative 1), 

alternative 2, and alternative 3 (the agency’s 

preferred alternative) are then presented. 

Wilderness proposals are incorporated into 

the plan’s alternatives. Next is a discussion of 

which alternative was determined to be the 

environmentally preferable alternative and a 

description of alternatives considered but not 

analyzed. The chapter concludes with 

summary tables of the alternatives and the 

environmental consequences of implementing 

those alternative actions.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment describes 

those areas and resources that would be 

affected by implementing the various 

alternatives — natural resources, cultural 

resources, visitor experience, interpretation 

and education, wilderness character, and park 

operations.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

analyzes the impacts of implementing the 

alternatives on the topics described in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter. Methods 

that were used for assessing the impacts in 

terms of the intensity, type, and duration are 

outlined at the beginning of the chapter.

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

describes the history of public and agency 

coordination during the planning effort and 

lists agencies and organizations who will be 

receiving copies of this document.

The Appendixes present supporting 

information for the document, along with 

selected references, a list of the preparers of 

this document and people consulted, and an 

index.
4 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK

PARKWIDE DESCRIPTION

Located off the coast of southern California, 

the eight Channel Islands and waters of the 

Southern California Bight encompass a diverse 

and unique marine environment (map 1). Five 

of the islands — Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa

Rosa, San Miguel, and Santa Barbara — and 

the submerged lands and waters within 1 

nautical mile of each island were designated 

by Congress as Channel Islands National Park 

on March 5, 1980 (Public Law (PL) 96-199; 16 

USC § 410ff). The park bridges two major 

biogeographical provinces within 

approximately 250,000 acres of land and sea, 

protecting a rich array of natural and cultural 

resources. A much larger area, approximately 

1,426,173 acres of ocean, lies between the five 

islands. 

The mild climate, with short wet winters, long 

dry summers, and extensive coastal fog is one 

of the best examples of the Mediterranean 

ecosystem in North America. Unique island 

species of plants and animals persist here, as 

do island plant communities. Nearly 10% of 

island plants exist only on these islands. 

The nearby confluence of ocean currents 

swirling around the islands brings nutrients 

from cold ocean depths into warm sunlight, 

building one of the most productive marine 

environments on earth. Giant kelp forests, 

seagrass beds, rocky reefs, and submarine 

canyons in the park are populated with more 

than 1,000 species of fish, invertebrates, and 

algae. The park provides essential vital nesting 

and feeding grounds for more than 90% of the 

sea birds in southern California (some of 

which are very rare) on pristine sand beaches, 

rocky tidepools, and sheer cliffs. Twenty-six 

species of marine mammals (including blue 

whales) feed, transit, or raise their young in 

the park because they are near abundant food 

and are safe from disturbance. 

The fact that the islands have never been 

connected to the mainland has greatly limited 

the number of species that have reached their 

shores. Isolation allowed plants and animals 

to evolve into new species and subspecies 

different in both their appearance and 

behavior from relatives on the mainland. The 

same small populations and limited island 

habitats that relegate many species to rarity 

also accelerate evolution of unique life forms. 

The park represents a wild remnant of coastal 

California that can be viewed and experienced 

as a standard for comparisons with other 

more altered parts of the region. 

The park’s paleontological record provides 

evidence of the evolution of the island fauna 

and the effects on this fauna of human 

colonization. The Pleistocene paleontological 

record includes several extinct species, 

including the Columbian mammoth, island 

pygmy mammoth, flightless goose, two species 

of giant mouse, and vampire bat. It also 

contains the best representation of a 

Pleistocene marine avifauna on the Pacific 

coast.

The archeology of the Channel Islands 

provides a unique opportunity to understand 

the historical ecology of Pacific Coast 

environments, the evolution of human 

maritime adaptations over a period of more 

than 12,000 years, and the interaction of 

maritime peoples with dynamic coastal 

ecosystems over a very long period. The 

natural abundance of the rich terrestrial 

resources and the surrounding sea has 

attracted humans to the islands for some 

13,000 years. More than 2,500 archeological 

resources have been identified within the park 

boundaries, representing a continuous 

occupation spanning the entire human 

prehistory of North America. The oldest 

positively dated human remains in North 

America were unearthed on Santa Rosa

Island. A site on San Miguel Island shows 

evidence of occupation as much as 12,000 
Brief Description of the Park

5

years ago and has yielded the remnants of a 

small woven child’s sandal. Spanish and other 

European explorers, otter hunters, ranchers, 

fishers, and the military have all used, and at 

times exploited, island resources during the 

last 500 years. Historic ranches, military 

structures, and more than 100 known 

shipwrecks remain as examples of California’s 

rich and diverse heritage.

Today nearly 20 million people live within 100 

miles of the islands. The waters of the Santa 

Barbara channel provide, as well as limit, 

public access to the islands. Each year 

thousands of scuba divers explore island reefs 

and kelp forests. Boaters find shelter in more 

than 100 secluded anchorages. Thousands of 

day visitors and campers enjoy island vistas, 

trails, sea caves, and tidepools. Researchers 

and educators find the island environments to 

be an accessible laboratory of unequalled 

quality. 

Human activities over the last 12,000 years 

altered island and marine environments. The 

rate of change greatly accelerated over the 

past 300 years. Air and water pollution from 

nearby metropolitan and industrial 

developments threaten fragile island 

ecosystems. Ranching on the islands 

introduced both nonnative animals and 

nonnative plants, eliminated vegetative cover, 

and accelerated erosion. 

The park’s waters once were one of the best 

places to fish in California. These fisheries, 

once thought to be inexhaustible, have not 

been sustainable under traditional 

management. Keystone species, like the 

California sea otter, have been eliminated 

from park waters.

The Park Service manages about 2 acres in 

Ventura Harbor within the City of Ventura, 

where the park’s administrative offices and 

main visitor center are located. Several other

buildings are leased within the harbor to 

provide office space for staff.

ISLAND DESCRIPTIONS

The five islands in the national park vary 

greatly in size and isolation, but all are 

characterized by windswept landscapes, 

rugged coastlines, and unspoiled beaches. 

Santa Barbara Island, just 644 acres, is the 

smallest of the Channel Islands, lying 45 miles 

southeast of Ventura. The Santa Barbara and 

Anacapa islands were originally designated 

Channel Islands National Monument in 1938.

Anacapa Island

This island is a 5-mile-long chain of three 

small islets—East, Middle, and West—and 

encompasses 737 acres (1.1 square miles). It 

lies 14 miles south of Ventura. Waves have 

eroded the volcanic island, creating steep, 

towering sea cliffs, sea caves, and natural 

bridges, such as 40-foot-high Arch Rock—the 

symbol of Anacapa Island and Channel 

Islands National Park. The Anacapa Island 

Light Station Historic District and the SS

Winfield Scott, a shipwreck near Middle 

Anacapa, are listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places (national register), and the 

entire island is listed as an archeological 

district.

Thousands of seabirds find critical breeding 

and nesting habitat on Anacapa Island due to 

the relative lack of predators.

East Anacapa is a perfect place for a half-day, 

one-day, or short overnight camping trip; and 

is an ideal place for swimming, snorkeling, 

diving, and kayaking. Almost all trips to 

Anacapa Island are to East Anacapa. There are 

2 miles of trails on East Anacapa Island, and 

the scenery is spectacular. Except for the 

staircase to the top of the island, the trails are 

relatively flat and easy. Because East Anacapa 

is a cliff island, access is only at the landing 

cove (there is no beach access). During the 

summer, park divers go underwater into the 

magnificent kelp forest, broadcasting live 

interpretive programs to audiences on the 

island and the mainland; this program is 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

6 

critical to connecting people on the mainland 

to the underwater aspects of the park as well 

as the terrestrial resources. There are 

excellent wildlife viewing opportunities for 

wildflowers, seabirds (western gull chicks in 

summer), seals, sea lions, and tidepool 

organisms.

There are no trails or developed access on 

Middle Anacapa Island. Access to water-based 

activities is via concessioner boats or private 

boats.

A limited number of concessioner-led tidepooling trips are offered throughout the year 

to Frenchy’s Cove on West Anacapa Island. 

Access to West Anacapa Island is from the 

water only and limited to Frenchy’s Cove. 

There are no trails on West Anacapa Island 

and it is designated a Research Natural Area 

and is closed to public access.

Santa Cruz Island

Santa Cruz, the largest of the Channel Islands, 

covers 61,971 acres (96 square miles), and is 

22 miles long. It lies 25 miles offshore, parallel 

to the coast between Ventura and Santa 

Barbara. In its vastness and variety of flora, 

fauna, and geology, Santa Cruz resembles a 

miniature California. It contains two rugged 

mountain ranges; the highest peak on the 

islands (rising 2,470 feet); a large central 

valley/fault system; deep canyons with yearround springs and streams; and 77 miles of 

craggy coastline cliffs, giant sea caves, pristine 

tidepools, and expansive beaches. One of the 

largest and deepest sea caves in the world is 

found on the island’s northwest coastline. The 

eastern 24% of Santa Cruz Island (some 

14,500 acres) is owned by the Park Service, 

while the western 76% is owned by The 

Nature Conservancy (TNC). Ninety percent 

of the island is listed on the national register as 

an archeological district. The island’s historic 

ranch complexes are eligible for listing on the 

national register. 

Santa Cruz Island offers many opportunities 

for hiking, swimming, snorkeling, diving, and 

kayaking. One-day trips and short or long 

overnight camping trips are available. The trail 

system on the NPS portion of eastern Santa 

Cruz Island is a combination of unmaintained 

trails and unimproved administrative roads. 

The connection to the beach and water is one 

of the primary attractions for visitors to 

Scorpion Valley. Beach access is available at 

Scorpion, Smugglers Cove, and Prisoners 

Harbor. Opportunities for seeing wildlife, 

especially the endemic island scrub-jay (found 

only on Santa Cruz Island and no other place 

in the world) and bald eagles, are available. 

Santa Rosa Island

With about 53,000 acres (84 square miles), 

Santa Rosa is the second largest of the 

Channel Islands. Roughly diamond-shaped, it 

is 15 miles long and 10 miles wide, and lies 40 

miles west of Ventura. The island’s relatively 

low profile is broken by a high, central 

mountain range rising 1,589 feet at its highest 

point. Santa Rosa’s coastal areas are variable, 

ranging from broad sandy beaches gently 

sloping toward the ocean to sheer cliffs. The 

island’s archeological resources and historic 

ranch structures are eligible for listing in the 

national register.

The island has rugged peaks, magnificent 

canyons, and beautiful beaches. One-day trips 

and short or long overnight camping trips are 

available, as are many hiking options. Hikers 

use a limited trail system and an extensive 

unimproved administrative road system. 

Beach access is available, although seasonal 

restrictions apply. Due to frequent strong 

winds, swimming, snorkeling, diving, and 

kayaking are limited and only recommended 

for the experienced visitor. 

San Miguel Island and Prince Island

The northernmost and farthest west of the 

Channel Islands, San Miguel is 55 miles 
Brief Description of the Park

7

northwest of Ventura. Wind and weather 

constantly sweep across the North Pacific to 

batter its shores. The 9,376-acre (14-squaremile) island is primarily a plateau about 500 

feet in elevation, but two 800-foot rounded 

hills emerge from its windswept landscape. 

The coastline is rocky, with shoreline cliffs 

relieved by sandy beaches, where more than 

100,000 seals and sea lions haul out and breed. 

San Miguel is owned by the U.S. Department 

of Defense and, under a memorandum of 

agreement, is managed by the Park Service. 

The island is listed on the national register as 

an archeological district. 

This island is an ideal place for seeing native 

vegetation, the unique caliche forest, and seals 

and sea lions (with ranger escort). Despite the 

wind, Cuyler Harbor is one of the most scenic 

beaches in the park. One-day trips and long 

overnight camping trips (minimum stay is 

generally three days — Friday to Sunday) are 

available. Unescorted hiking options are 

limited. Visitors can explore a small area on 

their own — including the 2-mile-long Cuyler 

Harbor beach and the 0.75-mile trail to the 

ranger station. To see other parts of the island, 

specifically Point Bennett and Cardwell Point, 

visitors must be escorted by a ranger. Due to 

frequent strong winds, swimming, snorkeling, 

diving, and kayaking are limited and only 

recommended for the experienced visitor. 

The 35-acre Prince Island, specifically 

referenced in the park’s enabling legislation, is 

about 0.5 mile off the northwest coast of San 

Miguel Island. It is one of the most important 

sites for seabird nesting habitat in the park. In 

particular, Prince Island is noted for nesting 

Ashy and Leach’s storm-petrels, Brandt’s 

cormorant, double-crested cormorant, pelagic 

cormorant, Scripp’s murrelet, Cassin’s auklet, 

pigeon guillemot, and occasionally, the 

southernmost extent of nesting tufted puffins. 

Common murres also bred on San Miguel 

historically and in 2011. 

Santa Barbara Island

Just 644 acres (1 square mile), Santa Barbara is 

the smallest of the Channel Islands and lies 45 

miles southeast of Ventura. Formed by 

underwater volcanic activity, the island 

emerges from the ocean as a twin-peaked 

mesa above steep cliffs. No trees are present 

and the island is covered with grasses and 

scattered patches of shrubby vegetation. The 

island serves as important breeding grounds 

and haul-outs for pinnipeds. Santa Barbara 

Island is a place to witness the recovery of 

plant and animal life after years of habitat and 

species loss due to ranching and farming 

activities. The island is listed on the national 

register as an archeological district.

Unlimited and exceptional island coastal 

views await the visitor to Santa Barbara Island. 

The island is an ideal place for swimming, 

snorkeling, diving, and kayaking. One-day 

trips and long overnight camping trips (at least 

three days) are available. Roughly the same 

size as East Anacapa Island, the entire island is 

accessible via the 6 miles of scenic trails. Trails 

are seasonally closed to protect nesting 

California brown pelicans. Because Santa 

Barbara Island is a cliff island, access to the 

water is only at the landing cove (beaches are 

closed to protect wildlife). There are excellent 

wildlife viewing opportunities for seabirds, 

seals, and sea lions. Thousands of seabirds 

find critical breeding and nesting habitat on 

Santa Barbara Island due to the relative lack of 

predators.

Anacapa Island is in Ventura County. Santa 

Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San 

Miguel islands are in Santa Barbara County. 

The Park’s Marine Environment 

Nearly half of Channel Islands National Park, 

approximately 125,000 acres, is found in the 

waters that extend 1 nautical mile around each 

island. There are nearly 180 miles of dramatic 

interface between land and sea along park 

shorelines. The ocean masks the topographic 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

8 

relief of the park. The top of Diablo Peak on 

Santa Cruz Island to the bottom of the nearby 

submarine canyon is equivalent to going from 

the top to the bottom of the Grand Canyon.

The park contains a wide array of benthic 

landforms of soft sediment and hard 

substrates to depths of more than 1,000 feet at 

the boundary of two major oceanic 

biogeographic provinces, concentrating 

exceptionally high biological diversity in a 

small area. The park’s underwater seascapes 

include broad sandy plains, ancient inundated 

shoreline terraces, rocky reefs, and abyssal 

submarine canyons. Kelp forests, temperate 

equivalents of tropical rainforests and coral 

reefs, shelter nearly 1,000 species of marine 

life in the park. Cold water from the California 

Current sweeps down the North American 

coast from the Gulf of Alaska and surrounds 

San Miguel Island and Santa Rosa Island. The 

assemblages of fish, invertebrates, and plants 

in this western part of the park resemble those 

found off the coast of Oregon. A counter 

current brings warm water up from Baja 

California along the mainland coast, swirling 

around Santa Barbara, Anacapa, and eastern 

Santa Cruz islands, which supports biological 

communities reminiscent of northern Mexico. 

Between these extremes, along the western 

Santa Cruz Island coast, a dynamic transition 

zone provides a unique place for those plants 

and animals tolerant of widely varying 

environmental conditions. 

Complementing this exceptionally high 

biodiversity, the park’s oceanographic setting 

and Mediterranean climate combine to 

produce one of the world’s most productive 

biological communities. A region of persistent 

upwelling lies just north and west of the park 

off Point Conception. This brings deep, 

nutrient-rich waters from the deep sea up into 

bright sunlight. Photosynthesis by 

microscopic phytoplankton combines the 

nutrients and sunlight to form the base of a 

massive food web composed of thousands of 

forage species needed to support the largest 

animals on earth, blue whales, and apex 

predators such as white sharks, orcas, and 

elephant seals. A series of interconnected 

deep ocean basins and ridges lie south and 

west of the park islands. These deep basins 

provide additional sources of nutrients during 

winter winds that cause upwelling along the 

southern shores of the northern islands.

The park’s ocean realm, in such close 

proximity to 20 million people on a highly 

developed mainland coast, is remarkable for 

its biodiversity, productivity, and near pristine 

conditions. Park ecosystems once supported 

valuable and productive marine fisheries, 

including five species of abalone and rockfish, 

but those fisheries have been depleted over 

the past 25 years.

More than 100 vessels are known to have 

wrecked in the waters surrounding the 

islands. These wrecks provide a visual history 

of maritime exploration and commerce along 

the West Coast of North and South America 

and within the Santa Barbara Channel. 

Few visitors to Channel Islands National Park 

are aware that almost half of the park’s 

resources are beneath the sea. The underwater 

part of the park encompasses one of the most 

diverse marine environments in the world. 

Traditionally, this unseen yet crucial marine 

ecosystem has suffered from an out-of-sight, 

out-of-mind philosophy.

With the advent of the underwater video 

program in 1984 (now called “Channel Islands 

Live”), the out-of-sight, out-of-mind situation 

has been partially addressed. Through 

advanced technology, many park visitors are 

enjoying their first journey into the marine 

world. The audience joins the program via 

television monitors on Anacapa Island or on 

the mainland via microwave and the Internet, 

as a park ranger dons a special microphoneequipped dive mask for communication to the 

surface and descends into the ocean’s kelp 

forest, camera in hand. When the camera is 

turned on, the kelp forest comes to life. From 

underwater the diversity of the marine 

environment is apparent. The kelp forest and 

its many inhabitants are unveiled and 
Brief Description of the Park

9

explained as the visitors and divers “hike”

among spiky, spiny sea urchins, iridescent 

abalone, and soft, slow-moving sea 

cucumbers. Brightly colored fish move 

through the forest and are captured through 

the camera’s eye. The story of the kelp forest 

is told. During the summer this underwater 

program is presented in the landing cove of 

Anacapa Island and broadcast back to the 

mainland visitor center in Ventura and via the 

Internet. It is open to the public and free of 

charge. Thousands of people have seen this 

program and Internet viewing has 

dramatically expanded the viewing audience.

In 2003, the California Fish and Game 

Commission created 13 Marine Protected 

Areas (MPAs) within the state waters of 

Channel Islands National Park. In 2006 and 

2007, the boundaries of these MPAs were 

extended to federal waters by Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary. Two types of 

MPAs were established: marine reserves, 

which prohibit all take of living, geology, or 

cultural resources (although scientific take is 

permitted); and marine conservation areas, 

which prohibit specific commercial and/or 

recreational take of living, geology, or cultural 

resources (although scientific take is 

permitted).

In 1999, the state of California enacted the 

Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). The 

purpose of this law is to protect and restore 

habitats and ecosystems, conserve biological 

diversity, provide a refuge for sea life, enhance 

recreational and educational opportunities, 

provide reference areas for scientists to 

measure changes elsewhere in the 

environment, and help rebuild depleted 

fisheries. The Channel Islands MPA proposal 

was established more than a year before the 

MLPA process began and was pursued 

independently of this landmark effort.

11

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

Why We Do General Management Planning

The National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 requires each unit of the Park Service to have a general 

management plan (GMP or plan), and NPS Management Policies 2006 states “[t]he Service will maintain an upto-date management plan for each unit of the national park system” (2.3.1 General Management Planning). 

But what is the value, or usefulness, of general management planning?

The purpose of a general management plan is to ensure that a park system unit has a clearly defined direction 

for resource preservation and visitor use to best achieve the NPS’s mandate to preserve resources unimpaired 

for the enjoyment of future generations. In addition, general management planning makes the Park Service 

more effective, collaborative, and accountable by: 

• providing a balance between continuity and adaptability in decision making — Defining the desired 

conditions to be achieved and maintained in a park unit provides a touchstone that allows NPS managers 

and staff to constantly adapt their actions to changing situations while staying focused on what is most 

important about the park unit.

• analyzing the park unit in relation to its surrounding ecosystem, cultural setting, and community — This 

helps NPS managers and staff understand how the park unit can interrelate with neighbors and others in 

ways that are ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable. Decisions made within such a larger 

context are more likely to be successful over time.

• affording everyone who has a stake in decisions affecting a park unit an opportunity to be involved in the 

planning process and to understand the decisions that are made — National park system units are often 

the focus of intense public interest. Public involvement throughout the planning process provides focused 

opportunities for NPS managers and staff to interact with the public and learn about public concerns, 

expectations, and values. Public involvement also provides opportunities for NPS managers and staff to 

share information about the park unit’s purpose and significance, as well as opportunities and constraints 

for the management of park unit lands.

The purpose of this plan is to clearly define a 

direction for resource preservation and visitor 

experience at Channel Islands National Park 

over the next 20 to 40 years. The approved 

plan would provide a framework for proactive 

decision making, which would allow managers 

to effectively address future opportunities and 

problems. The plan would not provide 

specific and detailed answers to every issue or 

question facing Channel Islands National 

Park.

The National Parks and Recreation Act of 

1978 (PL 95-625) requires the preparation and 

timely revision of general management plans 

for each unit of the national park system. 

Channel Islands National Park’s current 

general management plan was first completed 

in 1980 and was amended in 1984 and 1985. 

Conditions have substantially changed since 

1985. Among the significant changes that have 

occurred over the past 20 years are the 

following: the Park Service has acquired new 

lands on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, 

the condition of several resources has 

declined, several actions are underway to 

eliminate nonnative species and restore 

altered ecosystems, park visitation has tripled, 

MPAs have been established, and recreational 

uses and use patterns have changed. A new 

general management plan is essential to 

address issues and concerns confronting the 

park, to ensure that park resources are 

preserved, and to provide opportunities for 

visitors to have quality park experiences. 

The Park Service has identified five goals that 

this planning effort would address. 

Specifically, the goals of this plan are to:
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

12

• restore and maintain natural ecosystems 

and processes;

• preserve and protect cultural resources;

• provide opportunities and access for the 

public to experience and connect to the 

park; 

• promote stewardship of park resources; 

and

• administer the park efficiently and 

effectively. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR

THE WILDERNESS STUDY

A wilderness study evaluates if lands and 

waters in a national park system unit are 

appropriate for designation as wilderness. The 

purpose of this wilderness study is to 

determine if and where lands within Channel 

Islands National Park should be proposed for 

wilderness designation. The study identifies a 

range of possible wilderness configurations 

within the park and evaluates their effects on 

the human environment. Based on the 

findings of this study, a formal wilderness 

proposal may be submitted to the Park Service 

director for approval and subsequent 

consideration by the U.S. Department of the 

Interior, president, and Congress under the 

provisions of the Wilderness Act. 

Channel Island National Park’s 1980 enabling 

legislation (§ 206 of PL 96-199) called for a 

wilderness study to be prepared. In addition, 

the Wilderness Act and NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (§ 6.2.1) require that all lands 

administered by the Park Service be evaluated 

for their eligibility for inclusion within the 

national wilderness preservation system. 

Section 6.2.2 further states “lands and waters 

found to possess the characteristics and values 

of wilderness, as defined in the Wilderness 

Act and determined eligible would be formally 

studied to develop the recommendation to 

Congress for wilderness designation.”

A wilderness study may be a separate 

document accompanied by an environmental 

impact statement, or it may be part of a 

general management plan / environmental 

impact statement. This wilderness study is 

included as part of the plan because of 

legislation, public interest, and timeliness. 

Including the wilderness study with the plan 

provides efficiencies of time and money, as 

the two processes have similar environmental 

compliance and public involvement needs.

SCOPE OF THE GENERAL

MANAGEMENT PLAN / 

WILDERNESS STUDY / EIS 

This plan focuses primarily on the park’s 

island terrestrial resources and uses. However, 

Channel Islands National Park encompasses 

the 1 nautical mile of ocean surrounding the 

islands. As noted previously, nearly half of the 

park’s acreage (124,299 acres) is under the 

ocean, and jurisdiction is overlapping with the 

state of California and the Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary (sanctuary). 

Approximately 21% of the park waters are 

within state-designated marine protected 

areas. The park’s waters support productive, 

diverse, biological resources, including many 

important commercial resources.

The Park Service recognizes the significance 

and fundamental resources and values of the 

marine waters within the park boundary. In 

this regard the plan provides some general 

What is Wilderness?

As defined in the Wilderness Act (§ 2(c)), wilderness 

is “...an area of undeveloped Federal land...without 

permanent improvements or human habitation, 

which is protected and managed so as to preserve its 

natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to 

have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, 

with the imprint of man’s work substantially

unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of 

sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation 

and use in an unimpaired condition....” For more 

details on NPS policies and uses and management of 

wilderness, see appendix C.
Purpose and Need for the Plan

13

desired conditions and strategies for 

managing marine resources (see appendix B), 

and zones the park’s waters according to how 

they are to be managed. 

The Park Service would continue to consult, 

advise, and cooperate with the state and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) (both NOAA 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

and NOAA Sanctuaries) in monitoring and 

managing all resources and uses within park 

waters. In particular, NPS staff would 

continue to work with the state and sanctuary 

staff to maintain the marine protected areas 

and to monitor and study their effectiveness 

and the value of expanding them. Future NPS 

plans would address appropriate 

management, issues, and concerns regarding 

the waters within the park boundary.
14 

OVERVIEW OF THE NPS PLANNING PROCESS

The Channel Islands National Park planning 

process followed NPS Management Policies 

2006 and “Park Planning Program Standards” 

(NPS 2004). Law and policy require general 

management plans to address four key 

elements:

• the types of management actions required 

for the preservation of park resources;

• the types and general intensities of 

development (including visitor circulation 

and transportation patterns, systems, and 

modes) associated with public enjoyment 

and use, including general locations, 

timing of implementation, and anticipated 

costs;

• visitor carrying capacities and 

implementation commitments for park 

areas; and

• potential modifications to the external 

boundaries of the park, if any, and the 

reasons for the proposed changes.

The process employed in creating this plan / 

wilderness study / EIS is sequential, and the 

presentation of the plan / wilderness study / 

EIS follows the stages in this process. It begins 

with collecting, reviewing, and defining key 

information about the park, which includes 

inviting public opinion about the parks and 

the plan. This leads to the formulation of 

elements such as park purpose and 

significance, interpretive themes, and goals 

(desired or ideal conditions). The above 

information was used to identify issues that 

the plan needed to address. In the subsequent 

and central stage of the process, the planning 

team created management alternatives, which 

describe objectives, or desired future 

conditions, and potential resulting actions.

Input from the public was crucial at several 

stages, particularly the scoping, review of 

alternatives, and this, the draft plan / 

wilderness study, stage. The next steps, after 

the conclusion of the public comment period, 

are described at the end of this chapter. 

The National Environmental 

Policy Act and this Plan

The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requires federal agencies to fully 

consider the environmental impacts of their 

proposed actions before they make any 

decision to undertake those actions. The level 

of decision making in this plan / wilderness 

study triggers the National Environmental 

Policy Act because the NPS decisions would 

affect future land and resource use in Channel 

Islands National Park. Thus, this document is 

a combined NEPA document and a general 

management plan / wilderness study. It fulfills 

the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the National 

Parks and Recreation Act (as well as other 

legislation and NPS policies). As an 

environmental impact statement, this 

document includes an analysis of the impacts 

of any proposal that has the potential to affect 

the human environment, as well as 

alternatives to that proposal and a description 

of the “affected environment.” 
15

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

This section defines the legal and policy 

requirements that direct the park’s basic 

management responsibilities. The foundation 

was instrumental in the development of this 

general management plan, and provides the 

base upon which all future planning efforts at 

the park are built. It identifies what is most 

important to the park, notes special mandates 

that affect management of the park, and 

identifies fundamental resources and values 

that are critical to maintaining the park’s 

purpose and significance. The section also 

articulates the general goals the Park Service is 

striving to attain at Channel Islands National 

Park. All of the alternatives and management 

zones in this management plan should be and 

are consistent with and support the park’s 

purpose, significance, and goals. 

PARK PURPOSE

Park purpose statements clarify the reasons 

the park was established as part of the national 

park system and provide the foundation for 

park management. They are based on the 

park’s enabling legislation and legislative 

history (appendix A). 

In the park’s enabling legislation (16 USC 

§ 410ff) Channel Islands National Park was set 

aside to protect the nationally significant 

natural, scenic, wildlife, marine, ecological, 

historical, archeological, cultural, and 

scientific values of the Channel Islands in the 

state of California. These values include, but 

are not limited to, the following:

1) the brown pelican nesting area; 

2) the undisturbed tidepools providing 

species diversity unique to the eastern 

Pacific Coast;

3) the pinnipeds (marine mammals such as 

seals and sea lions) that breed and pup 

almost exclusively on the Channel 

Islands, including the only breeding 

colony for northern fur seals south of 

Alaska;

4) the eolian (wind-dominated) landforms 

and caliche; 

5) the presumed burial place of Juan 

Rodriguez Cabrillo; and

6) the archeological evidence of long-term 

use by many groups of Native 

Americans.

PARK SIGNIFICANCE 

Significance statements identify the resources 

and values that are central to managing the 

park, as well as express the importance of the 

park to the nation’s natural and cultural 

heritage. The statements are based on the 

park’s enabling legislation, legislative history

(appendix A), agency management policies, 

and the knowledge and insights of park 

visitors, partners, and staff. Understanding the 

park’s significance helps managers and the 

public preserve the resources in a manner 

consistent with the park’s purposes. 

Channel Islands National Park is significant 

for both its natural and cultural resources. 

The significance of Channel Islands National 

Park stems from the islands’ remote, isolated 

position at the confluence of two major ocean 

currents, a region of persistent oceanic 

upwelling, and the border of two tectonic 

plates. 

• The park contains examples of two 

biogeographical provinces in the ocean, 

the Oregonian and the Californian, and a 

dynamic transition zone between them. 

• In a remarkably small area, the park 

harbors the biologic diversity of nearly 

1,000 miles of the West Coast of North 

America. 

• In addition to this diversity, park waters 

are also exceptionally productive. Swirling 

around the islands, cool, nutrient-rich 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

16

oceanic waters rise into abundant sunlight 

and mix with warm coastal waters, 

accelerating photosynthesis and growth 

rates of myriad forms of sea life from 

microscopic plankton to blue whales.

• The park preserves some of the finest 

remnants of the coastal Mediterraneantype ecosystem in America. Among the 

most endangered in the world, this type of 

ecosystem is found in only five places: 1) 

California and northern Baja California; 2) 

the basin of the Mediterranean Sea; 3) 

southwestern Australia; 4) the western 

cape of South Africa; and 5) the central 

coast of Chile. 

• The unique suite of plants and animals 

that have colonized the islands and their 

isolation from the mainland and each 

other over eons has resulted in the 

evolution of many endemic species and 

subspecies. 

• The park provides critical habitat for 

nesting seabirds and for five species of 

pinnipeds. 

• The park also harbors a prolific 

paleontological record. 

• The park’s archeological resources record 

some 13,000 years of human occupation 

and maritime adaptation. 

• Historic structures, landscapes, and sites 

represent ranching, fishing, hunting, 

navigation, and other endeavors from a 

wide variety of cultures.

• The Channel Islands have long been 

recognized for their scientific values. The 

extensive archeological record, the unique 

island ecosystems and taxa, and the 

isolation from development and human 

impacts contribute to creating an 

environment of great interest to 

researchers, the public, and park 

management. 

• Additionally, Channel Islands National 

Park provides the public with almost 

unparalleled opportunities for solitude, 

tranquility, wildlife viewing, and 

appreciation of natural history, outdoor 

recreation, and education.

FUNDAMENTAL AND OTHER 

IMPORTANT RESOURCES AND 

VALUES 

Fundamental resources and values are 

systems, processes, features, visitor 

experiences, and scenes that deserve primary 

consideration in planning and management 

because they are critical to maintaining the 

park’s purpose and significance. In the case of 

Channel Islands National Park, six 

fundamental resources of the park are in fact 

identified in the enabling legislation (see the 

“Park Purpose” section earlier in this chapter).

In addition to these fundamental resources, 

other important resources and values of the 

park include the following:

Physical Environment and Processes

• five distinct islands that have never been 

connected with the mainland, but have 

undergone significant geological and 

biogeographical changes over time as the 

islands rise, sea level rises and falls, and 

climate changes

• lands where fog, winds, marine currents, 

and upwellings provide habitat and food 

for significant concentrations and 

diversity of plants and animals

Natural Environment and Processes

• unique island endemic species and 

assemblages that have evolved due to 

isolation including island chaparral, island 

oak, island deer mouse, island night lizard, 

island fox, and island scrub-jay

• critical habitat for seabird nesting, marine 

mammals, rare plant communities, and 

more federally listed species than any park 

in the contiguous United States 

• a refuge for species once more widespread 

during cooler moister climates of the past, 

like the Torrey pines and island ironwood 

that have largely vanished from the 

mainland
Foundation for Planning and Management

17

• used by migratory marine mammals and 

bird life that cover the extent of the 

Pacific, but rely on Channel Islands during 

critical times for mating and reproduction

• opportunities for successful ecological

recovery and removal of nonnative species 

due to isolation

• natural darkness important for nocturnal

seabirds and other animals

• natural soundscape and clean air that 

contribute to wildlife habitat and an 

increasingly rare visitor experience

Marine Environment

• complex protected marine ecosystem that 

contains warm and cold currents, 

providing habitat for species typical of 

Baja California through Oregon in a 

relatively small area

• abundant tidepools and kelp forests that 

provide sufficient habitat to support an 

extirpated population of threatened 

southern sea otter

• rare rocky habitat for southern California 

that facilitates a rich kelp forest

Scientific Values

• relatively untouched living laboratory that 

offers a baseline for more highly altered 

environments

• simple terrestrial ecosystem that offers 

great opportunity to study 

interrelationships

• decades of existing research, monitoring, 

and collections that document ecological 

conditions and cultural resources

• site of much current Pacific Rim 

archeological research, producing 

evidence of early coastal migration and 

some of the earliest human occupation of 

North America

• relatively intact paleontological sites 

undisturbed by burrowing animals or 

human development

• museum collections numbering 345,000 

objects contain archeological, archival, 

and paleontological materials; botanical 

and zoological specimens; and objects 

related maritime navigation, fishing, 

ranching, military, and other historic 

activities on the islands

• opportunities to study evolutionary 

processes 

Ethnographic Resources

• living descendants of people who 

inhabited the islands thousands of years 

ago and throughout more recent history 

and who maintain a spiritual connection 

to the islands and stories

• records, including oral histories, diaries, 

and photos, from people with recent and 

older island affiliations

• museum collections that tell the story of 

human use of the islands

Archeological Resources

• the absence of burrowing animals and 

limited human access have contributed

greatly to the preservation of 

archeological resources and surrounding 

areas in a relatively undisturbed state, 

resulting in an intact 13,000-year 

archeological record and evidence of 

some of the earliest archeological 

resources in California and the Pacific 

Coast of North America

• archeological investigations show the 

development of an extremely complex

culture from relatively simple beginnings, 

sustained by an abundant marine resource

• remains of shipwrecks in the park area are 

associated with the gold rush era, 

maritime commerce during the period 

from the 1870s to the present, and the 

evolution of merchant shipping since the 

1870s

Historical Resources

• the Anacapa lighthouse and its supporting 

structures – the last lighthouse complex to 

be constructed along the Pacific coast – 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

18

illustrate the theme of navigational aid 

development to facilitate maritime 

transportation

• ranching, fishing, hunting, navigation, 

military, and other human endeavors from 

a wide variety of cultures and time periods

• site of extensive environmental impacts in 

the 1960s and 1970s, including research 

into the decline of California brown 

pelican and its linkage to 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) 

and the Santa Barbara oil spill, catalyzed a 

number of environmental laws in the early 

1970s and galvanized the 20th century 

environmental movement

Visitor Values

• opportunities to experience peace, 

pristine soundscape, natural dark, and 

explore an environment with few other 

people present

• unparalleled diving opportunities that 

provide immersion into little seen 

underwater marine resources

PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES

Interpretive themes are ideas, concepts, or 

stories that are central to the park’s purpose, 

significance, identity, and visitor experience. 

The primary interpretive themes define 

concepts that every visitor should have the 

opportunity to learn. Primary themes also 

provide the framework for the park’s 

interpretation and education programs; 

influence the visitor experience; and provide 

direction for planners and designers of the 

park’s exhibits, publications, and audiovisual 

programs. Subsequent interpretive planning 

may elaborate on these primary themes.

The park has identified six primary 

interpretive theme topics, which are listed 

below. Following each theme is a list of topics 

and concepts that provide further elaboration 

and embellishment of the primary statement. 

1. ISOLATION

More than 2 million years of continuous 

isolation from the mainland have manifested 

the unique natural and cultural resources of 

Channel Islands National Park.

2. RESTORATION AND RECOVERY

To facilitate the preservation of natural and 

cultural resources of Channel Islands 

National Park, and to provide a dynamic 

balance between them, the Park Service is 

actively restoring, and is allowing recovery of 

these resources.

3. MARINE RESOURCES

The ocean currents of cold arctic and warm 

tropical waters that mix in Channel Islands 

National Park connect the park to the whole 

world and produce highly diverse and prolific 

marine ecosystems.

4. CONNECTIONS 

The resources of Channel Islands National 

Park are broadly connected throughout the 

Pacific, supporting a wide variety of 

interdependent land and sea animals and 

plants, and a long continuum of human 

cultures.

5. GEOGRAPHIC INFLUENCES 

Geographic characteristics have influenced 

and determined natural processes and cultural 

uses of Channel Islands National Park.

6. HUMAN ATTRACTION TO THE 

ISLANDS

Humans have been attracted to the islands 

and sea of what is now Channel Islands 

National Park for more than 13,000 years.
Foundation for Planning and Management

19

PARK GOALS

The park’s goals are essentially a vision for the 

future. These statements articulate, in broad 

terms, the ideals that the National Park 

Service strives to achieve at Channel Islands 

National Park.

Restore and maintain natural 

ecosystems and processes

Channel Islands National Park was set 

aside, in part, to protect nationally 

significant natural and scientific values. 

Channel Islands are particularly noted for 

the abundance of wildlife and the high 

percentage of species only found on the 

islands. However, these resources are 

fragile, and considerable degradation of 

the island ecosystem has occurred due to 

human impacts.

Preserve and protect cultural resources

The enabling legislations for Channel 

Islands National Park recognizes the 

highly significant archeological remains 

of Native Americans, the role of the 

islands in the European exploration of 

North America, and the broad cultural 

values of the park. 

Provide opportunities and access for the 

public to experience and connect to the 

park 

Channel Islands National Park offers 

visitors an unparalleled opportunity to 

recreate and experience solitude and 

learn about their natural and cultural 

resources heritage in a remote park 

surprisingly close to a major urban area. 

Access is limited to the park due its 

remote nature, weather, and cost. 

Consequently, the park is bringing the 

resources to the people by providing realtime educational programs and wildlife 

viewing via Channel Islands Live. 

Through Channel Islands Live, anyone 

can access remote park locations and 

understand the value of the Channel 

Islands. The resources are both fragile 

and sensitive and they must be 

experienced in a manner that assures 

negligible adverse impacts. The park 

would continue to be managed on a lowintensity, limited-entry basis. The Park 

Service is committed to connecting the 

park to the public through distance 

learning and other programs.

Promote stewardship of park resources 

Protection of the resources of Channel 

Islands National Park is dependent on 

the actions of many agencies and 

individuals. Opportunities for research 

and active involvement of the public 

would increase understanding and 

broaden the support for the park mission 

and stewardship. The park would 

continue to seek new opportunities to 

bring the park to the people, whether 

through direct visitation, education 

outreach, volunteerism, citizen science, 

or through evolving technologies such as 

the Internet.

Administer the park efficiently and 

effectively

The demands of running island 

operations are considerable. The budget 

available to the park would likely always 

be less than what the needs are to achieve 

park goals. All management decisions 

would be reviewed and evaluated in light 

of the need to ensure an efficient and 

effective operation. The park would 

strive to promote and implement clean 

fuel technologies and the use of 

renewable energy.

These five goals are intertwined, and no one 

goal can be emphasized to the complete 

exclusion of the others. In fact, achieving 

every goal in the general management plan to 

its fullest extent is not possible due to inherent 

conflicts among the goals. Although broad, 

these goals are also ambitious, and the 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

20

challenges associated with accomplishing 

them are both significant and complex. 

Working toward the achievement of these 

broad goals is critical to the long-term 

management of Channel Islands National 

Park for the benefit of present and future 

generations. The park’s enabling legislation 

mandates that Channel Islands National Park 

be administered on a low-intensity and 

limited-entry basis. In recognition of the 

special fragility and sensitivity of the 

resources, visitor use would be limited to 

ensure negligible adverse impacts on park 

resources. To that end, the Park Service and 

the public must work together to achieve a 

plan that meets these goals and ensure longterm preservation and public enjoyment of 

Channel Islands National Park. 

SPECIAL MANDATES AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS 

Channel Islands National Park’s enabling 

legislation includes special mandates (16 USC 

§ 410ff-3a and b). Congress mandated that 

(a) “the park shall be administered on a 

low-intensity, limited-entry basis.” 

(b) “in recognition of the special 

fragility and sensitivity of park 

resources, it is the intent of 

Congress that visitor use within the 

park be limited to assure negligible 

adverse impact on the park 

resources. The Secretary shall 

establish appropriate visitor 

carrying capacities for the park.” 

Management of Lands and Waters within 

the Park

About 250,000 acres are within the boundary 

of Channel Islands National Park. Many 

federal, state, and local agencies and private 

entities either have overlapping jurisdictions 

and management responsibilities or own lands 

within the park. The primary agencies and 

entities and their responsibilities or rights are 

summarized below.

The Park Service manages activities on five 

islands and the submerged lands, waters, 

rocks, and islets surrounding the islands to a 

distance of 1 nautical mile. The Park Service 

owns and manages the islands of Santa 

Barbara, Santa Rosa, the east end of Santa 

Cruz, and Anacapa. The Park Service manages 

San Miguel; however, the island is owned by 

the U.S. Navy. The Park Service may apply its 

regulations to activities on the surface of the 

water, within the water column, in the area 

below mean or ordinary high water, and in 

some cases on the sea bed, even on stateowned submerged land. The Park Service can 

use the Superintendent‘s Compendium per 36 

CFR § 1.5 or permitting authority under 36 

CFR §§ 3.3 and 1.6 to protect underwater and 

coastal resources from impacts. The Park 

Service would consult with state agencies and 

potentially affected parties to ensure 

cooperative management takes place.

Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration) overlaps the 

park’s marine waters and extends 6 nautical 

miles beyond the mean high tide for each 

island. The sanctuary regulates uses and 

activities within the park’s marine waters, 

including oil and mineral extraction; 

disturbance to wildlife from aircraft, discharge 

or deposits of substances; alteration of or 

construction on the seabed; commercial vessel 

operations; and protection of submerged 

cultural resources.

The U.S. Navy (Department of Defense)

owns San Miguel Island and associated Prince 

Island. The Park Service manages San Miguel 

Island under a memorandum of 

understanding. Although day-to-day 

management and protection of the island rest 

with the park staff, military activities can take 

precedence over other uses.

The U.S. Coast Guard (Department of 

Homeland Security) retains rights to install 
Foundation for Planning and Management

21

and maintain aids to navigation on the park’s 

islands. The former Coast Guard light station 

on East Anacapa is now owned and managed 

by the Park Service. Among its many 

responsibilities, the Coast Guard enforces 

regulations related to vessel safety and ocean 

dumping, oversees oil spill cleanups, and 

provides emergency services to boaters. 

California State Lands Commission is 

responsible for administering and managing 

the use of the state’s tidelands, submerged 

lands, and submerged cultural resources 

around the islands. Although these lands have 

been leased to the Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, the lands commission has retained 

authority over these areas for oil, gas, 

geothermal, and other mineral exploration 

and development. The commission also has 

permit authority over dredging, disposal of 

dredging spoils, mining, piers, docks, 

moorings, and salvage operations on these 

lands. The state owns the shipwrecks below 

mean high tide within the park and sanctuary 

boundaries.

The California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife has jurisdiction and management 

over the living marine resources in the water 

column and seabed surrounding the park 

islands, starting at the mean high tide. In 

particular, commercial and sport fishing are 

regulated by the agency. 

Santa Barbara County has authority over 

Santa Cruz, San Miguel, Santa Barbara, and 

Santa Rosa islands regarding domestic water 

and wastewater systems and some law 

enforcement responsibilities.

Ventura County has authority over Anacapa 

Island regarding domestic water and 

wastewater systems and some law 

enforcement responsibilities.

The Nature Conservancy owns the western 

76% of Santa Cruz Island. The Nature 

Conservancy has various easements on NPS 

property such as the Prisoners Harbor pier 

and the Navy road. They also have easements 

and 25-year use and occupancy rights for 

several facilities. In addition, the U.S. Navy 

has a lease from The Nature Conservancy at 

the radar site on Santa Cruz Island, which is a 

TNC inholding. The U.S. Navy also retains 

easement rights at several other places, 

including the barracks facility and associated 

water system. 

The heirs of Pier Gherini have a deed that 

grants them a 25-year use and occupancy 

right-to-use (ending in 2014) of specified land 

areas and facilities on property on the east end 

of Santa Cruz Island.

Several other agencies, though not directly 

engaged in management of park resources, are 

consulted to ensure compliance with 

legislation, executive orders, and other 

mandates. These agencies include:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(management of threatened and 

endangered species, migratory birds, 

wetlands protection)

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(management of threatened and 

endangered species and marine 

mammals)

Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement (oil and 

gas development on the outer 

continental shelf, including tracts near 

the park that have oil and gas 

platforms and renewable energy 

projects) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Clean 

Water Act)

California Coastal Commission 

(management of the coastal zone)

California Office of Historic Preservation 

(management of cultural resources)

Central Coast Regional Water Quality 

Control Board (manages and protects 

water quality, including issuing 

permits for discharges into water 

bodies and certifications of water 

quality for work in streambeds)

Ventura Port District (management of 

Ventura Harbor Development in 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

22

which the headquarters facility is 

located)

Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians

California Department of Health Services, 

Sanitary Engineering Branch 

(management of two public water 

systems)

Cooperative Management

of Park Waters

As noted above, overlapping jurisdictions 

manage the park’s waters. Under the park’s 

enabling legislation, Congress directed the 

Park Service to enter into a cooperative 

[agreement] with the state of California for the 

enforcement of federal and state laws on lands 

and waters owned by the state of California 

[16 USC § 410ff-2(b)]. The state of California 

owns the submerged seabed lands around 

each of the five main islands. Although the 

state of California owns these submerged 

lands, the legislative boundary for the park 

extends 1 nautical mile offshore from each of 

the park’s five main islands. The Park Service 

has the authority to enforce park regulations 

on the waters within park boundaries 

regardless of ownership status of the 

underlying seabed [36 CFR Section 1.2(a)]. As

a result of this authority, the state of California 

and the Park Service have overlapping 

jurisdiction for waters within park 

boundaries. NPS rangers enforce applicable 

laws and regulations of the state of California, 

such as those applicable to marine fishing, as 

authorized by 36 CFR and by Title 16, USC. 

In addition, the sanctuary, under the 

administration of the NOAA, imposes an 

additional layer of federal jurisdiction over 

some of the offshore areas. To enhance 

cooperation among these agencies, the Park 

Service would pursue an agreement with the 

state of California and NOAA to coordinate 

enforcement of laws relating to the protection 

and management of marine resources and to 

the use of waters within park boundaries.

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES

This section identifies what must be done at 

the park to comply with federal laws and 

policies of the Park Service. Many of the 

park’s management directives are specified in 

laws and policies guiding the Park Service and 

are therefore not subject to alternative 

approaches. For example, there are laws and 

policies about managing environmental 

quality (such as the Clean Air Act, the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), and Executive 

Order (EO) 11990, “Protection of Wetlands”); 

laws governing the preservation of cultural 

resources (such as the National Historic 

Preservation Act and the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act); and 

laws about providing public services (such as 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)) —

to name only a few. In other words, a general 

management plan is not needed to decide, for 

instance, that it is appropriate to protect 

endangered species, control exotic species, 

protect archeological resources, preserve the 

cultural landscape, conserve artifacts, or 

provide for handicap access. Laws and 

policies have already decided those and many 

other issues for the park. Although attaining 

some of these conditions set forth in these 

laws and policies may have been temporarily 

deferred in the park because of funding or 

staffing limitations, the Park Service would 

continue to strive to implement these 

requirements with or without a new general 

management plan.

Some of these laws and executive orders are 

applicable solely or primarily to national park 

system units. Two key laws are the 1916 

Organic Act that created the National Park 

Service, and the General Authorities Act of 

1970. The Organic Act stated that the National 

Park Service was created to

Promote and regulate the use of the 

Federal areas known as national parks, 

monuments and reservations by such 

means and measures as conform to the 

fundamental purpose of the said parks, 

monuments and reservations, which 
Foundation for Planning and Management

23

purpose is to conserve the scenery and 

the natural and historic objects and the 

wild life therein and to provide for the 

enjoyment of the same in such manner 

and by such means as will leave them 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations. 

The National Park System General Authorities 

Act (1970) states

The authorization of activities shall be 

construed and the protection, 

management, and administration of 

national park areas shall be conducted 

in light of high public value and 

integrity of the National Park System 

and shall not be exercised in derogation 

of the values and purposes for which 

these various areas have been 

established, except as may have been or 

shall be directly and specifically 

provided by Congress.

Two other important laws for the National 

Park Service include the act of March 27, 1978 

relating to the management of the national 

park system, and the National Parks Omnibus 

Management Act (1998). Other laws and 

executive orders have much broader 

application, such as the Wilderness Act, the 

ESA, the National Historic Preservation Act, 

and EO 11990 addressing the protection of 

wetlands.

The National Park Service also has established 

policies for all units under its stewardship. 

These are identified and explained in a 

guidance manual titled NPS Management 

Policies 2006. The alternatives considered in 

this document incorporate and comply with 

the provisions of these mandates and policies.

To truly understand the implications of an 

alternative, it is important to combine the 

servicewide mandates and policies with the 

management actions described in an 

alternative.

Appendix B shows the servicewide mandates 

and policy topics related to planning and 

managing Channel Islands National Park; 

across from each topic are the desired 

conditions that the staff is striving to achieve

for that topic and thus that part of the 

appendix tables are written in the present 

tense. The strategies for achieving these 

desired conditions are also shown in the 

appendix tables. The alternatives in this plan 

address the desired future conditions that are 

not mandated by law and policy and that must 

be determined through a planning process.

It should be stressed that new uses or activities 

that arise in the future, which have not been 

considered in this plan, would be fully 

evaluated before being permitted in Channel 

Islands National Park. Only appropriate uses 

and activities that are compatible with the 

purposes of the park or values and that are 

consistent with other laws, regulations, 

executive orders, and servicewide mandates 

and policies would be permitted. As required 

under the park’s enabling legislation, visitor 

uses or activities that would result in impacts 

that exceed a negligible level would not be 

allowed. 

Impairment of National Park Resources 

In addition to determining the environmental 

consequences of implementing the preferred 

and other alternatives, NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (§ 1.4) requires a determination 

that none of the proposed actions would 

impair a park’s resources and values. 

The fundamental purpose of the national park 

system, established by the Organic Act and 

reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as 

amended, begins with a mandate to conserve 

park resources and values. NPS managers 

must always seek ways to avoid, or to 

minimize to the greatest degree practicable, 

adverse impacts on park resources and values. 

However, the laws do give the Park Service 

the management discretion to allow impacts 

on park resources and values when necessary 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

24

and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of the 

park. That discretion is limited by the 

statutory requirement that the Park Service 

must leave resources and values unimpaired 

unless a particular law directly and specifically 

provides otherwise. 

The prohibited impairment is an impact that, 

in the professional judgment of the 

responsible NPS manager, 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 (NPS Management Policies 2006). 

Whether an impact meets this definition 

depends on the particular resources that 

would be affected; the severity, duration, and 

timing of the impact; the direct and indirect 

effects of the impact; and the cumulative 

effects of the impact in question and other 

impacts. As noted in § 1.4.7 of NPS 

Management Policies 2006, in addition to the 

above environmental consequences, park 

managers also take into consideration 

consultations required under § 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, relevant 

scientific information, information from 

subject matter experts, and the results of civic 

engagement and public involvement activities. 

The determination of no impairment will be 

provided as an attachment to the record of 

decision.

OTHER NPS PLANS AND

RELATED GUIDANCE

A number of plans developed by the Park 

Service or other agencies have a relationship 

to this plan. Appendix D provides a list of 

such plans. 
25

PLANNING ISSUES/CONCERNS

NPS staff; representatives from other county, 

state, and federal agencies and organizations; 

and members of the public identified various 

issues and concerns during the scoping (early 

information gathering) period for this plan. 

An issue is defined as an opportunity, conflict, 

or problem regarding the use or management 

of public lands. Comments were solicited at 

public meetings, through planning 

newsletters, and on the park’s website (see the 

“Consultation and Coordination” chapter). 

Comments received during scoping 

demonstrated that there is much that the 

public likes about the park — its management, 

use, and facilities. The issues and concerns 

generally involve determining the appropriate 

visitor use, types, and levels of facilities, 

services, and activities while remaining 

compatible with desired resource conditions. 

The general management plan alternatives 

provide strategies for addressing the issues 

within the context of the park’s purpose, 

significance, and special mandates.

The major issues that were raised for this plan 

included access to the islands, access on Santa 

Rosa Island, the type and level of recreation 

development that is appropriate on the 

islands, providing sustainable park operations, 

designation of wilderness, and climate change.

ACCESS TO THE ISLANDS 

Access across the sea to the islands is 

expensive and difficult. The islands are only 

accessible by park concessioner boats and 

planes or private boats. Airplanes can only 

take visitors to Santa Rosa Island. Concession 

boat transportation is available year-round to 

all of the islands, although weather and ocean 

conditions (e.g., fog, high winds, and rough 

seas) are unpredictable and can limit access. 

The issue this plan needs to answer is whether 

more opportunities for public access should 

be provided to the islands. Some people want 

the Park Service to provide more access (boat 

and/or aircraft) to the islands. They note that 

segments of the population cannot travel to 

the islands. On the other hand, others argue 

that increased access opportunities would 

result in more people degrading sensitive park 

resources and would change the experience of 

visiting this remote and isolated environment. 

ACCESS ON SANTA ROSA ISLAND

This issue addresses the question of the level 

and type of access that should be provided to 

visitors. Santa Rosa is a relatively large island. 

When most visitors are dropped off at Bechers 

Bay they are now faced with walking long 

distances to see the 53,000-acre island. Some 

have suggested that opportunities be provided 

for visitors to ride bikes and horses, or be 

provided vehicle transportation so they can go 

farther in the relatively short time most 

visitors spend on the island. On the other 

hand, these new opportunities could increase 

the potential for visitor impacts on sensitive 

resources in the backcountry, as well as 

increase NPS staff workloads.

APPROPRIATE TYPE AND LEVEL

OF RECREATION FACILITIES

This issue addresses the question of the 

appropriate balance of developments that 

should be provided for visitors. What general 

types and intensities of development are 

needed to provide for public enjoyment of the 

park, while assuring negligible impacts on 

park resources? Should more overnight 

accommodation opportunities be provided? 

Should more visitor facilities be provided at 

the park’s most popular island locations, 

Scorpion and Prisoners Harbor on Santa 

Cruz, and Bechers Bay on Santa Rosa? There 

are very few visitor facilities currently on the 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

26

islands, including primitive campgrounds, 

roads, interpretive facilities, and a few trails. 

There are no services such lodging, food 

stores or gear rental shops on the islands. 

Some people support additional facilities 

being provided to improve the quality of the 

visitor experience, as well as supporting more 

people, in limited areas. Others believe such 

facilities would change the visitor experience, 

increase impacts on the resources, and 

increase NPS costs and staffing requirements.

Some of the existing facilities also are located 

in areas with resource issues. For example, at 

Scorpion, the campground is within the 

floodplain. At Scorpion, Smugglers Cove, and 

Prisoners Harbor, historic structures occur in 

the floodplain (or, in the case of Scorpion, in 

the stream channel). What should be done to 

preserve these facilities indefinitely, if 

anything? 

EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT 

OPERATION OF THE PARK 

This issue focuses on whether or not the 

existing administrative and operational 

facilities are functioning effectively and 

efficiently, meeting the needs of both park 

staff and visitors. With the park spread out 

over approximately 2,228 square miles, the 

geography of the park’s islands poses 

operational challenges. The closest island, 

Anacapa, is separated from park headquarters 

by 14 miles of open ocean, while San Miguel, 

the farthest island, lies 55 miles offshore. The 

park’s facilities and infrastructure including 

piers, campgrounds, utilities, employee 

housing, trails, and roads are spread across 

five remote islands. A small number of park 

staff need to support visitors; monitor, 

protect, and manage both terrestrial and 

marine resources; and maintain the operation 

of facilities, vehicles, vessels, and utilities at all 

of these locations. As a result, the park must 

rely heavily on marine and air transportation 

for daily operations. Support for island 

operations is expensive because of these 

transportation costs and weather problems. 

Temporary housing facilities in Scorpion are 

inadequate, as are administrative facilities at 

Prisoners Harbor, Bechers Bay, and East 

Anacapa. There is also a shortfall for facilities 

maintenance, primarily related to operations 

and backlog maintenance needs, parkwide. 

DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS

To fulfill the requirements of the park’s 

enabling legislation and the Wilderness Act, 

the Park Service must determine whether any 

lands in the park should be proposed for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. Some people may 

oppose wilderness designation because they 

believe it limits their access and what they can 

do in the park. Some management actions 

would be constrained or limited (e.g., use of 

mechanized equipment and roads), which 

may complicate administration and 

management of the park. Others likely 

support wilderness designation, believing it 

would provide permanent protection to the 

park and its resources, and limit changes the 

Park Service could propose. Others may 

support wilderness designation, but disagree 

on which part(s) of the park should be 

proposed for wilderness.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change refers to any substantial 

changes in average climatic conditions (such 

as mean temperature, precipitation, or wind) 

or variability (such as seasonality and storm 

frequency) lasting for an extended period 

(decades or longer). Recent reports by the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the 

National Academy of Sciences, and the United 

Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC 2007) provide clear evidence 

that climate change is occurring and would 

accelerate in the coming decades. The effects 

of climate change on national parks are 

beginning to emerge as both science and 

impacts become clearer; however, it is difficult 
Planning Issues/Concerns

27

to predict the full extent of the changes that 

are expected under an altered climate regime. 

In response to climate change, the National 

Park Service prepared a strategy involving 

science, mitigation, adaptation, and 

communication (NPS 2010). A Green Parks 

Plan has been published, which calls for the 

National Park Service to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions and adapt facilities at risk from 

climate change (NPS 2012).The park staff also 

prepared a “Climate Friendly Action Plan” 

specific to Channel Islands (NPS 2011). The 

Park Service recognizes that the major drivers 

of climate change are outside the control of 

the agency. However, climate change is a 

phenomenon and those impacts throughout 

the national park system cannot be 

discounted. Some of these impacts are already 

occurring or are expected in Channel Islands 

National Park in the time frame of this 

management plan. Increasingly, the Park 

Service is considering climate change in its 

management actions, including actions to 

mitigate effects and adapt to climate change, 

while also meeting park goals. Therefore, 

climate change is included in this document to 

recognize its role in the changing environment 

of the park, provide an understanding of its 

impact, and incorporate climate change into 

park management decision making. 

There are two different issues to consider with 

respect to climate change: (1) what is the 

contribution of the proposed action to climate 

change, such as greenhouse gas emissions and 

the “carbon footprint?” and (2) what are the 

anticipated effects of climate change on the 

park’s resources and visitors that are affected 

by the management alternatives? Because the 

contribution in comparison to the region of 

the proposed actions in all of the alternatives 

to climate change is negligible, the first issue 

has been dismissed as an impact topic. This 

plan primarily focuses on the second issue, 

addressing the anticipated effects of climate 

change on the park’s resources and visitors. 

Although climate change is a global 

phenomenon, it manifests differently 

depending on regional and local factors. 

Climate change is expected to result in many 

changes to the southern California region and 

the park in particular. Some of these changes 

are already occurring. In the Ventura region, 

including the park, temperatures are projected 

to increase 2.2 to 3.3 C between 1990 and 

2100, while precipitation is projected to 

decline from 13 to 20% during this period 

(Gonzalez et al. 2010; IPCC 2007; Mitchell 

and Jones 2005). More generally, under 

medium to medium-high greenhouse gas 

emission scenarios, mean sea level along the 

California coast is projected to rise from 1.0 to 

1.4 meters (39 to 55 inches) by the year 2100 

(Heberger et al. 2009). Other models project a 

sea level rise along the coast of 7 inches by 

2030, 14 inches by 2050, and 47 inches 

(medium projection) by 2100 (California 

Ocean Protection Council 2011). None of the 

proposed permanent developments in the 

alternatives would be in areas that would be 

inundated by sea level rise. (Proposed facilities

on or near the beach at Scorpion Valley would 

be built so they would be moveable.) The 

existing mainland visitor center is in an area 

that could be vulnerable to sea level rise, but 

not in the near future. 

Climate change is also expected to affect other 

aspects of the park’s weather (e.g., 

temperature extremes, fog frequency and 

extent); resources (e.g., shorelines, vegetation, 

wildlife, ocean acidity, marine upwelling, 

historic structures, and archeological 

resources); facilities (e.g., roads and piers); 

and visitor experiences on the islands. The 

high number of endemic species on the 

Channel Islands, by definition of limited 

distribution and small population size, may be 

particularly vulnerable to altered climates. 

These changes would have direct implications 

on resource management and park 

operations, and on the way visitors access, 

use, and experience the park.
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

28

Climate change may affect visitors’ park 

experiences in a variety of ways, including 

• changes in wildlife activities due to altered 

terrestrial and marine ecosystems

• reduced visitor access to sites and 

structures affected by climate change 

• disruption of visitor services and 

recreational opportunities

Climate change also may affect cultural 

resources. For example, higher sea levels 

could increase erosion of archeological 

resources near the shorelines of the islands. 

Although historic structures and cultural 

landscape features are currently at some risk 

from wildfires and storm damage, these risks 

could potentially increase as climate change 

intensifies the severity of fires and severity and 

frequency of storms. 

Climate change is a far-reaching and longterm issue that would affect the park, its 

resources, visitors, and management beyond 

the scope of this plan and its 20- to 40-year 

timeframe. Although some effects of climate 

change are considered known or likely to 

occur, many potential impacts are unknown. 

Much depends on the rate at which 

temperature would continue to rise and 

whether global emissions of greenhouse gases 

can be mitigated before serious ecological 

thresholds are reached. 

Climate change science is a rapidly advancing 

field, and new information is being collected 

and released continually. The full extent of 

climate change impacts to resources and the 

visitor experience is not known, nor do 

managers and policy makers yet agree on the 

most effective response mechanisms for 

minimizing impacts and adapting to change. 

Thus, unlike the other issues noted above, this 

plan does not provide definitive solutions or 

directions to resolving the issue of controlling 

impacts of climate change on Channel Islands 

National Park. Rather, the plan provides some 

general directions and strategies that can help 

minimize the park’s contribution to climate 

change (see the desired conditions and 

strategies in appendix B and the park’s climate 

action plan (NPS 2011)). The Park Service also 

recognizes that the management actions and 

facilities being proposed in all of the 

alternatives need to be adopted with future 

climate change and impacts in mind because 

past conditions are not necessarily useful 

guides for future planning.

The impacts of climate change on the park are 

not expected to differ among the alternatives, 

and the lack of qualitative and quantitative 

information about climate change effects adds 

to the difficulty of predicting how these 

impacts would be realized in the park.

Additionally, management actions that are 

inherently part of each alternative, such as 

allowing natural processes to dominate or 

managing nonnative plants to prevent 

spreading, would not fundamentally change 

with the anticipated added effects of climate 

change. Also, the range of variability in the 

potential effects of climate change is large in 

comparison to what is known about the future 

under an altered climate regime in the park in 

particular, even if larger-scale climatic 

patterns have been predicted for the 

California Coast (California Natural 

Resources Agency 2009). Therefore, the 

potential effects of this dynamic climate on 

national park resources were included in 

“Chapter 3: Affected Environment.” 

However, these effects are not analyzed in 

“Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences” in 

general with respect to each alternative 

because of the uncertainty and variability of 

outcomes, and because these outcomes or 

management are not expected to differ among 

the alternatives. 
29

ISSUES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PLAN /WILDERNESS STUDY

MANAGEMENT OF MARINE WATERS

Management jurisdiction over the waters 

within the park boundary is confusing and not 

always clear. Multiple federal and state 

agencies have overlapping different legal 

controls, jurisdictions, and management 

responsibilities. The Park Service has 

proprietary federal jurisdiction 1 mile around 

each of the five park islands. The state of 

California has ownership, and therefore 

jurisdiction, over the water column, living 

marine resources, and sea bottom. NOAA, 

which manages the sanctuary, promulgates 

regulations that encompass the waters 

surrounding the islands. Other agencies that 

have management responsibility and 

regulations include the California Department 

of Fish and Wildlife (management of living

marine resources), the Coast Guard (vessel 

safety), the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(management of marine mammals), the 

California Coastal Commission (management 

of the coastal zone), and U.S. Navy 

(management of the Sea Range where military 

training and testing is conducted). The Park 

Service would continue to consult and 

coordinate with the above agencies to resolve 

issues that arise over management of park 

waters.

Fishing

Commercial and recreational fishing has been 

implicated in the declines in the stocks of 

many fish and invertebrates that are harvested 

within park waters, including several 

groundfish species (e.g., rockfishes and 

lingcod), giant seabass, pelagic sharks, warty 

sea cucumber, red urchins, and abalone (NPS 

2006). Management of fish and invertebrate 

populations and fishing has changed with the 

establishment of state marine reserves and 

marine conservation areas by the state of 

California, and federal marine reserves and 

conservation areas by the NOAA outside of 

the park. These marine protected areas are 

expected to better protect fish populations in 

the park. The Park Service would continue to 

work with the California Department of Fish 

and Wildlife and NOAA to resolve any fishing 

issues that arise in the future.

Special Closure

Special closures provide for localized 

protection for seabird nesting and rookery 

sites, and marine mammal haul-out sites.

These areas are designated by the state of 

California. Two Special Closures are within 

the park. The Anacapa Island Special Closure 

is designed to protect a brown pelican 

fledgling area and the San Miguel Island 

Special Closure to protect marine mammals. 

Special closures may overlap with other 

marine protected areas.

Aquaculture

Aquaculture is the practice of farming 

shellfish, finfish, and aquatic plants in 

controlled or selected environments (16 USC 

§ 2802(1), (5)). Aquaculture production of 

seafood in the U.S. will undoubtedly increase 

in the near future.

Aquaculture is agriculture and as such is 

prohibited in parks pursuant to 36 CFR § 2.60 

except when specifically authorized by federal 

statute, required under a reservation of use 

rights, or needed for a recreational activity or 

historic scene. This prohibition applies even 

on state-owned submerged lands pursuant to 

36 CFR § 1.2(a)(3). Any aquaculture allowed 

in parks for one of those three reasons must 

be conducted in accordance with a permit, 

contract, or other agreement pursuant to 36 

CFR § 5.3, but in no circumstance can be 

allowed to pollute or contaminate park area 

waters or water courses (see 36 CFR § 2.14). In 

addition, any aquaculture project will be 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

30

subject to appropriate NEPA compliance and 

any other applicable federal law. 

The reason for generally prohibiting 

aquaculture in parks is because of the 

potential of aquaculture to negatively impact 

or impair park resources and values. The 

introduction or release of hatchery or 

domesticated stocks can alter or dilute natural 

population genetic structure when introduced 

species are able to interbreed with native 

species, and can introduce novel diseases. The 

introduction of non-indigenous or alien 

species alters natural diversity and community 

dynamics. Aquaculture facilities often attract 

avian and marine predators eager to feast on 

the dense numbers of fish in the enclosures, 

which can result in entanglement of eagles, 

raptors, and wading birds in nets covering the 

pens. 

Additionally, aquaculture may have adverse 

impacts on submerged lands and benthic 

resources. For example, when mesh cages 

used for estuarine clam aquaculture are pulled 

up from seagrass beds, the seagrass and other 

benthic resources are damaged. 

When an aquaculture project is proposed near 

a park unit, the Park Service must work 

closely with the state and other permitting 

entities to ensure the consideration of park 

resources and values. The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps of Engineers), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

NOAA, and Fish and Wildlife Service have 

federal authority over the activities necessary 

to conduct aquaculture operations. The Corps 

of Engineers has the authority to issue permits 

for structures located in navigable waters (33 

USC § 403; 33 CFR § 329.12(a)). The EPA has 

authority to regulate discharges from 

aquaculture facilities as “concentrated aquatic 

animal production facilities” (33 USC § 1342; 

40 CFR § 122.24(a)). The NOAA and Fish and 

Wildlife Service have an opportunity to review 

and comment on proposed permits to be 

issued by the Corps of Engineers or EPA. 

Development of Oil and Gas

Deposits within the Park Boundary

The Ventura Port District has a 2.8-acre oil 

and gas mineral reservation within the park 

boundary. Although there is the potential that 

this area could be drilled for oil and gas, 

exploratory and development drilling is 

considered very unlikely given the size of the 

reservation and the small likelihood that this 

area contains economic deposits of oil and 

gas.
31

NEXT STEPS AND IMPLEMENTATION 

OF THE PLAN / WILDERNESS STUDY

A 60-day public review and comment period 

would follow the distribution of this plan. A 

public hearing would also be held on the 

wilderness study, as required under § 3(d)(1) 

of the Wilderness Act. After that, the NPS 

planning team would evaluate comments from 

other federal agencies, tribes, organizations, 

businesses, and individuals regarding the draft 

plan / wilderness study and incorporate 

appropriate changes into a Final General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement. The final 

plan would include letters from governmental 

agencies, any substantive comments on the 

draft document, and NPS responses to those 

comments. Following distribution of the Final 

General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement and a 30-day 

no action period, a record of decision 

approving a final plan would be signed by the 

NPS regional director. The record of decision 

documents the NPS selection of an alternative 

for implementation. With the signing of the 

record of decision, the plan can then be 

implemented. 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Once the planning process is completed, the 

selected alternative would become the new 

management plan for the park and would be 

implemented over 20 to 40 years. It is 

important to note that not all of the actions in 

the alternative would necessarily be 

implemented immediately or at all.

The implementation of the approved plan 

would depend on future funding. The 

approval of this plan does not guarantee that 

the funding and staffing needed to implement 

the plan would be forthcoming. Full 

implementation of the actions in the approved 

general management plan could be many years 

into the future and some may never be 

implemented.

In addition to funding, the implementation of 

the approved plan could be affected by other 

factors, such as changes in NPS staffing, 

visitor use patterns, requirements for 

additional data or regulatory compliance, 

competing national park system priorities, and 

uncontrollable environmental changes 

(described below). More detailed planning 

and environmental documentation may need 

to be completed, if appropriate, before some 

of the actions would be carried out.

This plan provides direction and lays the 

groundwork for addressing specific issues. 

Other future program and implementation 

plans describing specific actions that 

managers intend to undertake and accomplish 

in the park would tier from the desired 

conditions and long-term goals set forth in the 

approved Final General Management Plan.

Once the Final General Management Plan has 

been approved, additional feasibility studies 

and more detailed planning and 

environmental documentation would be 

completed, as appropriate, before some 

proposed actions can be carried out. For 

example,

• Additional compliance (environmental 

and cultural resources) may need to be 

completed.

• Appropriate permits would be obtained 

before implementing actions that would 

impact wetlands.

• Appropriate federal agencies would be 

consulted concerning actions that could 

affect threatened and endangered species.

• Native American tribes and the state 

historic preservation officer would be 

consulted regarding undertakings with the 

potential to impact cultural resources.
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

32

These more detailed plans would tier from the 

approved Final General Management Plan, 

describing specific actions managers intend to

take to achieve desired conditions and longterm goals. 

Finally, it needs to be recognized that climate 

change would likely affect the park in a 

myriad of different ways, both during the 20- 

to 40-year life of this plan and beyond. It is 

likely that park staff would need to employ 

adaptive management in response to these 

changes, and elements of the plan may need to 

be modified. For example, if sea levels rise, 

public access to some of the islands may be 

affected. If climate change threatens the 

sustainability of rare species, additional 

management actions may be necessary. 

Depending on the nature of climate and 

resulting changes that occur, the Park Service 

either would take additional actions 

consistent with the management directions in 

this plan, or if necessary, amend or replace the 

plan. In all cases, appropriate environmental 

compliance would occur before new actions 

are taken.

WILDERNESS STUDY

As noted above, a minimum of 30 days after 

the publication of the Final General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement, a record of 

decision would be prepared and published in 

the Federal Register. This record of decision 

would document what action the Park Service 

intends to take regarding a wilderness 

proposal for the park. 

If the decision is made to propose wilderness, 

and the NPS director concurs, a wilderness 

proposal would be sent to the assistant 

secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks and 

the secretary of the interior, who may revise 

or approve the proposal. The secretary may 

then forward a wilderness recommendation to 

the president. The president may approve or 

revise the recommendation and then transmit 

his recommendation to Congress for 

consideration. Congress may enact legislation 

needed to include the area within the national 

wilderness preservation system as 

“designated” and/or “potential” wilderness.

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management can be described as a series of repeating incremental steps: collect information on an 

existing problem, analyze it, propose appropriate interventions, implement the interventions, monitor the 

interventions, and if needed, use additional interventions to address the problem.
Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

Channel Islands National Park Ch

35

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the three alternative 

approaches to managing Channel Islands 

National Park — the “no action” alternative 

(alternative 1), which describes a continuation 

of current management, and two “action”

alternatives (alternatives 2 and 3). The 

alternatives and the assessment of the 

potential environmental consequences of the 

alternatives form the core of this plan.

The alternatives in this plan describe different 

general visions for the future of the park. They 

are intended to enable managers and the 

public to consider different approaches to 

managing visitor use and resources, protecting 

park resources, directing development, 

providing access, and resolving conflicts that 

may arise at Channel Islands National Park.

This chapter first briefly describes the 

planning process used to develop the 

alternatives as well as the management zones 

that were applied to specific areas of the park 

to help define each of the action alternatives. 

The chapter then describes how the 

wilderness study was prepared, and the 

options identified in the alternatives. The 

alternatives are then described and shown 

graphically. This is followed by mitigation 

measures that would be taken to reduce the 

intensity of impacts under the alternatives, 

identification of the environmentally 

preferable alternative, and a description of 

actions that were considered but dropped 

from further analysis for various reasons. 

Table 17 and Table 19 at the end of the 

chapter summarize the alternative actions and 

the impacts that would result from 

implementing each alternative.

FORMULATION OF 

THE ALTERNATIVES

Many aspects of the desired conditions of 

Channel Islands National Park are defined in 

the establishing legislation, the park’s purpose 

and significance statements, and the 

servicewide mandates and policies described 

in appendix B. Within these parameters, the 

Park Service solicited input from the public, 

NPS staff, governmental agencies, tribal 

officials, and others regarding issues and 

desired conditions for Channel Islands 

National Park — resource conditions and the 

quality of visitor experiences that the Park 

Service aspires to achieve and maintain over 

time. Information was collected through 

newsletters, meetings, and personal contacts. 

All of the planning issues and concerns 

described in chapter 1 (e.g., access to the 

islands, appropriate levels and type of 

recreation facilities, and designation of 

wilderness) were considered in the 

development of the alternatives. Planning 

team members also gathered information 

about existing visitor use and the condition of 

the park’s facilities and resources. Then a set 

of management zones and management 

alternatives were developed to reflect the 

range of ideas proposed by NPS staff and the 

public.

The alternatives in general management plans 

focus on what resource conditions and what

visitor uses, experiences, and opportunities 

should be at Channel Islands National Park 

rather than on details of how these conditions, 

uses, and experiences should be achieved. 

Thus, the alternatives do not include many 

details on resource or visitor use management. 

Several constraints limited the range of 

alternatives the planning team could consider. 

These constraints included: physical 

limitations due to the islands being isolated 

and remote, the presence of sensitive natural 

and cultural resources, limited existing 

infrastructure, high cost of access and 

maintenance and development of facilities, 

the special mandates and administrative 

commitments that govern management and 

use of the park, and the determination of 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

36

wilderness eligibility. For these reasons, there 

are not many major differences between the 

two action alternatives, alternatives 2 and 3.

The planning team developed three 

alternatives or approaches for managing the 

park. All of the alternatives emphasize 

resource stewardship, including ecosystem 

preservation and restoration. Alternative 1, 

the no action alternative, describes the 

continuation of current management and 

trends; it serves as a basis for comparing the 

other alternatives. The two action alternatives, 

alternatives 2 and 3, seek to incorporate both 

resource protection and visitor opportunities, 

and were developed to be functional and 

viable. Although all of the alternatives are 

consistent with maintaining the park’s 

purposes, significance, mission, and 

fundamental resources and values, and avoid 

unacceptable resource impacts, they respond 

to differing public desires and concerns. The 

alternatives thus vary primarily in their focus 

with regard to opportunities for visitor 

experiences and facilities on the islands.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE NPS 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Initially, the Park Service uses a value analysis 

method called “Choosing by Advantages,” or 

“CBA,” to decide which GMP alternative is 

the preferred alternative. The CBA process is a 

tool for determining the specific advantages 

each alternative would provide toward 

meeting specific park objectives. The 

advantages described in the CBA process 

represent the benefits that would be gained 

under each alternative. The advantages for 

each alternative are compared to the expected 

costs of each alternative to determine the 

cost/benefit ratio of each alternative. The 

alternative that provides the most benefit per 

dollar, with the least adverse environmental 

impacts, is the best value alternative and the 

one that is labeled “preferred” in this plan. 

The preferred alternative incorporates both 

the general management plan and the 

wilderness proposal. Since the initial 

preferred alternative was identified, some 

analysis, such as commercial and operational 

feasibility, has provided valuable input and 

modified the initial preferred alternative over 

time.

CONSIDERATION OF 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS

The National Park and Recreation Act of 1978 

requires general management plans to address 

whether boundary modifications should be 

made to park units. In the case of Channel 

Islands National Park, no specific boundary 

adjustments were identified as being needed. 

Thus, none of the alternatives propose 

changes to the park boundary.
37

MANAGEMENT ZONES

An important tool in planning and 

management is the establishment of 

management zoning for the park. 

Management zones identify how different 

areas could be managed to achieve a variety of 

resource conditions and visitor experiences. 

Each zone specifies a particular combination 

of resource, social, and management 

conditions. The Park Service would take 

different actions within various zones relative 

to the types and levels of uses and facilities. 

Uses that are not prescribed would generally 

not be permissible.

Table 1 describes the seven management 

zones developed for Channel Islands National 

Park. Alternatives for future park conditions 

and management have been developed by 

placing these zones in different configurations 

in the park. The existing West Anacapa 

Research Natural Area (an administrative 

designation that federal land management 

agencies apply for research and educational 

purposes and/or to maintain biological 

diversity) would be retained as part of the 

backcountry management zone. Note that the 

land zones do not apply to the no action 

alternative. (However, the State of 

California Marine Reserves and 

Conservation Areas would apply under the 

no action alternative).

As indicated in Table 1, the three marine 

zones are very similar in how these waters 

would be managed. The primary difference 

between the zones is the level of consumptive 

activities that would be permitted. The marine 

stewardship zone would allow fishing subject 

to federal or state regulations; the marine 

protected (state marine reserves) zone would 

only allow nonconsumptive activities; the 

marine protected (state marine conservation 

areas) would allow sustainable harvest of 

selected marine resources, subject to federal 

or state regulations. 

TABLE 1. MANAGEMENT ZONES

Resource Condition Visitor Experience/Activity Appropriate Development

Terrestrial Zones

BACKCOUNTRY

Native species and natural processes 

would predominate in this zone. 

Some visitor use would occur and 

natural resources might be modified 

slightly to accommodate moderate 

levels of visitor use. 

Native species and natural processes 

would take precedence over visitor 

accommodation. However, on San 

Miguel Island – Cuyler Harbor, 

maintaining undeveloped access for 

small craft landings could require 

management of natural resources 

sufficient to ensure access.

Naturally functioning ecosystem 

components and processes would be 

maintained and restored.

Exotic species would be eliminated 

where feasible and otherwise would 

be controlled.

Human-caused habitat fragmentation 

would be minimal.

This zone would provide opportunities 

for outdoor activities in diverse 

natural settings, consistent with the 

protection of natural and cultural 

resources.

Low visitor use levels would be 

accommodated in this zone; the 

experience would be primitive, 

require self-reliance, and offer some 

opportunities for solitude.

Challenge, adventure, and discovery 

would be components of the 

experience.

Although only minimal on-site 

interpretive media would be 

appropriate, moderate levels of 

interpretation and orientation might 

be provided off-site to prepare visitors 

for their backcountry experience and 

encourage appropriate care of 

sensitive resources.

All recreation would be nonmotorized 

and nonmechanized.

Developments in this zone would be 

unobtrusive and blend with the 

natural environment.

Only those facilities necessary to 

support visitor activities would be 

appropriate. Trails, marked routes, 

designated backcountry campsites, 

pit toilets, wind screens, food 

storage boxes, and water pumps 

could be included.

Other site-hardening devices such as 

boardwalks, fencing, and 

pedestrian paths would be 

permitted as necessary to protect 

resources.

Adaptive use of existing structures, 

including historic structures, might 

be appropriate in this zone.

Developments and uses would be 

compatible with wilderness values.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

38

Resource Condition Visitor Experience/Activity Appropriate Development

Cultural resources would be preserved, 

rehabilitated, or, in the case of 

backcountry resources, allowed to 

deteriorate depending on the location 

and significance of the resource; 

treatment of cultural resources would 

be determined on a case-by-case 

basis depending on the resource’s 

significance and future resource 

plans. 

Wilderness character would be 

maintained.

Appropriate activities in this zone might 

include hiking, backpacking, 

backcountry camping, and nature 

observation.

All camping would be at designated 

campsites.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

Historic buildings, structures, and other 

landscape characteristics and features 

would be preserved or rehabilitated 

to represent the history of human use 

and occupation.

Resources might be used for 

interpretive and/or compatible 

operational purposes by the Park 

Service or its partners.

Nonhistoric development and activities 

that are necessary for visitor and 

operational support might occur as 

long as the overall character of the 

cultural landscape would not be 

compromised.

Natural resources that have been 

identified as important to the cultural 

landscape would be managed to 

perpetuate that landscape.

The treatment of natural resources in 

this zone would be determined on a 

case-by-case basis.

A primary experience in this zone would 

be visiting and learning about the 

historic uses and occupants of the 

islands.

Other activities might include walking,

hiking, camping, and other 

compatible activities provided by the 

Park Service and its partners.

Visitation would be maintained at 

moderate levels to allow some 

opportunities for discovery, 

occasional solitude, and enjoyment of 

the cultural setting with only 

moderate noise.

Interpretation would be important to 

the experience, but would not 

compromise the cultural landscape 

character.

Additional information and orientation 

might be offered off-site.

Modest development would be 

permitted if necessary to support 

visitor and operational activities.

Development might include 

interpretive media, walkways, trails, 

picnic areas, employee housing, 

campsites, and restrooms. All 

developments would be compatible 

with the cultural landscape, such 

that new structures would be 

designed to be compatible with the 

height, style, scale, architectural 

character, and materials of the 

contributing cultural landscape 

features; and sensitively located so 

as not to detract from the historic 

landscape character, including

circulation patterns, land use, 

natural features, vegetation, and 

the spatial density of the landscape 

features. Compatible design also 

will consider the number, size, and 

location of all proposed 

development in order to avoid a 

cumulative adverse impact. 

Facilities would be fully accessible to 

the extent feasible without 

compromising the cultural 

character.

FRONTCOUNTRY

Sensitive natural and cultural resources 

occurring in the zone would be 

protected.

Invasive species would be eliminated 

where feasible, and otherwise would 

be controlled.

Human-caused habitat fragmentation 

would be mitigated to the extent 

possible. 

Cultural resources would be preserved 

or rehabilitated and adaptively used 

for visitor support or park operational 

purposes.

Higher levels of visitor recreational and 

educational activity would be 

accommodated in this zone.

Activities might include hiking, 

camping, picnicking, fishing, 

kayaking, and interpretive / 

educational activities.

Opportunities for challenge and 

exertion would be components of the 

experience in this zone; fairly high 

levels of noise would be expected.

There would be more contact with NPS 

staff and concessioners compared to 

the other zones.

Times of high noise levels and large 

concentrations of people would be 

expected.

Destination-oriented visitor facilities, 

such as visitor centers, museums, 

staging areas, and developed 

campgrounds, would be in this 

zone.

Other appropriate facilities that 

support visitor activities could 

include visitor contact stations, 

unpaved maintained roads, 

surfaced or paved walkways and 

trails, restrooms, picnic tables, and 

benches.

Resources would be protected by sitehardening devices such as 

boardwalks, fencing, and paved 

pathways, and by design of visitor 

circulation systems.
Management Zones

39

Resource Condition Visitor Experience/Activity Appropriate Development

ADMINISTRATIVE

Invasive species would be eliminated 

where feasible, and otherwise would 

be controlled.

Cultural resources in the zone might be 

rehabilitated for adaptive uses, which 

would be preferable to new 

construction.

There would generally be no visitor use 

in this zone, but areas in the zone 

would be used by park staff, 

volunteers, partners, and others 

engaged in park operations and 

administration.

Efficiency, safety, and convenience 

would be important components. 

Times of high noise levels and large 

concentrations of people would be 

expected.

Administrative offices, maintenance 

areas, employee housing, road 

corridors, and other facilities 

needed to support park operations 

would be in this zone.

Marine Zones

MARINE STEWARDSHIP

Natural processes and native species 

would predominate. 

Evidence of human impact would be 

infrequent and of limited extent.

Archeological resources would be 

protected.

The natural character, habitats, living 

resources, and vistas would be 

preserved. 

A variety of experiences (e.g., boating, 

fishing [subject to federal or state 

regulations], diving, and snorkeling) 

would be available. Boats would be 

needed to access this area.

A high level of independence would be 

required.

There would be a high chance for 

solitude.

Interpretation might be provided in 

some areas.

Underwater trails.

Few to no visible/permanent facilities.

Monitoring/research equipment.

Existing infrastructure maintained to 

support visitor access and park 

operations. 

MARINE PROTECTED

State Marine Reserves

Protect or restore rare, threatened, or 

endangered native plants, animals, or 

habitats in marine areas.

Protect or restore outstanding, 

representative, or imperiled marine 

species, communities, habitats, and 

ecosystems.

Protect or restore diverse marine gene 

pools.

Contribute to the understanding and 

management of marine resources and 

ecosystems by providing the 

opportunity for scientific research in 

outstanding, representative or 

imperiled marine habitats or 

ecosystems.

A variety of nonconsumptive 

experiences (e.g., boating, diving, 

snorkeling, and educational activities) 

would be available.

Research, restoration, and monitoring 

may be permitted.

Possible monitoring/research 

equipment.

The natural character, habitats, living 

resources, and vistas would be 

preserved.

Existing infrastructure maintained to 

support visitor access and park 

operations.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

40

Resource Condition Visitor Experience/Activity Appropriate Development

MARINE PROTECTED

State Marine Conservation Areas

Protect or restore rare, threatened, or 

endangered native plants, animals, or 

habitats in marine areas.

Protect or restore outstanding, 

representative, or imperiled marine 

species, communities, habitats, and 

ecosystems.

Protect or restore diverse marine gene 

pools.

Contribute to the understanding and 

management of marine resources and 

ecosystems by providing the 

opportunity for scientific research in 

outstanding, representative, or 

imperiled marine habitats or 

ecosystems.

Preserve outstanding or unique 

geological features.

Provide for sustainable living marine 

resource harvest.

A variety of consumptive and 

nonconsumptive experiences (e.g., 

boating, diving, snorkeling, and 

educational activities) would be 

available.

Research, restoration, and monitoring 

may be permitted. Sustainable 

harvest of selected marine resources 

would be allowed (subject to state or 

federal regulation).

Underwater trails.

Few to no visible/permanent facilities.

Monitoring/research equipment.

Existing infrastructure maintained to 

support visitor access and park 

operations.
 41

USER CAPACITY

General management plans for national park 

system units are required by law to identify 

and address implementation commitments for 

user capacity, also known as carrying capacity. 

The Park Service defines user capacity as the 

types and levels of visitor use that can be 

accommodated while sustaining the quality of 

park resources and visitor experiences 

consistent with the purposes of the park. 

Managing user capacity in national parks is 

inherently complex and depends not only on 

the number of visitors, but also on where they 

go, what they do, and the “footprints” they 

leave behind. In managing for user capacity, 

park staff rely on a variety of management 

tools and strategies rather than relying solely 

on regulating the number of people in a park 

area. In addition, the ever-changing nature of 

visitor use in parks requires a deliberate and 

adaptive approach to user capacity 

management.

The foundations for making user capacity 

decisions in this plan are the park’s purpose, 

significance, special mandates, and 

management zones associated with the park. 

The purpose, significance, and special 

mandates define why the park was established 

and identify the most important resources, 

values, and visitor opportunities that would be 

protected or provided. The management 

zones in each action alternative describe 

desired resource conditions and visitor 

experiences, including appropriate types of 

activities and general use levels, for different 

locations throughout the park. The zones, as 

applied in the alternatives, are consistent with, 

and help the Park Service achieve, the park’s 

specific purpose, significance, and special 

mandates. As part of the Park Service’s 

commitment to implement user capacity, park 

staff would abide by these directives for 

guiding the types and levels of visitor use that 

would be accommodated while sustaining the 

quality of park resources and visitor 

experiences consistent with the purposes of 

the park. 

In addition, this plan sets day and overnight 

use limits for the islands and popular use 

areas. These limits were largely established by 

three Channel Islands plans — the 1980 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement, the 1984 Draft General 

Management Plan Supplement / Environmental 

Assessment, and the 1995 Development Concept 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement for 

Santa Rosa Island. These actions were taken to 

meet the park’s enabling legislation (PL 96-

1999), which stated the following:

In recognition of the special fragility and 

sensitivity of the park’s resources, it is the 

intent of Congress that the visitor use 

within the park be limited to assure 

negligible adverse impact on the park 

resources.

Table 16 near the end of this chapter shows 

the day and overnight visitor use limits that 

have been set by alternative in Channel 

Islands National Park.

With a couple of minor exceptions, the 

existing day use limits would not change on 

the islands in the alternatives. These limits 

would not change in most cases because:

• Most of the day use numbers have been in 

effect for 10 years or more and have 

proved successful in attaining desired 

conditions — these numbers have helped 

manage visitor use to avoid unacceptable 

changes in park resource conditions or 

visitor experiences. 

• These numbers have and should continue 

to allow for the range of natural and 

cultural resource conditions and visitor 

experiences that are desired on the 

islands.

• With the exception of Scorpion Valley, 

day use levels have not approached the 

existing limits. In the case of Scorpion 

Valley, which is the primary destination of 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

42

visitors on Santa Cruz Island, use levels 

have reached the use limits, particularly in 

the summer. Because the Park Service 

manages the number of passengers the 

concessioners transport to Scorpion 

Valley (which accounts for most visitors 

who go there), use levels are not believed 

to exceed the day use limit. Although 

private boaters who land at Scorpion 

Valley are not regulated or tracked, it has 

not been documented that use levels are 

causing unacceptable changes in park 

resource conditions or visitor experiences 

at Scorpion.

With regard to overnight use, the alternatives 

differ in the number of people allowed to 

camp at designated campsites in several areas. 

Changes were made in overnight capacities, 

consistent with the alternative concepts, to 

improve visitor experiences (which in some 

cases reduced campground capacities) or to 

provide additional opportunities for visitors 

to camp on the islands.

In several areas public use would continue to 

be prohibited, with the exception of escorted 

groups, due to resource sensitivity concerns 

and/or public safety concerns. These areas 

include Middle and West Anacapa, and most 

of San Miguel Island (with the exception of 

the ranch complex). Seasonal closures also 

would continue to apply to areas on Santa 

Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Santa Rosa islands to 

protect sensitive resources such as threatened 

and endangered species, nesting birds, and 

pinnipeds on those islands.

In several areas no use limits have been set for 

backcountry day or overnight use, including 

Smugglers Cove and the interiors of Santa 

Cruz and Santa Rosa islands. Use limits have 

not been necessary in these areas due to the 

very few visitors who access these areas. 

However, it is possible that use levels on the 

islands could increase in the future or use 

patterns could change due to several causes:

• More private boaters could visit the 

islands, attracted by new developments or 

recreational opportunities.

• Concessioners could seek to bring more 

visitors to islands where the use limits 

have not been reached; improvements in 

boat technology may enable concessioners 

to bring more people to the more remote 

islands.

• A future parkwide backcountry 

management plan could call for increased 

opportunities for dispersed use on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, which in 

turn could increase the number of people 

who visit the islands.

In this regard it is important for the park staff 

to increase monitoring of visitor use levels at 

the primary points of disembarkation on the 

islands, and on areas in proximity to these 

points, to determine how much overall use is 

occurring in the park.

In addition to monitoring and managing use 

levels, key resources that are sensitive to 

changes in visitor use would be regularly 

monitored to ensure that unacceptable 

changes are not occurring and to indicate if 

and where management action is required to 

address problems. These indicators would be 

developed and implemented as part of a 

monitoring and management program to track 

attainment and maintenance of desired 

conditions in each zone. Standards that define 

minimum acceptable conditions would be set 

for each indicator. Examples of indicators that 

may be monitored include the following:

• presence of social trails (where people go 

ashore or in the interior of the islands), 

either width of trails or number of trails

• disturbance of tidepools (number and 

diversity of organisms)

• increase in law enforcement violations 

(e.g., disturbing seabirds and pinnipeds, 

fishing in closed waters, camping and 

landing on prohibited beaches)

• damage to the sea bottom caused by boats 

anchoring
User Capacity

43

• congestion at docks, loading and 

unloading (e.g., wait times and 

complaints)

• wait times at restrooms

• visitor complaints regarding crowding or 

resource conditions

• documentation that visitor use levels are 

exceeding the set use limits

Park staff would use the information from the 

monitoring program to adjust visitor use 

management actions. Park staff would take 

management actions if resource conditions or 

visitor experiences are out of standard or if 

monitoring indicates a downward trend in 

conditions. Management actions could range 

from:

• providing information about low impact 

recreational use and the principles of 

Leave No Trace 

• directing visitors to lesser-used areas or 

off-peak times

• adding or altering facilities (e.g., trails and 

campsites) for containment of use to 

designated areas

• requiring all visitors to have permits to go 

on the islands

• regulating the types of recreation activities 

permitted, reducing current use limits, or 

setting new use restrictions for areas with 

no limits

Park managers generally would implement 

the least intrusive actions first and evaluate 

their effectiveness before taking more 

restrictive actions. Restrictions on visitor use 

would be based on a determination by the 

park superintendent that such measures were 

consistent with the park’s enabling legislation 

and were necessary either to prevent the 

degradation of the purposes and significance 

of the park or to minimize visitor use 

conflicts. 

With limited staffs and budgets, NPS 

managers would focus monitoring efforts 

more frequently on areas where there are 

likely visitor use changes and/or clear 

evidence of problems, or where problems can 

reasonably be anticipated during the life of 

this plan. This means monitoring would more 

frequently take place where conditions are 

changing rapidly, specific and important 

values are threatened by visitation, and/or the 

effects of management actions taken to 

address impacts are uncertain.

If there was a need to change the use limits 

(see Table 16) to establish new use limits in 

areas that do not currently have limits or to 

adopt other visitor restrictions, supplemental 

environmental compliance and a public 

involvement process would be conducted 

before establishing the new island use limits.
44 

COMMERCIAL SERVICES

National park system units are special places, 

saved by the American people so that all may 

experience the country’s natural and cultural 

heritage. The national parks movement of the 

mid-19th century was fueled by a 

determination to save beautiful and historic 

places in America, in part to keep them from 

being “populated” with hotels, curio shops, 

and amusements. Overcommercialization and 

development can spoil the very character of 

the places visitors come to see. Yet some kinds 

of commercial activities are appropriate and 

may be necessary in national park system 

units. They help visitors enjoy natural and 

cultural wonders to which they might not 

otherwise have access. Often commercial 

providers help protect park resources.

All commercial activities that occur within 

lands administered by the Park Service must 

be authorized by a permit, contract, or other 

written agreement (36 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 5.3). Commercial activities 

may be authorized through a range of legal 

authorities using a variety of legal instruments, 

depending upon the type and location of the 

activity involved. The Park Service must 

determine what types and levels of 

commercial activities are permissible under 

applicable laws and regulations. At a 

minimum, all commercial activities must 

operate in a manner that is consistent with the 

mission of the park and should provide highquality visitor experiences while protecting 

important natural, cultural, and scenic 

resources. Other requirements may also apply. 

For example, the NPS Concessions 

Management and Improvement Act of 1998 

(1998 Concessions Act) limits the 

development of concession services to those 

that are necessary and appropriate for public 

use and enjoyment of the park system unit and 

that are consistent to the highest practicable 

degree with the preservation and conservation 

of the resources and values of the unit. 

The NPS Organic Act of 1916 that established 

the National Park Service and the 1998 

Concessions Act emphasize conservation and 

preservation of park resources, while allowing 

for their use and enjoyment by means that 

leave them unimpaired for future generations. 

The 1998 Concessions Act mandates the use 

of concession contracts for authorizing any 

visitor services except as may otherwise be 

authorized by law (such as through a 

commercial use authorization if applicable). 

That act further places significant limitations 

on the types and kinds of public 

accommodations, facilities, and services that 

may be authorized by concession contracts. 

Such public accommodations, facilities, and 

services must be “necessary and appropriate 

for public use and enjoyment” of the unit in 

which it is located and must be “consistent to 

the highest practicable degree with the 

preservation and conservation of the 

resources and values of the unit” (16 USC 

5951).

Depending on the analysis of commercial 

activities, different types of authorizations 

may be issued by the Park Service. If an 

activity is found to be appropriate, but not 

necessary, then a commercial use 

authorization may be issued. If an activity is 

found to be necessary and appropriate, then a 

concession contract may be issued.

The NPS Organic Act, the purpose and 

significance of the park, and this general 

management plan together form the basis for 

determining if commercial services are 

necessary and/or appropriate for Channel 

Islands National Park. The criteria in Table 2 

would be used to evaluate existing and 

potential future commercial activities at the 

park to determine if these activities are 

necessary and/or appropriate.

Based on the criteria in Table 2, the following 

types of commercial services operations could 
Commercial Services

45

be considered appropriate at Channel Islands 

National Park:

• kayaking instruction and guide services

• outfitting services (including kayaking and 

snorkeling rentals)

• vessel-supported whale watching, 

sightseeing, research, and education 

services

• sailing tour services

• environmental education and instruction 

guide services

• guided hiking and camping

The following types of commercial service 

operations could be considered necessary and 

appropriate for the park:

• visitor convenience merchandise

• boat transportation

• air transportation

• water-based recreation services

• lodging and food services

Over the life of this plan, additional activities 

may be considered and would be evaluated 

using the necessary and appropriate criteria. 

Some activities are illegal within the park and, 

therefore, would not be considered either 

necessary or appropriate activities. These 

illegal activities would not be eligible for any 

type of commercial visitor use agreement with 

the Park Service.

TABLE 2. COMMERCIAL SERVICES EVALUATION CRITERIA

Necessary Appropriate

A service that is necessary accomplishes one or 

more of the following:

A service that is appropriate accomplishes all of the 

following:

1. The service contributes to visitor understanding 

and appreciation of park purpose and 

significance.

2. The service enhances visitor experiences 

consistent with park area philosophies.

3. The service assists the park in managing visitor 

use and educating park visitors.

4. The service is an essential service or facility not 

available within a reasonable distance from the 

park.

1. The service is consistent with the purpose and 

significance of Channel Islands National Park.

2. The service is consistent with laws, regulations, and 

policies.

3. The service does not compromise public health and 

safety. 

4. The service does not significantly impact or impair 

park resources or values.

5. The service does not unduly conflict with other park 

uses and activities.

6. The service does not exclude the public from 

participating in limited recreational opportunities.
46 

WILDERNESS STUDY AND PROPOSAL

WILDERNESS ELIGIBILITY

The first step in a wilderness study is 

typically to identify wilderness-eligible 

lands, or lands that possess wilderness 

character. NPS Management Policies

(section 6.2.1.1) direct that: 

NPS lands would be considered 

suitable for wilderness if they are 

at least 5,000 acres, or of sufficient 

size to make practicable their 

preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition, and if they 

possess the following 

characteristics (as identified in 

§ 2(c) of the Wilderness Act): 

• The earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by humans, where humans 

are visitors and do not remain; 

• The area is undeveloped and retains its 

primeval character and influence, without 

permanent improvements or human 

habitation; 

• The area generally appears to have been 

affected primarily by the forces of nature, 

with the imprint of humans’ work 

substantially unnoticeable; 

• The area is protected and managed so as 

to preserve its natural conditions; and 

• The area offers outstanding opportunities 

for solitude or a primitive and unconfined 

type of recreation. 

The Channel Islands National Park 

planning team has determined that 

significant portions of Channel Islands 

National Park are eligible to be 

considered for wilderness designation. 

Although several of the islands would 

include less than 5,000 acres of 

proposed wilderness, these separate 

islands are surrounded by protected 

ocean waters and meet the definition 

of “sufficient size.”

Areas determined to not be eligible for 

wilderness failed to meet the 

Wilderness Act and NPS eligibility

criteria: they were developed areas 

with permanent improvements, had 

actively maintained and used roads, or 

were not under sole NPS ownership.

Although TNC lands on Santa Cruz 

Island may have wilderness character 

qualities, wilderness eligibility, 

proposals, and designations only apply 

to federal lands.

Based on the above Wilderness Act 

2(c) criteria, the following lands were 

determined to be either eligible or not 

eligible for wilderness designation (all 

acreage figures are approximate):

Santa Barbara Island

• Lands Eligible for Wilderness: 639 acres 

or more than 99% of the island. Most of 

Santa Barbara Island is undeveloped, with 

few signs of people. It generally appears 

affected primarily by natural forces. There 

are outstanding opportunities for solitude 

or primitive recreation. The island has a 

diversity of habitats, including steep cliffs, 

canyons, and badlands, and is a haven for 

sea birds, including one of the world’s 

largest colonies of Scripp’s murrelets. The 

rocky shores also provide resting and 

breeding areas for California sea lions, and 

elephant and harbor seals.

• Lands Not Eligible for Wilderness: 

Approximately 4 acres (includes, but is not 

restricted to, two Coast Guard sites and 

the current NPS developed area).

East Anacapa Island

• Lands Eligible for Wilderness: None.

• Lands Not Eligible for Wilderness: All of 

East Anacapa: 117 acres (much of the islet 

is a NPS developed area).
Wilderness Study and Proposal

47

Middle Anacapa Island

• Lands Eligible for Wilderness: 160 acres, 

the entire islet. This area is undeveloped 

and appears to be affected primarily by the 

forces of nature. There are few signs of 

people. The islet has outstanding 

opportunities for solitude. Sea bird 

roosting and nesting sites and pinniped 

haul-out and rookery sites are present.

• Lands Not Eligible for Wilderness: 

None.

West Anacapa Island

• Lands Eligible for Wilderness: 460 acres, 

the entire islet. This area also is 

undeveloped, and appears to be affected 

primarily by the forces of nature. Few 

people use this islet, which is mostly 

closed to public access to protect sensitive 

resources. The islet supports the largest 

breeding colony of the endangered 

California brown pelican in the U.S. Along 

with the other two islets, West Anacapa 

supports the largest breeding colony of 

western gulls in the world. The islet also 

provides resting and breeding areas for 

California sea lions and harbor seals.

• Lands Not Eligible for Wilderness: 

None.

Santa Rosa Island

• Lands Eligible for Wilderness: 50,901

acres or 99% of the island. Much of Santa 

Rosa is undeveloped. Although heavily 

grazed by livestock beginning in the 1850s, 

and later browsed by introduced deer and 

elk, the island is primarily affected by 

natural forces. Few signs of people are 

evident on most of the island. There are 

many opportunities for outstanding 

solitude and primitive recreation. The 

island supports several rare plants, some 

of which are found nowhere else in the 

world. It also is home to the endangered 

and endemic island fox. The sandy 

beaches and cliffs are breeding and resting 

areas for sea birds, seals, and sea lions. 

Archeological and paleontological sites 

are abundant on the island, including the 

site of the world’s most complete pygmy 

mammoth skeleton, which was excavated 

in 1994.

• Lands Not Eligible for Wilderness: 

Approximately 300 acres including, but 

not restricted to, the Bechers Bay 

developed area, NPS housing and 

maintenance areas, a public campground, 

a Coast Guard site, the Johnson’s Lee area, 

and several unimproved roads. The 

unimproved roads are used by park staff 

and researchers to facilitate management. 

At a minimum (they vary slightly by 

alternative), the following roads would be 

maintained and thus would not be eligible 

for wilderness: Main Road, Old Ranch 

Road, Upper Torrey Pines, Quemada 

Canyon, South Road, Johnson’s Lee, 

Piedragosa Road, Lighthouse Road, China 

Camp (Rita’s) Road, Burma Road, Sandy 

Point, Tecolote Canyon, Soledad Beach, 

Smith’s Highway, and Carrington Point 

Road. 

Santa Cruz Island

• Lands Eligible for Wilderness: 14,476

acres or 23% of the island (or 97% of NPS 

lands, covering most of the isthmus and 

eastern end of the island). Most of Santa 

Cruz Island is undeveloped and generally 

appears to be affected primarily by the 

forces of nature. There are many 

opportunities for outstanding solitude and 

primitive recreation. The island is very 

scenic, with mountain ranges, deep 

canyons, craggy coastline cliffs, one of the 

largest and deepest sea caves in the world, 

pristine tidepools, and expansive beaches. 

The island supports a very diverse biotic 

community, including nine federally listed 

plant species, large colonies of nesting sea 

birds, and breeding harbor seals and 

California sea lions. In addition, the island 

has a rich cultural history, with many 

archeological resources.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

48

• Lands Not Eligible for Wilderness: 

Approximately 47,500 acres including, but 

not restricted to, TNC lands and 

easements (e.g., the Navy Road), the 

Scorpion developed area, the Smugglers 

Ranch area, Smugglers Road, Scorpion 

Canyon Road, Service Road, the historic 

Rancho Del Norte area and Del Norte 

Road, Chinese Harbor Road, and the 

Prisoners Harbor developed area.

San Miguel Island, including Prince Island

• Lands Eligible for Wilderness: None, 

unless ownership transferred to the Park 

Service.

• Lands Not Eligible for Wilderness: 9,376 

acres (San Miguel Island under the 

ownership of the U.S. Navy); 35 acres 

(Prince Island under the ownership of the 

U.S. Navy).

Small Islets, Islands, and Rocks (Excluding 

Prince Island)

• Lands Eligible for Wilderness: 39 acres. 

Many of these small rocks and islets are 

offshore of the main islands, within the 

park boundary. They are all undeveloped 

and are affected primarily by the forces of 

nature. All of these areas are closed to 

public access to protect wildlife. They are 

important breeding and resting areas for 

sea birds and sea mammals.

• Lands Not Eligible for Wilderness: 

None.

Marine Waters within the Park Boundary

• Waters Eligible for Wilderness: None 

(multijurisdictional and complex 

ownership issues).

The total area of the park eligible for 

wilderness designation comprises 

approximately 66,675 acres, or 53% of the 

total lands within the park boundary 

(approximately 125,000 acres). 

PUBLIC COMMENTS 

ON WILDERNESS

After a Federal Register notice was published 

on April 8, 2009 regarding the intent of the 

Park Service to prepare a wilderness study for 

Channel Islands National Park, informational 

meetings were held at the park’s mainland 

visitor center (June 17, 2009) and at Santa 

Barbara (June 18, 2009). Two written 

comments were received during the comment 

period. One commenter was supportive of the 

designation of wilderness. The other 

questioned the need to study wilderness, 

noting that the park was already managed as 

de facto wilderness, and expressed concerns 

about the cost of the study. 

OPTIONS ANALYZED IN 

THIS WILDERNESS STUDY 

This wilderness study examines whether, and 

if so, where, wilderness should be designated

within the above eligible lands, given the best 

available current information about 

wilderness character, public input, and 

practical considerations. 

The planning team developed one wilderness 

proposal in the wilderness study (aside from 

the no action alternative). All lands eligible for 

wilderness on each island were combined into 

a wilderness proposal that would be 

consistent with the park’s purpose and 

significance and meet park goals (see chapter 

1). The same wilderness proposal is included 

in both of the action alternatives that follow in 

this chapter. Alternative wilderness proposals 

were not identified for Channel Islands 

National Park because of the congressional 

purpose of and special mandates for this park, 

the emphasis in the alternatives on protecting 

sensitive resources throughout the park’s 

islands, and the need for few or no new 

facilities on most of the undeveloped lands in 

the alternatives. 

Because there are many misperceptions about 

wilderness, it is important to understand what 
Wilderness Study and Proposal

49

wilderness designation for portions of 

Channel Islands National Park would mean. 

Information about what is and what is not 

allowed in wilderness is included in 

appendix C. Table 18 at the end of this 

chapter contains a summary of the wilderness 

study.
50 

ALTERNATIVE 1 — PARKWIDE

CONCEPT

This alternative provides a baseline for 

evaluating changes and impacts in the other 

alternatives. Under alternative 1 the Park 

Service would continue to manage Channel 

Islands National Park as it has under the 1985 

General Management Plan Supplement, the 

1980 General Management Plan, and the 1995 

Development Concept Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement, Santa Rosa Island. For the 

foreseeable future there would be no major 

change in the management direction of the 

islands. All facilities, resource programs, and 

visitor use opportunities would continue to 

proceed as they are. None of the park would 

be proposed for wilderness designation.

Resource stewardship would continue to be 

an overriding consideration in all activities. 

The natural resource program would continue 

to focus on restoring species and ecosystems, 

inventorying and monitoring, protecting and 

preserving resources, mitigating impacts, and 

conducting research efforts. The cultural 

resource program would continue to focus on 

research, resource monitoring, the protection 

of archeological resources, the preservation of 

historic structures (including associated 

archeological resources) and cultural 

landscapes, and curation of the park’s 

museum collection. The Park Service would 

continue to foster partnerships with The 

Nature Conservancy, the sanctuary, the state 

of California, the military, and other resource 

agencies and organizations, primarily for 

resource stewardship, interpretive, 

educational, and administrative purposes. 

The National Park Service would continue to 

maintain opportunities for visitors to access 

all of the islands. Transportation methods to 

the islands would continue as they are, and the 

roads on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands 

would continue to be used and maintained for 

administrative purposes. Efforts to encourage 

visitors to come to the islands and to assist 

visitors on the islands would continue. The 

park’s outreach through interpretive and 

education programs would continue including 

distance learning opportunities for schools 

and the public in mainland communities. The 

management of concessions and commercial 

use authorizations would continue as is.

Identified below are general actions called for 

under this alternative. Island-specific actions 

are identified later in this section.

NATURAL RESOURCES

The management of natural resources would 

continue as at present, with the desired 

conditions as stated in appendix B. 

Terrestrial Ecosystems/

Ecological Restoration

The conservation of biological diversity would 

continue to be a core value in carrying out the 

preservation of Channel Islands National 

Park.

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized. The park 

staff would continue to eradicate, where 

feasible, nonnative flora and fauna from the 

islands. The park’s highest priority would be 

managing those species that are highly 

invasive or have unacceptable ecological 

impacts. Additionally, some nonnative plants 

contribute to cultural landscapes. Within the 

cultural landscapes, the management of 

nonnative plants would be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis. Actions would continue to 

be taken to control invasive nonnative plants 

that can have severe ecological impacts and 

may not be significant cultural resources. 
Alternative 1 — Parkwide

51

Floodplains and Wetlands

No new permanent facilities would be built in 

the 100-year floodplains.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Under this alternative, historically significant 

sites, structures, and landscape features would 

be protected and preserved. Archeological 

resources, ethnographic resources, and 

museum collections would continue to be 

protected through ongoing preservation and 

monitoring programs.

Nonnative plants within cultural landscapes 

would continue to be considered for removal 

on a case-by-case basis to limit the spread of 

these plants into areas of native vegetation and 

to reduce safety hazards.

Cultural Landscape Resources

A cultural landscape is characterized both by 

physical materials, such as roads, buildings, 

walls, and vegetation, and by use reflecting 

cultural values and traditions. Under this 

alternative, significant landscape patterns and 

features would continue to be preserved. 

Patterns of land use would continue to remain 

as they are today, within the existing 

configuration of historic developed areas and 

circulation systems. Structures, spatial 

organization, cluster arrangements, and other 

historic landscape features and characteristics 

in the historic developed areas would 

continue to be maintained and rehabilitated.

Archeological Resources

Archeological resources would continue to be 

protected and preserved in situ to the greatest 

extent possible. Protection and management 

of archeological resources would be informed 

by an Archeological Overview and Assessment 

(Braje et al. 2010). Identification and 

recording of archeological resources would 

continue. Research, resource monitoring, 

stabilization, and impact mitigation would 

continue as funding allows.

Ethnographic Resources

Through existing agreements and ongoing 

consultation with federally recognized tribes, 

lineal descendants from the islands, and other 

Native American groups, access to and use of 

special resources in Channel Islands National 

Park would continue. Access would continue 

for Chumash participants in traditional and 

ceremonial activities. When burials are 

discovered, provisions outlined in the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act and its implementing regulations would 

continue to be followed. Other important 

areas, such as gathering locations, village sites, 

and areas of spiritual or traditional 

importance, would continue to be protected 

as much as possible.

Museum Collection (including 

Archives and Research Library)

The museum collection, archives, and 

research library would continue to be 

catalogued and maintained in various 

cooperating facilities. Most of the park’s 

museum collection would continue to be 

housed in the Santa Barbara Museum of 

Natural History and the Santa Barbara Botanic 

Garden. Several objects are on exhibit in

visitor centers at the Anacapa and Santa Cruz 

islands and at several local museums.

MANAGEMENT ZONING

Management zoning is used by the Park 

Service to prescribe areas where certain 

desired conditions are to be achieved and 

where certain uses might be provided. The 

current management zones, in the 1980 

General Management Plan, are based on 

composite resource sensitivity maps that show 

cultural resources, vegetation distribution, 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

52

wildlife habitat, geological and paleontological 

features, scenic areas, and existing facilities. 

Four primary zones — natural, historic, 

development, and special use — with 

subzones were established. This zoning would 

continue under this alternative. Please refer to 

the 1980 General Management Plan for full 

zone descriptions and maps.

WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

No lands in the park would be proposed for 

wilderness designation under alternative 1.

VISITOR ACCESS

Air Transportation

Public air transportation for day use and 

overnight visitors would continue to be 

available year-round only to Santa Rosa Island 

(Bechers Bay) via a park concessioner. The 

airstrip would continue to be maintained. 

Private aircraft would continue to not be 

permitted to land within park boundaries.

Public Boat Transportation

Public boat transportation for day use and 

multiday visitors would continue to be 

available year-round to all five of the park 

islands by a park concessioner. The park 

would maintain a pier or dock facility at each 

of the current locations except San Miguel, 

where no pier or dock facility will be 

provided. Existing piers and docks would 

continue to be maintained. The points of 

departure would continue to be at Channel 

Islands (Oxnard) Harbor and Ventura 

Harbor. Other harbors may be considered in 

the future.

Private Boat Transportation

Private boaters would continue to access any 

of the five NPS-managed islands/lands 

without permits. Landing permits would 

continue to be required for the western 76% 

of Santa Cruz Island (TNC lands). Landings 

would continue to not be permitted on rocks, 

islets, or at sea caves on or near any of the 

islands. All landing beaches would continue to 

be subject to seasonal closures. 

Specific landing information is given for each 

of the islands later in this section.

On-Island Vehicle 

Transportation and Horse Use

Most destinations on each of the islands 

would continue to be accessible by foot within 

a few minutes to a few hours. The Park Service 

would continue to provide limited ground 

transportation for visitors to the Torrey Pines 

and Lobo Canyon on Santa Rosa Island. No 

other public vehicular transportation would 

be provided on any of the islands.

Horse use would continue to not be permitted 

on any of the NPS-managed portions of the 

islands. 

VISITOR USES, OVERNIGHT 

ACCOMMODATIONS, AND

USER CAPACITY

A variety of visitor uses would continue to be 

permitted on the islands. Opportunities for 

hiking, overnight camping, swimming, 

snorkeling, diving, kayaking, scenery and 

wildlife viewing, and other activities would 

continue to be available on each of the islands. 

All island uses also would be subject to 

periodic closures to protect wildlife.

OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS 

Reservations would continue to be required 

for all frontcountry camping, and permits 

would continue to be required for 

backcountry camping.
Alternative 1 — Parkwide

53

Frontcountry camping would continue to be 

available year-round within established 

campgrounds on all five park islands. The 

capacity for each island campground is as 

follows:

Anacapa Island – 30 campers

Santa Cruz Island – 240 campers

Santa Rosa Island – 75 campers

San Miguel Island – 30 campers

Santa Barbara Island – 30 campers

Camping conditions would continue to be 

primitive. Picnic tables would continue to be 

provided at each campsite. Drinking water 

would continue to be provided only on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands; there would 

continue to be no potable water on Anacapa, 

San Miguel, or Santa Barbara island. All 

camping supplies must be hand carried from 

the dock/beach to the campground and back. 

There would continue to be no trash 

receptacles on any of the islands, requiring 

that all personal trash items be removed from 

the islands by visitors. With the exception of 

the Santa Rosa Island campground, which has 

flush toilets, pit toilets would continue to be 

available at each of the campgrounds. 

Backcountry beach camping would continue 

on Santa Rosa Island, and limited backcountry 

camping would continue to be available on 

Santa Cruz Island (see the later discussions on 

these two islands for more details).

There would continue to be no lodging 

facilities on any of the five islands in the park.

User Capacity

Under the no action alternative the existing 

limits on day and overnight use would 

continue. Table 16 near the end of this chapter 

shows the day and overnight visitor use limits 

that have been set in Channel Islands National 

Park. No changes would occur to these use 

limits, and no new use limits would be set in 

the park under this alternative.

VISITOR USES, ACCESS, 

FACILITIES, AND SERVICES

Orientation and NPS interpretive and 

educational services would continue at 

current levels.

The mainland visitor center and island 

interpretive facilities and services would 

continue to provide a broad-spectrum, 

multicultural education program about the 

natural and cultural resources preserved 

within Channel Islands National Park. All 

education programs are aligned to the 

curriculum content standards of the state of 

California. Interpretive and education 

programs would continue to be offered on a 

diversity of topics to a wide array of visitor 

and student groups. By using the most up-todate remote broadcast communications and 

technology, many of the island and ocean 

resources would continue to be available via 

distant learning opportunities to students and 

the public to experience on the mainland. 

Formal education opportunities and programs 

would continue at the mainland visitor center, 

through the Parks as Classroom program at 

schools throughout Ventura and Santa 

Barbara counties, and nationwide via the 

Internet and videoconferencing as part of 

Channel Islands Live. Additional standardsbased education programs would continue to 

be provided by the park concessioner on their 

vessels and on the park islands. 

Mainland Facilities and 

Interpretive Services

Making the park relevant to a growing and 

diverse neighboring population and visiting 

public is essential. The park 

headquarters/visitor center would remain 

within Ventura Harbor and serve as the 

primary location for the dissemination of park 

information, and interpretive and educational 

opportunities to connect the park to the 

people. This would continue to be 

accomplished by providing opportunities for 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

54

visitors to indirectly experience and learn 

about the park resources on the mainland.

Under alternative 1 the Park Service would 

continue to maintain a visitor contact station 

in Santa Barbara.

On-Island Interpretive Services

Interpretive and educational services 

provided on the islands would continue at 

present levels provided by NPS personnel and 

volunteers. 

Interpretive programs on the islands would 

continue to give visitors the opportunity to 

experience the islands in their remote natural 

settings. Personal interpretive services would 

be provided by a combination of park staff 

and volunteer interpreters on the islands, as 

well as on concessioner boats traveling to or 

near the islands. Park interpretive staff would 

continue to train concession and volunteer 

personnel to serve as interpreters, 

encouraging charter companies to furnish 

trained personnel on each of their trips. 

Interpretation would address visitors’ 

interests and key interpretive themes and 

would include ecosystem management and 

the fragile interrelationship of all park 

resources. Visitor appreciation of park 

resources would continue to be enhanced 

through nonpersonal interpretive services 

including wayside exhibits, websites, 

webcams, publications, and other educational 

media. 

The existing exhibit areas on East Anacapa, 

Santa Barbara, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and 

San Miguel islands would be maintained. 

Interpretative programs and media would 

continue to foster an understanding of the 

natural and cultural resources of the islands 

and marine environment. Evening programs 

would continue to be given on all of the 

islands as staffing permits. 

To build upon the idea of making the park 

more relevant to a growing and diverse 

neighboring population and visiting public, 

the Channel Islands Live program would 

continue with underwater and terrestrial 

programs provided in the summer season into 

the academic year. The remote broadcasting 

via the Internet, microwave, and 

videoconferencing services of Channel Islands 

Live would be extended to include more 

regular broadcasts from other park islands in 

addition to Anacapa Island. 

COMMERCIAL SERVICES

Based on a commercial services feasibility 

analysis, Table 3 lists the commercial services 

that would continue to be provided under 

alternative 1 for visitors on Anacapa, Santa 

Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel islands. 

TABLE 3. CONTINUING COMMERCIAL SERVICES FOR VISITORS IN CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE 1 

Area Service

Anacapa Island ferry access to East and West Anacapa islands, and to water-based activities off 

of Middle Anacapa Island

East Santa Cruz Island –

Scorpion Valley 

ferry access to Scorpion Valley

East Santa Cruz Island –

Prisoners Harbor 

ferry access to Prisoners Harbor

Santa Rosa Island ferry access to Bechers Bay

airplane access to Bechers Bay

San Miguel Island none
Alternative 1 — Parkwide

55

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

Channel Islands National Park headquarters 

operations and three (leased) auxiliary office 

buildings would remain in the Ventura 

Harbor area with no proposed changes. A 

base for island operations would continue on 

each of the islands. The existing employee

housing would also remain.

Mainland Operations

No changes would occur in existing mainland 

operations under alternative 1.

Park Roads (Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz)

No change would occur in the maintenance of 

the existing roads on Santa Cruz Island. Roads 

on Santa Rosa Island would continue to be 

removed on a case-by-case basis. The park 

staff would continue to maintain roads at 

current minimum standards. 

Research/Education Facility

No new research or education facilities would 

be provided under alternative 1.

Other Infrastructure and Facilities

Under alternative 1, the Park Service would 

continue to maintain the existing 

infrastructure and facilities on the mainland 

and islands. Table 4 lists the current park 

facilities and infrastructure that would 

continue to be maintained. On all of the 

islands there would continue to be visitor 

facilities and administrative facilities for onsite protection, resource management, and 

park maintenance. Park rangers and 

volunteers would continue to provide visitor 

services on all of the islands. 

TABLE 4. EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES IN CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK

Area Facilities and Infrastructure

Mainland Robert J. Lagomarsino Visitor Center and administrative office complex

General Services Administration-leased office facilities in Ventura Harbor (3)

visitor contact station at the Santa Barbara Harbor

Santa Barbara 

Island

combination visitor contact station/bunkhouse/one-bedroom housing unit

nursery

generator building, water system, bathrooms

9-site 30-camper campground

dock*

6 miles of trails

Anacapa Island dock*

dock building

derrick crane and crane building

water tank building

oil storage building

lighthouse

fog signal building

generator building and maintenance shop (with an efficiency apartment)

assistant lightkeeper’s house (serves as a single-family residence)

storage building (which houses a bunkhouse, storage, and a visitor contact station)

2 miles of hiking trails

four vault toilets

two photovoltaic systems generating a total of 9.6kW and two backup generators, 

two 50,000-gallon historic redwood water tanks, septic system with 

evapotranspiration disposal field

7-site 30-camper campground
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

56

Area Facilities and Infrastructure

East Santa Cruz 

Island – Scorpion 

Valley and 

Smugglers Cove

31-site 240-camper campground

two 1880s historic ranch houses

historic bunkhouse in the valley

ranch outbuildings

visitor contact center and orientation station in historic ranch house

park housing consists of six temporary housing units, a bathhouse, and a community 

kitchen/dining area (Scorpion)

temporary maintenance facilities (in the Scorpion housing area)

pier (Scorpion)*

five public comfort stations 

three photovoltaic systems generating a total of 7.6kW, one backup generator, two 

water wells, three water tanks with 10,000-gallon capacity total, two septic system 

with leach fields, two septic tanks

East Santa Cruz 

Island – Prisoners 

Harbor and Rancho 

Del Norte

2,400-square-foot historic masonry warehouse

374-foot timber pile pier

vault toilet

Historic Rancho Del Norte ranch house (used occasionally for employee housing)

4-site 16-camper primitive backcountry campground near Rancho Del Norte

20,000-gallon water tank fed by a U.S. Navy well

Santa Cruz Island 20.2 miles of roads also used as hiking trails (includes the 10.6-mile TNC easement 

road)

Santa Rosa Island 15-site 75-camper campground

flush toilets at campground and ranch

historic ranch at Bechers Bay (includes 18 historic structures)

139 miles of roads also used as hiking trails

pier*

2,250-foot administrative dirt airstrip

maintenance facility

two garages

four 2-bedroom duplexes

three 1-bedroom apartments

one photovoltaic system generating 12.5kW, two 45kW generators, two wind 

turbines generating a total of 20kW, two water wells, two 57,000-gallon water 

tanks, four 6,000-gallon tanks, three septic leach fields

San Miguel Island 9-site 30-camper campground

14 miles of hiking trails

combination ranger station/residences/bunkhouse

research station

two dirt administrative airstrips

one water well

vault toilets *

Current EIS planning process (see page 449).

Park Staffing

Under alternative 1 park operations would 

continue as they have in the past. Park 

headquarters, which oversees park 

operations, would continue to be in Ventura. 

The park staff would continue to be 

operationally organized into seven divisions, 

each with a functional area of responsibility:

• Facility Management Division — 

Responsible for buildings, grounds, roads, 

trails, docks, piers, airstrips, utilities 

equipment maintenance, crane operation, 

and construction project management. 

Staff are stationed on three of the 

primarily visited islands. 
Alternative 1 — Parkwide

57

• Visitor and Resource Protection 

Division — Responsible for resource 

protection, law enforcement, public 

safety, visitor use management and 

emergency services, structural and 

wilderness fire management, campground 

management, concessions management, 

and special use permits. Staff are primarily 

stationed on park islands or conduct 

marine patrols from park headquarters.

• Division of Natural Resource 

Management — Responsible for all 

natural resource management and 

research. Staff are primarily located at 

park headquarters.

• Division of Interpretation and 

Education — Responsible for public 

affairs, public information,

communication, information/orientation 

services, community outreach, education, 

interpretive services, and visitor center 

and field operations. Staff are primarily 

based at park headquarters.

• Division of Cultural Resources 

Management — Responsible for research, 

preservation, and management of 

archeological resources, historic 

structures, cultural landscapes, museum 

collections, and historic preservation 

compliance. Staff are primarily based at 

park headquarters.

 

• Division of Administration — 

Responsible for personnel, property and 

procurement, and fiscal management. 

Staff are primarily based at park 

headquarters.

• Division of Transportation — 

Responsible for parkwide dispatch, 

contract aircraft scheduling, housing 

reservations, marine operations and 

scheduling, and safety. Staff are primarily 

based at park headquarters.

Staff expertise and specialties would continue 

to be distributed throughout the divisions 

using position management planning. 

Table 5 shows the current park staffing levels 

as of October 2010. 

TABLE 5. PERMANENT PARK STAFFING LEVELS (IN FTES), 2010

Title Number of FTEs Staff Levels

Superintendent 1 park manager (1)

Administration 6 HR specialist (1)

IT specialist (1)

contract specialist (1)

budget analyst (1)

fiscal assistant (1)

administrative specialist (1)

Interpretation 10 supervisory park ranger – chief (1)

supervisory park ranger – vc (1)

interpretive park rangers – interpretive (5) 

(one of which is also the dive officer) 

volunteer coordinator assistant (1)

education coordinator (1)

biological science technician (1)

Visitor and Resource 

Protection

10 supervisory park ranger — chief ranger (1)

supervisory park rangers (2)

park rangers – law enforcement (4)

park rangers – marine law enforcement (2)

budget and financial support assistant (1)
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

58

Title Number of FTEs Staff Levels

Natural Resources 12 supervisory resource management specialist (1)

supervisory natural resource managers (2)

natural resource manager (1)

wildlife biologist (1)

ecologists (2)

botanist (1)

biologists (2)

biological science technician (1)

administrative support assistant (1)

Maintenance 11 facility manager (1)

crane operator supervisors (2)

crane operators (3)

maintenance mechanics (2)

maintenance workers (2)

administrative support assistant (1)

Transportation 5 supervisory small craft operator (1)

small craft operators (3)

deckhand (1)

Cultural Resources 3.5 chief of cultural resources (1)

archeologist (0.5) 

exhibit specialist (1) (network position)

preservation specialists (1) (network position)

TOTAL 58.5

Terms: 12

Seasonals: 13.5

COSTS

Funding for NPS operations (appropriated 

and nonappropriated) for Channel Islands 

National Park in 2010 was $11,944,601. Table 6

presents the budget for Channel Islands 

National Park. There would be no change to 

staffing or funding levels under this 

alternative.

TABLE 6. CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK OPERATIONAL COSTS, FISCAL YEAR 2010

Appropriated Nonappropriated Total

Functional Areas and Programs Base Nonbase Reimbursable Revenue Funds

Natural Resources Management 

Subtotal $2,164,076 $154,500 $1,127,664 $74,535 $3,520,775 

Facility Operations/Maintenance

Subtotal $1,181,139 $475,467 $22,476 $49,637 $1,728,719

Visitor Protection

Subtotal $1,104,319 $80,918 $1,333,090 $2,518,327

Management and 

Administration

Subtotal $1,047,152 $1,944 $41,216 $1,090,312

Interpretation

Subtotal $917,770 $526,683 $163,437 $1,607,890

Transportation – Logistical 

Support

Subtotal $583,292 $59,800 $40,000 $683,092

Cultural Resources Management

Subtotal $581,252 $188,000 $26,234 $795,486

Grand Total $7,579,000 $1,487,312 $1,231,356 $1,646,933 $11,944,601
 59

ALTERNATIVE 1 — THE MAINLAND

There would be no changes in park facilities, 

operations, or visitor experiences under 

alternative 1. The mainland visitor center 

would continue to provide exhibits and 

programs, and on-site education programs to 

school groups, including higher education. 

The Santa Barbara visitor contact station also 

would continue to operate as it currently does. 
0 50 100 Feet

North

n

ni p

S

D

r 

ake

e riv

and Visitor Ce

Headquarters

National Park 

Channel Island

Harbor Cove Beach

D

Operations and Mainte

Pacific Ocean

Park Headqua

DSC September 2013

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

Channel Islands National Park

Map

2

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN
 61

ALTERNATIVE 1 — ANACAPA ISLAND 

NATURAL RESOURCES

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized. Park staff 

would continue to eradicate, where feasible, 

nonnative flora and fauna from the islands. 

The NPS’s highest priority would be 

managing those species that are highly 

invasive or have unacceptable ecological 

impacts.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Historic structures and associated 

archeological resources in the Anacapa Island 

Light Station Historic District on East 

Anacapa Island would continue to be 

preserved. Several structures are in use for 

park housing, park administrative uses, and 

visitor services.

Within the historic district, the management 

of nonnative plants would be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis. 

The lighthouse would continue to be closed to 

the public.

VISITOR USES, ACCESS, 

FACILITIES, AND SERVICES

East Anacapa 

East Anacapa would continue to be an ideal 

place for hiking (2 miles of trails); overnight 

camping trips; and swimming, snorkeling, 

diving, kayaking, and spectacular scenery and 

wildlife viewing opportunities (seabirds, seals, 

sea lions, and tidepool organisms). Access 

would continue to be only at the landing cove 

for loading and unloading passengers. The 

Channel Islands Live program would continue 

to be broadcast to the mainland. There would 

continue to be no anchoring permitted in the 

cove. 

The small visitor contact station with minimal 

exhibits (in the historic storage building) in 

the Anacapa Island Light Station Historic 

District would remain. 

The 30-person campground would continue 

to be available for use.

Middle Anacapa

There would continue to be no public 

maintained trails on Middle Anacapa. Access 

to water-based activities would continue to be 

via concessioner boats or private boats, and 

the island would continue to be closed to all 

landings unless accompanied by an NPSapproved escort.

West Anacapa

A limited number of mostly concessioner-led 

tide-pooling trips to Frenchy’s Cove would 

continue to be offered throughout the year. 

Access to West Anacapa would continue to be 

from the water only and limited to Frenchy’s 

Cove. There would continue to be no public 

maintained trails on West Anacapa. Camping 

would continue to not be permitted.

USER CAPACITIES (DAY 

USE AND OVERNIGHT)

User capacity would continue to not exceed 

100 visitors per day by concessioner boat plus 

private boaters on East Anacapa. Thirty 

campers per night would continue to be 

allowed and would be counted as part of the 

100-person user capacity.

User capacity would continue to be managed 

on Middle Anacapa by requiring that visitors 

be accompanied by an NPS-approved escort. 

Camping would continue to not be permitted.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

62

On West Anacapa at Frenchy’s Cove, no more 

than 75 day visitors at one time would be 

allowed and no more than 600 visitors per 

month. Any groups of 30 or more must be 

supervised in an NPS-led or NPS-approved 

group. Camping would continue to not be 

permitted.

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

On East Anacapa Island all housing would 

remain as is, in the Anacapa Island Light 

Station Historic District. The single-family 

residence (in the assistant lightkeeper’s house) 

would remain, as would the efficiency 

apartment (in the historic generator building) 

and the bunkhouse in the historic storage 

building (which also houses the visitor contact 

station). 

Other Infrastructure and Facilities

The power on Anacapa Island has a 

decentralized layout with solar systems at two 

different locations but tied together in an 

electrical grid. There is a 4kW solar system 

near the communal bathhouse and shop, a 

2kW system on one of the employee 

residences, and a 1.6kW system on another 

employee residence. There are no water wells 

on Anacapa Island. There are two historic 

50,000-gallon water storage tanks. Filling the 

tanks requires transport of water from the 

mainland to the island. Chlorinated water 

flows by gravity from the tanks through a 2-

inch distribution line to the residential area. 

Drinking water is not provided to the public. 

A septic infiltrator system on Anacapa Island 

handles gray water and human waste. 
East Anacapa 

Middle Anacapa Island

West Anacapa Island

Cat Rock

Frenchys Cove

East Fish Camp

0 0.5 1 miles

North

Frenchys Cove Beach

Cathedral Cove

NA

A

AC

AP

AP

S AS

GE

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

Muse

Ranger resid

East Anacap

Anacapa Islan

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

3

LEGEND

Authorized park boundary

Marine Reserve Area 

within NPS Boundary

Marine Conservation Area 

within NPS Boundary

Anacapa Island Special Closure - 

Brown Pelican Fledgling Area

Trail

Road

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIF CI OCEAN
64 

ALTERNATIVE 1 — SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 

NATURAL RESOURCES

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized. Park staff 

would continue to eradicate, where feasible, 

nonnative flora and fauna from the islands. 

The NPS’s highest priority would be 

managing those species that are highly 

invasive or have unacceptable ecological 

impacts.

No new actions would occur to protect 

floodplain values, including additional 

channel excavation work — no action would 

be taken to remove sediment from the flood 

channel.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Under this alternative, historic buildings and

structures, landscapes, and archeological 

resources would continue to be preserved. 

The historic ranch buildings would continue 

to be used for park administrative and 

interpretive purposes.

See below for the management of nonnative 

trees on the island.

NATURAL–CULTURAL RESOURCES

A rare bat (the Townsend’s long-eared bat) 

uses the former bakery in the ranch house 

seasonally as a maternity roost. This causes 

some conflicts with interpretation and 

preservation of the bakery. However, the Park 

Service would continue to protect the bats in 

the building unless another suitable maternity 

colony can be established. 

At the Scorpion Valley nonnative plants in 

cultural landscapes and historic districts 

would be managed on a case-by-case basis to 

prevent ecological impacts and limit the 

spread of these plants (e.g., olives, pepper 

trees, and stone pine). Nonnative and native 

plants would only be removed if they pose 

hazards to human safety.

Individual eucalyptus trees would continue to 

be removed on a case-by-case basis from the 

campground if the trees present a hazard to 

visitors.

Small stands of eucalyptus and the long row of 

trees between the upper and lower Scorpion 

campgrounds would continue to be preserved 

as a remnant of the historic landscape tree 

plantings provided the spread of eucalyptus 

can be contained. 

Delphine’s grove would continue to be 

preserved as a significant feature of the 

cultural landscape.

The historic olive grove at Smugglers Cove 

would be maintained in a manner that 

perpetuates the grove as a landscape feature 

but prevents the olive trees from spreading, as 

much as possible, throughout the island. 

WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

No lands on Santa Cruz Island would be 

proposed for wilderness designation under 

alternative 1.

VISITOR USES, ACCESS, 

FACILITIES, AND SERVICES

Santa Cruz Island would continue to offer 

many opportunities for hiking, swimming, 

snorkeling, diving, kayaking, one-day trips, 

and short or long overnight camping trips. 

Opportunities for seeing wildlife, especially 

the endemic island scrub-jay (found no other 

place in the world) and bald eagles would 

continue. Beach access would continue at 
Alternative 1 — Santa Cruz Island

65

primarily Scorpion, Smugglers Cove, and 

Prisoners Harbor. Private boaters would 

continue to use the piers at Scorpion and 

Prisoners Harbor for loading and unloading 

passengers only. No new facilities or services 

would be added. Drinking water and pit 

toilets would continue to be provided to the 

public only at Scorpion.

There would be no change in conditions or 

facilities for kayaking and snorkeling. No new 

commercial services would be provided under 

this alternative.

The trail system in the NPS portion of eastern 

Santa Cruz Island, a combination of 

unmaintained trails and unimproved 

administrative roads, would continue as it is. 

The existing campground at Scorpion would 

continue to be maintained in its present 

condition, with a capacity of 240 campers per 

night. The historic masonry structure at 

Scorpion would continue as a visitor contact 

station with exhibit and office space. 

At Prisoners Harbor, there would continue to 

be no visitor contact station. Camping would 

continue to not be permitted there.

No visitor facilities would continue to be 

provided at Smugglers Cove.

The existing campsites near Rancho Del 

Norte would continue to be maintained, with 

a capacity of 16 campers.

USER CAPACITIES (DAY 

USE AND OVERNIGHT)

The user capacity at Scorpion Valley would 

continue to be 200 people per day, not 

including campers. The campground capacity 

would continue to be 240 campers per night. 

There would be no limit on the number of 

private boaters at Smugglers Cove. Camping 

would continue to not be permitted.

The user capacity at Prisoners Harbor would 

continue to be no more than 100 visitors per 

day. Camping would continue to not be 

permitted.

Day use and limited backcountry camping 

would continue to be available on the NPS 

portion of Santa Cruz Island. There are sites 

for 16 campers near Rancho Del Norte. 

Camping would continue to be available only 

by permit on NPS lands.

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

Park Roads

Park staff would continue to abandon (i.e., not 

maintain) unneeded parts of the existing 20.2 

miles of roads on NPS lands on Santa Cruz 

Island on a case-by-case basis. (The 10.6-mile 

main road from Prisoners Harbor to the navy 

site is an easement held by The Nature 

Conservancy.) All maintained roads would be 

solely to meet park operational needs.

Other Infrastructure and Facilities

The power on Santa Cruz Island has a 

decentralized layout with solar systems at 

different locations but is tied together in an 

electrical grid. There is a 4kW solar system 

near the communal bathhouse and shop, a 

2kW system on one of the employee 

residences, and a 1.6kW system on another 

employee residence. At Scorpion, there is one 

water well and three 10,000-gallon storage 

tanks. Chlorinated water flows by gravity from 

the tank through a 2-inch distribution line to 

the campground and six-unit residential area. 

There is also a septic leach field with two large 

(greater than 5,000-gallon) tanks on the island 

– one in the campground and one near the six 

residential employee units.

There is an existing water well and septic 

leach field at Smugglers Cove. Rancho Del 

Norte has a 20,000-gallon water tank fed by 

the navy well. The water is nonpotable.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

66

Scorpion Valley

In 1998, to meet housing needs, six temporary 

housing units were constructed to move 

employees out of the floodplain at Scorpion 

and out of a deteriorated structure. These 

units would remain.

Maintenance would continue at the current 

Scorpion temporary housing site.

Smugglers Cove

The historic masonry building at Smugglers 

Cove is being rehabilitated. Once completed, 

it would continue to serve as park housing. 

Prisoners Harbor

Housing would continue not to be available at 

Prisoners Harbor.

Maintenance operations would continue at 

various locations.

Rancho Del Norte

The one employee (seasonal) housing unit at 

Rancho Del Norte would remain.
Potato Harbor

Chinese

Harbor

Coche Point

Profile

Point

Hazards Anchorage Painted Cave

Mount Diablo

The Nature Conservancy

National Park Service

San Pedro

Point

Hungrymans

Anchorage

Smugglers Cove

Yellowbanks Anchorage

Middle Anchorage

Sandstone Point

Valley Anchorage

Bluebanks Anchorage

Albert Anchorage

Coaches Prietos Anchorage

Bowen Point Williams

Anchorage

Laguna

Harbor

Punta Arena

Morse

Point

Kinton

Black

Point

Point

Forney

West

Cove

Point

Gull Island

Scorpion Anchorage

Scorpion Valley Ranch

Little Scorpion

Anchorage

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

SANTA CRUZ CHANNEL

Cueva Valdez Anchorage

Ladys Harbor

Prisoners Harbor

Pelican Bay

Twin Harbors

Platts Harbors

Frys Harbor

Babys Cove

Diablo Anchorage

Central Valley

Santa Cruz Island

0 0.5 1 mile

North

Santa Cruz Is

ANA

AC

AP

AP

SS

GA

E

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

4

LEGEND

Authorized park boundary

Marine Reserve Area 

within NPS Boundary

State Marine 

Conservation Area

Trail

Road

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz Island

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIF CI OCEAN

Scorpion Valley Prisoner

Upper Campground

Lower Campground

To Smugglers Cove

Smugg el rs Road

Pier

Canada del 

The Nature

Conservancy

Prisoner

Harbor

Orientation

Station

Administrative Road

Administrative Road to Smugglers

Cavern Point Loop

Pier Location

Existing NPS

Housing and 

Maintenance

Kayak Staging/

Storage

Maintenance

Upper

Campground

Lower

Campground

0 125 250 feet

North

Scorpion Valley – Alternative 1 

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

5

• Could be relocated

 pending separate EIS

Corral

Delphine’s Grove

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island Scorpion Valley

LOCATION

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN

C A L I F O R N I A

To Pelican Bay (by permit)

Pier

Historic Warehouse

Scale House

Restroom

Picnic Area

National Park Service

The Nature Conservancy

National 

Park

Service

The

Nature 

Conservancy

0 100 200 feet

North

Prisoners Harbor – Alternative 1 

to Central Valley

to Navy Site

Navy Road

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

6

Existing

Wetland

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Prisoners Harbor

LOCATION

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN

C A L I F O R N I A

73

ALTERNATIVE 1 — SANTA ROSA ISLAND 

NATURAL RESOURCES

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized. Park staff 

would continue to eradicate, where feasible, 

nonnative flora and fauna from the islands. 

The NPS’s highest priority would be 

managing those species that are highly 

invasive or have unacceptable ecological 

impacts.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Under this alternative, historic buildings and 

structures, cultural landscapes, archeological 

resources, and ethnographic resources would 

continue to be protected through ongoing 

preservation and monitoring programs. 

WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

No lands on Santa Rosa Island would be 

proposed for wilderness designation under 

alternative 1.

VISITOR USES, ACCESS, 

FACILITIES, AND SERVICES

Numerous hiking options on the existing 

unimproved administrative road system and 

one-day trips and short or long overnight 

camping trips would remain available. Beach 

access would continue at Bechers Bay. Private 

boaters would continue to use the pier at 

Bechers Bay for loading and unloading 

passengers only. Due to frequent strong 

winds, swimming, snorkeling, diving, and 

kayaking would continue to be limited and 

recommended for the experienced visitor.

There would be no change in visitor facilities. 

The 75-person campground at Water Canyon 

would continue to be maintained.

Beaches around Sandy Point would continue 

to be closed year-round to landings and 

camping. The beaches between Carrington 

Point and East Point would continue to be 

closed year-round to camping, while the 

beaches between Skunk Point and East Point 

would continue to be closed to all entry 

seasonally. 

There would continue to be no visitor contact 

station or lodging on Santa Rosa Island. There 

would be no change in conditions or facilities 

for kayaking and snorkeling.

The Park Service would continue to provide 

limited ground transportation on the island. 

The Park Service would continue to work 

with the private sector to provide year-round 

air transportation via a concessioner for day 

use visitors and campers. The airstrip would 

continue to be maintained.

USER CAPACITIES (DAY 

USE AND OVERNIGHT)

The user capacity at Bechers Bay would 

continue to be up to 100 people per day, 

including the 75 campers per night that would 

continue to be permitted at Water Canyon. 

Backcountry beach camping would continue 

on Santa Rosa Island. Seasonal 

restrictions/closures would continue to 

protect nesting shorebirds and seabirds, as 

well as pupping seals and sea lions. 

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

Park Roads

Park staff would continue to remove existing 

roads on Santa Rosa Island on a case-by-case 

basis. With the exception of the roads to 

Torrey Pines and the Lobo Canyon trailhead, 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

74

where the Park Service provides vehicle 

transportation to visitors, the remaining roads 

would be maintained solely to meet park 

operational needs.

Other Infrastructure and Facilities

Two 2-bedroom duplexes and two 1-

bedroom duplexes would remain on the 

island. There is a minimal grid system for 

electricity with pockets of facilities providing 

power via solar systems, wind turbines, and 

generators on Santa Rosa Island. The power 

consists of a solar system generating 12.5kW 

of power with a battery bank consisting of 60 

batteries providing 240 volts and 1,900 amp 

hours, two wind turbines providing a total of 

20kW, and two 45kW generators. Water is 

provided on the island by two wells, which is 

then stored in two 57,000-gallon tanks. Four 

6,000-gallon tanks provide storage capacity 

for only the housing area in Bechers Bay. The 

wastewater system consists of three septic 

leach fields for individual structures: one near 

the Old Ranch House, one near the residence, 

and one near the Barn. There is also one septic 

leach field at Johnson’s Lee.
South Point

Sandy Point

Brockway Point

TALCOTT SHOAL

Carrington

Point

Northwest 

Anchorage

Sout

Anc

Ford Point

Johnsons Lee

Black Mountain

Soledad Peak

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

AS

N M GI UEL

AP

S AS

GE

Santa Rosa Island

NPS Housing

Airstrip

Lobo Canyon

Bechers Bay

0 1 2 miles

North

Santa Rosa Is

Torrey Pines

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

7

LEGEND

Authorized park boundary

Marine Reserve Area 

within NPS Boundary

Marine Conservation Area 

within NPS Boundary

Trail

Road

San M

Isl

SANTA B

Enlargement shown at right

Carrington Point Road

Smith Highway

Pier

0 125 250 feet

North

0 600 1,200 feet

North

Former Foreman’s Residence

Bunk House

Barn

Residence

Water Canyon

Campground

Airstrip

Ranch House

Bechers Bay – Alternative 1 

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

8

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Bechers Bay

LOCATION

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN

C A L I F O R N I A

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Johnson’s Lee

LOCATION

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN

C A L I F O R N I A

0 100 200 feet

North

Administrative Support

Gate/

Trailhead

B E A C H E S

Johnson’s Lee – Alternative 1 

Trail

Trail

Johnson’s Lee Road

to Backcountry campsites

to Soledad Peak 

and Bechers Bay

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

9

81

ALTERNATIVE 1 — SAN MIGUEL ISLAND 

NATURAL RESOURCES

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized. Park staff 

would continue to eradicate, where feasible, 

nonnative flora and fauna from the islands. 

The NPS’s highest priority would be 

managing those species that are highly 

invasive or have unacceptable ecological 

impacts.

VISITOR USES, ACCESS, 

FACILITIES, AND SERVICES

This island would continue to be an ideal 

place for seeing native vegetation, the unique 

caliche forest, seals and sea lions (with ranger 

escort), scenic Cuyler Harbor beach; to do 

limited hiking (to the Cuyler Harbor beach 

and 0.75 mile to the ranger station); and to 

take day and long overnight camping trips. To 

see other parts of the island, specifically the 

pinnipeds at Point Bennett and Cardwell 

Point, visitors must continue to be escorted by 

a ranger. (Boating visitors must contact the 

park staff in advance to coordinate this oneday activity.) Visitors would continue to come 

ashore only at Cuyler Harbor. Overnight 

anchorages would continue to be restricted to 

Cuyler Harbor and Tyler Bight. All boating 

and landings would continue to be restricted 

seasonally around Point Bennett. Due to 

frequent strong winds, swimming, snorkeling, 

diving, and kayaking would continue to be 

limited and recommended for the 

experienced visitor. 

No new visitor facilities would be provided in 

alternative 1. The existing 30-person 

campground would continue to be 

maintained. A visitor contact station would 

remain in the NPS ranger station / housing 

complex.

USER CAPACITIES (DAY 

USE AND OVERNIGHT)

The user capacity in the ranch complex area 

would continue to be 75 people per day, 

which would not include the 30 campers per 

night that would continue to be allowed.

On the remainder of the island, day use would 

be limited to ranger-guided hikes, and no 

camping would be permitted.

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

The existing visitor contact station / housing 

structure, which includes two 1-bedroom 

units and a bunkhouse, would continue to be 

maintained. 

An airstrip within the Dry Lake Bed on San 

Miguel Island would be maintained to support 

the operations of the NMFS Field Station.
Castle Rock

San Miguel Hill

Green Mountain

Landing

Cabrillo Monument

Ranger Station/Campground 

Harris Point

Cuyler Harbor

Prince Island

Bay Point

Crook Point

Judith Rock

Point Bennett

Tyler Bight

SIMONTON COVE

San Miguel Island

Otter Harbor

Adams

Cove

0 1 2 miles

North

managed by the National Park Ser

San Miguel Island is owned by the 

San Miguel Is

Dry Lake Bed

Facility

NOAA/NMFS

Nifty Rock

Hare Rock

Bat Rock

DSC September 2013

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

Channel Islands National Park

10

Map

Airstrip

Airstrip

LEGEND

Road

Trail

San Miguel Island Special Closure 

within NPS Boundary

Marine Conservation Area 

within NPS Boundary

Marine Reserve Area 

Authorized park boundary San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN
83

ALTERNATIVE 1 — SANTA BARBARA ISLAND 

NATURAL RESOURCES

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized. Park staff 

would continue to eradicate, where feasible, 

nonnative flora and fauna from the islands. 

The NPS’s highest priority would be 

managing those species that are highly 

invasive or have unacceptable ecological 

impacts.

VISITOR USES, ACCESS, 

FACILITIES, AND SERVICES

Santa Barbara Island has exceptional island 

coastal views and ideal places for swimming, 

snorkeling, diving, kayaking, hiking, and 

seeing wildlife (seabirds, seals, and sea lions). 

Trails would continue to be closed seasonally 

to protect nesting California brown pelicans. 

Access to the island would continue to be only 

at the landing cove. Beaches would continue 

to be closed to aquatic activities to protect 

wildlife. There would continue to be no 

landing on beaches. 

No new visitor facilities would be provided. 

The existing 6 miles of scenic trails and the 30-

person campground would continue to be 

maintained. The visitor contact station (part 

of the employee housing structure) would 

remain.

USER CAPACITIES (DAY 

USE AND OVERNIGHT)

The user capacity would not exceed 100 

people per day (campers not included) and 30 

campers per night. 

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

The existing visitor contact station / housing 

structure, which includes one 1-bedroom unit 

and one bunkhouse, would remain in use.
Webster Point

Arch Point

Landing Cove

Cave Canyon

Ranger Station

Signal Peak

Cat Canyon

Santa Barbara

Santa Barbara Island

Island Light

Campground

0 0.5 1 mile

North

Santa Barbar

Sutil Island

Shag Rock

DSC September 2013

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

Channel Islands National Park

11

Map

LEGEND

Road

Trail

within NPS Boundary

Marine Conservation Area 

within NPS Boundary

Marine Reserve Area 

Authorized park boundary

San M

Isl

SANTA B
85

ALTERNATIVE 2 — PARKWIDE

CONCEPT

Under this alternative resource stewardship, 

including ecosystem preservation and 

restoration; and preservation of natural 

landscapes, cultural landscapes, archeological 

resources, and historic structures would 

continue to be the park’s highest priority. 

Slightly more emphasis would be placed on 

resource stewardship compared to alternative 

1. However, under alternative 2, increased 

opportunities would also be provided for 

visitors to enjoy and appreciate the park. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

maintain opportunities for visitors to access 

all of the islands. 

Alternative 2 would place an emphasis on 

protecting park resources by making the park 

more relevant to a growing and diverse 

neighboring population and public. There 

would be expanded opportunities to bring the 

park to the people through additional facilities 

and activities, including the expansion of the 

visitor center in Ventura Harbor, distance 

learning programs, and live interactive video 

telecasts. Increased efforts would be made to 

provide education and interpretive programs 

that focus on all grade levels and adults 

throughout the adjacent mainland 

communities as well as nationally through 

interactive distance learning programs.

Under alternative 2, 66,675 acres of the park 

would be proposed for wilderness 

designation, primarily on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands.

Under alternative 2 there would be additional 

opportunities for recreational activities in the 

park compared to alternative 1. On Santa Rosa 

Island more wilderness and dispersed visitor 

use opportunities would be provided under 

alternative 2 than currently exist.

Minimal new development would occur on 

the islands under alternative 2. Limited new 

facilities might be built on the islands for 

specific resource protection, research, 

management, or visitor services. There would 

be few changes in the transportation methods 

used to reach the islands or travel on the 

islands. Marine areas and resources would 

continue to be managed to protect ecosystems 

and biological diversity.

Partnerships would be expanded with 

governmental agencies, educational 

institutions, and others to bring the island 

experience to the public and facilitate 

educational opportunities, resource 

stewardship, and research. 

Commercial services that use sustainable 

practices and were more ecologically sensitive 

in their operations would be encouraged.

Identified below are general actions called for 

under alternative 2. Most island-specific 

actions are identified later in this section.

Primary Differences of Alternative 2 from 

Alternative 1

In alternative 2:

• overnight use levels on East Anacapa 

Island would be reduced 

• sediment in the flood channel in Scorpion 

Valley on Santa Cruz Island would be 

periodically excavated

• kayaking and snorkeling at Scorpion 

Valley would be managed through a 

concession

• the existing Scorpion Valley campground 

would be reconfigured to accommodate 

groups

• an education/research field camp would 

be established, if possible, at Prisoners 

Harbor on Santa Cruz Island
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

86

• limited ground transportation would be 

provided on Santa Rosa Island via a 

concessioner

• a concessioner would provide lodging and 

food service at Bechers Bay on Santa Rosa 

Island 

• the Water Canyon campground on Santa 

Rosa Island would be reduced, while a 

new campground would be provided at 

Bechers Bay

• a day use facility and ranger station would 

be provided at Johnson’s Lee on Santa 

Rosa Island

• a field station to support research and 

education would be established at Bechers 

Bay

• guided multiday trips would be 

established to see pinnipeds at Point 

Bennett on San Miguel Island

• the existing mainland visitor center would 

be expanded and administrative offices 

consolidated

• park staff would apply user capacity 

indicators and standards

• approximately 53% of the land portion of 

the park would be proposed for 

wilderness designation

NATURAL RESOURCES

Terrestrial Ecosystems/

Ecological Restoration

The conservation of biological diversity would 

continue to be a core value in carrying out the 

preservation of Channel Islands National 

Park. 

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized in 

alternative 2. Park staff would continue to 

eradicate, where feasible, nonnative flora and 

fauna from the islands. The NPS’s highest 

priority would be managing those species that 

are highly invasive or have unacceptable 

ecological impacts. Additionally, some 

nonnative plants contribute to cultural 

landscapes. Within the proposed cultural 

landscapes zone, the management of 

nonnative resources would be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis. Actions would continue to 

be taken to control invasive nonnative plants 

that can have severe ecological impacts. 

Floodplains and Wetlands

No new permanent facilities would be built on 

floodplains.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

This alternative would continue to preserve 

historic buildings, structures, and landscape 

features that are listed in or eligible for listing 

in the national register. Archeological and 

ethnographic resources would continue to be 

protected and traditional uses by culturally 

associated Native Americans would continue 

to be encouraged. 

Cultural resources are an integral component 

of the wilderness area being proposed in the 

park (see below). These cultural resources, 

such as the historic line camps on Santa Rosa 

Island, would be protected and maintained 

according to the pertinent laws and policies 

governing cultural resources and using 

methods consistent with the preservation of 

wilderness character and values.

Historic Buildings and Structures

Historic buildings and structures would be 

preserved and rehabilitated for administrative 

and/or interpretive purposes as appropriate.

Cultural Landscape Resources

Under this alternative, the significant features 

and patterns of cultural landscapes would be 

preserved and protected. Significant cultural 

landscape features and patterns, such as 

buildings, structures, small-scale features, 

spatial organization, circulation patterns, 
Alternative 2 — Parkwide

 87

natural features, and vegetation, would be 

preserved and protected or rehabilitated as 

appropriate. However, nonnative plants in the 

cultural landscapes zone that have 

unacceptable ecological impacts or invade 

natural areas could be removed and replaced 

with appropriate noninvasive substitutes. 

Archeological Resources

Archeological resources would continue to be 

inventoried, managed, and protected. 

Protection and management of archeological 

resources would be informed by an 

Archeological Overview and Assessment 

(Braje et al. 2010). The National Park Service 

would continue to encourage universities, 

museums, and other institutions to conduct 

additional archeological research. 

Ethnographic Resources

Ethnographic resources would continue to be 

researched and managed as they currently are. 

Traditional uses by culturally associated 

Native Americans would continue to be 

encouraged. Additional ethnographic 

research on traditionally associated groups 

would be encouraged.

Museum Collection (including 

Archives and Research Library)

The National Park Service would seek to 

improve the park’s curatorial facilities and 

capabilities and to increase access to its 

museum collection, archives, and research 

library.

MANAGEMENT ZONES

New management zones would be applied to 

each of the islands and the surrounding 

marine waters within the park boundary (see 

the management zone definitions in Table 1). 

These zones are described for each island later 

in this section, and can be found on the 

alternative 2 maps for the islands. 

Approximately 80% of the park’s marine 

waters would be included within the “marine 

stewardship” zone. Those areas created by the 

state of California in 2003 as marine reserves 

or marine conservation areas, constituting 

about 20% of the park’s marine waters, would 

be in the “marine protected” management 

zone. The Park Service would seek an 

agreement with the State of California and 

NOAA to maintain access and ensure 

cooperative management of the park waters 

within these zones.

WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

Under alternative 2, 66,675 acres 

(approximately 53% of the land area of the 

park) would be proposed for wilderness 

designation. The area proposed for wilderness 

would include all of West and Middle 

Anacapa Island, most of the NPS lands on 

Santa Cruz Island, most of Santa Rosa Island, 

and almost all of Santa Barbara Island. (See the 

island zoning maps and the following islandspecific sections for more details.)

VISITOR ACCESS

Air Transportation

Public air transportation for day use visitors 

and campers would continue to be available 

year-round to Santa Rosa Island (Bechers Bay) 

via a park concessioner. The airstrip would 

continue to be maintained. Private aircraft 

would continue to be prohibited from landing 

within park boundaries.

Public Boat Transportation

Public boat transportation for day use and 

multiday visitors would continue to be 

available year-round to all five of the park 

islands by a park concessioner. The park 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

88

would maintain a pier or dock facility at each 

of the current locations except San Miguel, 

where no pier or dock facility will be 

provided. Existing piers and docks would 

continue to be maintained. The points of 

departure would include Ventura, Santa 

Barbara, and Channel Islands (Oxnard) 

harbors, but would not be limited to these 

locations. It is important that the concession 

operation be co-located within the same 

harbor of the park headquarters to facilitate 

effective and efficient park operations.

Private Boat Transportation

Private boaters could continue to access any 

of the five NPS-managed islands/lands. It 

would not be the intention of the Park Service 

to require landing permits on any of the 

islands. However, if measures need to be 

taken to provide for a quality visitor 

experience and/or prevent impacts on park 

resources in the future, a permit system might 

be necessary. If and until such time, no 

landing permits would be required except for 

those lands administered by The Nature 

Conservancy (western Santa Cruz Island). 

Landings would continue to not be permitted 

on rocks, islets, or at selected dry sea caves on 

or near any of the islands. All landing beaches 

would continue to be subject to seasonal 

closures. Specific landing information is given 

for each island later in this section. 

On-Island Transportation 

Most destinations on each of the islands 

would continue to be accessible by foot within 

a few minutes to a few hours. Limited 

commercial ground transportation would be 

considered only for Santa Rosa Island 

(described later in this section). Of the 67 

miles of road maintained on Santa Rosa 

Island, 21 miles would be maintained to 

provide public access via commercial ground 

transportation. No other public vehicular 

transportation would be provided on any of 

the other islands. Before any roads are 

restored to natural conditions they would be 

evaluated as trail corridors in a future 

parkwide backcountry management plan.

Horse use would not be permitted on any of 

the islands.

VISITOR USES, OVERNIGHT 

ACCOMMODATIONS, 

AND USER CAPACITY

As in alternative 1, a variety of visitor uses 

would continue to be permitted on the 

islands. Opportunities for hiking, overnight 

camping, swimming, snorkeling, diving, 

kayaking, scenery and wildlife viewing, and 

other activities would continue to be available 

on the islands. All island uses also would be 

subject to periodic closures to protect wildlife.

OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS 

Reservations would continue to be required 

for all frontcountry camping, and permits 

would continue to be required for 

backcountry camping.

Frontcountry camping would remain available 

year-round in established campgrounds on all 

of the five park islands. The capacity for each 

island campground would be as follows: 

Santa Barbara Island – 30 campers

Anacapa Island – 16 campers

Santa Cruz Island – 240 campers

Santa Rosa Island – 110 campers

San Miguel Island – 30 campers

Thus, 426 camper nights would available in 

the park’s campgrounds, an increase of 11

camper nights over current conditions. In 

addition, up to 10 campers may be permitted 

at a new spike camp on San Miguel Island.

Camping conditions would continue to be 

primitive. Picnic tables would remain at each 

campsite. Drinking water would continue to 
Alternative 2 — Parkwide

 89

be provided only on Santa Rosa and Santa 

Cruz islands — there would continue to be no 

potable water on Anacapa, San Miguel, or 

Santa Barbara island. All camping supplies 

must be hand carried from the dock/beach to 

the campgrounds and back. There would 

continue to be no trash receptacles on any of 

the islands; thus, visitors must remove all 

personal trash items from the islands. Pit 

toilets would be available at each of the 

campgrounds. 

Backcountry camping would continue on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, and 

expanded backcountry camping might be 

available on these islands once the parkwide 

backcountry management plan is completed.

Rustic economy-scale lodging opportunities 

would be provided in the historic ranch 

complex on Santa Rosa Island (see details 

later in this section).

USER CAPACITY

Under alternative 2, the existing limits on day 

visitation would continue on all islands (see 

Table 16 at the end of the chapter).

Under alternative 2, the number of campers 

that would be permitted on East Anacapa and 

Santa Rosa islands would change, which in 

turn would alter the islands’ overnight use 

levels. New backcountry campsites also may 

be proposed in the future on Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands (and a spike camp on San 

Miguel Island).The future parkwide 

backcountry management plan would 

determine the location of these sites and set 

appropriate use limits. 

VISITOR ORIENTATION,

INTERPRETATION, 

AND EDUCATION

A comprehensive interpretive plan would be 

developed to guide interpretation throughout 

the islands and would include minimal 

interpretive wayside exhibits on some of the 

islands. Supplemental compliance might be 

necessary to implement aspects of the 

comprehensive interpretive plan. 

Mainland Facilities and 

Interpretive Services

The Robert J. Lagomarsino Visitor Center in 

Ventura Harbor would be expanded to 

accommodate a new larger auditorium to 

meet the demands of live interactive 

programs, enlarge the exhibit area, and modify 

the existing auditorium to accommodate 

classroom and conference meeting space. 

On-Island Orientation/

Interpretive Services and Facilities

Island orientation would be similar to that 

found in alternative 1. NPS personnel and 

volunteers would continue to provide 

interpretive and educational services on the 

islands to further engage visitors in protecting 

park resources. The mainland information, 

orientation, educational, and interpretive 

services would continue to be essential in 

preparing visitors for their island experience, 

including considerations for minimal impact 

recreation. 

Interpretive programs on the islands would be 

the same as described in alternative 1 and 

would be designed to give visitors the 

opportunity to experience the islands in their 

remote natural settings. Visitor appreciation 

of park resources would be enhanced through 

nonpersonal interpretive services including 

wayside exhibits, websites, webcams, 

publications, and other educational media. 

Interpretive programs and media would foster 

an understanding of the natural and cultural 

resources of the islands and the marine 

environment through evening and live 

interactive video programs. Live interactive 

video programs, such as the Channel Islands 

Live terrestrial and underwater programs on 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

90

Anacapa Island, would be expanded to other 

islands as feasible.

Under this alternative, an education/volunteer 

camp for school groups would be built in 

Scorpion Valley if it is not possible to locate 

the camp in the preferred location in the 

Prisoners Harbor area.

Other Visitor Contact Stations

To provide additional opportunities for the 

public to learn about the park and its 

resources, other locations along the southern 

California coastline would be sought for 

visitor contact stations (e.g., Oxnard). The 

National Park Service would seek to

lease/share space for these offices with other 

federal and state land/water management 

agencies where possible.

COMMERCIAL SERVICES

Based on a commercial services analysis, Table 

7 lists the commercial services that would be 

provided under alternative 2 for visitors on 

Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San 

Miguel islands. 

TABLE 7. COMMERCIAL SERVICES PROVIDED FOR VISITORS IN CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE 2 

Area Service

Anacapa Island ferry access to East and West Anacapa Islands, and to water-based activities off of 

Middle Anacapa Island

East Santa Cruz 

Island – Scorpion 

Valley 

ferry access to Scorpion Valley

kayak and snorkeling rentals at Scorpion Valley

East Santa Cruz 

Island – Prisoners 

Harbor 

ferry access to Prisoners Harbor

Santa Rosa Island ferry access to Bechers Bay

lodging and food services for visitors at Bechers Bay

airplane access to Bechers Bay

limited ground transportation of visitors on the island’s roads

San Miguel Island guided multiday trips would be established to see pinnipeds at Point Bennett 
Alternative 2 — Parkwide

 91

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

Mainland Operations

The Park Service would work with the 

Ventura Harbor management to consolidate 

all maintenance uses within a common 

footprint in the industrial portion of the 

harbor. 

Also under this alternative the Park Service 

would seek to consolidate its rented office 

space in Ventura Harbor to improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of park operations 

and reduce costs. The Park Service would 

seek to acquire or lease property adjacent to 

the existing visitor center or an equivalent 

property in the harbor. In the interim, park 

operations would continue to be housed in 

the visitor center and the leased auxiliary 

office buildings in the Ventura Harbor area.

Park Roads

Under alternative 2 the road segments on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands that have 

unacceptable impacts on resources or that are 

not essential for park operations would be 

removed and the landscape would be restored 

or the roads would be converted to hiking 

trails if appropriate. (For more details, see the 

island descriptions below.) All roads may be 

realigned to remove safety hazards and to deal 

with erosion and landslide problems.

Field Research Station

Under alternative 2 park staff would facilitate 

research. A field station would be developed 

on Santa Rosa Island to primarily support 

research, but could also support education 

and volunteer programs. 

Other Infrastructure and Facilities

Table 8 shows the changes in facilities and 

infrastructure in alternative 2 compared to 

alternative 1. Unless otherwise indicated, all 

facilities and infrastructure identified under 

alternative 1 would continue to be maintained 

in alternative 2. The items shown with 

asterisks may be built pending additional 

study. In this alternative both new 

administrative and visitor facilities would be 

built in the park. Although there would be 

several new facilities, many would be cared for 

and maintained by concessioners and other 

partners.

Under alternative 2 several new administrative 

facilities would be built in Scorpion Valley and 

Prisoners Harbor on Santa Cruz Island, and at 

Bechers Bay on Santa Rosa Island (see details 

on the islands later in this section). 

TABLE 8. CHANGES IN INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES IN CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE 2 

Area Facilities and Infrastructure

Mainland expansion of the Robert J. Lagomarsino Visitor Center and 

administrative office complex

establishment of a visitor contact station in Oxnard

Santa Barbara Island no changes

Anacapa Island opening of the lighthouse and new exhibits

reduction in campsites from 30 to 16 campers/night

new employee housing unit

elimination of the efficiency apartment in the historic generator 

building

new small equipment storage building

replacement of the crane

East Santa Cruz Island possible removal of some road segments or conversion to trails*
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

92

Area Facilities and Infrastructure

East Santa Cruz Island – Scorpion 

Valley and Smugglers Cove

adaptive reuse of the historic bunkhouse at Scorpion

new barn structure for interpretive exhibits and programs at the 

current corral location 

new kayaking-snorkeling storage facility

additional restroom with a changing area at Scorpion 

relocation of maintenance operations in the corral area

reconfiguration of the Scorpion campground and new restroom 

facilities if necessary

replacement of six temporary housing units with permanent 

structures and provision of office space

new concession housing west of the lower campground for up to 

18 employees

East Santa Cruz Island – Prisoners 

Harbor and Rancho Del Norte

adaptive reuse of part of the warehouse as a visitor contact and 

orientation center; part of the warehouse would continue to be 

used for storage of supplies and equipment

new restrooms near the warehouse 

possible new education/volunteer camp in partnership with TNC

new storage structure and parking spaces 

NPS housing co-located with The Nature Conservancy or 

developed on NPS lands east of Cañada del Puerto

Santa Cruz Island 15.9 miles of roads maintained for administrative purposes 

(includes TNC easement road)

Santa Rosa Island new field station for research/education

adaptive reuse of one or more historic structures at Bechers Bay 

and/or construction of a new compatible building as a visitor 

contact station

adaptive reuse of structures in the historic ranch complex for 

concession-operated economy-scale lodging*

adaptive reuse of ranch structures or compatible new 

construction for a ranger station 

two new employee bunkhouses

new maintenance facility and maintenance storage area for visitor 

transport vehicles

NPS concession transportation staging area

adaptive use of historic generator barn to support 

concessions/park operations

adaptive reuse of historic horse barn for visitor services and 

concession operations

decrease number of campers at Water Canyon campground from 

75 to 50 campers/night

possible removal of some road segments or conversion to trails*

new 60-person group campground at Bechers Bay

new day use facilities and backcountry ranger station at Johnson’s 

Lee

San Miguel Island new small equipment storage building

new spike camp at west end of island

*These new facilities may be built or roads removed pending the results of additional studies. 
Alternative 2 — Parkwide

 93

Park Staffing

Under alternative 2, park staffing levels would 

increase by 17 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. 

(One FTE is one person working 40 hours per 

week for one year, or the equivalent.) 

Additional staff would be needed to provide 

visitor services at the mainland visitor center 

and on the islands, manage concession 

operations, maintain facilities, and monitor 

and manage visitors and resources on the 

islands. Table 9 shows the changes in staffing 

levels from alternative 1. Only changes are 

shown. The facility management, resource 

management, visitor and resource protection, 

and interpretation divisions would all 

increase. As in alternative 1, position 

management planning would be used to 

distribute staff expertise and specialties. 

Concession staff, volunteers, and other 

partners also would be more relied on than 

under alternative 1 to help manage visitors, 

facilities, and resources. 

TABLE 9. CHANGES IN PERMANENT PARK STAFFING LEVELS FROM CURRENT MANAGEMENT (IN FTES) 

Title Number of FTEs

Administration 1

Interpretation 4

Visitor and Resource Protection 4

Natural Resources 2

Cultural Resources 2

Maintenance 4

Transportation 0

TOTAL 17

Alternative 2

Estimated Costs

This section explains the rationale, cost 

estimates, prioritization, and phasing for 

alternative 2 of the general management 

plan. Park operations are uniquely costly at 

Channel Islands National Park as a result of 

managing five islands spread over large 

distances, plus mainland functions. 

Operational support is expensive due to high 

ocean transport costs and highly variable 

weather and ocean conditions. Providing 

critical infrastructure and services on the 

islands (e.g., service cranes, piers, and docks) 

has higher costs than most parks. 

Project costs have been carefully developed 

and proposals have been prioritized given 

fiscal constraints. The prioritization and 

phasing of projects in the general 

management plan emphasizes maintaining 

existing high-priority facilities, including 

recently acquired facilities and historic 

assets. Proposed facilities are limited to 

those considered essential to fulfilling the 

park’s purpose. Full implementation of 

alternative 2 may take 20 to 40 years and has 

an estimated total cost of $65.4 million. 

Costs are split into “essential” and “desired” 

cost categories, totaling $21.6 million and 

$43.8 million, respectively. Essential costs 

are for projects that are critical to preserve 

fundamental resources and values, maintain 

existing high-priority assets, ensure visitor 

and employee health and safety, and would 

likely require federal funding. Projects in the 

essential cost category have been further 

prioritized into four phases that represent a 

general sequencing for project 

implementation. Desired projects are 

important for full implementation of 

alternative 2 but could be accomplished with 

nonfederal funds or may be completed many 

years into the future. Examples of essential 

and desired projects are included in the 

“Project Phasing” explanation. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

94

Project Phasing 

Projects in the essential and desired cost 

categories are included in the overall phasing 

to fully implement the general management 

plan. If funding becomes available for 

projects in the later phases or within the 

desired projects category, or if park 

priorities change throughout the lifespan of 

the general management plan, the park may 

implement projects within cost categories as 

needed. Project phasing also takes into 

account the following considerations:

(1) Actions that if not taken will impact 

visitor and employee health and safety

(2) Actions that are driven by law or policy 

and are required for compliance

(3) Actions that if not taken would result in 

adverse impacts on either cultural or natural 

resources

(4) Actions that would be taken without an 

approved GMP for improving and 

maintaining existing high-priority assets and 

increasing operational efficiency and 

effectiveness

Essential costs would be separated into four 

phases, with phase 1 at $5.1 million, phase 2 

at $6.3 million, phase 3 at $4.4 million, and 

phase 4 at $5.8 million. 

Essential Projects – Phase 1. These projects 

would be located on the Scorpion Valley

side of Santa Cruz Island, which is 24 miles 

from the mainland and receives the highest 

amount of island visitation. Housing for park 

staff and concession employees, including 

site work and infrastructure improvements, 

would be part of phase 1. These projects 

would greatly enhance the efficiency and 

long-term NPS management on Santa Cruz 

Island. 

Essential Projects – Phase 2. Dispersed 

among several of the islands, these projects 

would focus on improving infrastructure 

critical to visitor use, health, and safety. The 

projects would include replacing a service 

crane, building restroom facilities, and 

providing essential utilities such as electric, 

water, and wastewater systems.

Essential Projects – Phase 3. These projects 

would be located on several islands and 

would primarily provide for adaptive reuse 

of various existing and historic structures for 

park operations. These improvements are 

needed to improve the condition of existing 

and historic facilities while supporting 

critical park operations and visitor needs. 

The projects would include reusing a 

warehouse at Prisoners Harbor on Santa 

Cruz Island to serve as a visitor contact and 

orientation center, as well as reusing a 

historic barn on Santa Rosa Island to 

support visitor services and concessions 

operations. Stabilizing a ranch house on 

Santa Rosa Island to preserve the historic 

structure and provide overnight 

accommodations for visitors is also 

proposed in this phase. 

Essential Projects – Phase 4. Located on 

several islands, these projects would provide 

for additional visitor opportunities and the 

operational facilities and housing needed to 

support them. Some of the projects in this 

phase would include building maintenance 

facilities on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands, building a visitor contact station and 

concessions facilities on Santa Rosa Island, 

and providing employee housing and 

associated utilities on several islands.

Desired Projects

Desired projects would be located on several 

islands and the mainland and would include 

projects that could be accomplished with 

nonfederal funds or may be completed many 

years into the future. The projects would 

include mainland visitor facilities 

improvements, such as a renovated visitor 

and education center within Ventura 

Harbor. Other mainland projects would 

include relocating operation and 

maintenance functions, relocating 

administrative space to a new location, and 
Alternative 2 — Parkwide

 95

providing boat dock facilities within the 

harbor. Island projects would include 

research and education field station 

proposals on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands, various park staff and concession 

housing improvements, lodging 

accommodations, a kayak-snorkeling 

storage facility at Scorpion Valley on Santa 

Cruz Island, day use and campground 

facilities, and utilities needed to support 

these uses. 

Annual Costs

This alternative would be implemented with 

the current staffing levels plus 17 FTE staff 

for administration, maintenance, resource 

management, resource protection, and 

interpretation (Table 10). Staffing costs 

would total approximately $1.6 million 

annually. In addition, the park’s operating 

budget would need to increase by 

approximately $2.2 million if the alternative 

is fully implemented, of which 

approximately $500,000 would be dedicated 

to operating new facilities. The total cost to 

operate the park under this alterative would 

be $14.1 million per year (in 2011 dollars). 

These positions would also be phased in 

over the implementation of the plan. 

Other Cost Considerations

Associated with project proposals in the 

general management plan, approximately 

61% of the park’s current deferred 

maintenance, a total of $6.8 million of $11.2 

million, is addressed by projects included in 

alternative 2. Given the costly pattern of 

allowing park assets to deteriorate, which 

leads to increased deferred maintenance 

costs, Channel Islands National Park would

benefit from prioritizing funding for critical 

facilities in the near term as repair and 

replacement costs will increase in the long 

term. 

In addition, implementation of the approved 

plan would depend on future funding. The 

approval of this plan does not guarantee that 

the funding and staffing needed to 

implement the plan would be forthcoming. 

Full implementation of the actions in the 

approved general management plan could be 

many years into the future and some projects 

may never be implemented. 

TABLE 10. COST AND PHASING FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 

Category Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Desired Total

Total Improvement 

Costs (in million $)

$5.1 $6.3 $4.4 $5.8 $43.8 $65.4

Deferred Maintenance 

Offset (in million $)

$0.0 $1.4 $3.1 $0.4 $1.9 $6.8

FTEs 2.7 1 3 1 9.3 17

Note: In 2011 dollars.
96 

ALTERNATIVE 2 — THE MAINLAND

VISITOR CENTER

Making the park relevant to a growing and 

diverse neighboring population and visiting 

public is essential. Because most park visitors 

do not travel to the islands, the Robert J. 

Lagomarsino Visitor Center in Ventura 

Harbor plays a key role in reaching the public. 

Although the park headquarters/visitor center 

would remain within Ventura Harbor and 

serve as the primary location for the 

dissemination of park information, under 

alternative 2 the mainland visitor center 

would take on an expanded role in connecting 

the park to the public. This would be 

accomplished by increasing opportunities for 

visitors on the mainland to indirectly 

experience and learn about the park 

resources. 

To accomplish these goals, the visitor center 

would be expanded to provide for a broadspectrum, multicultural education program 

about the natural and cultural resources 

preserved within Channel Islands National 

Park. The enlarged facility would 

accommodate a larger auditorium; provide 

more space for exhibits; and provide 

classroom, laboratory, and conference 

meeting space. A larger auditorium is needed 

to support the park lecture series, show the 

park film, and meet the current demands for 

distance learning presentations broadcast live 

from the island to the mainland such as the 

Channel Islands Live dive program.

Ultimately the visitor center, using a 

multidisciplinary approach, would serve as a 

premier location in southern California for 

education about the marine and terrestrial 

natural systems and rich cultural history of 

this coastal area. Programs/classes would be 

offered on a diversity of topics to an array of 

visitor and student groups. All education 

programs are aligned to the curriculum 

content standards of the state of California. 

All mainland facilities would be fully 

handicapped accessible. By using the most upto-date remote broadcast video and audio 

capabilities, cellular communications, and 

other communications technology; and 

sensory, interactive exhibits, many of the 

island and ocean resources would be available 

to students and the public to experience 

virtually on the mainland. 

OTHER VISITOR 

CONTACT STATIONS

In this alternative the Park Service would 

continue to operate the existing visitor 

contact station in the City of Santa Barbara. In 

addition, under this alternative the Park 

Service would seek to establish a visitor 

contact station at Channel Islands Harbor 

(Oxnard) and possibly at other harbors to 

further expand the park’s connections with 

the public. Partnerships with other federal 

agencies (such as the sanctuary), maritime 

museums, and aquariums also would be 

sought to facilitate outreach opportunities.

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

The Park Service would continue to lease 

office space within Ventura Harbor and 

would seek to acquire property adjacent to the 

existing visitor center or an equivalent 

property in the harbor to consolidate office 

space. (Under PL 93-477 [Title IV, section 

401], the Park Service is authorized by 

Congress to accept the donation of up to 5 

acres of land and submerged land within the 

Ventura Marina for administrative and visitor 

facilities. There are now facilities on 2 to 3 

acres. Thus, acquiring additional land for the 

new facility could be authorized without 

seeking a boundary adjustment.) 
0 50 100 Feet

North

S

pin

n

ake

r 

D

rive

Channel Island

National Park 

Headquarters

and Visitor Ce

Expand Park Visitor Center at

current location and relocate

office space to new location

preferably within harbor area

Harbor Cove Beach

D

Operations and Mainte

Pac fi

ci

O

ec

an

Park Headqua

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

12

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIF CI OCEAN
98 

ALTERNATIVE 2 — ANACAPA ISLAND

NATURAL RESOURCES

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized. Park staff 

would continue to eradicate, where feasible, 

nonnative flora and fauna from the islands. 

The NPS’s highest priority would be 

managing those species that are highly 

invasive or have unacceptable ecological 

impacts.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

As in all of the alternatives, historically 

significant archeological resources, historic 

buildings and structures, and cultural 

landscapes on Anacapa Island would continue 

to be protected and preserved. Historic 

structures in the Anacapa Island Light Station 

Historic District on East Anacapa Island 

would continue to be used for park housing, 

park administrative uses, and visitor services. 

One residential structure that is compatible in 

design with the historic district’s structures 

would be built on the historic footprint of a 

structure that was previously razed. An 

archeological assessment of the proposed 

project area would be undertaken before 

construction of any new structures.

The lighthouse would be maintained and 

opened to the public with accompanying 

exhibits.

Like alternative 1, within cultural landscapes 

the management of native and nonnative 

plants would be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis.

MANAGEMENT ZONES

Most of East Anacapa Island would be zoned 

as frontcountry to provide opportunities for 

outdoor activities in diverse natural settings 

(map 13). The historic light station, extending 

from the landing area to the lighthouse and 

fog signal building and westward to the water 

catchment, would be in the cultural 

landscapes management zone. The cliff faces 

and beaches surrounding the island would be 

in the backcountry management zone to 

protect nesting seabirds and haul-out areas for 

seals and sea lions. The marine environment at 

the landing cove on East Anacapa Island 

would be in the marine developed access zone 

to maintain a pier that facilitates visitor and 

operational access.

Middle Anacapa Island would be in the 

backcountry management zone. 

Most of West Anacapa would be in the 

backcountry management zone to protect a 

large colony of nesting California brown 

pelicans and would continue to be managed as 

a Research Natural Area. Frenchy’s Cove and 

the south side of West Anacapa Island would 

be in the backcountry management zone to 

provide opportunities for outdoor activities in 

diverse natural settings.

WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

Under alternative 2 all of West and Middle 

Anacapa islets would be proposed for 

wilderness designation (620 acres; map 13).

VISITOR USES, ACCESS, 

FACILITIES, AND SERVICES

East Anacapa

East Anacapa would continue to be an ideal 

place for hiking (2 miles of trails); short 

camping trips; and swimming, snorkeling, 

diving, kayaking, and spectacular scenery and 

wildlife viewing opportunities (seabirds, seals, 

sea lions, and tidepool organisms). Access 
Alternative 2 — Anacapa Island

 99

would continue to be only at the landing cove 

and only for loading and unloading 

passengers. There would continue to be no 

anchoring in the cove.

The small visitor contact station with exhibits 

(in the historic storage building) in the 

Anacapa Island Light Station Historic District 

would remain. The historic lighthouse would 

be opened to the public with accompanying 

exhibits.

Middle Anacapa

There would continue to be no public trails on 

Middle Anacapa. Access to water-based 

activities would continue to be via 

concessioner boats or private boats, and the 

island would continue to be closed to all 

landings unless accompanied by an NPSapproved escort.

West Anacapa

A limited number of mostly concessioner-led 

tide-pooling trips to Frenchy’s Cove would 

continue to be offered throughout the year. 

Access to West Anacapa would continue to be 

from the water only and would be limited to 

Frenchy’s Cove. There would continue to be 

no public trails on West Anacapa. 

USER CAPACITIES (DAY 

USE AND OVERNIGHT)

On East Anacapa the overall user capacity 

would continue to be no more than 100 

visitors per day. Included in the 100-person 

capacity would be 16 campers per night, 

reduced from 30 campers in alternative 1. The 

current campground location would be used; 

however, with fewer campers, each site could 

be dispersed to provide higher quality 

experiences.

Visitor capacity would continue to be 

managed on Middle Anacapa by requiring that 

visitors be accompanied by an NPS-approved 

escort. Camping would continue to not be 

permitted.

On West Anacapa at Frenchy’s Cove, no more 

than 75 visitors at one time would be allowed 

and no more than 600 visitors per month. All 

groups of 30 or more must be supervised in an 

NPS-led or NPS-approved group. Camping 

would continue to not be permitted.

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

On East Anacapa Island all housing would 

remain in the Anacapa Island Light Station 

Historic District. The single-family residence 

(in the assistant lightkeeper’s house) would be 

retained. Under alternative 2 a new housing 

unit would be constructed, in a design that is 

compatible with the Spanish Revival style of 

the light station. The new housing unit would 

be built on the site of a previous light station 

residence to replace the efficiency apartment 

in the historic generator building. The 

bunkhouse in the historic storage building 

would be retained.

No water wells are on Anacapa Island. Water 

would continue to be shipped and transported 

to the island until such time it is necessary and 

appropriate to implement some other means 

to provide freshwater (i.e., desalination).

The crane at the landing cove would be 

replaced.

A small equipment storage building would be 

constructed in the historic district to support 

park operations. 
East Anacapa 

Middle Anacapa Island

West Anacapa Island

Cat Rock

Frenchys Cove

East Fish Camp

0 0.5 1 miles

North

Frenchys Cove Beach

ANACAPA PASSAGE

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

Muse

Ranger resid

Anacapa Islan

East Anacap

DSC September 2013

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

Channel Islands National Park

13

Map

Cathedral Cove

LEGEND

within NPS Boundary

Marine Conservation Area 

within NPS Boundary

Marine Reserve Area 

Authorized park boundary

Administration

Frontcountry

Historic Landscape

Backcountry

Wilderness/

Road

Trail

Brown Pelican Fledgling Area

Anacapa Island Special Closure - 

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN

LOCATION
 101

ALTERNATIVE 2 — SANTA CRUZ ISLAND

NATURAL RESOURCES

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized. Park staff 

would continue to eradicate, where feasible, 

nonnative flora and fauna from the islands. 

The NPS’s highest priority would be 

managing those species that are highly 

invasive or have unacceptable ecological 

impacts.

The floodplains at Scorpion Valley and 

Prisoners Harbor would be managed to 

restore natural conditions to the extent 

possible while ensuring access and protecting 

cultural resources and visitor facilities. 

At Scorpion Valley, several actions would be 

taken to begin restoring natural conditions of 

the Scorpion Creek floodplain. The secondary 

road that crosses through the wetland near the 

mouth of the creek would be removed and the 

area regraded to restore the riverine wetland 

channel. Native vegetation would also be 

planted in the wetland area as appropriate. 

The road between the upper and lower 

campgrounds would be relocated. A study 

also would be conducted on the feasibility of 

restoring the small wetland at the mouth of 

the creek.

Sediment in the flood channel would be 

periodically excavated to protect the historic 

district. An estimated 8,000 cubic yards of 

material would need to be periodically 

removed from the west end of the lower 

campground or across from the well to the 

start of the rock wall at the beach (about 2,000 

feet long). Dredged material would be 

temporarily stockpiled on the south side of 

the stream, above the upper road crossing to 

the west and would be used for road fill. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Scorpion Valley

The historic ranch would be preserved and 

protected. The historic masonry building 

would continue as a visitor contact station 

with exhibit and office space. 

The historic bunkhouse would be used to 

support park operations. (Note: The historic 

bunkhouse is under a 25-year retained rights 

agreement with the previous owner.) The 

other historic ranch structures and associated 

sheds, fences, and gates would be preserved or 

rehabilitated for operational uses and to 

interpret the island’s historic ranching story. 

Because all of the ranch buildings are within 

the 100-year floodplain, nonreplaceable or 

nonexpendable items would be moved 

seasonally. Periodic flooding may cause 

deterioration of the historic buildings over 

time.

A barn structure would be built in the current 

location of the corral for interpretive exhibits 

and programs. This structure would be 

constructed in a manner that is compatible 

with the height, style, scale, architectural 

character, and materials of the contributing 

cultural landscape features. Any new 

development would be sensitively located to 

preserve historic landscape character and new 

structures would be designed to be 

compatible with the height, style, scale, 

architectural character, and materials of the 

contributing cultural landscape features.

Prisoners Harbor

A portion of the historic warehouse building 

would be rehabilitated to serve as a visitor 

contact and orientation center. The part of the 

warehouse used by The Nature Conservancy 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

102

would continue to be used for storage of 

supplies and equipment. 

NATURAL–CULTURAL RESOURCES

Dry-laid rock walls constructed on NPS lands 

to slow or divert water from flowing naturally 

would be evaluated to determine if the 

structures are having an adverse impact on 

streamflow. Walls and structures that are 

acting to protect park facilities would be 

maintained. Other structures having an 

adverse impact on streamflow would be 

evaluated for removal. 

Landscape vegetation on NPS lands on Santa 

Cruz Island would be managed in a manner 

that would not perpetuate the spread of 

nonnative plants. Nonnative plants in cultural 

landscapes and historic districts would be 

managed on a case-by-case basis to prevent 

ecological impacts and limit the spread of 

these plants. Nonnative trees including, but 

not limited to, pepper trees, olive trees, 

eucalyptus, and stone pine, would be 

controlled to prevent them from spreading as 

much as possible both within the cultural 

landscapes zone and throughout the rest of 

the island. If it was not possible to control the 

spread of these nonnative trees, the trees 

would be removed and may be replaced with 

native or noninvasive species, including the 

cultural landscapes zone. In addition, 

individual trees could be removed if they were 

a hazard to human safety.

Scorpion Valley

Nonnative plants in the Scorpion Valley 

would be managed the same way as described 

in alternative 1, with the exception of 

eucalyptus groves in the campground. To 

prevent injuries due to hazards associated 

with eucalyptus limbs, the historic eucalyptus 

groves in the campground would be managed 

in a manner to prevent injury to visitors while 

preserving the cultural landscape. If this 

cannot be accomplished, then the stand of 

eucalyptus trees in the area would be replaced 

with a less hazardous tree species that 

provides shade for campground users.

Delphine’s Grove, the Monterey Cypress 

plantings, and other nonnative, noninvasive 

tree species would continue to be preserved. 

Specimen eucalyptus, small stands of 

eucalyptus, and the long row of eucalyptus 

trees between the upper and lower Scorpion 

campground loops would be contained to 

prevent their spread.

The Townsend’s long-eared bat, a rare 

species, uses the former ranch house bakery 

seasonally as a maternity roost. This causes 

some conflicts with preservation and 

interpretive use of the bakery. However, park 

staff would protect the colony in the building 

until another suitable location for the 

maternity colony can be established. 

Smugglers Cove

The historic olive grove would be maintained 

in a manner that perpetuates the grove as a 

cultural landscape feature but prevents the 

olive trees from spreading, as much as 

possible. The park would develop an olive 

orchard management plan that addresses the 

preservation of the orchard while preventing 

the spread of olive trees beyond the cultural 

landscape.

MANAGEMENT ZONES

Map 14 shows how Santa Cruz Island would 

be zoned under alternative 2. Most of this 

island would be in the backcountry 

management zone to provide opportunities 

for outdoor activities in diverse natural 

settings. 

Scorpion Valley (including the historic 

buildings, tree plantings, and dry-laid rock 

structures) would be in a frontcountry zone. A 

small area north of the frontcountry zone 

would be in an administrative zone to support 
Alternative 2 — Santa Cruz Island

 103

operational needs (housing and maintenance). 

The road leading from Scorpion Valley to 

Smugglers Cove would be in an administrative 

zone to support operational needs in 

maintaining the cove area. Delphine’s Grove 

would be in a cultural landscape zone. The 

marine environment at Scorpion would be in a 

marine developed access zone to maintain a 

pier to facilitate visitor and operational access.

The Smugglers Cove drainage would be in a 

cultural landscape zone to emphasize the 

management of the historic buildings, 

structures, and groves/orchards.

The marine environment at Prisoners Harbor 

would be in a marine developed access zone 

to maintain a pier that facilitates visitor and 

operational access. The current “Navy Road” 

from Prisoners Harbor and ending with a 

small trail segment to a radio-repeater site 

would be in an administrative zone due to a 

preexisting easement. The Prisoners Harbor 

area, which contains elements of the historic 

ranching era, would be in a frontcountry zone. 

A small area east of the mouth of the creek 

and south of the Navy Road would be in an 

administrative zone to support operational 

needs.

The historic Rancho Del Norte site would be 

in a cultural landscapes zone and managed to 

support operational needs (housing). The 

trail/unimproved road leading to Rancho Del 

Norte from the Navy Road would be in an 

administrative zone.

WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

Under alternative 2 most of the NPS lands 

eligible for wilderness designation on Santa 

Cruz Island (a total of 14,476 acres) would be 

proposed for wilderness designation (map 14).

VISITOR USES, ACCESS, 

FACILITIES, AND SERVICES

NPS lands on Santa Cruz Island would 

continue to offer many opportunities for 

hiking, swimming, snorkeling, diving, 

kayaking, one-day trips, short or long 

overnight camping trips, and opportunities for 

seeing wildlife. Beach access would continue 

primarily at Scorpion Valley, Smugglers Cove, 

and Prisoners Harbor. Private boaters would 

continue to use the piers at Scorpion Valley

and Prisoners Harbor only for loading and 

unloading passengers. 

The trail system in the NPS portion of eastern 

Santa Cruz Island, a combination of 

unmaintained trails and unimproved 

administrative roads, would change under this 

alternative. Additional trails would be 

provided on NPS lands. Specific trail 

alignments as well as campsite locations, 

would be determined in the future parkwide 

backcountry management plan. 

Under this alternative drinking water would 

continue to be provided at Scorpion Valley. In 

addition, if feasible, potable water would be 

provided at Smugglers Cove, Prisoners 

Harbor, and Rancho Del Norte. Vault toilets 

would be installed at Scorpion Valley and at 

other visitor destinations/trailheads.

Scorpion Valley

The existing Scorpion pier would be 

maintained. Except for the concessioner tour 

boat, no private boats would be allowed to tie 

up at the pier.

Commercial recreational services 

management would be switched from 

commercial use authorizations (CUAs) to an 

on-island concessions contract. The existing 

informal kayak guide camping area at the well 

house in the lower campground loop would 

be formalized with 12 to 15 permanent 

housing units for concession staff. (Some 

additional housing also may be provided for 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

104

concession staff at the NPS housing area.) A 

central pavilion for common gathering, food 

preparation, and dining with restrooms and 

showers would be provided.

The Park Service would manage kayaking and 

snorkeling through an on-island concessions 

contract. To support island-based kayaking 

and snorkeling, a day use facility would be 

constructed near the beach. Another facility 

may be needed within the ranch area to 

support kayak storage and maintenance. An 

expanded vault toilet with a changing area 

would be constructed near the beach. These 

facilities would be built to be compatible with 

the cultural landscape and would be built so 

they could be moved if necessary. 

The historic masonry structure at Scorpion 

Valley would continue to serve as the primary 

visitor contact station with exhibit and office 

space. The existing orientation station, 

consisting of an open-air shelter, exhibits, 

changing rooms, and vault toilets, would 

continue to be maintained, with additional 

vault toilets provided in this vicinity if needed.

The bunkhouse would be rehabilitated to 

accommodate a small concessioner office, a 

small camp store, and an area for NPS 

administrative use. The adjacent kitchen 

building could be used for special events and 

storage.

A new barn structure within the current corral

(nonhistoric) area would be constructed for 

interpretive exhibits and programs. This area 

would serve as a meeting place for interpretive 

talks, walks, and hikes. 

Picnicking would be provided throughout the 

valley including at the Ranch House.

The existing campground would continue to 

be maintained with a capacity of 240 campers 

per night. The upper and lower campgrounds 

would be reconfigured to accommodate both 

individual and group sites. To ensure visitor 

safety camping would be limited in the winter 

to 10 campsites that are out of flood danger. 

Additional restrooms could be constructed if 

necessary.

Smugglers Cove

The future parkwide backcountry 

management plan would determine the 

location of primitive campsites at Smugglers 

Cove, which would be seasonal, small capacity 

(16 to 20 campers), and available only when a 

camp host is provided. Until that plan is 

completed, no campsites would be provided 

in this area.

Prisoners Harbor

A portion of the historic warehouse building 

at Prisoners Harbor would be rehabilitated to 

serve as a visitor contact station with exhibits 

and for operational needs (e.g., equipment 

storage, fire cache, and search-and-rescue 

cache). Part of the warehouse would continue 

to be used for storage of supplies and

equipment. Additional restrooms would be 

added near the historic warehouse outside the 

floodplain. 

If possible, a new education center/volunteer 

camp for students and work school groups 

would be built in the Prisoners Harbor area. 

The camp would include tent platforms; a 

pavilion-like facility with a designated 

cooking, eating, and gathering area; and group 

restrooms. If the camp cannot be built in the 

Prisoners Harbor area, it would be built in 

Scorpion Valley within or adjacent to the 

campground, outside the floodplain.

Rancho Del Norte

Limited backcountry camping (16 campers) 

would continue near Rancho Del Norte until 

such time as the park completes the parkwide 

backcountry management plan. 
Alternative 2 — Santa Cruz Island

 105

USER CAPACITIES (DAY 

USE AND OVERNIGHT)

Under alternative 2 the user capacity of 

Scorpion Valley would be maintained at its 

current level. Up to a maximum of 200 visitors 

per day would be permitted in Scorpion 

Valley (not including campers). In the 

campground, 240 campers per night would 

continue to be permitted. As in alternative 1, 

the campground would remain in the 

floodplain. Visitor safety would be facilitated 

by limiting camping in the winter to 10 

campsites that were out of flood danger.

At Smugglers Cove, there would be no limit on 

private boaters. Camping would be permitted 

for 16 to 20 campers after the parkwide 

backcountry management plan is completed. 

At Prisoners Harbor, no more than 100 

visitors per day would be allowed. There 

would continue to be no campground at 

Prisoners Harbor.

The parkwide backcountry management plan 

would define the locations of primitive 

backcountry campsites on the Santa Cruz 

Island isthmus.

Alternative 2 calls for the development of a 

parkwide backcountry management plan, 

which could lead to increased opportunities 

for hiking and backcountry camping on Santa 

Cruz Island. Specific campsite locations, 

overnight use limits, and suitable trail 

alignments would be determined through the 

development of this plan. Day use limits might 

be established, if warranted, based on 

monitoring of resource and visitor experience 

conditions.

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

Roads 

Approximately 20.2 miles of roads would 

continue to be maintained on NPS lands on 

Santa Cruz Island. The road from Scorpion 

Valley to Smugglers Cove would continue to 

be maintained for park operations. The road 

from the navy site to TNC airstrip and the 

road from Prisoners Harbor to the navy site 

(of which The Nature Conservancy owns a 

10.6-mile easement) also would be 

maintained. 

Scorpion Valley 

The six temporary staff housing units would 

be removed and replaced with permanent 

structures at the current location. The larger 

area needed for permanent structures would 

expand to the south into the hillside. The 

additional area would also allow for 

expansion in the future should additional 

employees be needed to accommodate 

increased visitation or operational needs. The 

historic bunkhouse would be used to support 

park operations. Office space would be 

provided for resource and interpretative staff 

in a new facility in the housing area. 

Concession housing would be constructed 

just west of the lower campground to house 

up to 18 employees.

To support this additional demand for water, 

wastewater disposal, and electrical, the 

following would be needed—water storage 

capacity would have to be increased from 

8,000 gallons to approximately 30,000 gallons; 

and no expansion of the infiltrator-designed 

leach field would be necessary to handle the 

increase in wastewater.

Maintenance operations would be moved out 

of the housing area to an area at the rear of 

and behind the current corral. A small 

structure would be constructed to provide 

bays for a variety of functions (a shop for 

vehicle maintenance and maintenance office, 

natural and cultural resource equipment, and 

a fire cache). The maintenance structure 

would be as small as practical and should be 

compatible with the cultural landscape. The 

structure would be located to provide space 

for the vehicle maintenance and storage 

needs, but screen other maintenance and park 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

106

operations that would be located outside and 

behind the structure, such as fuel and 

hazardous material storage and large 

equipment storage. In addition, the area 

would accommodate the plant nursery. This 

location would be out of the 100-year 

floodplain and would not require crossing 

Scorpion Creek to access visitor, cultural, or 

park operation areas. Fuel storage and 

hazardous materials would be stored in a new 

facility outside the 500-year floodplain.

Smugglers Cove

The historic masonry building would be 

rehabilitated for use as housing for seasonal 

employees, work teams, and volunteers.

Prisoners Harbor 

New NPS housing would be built in the 

Prisoners Harbor area on the east side of 

Cañada del Puerto. Housing would be 

provided for at least two year-round

employees and two seasonal personnel. If 

possible, the new facilities would be built on 

NPS lands outside of the floodplain. If this 

option is not feasible, NPS staff would work 

with The Nature Conservancy to determine if 

staff housing can be located on TNC lands. 

A small maintenance/storage structure and a 

few parking spaces for NPS / administrative 

vehicles would be located in a disturbed area 

out of the floodplain near the intersection of 

the Navy Road and the water well service 

road. This development would be screened 

from visitors by vegetation. Emergency 

medical supplies and search-and-rescue 

equipment would be kept inside the storage 

facility. This development might require the 

use of lands managed by The Nature 

Conservancy, which would require their 

consent.

Rancho Del Norte

The seasonal employee housing unit would be 

retained. Facility upgrades such as potable 

water are being done.

Other Infrastructure and Facilities

Unless otherwise indicated, all facilities and 

infrastructure identified under alternative 1 

would continue to be maintained in 

alternative 2. The items shown would require 

additional technical feasibility studies. 

• Water/Wastewater Needs

o Addition of a new well at Scorpion 

Harbor and additional treated 

water storage of approximately 

30,000 gallons

o Individual wastewater treatment 

units or rainwater collection units 

to recycle and reuse gray water at 

Scorpion Harbor

o Addition of a new well at Prisoners 

Harbor and additional treated 

water storage of approximately 

10,000 gallons

o Individual wastewater treatment 

units or rainwater collection units 

to recycle and reuse gray water at 

Prisoners Harbor

• Addition of a 25kW solar photovoltaic 

system at Scorpion Valley.
Potato Harbor

Chinese

Harbor

Coche Point

Profile

Point

Hazards Anchorage Painted Cave

Mount Diablo

The Nature Conservancy

San Pedro

Point

Hungrymans

Anchorage

Smugglers Cove

Yellowbanks Anchorage

Middle Anchorage

Sandstone Point

Valley Anchorage

Bluebanks Anchorage

Albert Anchorage

Coaches Prietos Anchorage

Bowen Point Williams

Anchorage

Laguna

Harbor

Punta Arena

Morse

Point

Kinton

Black

Point

Point

Forney

West

Cove

Point

Gull Island

Scorpion Anchorage

Scorpion Valley Ranch

Little Scorpion

Anchorage

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

SANTA CRUZ CHANNEL

Cueva Valdez Anchorage

Ladys Harbor

Prisoners Harbor

Pelican Bay

Twin Harbors

Platts Harbors

Frys Harbor

Babys Cove

Diablo Anchorage

Central Valley

Santa Cruz Island

0 0.5 1 mile

North

Santa Cruz Is

ANA

AC

AP

AP

SS

GA

E

Upper Campground

Lower Campground

Interpretation

To Smugglers Cove

Housing

Kayak

Storage

Smugg el rs Road

Pier

Visitor 

Interpr

Mainte

The Nature

Conservancy

Prisoner

Harbor

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

14

LEGEND

Authorized park boundary

Marine Reserve Area 

within NPS Boundary

State Marine 

Conservation Area

Marine Stewardship Area 

within NPS Boundary

Wilderness/

Backcountry

Historic Landscape

Frontcountry

Administration

Trail

Road

State Marine Conservation Area

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIF CI OCEAN Scorpion Valley Prisoner

Canada del 

The Nature

Conservancy

Visitor Contact/Interpretation

LEGEND

Concession Visitor Services 

(Guest Lodging/Food etc.)

Camping

Picnic/Day Use

Support/Operational

(NPS and Concession)

Ecological Restoration 

P IER L OCATION

Administrative Road

Administrative Use

Administrative Road to Smugglers

Cavern Point Loop

• Could be relocated

 pending separate EIS

E XISTING U PPER

C AMPGROUND

L OOP

S TREAM C HANNEL

R ELOCATED

E XISTING

L OWER

C AMPGROUND

L OOP

C ONCESSION H OUSING

• Potential expansion to support

 NPS or concessioner

E XISTING NPS H OUSING

P IER L ANDING /

S TAGING

R OAD R EMOVED

T RAIL / B OARDWALK

I F NEEDED

• Exhibits

• Staging

• Expanded restrooms

E XISTING

O RIENTATION S TATION

• Redesigned, reorganized

E XISTING K AYAK

S TAGING / S TORAGE

• Relocated to corral

• Nursery

M AINTENANCE

• Ranching exhibits

• Evening programs

• Presentation area

I NTERPRETIVE B ARN

• Rehabilitate historic structures

• Exhibits and offices

• Picnic facilities

E XISTING V ISITOR C ENTER &

NPS C ONCESSION A DMIN .

P RESERVE T REE S TANDS

W ETLAND

0 125 250 feet

North

Scorpion Valley – Alternative 2 

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

15

D ELPHINE ’ S G ROVE

C ORRAL

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island Scorpion Valley

LOCATION

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN

C A L I F O R N I A

C A N A D A

D E L

P U E R T O

To Pelican Bay (by permit)

Pier

to Central Valley

to Navy Site

P ICNIC A REA

E XISTING

W ETLAND

• Adaptively reuse portion 

 of historic warehouse

V ISITOR C ONTACT

& E XHIBITS

S CALE H OUSE

R ESTROOM

P ICNIC A REA

National Park Service

The Nature Conservancy

National

Park

Service

The

Natu

re Conservancy

Navy Road

0 100 200 feet

North

Prisoners Harbor – Alternative 2 

• NPS Housing

• Maintenance

NPS H OUSING

AND M AINTENANCE

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

16

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Prisoners Harbor

LOCATION

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN

C A L I F O R N I A

Visitor Contact/Interpretation

LEGEND

Concession Visitor Services 

(Guest Lodging/Food etc.)

Camping

Picnic/Day Use

Support/Operational

(NPS and Concession)

Ecological Restoration 

113

ALTERNATIVE 2 — SANTA ROSA ISLAND

NATURAL RESOURCES

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized. Park staff 

would continue to eradicate, where feasible, 

nonnative flora and fauna from the islands. 

The NPS’s highest priority would be 

managing those species that are highly 

invasive or have unacceptable ecological 

impacts.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The entire ranch complex at Bechers Bay 

would be preserved to interpret the ranching 

history of the island. One or more of the 

historic structures would be rehabilitated to 

serve as a visitor contact station. Other 

historic structures would be rehabilitated for 

use as visitor accommodations, interpretation,

and a research / education center. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES

Map 17 shows how Santa Rosa would be 

zoned under alternative 2. Almost the entire 

island would be in backcountry zones, with a 

few minor exceptions to provide 

opportunities for outdoor activities in diverse 

natural settings. Most of the coastline would 

be in a backcountry management zone to 

protect nesting shorebirds and haul-out areas 

for seals and sea lions. The marine 

environment at Bechers Bay would be in a 

marine developed access zone to maintain a 

pier to facilitate visitor and operational access. 

The area east of the historic ranch to the 

ocean and south encompassing Water Canyon 

would be in a frontcountry zone to support a 

public campground. At Bechers Bay the 

airstrip would be in the administrative 

management zone to support public air access. 

Other areas in administrative zones would 

include the NPS housing and maintenance 

areas. The road corridor leading from the 

historic ranch to the base of the Torrey Pines 

and to the Lobo Canyon trailhead also would 

be in an administrative zone to provide a small 

on-island transportation concession 

operation. The historic ranch area would be in 

a frontcountry management zone because 

higher levels of visitation can be expected in 

this area with the future development 

proposed in this area and because the ferry 

concessioner is increasing trips to this area. 

WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

Under alternative 2, the entire Santa Rosa 

Island, except for the Bechers Bay area, 

Johnson’s Lee, and several road corridors, 

would be proposed for wilderness designation 

(a total of 50,901 acres; map 18).

VISITOR USES, ACCESS, 

FACILITIES, AND SERVICES

Santa Rosa Island would continue to offer 

many opportunities for hiking, beach walking, 

camping, and wildlife viewing. Numerous 

hiking options on the unimproved 

administrative road system and one-day trips 

and short or long overnight camping trips 

would remain available. No unimproved 

roads are currently slated for removal or for 

incorporation into the trail system; however, 

this could change pending the outcome of the 

parkwide backcountry management plan that 

integrates trails and backcountry camping. 

Beach access would continue at Bechers Bay. 

Private boaters would use the pier at Bechers 

Bay only for loading and unloading 

passengers. Beaches around Sandy Point 

would continue to be closed year-round to 

landings, and the beaches between Skunk 

Point and East Point would remain closed 

seasonally. Due to frequent strong winds, 

swimming, snorkeling, diving, and kayaking 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

114

would continue to be limited and 

recommended for the experienced visitor. 

The beaches between Carrington Point and 

East Point and the beaches surrounding Sandy 

Point would continue to be closed year-round 

to camping.

A visitor contact station with exhibits would 

be established through the reuse of one of the 

historic structures in the historic ranch 

complex at Bechers Bay and/or construction 

of a new compatible building. Nonhistoric 

structures within the historic district may be 

replaced. All replacement structures must be 

compatible with the historic district such that 

new structures would be designed to be 

compatible with the height, style, scale, 

architectural character, and materials of the

contributing features of the historic district. 

A concession-run, economy-scale lodging 

operation, such as a hostel, and food service 

would be provided through the rehabilitation 

of the historic ranch structures. Lodging 

would be limited to about 40 visitors. 

Concession administrative support facilities, 

including employee housing, would be 

incorporated within the existing ranch 

complex. Some buildings might have to be 

modified internally to accommodate the 

lodging functions. Some nonhistoric 

structures also may be replaced with 

compatible structures to support lodging and 

concession housing, such as the bunkhouse. 

The historic generator barn would be 

rehabilitated to support concession and park 

storage and operational needs. The historic 

horse barn would be rehabilitated to support 

concession operations and park interpretive 

exhibits. 

Water Canyon campground would be 

reduced from a 75-person to a 50-person 

campground. In addition, a new group 

campground for up to 60 people would be 

located on the Bechers Bay marine terrace 

(within the ranch complex).

The Park Service would permit a small 

concession-operated vehicle transport system 

on Santa Rosa Island to provide visitors with 

access to various day use areas and help 

disperse visitors and prevent crowding in the 

historic ranch area. Of the 67 miles of road 

maintained on Santa Rosa Island, 21 miles 

would be maintained to provide public access 

via commercial vehicles to Johnson’s Lee, the 

Torrey Pines, and Lobo Canyon trailhead, and 

possibly other destinations (map 19). A 

maintenance facility for the visitor transport 

vehicles would be developed in the Bechers 

Bay area. 

A field station would be established at Bechers 

Bay in the historic district to support research 

and provide a venue for education and 

volunteer opportunities. The facility would 

support 30 to 40 people, including volunteer 

groups, and would include accommodations 

for visiting researchers and students. It would 

include a single-family housing unit for staff to 

administer the field station. Some buildings 

might have to be modified or replaced to 

accommodate the field station.

Historic line camps, used during the ranching 

days of the island, would serve as primitive 

campsites. Each camp would be rustic in 

design and equipped with a small corral, vault 

toilets, and a cooking/eating shelter. (Details 

on the design of the line camps and trail 

system would be developed in the future 

parkwide backcountry management plan.

Campsite design would ensure that 

contributing features of the historic line 

camps would not be impacted by future use.) 

The Park Service would continue to work 

with the private sector to provide year-round 

public air transportation via a concessioner 

for day use visitors and campers. The airstrip 

would continue to be maintained.

Restroom facilities would be added at various 

visitor destinations/trailheads. 

A small day use area, group shelter, and picnic 

area would be developed at Johnson’s Lee. 
Alternative 2 — Santa Rosa Island

 115

Potable water would not be provided at 

Johnson’s Lee. 

USER CAPACITIES (DAY 

USE AND OVERNIGHT)

The 1995 Development Concept Plan for Santa 

Rosa set an upper limit of 500 people per day. 

The user capacity at Bechers Bay would not 

exceed 500 visitors per day, including 110 

campers and about 40 visitors at the economyscale lodge. 

No overnight camping would be allowed at 

the Johnson’s Lee day use area under 

alternative 2.

Alternative 2 calls for the development of a 

parkwide backcountry management plan. 

Among other topics, this plan would identify 

overnight user capacities on Santa Rosa 

Island, including backcountry camping near 

beaches. Specific campsite locations, 

overnight use limits, and suitable trail 

alignments would be determined through the 

development of this plan. Day use limits might 

be established, if warranted, based on 

monitoring of resource and visitor experience 

conditions.

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

Roads 

The historic circulation systems (roads) of 

Santa Rosa Island would be thoroughly 

evaluated in the parkwide backcountry 

management plan. As determined appropriate, 

some road segments would be converted to 

hiking trails or maintained for visitor access. 

Suitable trail alignments would be selected 

through the parkwide backcountry 

management plan. Preference would be given 

to trail alignments that use existing roads. 

Road segments that have unacceptable 

impacts on resources and that are not 

determined to be essential to performing park 

operations or facilitating visitor access by 

conversion to hiking trails would be removed 

and the landscape restored.

Of the 139 miles of roads on Santa Rosa 

Island, 67 miles would continue to be 

maintained, including 21 miles for visitor 

transportation and 46 miles for 

administration; 48% of the roads would be 

removed or converted to hiking trails.

To facilitate the effective and efficient transfer 

of cargo for the concessioner and park 

operations, a screened staging area would be 

established near the pier. 

Administrative Housing

The park housing complex (two 2-bedroom 

duplexes, two 1-bedroom duplexes, and two 

garages) in Cherry Canyon would remain. 

Two 8-person bunkhouses would be built in 

the same location to accommodate seasonal 

and transient staff and visiting scientists. Each 

unit would include bathroom, kitchen, and 

communal living spaces. 

A ranger station and an administrative and 

concession operations support facility would 

be accommodated in the ranch complex.

Johnson’s Lee

Johnson’s Lee would be used to support 

operations on the south and west portions of 

Santa Rosa Island. A backcountry ranger 

station would be developed. Restroom 

facilities and water would be provided to 

support operations. All utilities would be 

supported by renewable energy.

Other Infrastructure and Facilities

Unless otherwise indicated, all facilities and 

infrastructure identified under alternative 1 

would continue to be maintained in 

alternative 2. The items shown would require 

additional technical feasibility studies. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

116

• Water/wastewater needs

o Addition of a new well at Bechers 

Bay, providing up to 10,000 

gallons per day of water in tandem 

with increased wastewater 

amounts removed from the island 

or improved wastewater discharge 

facilities

o Individual wastewater treatment 

units or rainwater collection units 

to recycle and reuse gray water

• Addition of a 25kW solar photovoltaic 

system.
South Point

Sandy Point

Brockway Point

TALCOTT SHOAL

Carrington

Point

Northwest 

Anchorage

Sout

Anc

Ford Point

Johnsons Lee

Black Mountain

Soledad Peak

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

AS

N M GI UEL

AP

S AS

GE

Santa Rosa Island

Bechers Bay

0 1 2 miles

North

Santa Rosa Is

NPS Housing

Airstrip

Lobo Canyon

Torrey Pines

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

17

LEGEND

Authorized park boundary

Marine Reserve Area 

within NPS Boundary

Marine Conservation Area 

within NPS Boundary

Wilderness/

Backcountry

Historic Landscape

Frontcountry

Administration Trail

Road Administration

Restricted Access

San M

Isl

SANTA B

Enlargement shown at right

s

Maintain

eparation

Carrington Point Road

Smith Highway

Pier

0 125 250 feet

North

0 600 1,200 feet

North

• Remove, reuse, or replace 

 existing structure

• Accommodate overnight:

 – Researchers

 – Volunteer groups

 – Education groups

F IELD S TATION

G ROUP C AMPGROUND

• Replace existing building 

 with new facility

• Interpretive exhibits throughout 

 ranch complex

V ISITOR C ENTER

• Screen area

• Replace building with new facility

G UEST L ODGING &

C ONCESSION H OUSING

T EMPORARY R ANGER

S TATION / E XHIBIT

• Decrease from 75 to 50

 campers/night

W ATER C ANYON

C AMPGROUND

• Visitor use: tackshed, lower bay, loft

• Concession storage: upper bay

V ISITOR S ERVICES

C ONCESSION O PERATIONS

• Adapt to meet

 concession storage 

 and operational needs

C ONCESSION

FACILITY

• Vehicle parking

• Concession housing (if necessary)

• Concession storage

• Concession administration

• NPS operations

I SLAND T RANSPORTATION H U B /

O PERATIONS C ENTER • Adapt building for

 Lodging/food service

G UEST L ODGING

to Water Canyon

Campground

NPS C ONCESSION

T RANSPORTATION

S TAGING A REA

Bechers Bay – Alternative 2 

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

18

A IRSTRIP

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Bechers Bay

LOCATION

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN

C A L I F O R N I A

Visitor Contact/Interpretation

LEGEND

Concession Visitor Services 

(Guest Lodging/Food etc.)

Camping

Picnic/Day Use

Support/Operational

(NPS and Concession)

Ecological Restoration 

Visitor Contact/Interpretation

LEGEND

Concession Visitor Services 

(Guest Lodging/Food etc.)

Camping

Picnic/Day Use

Support/Operational

(NPS and Concession)

Ecological Restoration 

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Johnson’s Lee

LOCATION

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN

C A L I F O R N I A

0 100 200 feet

North

• Picnic area

• Vault toilets

D A Y U S E F ACILITIES

• Replace existing structures

• Backcountry ranger station

 – NPS offices

 – Storage

 – Visitor orientation

• Vault toiltes

A DMINISTRATIVE S UPPORT

Trail

R A V I N E

Trail

Johnson’s Lee Road

to Backcountry 

to Soledad Peak 

and Bechers Bay

• Convert road to trail

• Road open to administrative use only

G ATE /

T RAILHEAD

B E A C H E S

Johnson’s Lee – Alternative 2 

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

19

123

ALTERNATIVE 2 — SAN MIGUEL ISLAND

NATURAL RESOURCES

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized. Park staff 

would continue to eradicate, where feasible, 

nonnative flora and fauna from the islands. 

The NPS’s highest priority would be 

managing those species that are highly 

invasive or have unacceptable ecological 

impacts.

MANAGEMENT ZONES

Map 20 displays the alternative 2 management 

zoning for San Miguel Island. Most of the 

interior of island would be in the backcountry 

management zone to provide opportunities 

for outdoor activities in diverse natural 

settings. The entire coastline (with the 

exception of a small area within Cuyler 

Harbor) and cliffs would be in the 

backcountry management zone due to the 

prevalence of seal and sea lion haul-outs, 

rookeries, and seabird rookeries. In addition 

to the coastline, the caliche forest would be in 

the backcountry management zone. About the 

middle third of the Cuyler Harbor coastline 

would be in the administrative zone to 

provide public access and park operations. 

The trail leading from Cuyler Harbor to the 

old ranch complex airstrip and ranger station 

would be in the administrative zone to 

support operations and public air access. The 

trail leading from the airstrip at the dry lake 

bed to the research station at Point Bennett 

would also be in the administrative zone to 

support research station operations. 

VISITOR USES, ACCESS, 

FACILITIES, AND SERVICES

This island would continue to be an ideal 

place for seeing native vegetation, the unique 

caliche forest, seals and sea lions (with ranger 

escort), scenic Cuyler Harbor beach; to do 

limited hiking (2 miles to the Cuyler Harbor 

beach and 0.75 mile to the ranger station); and 

to take day and overnight trips. To see other 

parts of the island, specifically the pinnipeds 

at Point Bennett and Cardwell Point, visitors 

must continue to be escorted by a ranger. 

(Boating visitors must contact the park in 

advance to coordinate this one-day activity.) 

Visitors would continue to come ashore only 

at Cuyler Harbor. Overnight anchorages 

would be restricted to Cuyler Harbor and 

Tyler Bight. All boating and landings would 

remain restricted seasonally around Point 

Bennett. Due to frequent strong winds, 

swimming, snorkeling, diving, and kayaking 

would continue to be limited and 

recommended for the experienced visitor. 

The visitor contact station would remain in 

the NPS ranger station / housing complex.

In this alternative the Park Service would 

permit guided multiday trips (not to exceed 

four days) by a limited number of park visitors 

(not to exceed 10 individuals) to see large 

concentrations of pinnipeds at Point Bennett. 

The escorted groups would hike to a spike 

camp at or near the dry lake bed at the island’s 

western end. The exact location of the spike 

camp would be determined in the parkwide 

backcountry plan. Guided trips (full-time 

accompaniment by an NPS representative or a 

commercial guide service) would be selfcontained and employ minimum impact 

practices. Minimal facilities to protect 

resources would be provided (e.g., pit toilet, 

food storage, and tent pads). Although this 

would be a new opportunity, the ability to 

participate on the trip would require the 

permittee to be in good physical condition 

and be experienced in remote wilderness-type 

camping. A user fee would be established.

Existing trails would continue to be used.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

124

USER CAPACITIES (DAY 

USE AND OVERNIGHT)

At the ranch complex, the user capacity would 

not exceed 75 visitors per day (not including 

campers) and 30 campers, which would 

include the campers at the spike camp. The 

campground would remain in its current 

location.

On the western part of the island, day use 

would be limited to ranger-guided hikes. If 

NPS- or commercial-guided multiday trips 

were to be offered to Point Bennett, the 

groups could not exceed 10 individuals and 

could not camp for more than four days at the 

spike camp at the west end of the island near 

the dry lake bed. The camp could include 

water, vault toilet, and tent platforms. 

On the remainder of the island, day use would 

be limited to ranger-guided hikes and no 

camping would be permitted. 

The parkwide backcountry management plan 

would consider if additional trails should be 

provided on the island.

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

No housing changes would be proposed. The 

two 1-bedroom units and one bunkhouse 

would remain in use. 

One low-volume water well is on San Miguel 

Island. Water would continue to be drawn 

from this well until such time it is necessary 

and appropriate to implement some other 

means to provide freshwater (i.e., 

desalination).

A small equipment storage building would be 

constructed to support park operations.
Castle Rock

San Miguel Hill

Green Mountain

Landing

Cabrillo Monument

NOAA/NMFS

Facility

Ranger Station/Campground 

Harris Point

Nifty Rock

Hare Rock

Bat Rock

March Rock

Cuyler Harbor

Prince Island

Bay Point

Crook Point

Judith Rock

Point Bennett Tyler Bight

SIMONTON COVE

San Miguel Island

Otter Harbor

Adams

Cove

0 1 2 miles

North

San Miguel Island is owned by the 

managed by the National Park Ser

San Miguel Is

Dry Lake Bed

Airstrip

Airstrip

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

20

Backcountry

LEGEND

Authorized park boundary

Marine Reserve Area 

within NPS Boundary

Marine Conservation Area 

within NPS Boundary

Historic Landscape

Frontcountry

Administration San Miguel Island Special Closure 

Trail

Road

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIF CI OCEAN
126

ALTERNATIVE 2 — SANTA BARBARA ISLAND

NATURAL RESOURCES

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized. Park staff 

would continue to eradicate, where feasible, 

nonnative flora and fauna from the islands. 

The NPS’s highest priority would be 

managing those species that are highly 

invasive or have unacceptable ecological 

impacts.

MANAGEMENT ZONES

Santa Barbara Island would be zoned under 

alternative 2 as shown in map 21. The landing 

cove up to the ranger station would be in the 

administrative zone to facilitate public access 

and support operational needs (access, 

housing, and maintenance). The area south of 

the administrative area would be a small 

frontcountry zone that would support the 

current campground. All areas in the interior 

of the trail system, including the trails, would 

be in the backcountry zone to provide 

opportunities for outdoor activities in diverse 

natural settings. All areas between the trail 

system and the ocean would be in the 

backcountry management zone to protect 

nesting seabirds and haul-out areas for seals 

and sea lions. The marine environment at the 

landing cove would be in the marine 

developed access zone to maintain a pier that 

facilitates visitor and operational access. 

VISITOR USES, ACCESS, 

FACILITIES, AND SERVICES

Exceptional island coastal views; ideal places 

for swimming, snorkeling, diving, kayaking, 

seeing wildlife (seabirds, seals, and sea lions); 

hiking 6 miles of scenic trails; and day and 

overnight camping would continue to be 

available. Trails would continue to be closed 

seasonally to protect nesting California brown 

pelicans. Access to the water would continue 

to be only at the landing cove for loading and 

unloading passengers. Beaches would remain 

closed to aquatic activities to protect wildlife. 

There would continue to be no landing on 

beaches. 

The visitor contact station on Santa Barbara 

Island would remain unchanged and small 

exhibit areas would be maintained on Santa 

Barbara Island.

WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

Under alternative 2 the entire Santa Barbara 

Island, except for the dock, ranger station, and 

campground, would be proposed for 

wilderness designation (639 acres; map 21).

USER CAPACITIES (DAY 

USE AND OVERNIGHT)

The user capacity would not exceed 100 

visitors per day (campers not included) and 30 

campers per night. The campground would 

continue to be maintained as it is presently.

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

No housing changes would be proposed. The 

visitor contact station / housing complex with 

one 1-bedroom unit and one bunkhouse 

would remain in use.

No water wells are on Santa Barbara Island. 

Water would continue to be shipped and 

transported to the island until such time it is 

necessary and appropriate to implement some 

other means to provide freshwater (i.e., 

desalination).
Webster Point

Sutil Island

Arch Point

Landing Cove

Cave Canyon

Ranger Station

Signal Peak

Cat Canyon

Santa Barbara

Island Light

Santa Barbara Island

Campground

0 0.5 1 mile

North

Santa Barbar

Shag Rock

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

LEGEND

Authorized park boundary

Marine Reserve Area 

within NPS Boundary

Marine Conservation Area 

within NPS Boundary

Wilderness/

Backcountry

Historic Landscape

Frontcountry

Administration

Trail

Road

San M

Isl

SANTA B

Map

21
128

ALTERNATIVE 3 (PREFERRED) — PARKWIDE

CONCEPT

As in all of the alternatives, alternative 3 is 

intended to emphasize resource stewardship, 

including ecosystem preservation and 

restoration and preservation of natural 

landscapes, the protection of archeological 

resources, and the preservation and 

rehabilitation, as appropriate, of historic 

structures and cultural landscapes. At the 

same time, the Park Service recognizes in this 

alternative that additional opportunities could 

be provided for the public to learn about, 

protect, and enjoy the park’s special 

resources. 

Under alternative 3, as in all of the 

alternatives, the park would provide a 

diversity of opportunities for visitors with 

different needs and desires. The National Park 

Service would continue to maintain 

opportunities for visitors to access all of the 

islands. But alternative 3, more than any other 

alternative, would expand recreational 

opportunities and accommodations to 

provide more diverse visitor experiences. 

Provided that unacceptable impacts do not 

occur, visitors would have more means 

available to see and experience the islands. 

Consequently, visitors who have not visited 

the park before might be encouraged to come 

to the islands. Visitor levels would be carefully 

managed to ensure quality visitor experiences 

that do not impact park resources. 

Under alternative 3 there would be expanded 

opportunities to bring the park to the people 

through additional facilities and activities, 

including an expanded visitor/education 

center in Ventura Harbor, and expansion of 

distance learning programs and video 

telecasts. Increased efforts would be made to 

provide education programs that focus on all 

grade levels and adults throughout the 

adjacent mainland communities as well as 

throughout the nation through interactive 

distance learning programs.

Although many roads might be removed or 

converted into trails on Santa Cruz and Santa 

Rosa islands, selected roads would continue 

to be maintained for visitors to see Santa Rosa 

Island and to administer and protect 

resources on both Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands.

Under alternative 3, 66,675 acres of the park 

would be proposed for wilderness 

designation, primarily on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands.

Existing facilities would be maintained and 

limited new facilities might be built, or

existing facilities might be maintained or 

rehabilitated, on Anacapa, Santa Cruz, and 

Santa Rosa islands for specific resource 

protection, management, and visitor services. 

There would be few changes in the 

transportation methods used to reach the 

islands or travel on the islands.

Partnerships would be expanded with 

governmental agencies, educational 

institutions, and others to bring the island 

experience to the public and facilitate 

educational opportunities, resource 

stewardship, and research. New concessions 

and other commercial uses might be 

permitted to expand visitor experiences on 

the islands. These businesses could include 

such things as lodging with food service and 

vehicle tours (both on Santa Rosa Island), 

rentals (snorkel and kayak gear), guided 

camping, pinniped viewing on San Miguel 

Island, and environmental education 

throughout the park.

Identified below are general actions called for 

under this alternative. Most island-specific 

actions are identified later in this section.
Alternative 3 (Preferred) — Parkwide

 129

Primary Differences of Alternative 3 From 

Alternative 1

In alternative 3:

• overnight use levels on East Anacapa 

Island would be slightly reduced 

• sediment in the flood channel in Scorpion 

Valley would be periodically excavated

• kayaking and snorkeling at Scorpion 

Valley would be managed through a 

concessioner

• the existing Scorpion campground would 

be reconfigured to accommodate groups

• an education/research field camp would 

be established if possible at Prisoners 

Harbor 

• ground transportation for visitors would 

be provided on Santa Rosa Island via a 

concessioner

• a concessioner would provide visitor 

lodging and food service at Bechers Bay 

on Santa Rosa Island 

• the Water Canyon campground on Santa 

Rosa Island would be reduced, while a 

new campground would be provided at 

Bechers Bay

• a primitive campground and ranger 

station would be provided at Johnson’s 

Lee on Santa Rosa Island

• a field station to support research and 

education would be established at Bechers 

Bay

• guided multiday trips would be 

established to see pinnipeds at Point 

Bennett on San Miguel Island

• a commercial operator would provide 

limited fixed-winged air access to San 

Miguel Island on a trial basis

• the mainland visitor/education center 

would be expanded and some 

administrative and maintenance 

operations would be relocated in Ventura 

Harbor 

• park staff would apply user capacity 

indicators and standards

• approximately 53% of the land portion of 

the park would be proposed for 

wilderness designation

NATURAL RESOURCES

Terrestrial Ecosystems/

Ecological Restoration

The conservation of biological diversity and 

the management of naturally functioning 

ecosystems would continue to be a core value 

in carrying out the preservation of Channel 

Islands National Park. 

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized in 

alternative 3. The park staff would continue to 

eradicate, where feasible, nonnative flora and 

fauna from the islands. The NPS’s highest 

priority would be managing those species that 

are highly invasive or have unacceptable 

ecological impacts. (Some nonnative plants 

contribute to cultural landscapes. Within the 

proposed cultural landscape zones, the 

management of nonnative plants would be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Actions 

would continue to be taken to control invasive 

nonnative plants that can have severe 

ecological impacts.

Floodplains and Wetlands

No new permanent facilities would be built on 

floodplains. (For island-specific information, 

see the description under the “Natural 

Resources” and “Park Operations and 

Facilities” sections for Santa Cruz Island 

below.)

CULTURAL RESOURCES

This alternative would continue to preserve 

historic buildings and structures, and 

landscape features that are listed in or eligible 

for the national register. Archeological and 

ethnographic resources would continue to be 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

130

protected, and traditional uses by culturally 

associated Native Americans would continue 

to be encouraged. 

Cultural resources are an integral component 

of the wilderness area being proposed in the 

park (see below). These cultural resources, 

such as the historic line camps on Santa Rosa 

Island, would be protected and maintained 

according to the pertinent laws and policies 

governing cultural resources and using 

methods that are consistent with the 

preservation of wilderness character and 

values.

Historic Buildings and Structures

Historic buildings and structures would be 

preserved and rehabilitated for administrative 

and/or interpretive purposes as appropriate.

Cultural Landscape Resources

Under this alternative the significant features 

and patterns of cultural landscapes would be 

preserved and protected. Significant cultural 

landscape features and patterns, such as 

buildings, structures, small-scale features, 

spatial organization, circulation patterns, 

natural features, and vegetation, would be 

preserved and protected or rehabilitated as 

appropriate. However, nonnative plants in 

cultural landscape zones that have 

unacceptable ecological impacts or invade 

natural areas could be removed and replaced 

with noninvasive species.

Archeological Resources

Archeological resources would continue to be 

inventoried, managed, and protected. 

Protection and management of archeological 

resources would be informed by an 

Archeological Overview and Assessment 

(Braje et al. 2010). Universities, museums, and 

other institutions would continue to be 

encouraged to conduct archeological research 

in the park.

Ethnographic Resources

Ethnographic resources would continue to be 

researched and managed. Ethnographic 

research on traditionally associated groups 

would be encouraged. Traditional uses by 

culturally associated Native Americans would 

continue to be encouraged.

Museum Collection (including 

Archives and Research Library)

The National Park Service would seek to 

improve the park’s curatorial facilities and 

capabilities and to increase the use of its 

museum collection, archives, and research 

library. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES

New management zones would be applied to 

each of the islands and the surrounding 

marine waters within the park boundary (see 

the management zone definitions in Table 1). 

These zones are described for each island later 

in this section, and can be found on the 

alternative 3 maps for the islands. 

All of the marine waters in the park would be 

within the marine stewardship zone. Those 

areas created by the state of California in 2003 

as marine reserves, constituting about 20% of 

the park’s marine waters, would be in the 

marine protected management zone. The Park 

Service would seek an agreement with the 

State of California and NOAA to ensure 

cooperative management of the park’s waters 

within these zones.

The land zones are described for each island 

later in this section and can be found with the 

marine zones on the alternative 3 maps for the 

islands.
Alternative 3 (Preferred) — Parkwide

 131

WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

Under alternative 3, 66,675 acres 

(approximately 53% of the land area of the 

park) would be proposed for wilderness 

designation. The area proposed for wilderness 

would include all of West and Middle 

Anacapa islands, most of the NPS lands on 

Santa Cruz Island, most of Santa Rosa Island, 

and almost all of Santa Barbara Island. (See the 

island zoning maps and the following islandspecific sections for more details.)

Note: The Park Service has tentatively 

concluded that wilderness designation of 

these areas would be consistent with the 

park’s purpose and significance and would 

help meet the park’s goals as described in 

chapter 1. This is the proposal that would be 

forwarded to the Department of the Interior 

for approval at the conclusion of the planning 

process. However, based on public comments 

the planning team receives on this draft 

plan/wilderness study, the above proposal 

may be modified. 

VISITOR ACCESS

Air Transportation

Public air transportation for day use visitors 

and campers would continue to be available 

year-round only to Santa Rosa Island (Bechers 

Bay) via a park concessioner. Also, on a trial 

basis, a limited number of a concessioners’ 

fixed-wing aircraft would be permitted to use 

the San Miguel Island airstrip at the ranch. 

None of the other islands would be accessible 

by air transportation. The airstrip would 

continue to be maintained. Private aircraft 

would not be permitted to land on parklands.

Public Boat Transportation

Public boat transportation for day use and 

multiday visitors would continue to be 

available year-round to all five of the park 

islands by a park concessioner. The park 

would maintain a pier or dock facility at each 

of the current locations except San Miguel, 

where no pier or dock facility will be 

provided. Existing piers and docks would 

continue to be maintained. The points of 

departure would include Ventura, Santa 

Barbara, and Channel Islands (Oxnard) 

harbors, but would not be limited to these 

locations. It is important that the concession 

operation be co-located within the same 

harbor of the park headquarters to facilitate 

effective and efficient park operations.

Private Boat Transportation

Private boaters could continue to access any 

of the five NPS-managed islands/lands. It 

would not be the intention of the Park Service 

to require landing permits on any of the 

islands. However, if measures need to be 

taken to provide for a quality visitor 

experience and/or prevent impacts on park 

resources in the future, a permit system might 

be necessary. If and until such time, no 

landing permits would be required except for 

those lands administered by The Nature 

Conservancy (western Santa Cruz Island). 

Landings would continue to not be permitted 

on rocks, islets, or at sea caves on or near any 

of the islands. All landing beaches would 

continue to be subject to seasonal closures. 

Specific landing information is given for each 

island later in this section.

On-Island Vehicle Transportation

Most destinations on each of the islands 

would continue to be accessible by foot within 

a few minutes to a few hours. Limited 

commercial ground transportation would be 

considered only for Santa Rosa Island (as 

described later in this section). Of the 67 miles 

of road maintained on Santa Rosa Island, 44 

miles would be maintained to provide public

access via commercial ground transportation. 

No other public vehicular transportation 

would be provided on any of the other islands. 

Before any roads are restored to natural 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

132

conditions, they would be evaluated as trail 

corridors in the future parkwide backcountry 

management plan.

Horse use would not be permitted on Santa 

Rosa Island. 

VISITOR USES, OVERNIGHT 

ACCOMMODATIONS, AND

USER CAPACITY

Like the other alternatives, a variety of visitor 

uses would continue to be permitted on the 

islands in alternative 3. Opportunities for 

hiking, overnight camping, swimming, 

snorkeling, diving, kayaking, scenery and 

wildlife viewing, and other educational and 

recreational activities would continue to be 

available on the islands. All island uses would 

be subject to periodic closures to protect 

wildlife.

OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS 

Reservations would continue to be required 

for all frontcountry camping, and permits 

would continue to be required for 

backcountry camping.

Frontcountry camping would remain available 

year-round in established campgrounds on all 

of the five park islands. The capacity for each 

island campground would be as follows: 

Santa Barbara Island – 30 campers

Anacapa Island – 25 campers

Santa Cruz Island – 240 campers

Santa Rosa Island – 125 campers

San Miguel Island – 30 campers

The total of 450 camper nights are available, 

an increase of 45 camper nights. Camping 

conditions would continue to be primitive. 

Picnic tables would remain at each campsite. 

Drinking water would continue to be 

provided only on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands — there would continue to be no 

potable water on Anacapa, San Miguel, or 

Santa Barbara Island. All camping supplies 

must be hand carried from the dock/beach to 

the campground and back. There would 

continue to be no trash receptacles on any of 

the islands. Thus, all personal trash items must 

be removed from the islands. Pit toilets would 

be available at each of the campgrounds. 

Backcountry camping would continue on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, and 

expanded backcountry camping might be 

available on these islands once the parkwide 

backcountry management plan is completed.

Economy to higher-scale lodging 

opportunities would be provided through 

adaptive use of the historic ranch complex 

structure(s) on Santa Rosa Island (see details 

later in this section). 

User Capacity

Under alternative 3 the existing day use limits 

on visitation would continue on all of the 

islands, with one exception. At the ranch 

complex on San Miguel Island, day use limits 

would be increased over the present levels. 

Based on existing resource conditions and 

expected likely changes in visitor use, this area 

can support additional use without adversely 

affecting resources. 

As in alternative 2, the number of campers that 

would be permitted on East Anacapa, Santa 

Rosa, and Santa Cruz islands would change 

under alternative 3, which in turn would alter 

the islands’ overnight use levels. However, the 

proposed new campsites would be located in 

areas where there would be minimal impacts 

on park resources. New backcountry 

campsites may be proposed in the future on 

Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands (and a 

spike camp on San Miguel Island), but these 

campsites would be carefully located to 

minimize resource impacts. The future 

parkwide backcountry management plan 

would determine the location of these sites 

and appropriate use limits.
Alternative 3 (Preferred) — Parkwide

 133

VISITOR ORIENTATION,

INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION

A comprehensive interpretive plan would be 

developed to guide interpretation throughout 

the islands and would include minimal 

interpretive wayside exhibits on some of the 

islands. Supplemental compliance might be 

necessary to implement aspects of the 

comprehensive interpretive plan. 

On-Island Orientation / 

Interpretive Facilities / Programs

Island orientation would be similar to that 

found in alternative 1. NPS personnel and 

volunteers would continue to provide 

interpretive and educational services on the 

islands to further engage visitors in protecting 

park resources. The mainland information, 

orientation, educational, and interpretive 

services would continue to be essential in 

preparing visitors for their island experiences, 

including considerations for minimal impact 

recreation. 

Interpretive and educational programs on the 

islands would be the same as described in 

alternative 1, designed to give visitors the 

opportunity to experience the islands in their 

remote natural settings. Visitor appreciation 

of park resources would be enhanced through 

nonpersonal interpretive services including 

wayside exhibits, websites, webcams, 

publications, and other educational media. 

Interpretive programs and media would foster 

an understanding of the natural and cultural 

resources of the islands and marine 

environment. Live interactive distance 

learning programs broadcast from the islands

to the mainland, such as the Channel Islands 

Live dive program on Anacapa Island, would 

be expanded to other islands as feasible.

The Park Service would work with The 

Nature Conservancy to build an education 

center/volunteer camp for school groups near 

Prisoners Harbor under this alternative.

Mainland Visitor Center

The National Park Service would modify the 

current visitor center / headquarters and 

maintenance facility to accommodate an 

expanded visitor/education center. (See “The 

Mainland” section for more details.)

Other Contact Stations

To provide additional opportunities for the 

public to learn about the park and its 

resources, other locations along the southern 

California coastline would be sought for 

visitor contact stations (e.g., Oxnard). The 

National Park Service would seek to 

lease/share space for these offices with other 

federal and state land / water management 

agencies where possible.

COMMERCIAL SERVICES

Based on a commercial services analysis, Table 

11 lists the commercial services that would be 

provided under alternative 3 for visitors on 

Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San 

Miguel islands. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

134

TABLE 11. COMMERCIAL SERVICES PROVIDED FOR VISITORS IN CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK UNDER

ALTERNATIVE 3 

Area Service

Anacapa Island ferry access to East and West Anacapa Islands, and to water-based activities off of 

Middle Anacapa Island

East Santa Cruz 

Island – Scorpion 

Valley 

ferry access to Scorpion Valley

kayak and snorkeling rentals at Scorpion Valley

East Santa Cruz 

Island – Prisoners 

Harbor 

ferry access to Prisoners Harbor

Santa Rosa Island ferry access to Bechers Bay

lodging and food services for visitors at Bechers Bay

airplane access to Bechers Bay

limited ground transportation of visitors on the island’s roads

San Miguel Island limited fixed-winged air access on a trial basis

guided multiday trips would be established to see pinnipeds at Point Bennett 
Alternative 3 (Preferred) — Parkwide

 135

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

Mainland Operations

To improve the operational efficiency of 

mainland operations for all transportation 

functions, maintenance would be relocated 

within Ventura Harbor. The original 

headquarters would be modified to meet all 

NPS visitor, educational, and administrative 

needs. (See “The Mainland” section for more 

details.) In the interim, park operations would 

continue to be housed in the visitor 

center/headquarters complex and the leased 

auxiliary office buildings in the Ventura 

Harbor area.

Park Roads

Under alternative 3, the road segments on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands that have 

unacceptable impacts on resources or that are 

not essential for park operations would be 

removed and the landscape would either be 

restored or the roads would be converted to 

hiking trails if appropriate. (For more details, 

see the island descriptions below.) All roads 

may be realigned to remove safety hazards and 

deal with erosion and landslide problems.

Education/Research Facilities

Like alternative 2, in alternative 3 the park 

staff would facilitate research and monitoring 

that supports conservation of natural systems, 

preservation of cultural resources, and placebased learning and conservation strategies. A 

research/education center would be 

developed on Santa Rosa Island to support 

park education and research field work. 

Other Infrastructure and Facilities

Table 12 shows the changes in infrastructure 

and facilities compared to alternative 1. 

Unless otherwise indicated, all facilities and 

infrastructure identified under alternative 1 

would continue to be maintained in this 

alternative. The items shown with asterisks 

may be built pending additional studies. 

Under alternative 3 both new administrative 

and visitor facilities would be built in the park. 

Although there would be several new facilities, 

many would be occupied and maintained by 

concessioners and other partners.

Under alternative 3 several new administrative 

facilities would be built at Scorpion Valley and 

Prisoners Harbor on Santa Cruz Island, and at 

Bechers Bay on Santa Rosa Island (see details 

on the islands later in this section). 

TABLE 12. CHANGES IN INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES IN CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE 3 

Area Facilities and Infrastructure

Mainland modify the existing visitor/education center and 

headquarters to accommodate expanded visitor 

services

consolidate transportation and maintenance functions 

within Ventura Harbor 

establish a visitor contact station in Oxnard

maintain a visitor contact station in Santa Barbara

Santa Barbara Island no changes

Anacapa Island public access to the lighthouse and new exhibits

reduction in campsites from 30 to 25 campers/night

two new employee housing units

elimination of the efficiency apartment in the historic 

generator building

new small equipment storage building

replacement of the crane at the landing cove
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

136

Area Facilities and Infrastructure

East Santa Cruz Island possible removal of some road segments or conversion 

to trails*

East Santa Cruz Island – Scorpion Valley and 

Smugglers Cove

adaptive reuse of the historic bunkhouse at Scorpion

new barn structure for interpretive exhibits and 

programs at the current corral location 

new kayak storage facility 

additional restrooms with a changing area at Scorpion 

reconfiguration of the Scorpion campground and new

restrooms if necessary

presentation area between upper and lower 

campgrounds

new concession housing west of the lower 

campground for up to 18 employees

replacement of six temporary housing units with 

permanent structures and provision for office space

relocation of maintenance operations in the corral

area

East Santa Cruz Island – Prisoners Harbor and 

Rancho Del Norte

adaptive reuse of the warehouse as a visitor contact 

and orientation center; part of the warehouse 

would continue to be used for storage of supplies 

and equipment

new restrooms near the warehouse 

new 24-person campground near Prisoners Harbor

new storage facility and parking spaces

establishment of a new education center/volunteer 

camp near Prisoners Harbor

new NPS housing east of Cañada del Puerto

Santa Cruz Island 15.9 miles of roads maintained for administrative 

purposes (includes TNC easement road)

Santa Rosa Island new 75-person campground at Bechers Bay

new campground, day use facilities, and ranger station 

at Johnson’s Lee

new field station for research/education

new visitor contact station at the pier 

adaptive reuse and possible new construction of 

structures in the historic ranch complex as lodging*

adaptive reuse of ranch structures as a ranger station 

two new employee bunkhouses 

new maintenance facility and maintenance storage 

area for visitor transport vehicles

NPS concession transportation staging area

adaptive use of historic generator barn to support 

concession/interpretation/park operations

adaptive reuse of historic horse barn for visitor 

services, interpretation, and concession operations

decrease number of campers at Water Canyon 

campground from 75 to 50 campers/night

possible removal of some road segments or conversion 

to trails*
Alternative 3 (Preferred) — Parkwide

 137

Area Facilities and Infrastructure

San Miguel Island new small equipment storage building

new spike camp

limited number of concession-operated fixed-wing 

aircraft would be permitted to use the existing 

airstrip at the ranch complex (on a trial basis) *

These new facilities may be built or roads removed pending the results of additional studies. 

Park Staffing

Under alternative 3, park staffing levels would 

increase by 17 with full implementation of the 

plan. Additional staff would be needed to 

provide visitor services at the mainland visitor 

center and on the islands, manage concession 

operations, maintain new facilities, and 

monitor and manage visitors and resources on 

the islands. Table 13 shows the changes in 

staffing levels from alternative 1. Only changes 

are shown. (Facility management, resource 

management, visitor and resource protection, 

and interpretation divisions would all 

increase.) As in alternative 1, position 

management planning would be used to 

distribute staff expertise and specialties. 

(Concession staff, volunteers, and other 

partners also would be more relied on to help 

manage visitors, facilities, and resources than 

under alternative 1.) Staffing changes would 

be phased in over the implementation of the 

plan.

TABLE 13. CHANGES IN PERMANENT PARK STAFFING LEVELS FROM CURRENT MANAGEMENT (IN FTES) 

Title Number of FTEs

Administration 1

Interpretation 4

Visitor and Resource Protection 4

Natural Resources 2

Cultural Resources 2

Maintenance 4

Transportation 0

TOTAL 17

Alternative 3

Estimated Costs

This section explains the rationale, cost 

estimates, prioritization, and phasing for the 

preferred alternative of the general 

management plan. Park operations are 

uniquely costly at Channel Islands National 

Park as a result of managing five islands 

spread over large distances, plus mainland 

functions. Operational support is expensive 

due to high ocean transport costs and highly 

variable weather and ocean conditions.

Providing critical infrastructure and services 

on the islands (e.g., service cranes, piers, and 

docks) has higher costs than most parks.

Project costs have been carefully developed 

and proposals have been prioritized given 

fiscal constraints. The prioritization and 

phasing of projects in the general management 

plan emphasizes maintaining existing highpriority facilities, including recently acquired 

facilities and historic assets. Proposed 

facilities are limited to those considered 

essential to fulfilling the park’s purpose. Full

implementation of the preferred alternative 

may take 20 to 40 years and has an estimated 

total cost of $62.4 million. Costs are split into 

“essential” and “desired” cost categories, 

totaling $21.5 million and $40.9 million, 

respectively. Essential costs are for projects 

that are critical to preserve fundamental 

resources and values, maintain existing high-
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

138

priority assets, ensure visitor and employee 

health and safety, and would likely require 

federal funding. Projects in the essential cost 

category have been further prioritized into 

four phases that represent a general 

sequencing for project implementation.

Desired projects are important for full 

implementation of the preferred alternative 

but could be accomplished with nonfederal 

funds or may be completed many years into

the future. Examples of essential and desired 

projects are included in the “project phasing” 

explanation. 

The implementation of the approved plan 

would depend on future funding. The 

approval of this plan does not guarantee that 

the funding and staffing needed to implement 

the plan would be forthcoming. Full 

implementation of the actions in the approved 

general management plan could be many years 

into the future and some may never be 

implemented.

Project Phasing 

Projects in the essential and desired cost 

categories are included in the overall phasing 

to fully implement the general management 

plan. If funding becomes available for projects 

in the later phases or within the desired 

projects category, or if park priorities change 

throughout the lifespan of the general 

management plan, the park may implement 

projects within cost categories as needed. 

Project phasing also takes into account the 

following considerations:

(1) Actions that if not taken will impact visitor 

and employee health and safety

(2) Actions that are driven by law or policy 

and are required for compliance

(3) Actions that if not taken would result in 

adverse impacts on either cultural or natural 

resources

(4) Actions that would be taken without an 

approved GMP for improving and 

maintaining existing high-priority assets and 

increasing operational efficiency and 

effectiveness

Essential costs would be separated into four 

phases, with phase 1 at $5.1 million, phase 2 at 

$6.4 million, phase 3 at $4.4 million, and phase 

4 at $5.6 million. 

Essential Projects – Phase 1. These projects 

would be located on the Scorpion Valley side 

of Santa Cruz Island, which is 24 miles from 

the mainland and receives the highest amount 

of island visitation. Housing for park staff and 

concession employees, including site work 

and infrastructure improvements, is proposed 

in phase 1. These projects would greatly 

enhance the efficiency and long-term NPS 

management on Santa Cruz Island. 

Essential Projects – Phase 2. Dispersed 

among several of the islands, these projects 

would focus on improving infrastructure 

critical to visitor use, health, and safety. The 

projects would include replacing a service 

crane, building restroom facilities, and 

providing essential utilities such as electric, 

water, and wastewater systems.

Essential Projects – Phase 3. These projects 

would be located on several islands and would 

primarily provide for adaptive reuse of various 

existing and historic structures for park 

operations. These improvements are needed 

to improve the condition of existing and 

historic facilities while supporting critical park 

operations and visitor needs. The projects 

would include reusing a warehouse at 

Prisoners Harbor on Santa Cruz Island to 

serve as a visitor contact and orientation 

center, as well as reusing a historic barn on 

Santa Rosa Island to support visitor services 

and concessions operations. Stabilizing a 

ranch house on Santa Rosa Island to preserve 

the historic structure and provide overnight 

accommodations for visitors is also proposed 

in this phase. 

Essential Projects – Phase 4. Located on 

several islands, these projects would provide 

for additional visitor opportunities and the 
Alternative 3 (Preferred) — Parkwide

 139

operational facilities and housing needed to 

support them. Some of the projects in this 

phase would include building maintenance 

facilities on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands, building a visitor contact station and 

concessions facilities on Santa Rosa Island, 

and providing employee housing and 

associated utilities on several islands.

Desired Projects

Desired projects would be located on several 

islands and the mainland and would include 

projects that could be accomplished with 

nonfederal funds or may be completed many 

years into the future. The projects would 

include mainland visitor facilities 

improvements, such as a renovated visitor and 

education center within Ventura Harbor. 

Other mainland projects would include 

relocating operation and maintenance 

functions and providing boat dock facilities 

within the harbor. Island projects would 

include research and education field station 

proposals on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands, various park staff and concession 

housing improvements, lodging 

accommodations, a kayak-snorkeling storage 

facility at Scorpion Valley on Santa Cruz 

Island, day use and campground facilities, and 

utilities needed to support these uses. 

Annual Costs

Similar to alternative 2, the preferred

alternative would be implemented with 

current staffing levels plus 17 FTEs for 

administration, maintenance, resource 

management, resource protection, and 

interpretation (Table 14). Staffing costs would 

total approximately $1.6 million annually. In 

addition, the park’s operating budget would 

need to be increased by approximately $2.2 

million if the alternative is fully implemented, 

of which approximately $600,000 would be 

dedicated to operating new facilities. The total 

cost to operate the park under this alterative 

would be $14.1 million per year (in 2011 

dollars). These positions would also be phased 

in over the implementation of the plan.

Other Cost Considerations

Associated with project proposals in the 

general management plan, approximately 61% 

of the park’s current deferred maintenance, a 

total of $6.8 of $11.2 million, is addressed by 

projects included in the preferred alternative. 

Given the costly pattern of allowing park 

assets to deteriorate, which leads to increased 

deferred maintenance costs, Channel Islands 

National Park could benefit from both a 

financial and resource protection standpoint 

to prioritize funding for critical facilities in the 

near term as repair and replacement costs will 

increase in the long term. The approval of a 

general management plan does not guarantee 

that funding and staffing needed to implement 

the plan will be forthcoming. Full 

implementation of the plan could be many 

years into the future. 

TABLE 14. COST AND PHASING FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 

Category Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Desired Total

Total Improvement Costs

(in million $)

$5.1 $6.4 $4.4 $5.6 $40.9 $62.4

Deferred Maintenance 

Offset (in million $)

$0.0 $1.4 $3.1 $0.4 $1.9 $6.8

FTEs 2.7 1 3 1 9.3 17

Note: In 2011 dollars.
140 

ALTERNATIVE 3 (PREFERRED)— THE MAINLAND

Making the park relevant to a growing and 

diverse neighboring population and visiting 

public is essential. Because many park visitors 

do not travel to the islands, the Robert J. 

Lagomarsino Visitor Center in Ventura 

Harbor plays a key role in reaching the public. 

Although the park headquarters/visitor center 

would remain within Ventura Harbor and 

serve as the primary location for the 

dissemination of park information, under 

alternative 3 the mainland visitor center 

would take on an expanded role in connecting 

the park to the people. It would serve as a hub 

for distance learning to increase opportunities 

for visitors to indirectly experience and learn 

about the park resources on the mainland. 

The visitor center would also provide for a 

broad-spectrum, multicultural education 

program about the natural and cultural 

resources preserved in Channel Islands 

National Park 

To accomplish these goals, the National Park 

Service would separate the park’s operational 

and visitor functions. This would be achieved 

through consolidating some mainland 

administrative and maintenance operations 

and relocating them within Ventura Harbor, 

enabling the current Visitor Center/

Headquarters and Maintenance buildings to 

be redesigned to meet expanded visitor 

services. The expanded center would still 

maintain the park headquarters. In addition it 

would house a large auditorium to show the 

park film and to host Channel Islands Live – 

the live interactive distance learning programs 

broadcast from the terrestrial and underwater 

habitats on the islands to the mainland – as 

well as other resource programs broadcast 

from the islands. The redesigned center would 

also have classrooms and lab facilities, a sea 

life exhibit, and office space for education and 

science staff. Relocating the maintenance 

operation would allow the docks to serve 

visitor needs by providing visiting boaters a 

temporary place to dock and dock space for 

the harbor water taxi to deliver visitors 

directly to the visitor center. 

Ultimately, the visitor/education center, using 

an interdisciplinary approach, would serve as 

a premier location in southern California for 

education about the marine and terrestrial 

natural systems and the rich cultural history of 

this coastal area. Programs/classes would be 

offered on a diversity of topics to an array of 

visitor and student groups. All education 

programs would be aligned with the state 

educational curriculum. All mainland facilities 

would be universally accessible. By using the 

most up-to-date remote broadcast video and 

audio capabilities, cellular communications, 

other communications technology, and 

sensory interactive exhibits, many of the 

island and ocean resources would be available

to students on the mainland to experience 

indirectly. 

The National Park Service would work with 

the Harbor District to consolidate mainland 

administrative and maintenance operations, 

including NPS transportation into a common 

area in the industrial/business portion of the 

harbor.

Under PL 93-477 [Title IV, section 401], the 

National Park Service is authorized by 

Congress to accept the donation of up to 5 

acres of land and submerged land within the 

Ventura Marina for administrative and visitor 

facilities. Currently, facilities are on 2 to 3 

acres, and acquiring additional land is 

authorized without seeking a boundary 

adjustment.

Until such time that the National Park Service 

feels that it is necessary to relocate mainland 

administrative and maintenance operations 

outside of the harbor, all functions would 

remain in Ventura Harbor. If it becomes 

necessary to relocate facilities outside the 

harbor, the National Park Service would work 

with other federal and state agencies to co-
Alternative 3 (Preferred)— The Mainland

 141

locate harbor and maintenance facilities 

within Ventura County.

OTHER VISITOR 

CONTACT STATIONS

In addition to the Ventura facilities, the 

National Park Service would continue to seek 

to operate visitor contact stations in 

neighboring communities.

To further expand the park’s connections 

with the public, under this alternative the 

National Park Service would continue to 

maintain a visitor contact station in Santa 

Barbara Harbor and would seek to establish a 

visitor contact station at Channel Islands 

Harbor (Oxnard) and possibly at other 

harbors. Partnerships with other federal 

agencies such as the sanctuary, maritime 

museums, and aquariums also would be 

sought to facilitate outreach opportunities.
0 50 100 Feet

North

n

ni p

S

D

r 

ake

e riv

location for vi

would be rede

Headquarters 

Channel Island

Harbor Cove Beach

D

relocated within the har

Administration, Operati

Pacific Ocean

Park Headqua

DSC September 2013

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

Channel Islands National Park

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN

22

Map
143

ALTERNATIVE 3 (PREFERRED)— ANACAPA ISLAND

NATURAL RESOURCES

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized. Park staff 

would continue to eradicate, where feasible, 

nonnative flora and fauna from the islands. 

The NPS’s highest priority would be 

managing those species that are highly 

invasive or have unacceptable ecological 

impacts.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

As in all of the alternatives, historically 

significant archeological resources, historic 

buildings and structures, and landscape 

features on Anacapa Island would continue to 

be protected and preserved. Historic 

structures in the Anacapa Island Light Station 

Historic District on East Anacapa Island 

would continue to be used for park housing, 

park administrative uses, and visitor services. 

Two residential structures that are compatible 

in design with the historic district’s structures 

would be built on the historic footprint of 

structures that were previously razed. These 

new structures would be designed to be 

compatible with the height, style, scale, 

architectural character, and materials of the 

contributing features of the historic district.

The lighthouse would be maintained and 

opened to the public with accompanying 

exhibits.

Like alternative 1, within cultural landscapes, 

the management of nonnative plants would be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

MANAGEMENT ZONES

Map 23 shows the management zones for 

Anacapa Island under alternative 3. Most of 

East Anacapa would be in the frontcountry 

management zone to provide opportunities 

for outdoor activities in diverse natural 

settings. The entire historic district, including 

the landing cove, would be zoned as 

frontcountry. The cliff faces and beaches 

surrounding the island would be in the 

backcountry management zone to protect 

nesting seabirds and haul-out areas for seals 

and sea lions. The marine environment at the 

landing cove on East Anacapa would be in the 

marine developed access zone to maintain a 

pier to facilitate visitor and operational access. 

(The primary difference between alternatives 

2 and 3 for East Anacapa would be that the 

cultural landscapes management zone in 

alternative 2 is changed to the frontcountry 

zone in alternative 3. The historic light station 

structures including the housing area, visitor 

contact structure, water catchment basin, and 

lighthouse would continue to be managed as 

cultural resources.)

Middle Anacapa Island would be in the 

backcountry management zone. 

Most of West Anacapa Island would be 

managed under the backcountry management 

zone to protect the large colony of nesting 

California brown pelicans. Frenchy’s Cove 

and the south side of West Anacapa Island 

would be in the backcountry management 

zone to provide opportunities for outdoor 

activities in diverse natural settings. 

WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

Under alternative 3 all of West and Middle 

Anacapa islets would be proposed for 

wilderness designation (620 acres; map 23).
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

144

VISITOR USES, ACCESS, 

FACILITIES, AND SERVICES 

East Anacapa

East Anacapa would continue to be a good 

place for hiking (2 miles of trails); short 

overnight camping trips; and for spectacular 

scenery and wildlife viewing opportunities 

(seabirds, seals, sea lions, and tidepool 

organisms). Opportunities also would 

continue to be available at the landing cove for 

swimming, snorkeling, diving, and kayaking. 

Access would continue to be only at the 

landing cove and only for loading and 

unloading passengers. There would continue 

to be no anchoring in the cove.

The small visitor contact station with minimal 

exhibits (in the historic storage building) in 

the Anacapa Island Light Station Historic 

District would remain. The historic lighthouse 

would be opened to the public with 

accompanying exhibits. The existing dock 

building would be maintained.

Middle Anacapa

There would continue to be no public 

maintained trails on Middle Anacapa. Access 

to water-based activities would continue to be 

via concessioner boats or private boats, and 

the island would continue to be closed to all 

landings unless accompanied by an NPSapproved escort.

West Anacapa

A limited number of mostly concessioner-led 

tide-pooling trips to Frenchy’s Cove would 

continue to be offered throughout the year. 

Access to West Anacapa would continue to be 

from the water only and limited to Frenchy’s 

Cove. There would continue to be no public 

maintained trails on West Anacapa. 

USER CAPACITIES (DAY 

USE AND OVERNIGHT)

On East Anacapa user capacity would not 

exceed 100 visitors at one time by 

concessioner boat plus private boaters and no 

more than 200 people per day. Included in the 

100-person total would be 25 campers per 

night — a reduction of 5 from existing 

conditions. The current campground location 

would be used; however, with fewer campers, 

each site could be dispersed to provide higher 

quality experiences.

Visitor capacity would continue to be 

managed on Middle Anacapa by requiring that 

visitors be accompanied by a NPS-approved 

escort. Camping would continue to not be 

permitted.

On West Anacapa at Frenchy’s Cove, no more 

than 75 visitors at one time and no more than 

600 visitors per month would be allowed. All 

groups of 30 or more must be supervised in a 

NPS-led or approved group. Camping would 

continue to not be permitted. 

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

On East Anacapa Island housing would 

remain in the Anacapa Island Light Station 

Historic District — one single-family 

residence (in the assistant lightkeeper’s house) 

and one bunkhouse (in the historic storage 

building). To provide adequate island-based 

housing, two additional housing units would 

be added, designed in a style that is 

compatible with the Spanish Revival style. The 

housing units would be constructed on the 

location of the historic dwellings to replace 

the efficiency apartment in the historic 

generator building. 

No water wells are on Anacapa Island. Water 

would continue to be shipped and transported 

to the island until such time it is necessary and 

appropriate to implement some other means 

to provide freshwater (i.e., desalination).
Alternative 3 (Preferred)— Anacapa Island

145

The crane at the landing cove would be 

replaced.

A small equipment storage building would be 

constructed in the historic district to support 

park operations.
East Anacapa 

Middle Anacapa Island

West Anacapa Island

Cat Rock

Frenchys Cove

East Fish Camp

0 0.5 1 miles

North

Frenchys Cove Beach

ANACAPA PASSAGE

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

Muse

Ranger resid

Anacapa Islan

East Anacap

DSC September 2013

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

Channel Islands National Park

23

Map

Cathedral Cove

LEGEND

within NPS Boundary

Marine Conservation Area 

within NPS Boundary

Marine Reserve Area 

Authorized park boundary

Administration

Frontcountry

Historic Landscape

Backcountry

Wilderness/

Road

Trail

Brown Pelican Fledgling Area

Anacapa Island Special Closure - 

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN

LOCATION
147

ALTERNATIVE 3 (PREFERRED)— SANTA CRUZ ISLAND

NATURAL RESOURCES

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized. Park staff 

would continue to eradicate, where feasible, 

nonnative flora and fauna from the islands. 

The NPS’s highest priority would be 

managing those species that are highly 

invasive or have unacceptable ecological 

impacts.

The floodplains at Scorpion Valley and 

Prisoners Harbor would be managed to 

restore natural conditions to the extent 

possible while ensuring access and protecting 

cultural resources and visitor facilities. 

At Scorpion Valley, several actions would be 

taken to begin restoring natural conditions of 

the Scorpion Creek floodplain. The secondary 

road that crosses through the wetland near the 

mouth of the creek would be removed and the 

area regraded to restore the riverine wetland 

channel. Native vegetation would also be 

planted in the wetland area as appropriate. 

The road between the upper and lower 

campgrounds would be relocated. A study 

also would be conducted on the feasibility of 

restoring the small wetland at the mouth of 

the creek.

Sediment in the stream channel would be 

periodically excavated to protect the historic 

structures, associated archeological resources,

and visitor facilities. An estimated 8,000 cubic 

yards of material would need to be 

periodically removed from the west end of the 

lower campground or across from the well to 

the start of the rock wall at the beach (about 

2,000 feet long). Dredged material would be 

temporarily stockpiled on the south side of 

the stream, above the upper road crossing to 

the west, and would be used for road fill. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Scorpion Valley

The historic ranch would be preserved and 

protected. The historic masonry building 

would continue as a visitor contact station 

with exhibit and office space. The historic 

bunkhouse would be used to support park 

operations. (Note: The historic bunkhouse is 

under a 25-year retained rights agreement 

with the previous owner.) The other historic 

ranch structures and associated landscape 

features would be preserved to interpret the 

island’s historic ranching story.

Because all of the ranch buildings are within 

the 100-year floodplain, nonreplaceable or 

nonexpendable items would be moved 

seasonally. Periodic flooding may cause 

deterioration of the historic buildings over 

time.

A barn structure would be built near the 

current corral location to support interpretive 

exhibits and protect historic ranch equipment 

from the elements. This structure would be 

designed in a manner that is compatible with 

the cultural landscape such that the height, 

style, scale, architectural character, and 

materials would have a minimal impact on the 

landscape. New structures would be designed 

to be compatible with the height, style, scale, 

architectural character, and materials of the 

contributing cultural landscape features. 

Prisoners Harbor

A portion of the historic warehouse building 

would be rehabilitated to serve as a visitor 

contact and orientation center. Part of the 

warehouse used by The Nature Conservancy 

would continue to be used for storage of 

supplies and equipment. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

148

NATURAL–CULTURAL RESOURCES

Dry-laid rock walls constructed on NPS lands 

to slow or divert water from flowing naturally 

would be evaluated to determine if the 

structures are having an adverse impact on 

streamflow. Walls and structures that are 

acting to protect park facilities would be 

maintained. Other structures having an 

adverse impact on streamflow would be 

evaluated for removal. 

Landscape vegetation on Santa Cruz Island 

would be managed in a manner that would not 

perpetuate the spread of nonnative plants. 

Nonnative plants in cultural landscapes and 

historic districts would be managed on a caseby-case basis to prevent ecological impacts 

and limit the spread of these plants. 

Nonnative trees, including, but not limited to, 

pepper trees, olive trees, eucalyptus, and stone 

pine, would be controlled to prevent them 

from spreading as much as possible both 

within cultural landscapes zones and 

throughout the rest of the island. If it was not 

possible to control the spread of these 

nonnative trees, the trees would be removed 

and replaced with noninvasive species. In 

addition, individual trees could be removed if 

they were a hazard to human safety. 

Scorpion Valley

Nonnative plants in the Scorpion Valley 

would be managed the same way as described 

in alternative 1, with the exception of 

eucalyptus groves in the campground. To 

prevent injuries due to hazards associated 

with eucalyptus limbs, the historic eucalyptus 

groves in the campground would be managed 

in a manner to prevent injury to visitors while 

preserving the cultural landscape. If this 

cannot be accomplished, then the stand of 

eucalyptus trees in the area would be replaced 

with a less hazardous tree species that 

provides shade for campground users.

Delphine’s Grove, the Monterey Cypress 

plantings, and other nonnative, noninvasive 

tree species would continue to be preserved. 

The specimen eucalyptus, the small stands of 

eucalyptus, and the long row of eucalyptus 

trees between the upper and lower Scorpion 

campground loops would be contained to 

prevent their spread.

The Townsend’s long-eared bat, a rare 

species, uses the former bakery seasonally as a 

maternity roost. This causes some conflicts 

with use of the building. However, park staff 

would protect the bats in the building until 

another suitable maternity colony can be 

established.

Smugglers Cove

The historic olive grove would be maintained 

in a manner that perpetuates the grove as a 

cultural landscape feature but prevents the 

olive trees from spreading, as much as 

possible, throughout the island. If it is not 

possible to control the spread of olives from 

birds, a portion of the grove, consisting of the 

trees that are largest olive producers, would be 

removed and replaced with an appropriate 

substitute, such as nonfruiting olive trees. This 

reduction would be minimal enough to ensure 

that the integrity of the historic olive grove as 

a historic landscape is retained and would also 

help control the spread of olives to other parts 

of the island. The grove may be maintained 

through a historic lease or cooperator and the 

lessee/cooperator may use the part of the 

rehabilitated Smugglers ranch house to 

support grove operations. Large established 

eucalyptus tree plantings would be contained 

in the area to prevent their spread; seedlings 

would be removed.

MANAGEMENT ZONES

Most of this island would be in backcountry 

management zones to provide opportunities 

for outdoor activities in diverse natural 

settings (map 24).
Alternative 3 (Preferred)— Santa Cruz Island

 149

Scorpion Valley (including the historic 

buildings, tree plantings, and dry-laid rock 

structures) would be in a frontcountry 

management zone. A small area north of the 

frontcountry zone would be in an 

administrative zone to support operational 

needs (housing and maintenance). The road 

leading from Scorpion Valley to Smugglers 

Cove would be in an administrative zone to 

support operational needs in maintaining the 

Smugglers Cove area. The marine 

environment at Scorpion would be in a marine 

developed access zone to maintain a pier to 

facilitate visitor and operational access.

The land area at Smugglers Cove would be in a 

cultural landscapes zone to emphasize the 

management of the historic buildings, 

artifacts, and groves/orchards. 

A road originating from Prisoners Harbor and 

ending with a small trail segment to a radio 

repeater site would be in an administrative 

zone due to a preexisting easement. The 

Prisoners Harbor area would be in a 

frontcountry zone. A small area east of the 

mouth of the creek would be in an 

administrative zone south of the Navy Road to 

support operational needs (housing and 

maintenance) and in the frontcountry zone 

north of the road to provide a camping 

opportunity in proximity to the beach at 

Prisoners Harbor. If all operational needs can 

be met at the location south of the Navy Road 

along the creek at Prisoners Harbor, this area 

would convert to a backcountry zone. The 

marine environment at Prisoners Harbor 

would be in a marine developed access zone 

to maintain a pier to facilitate visitor and 

operational access.

The historic Rancho Del Norte site would be 

in a cultural landscapes zone and managed to 

support operational needs (housing). The 

trail/unimproved road leading to Rancho Del 

Norte from the Navy Road would be in an 

administrative zone. 

WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

Under alternative 3 most of the NPS lands 

eligible for wilderness designation on Santa 

Cruz Island would be proposed for wilderness 

designation (14,476 acres; map 24). 

VISITOR USES, ACCESS, 

FACILITIES, AND SERVICES 

NPS lands on Santa Cruz Island would 

continue to offer many opportunities for 

hiking, swimming, snorkeling, diving, 

kayaking, one-day trips, short or long 

overnight camping trips, and opportunities for 

seeing wildlife. Beach access would continue 

at Scorpion Valley, Smugglers Cove, and 

Prisoners Harbor. The park would continue 

to provide pier access at Scorpion Valley and 

Prisoners Harbor. Private boaters would 

continue to use the piers at Scorpion Valley

and Prisoners Harbor for loading and 

unloading passengers only. 

The trail system in the NPS portion of eastern 

Santa Cruz Island, a combination of 

unmaintained trails and unimproved 

administrative roads, would change under this 

alternative. Additional trails would be 

provided on NPS lands, following completion 

of the parkwide backcountry management 

plan. Specific trail alignments as well as 

campsite locations, would be determined in 

the future parkwide backcountry management 

plan. 

As in alternative 2, drinking water would 

continue to be provided at Scorpion Valley in 

this alternative. In addition, if feasible, potable 

water would be provided at Smugglers Cove, 

Prisoners Harbor, and Rancho Del Norte. 

Vault toilets would be installed at Scorpion 

Valley and at other visitor 

destinations/trailheads if needed. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

150

Scorpion Valley

As in all of the alternatives, the existing 

Scorpion pier would continue to be 

maintained. Except for the concessioner tour 

boat, no private boats would be allowed to tie 

up at the pier.

Under alternative 3, the commercial 

recreational services management would be 

switched from CUAs to an on-island 

concessions contract. The existing informal 

kayak guide area at the well house in the lower 

campground loop would be formalized with 

12 to 15 hard-sided permanent housing units 

for concession staff in the vicinity of the lower 

campground loop. (Some additional housing 

also may be provided for concession staff at 

the NPS housing area.) A central pavilion for 

common gathering, food preparation, and 

dining, with restrooms and showers would be 

provided.

The Park Service would manage kayaking and 

snorkeling through an on-island concessions 

contract. To support island-based kayaking 

and snorkeling, a day use storage facility 

would be constructed near the beach. Another 

facility may be needed within the ranch area 

to support kayak storage and maintenance. An 

expanded vault toilet with a changing area 

would be constructed near the beach. These 

facilities would be built to be compatible with 

the cultural landscape and would be built so 

they could be moved if necessary. The Park 

Service would allow for the Scorpion Valley 

on-island contract to expand to Prisoners 

Harbor as a satellite operation. This would 

enable greater opportunities for visitors to 

kayak between the two harbors. A changing 

area could be incorporated when additional 

restrooms are constructed near the historic 

Prisoners warehouse. Kayak storage would 

occur on the east side of Cañada del Puerto 

within the proposed housing area.

The historic masonry structure at Scorpion 

Valley would continue to serve as the primary 

visitor contact station with exhibit and office 

space. The existing orientation station, 

consisting of an open-air shelter, exhibits, 

changing rooms, and vault toilets, would 

continue to be maintained, with additional 

vault toilets provided in this vicinity if needed.

The bunkhouse would be rehabilitated to 

accommodate a small concessioner office, a 

small camp store and an area for NPS 

administrative use. The adjacent kitchen 

building could be used for special events and 

storage.

A new barn structure would be constructed in 

the current corral area for interpretive 

exhibits and programs. This area would serve 

as a meeting place for interpretive talks, walks, 

and hikes. (If this location is not feasible, then 

the area would be located between the lower 

and upper campgrounds. The current road 

would be relocated to the south along the 

creek to prevent the area from being bisected.) 

Picnicking would be provided throughout the 

valley including at the ranch house.

The existing campground would continue to 

be maintained with a capacity of 240 campers 

per night. The upper and lower campgrounds 

would be reconfigured to accommodate both 

individual and group sites. To ensure visitor 

safety, camping would be limited in the winter 

to 10 campsites that are out of flood danger. 

Additional restrooms could be constructed if 

necessary.

Prisoners Harbor

As in alternative 2, a portion of the historic 

warehouse building at Prisoners Harbor 

would be rehabilitated to serve as a visitor 

contact station with exhibits (and for 

operational needs). Part of the warehouse 

would continue to be used for storage of 

supplies and equipment. Additional restrooms 

would be added near the historic warehouse 

outside the floodplain. 

In this alternative a 24-person campground 

would be built above Prisoners Harbor. 
Alternative 3 (Preferred)— Santa Cruz Island

 151

Also in alternative 3, the Park Service would 

work with The Nature Conservancy to build 

an education center/camp for school groups 

in an area near Prisoners Harbor. The camp 

would include tent platforms; a pavilion-like 

facility with a designated cooking, eating, and 

gathering area; and group restrooms. If this 

camp cannot be built at Prisoners Harbor, 

then it would be located in Scorpion Valley, 

within or adjacent to the campground, outside 

the floodplain.

Smugglers Cove

A small primitive campground would be 

established (16 to 20 person capacity) in the 

Smugglers Cove vicinity for the public and 

volunteer group use. This backcountry 

campground would be managed by an on-site 

camp host and occupied seasonally.

Rancho Del Norte

Limited backcountry camping would continue 

near Rancho Del Norte until a parkwide 

backcountry management plan can be 

completed, which would define camping 

locations on East Santa Cruz Island.

USER CAPACITIES (DAY 

USE AND OVERNIGHT)

Under alternative 3 the user capacity of 

Scorpion Valley would be maintained at its 

current level. Up to a maximum of 250 visitors 

per day would be permitted in Scorpion 

Valley (not including campers). In the 

campground, 240 campers per night would 

continue to be permitted. As in alternative 1, 

the campground would remain in the 

floodplain. Visitor safety would be facilitated 

by limiting camping in the winter to 10 

campsites that were out of flood danger.

At Smugglers Cove, there would be no limit on 

private boaters. A small (16- to 20-person) 

primitive campground would be established. 

No more than 100 day visitors at one time (not 

including campers) would be allowed at 

Prisoners Harbor. A new 24-person primitive 

campground would be provided to the east of 

Prisoners Harbor to accommodate visitors 

wanting to stay overnight and explore this 

portion of the island.

Up to 16 people would continue to be 

permitted to camp near Rancho Del Norte 

until a parkwide backcountry management 

plan can be completed, which would define 

camping locations on East Santa Cruz Island.

Alternative 3 calls for the development of a 

parkwide backcountry management plan, 

which could lead to increased opportunities 

for hiking and backcountry camping on Santa 

Cruz Island. Specific campsite locations, 

overnight use limits, and suitable trail 

alignments would be determined through the 

development of this plan. Day use limits might 

be established if warranted based on 

monitoring of resource and visitor experience 

conditions. 

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

Roads 

Approximately 20.2 miles of roads would 

continue to be maintained on NPS lands on 

Santa Cruz Island. The road from Scorpion 

Valley to Smugglers Cove would continue to 

be maintained for park operations. The road 

from the navy site to TNC airstrip and the 

road from Prisoners Harbor to the navy site 

(in which The Nature Conservancy has a 10.6-

mile easement) also would be maintained. 

Scorpion Valley 

The six temporary housing units would be 

removed and replaced with permanent 

structures at the current location. The larger 

area needed for permanent structures would 

expand to the south into the hillside. The 

additional area would also allow for 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

152

expansion in the future should additional 

employees be needed to accommodate 

increased visitation or operational needs. The 

historic bunkhouse would be rehabilitated to 

support park operations. Office space would 

be provided in the bunkhouse. Concession 

housing would be constructed just west of the 

lower campground to house up to 18 

employees.

Maintenance operations would be moved out 

of the housing area to an area behind the 

interpretive barn at the north end of the 

existing corral. A small structure would be 

constructed to provide bays for a variety of 

functions (a shop for vehicle maintenance and 

maintenance office, natural and cultural 

resource equipment, and a fire cache). The 

maintenance structure would be as small as 

practical and should be compatible with the 

cultural landscape. The structure would be 

located to provide space for the vehicle 

maintenance and storage needs, but screen 

other maintenance and park operations that 

could remain outside, such as fuel and 

hazardous material storage, and large 

equipment storage. In addition, the area 

would accommodate the plant nursery. This 

location would be outside of the 100-year 

floodplain and would not require crossing 

Scorpion Creek to access visitor, cultural, or 

park operation areas. Fuel storage and 

hazardous materials would be stored in a new 

facility outside the 500-year floodplain.

Smugglers Cove

The historic masonry building would be 

rehabilitated and maintained as housing for

seasonal employees and volunteers. 

Prisoners Harbor 

NPS housing would be built in the Prisoners 

Harbor area on the east side of Cañada del 

Puerto. Housing would be provided for at 

least two year-round employees and two 

seasonal personnel. If possible, the new 

facilities would be built on NPS lands outside 

of the floodplain. If this option is not feasible, 

NPS staff would work with The Nature 

Conservancy to determine if staff housing can 

be located on TNC lands. 

A small maintenance/storage structure and 

limited parking for NPS/administrative 

vehicles would be built in a disturbed area, 

outside of the floodplain near the intersection 

of the Navy Road and water well service road. 

This development would be screened from 

visitors by vegetation. Emergency medical 

supplies and search-and-rescue equipment 

storage would be stored next to the 

warehouse. This development might require 

the use of TNC-managed lands, which would 

require their consent. 

Rancho Del Norte

The historic residence would remain part of

the NPS housing inventory. The unit may be 

used and maintained by a nonprofit 

organization through a historic lease, a 

contract, or a cooperative agreement. 

Other Infrastructure and Facilities

Unless otherwise indicated, all facilities and 

infrastructure identified under alternative 1 

would continue to be maintained in this 

alternative 3. The items shown would require 

additional technical feasibility studies. 

• Water/Wastewater Needs

o Addition of a new well at Scorpion 

Harbor and additional treated 

water storage of approximately 

30,000 gallons

o Individual wastewater treatment 

units or rainwater collection units 

to recycle and reuse gray water at 

Scorpion Harbor

o Addition of a new well at Prisoners 

Harbor and additional treated 

water storage of approximately 

30,000 gallons (the structure 
Alternative 3 (Preferred)— Santa Cruz Island

 153

would be hidden from view from 

the historic warehouse)

o Individual wastewater treatment 

units or rainwater collection units 

to recycle and reuse gray water at 

Prisoners Harbor

• Addition of a 25kW solar photovoltaic 

system at Scorpion Valley.
Potato Harbor

Harbor

Chinese

Coche Point

Point

Profile

Hazards Anchorage Painted Cave

Mount Diablo

The Nature Conservancy Point

San Pedro

Anchorage

Hungrymans

Smugglers Cove

Middle Anchorage

Yellowbanks Anchorage

Sandstone Point

Valley Anchorage

Bluebanks Anchorage

Albert Anchorage

Coaches Prietos Anchorage

Bowen Point

Anchorage

Williams Harbor

Laguna Punta Arena

Morse

Point

Kinton

Point

Point

Black

Forney

Cove

Point

West

Gull Island

Scorpion Anchorage

Scorpion Valley Ranch

Anchorage

Little Scorpion

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

AS

T N

A C

UR

Z

HC

ANNEL

Cueva Valdez Anchorage

Ladys Harbor

Prisoners Harbor

Pelican Bay

Twin Harbors

Platts Harbors

Frys Harbor

Babys Cove

Diablo Anchorage

Central Valley

Santa Cruz Island

0 0.5 1 mile

North

Santa Cruz Is

ANACAPA PASSAGE

Upper Campground

Lower Campground

Interpretation

To Smugglers Cove

Housing

Storage

Kayak

Maintenance

Smugglers Road

Pier

Mainte

Interpr

Visitor 

The Nature

Conservancy

Prisoner

Harbor

DSC September 2013

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

Channel Islands National Park

24

Map

LEGEND

within NPS Boundary

Marine Stewardship Area 

within NPS Boundary

Marine Reserve Area 

Authorized park boundary

Administration

Frontcountry

Historic Landscape

Backcountry

Wilderness/

Road

Trail

Conservation Area

State Marine 

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Santa Barbara

Island

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN Scorpion Valley Prisoner

Canada del 

The Nature

Conservancy
Administrative Road

Administrative Use

Administrative Road to Smugglers

Cavern Point Loop

P IER L OCATION

0 125 250 feet

North

E XISTING U PPER

C AMPGROUND

L OOP

S TREAM C HANNEL

R ELOCATED

E XISTING

L OWER

C AMPGROUND

L OOP

• Primary evening program venue

• Meeting place for guided hikes

P RESENTATION A REA

• Soft and hard-sided structure

C ONCESSION H OUSING

• Potential expansion to support

 NPS or concessioner

E XISTING NPS H OUSING

P IER L ANDING /

S TAGING

• Exhibits

• Staging

• Restrooms

O RIENTATION S TATION

( E X . )

• Redesigned, reorganized

E XISTING

K AYAK & S NORKEL

S TAGING / S TORAGE

• Relocated to corral

• Nursery

M AINTENANCE

• Ranching exhibits

• Evening programs

I NTERPRETIVE B ARN

• Rehabilitate historic structures

• Exhibits and offices

• Picnic facilities

E XISTING V ISITOR C ENTER &

NPS C ONCESSION A DMIN .

P RESERVE T REE S TANDS

W ETLAND

Scorpion Valley – Alternative 3 

R OAD R EMOVED

T RAIL / B OARDWALK

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

25

• Could be relocated

 pending separate EIS

D ELPHINE ’ S G ROVE

C ORRAL

Visitor Contact/Interpretation

LEGEND

Concession Visitor Services 

(Guest Lodging/Food etc.)

Camping

Picnic/Day Use

Support/Operational

(NPS and Concession)

Ecological Restoration 

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island Scorpion Valley

LOCATION

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN

C A L I F O R N I A

C A N A D A

D E L

P U E R T O

To Pelican Bay (by permit)

Pier

to Central Valley

to Navy Site

• Designated campsites

• Vault toilets

0 100 200 feet

North

P RIMITIVE

C AMPGROUND

P ICNIC A REA

E XISTING

W ETLAND

• Adaptively reuse portion 

 of historic warehouse

V ISITOR C ONTACT

& E XHIBITS

S CALE H OUSE

R ESTROOM

P ICNIC A REA

• NPS Housing

• Maintenance

NPS H OUSING

AND M AINTENANCE

National Park Service

The Nature Conservancy

National 

Park

Service

The

Nature Conservancy

Navy Road

Prisoners Harbor – Alternative 3 

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Prisoners Harbor

LOCATION

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN

C A L I F O R N I A

Visitor Contact/Interpretation

LEGEND

Concession Visitor Services 

(Guest Lodging/Food etc.)

Camping

Picnic/Day Use

Support/Operational

(NPS and Concession)

Ecological Restoration Map

26

159

ALTERNATIVE 3 (PREFERRED)— SANTA ROSA ISLAND

NATURAL RESOURCES

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized. Park staff 

would continue to eradicate, where feasible, 

nonnative flora and fauna from the islands. 

The NPS’s highest priority would be 

managing those species that are highly 

invasive or have unacceptable ecological 

impacts.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The entire ranch complex at Bechers Bay 

would be preserved to interpret the ranching 

history of the island. The historic structures 

would be adaptively used for visitor lodging, 

concession operations, interpretation, and 

park administrative needs. New structures 

would be designed to be compatible with the 

height, style, scale, architectural character, 

and materials of the contributing cultural 

landscape features.

MANAGEMENT ZONES

Almost the entire Santa Rosa Island would be 

in backcountry management zones, with a few 

minor exceptions to provide opportunities for 

outdoor activities in diverse natural settings 

(map 27). Most of the coastline would be in a 

backcountry management zone to protect 

nesting shorebirds and haul-out areas for seals 

and sea lions. The marine environment at 

Bechers Bay would be in a marine stewardship 

zone to maintain a pier to facilitate visitor and 

operational access. The historic ranch area 

would be in a cultural landscape management 

zone.

The historic ranch at Bechers Bay would be in 

a frontcountry management zone. The area 

east of the historic ranch to the ocean and 

south encompassing Water Canyon would be 

in a frontcountry zone to support a public 

campground. Within this area is an airstrip, 

which would be in an administrative 

management zone to support public air access. 

Other administrative zone areas would 

include the NPS housing and maintenance 

areas. The road corridor leading from the 

historic ranch to the base of Torrey Pines, to 

the Lobo Canyon trailhead, and traversing the 

island to Johnson’s Lee would be in an 

administrative zone to provide for the 

possibility of a small on-island transportation 

concession operation. An area in the 

administrative zone would be necessary to 

support housing and personnel to manage the 

south side of the island. 

WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

Under alternative 3 the entire Santa Rosa 

Island, except for the Bechers Bay area, 

Johnson’s Lee, and several road corridors 

(50,901 acres), would be proposed for 

wilderness designation (map 27). 

VISITOR USES, ACCESS, 

FACILITIES, AND SERVICES 

Santa Rosa Island would continue to offer 

many opportunities for hiking, beach walking, 

camping, and wildlife viewing. Numerous 

hiking options on the unimproved 

administrative road system and one-day trips 

and short or long overnight camping trips 

would remain available. Many unimproved 

roads might be slated for removal or 

incorporation into a trail system, pending the 

outcome of the parkwide backcountry 

management plan that integrates trails and 

backcountry camping. Beach access would 

continue at Bechers Bay. Private boaters 

would use the pier at Bechers Bay only for 

loading and unloading passengers. Beaches 

around Sandy Point would continue to be 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

160

closed year-round to landings, and the 

beaches between Skunk Point and East Point 

would remain closed seasonally for wildlife 

protection. Due to frequent strong winds, 

swimming, snorkeling, diving, and kayaking 

would continue to be limited and 

recommended for the experienced visitor. 

The beaches between Carrington Point and 

East Point and the beaches surrounding Sandy 

Point would continue to be closed year-round 

to camping. On other beaches, the future 

parkwide backcountry management plan 

would determine if nearshore campsites 

would be provided. 

Additional activities that would be 

accommodated in the ranch complex facilities 

could include concessioner support facilities 

and interpretive exhibits. Nonhistoric 

structures within the historic district may be 

replaced. All replacement structures must be 

compatible with the historic district.

A small visitor contact facility would be built 

near the pier, which would provide visitor 

orientation /information, exhibits, restrooms, 

staging for boat arrivals/departures, and a 

ranger station. To accommodate this new 

facility, the nonhistoric foreman’s house 

would be removed. Interpretive exhibits 

would be located in the new visitor contact 

station and throughout the historic ranch 

complex.

A concession lodging operation would be 

provided to meet a range of opportunities — 

from economy-scale to higher end — through 

the rehabilitation of the historic ranch 

structures. Lodging would be limited to about 

40 overnight guests. Concession 

administrative support facilities, including 

employee housing, would be incorporated 

within the existing ranch complex. Some 

buildings might have to be modified internally 

to accommodate the lodging functions. Some 

facilities could be constructed as long as they 

were compatible with the historic district. 

Some nonhistoric structures also may be 

replaced with compatible structures to 

support lodging and concession housing, such 

as the bunkhouse. The historic generator barn 

would be rehabilitated to support concession 

and park storage and operational needs. The 

historic horse barn would be rehabilitated to 

support concession operations and park 

interpretive exhibits. Food and beverage 

services could be available to all visitors, even 

those not staying overnight in the concession 

lodging. 

The Water Canyon campground would be 

reduced from a 75-person to a 50-person 

campground. In addition, a new 75-person 

campground, including group and individual 

sites, would be located on the marine terrace 

within the ranch complex. 

A field station would be established at Bechers 

Bay (outside of the historic district) to support 

research and education work and to provide a 

venue for formal educational opportunities. 

The facility would support 30 to 40 people, 

including volunteer groups, and would 

include accommodations for visiting 

researchers and classes. The facility would 

include a single-family housing unit for staff to 

administer the field station. This facility could 

be located in one of two locations: Water 

Canyon or north Carrington pasture. In the 

interim, structures in and around the historic 

ranch area could be used to support a field 

station until a concession operation is 

established.

The Park Service would permit a 

commercially operated vehicle transportation 

system to provide visitors with opportunities 

to enjoy various day use areas, backcountry 

hiking, and island touring. This would also 

help disperse visitors and prevent crowding in 

the historic ranch area. Visitors would be 

transported to Torrey Pines, Lobo Canyon, 

Johnson’s Lee, and other destinations. Of the 

67 miles of road maintained on Santa Rosa 

Island, 44 miles would be maintained to 

support commercial ground transportation. A 

loop road system would be maintained to 

provide visitors with access to remote sections

of the park and provide visitors with physical 
Alternative 3 (Preferred)— Santa Rosa Island

161

mobility challenges to experience a greater 

extent of the island (map 29). To support this 

operation, a maintenance facility for the 

visitor transport vehicles would be developed 

in the Bechers Bay area. 

Historic line camps, used during the ranching 

days of the island, could serve as primitive 

campgrounds. Each camp would be rustic in 

design and equipped with a small corral, vault 

toilets, and a cooking/eating shelter. (Details 

on the line camps and trail system would be 

developed in the future parkwide backcountry 

management plan.) 

The Park Service would continue to work 

with the private sector to provide year-round 

public air transportation via a concessioner 

for day use visitors and campers. The airstrip

would continue to be maintained.

Restroom facilities would be added at various 

visitor destinations/trailheads. 

A small primitive campground (up to 30 

campers per night) would be developed at 

Johnson’s Lee to support backcountry use. 

Wind shelters may be constructed to provide 

protection to campers. Day use facilities also 

would be developed. The day use facilities 

would include a group shelter, picnic tables, 

vault toilet, and interpretive information. 

USER CAPACITIES (DAY 

USE AND OVERNIGHT) 

The 1995 Development Concept Plan for Santa 

Rosa set an upper limit of 500 people per day. 

The user capacity at Bechers Bay would not 

exceed 500 visitors per day, including 125 

campers and about 40 visitors at the lodge. 

The existing campground at Water Canyon

would remain, but would be reduced to 

support 50 campers. To provide campsites 

closer to the beach, a new 75-person 

campground, with group sites, would be 

developed on the marine terrace within the 

ranch complex. 

Alternative 3 calls for the development of a 

parkwide backcountry management plan. 

Among other topics, this plan would identify 

specific campsite locations, overnight use 

limits, and suitable trail alignments on Santa 

Rosa Island. Day use limits might be 

established if warranted based on monitoring 

of resource and visitor experience conditions.

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

Roads 

The historic circulation systems (roads) of 

Santa Rosa Island would be thoroughly 

evaluated in the future parkwide backcountry 

management plan. As determined appropriate, 

some road segments would be converted to 

hiking trails or maintained for visitor access. 

Suitable trail alignments would be selected 

through the parkwide backcountry 

management plan. Preference would be given 

to trail alignments that use existing roads. 

Road segments that have unacceptable 

impacts on resources and that are not 

determined to be essential to performing park 

operations or facilitating visitor access by 

conversion to hiking trails would be removed 

and the landscape restored.

To facilitate the effective and efficient transfer 

of cargo for the concessioner and park 

operations, a storage area would be 

established near the pier. The staging area 

would be screened. 

Administrative Housing

The park housing complex (two 2-bedroom 

duplexes, two 1-bedroom duplexes, and two 

garages) in Cherry Canyon would remain. 

Two 8-person bunkhouses would be built in 

the same location to accommodate seasonal 

and transient staff and visiting scientists. Each 

unit would include bathroom, kitchen, and 

communal living spaces. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

162

A ranger station, maintenance storage, and an 

administrative and concession operations 

support facility would be accommodated in 

the ranch complex.

Johnson’s Lee

Johnson’s Lee would be used to support 

outlying operations. A new ranger station 

would be developed on the site of the existing 

structure. The ranger station would support 

programs and projects on the south side of the 

island. Restroom facilities and water would be 

provided to support the operation. All utilities 

would be supported by renewable energy. 

Other Infrastructure and Facilities

Unless otherwise indicated, all facilities and 

infrastructure identified under alternative 1 

would continue to be maintained under 

alternative 3. The items shown would require 

additional technical feasibility studies. 

• Water/Wastewater Needs

o Addition of a new well at Bechers 

Bay, providing up to 10,000 gpd of 

water in tandem with increased 

wastewater amounts removed 

from the island or improved 

wastewater discharge facilities.

o Individual wastewater treatment 

units or rainwater collection units 

to recycle and reuse gray water.

• Addition of a 25kW solar photovoltaic 

system.
South Point

Sandy Point

Brockway Point

TALCOTT SHOAL

Carrington

Point

Northwest 

Anchorage

Sout

Anc

Ford Point

Johnsons Lee

Black Mountain

Soledad Peak

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

AS

N M GI UEL

AP

S AS

GE

Santa Rosa Island

Bechers Bay

0 1 2 miles

North

Santa Rosa Is

NPS Housing

Airstrip

Lobo Canyon

Torrey Pines

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

27

LEGEND

Authorized park boundary

Marine Reserve Area 

within NPS Boundary

Marine Conservation Area 

within NPS Boundary

Wilderness/

Backcountry

Historic Landscape

Frontcountry

Administration Trail

Road Administration

Restricted Access

San M

Isl

SANTA B

Enlargement shown at right

Maintain

separation

Carrington Point Road

Smith Highway

Pier

0 125 250 feet

North

0 600 1,200 feet

North

• Screen area

• Decrease from 75 to 50

 campers/night

• Alternative location 

 for field station

W ATER C ANYON

C AMPGROUND

• Adapt to meet

 concession storage 

 and operational needs

C ONCESSION

F ACILITY

• Vehicle parking

• Concession storage

I SLAND T RANSPORTATION H U B /

O PERATIONS C ENTER • Adapt building for

 Lodging/food service

G UEST L ODGING

to Water Canyon

Campground

NPS C ONCESSION

T RANSPORTATION

S TAGING A REA

• For researchers, students, volunteers

• Includes living quarters with common 

 dining/living space; lab/classroom/

 office space; and limited parking

• Enclosed structures

• Site: appx. .52 acres, gently sloping

F IELD S TATION

• Replace existing buildings with new

• Screen from public use areas such

 as campground

C ONCESSION

H OUSING / A DMINISTRATION

• Remove existing

 structure

NPS/C ONCESSIONS

S TORAGE A REA

• Replace building with new facility

• Visitor orientation/information

• Visitor staging

• Restrooms

• Ranger station/NPS administration

P RIMARY V ISITOR

C ONTACT A REA

• Group and individual campsites

• Include wind shelters and restrooms

• Preserve corral features 

C AMPGROUND

• Adaptive reuse of schoolhouse

• Food service

• Other merchandise

C ONCESSION F ACILITY

• Reuse bunkhouse or replace 

 with new building(s)

• Incorporate lodging/food service

• Concessioner housing

G UEST L ODGING

• Adaptively reuse barn

• Reserve lower vehicle bay 

 for interpretation

V ISITOR S ERVICES

C ONCESSION O PERATIONS

Bechers Bay – Alternative 3 

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

28

A IRSTRIP

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Bechers Bay

LOCATION

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN

C A L I F O R N I A

Visitor Contact/Interpretation

LEGEND

Concession Visitor Services 

(Guest Lodging/Food etc.)

Camping

Picnic/Day Use

Support/Operational

(NPS and Concession)

Ecological Restoration 

Visitor Contact/Interpretation

LEGEND

Concession Visitor Services 

(Guest Lodging/Food etc.)

Camping

Picnic/Day Use

Support/Operational

(NPS and Concession)

Ecological Restoration 

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa

Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Johnson’s Lee

LOCATION

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIFIC OCEAN

C A L I F O R N I A

0 100 200 feet

North

• Primitive campground

• Picnic area

• Vault toilets

• Visitor information

• Shelter

V ISITOR F ACILITIES

• Replace existing structures

• Ranger station

 – NPS offices

 – Visitor information

 – Storage

 – Living quarters

• Vault toilets

A DMINISTRATIVE S UPPORT Trail

R A V I N E

Trail

Johnson’s Lee Road

to Backcountry 

• Convert road to trail

• Road open to administrative use only

G ATE /

T RAILHEAD

B E A C H E S

to Soledad Peak 

and Bechers Bay

Johnson’s Lee – Alternative 3 

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC • 000 • 00000 • August 2013

Map

29

169

ALTERNATIVE 3 (PREFERRED)— SAN MIGUEL ISLAND

NATURAL RESOURCES

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized. Park staff 

would continue to eradicate, where feasible, 

nonnative flora and fauna from the islands. 

The NPS’s highest priority would be 

managing those species that are highly 

invasive or have unacceptable ecological 

impacts.

MANAGEMENT ZONES

As shown in map 30, most of the interior of 

San Miguel Island would be in the 

backcountry management zone to provide 

opportunities for outdoor activities in diverse 

natural settings. The entire coastline and cliffs 

would be in the backcountry management

zone due to the prevalence of seal and sea lion 

haul-outs, rookeries, and seabird rookeries. In 

addition to the coastline, the caliche forest 

would be in the backcountry management 

zone. About the middle third of the Cuyler 

Harbor coastline would be zoned 

administrative to provide public access and 

provide for park operations. The trail leading 

from Cuyler Harbor to the old ranch complex 

airstrip and ranger station would be in the 

administrative zone to support park 

operations. The trail leading from the airstrip 

at the dry lake bed to the research station at 

Point Bennett would also be in the 

administrative zone to support research 

station operations. The marine environment 

at the landing cove would be in the marine 

developed access zone to facilitate visitor and 

operational access. 

VISITOR USES, ACCESS, 

FACILITIES, AND SERVICES 

This island would continue to be an ideal 

place to see native vegetation, the unique 

caliche forest, seals and sea lions (with ranger 

escort), the scenic Cuyler Harbor beach; to do 

limited hiking (2 miles to the Cuyler Harbor 

beach and 0.75 mile to the ranger station); and 

to take day and overnight trips. To see other 

parts of the island, specifically the pinnipeds 

at Point Bennett and Cardwell Point, visitors 

must continue to be escorted by a ranger. 

(Visitors must contact the park in advance to 

coordinate this one-day activity.) Visitors 

would continue to come ashore only at Cuyler 

Harbor. Overnight anchorages would 

continue to be restricted to Cuyler Harbor 

and Tyler Bight. All boating and landings 

would remain restricted seasonally around 

Point Bennett. Due to frequent strong winds, 

swimming, snorkeling, diving, and kayaking 

would continue to be limited and 

recommended for the experienced visitor. 

The visitor contact station would remain in 

the NPS ranger station/housing complex.

The Park Service would permit guided 

multiday trips (not to exceed four days) by a 

limited number of park visitors (not to exceed 

10 individuals) to see large concentrations of 

pinnipeds at Point Bennett. The escorted 

groups would hike to a spike camp at or near 

the dry lake bed at the island’s western end. 

The exact location of the spike camp would be 

determined through a separate backcountry 

planning process. Guided trips (full-time 

accompaniment by a NPS representative or a 

commercial guide service) would be selfcontained and employ minimum impact 

practices. Minimal facilities to protect 

resources would be provided (e.g., vault toilet, 

food storage, and tent pads). Although this 

would be a new opportunity, the ability to 

participate in this opportunity would require 

the permittee to be in good physical condition 

and be experienced in remote wilderness-type 

camping. A user fee would be established.

Existing trails would continue to be used.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

170

To enable more people to visit San Miguel 

Island, on a trial basis, limited concessionoperated fixed-winged aircraft would be 

permitted to land on the island airstrip. 

USER CAPACITIES (DAY 

USE AND OVERNIGHT) 

At the ranch complex, user capacity would not 

exceed 100 visitors per day (not including 

campers) and 30 campers, which would 

include the campers at the spike camp 

(described below). The campground would 

remain in its current location.

On the western part of the island, day use 

would be limited to ranger-guided hikes. If 

NPS- or commercial-guided multiday trips 

were to be offered to Point Bennett, the 

groups could not exceed 10 individuals and 

could not camp for more than four days at the 

spike camp at the west end of the island near 

the dry lakebed. The camp could include 

water, vault toilet, and tent platforms. 

On the remainder of the island, day use would 

be limited to ranger-guided hikes, and no 

camping would be permitted.

The parkwide backcountry management plan 

would consider if additional trails should be 

provided on the island in the future. 

EMPLOYEE HOUSING 

AND PARK OPERATIONS

No housing changes would be proposed. The 

two 1-bedroom units and one bunkhouse 

would remain in use.

One low-volume water well is on San Miguel 

Island. Water would continue to be drawn 

from this well until such time it is necessary 

and appropriate to implement some other 

means to provide freshwater (i.e., 

desalination).

A small equipment storage building would be 

constructed to support park operations.

On a trial basis, a limited number of 

concession-operated fixed-wing aircraft 

would be permitted to use the existing airstrip 

at the ranch complex on San Miguel Island to 

transport day use visitors and campers.
Castle Rock

San Miguel Hill

Green Mountain

Landing

Cabrillo Monument

Ranger Station/Campground 

Harris Point

Nifty Rock

Cuyler Harbor

Prince Island

Bay Point

Crook Point

Judith Rock

Point Bennett Tyler Bight

SIMONTON COVE

Otter Harbor

Adams

Cove

0 1 2 miles

North

San Miguel Island is owned by the 

managed by the National Park Ser

San Miguel Is

Dry Lake Bed

Airstrip

Airstrip

NOAA/NMFS

Facility

Hare Rock

Bat Rock

March Rock

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

30

Backcountry

LEGEND

Authorized park boundary

Marine Reserve Area 

within NPS Boundary

Marine Conservation Area 

within NPS Boundary

Historic Landscape

Frontcountry

Administration San Miguel Island Special Closure 

Trail

Road

San Miguel

Island

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Santa Rosa Island

Santa Cruz

Island

Park Headquarters

Anacapa

Island

Santa Barbara

Island

Oxnard

SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL

PACIF CI OCEAN
172

ALTERNATIVE 3 (PREFERRED)— SANTA BARBARA ISLAND

NATURAL RESOURCES

The restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

would continue to be emphasized. Park staff 

would continue to eradicate, where feasible, 

nonnative flora and fauna from the islands. 

The NPS’s highest priority would be 

managing those species that are highly 

invasive or have unacceptable ecological 

impacts.

MANAGEMENT ZONES

Map 31 shows how Santa Barbara Island 

would be zoned under alternative 3. The 

landing cove up to the ranger station would be 

in the administrative management zone to 

facilitate visitor access and to support 

operational needs (access, housing, and 

maintenance). The area immediately south of 

the administrative zone would be a small 

frontcountry area that would support the 

current campground. All areas in the interior 

of the trail system, including the trails, would 

be in the backcountry zone to provide 

opportunities for outdoor activities in diverse 

natural settings. All areas exterior to the trail 

system to the ocean would be in the 

backcountry management zone to protect 

nesting seabirds and haul-out areas for seals 

and sea lions.

VISITOR USES, ACCESS, 

FACILITIES, AND SERVICES

Exceptional island coastal views and ideal 

places for swimming; snorkeling; diving; 

kayaking; seeing wildlife (seabirds, seals, and 

sea lions); hiking on 6 miles of scenic trails; 

and day and overnight camping would 

continue to be available. Trails would 

continue to be closed seasonally to protect 

nesting California brown pelicans. Access to 

the water would continue to be only at the 

landing cove for loading and unloading 

passengers. Beaches would remain closed to 

aquatic activities to protect wildlife. There 

would continue to be no landing on beaches. 

The visitor contact station on Santa Barbara 

Island would remain unchanged and small 

exhibit areas would be maintained on Santa 

Barbara Island. 

WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

Under alternative 3 the entire Santa Barbara 

Island, except for the dock, ranger station, and 

campground, would be proposed for 

wilderness designation (639 acres; map 31).

USER CAPACITIES (DAY 

USE AND OVERNIGHT) 

User capacity would not exceed 100 visitors 

per day (not including campers) and 30 

campers per night. The 30-person 

campground would continue to be maintained 

as it is presently.

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

No changes would be proposed. The visitor 

contact station/housing complex with one 1-

bedroom unit and one bunkhouse would 

remain in use.

No water wells are on Santa Barbara Island. 

Water would continue to be shipped and 

transported to the island until such time it is 

necessary and appropriate to implement some 

other means to provide freshwater (i.e., 

desalination).
Sutil Island

Shag Rock

Webster Point

Arch Point

Landing Cove

Cave Canyon

Ranger Station

Signal Peak

Cat Canyon

Santa Barbara

Island Light

Santa Barbara Island

Campground

0 0.5 1 mile

North

Santa Barbar

Channel Islands National Park

National Park Service • U.S. Department of the interior

DSC September 2013

Map

31

LEGEND

Authorized park boundary

Marine Reserve Area 

within NPS Boundary

Marine Conservation Area 

within NPS Boundary

Wilderness/

Backcountry

Historic Landscape

Frontcountry

Administration

Trail

Road

San M

Isl

SANTA B
174

MITIGATIVE MEASURES 

The following mitigative measures would be 

applied under all of the alternatives by NPS 

staff to avoid or minimize potential impacts on 

natural and cultural resources from 

construction activity, visitor use, and park 

operations.

NATURAL RESOURCES

General

• Park resources, including air, water, soils, 

vegetation, and wildlife, would be 

inventoried and monitored to avoid or 

minimize impacts of human activities and 

facilities on the islands.

• New facilities would be built in previously 

disturbed areas or in carefully selected 

sites with as small a construction footprint 

as possible. 

• Site-specific surveys would be conducted 

before any ground disturbance takes place 

to make sure fossils were not present and 

would not be affected. If important 

paleontological resources were identified, 

the Park Service would attempt to reroute, 

relocate, or otherwise mitigate impacts 

from the actions being taken.

• New facilities would be built on soils that 

are suitable for development. Soil erosion 

would be minimized by limiting the time 

that soil is left exposed and by the use of 

various erosion control measures, such as 

erosion matting or silt fencing. Once work 

is completed, construction areas would be 

revegetated with native plants in a timely 

manner.

• Interpretive displays and programs, ranger 

patrols, and regulations on use levels 

would be used to minimize impacts from 

visitors. 

• Areas used by visitors (e.g., trails) would 

be monitored for signs of native 

vegetation disturbance. Public education, 

revegetation of disturbed areas with native 

plants, erosion control measures, and 

barriers would be used to control 

potential impacts on plants from trail 

erosion or social trails.

• Construction materials and supplies for 

island operations would be stored, 

transported, and inspected in a manner to 

minimize the potential for transporting 

nonnative plants or animals to or between 

islands. 

Water Resources

• Best management practices, such as the 

use of silt fences, would be followed to 

ensure that construction-related soil 

erosion and loss was minimal and to

prevent long-term impacts on water 

quality, wetlands, and aquatic species. 

• Absorbent pads and booms would be kept 

close at hand and be readily available to 

clean up spills.

• Equipment would be regularly inspected 

for leakage of petroleum and other 

chemicals. 

• Construction staging areas would be well 

away from surface water features if 

feasible. Likewise, no vehicle maintenance 

or refueling would occur within 100 feet 

of streams or the shoreline.

• Areas would be designated where 

refueling or construction vehicle and 

equipment maintenance would be 

performed, and containment devices or 

structures, such as temporary earth berms, 

would be placed around these areas.

• Revegetation plans would be developed 

for areas impacted by construction 

activities and would include the use of 

native species, as well as salvaging plants 

and topsoil.

• Any activities involving dredging or 

placing fill material below the ordinary 

high water line of streams, such as 

Scorpion Creek, or below the mean high 
Mitigative Measures

175

tide line would comply with requirements 

of sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water 

Act and with other applicable state permit 

programs. Impacts from any potential fill 

or dredge activities would be assessed 

further and specific mitigation measures 

identified as part of an environmental 

compliance document that would be 

prepared in conjunction with the permit 

process. 

• For new facilities, and to the extent 

practicable for existing facilities, 

stormwater management measures would 

be implemented to reduce nonpoint 

source pollution discharge from roads and 

other impervious surfaces. Such actions 

could include oil/sediment separators, 

infiltration beds, and use of permeable 

surfaces and vegetated or natural filters to 

trap or filter stormwater runoff.

Floodplains and Wetlands

• Wetlands would be delineated by qualified 

NPS staff or certified wetland specialists 

and marked if construction of new 

facilities were to occur near them.

• New developments would not be built in 

wetlands, if feasible. If avoiding wetlands 

was not feasible, other actions would be 

taken to comply with EO 11990, 

“Protection of Wetlands,” the Clean 

Water Act, and DO-77-1: Wetland 

Protection. 

• Special precautions would be taken to 

protect wetlands from damage caused by 

construction equipment, erosion, siltation, 

and other activities with the potential to 

affect wetlands (e.g., delineation of 

construction site limits and placement of 

silt fences). Construction materials would 

be kept in work areas, especially if the 

construction takes place near natural 

drainages.

• If possible, new structures, other than 

water-related developments such as boat 

docks, would be located outside of 100-

year floodplains. Fuel storage facilities and 

storage or toxic or hazardous materials 

would be located outside of the 500-year 

floodplains.

• As noted in the “Affected Environment” 

section, all of the park facilities in the 

Scorpion Valley are in the floodplain 

(flood channel). No new permanent 

facilities would be built in the flood 

channel. Continued use of the existing 

facilities would require the continued 

periodic excavation of sediment from the 

channel to keep the stream in the active 

channel away from park facilities, 

although even with channel excavation it 

can be expected that floodwaters would 

continue to periodically damage the 

masonry and nearby structures (NPS 

2003b). This excavation would occur 

approximately from a point 300 feet 

downstream from the windmill to a point 

somewhat upstream of the confluence of 

the horse corral tributary; and the 

dimensions excavated would be about 20 

to 25 feet wide by 4 to 5 feet deep (NPS 

1998). Construction equipment would be 

required to stay on the creek bed in the 

area where sediments were being 

removed, instead of being driven along the 

banks of the creek, which would damage 

vegetation. 

The following mitigation measures apply only 

to alternatives 2 and 3.

• Because the Scorpion masonry building 

and other ranch structures would 

continue to be vulnerable to damage and 

loss during large floods, even with the 

above measures, no irreplaceable records, 

archaeological artifacts, or museum 

collections would be placed in the 

buildings. Signs also would be placed in 

the masonry building informing visitors 

and staff of the flood risk and suggested 

actions in the event of flooding (e.g., an 

evacuation route).

• In the Prisoners Harbor area, because 

floods would not be expected to occur 

frequently, managers could elect to simply 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

176

clean up and repair the building after 

future flood events. To protect the 

warehouse, low-rolling berms may be 

contoured in the vicinity of the structure 

to redirect flows back toward the stream 

channel if it floods. Alternatively, the Park 

Service would work with The Nature 

Conservancy to maintain the levee 

upstream of the well house area (which is 

outside the park) to provide additional 

flood protection to structures in the 

Prisoners Harbor area. Also, if new 

structures are built in this area, elevating 

the structures above the existing ground 

surface by about 2 feet would also protect 

the structures from floods. 

Native Vegetation and Wildlife

• Facilities would be designed and sited to 

use previously disturbed sites to the extent 

practicable. Other individual management 

actions to avoid or minimize the extent 

and severity of impacts would also be 

implemented, such as localized area or 

seasonal use restrictions and confining or 

directing use through the use of barriers, 

trails, and designated campsites. 

• Restoration of native vegetative 

communities would rely on natural 

regeneration and succession, as well as 

active measures. The main goal is to assist 

natural regeneration in reestablishing a 

sustainable native plant community. 

Rehabilitation of road corridors would 

include removal of the existing road 

surface, supplemented with soil salvage, 

removal of nonnative plant species, 

scarification, mulching, seeding, and/or 

planting with native species.

• Visitors would be informed about the 

special nature of Channel Islands’ 

ecosystems and the potential for 

spreading nonnative species on the islands 

before they come to the islands. Boot 

scrapers, brushes, and other means would 

be provided to visitors to reduce the 

likelihood of accidentally introducing 

species on the islands.

• Visitor use areas would be monitored for 

signs of native vegetation disturbance and 

the introduction of nonnative species. 

Public education, revegetation of 

disturbed areas with native plants, erosion 

control measures, and barriers would be 

used to control potential impacts from 

visitors along roads, trails, or social trails.

• A variety of techniques would be 

employed to minimize or avoid impacts on 

native vegetation and wildlife, including 

visitor education programs; ranger patrols; 

and use restrictions (permitted activities, 

locations, and times) in areas with rare 

plants, vegetative communities, and/or 

sensitive wildlife populations and habitats.

Special Status Species (Threatened and 

Endangered Species, Pinnipeds, Endemics)

Surveys would be conducted for special status 

species before implementing any action that 

might cause harm. Facilities would be 

designed and sited to avoid adverse impacts. 

In consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries 

Service, and California Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, measures would be taken to 

protect any sensitive species and their habitat. 

The Park Service would determine measures 

to protect marine mammals during pile 

removal and installation in consultation with 

the National Marine Fisheries Service. This 

would include evaluating the availability and 

feasibility of the construction equipment, 

methods, and manner of construction in order 

to reduce impacts on the lowest level 

practicable. Measures that may be applied 

include predrilling by the construction 

contractor to reduce noise from driving piles, 

establishing safety zones, and monitoring 

marine mammals. 

Management practices to protect western 

snowy plover and California brown pelican 

nesting areas and pelican roosting areas would 
Mitigative Measures

177

continue to be implemented, such as closing 

beaches to visitor use, prohibiting camping on 

beaches during nesting periods, prohibiting 

pets on the islands, monitoring the nesting 

areas throughout the breeding season, and 

minimizing trash along the beach that attracts 

predators. The nesting areas that are more 

vulnerable to visitor disturbance because of 

their accessibility would continue to be more 

intensively monitored to protect the birds. 

The Park Service would continue to work 

cooperatively with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to identify and implement appropriate 

mitigation measures to protect plover and 

pelican nesting and roosting areas within the 

park.

Where visitor use near listed or rare plant 

populations would occur, such as Lobo 

Canyon, and there is the likelihood of 

disturbance to plants, visitors would be 

alerted about the need to stay on trails. If 

necessary, plant populations would be 

protected by placement of signs and fencing. 

New developments, including trails, would be 

sited to avoid disturbing or providing access 

to sensitive endemic plant populations. 

Fire is a special concern on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands. A wildfire could extirpate 

several federally listed plant species. To 

address this potential threat, NPS staff would 

take the following actions. 

• Educate visitors and NPS staff about the 

potential wildfire threat, why campfires 

are not permitted, and the need for care 

when using camp stoves in the 

backcountry.

• Close areas when there is a high fire 

danger.

• If a fire occurs prior to elimination of 

nonnative animals, erect fences around 

the plants at high risk of extirpation. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The National Environmental Policy Act 

requires a discussion of the “appropriateness” 

of mitigation and an analysis of the 

effectiveness of mitigation. A reduction in the 

intensity of an impact from mitigation is an 

estimate of the effectiveness of this mitigation 

under the National Environmental Policy Act. 

It does not suggest that the level of effect, as 

defined by implementing regulations for 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, is similarly reduced. 

Although adverse effects under Section 106 

may be mitigated, the effects remain adverse.

Adverse impacts on properties listed in, or 

determined eligible for listing in, the national 

register would be avoided if possible. If 

adverse impacts could not be avoided, these 

impacts would be mitigated through a

consultation process with all interested 

parties.

Mitigation includes the avoidance of adverse 

effects on cultural resources. Avoidance 

strategies may include the application of the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation or design methodologies 

recommended in DO-28: Cultural Resource 

Management Guideline; NPS Management 

Policies 2001, Chapter 5; DO-28A: Archeology, 

36 CFR 79 (with guidelines for curating 

archeological collections); and the 

Programmatic Agreement among the National 

Park Service, Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, National Conference of State 

Historic Preservation Officers for Compliance 

with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (2008). Presented below is a 

description of typical mitigation measures.

Archeological Resources (Including 

Submerged Maritime Resources)

Wherever possible, projects and facilities 

would be located in previously disturbed or 

existing developed areas. Any undertakings 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

178

under alternative 2 would include substantial 

testing during the planning phase to avoid 

impacts on archeological resources. The park 

would make every effort to avoid 

archeological resources in siting its 

development projects and avoidance of 

ground disturbance. Facilities would be 

designed to avoid known or suspected 

archeological resources. If avoidance of 

archeological resources was not possible, 

mitigation strategies would be developed in 

consultation with all interested parties to 

recover information that makes sites eligible 

for inclusion in the national register.

Archeologists would monitor grounddisturbing construction in areas where 

subsurface remains might be present. If 

previously unknown archeological resources 

were discovered during construction, work in 

the immediate vicinity of the discovery would 

be halted until the resources could be 

identified, evaluated, and documented, and an 

appropriate mitigation strategy was 

developed, if necessary, in consultation with 

the California state historic preservation 

office. Mitigation work involving submerged 

maritime resources would be undertaken in 

cooperation with the state of California as 

necessary. In the unlikely event that human 

remains, funerary objects, or objects of 

cultural patrimony were discovered during 

construction, applicable provisions of the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act would be implemented.

Historic Structures/Buildings

All project work relating to historic structures 

/ buildings would be conducted in accordance 

with the guidelines and recommendations of 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, 

Restoring and Reconstructing Historic 

Buildings. Typical mitigation measures for 

historic structures / buildings include 

measures to avoid impacts, such as 

rehabilitation and adaptive reuse, designing 

new development to be compatible with 

surrounding historic properties, and screening 

new development from surrounding historic 

resources to minimize impacts on cultural 

landscapes and ethnographic resources.

Cultural Landscapes

All project work relating to cultural 

landscapes would be conducted in accordance 

with the guidelines and recommendations of 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes. Typical mitigation measures for 

cultural landscapes include measures to avoid 

impacts, such as designing new development 

to be compatible with surrounding historic 

properties and screening new development 

from surrounding cultural landscapes to 

minimize impacts on those landscapes.

Cultural landscape reports would be prepared 

prior to projects with potential for impacts on 

contributing features of cultural landscapes to

ensure that adverse impacts on cultural 

landscapes are avoided or minimized. 

Ethnographic Resources

The Park Service would continue to consult 

with culturally associated American Indian 

tribes and other traditionally associated 

groups to develop appropriate strategies to 

mitigate impacts on ethnographic resources. 

Such strategies could include identification of 

and assistance in providing access to 

alternative resource gathering areas, 

continuing to provide access to traditional use 

or spiritual areas, and screening new 

development from traditional use areas to 

minimize impacts on ethnographic resources.

Scenic Resources

Mitigation measures are designed to minimize 

visual intrusions. These include the following:
Mitigative Measures

179

• Where appropriate, use facilities such as 

boardwalks and fences to route people 

away from sensitive natural and cultural 

resources, while still permitting access to 

important viewpoints.

• Design, site, and construct facilities to 

avoid or minimize visual intrusion into the 

natural landscape.

• Provide vegetative screening, where 

appropriate.

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 

AND AESTHETICS

The following measures would be followed:

• Projects would avoid or minimize adverse 

impacts on natural and cultural resources. 

• Development projects (e.g., buildings, 

facilities, utilities, roads, bridges, and 

trails) or reconstruction projects (e.g., 

road reconstruction, building 

rehabilitation, and utility upgrades) would 

be designed to work in harmony with the 

surroundings, particularly in historic 

districts. 

• Projects would reduce, minimize, or 

eliminate air and water nonpoint source 

pollution. 

• Projects would be sustainable whenever 

practicable by recycling and reusing 

materials, by minimizing materials, by 

minimizing energy consumption during 

the project, and by minimizing energy 

consumption throughout the lifespan of 

the project.
180

DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATES OF THE ALTERNATIVES

NPS decision makers and the public must 

consider an overall picture of the complete 

costs and advantages of various alternatives, 

including the no action alternative, to make 

wise planning and management decisions for 

Channel Islands National Park. 

In estimating costs of the alternatives, 

different types of costs need to be taken into 

account, including one-time costs and annual 

operating costs. 

Initial one-time costs include: 

• new development (including NPS 

infrastructure costs) 

• major rehabilitation or restoration of 

existing facilities 

• interpretive media (e.g., audiovisual 

materials, exhibits, waysides, and 

publications) 

Examples of recurring annual costs include: 

• annual park operating costs (e.g., staff 

salary and benefits, maintenance, utilities, 

monitoring, and contract services) 

• ongoing repair and rehabilitation of 

facilities (i.e., the projection of past trends

and known future needs into an annual 

estimate) 

The following cost estimates are intended to 

provide a relative comparison of the costs of 

the alternatives. The derivation of the cost and 

staffing information in Table 15 below can be 

found in the “Estimated Costs” sections of 

each alternative. These figures are not 

intended to be used for budgetary purposes or 

to implement funding requests. The 

implementation of the approved plan will 

depend on future funding. The approval of 

this plan does not guarantee that the funding 

and staffing needed to implement the plan will 

be forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

actions in the approved General Management

Plan could be many years into the future. 

TABLE 15. COST ESTIMATES AND STAFFING FOR FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Cost Type Alternative 1 (No

Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred

Alternative)

Staffing (FTEs) 59 76 76

One-time facility costs $0 $65.4 million $62.4 million

Annual operating costs $11.9 million $12.4 million $12.5 million

Deferred maintenance offset $0 $6.8 million $6.8 million

Note: In 2011 dollars.
181

FUTURE PLANS AND STUDIES NEEDED

Park managers would prepare several studies 

and implementation plans upon completion of 

the plan. These more detailed studies and 

implementation plans would describe how the 

Park Service would achieve the desired 

conditions outlined in the plan by describing 

specific actions park managers intend to take 

in the park to ensure that resources are 

protected and visitors have opportunities for 

high quality experiences. The Park Service 

would seek public input in preparing the plans 

and would prepare additional environmental 

documentation as needed to comply with the 

National Environmental Policy Act.

The following studies are examples of what 

would be prepared under one or both of the 

action alternatives:

• nominations of the Santa Rosa Island 

Archeological District, East Santa Cruz 

Island Archeological District, and 

shipwrecks to the national register 

• nomination of the Santa Rosa Historic 

Ranching District to the national register

• nomination of Santa Cruz Ranching 

District to the national register

• updated national register nominations for 

the San Miguel, Santa Barbara, and 

Anacapa islands archeological districts 

• cultural landscape treatment plans for the 

Anacapa Light Station and ranch 

complexes on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands

• museum management plan update

• collection condition survey

• ethnographic studies

Additional NEPA analysis would be done for 

several actions in the action alternatives, 

including:

• construction of a research/education field 

station on Santa Rosa Island

• NPS housing in the Prisoners Harbor area 

on Santa Cruz Island

• construction of an education

center/volunteer field camp on Santa Cruz 

Island

• the periodic excavation of sediments from 

the Scorpion channel on Santa Cruz 

Island

• the possible construction of new trails on 

San Miguel Island

The following implementation plans would 

also be prepared under both of the action 

alternatives: 

• comprehensive interpretive plan

• natural resources condition assessment

• ecological restoration actions for selected 

park resources

• parkwide backcountry management plan 

focusing on Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and 

San Miguel islands (covering roads, trails, 

and camping)

• study of options for the future of the 

Scorpion pier, including how to continue 

to maintain it, and an environmental 

analysis

• user capacity monitoring plans

• plan for elimination of rats from San 

Miguel Island

• cultural landscape management plans for 

landscapes eligible for listing on the 

national register at Santa Cruz, Santa 

Rosa, and Anacapa islands

• treatment plans for significant park 

buildings (e.g., those in the Santa Rosa 

Ranch District and the Anacapa Island 

Light Station Historic District)

• olive orchard management plan for 

Smugglers Cove on Santa Cruz Island

• housing management plans and needs 

assessment

• museum collection storage plan
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

182

• cooperative agreement with the state of 

California

• participate in fishery management plans

In addition to the above plans and studies, a 

commercial services strategy and a resource 

stewardship strategy would be prepared. The 

resource stewardship strategy would provide 

a strategic approach for long-range 

management of the park’s natural and cultural 

resources. The resource strategy would 

translate the conceptual information in the 

plan into specific desired conditions and 

management actions to achieve those 

conditions. 

For example, the strategy would set forth 

specific approaches for managing vegetation 

within the cultural landscapes zone as a whole 

and more specifically within historic 

developed areas and isolated orchards/groves.
183

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE

The National Park Service is required to 

identify an environmentally preferable 

alternative in its NEPA documents for public 

review and comment. Guidance from the 

Council on Environmental Quality states that 

the environmentally preferable alternative is 

the alternative that “causes the least damage to 

the biological and physical environment”; it 

also means the alternative which “best 

protects, preserves, and enhances historic, 

cultural, and natural resources” (Question 6(a) 

from “NEPA’s Forty Most Asked Questions”). 

An alternative or alternatives may be 

identified as the environmentally preferable 

alternative.

Both alternatives 2 and 3 would have fewer 

impacts on the park’s natural resources than 

alternative 1. Most park natural resources 

would not be affected by the two action 

alternatives. Although the two action 

alternatives would have different impacts on 

the environment due to their different 

emphases on visitor use and education 

activities, the adverse impacts from both 

alternatives on biological or physical 

resources, such as vegetation and wildlife, 

would be fairly small and localized.

With regard to cultural resource impacts, 

alternative 1 would have the fewest impacts of 

the three alternatives. Alternatives 2 and 3 

would have long-term minor beneficial 

impacts and long-term negligible to minor

adverse impacts on ethnographic resources, 

and would have permanent negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on historic structures

due to potential increases in visitor levels. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in minor to 

moderate adverse impacts from grounddisturbing activities on archeological 

resources and changes in features of the 

cultural landscapes. However, these adverse 

impacts would be mitigated such that the 

national register eligibility of such resources 

would not be jeopardized, and thus the 

Section 106 determination for both 

alternatives 2 and 3 would be no adverse effect. 

Both alternatives would also have beneficial 

impacts on archeological resources due to 

increased control of visitor access, site 

monitoring, and increased public education 

for resource stewardship. The adverse cultural 

landscape impacts would be localized and 

mostly minor. Although both alternatives 2 

and 3 would have adverse impacts on cultural 

resources, the park’s fundamental cultural 

resources would not be adversely impacted. 

Overall, both action alternatives would 

provide environmental benefits over the no

action alternative through the use of 

management zoning, closures of existing 

roads on Santa Rosa Island, proposing 

wilderness designation, and establishing and 

monitoring user capacity indicators and 

standards. There is little difference between 

the two alternatives because both action 

alternatives are strongly grounded in the 

provisions of laws and NPS policies for 

protection of resources from damage. There is 

little difference between the two action 

alternatives in the ways they would protect, 

preserve, and enhance historic, cultural, and 

natural resources. Therefore, both action 

alternatives have been identified as 

environmentally preferable.
184 

CONSISTENCY OF THE ALTERNATIVES WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 

CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.2(d)) require 

a determination of how each alternative 

being analyzed in detail would or would not 

achieve the policies of section 101(b) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act. The 

policies in section 101(b) are to: 

1. fulfill the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the environment 

for succeeding generations

2. assure for all Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and esthetically and 

culturally pleasing surroundings

3. attain the widest range of beneficial uses 

of the environment without degradation, 

risk of health or safety, or other 

undesirable and unintended 

consequences

4. preserve important historic, cultural, and 

natural aspects of our national heritage, 

and, wherever possible, maintain an 

environment that supports diversity and 

variety of individual choice

5. achieve a balance between population 

and resource use that would permit high 

standards of living and a wide sharing of 

life’s amenities

6. enhance the quality of renewable 

resources and approach the maximum 

attainable recycling of depletable 

resources 

The two action alternatives considered, 

alternatives 2 and 3, would be consistent 

with these policies. They would provide a 

high level of preservation of natural and 

cultural resources while concurrently 

integrating resource protection with an 

appropriate range of visitor uses. There 

would be increased opportunities for 

recreational uses. A diversity of 

opportunities would be provided in both 

alternatives for visitors to learn and enjoy 

the park with minimal adverse impacts, 

while preserving and enhancing the 

understanding of the park’s natural and 

cultural resources and fulfilling NPS 

responsibilities as trustee of the 

environment. 
185

PLANNING ACTIONS/ALTERNATIVES

CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED FURTHER

The mission of the National Park Service is 

stated in the Organic Act of 1916, which 

established the agency. The act establishes a 

mission of preservation for the enjoyment of 

present and future generations. Foremost in 

this mission is the preservation of the natural 

and cultural features and systems that 

contribute to a park’s significance, that is, its 

reason for being set aside as a national park. 

To enjoy these resources, the public must also 

have the opportunity to experience them 

firsthand. Thus, to fulfill its mission, the Park 

Service must provide for both long-term 

preservation and the visitor use that can be 

accommodated within the context of 

preservation. While actions/alternatives were 

considered that would allow for full 

restoration and full accommodation of visitor 

access and use, these elements were dismissed 

from further consideration due to their 

inability to fulfill the complex mission of both 

preservation and enjoyment.

Closing the East Anacapa Campground. In 

one of the preliminary alternatives, there was 

a plan to remove the campground. There was 

a lot of public support for retaining camping 

on East Anacapa Island. After receiving 

comments and further analysis, it was 

determined that the campground would 

remain, but it would be redeveloped to reduce 

resource impacts and improve the visitor 

experience.

Camping at Frenchy’s Cove – West 

Anacapa Island. This action called for 

establishing camping in an area where 

camping does not currently exist. After 

further investigation and additional 

information during public comment, it was 

determined that camping at Frenchy’s Cove 

would not be feasible because there is not 

enough land to develop campsites or a 

campground at this location, nor was there 

enough area to develop essential camper 

needs such as water and human waste 

facilities. 

Pier at Smugglers Cove. This action called 

for the development of a pier at Smugglers 

Cove on East Santa Cruz Island to provide 

additional access to a visitor destination. It 

was determined that direct access to 

Smugglers Cove is not needed since it is 

accessible from Scorpion Harbor and it would 

be managed as a backcountry destination. East 

Santa Cruz Island already has reliable boat 

service via Scorpion Harbor; therefore, there 

is no need to provide additional piers to 

access other destinations on this end of the 

island. In addition, current visitor needs are 

being met at Scorpion Harbor.

Reestablish the Airstrip at Smugglers Cove.

This action called for the redevelopment of an 

airstrip at Smugglers Cove on East Santa Cruz 

Island to provide additional access to a visitor 

destination and to provide access to visitors 

with limited mobility. Prior to the acquisition 

of East Santa Cruz Island by the Park Service, 

the private landowner developed an airstrip. 

Once the Park Service assumed management, 

it was determined that the airstrip was not 

necessary and it was removed from service 

and has deteriorated. Making the airstrip 

usable would require construction of a new 

strip and maintenance of a road. Carrying

capacities for East Santa Cruz Island are being 

met, thus an additional means of access is not 

needed. Santa Cruz Island already has reliable 

boat service via Scorpion Harbor; therefore, 

there is no real need to provide airplane 

access. This action would require additional 

NPS staff to oversee and administer.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

186

Biking on Santa Rosa Island. Biking has 

been suggested as a possible use in the park, 

particularly on Santa Rosa Island. However, 

the planning team has determined it would 

not be appropriate to include biking as a 

possible use in the alternatives being 

considered for the plan because of the park’s 

enabling legislation and the potential for 

resource impacts and visitor conflicts. 

The enabling legislation for the park stipulates 

that “visitor use within the park be limited to 

assure negligible adverse impact on the park 

resources” and that “the park shall be 

administered on a low-intensity, limited-entry 

basis.” This legislation constrains the types of 

recreation that are appropriate in the park. 

The park contains many sensitive resources, 

including archeological resources; highly 

erodible soils; and endemic, threatened, and 

endangered plants. With off-road travel being 

very easy in the open vegetation of Santa Rosa 

Island, there is the potential for appreciable 

impacts on these resources from biking. 

Installation of Mooring Buoys. This action 

would have called for the establishment of 

mooring buoys to facilitate anchoring by 

private boaters within the park. The resource 

impacts as a result of anchoring were 

considered as well as the need for buoys. It 

was determined that at this time, anchoring 

was having a negligible to minor impact on 

marine resources; therefore, mooring buoys 

are not needed. 

Dinghy Docks. This action called for the 

establishment of dinghy docks to facilitate 

landings by private boaters within the park. 

These docks were considered as part of the 

alternatives but were dismissed due to the 

maintenance and operation of dinghy docks in 

open ocean conditions.

Horse Use on Santa Rosa Island. During the 

preparation of this General Management Plan

a commercial services feasibility analysis was 

prepared. During this analysis it was 

determined that the potential for operating a 

commercial horse operation on Santa Rosa 

Island was infeasible due to a lack of demand, 

a lack of economic feasibility, and the 

remoteness of the facility. Therefore, horse 

use was not carried through any alternative.
Planning Actions/Alternatives

Considered but Not Analyzed Further

187

TABLE 16. ISLAND USE LIMITS (DAY USE AND OVERNIGHT) 

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Preferred

Alternative)

Island Day Use

Overnight 

Use Day Use

Overnight 

Use Day Use

Overnight 

Use

ANACAPA 

ISLAND

East 

Anacapa1 

No more 

than 100 

visitors at 

one time by 

concession 

boat plus 

private 

boaters 

(including 

campers)

30 campers 

per night

No more than 

100 visitors at 

one time by 

concession 

boat plus 

private 

boaters 

(including 

campers)

16 campers 

per night

No more than 

100 visitors at 

one time by 

concession 

boat plus 

private boaters 

(including 

campers)

25 campers

per night

Middle 

Anacapa1

No use 

limits have 

been set; 

however, 

small 

groups must 

be under 

NPS escort

No use 

permitted

Same as 

alternative 1

No use 

permitted

Same as 

alternative 1

No use 

permitted 

West 

Anacapa1

Frenchy’s 

Cove — 75 

day visitors 

at one time; 

more than 

30 must be 

supervised 

in a NPS-led 

or NPSapproved 

group

No use 

permitted

Same as 

alternative 1

No use 

permitted

Same as 

alternative 1

No use 

permitted 

SANTA CRUZ

Scorpion2 200 day 

visitors per 

day; no limit 

on private 

boaters 

(does not 

include 

campers)

240 campers 

per night

No more than 

200 day 

visitors at one 

time at 

Scorpion 

Harbor (does 

not include 

campers)

240 campers No more than 

250 day 

visitors at one 

time at 

Scorpion 

Harbor (does 

not include 

campers)

240 campers

Smugglers 

Cove2

No limit on 

private 

boaters

No camping 

permitted

No limit on 

private 

boaters

16 to 20 

campers 

pending 

development 

of a parkwide 

backcountry 

management 

plan

No limit on 

private boaters

16 to 20 

campers 

pending 

development 

of a parkwide 

backcountry 

management 

plan
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

188

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Preferred

Alternative)

Island Day Use

Overnight 

Use Day Use

Overnight 

Use Day Use

Overnight 

Use

Prisoners 

Harbor

No more 

than 100 

day visitors 

at one time

No camping 

permitted

No more than 

100 day 

visitors at one 

time

No camping 

permitted

No more than 

100 day 

visitors at one 

time (does not 

include 

campers)

24 campers 

per night

Backcountry 

Camping and 

Day Use on 

the 

Remainder of 

NPS Lands on 

Santa Cruz

No use limit 16 campers in 

the vicinity of 

Rancho Del 

Norte; no use 

limits on the 

rest of the 

island, but 

camping is by 

permit only 

on NPS lands

No day use 

limits 

established by 

this plan; day 

use limits may 

be established 

if warranted in 

the future

16 campers in 

the vicinity of 

Rancho Del 

Norte. 

Backcountry 

campsites 

could be 

established 

throughout the 

island. Specific 

locations and 

use limits 

would be 

identified 

through the 

development 

of a parkwide 

backcountry 

management 

plan.

No day use 

limits 

established by 

this plan; day 

use limits may 

be established 

if warranted in 

the future

16 campers in 

the vicinity of 

Rancho Del 

Norte. 

Backcountry 

campsites 

could be 

established 

throughout 

the island. 

Specific 

locations and 

use limits 

would be 

identified 

through the 

development 

of a parkwide 

backcountry 

management 

plan.

SANTA 

ROSA3

Bechers Bay No more 

than 100 

people per 

day3

(including 

campers)

75 campers No more than 

500 visitors 

per day 

(including 

campers)

Up to 110 

campers per 

night plus up 

to 40 lodge 

guests (see 

next row) 

No more than 

500 visitors 

per day 

(including 

campers)

125 campers 

per night plus 

up to 40 lodge 

guests (see 

next row)

Day Use and 

Beach / 

Backcountry 

Camping on 

the 

Remainder of 

Santa Rosa

No use 

limits

No use limits No day use 

limits 

established by 

this plan; day 

use limits 

could be 

established in 

a future 

parkwide 

backcountry 

management 

plan

Overnight use 

limits for the 

rest of the 

island, 

including 

backcountry 

camping along 

beaches and at 

campsites, 

could be 

established in a 

parkwide 

backcountry 

management 

plan

No day use 

limits 

established by 

this plan; day 

use limits 

could be 

established in 

a future 

parkwide 

backcountry 

management 

plan

Overnight use 

limits for the 

rest of the 

island, 

including 

backcountry 

camping along 

beaches and at 

campsites, 

could be 

established in 

a parkwide 

backcountry 

management 

plan
Planning Actions/Alternatives

Considered but Not Analyzed Further

189

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Preferred

Alternative)

Island Day Use

Overnight 

Use Day Use

Overnight 

Use Day Use

Overnight 

Use

SAN 

MIGUEL4

Ranch 

Complex

75 visitors 

at one time 

(does not 

include 

campers)

30 campers 

per night

75 visitors per 

day (would 

not include 

campers)

30 campers 

per night

No more than 

100 visitors 

per day (would 

not include 

campers)

30 campers 

per night

Western Part 

of Island

Use limited 

to rangerguided 

hikes only 

No use Use limited to 

ranger-guided 

hikes only

NPS or 

commercial 

guided

multiday trips 

(not to exceed 

four days) and 

10 individuals 

at one time)

Use limited to 

ranger-guided 

hikes only

Guided

multiday trips 

(not to exceed 

four days) and 

10 individuals 

at one time)

Remainder of 

San Miguel

Use limited 

to rangerguided 

hikes only

No use Use limited to 

ranger-guided 

hikes only

No use Use limited to 

ranger-guided 

hikes only

No use

SANTA 

BARBARA1

100 visitors 

per day (not 

including 

campers)

30 campers 

per night

100 visitors 

per day (not 

including 

campers)

30 campers 

per night

100 visitors 

per day (not 

including 

campers)

30 campers 

per night

1 Source: 1980 General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement.

2 Source: 1984 Draft General Management Plan Supplement / Environmental Assessment.

3 Source: 1995 Development Concept Plan / Environmental Impact Statement, Santa Rosa Island states that the outer limit is 500 per 

day with a realistic estimate of 100 per day in the summer. The Superintendent’s Compendium states 100 per day (May 10, 2004).

4 The 1984 Draft General Management Plan Supplement / Environmental Assessment originally set an experimental user capacity at 

the San Miguel ranch complex of 15 campers at one time, under NPS supervision. However, in 1991 the overnight user capacity was 

increased to nine campsites and a maximum of 30 campers.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

190

TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Preferred 

Alternative)

CONCEPT This alternative provides a 

baseline for evaluating 

changes in the other 

alternatives. There would be 

no major change in the 

management direction of the 

islands. All facilities and 

resource programs would 

continue as they are. 

Under this alternative 

ecosystem preservation, 

restoration, and the 

preservation of large expanses 

in relatively pristine resource 

conditions would be 

emphasized. Resource 

stewardship including 

ecosystem preservation and 

restoration, and preservation 

of natural landscapes, cultural 

landscapes, archeological 

resources, and historic

structures would continue to 

be emphasized.

Under this alternative there 

would be minor changes to 

recreational activities. 

Increased wilderness and 

dispersed visitor use 

opportunities would be 

provided on Santa Rosa Island. 

As in all of the alternatives, 

alternative 3 is intended to 

emphasize resource 

stewardship, including 

ecosystem preservation and 

restoration, and preservation 

of natural landscapes, cultural 

landscapes, archeological 

resources, and historic 

structures. 

Alternative 3 would place 

more attention than the other 

alternatives on expanding 

education and recreational 

opportunities and 

accommodations to provide 

diverse visitor experiences on 

the islands. Visitors would 

have more opportunities to see 

and experience the islands. 

PARKWIDE

Visitor Access

Air 

Transportation

Public air transportation for 

day use visitors and campers 

would continue to be available 

year-round only to Santa Rosa 

Island (Bechers Bay) via a park 

concessioner.

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1 plus on a 

trial basis, a limited number of 

concession-operated fixedwing aircraft would be 

permitted to use the existing 

San Miguel Island airstrip at 

the ranch complex. 

On-Island 

Vehicle 

Transportation 

NPS staff would continue to 

provide limited ground 

transportation to Torrey Pines 

and Lobo Canyon for visitors 

on Santa Rosa Island. No 

public vehicular transportation 

would be provided on any of 

the islands.

Limited ground transportation 

would be permitted on Santa 

Rosa Island via a concessioner. 

No public vehicular 

transportation would be 

provided on the other islands.

Same as alternative 2 except 

more roads would be open to 

concessioner vehicles on Santa 

Rosa Island.

Visitor Uses and Facilities

Visitor Uses Opportunities for hiking, 

overnight camping, swimming, 

snorkeling, diving, kayaking, 

and scenery and wildlife 

viewing, and other activities 

would continue to be available 

on each of the islands. 

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1.
Planning Actions/Alternatives

Considered but Not Analyzed Further

191

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Preferred 

Alternative)

Visitor Facilities 

— Frontcountry 

Camping and 

Lodging

No new facilities would be 

provided. Frontcountry 

camping would continue to be 

available year-round within 

established campgrounds on 

all five park islands. Camping 

conditions would continue to 

be primitive. There would be 

no changes in campground 

capacities.

Same as alternative 1, except 

overnight use levels at East 

Anacapa would be reduced, 

and overnight use levels at 

Santa Rosa Island (Bechers Bay) 

would be increased with the 

addition of a concession-run 

lodge.

Same as alternative 1, except 

overnight use levels at East 

Anacapa would be reduced, 

overnight use levels at Santa 

Cruz Island (Scorpion Valley 

and Prisoners Harbor) would 

be increased through the 

expansion and addition of new 

campsites, and overnight use 

levels at Santa Rosa Island 

(Bechers Bay) would be 

increased through the addition 

of a campground and 

concession-run lodge.

Wilderness Proposal

Wilderness 

Proposal

None of the park would be 

proposed for wilderness 

designation.

66,675 acres (approximately 

53% of the land portion of the 

park) would be proposed for 

wilderness designation.

66,675 acres (approximately 

53% of the land portion of the 

park) would be proposed for 

wilderness designation.

MAINLAND

Visitor Center 

(Ventura)

The visitor center in Ventura 

Harbor would remain the 

primary location for 

interpretation, orientation, 

dissemination of parkwide 

information, and the hub for 

visitor services/activities. 

Same as alternative 1, except 

the existing visitor center 

would be expanded. 

The Park Service would seek to 

acquire property in the harbor 

to build a new visitor / 

education center. 

Park 

Operations

Park headquarters operations 

and leased auxiliary office 

buildings would remain in the 

Ventura Harbor area with no 

proposed changes. 

The Park Service would 

continue to lease office space 

within the harbor and would 

seek to acquire or lease 

property in the harbor to 

consolidate office space. If and 

when this happens, all office 

space would be moved from 

the current park headquarters 

to the new space.

The original headquarters / 

visitor center would be 

modified to meet all 

administrative and operational 

office space requirements. The 

Park Service would work with 

harbor management to 

consolidate all maintenance / 

industry uses within a common 

footprint.

ANACAPA ISLAND

Wilderness Proposal

No wilderness proposed. All of West and Middle 

Anacapa would be proposed 

for wilderness designation (620 

acres).

Same as alternative 2.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

192

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Preferred 

Alternative)

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities and Services 

East Anacapa The lighthouse would continue 

to be closed to the public.

The 30-person campground 

would continue to be available 

for use.

The lighthouse would be 

opened with accompanying 

exhibits to the public.

The campground would be 

reduced in size to support up 

to 16 visitors per night.

Same as alternative 2.

The campground would be 

reduced in size to support up 

to 25 visitors per night.

Park Operations, Roads, and Administrative Facilities

No new facilities would be 

provided.

A new housing unit would be 

constructed in the Anacapa 

Island Light Station Historic 

District on the site of the 

previous light station 

residence.

Same as alternative 2.

SANTA CRUZ ISLAND

Natural and Cultural Resources

Scorpion Valley

– Floodplain 

and Wetlands

No changes to management of 

the area.

No action taken to remove 

sediment from the flood 

channel.

The floodplains at the mouth 

of Scorpion Creek would be 

managed to restore natural 

conditions, to the extent 

possible, while ensuring access 

to and from the pier and 

protecting cultural resources. 

Sediment in the flood channel 

would be periodically 

excavated to protect the 

historic district and visitor 

facilities.

Same as alternative 2.

Same as alternative 2.

Wilderness Proposal

No wilderness proposed. The entire isthmus (NPS lands), 

excluding the developed areas 

and roads, would be proposed 

for wilderness designation 

(14,476 acres).

Same as alternative 2.

Visitor Uses, Access, Facilities, and Services

Commercial 

Services and 

Facilities – 

Kayaking and 

Snorkeling

No new commercial services 

provided.

The Park Service would seek to 

manage kayaking and 

snorkeling at Scorpion through 

an on-island concessions 

contract. 

If a concession operation was 

approved, a moveable support 

facility (e.g., storage facility), 

compatible with the cultural 

landscape, would be built in 

the ranch. 

Same as alternative 2.

Same as alternative 2.

Visitor Access –

Piers and Docks

Boaters would continue to use 

the piers at Scorpion Valley

and Prisoners Harbor for 

loading and unloading 

passengers only. 

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1.
Planning Actions/Alternatives

Considered but Not Analyzed Further

193

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Preferred 

Alternative)

Scorpion Valley

– Camping and 

Other Visitor 

Facilities

The existing campground 

would continue to be 

maintained with a capacity of 

240 campers per night.

No new visitor facilities 

proposed.

The existing campground 

would continue to be 

maintained but the 

campground would be 

reconfigured to accommodate 

both individual and group 

sites. To ensure visitor safety 

camping would be limited in 

the winter to 10 campsites that 

are out of flood danger.

A new barn structure would be 

built at the current corral 

location for interpretive 

exhibits and programs.

Same as alternative 2.

Same as alternative 2 except a 

presentation area would be 

sited between the upper and 

lower campgrounds to 

accommodate evening 

programs and serve as a 

meeting place for guided 

activities.

Prisoners 

Harbor – Visitor 

Facilities

Camping

No visitor facilities provided. 

(Part of the existing historic 

warehouse would continue to 

be used for storage of supplies 

and equipment.)

No campsites provided. 

Part of the historic warehouse 

building would be rehabilitated 

to serve as a visitor contact 

station with exhibits. 

Additional restrooms would be 

added near the historic 

warehouse. 

No campsites provided. 

Same as alternative 2. 

A primitive campground would 

be provided to the east of 

Prisoners Harbor on NPS lands.

Park Operations, Roads, and Administrative Facilities 

Scorpion Valley 

Administrative 

Facilities

The six temporary housing 

units would remain. 

Maintenance would continue 

at the current Scorpion Valley

temporary housing site.

No new facilities would be 

built.

The six temporary housing 

structures would be removed 

and replaced with permanent 

structures at the current 

location. Office space would 

be provided for resource and 

interpretation staff in a new 

facility in the area. 

Maintenance operations would 

be moved from the housing 

area to near the corral. A 

structure would be constructed 

to provide bays for a variety of 

functions. 

The historic bunkhouse would 

be rehabilitated to support 

park and concession 

operations.

Same as alternative 2. 

Same as alternative 2.

Same as alternative 2.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

194

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Preferred 

Alternative)

Prisoners 

Harbor 

No facilities would be provided 

for housing. Maintenance 

would continue at various 

locations.

The Park Service would work 

with The Nature Conservancy 

to determine if housing can be 

co-located on TNC land. If this 

is not possible, new 

administrative facilities for 

housing, operations, and 

maintenance would be built in 

the area (e.g., outside the 

drainage floodplain). Housing 

would be provided for at least 

two year-round employees and 

two seasonal personnel.

An education/research camp 

would be built if possible in the 

Prisoners Harbor area; 

otherwise, it would be located 

in the Scorpion Valley area.

Same as alternative 2 except 

the Park Service would also 

work with The Nature 

Conservancy to identify 

appropriate land for use as an 

education camp/center. 

Same as alternative 2.

Rancho Del 

Norte

The housing unit would 

continue to be maintained but 

would not be improved.

The housing unit would be 

retained. 

The historic residence would 

continue as part of the NPS 

housing inventory or be 

available for use by a nonprofit 

group through a lease, 

cooperative agreement, or 

concession contract. 

SANTA ROSA ISLAND

Wilderness Proposal

No wilderness proposed. The entire island, except for 

the Bechers Bay and Johnson’s 

Lee areas and several road 

corridors, would be proposed 

for wilderness designation 

(50,901 acres).

Same as alternative 2.

Visitor Uses, Access, and Facilities 

Ground Vehicle 

Transportation 

for Visitors

Limited ground transportation 

on the island would continue 

to be provided by NPS vehicles.

A commercial operator would 

be permitted to use passenger 

vehicles to transport visitors to 

various day use areas and help 

disperse visitors and prevent 

crowding in the historic ranch 

area. Commercial vehicle 

operations would be confined 

to the roads that lead from 

Bechers Bay to the base of 

Torrey Pines, to Lobo Canyon 

trailhead, and to Johnson’s 

Lee.

An island transportation hub 

and operations center would 

be established in the Bechers 

Bay area to accommodate 

vehicle parking, concession 

housing, storage and 

administration, and NPS 

operations.

Same as alternative 2, but with 

expanded service. 

Same as alternative 2.
Planning Actions/Alternatives

Considered but Not Analyzed Further

195

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Preferred 

Alternative)

Lodging 

(Bechers Bay)

No lodging opportunities exist. A commercial operator(s) 

would provide lodging and 

food service at the Bechers Bay 

ranch complex. Economy 

lodging/hostel opportunities 

would be provided through the 

adaptive use of the historic 

ranch structures. Lodging 

would be limited up to about 

40 visitors. The historic ranch 

structures would be 

rehabilitated (where possible), 

and some new facilities may be 

constructed as long as they 

were compatible with the 

historic district. Concession 

support, including employee 

housing, would be 

incorporated within the 

existing ranch complex. 

Same as alternative 2, except 

lodging provided would meet 

a range of opportunities — 

from economy scale to higher 

end — and would be limited 

to 40 overnight guests. 

Other Visitor 

Facilities 

No new facilities would be 

provided. 

The 75-person campground at 

Water Canyon would continue 

to be maintained.

A visitor contact station with 

exhibits would be established 

through the adaptive reuse of 

one or more of the historic 

structures in the Bechers Bay 

ranch complex and/or 

construction of a new building. 

All replacement structures 

must be compatible with the 

historic district.

The Water Canyon 

campground would be 

reduced to a 50-person group 

campground. In addition, a 

new 60-person campground, 

including group sites, would be 

provided on the Bechers Bay 

marine terrace (within the 

ranch complex). 

Day use facility provided at 

Johnson’s Lee. 

Additional activities/functions 

would be accommodated in 

the Bechers Bay ranch complex 

facilities, including a small 

stable operation, interpretive 

exhibits. A small visitor contact 

facility would be built near the 

pier. 

The Water Canyon 

campground would be 

reduced to a 50-person 

campground, and a new 75-

person campground, including 

group sites, would be 

developed on the marine 

terrace within the Bechers Bay 

ranch complex.

A small primitive campground 

and day use facility would be 

established at Johnson’s Lee. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

196

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Preferred 

Alternative)

Park Operations, Roads, and Administrative Facilities

Roads 

(Administrative 

and Visitor 

Transportation)

Roads on the island would 

continue to be removed on a 

case-by-case basis. (Currently 

the island has 139 miles of 

roads.) 

Road segments that have 

unacceptable impacts on 

resources and/or that are not 

determined to be essential to 

performing park operations or 

facilitating visitor access by 

conversion to hiking trails, 

would be removed and the 

landscape restored. Sixty-seven 

of the 139 miles of road would 

continue to be maintained, 

including 21 miles for visitor 

transportation and 46 miles for 

administration. 

Same as alternative 2 except 

67 miles of roads would 

continue to be maintained, 

including 44 miles for visitor 

transportation and 25 miles for 

administration.

Employee 

Housing and 

Other Facilities

Two 2-bedroom duplexes and 

two 1-bedroom duplexes 

would remain on the island.

No other new facilities would 

be developed.

Same as alternative 1, plus two 

8-person bunkhouses would 

be built in the same location to 

accommodate seasonal and 

transient staff and visiting 

scientists.

A ranger station and 

concession operations support 

facility would be 

accommodated in the ranch 

complex.

A backcountry ranger station 

would be provided at 

Johnson’s Lee.

Same as alternative 2. 

Same as alternative 2.

Same as alternative 2. 

Field Station No facility provided. A field station to support 

research and education would 

be developed within the 

historic district at Bechers Bay. 

The facility would include 

accommodations for visiting 

researchers and classes, and 

could be associated with the 

lodge/hostel facilities. 

A field station to support 

education and research would 

be established in the Bechers 

Bay area outside the historic 

district. 

SAN MIGUEL ISLAND

Wilderness Proposal

No wilderness proposed. Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1.

Visitor Uses, Access, and Facilities

Visitor Access 

to the Island

Visitors would continue to only 

use boats to access the island, 

coming ashore at Cuyler 

Harbor. No aircraft access by 

visitors would be permitted.

Same as alternative 1. Boat access would continue. In 

addition, on a trial basis, a 

commercial operator would 

provide limited fixed-winged 

aircraft access.
Planning Actions/Alternatives

Considered but Not Analyzed Further

197

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Preferred 

Alternative)

Commercial 

Services – 

Wildlife 

Viewing 

Opportunity

No opportunities provided. Permit guided multiday trips 

(not to exceed four days) by a 

limited number of visitors (not 

to exceed 10 individuals) to see 

pinnipeds at Point Bennett. 

Guided trips would be selfcontained and employ 

minimum impact practices. A 

spike camp would be 

designated at the island’s 

western end, near the dry lake 

bed, for guided groups going 

to Point Bennett. Minimal 

facilities to protect resources 

would be provided (e.g., vault 

toilet, food storage, and tent 

pads to better define the area).

Same as alternative 2.

Camping and 

Other Facilities

No new facilities would be 

provided.

The existing 30-person 

campground would continue 

to be maintained. No other 

camping would be permitted 

on the island.

The parkwide backcountry 

management plan would 

examine other facilities on the 

island, such as a loop trail 

system from the ranger station 

to Point Bennett, to Simonton, 

and back.

The existing 30-person 

campground would continue 

to be maintained, Except for 

the spike camp for guided 

groups, no other camping 

would be permitted on the 

island (not to exceed a total of 

30 campers on the island).

Same as alternative 2.

Same as alternative 2.

SANTA BARBARA ISLAND

Wilderness Proposal

No wilderness proposed. The entire island, except for 

the dock, ranger station, and 

campground, would be 

proposed for wilderness 

designation (639 acres).

Same as alternative 2.

Visitor and Administrative Facilities

Visitor and 

Administrative 

Facilities

No change to facilities. The 

visitor contact station/housing 

structure and campground 

would continue to be 

maintained.

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

198

TABLE 18. SUMMARY OF THE WILDERNESS STUDY

Lands Eligible for Wilderness Designation: 

Anacapa Island: 620 acres

Santa Cruz Island: 14,476 acres

Santa Rosa Island: 50,901 acres

Santa Barbara Island: 639 acres

Islets and Rocks: 39 acres

TOTAL: 66,675 acres

Alternative 1 

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred 

Alternative)

Wilderness 

Proposal

0 acres Anacapa Island: 620 acres

Santa Cruz Island: 14,476 acres

Santa Rosa Island: 50,901 acres

Santa Barbara Island: 639 acres

Islets and Rocks: 39 acres

TOTAL: 66,675 acres

Anacapa Island: 620 acres

Santa Cruz Island: 14,476 acres

Santa Rosa Island: 50,901 acres

Santa Barbara Island: 639 acres

Islets and Rocks: 39 acres

TOTAL: 66,675 acres
Planning Actions/Alternatives

Considered but Not Analyzed Further

199

TABLE 19. SUMMARY OF KEY IMPACTS

Impact Topic

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

(Preferred Alternative)

Soils

Under alternative 1 soil 

erosion would result in some 

localized long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts 

due to visitor use. Alternative 

1 would have a parkwide 

long-term minor adverse 

impact on soils. There would 

be the potential for a longterm moderate to major 

beneficial cumulative impact 

when the effects of 

alternative 1 are added to 

present and future actions 

including revegetation and 

soil control efforts (although 

alternative 1 would add a 

small negative increment to 

this impact).

Most of the park’s soils would 

not be affected by alternative 

2. Soil impacts would largely

be limited to Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands, and the 

alternative would have both 

beneficial and adverse 

impacts. No impacts due to 

changes in visitor uses under 

alternative 2 would result in 

greater than a negligible 

impact when considered from 

a parkwide perspective. 

Although alternative 2 would 

result in long-term minor 

adverse impacts to 

approximately 15 acres of 

soils (primarily due to the 

construction of new facilities 

in localized areas), when 

compared to alternative 1, 

alternative 2 would result in a 

long-term moderate 

beneficial impact, primarily 

due to the removal of roads 

and consequent decrease in 

erosion on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands.

Same as alternative 2, except 

alternative 3 would result in 

long-term minor adverse 

impacts to approximately 21 

acres of soils.

Paleontological 

Resources

Alternative 1 could have a 

long-term minor adverse 

impact on the park’s 

paleontological resources 

from expected slight increases 

in use in the backcountry in 

the future. No cumulative 

impacts to park resources or 

values would occur due to 

human activities.

Alternative 2 could have longterm minor adverse impacts 

on the park’s paleontological 

resources due to increased 

backcountry use and possible 

illegal collecting of fossils. No 

cumulative impacts would

occur.

Same as alternative 2.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

200

Impact Topic

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

(Preferred Alternative)

Water Quality

Continuing visitor use would 

likely result in a negligible 

adverse impact to freshwater 

quality on the islands in 

alternative 1. There would be 

a continuing long-term minor 

adverse impact on marine 

water quality due to boat 

discharges in park waters and 

the disposal of human waste 

on Santa Rosa Island beaches, 

with possible localized longterm minor to moderate 

adverse impacts. There would 

be a long-term minor to 

moderate cumulative impact 

on the park’s freshwater 

quality when the negligible 

adverse impacts of visitor use 

in alternative 1 are added to 

continuing ecosystem 

restoration efforts. A 

reduction in sedimentation 

and wastes in localized areas 

would have a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial 

impact on water quality 

(although alternative 1 would 

add a small negative 

increment to this impact). A 

long-term minor to moderate 

adverse cumulative impact on 

the park’s marine water 

quality in local areas would 

occur when nonpark water 

pollution sources are added 

to the minor adverse impacts 

of discharges from more 

visitor boats in alternative 1 

(although the increment 

contributed by alternative 1 

would be very small).

Freshwater quality on most of 

the islands would not be 

affected by alternative 2. 

Overall alternative 2 would 

result in a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impact 

on freshwater quality, 

primarily due to the closure 

and rehabilitation of roads on 

Santa Rosa Island, and 

localized long-term minor 

adverse impacts on marine 

water quality primarily due to 

discharges from visitors’ 

boats. There could also be a 

long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial cumulative impact 

on freshwater quality in local 

areas and a long-term minor 

to moderate adverse 

cumulative impact on the 

park’s marine water quality in 

local areas (although the 

increment contributed by 

alternative 2 would be small).

Same as alternative 2.
Planning Actions/Alternatives

Considered but Not Analyzed Further

201

Impact Topic

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

(Preferred Alternative)

Floodplain 

Values and 

Flooding at

Scorpion Valley 

on Santa Cruz 

Island

Alternative 1 would have a 

negligible long-term impact 

on the Scorpion Valley 

floodplain and flooding. 

However, there would 

continue to be a potential 

long-term moderate impact 

on human life and/or property 

due to possible flooding. No 

cumulative impacts would 

occur.

Alternative 2 would have a 

long-term moderate 

beneficial impact on natural 

floodplain values in the 

Scorpion Valley due to 

restoration of the small 

estuarine wetland at the 

mouth of the creek, and also 

long-term moderate adverse 

impacts due to the periodic 

removal of sediment from the 

Scorpion drainage. Actions in 

the Prisoners Harbor 

floodplain would not affect 

floodplain values. From a 

flood risk standpoint, the 

actions at Scorpion Valley 

would have a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial 

impact on reducing flood 

risks, reducing the risk to 

human life and property in 

these areas (although there 

would continue to be a risk of 

damage or loss of structures 

from a future flood in the 

Scorpion area). No cumulative 

impacts would occur.

Same as alternative 2. 

Wetlands 

(Scorpion Valley)

Alternative 1 would have no 

effect on the Scorpion Valley 

and Prisoners Harbor 

wetlands. No cumulative 

impacts would occur.

Alternative 2 would have a 

long-term moderate 

beneficial impact on the 

wetland at the mouth of 

Scorpion Valley due to the 

floodplain restoration 

activities that would take 

place. There also would be a 

long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impact on riverine 

wetlands in Scorpion Valley 

due to periodic dredging 

operations. No cumulative 

impacts would occur.

Same as alternative 2.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

202

Impact Topic

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

(Preferred Alternative)

Terrestrial Plant 

Communities 

and Vegetation

Alternative 1 would have a 

long-term minor adverse 

impact on the park’s 

vegetation, although localized 

long-term moderate adverse 

impacts could occur primarily 

due to the continuing spread 

of nonnative species like the 

stone pine and pepper trees 

on Santa Cruz Island, the 

potential for additional 

introductions of nonnative 

plants by people, and an 

expected slight increase in 

backcountry visitation levels. 

The adverse effects of 

alternative 1 plus the effects 

of other actions occurring 

independent of the 

alternative would likely result 

in a long-term moderate to 

major beneficial cumulative 

impact (although alternative 1 

would add a very minor 

adverse increment to both of 

these overall cumulative 

impacts).

Most of the park’s vegetation 

would not be directly 

affected. Alternative 2 would 

result in localized long-term 

negligible to minor adverse 

impacts to vegetation on the 

islands due to increases in 

backcountry use and new 

administrative and visitor 

facilities. About 1.5 acres of 

relatively natural vegetation 

would be lost or altered due 

to new developments on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands. Alternative 2 would 

have a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact, primarily 

due to the closure of roads on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands, the restoration of the 

Scorpion estuarine wetland, 

the replacement of the 

eucalyptus trees with native 

trees in the Scorpion 

campground, management of 

the Smugglers olive grove, 

and additional controls of 

invasive nonnative plants that 

contribute to cultural 

landscapes on Santa Cruz 

Island. There also would be a 

moderate beneficial 

cumulative impact on 

vegetation when actions in 

the alternative are added to 

other actions that would 

occur independently of the 

plan (although alternative 2 

would add a minor increment 

to this overall cumulative

impact).

Most of the park’s vegetation 

would not be directly 

affected. Alternative 3 would 

result in localized long-term 

minor adverse impacts on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands, primarily due to the 

clearing of vegetation for new 

administrative and visitor 

facilities and an increase in 

backcountry use. About 1.5 

acres of relatively natural 

vegetation would be lost or 

altered due to new 

developments on Santa Rosa 

and Santa Cruz islands. 

Alternative 3 would have a 

long-term moderate 

beneficial impact primarily 

due to the closure of roads on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands, and additional actions 

taken to control the spread of 

invasive nonnative species on 

Santa Cruz Island. There also 

would be a moderate 

beneficial cumulative impact 

on vegetation when the 

actions in the alternative are 

added to other actions that 

would occur independently of 

the plan (although alternative 

3 would add a minor adverse 

increment to this overall 

cumulative impact).
Planning Actions/Alternatives

Considered but Not Analyzed Further

203

Impact Topic

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

(Preferred Alternative)

Terrestrial and 

Marine Wildlife

Negligible to minor adverse 

impacts would be expected to 

most of the park’s wildlife 

populations as a result of 

alternative 1, assuming that 

use levels do not substantially 

increase in backcountry areas. 

There would be a potential 

for localized minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on 

marine and terrestrial wildlife 

populations on Santa Rosa 

and Santa Cruz islands 

primarily due to increased use 

by boaters on beaches. When 

the effects of alternative 1 are 

added to the effects of 

ecosystem restoration efforts 

in the park, there could be a 

long-term moderate to major 

beneficial cumulative impact 

on native terrestrial wildlife 

populations (although 

alternative 1 would add a 

minor negative increment to 

this impact). There could also 

be a long-term beneficial 

cumulative impact on seabirds 

and pinnipeds of unknown 

magnitude when the effects 

of the non-NPS actions in 

park waters, such as the 

marine protected areas, are 

added to the effects of visitor 

use under alternative 1 

(although alternative 1 would 

add a very minor negative 

increment to this overall 

beneficial cumulative impact).

Most wildlife populations 

would not be affected by 

alternative 2. There would be 

some localized short- and 

long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts to wildlife 

habitat due to construction of 

new small visitor and 

administrative developments 

and long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impacts due to 

increased visitors in 

backcountry areas on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands. 

Alternative 2 also would have 

a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impact 

due to the designation of 

backcountry management 

zones, increased monitoring 

and research, and closure of 

roads on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands. When 

combined with continuing 

restoration efforts, alternative 

2 could have a long-term 

moderate to major beneficial 

cumulative impact on native 

terrestrial wildlife (although 

the alternative would add a 

minor beneficial increment to 

these impacts). There could 

also be a long-term beneficial 

cumulative impact on the 

park’s seabirds and pinnipeds 

of unknown magnitude when 

the effects of non-NPS actions 

in park waters, such as the 

marine protected areas, are 

added to the beneficial and 

adverse effects of alternative 

2 (although alternative 2 

would add very minor 

beneficial and negative 

increments to these overall 

beneficial cumulative 

impacts).

Most wildlife populations 

would not be affected by 

alternative 3. There would be 

long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on wildlife 

habitat due to construction of 

new small visitor and 

administrative developments, 

and long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impacts due to 

increased visitors in 

backcountry areas on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands. 

Alternative 3 also would 

result in localized long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts due to the 

designation of backcountry 

management zone along the 

coasts of Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands, the 

closure of roads, and 

increased monitoring and 

research. When combined 

with continuing restoration 

efforts, alternative 3 could 

have a long-term moderate to 

major beneficial cumulative 

impact on native terrestrial 

wildlife (although the 

alternative would add a minor 

beneficial increment to these 

impacts). There could also be 

a long-term beneficial 

cumulative impact on the 

park’s seabirds and pinnipeds 

of unknown magnitude when 

the effects of non-NPS actions 

in park waters, such as the 

marine protected areas, are 

added to the beneficial and 

adverse effects of alternative 

3.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

204

Impact Topic

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

(Preferred Alternative)

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species

No new developments or 

substantial changes in visitor 

use or island management 

would occur under alternative 

1 that would affect the nine 

threatened and endangered 

plant and animal species 

being analyzed. The 

alternative would have no 

effect on the island night 

lizard. Expected slight 

increases in visitor use levels 

on the islands under the

alternative may affect, but 

would not likely adversely 

affect, the island fox, snowy 

plover, Hoffmann’s slenderflowered gilia, Santa Cruz 

Island chicory, island rushrose, island barberry, and 

Hoffmann’s rock-cress 

populations. Likewise, actions 

in alternative 1 may affect, 

but would not likely adversely 

affect, the Santa Rosa Island 

manzanita. No measurable 

cumulative impacts would be 

expected as a result of the 

alternative on most of the 

species. However, there could 

be a long-term moderate 

beneficial cumulative impact 

on western snowy plovers 

when the effects of actions 

independent of this plan are 

added to alternative 1 

(although alternative 1 would 

only slightly detract from 

these beneficial impacts).

No new developments or 

changes in visitor use or 

island management would 

occur under alternative 2 that 

would adversely affect the 

nine threatened and 

endangered animal and plant 

species being analyzed. 

Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on the island night 

lizard. Expected visitor use 

levels on the islands under 

alternative 2 would likely 

result in a negligible to minor 

adverse effect, which may 

affect, but would not likely 

adversely affect, the island 

fox, snowy plover, Santa Cruz 

Island chicory, island rushrose, Santa Rosa manzanita, 

Hoffmann’s rock-cress, or 

island barberry populations.

There could be a long-term 

minor beneficial impact to the 

Hoffmann’s slender-flowered 

gilia. Alternative 2 would 

result in no cumulative 

impacts to the listed plant 

species, and there would be 

the potential for the same

long-term minor beneficial 

cumulative impacts to the 

snowy plover and island fox 

as alternative 1.

Same as alternative 2.
Planning Actions/Alternatives

Considered but Not Analyzed Further

205

Impact Topic

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

(Preferred Alternative)

Soundscape

In most of the park, 

alternative 1 would have no 

effect on the soundscape. In 

localized areas, particularly at 

popular entry points and 

attractions on the islands, 

there would continue to be a 

long-term moderate adverse 

noise impact due to 

concentrations of visitors, 

boats, and park operations. A 

long-term minor adverse 

cumulative impact would 

occur when the noises 

resulting from this alternative 

are added to other noise 

sources, such as high flying 

aircraft and ships offshore of 

the islands, with localized 

long-term minor to moderate 

cumulative adverse impacts 

on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands.

In most of the park, 

alternative 2 would have no 

effect on the natural 

soundscape. In localized 

areas, particularly at entry 

points to the islands, there 

would continue to be a longterm minor to moderate 

adverse noise impact due to 

concentrations of visitors, 

boats, and park operations. 

From a parkwide perspective, 

visitor use, new 

developments, and 

management actions in 

alternative 2 would result in a 

long-term minor adverse 

impact. However, changes in 

natural sound ambient 

conditions from construction 

and use of new visitor and 

administrative facilities in 

several developed areas, 

including parts of Bechers 

Bay, Prisoners Harbor, and 

Johnson’s Lee, would result in 

a short- and long-term minor 

to moderate adverse impact 

to the soundscape. When the 

effects of alternative 2 are 

added to other actions 

occurring independently of 

the alternative, there would 

also be the potential for 

localized long-term minor to 

moderate cumulative adverse 

impacts on the park’s natural 

soundscape.

Same as alternative 2.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

206

Impact Topic

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

(Preferred Alternative)

Archeological 

(including 

Submerged

Maritime) 

Resources

Archeological investigations 

would be undertaken before 

development to ensure that 

such resources were 

understood and that they 

would not be damaged or 

lost as a result of NPS actions. 

However, there would be 

continuing long-term or 

permanent minor adverse 

impacts on an unknown 

number of archeological 

resources in the park under 

this alternative as a result of 

human activities and natural 

causes.

The Park Service concludes 

the proposed undertakings 

outlined in alternative 1 

would be a no adverse effect

on archeological resources.

Under alternative 2 adverse 

impacts due to the loss or 

destruction of archeological 

resources in the park would 

be minimized as a result of 

more controlled visitor access, 

more emphasis on 

preservation treatment and 

site monitoring, and increased 

public education for resource 

stewardship. Thus, alternative 

2 would result in minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on 

a discrete number of 

archeological resources, with

long-term minor beneficial 

impacts on archeological 

resources due the protection 

afforded by wilderness 

designation. 

The Park Service concludes 

the proposed undertakings 

outlined in alternative 2 

would have no adverse effect, 

as defined by section 106.

Increasing numbers of island 

visitors, development of new 

facilities for visitor use, and 

provision for an expanded 

diversity of visitor experiences 

and opportunities in 

alternative 3 would be 

expected to result in some 

long-term to permanent 

minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on an unknown 

number of archeological 

resources because of 

inadvertent and intentional 

ground disturbance.

Wilderness designation in 

alternative 3 would result in 

long-term minor beneficial 

impacts on archeological 

resources.

The Park Service concludes 

the proposed undertakings 

outlined in alternative 3 

would have no adverse effect, 

as defined by section 106. 

Ethnographic 

Resources

Alternative 1 would generally 

have long-term minor 

beneficial impacts on 

ethnographic resources in the 

park because the Park Service 

would continue ongoing 

consultation and coordination 

with Chumash groups and 

individuals to address matters 

of mutual concern on the 

Channel Islands and to allow 

access to and/or 

accommodate traditional 

practices and beliefs.

The Park Service concludes 

the proposed undertakings 

outlined in alternative 1 

would be a no adverse effect

on ethnographic resources.

Under alternative 2, a slight 

increase in the number of 

visitors and an expanded 

diversity of visitor experiences 

on the islands could be 

expected to have some longterm negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on 

ethnographic resources.

Wilderness designation and 

research on groups with 

traditional associations would 

have long-term minor 

beneficial impacts.

The Park Service concludes 

the proposed undertakings 

outlined in alternative 2

would be a no adverse effect

on ethnographic resources.

Alternative 3 would have 

slightly greater adverse 

impacts on ethnographic 

resources as those listed 

under alternative 2. Increasing 

numbers of visitors and an 

expanded diversity of visitor 

experiences on the islands 

under alternative 3 could be 

expected to have some longterm negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on 

ethnographic resources.

Wilderness designation and 

research on groups with 

traditional associations would 

have long-term minor 

beneficial impacts.

The Park Service concludes 

the proposed undertakings 

outlined in alternative 3 

would be a no adverse effect

on ethnographic resources.
Planning Actions/Alternatives

Considered but Not Analyzed Further

207

Impact Topic

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

(Preferred Alternative)

Historic 

Structures/ 

Buildings

Alternative 1 would generally 

have long-term minor 

beneficial impacts on historic

structures and buildings in the 

park because they would 

continue to be surveyed and 

evaluated for their eligibility 

for listing in the national 

register, and listed or 

determined eligible structures 

would be managed to 

preserve their documented 

values.

The Park Service concludes 

the proposed undertakings 

outlined in alternative 1 

would be a no adverse effect

on historic structures and 

buildings.

Alternative 2 would generally

have greater impacts on 

historic structures and 

buildings than those listed 

under alternative 1. An 

increase in visitor use levels 

and preservation treatments 

would result in long-term 

minor to moderate impacts 

on historic structures and 

buildings, while survey and 

research would have a longterm minor beneficial impact.

The section 106

determination would be a no 

adverse effect.

Alternative 3 would have 

greater impacts on historic 

structures and buildings than 

alternative 1. An increase in 

visitation levels and 

rehabilitation of historic 

structures and buildings on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands would have long-term 

minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on historic structures 

and buildings. 

The section 106 

determination would be no 

adverse effect. 

Cultural 

Landscapes

Alternative 1 would generally 

have long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on 

cultural landscapes due to the 

potential for historic 

vegetation removal. Overall, 

the known cultural 

landscapes would be 

preserved in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment 

of Cultural Landscapes. 

The Park Service concludes 

the proposed undertakings 

outlined in alternative 1 

would have minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on 

cultural landscapes. The 

section 106 determination 

would be no adverse effect.

Alternative 2 would have 

greater impacts on cultural 

landscapes than alternative 1 

due to more actions involving 

cultural landscape features.

Potential removal and 

replacement of approximately 

one-fifth of the historic olive 

grove at Smuggler’s Cove and 

removal of contributing 

eucalyptus trees would result 

in a long-term moderate 

adverse impact due to 

mitigating actions. The Park 

Service concludes the 

proposed undertakings 

outlined in alternative 2

would have minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on 

cultural landscapes. The 

section 106 determination

would be no adverse effect.

Same as alternative 2. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

208

Impact Topic

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

(Preferred Alternative)

Visitor 

Experience, 

Interpretation, 

and Education

Under alternative 1, no 

change would occur with 

respect to visitor experience, 

education, and interpretation 

opportunities in the park as a 

whole. Recreational 

opportunities would remain 

unchanged on the islands and 

would continue to be a longterm minor to moderate 

beneficial impact on visitor 

use and enjoyment of the 

park. The variety of 

experiences available on the

islands, coupled with 

interpretive and educational 

media and programs on the 

mainland, would enable 

visitors to understand and 

appreciate park resources and 

elements of the primary 

interpretive themes. On-island 

visitors would continue to 

find limited interpretive and 

educational media and 

programs, and limited 

personal interpretive services 

to help them better 

understand aspects of the 

park stories. With use levels 

to the mainland visitor center 

expected to increase, 

crowding could detract from 

the visitor experience, 

resulting in a long-term minor 

to moderate adverse impact 

on visitor use. There could be 

a long-term minor beneficial 

cumulative impact on 

recreational opportunities on 

Santa Rosa Island after 2011 

when hunting ceases and 

more areas of the park are 

open to public use.

Visitor experiences, including 

recreational opportunities as 

well as interpretation and 

educational opportunities, 

would increase in much of 

the park under alternative 2. 

Alternative 2 would have a 

long-term moderate 

beneficial impact on 

opportunities for visitor 

experiences, largely due to 

the increase in recreational 

opportunities on Santa Cruz 

and Santa Rosa islands that 

would allow visitors a greater 

diversity of experiences on the 

islands. The expansion of the 

visitor center in Ventura, the 

new research/education 

center on Santa Rosa Island, 

and the guided multiday trips 

on San Miguel Island would 

all contribute to this impact. 

On-island interpretation 

would also increase with new 

visitor contact stations (in 

adaptively used structures) on 

Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands, resulting in long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts on visitor experience 

opportunities. On the other 

hand, with more people 

visiting Santa Rosa Island, 

there could be long-term 

minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on the visitor 

experience at Bechers Bay due 

to perceived crowding. There 

could be a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial 

cumulative impact on 

recreational opportunities on 

Santa Rosa Island when the 

additional recreational 

opportunities available under 

alternative 2 are combined 

with more areas of Santa 

Rosa Island being open to 

public use after 2011.

The diversity of visitor 

experiences, including 

recreational opportunities, as 

well as interpretation and 

educational opportunities, 

would increase in much of 

the park under alternative 3. 

Alternative 3 would have a 

long-term moderate 

beneficial impact on visitor 

experience opportunities, 

largely due to the increase in 

recreational opportunities on 

Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands that would allow 

visitors a greater diversity of 

experiences on the islands. 

The new visitor center in 

Ventura, the new education 

camp and campground on 

Santa Rosa Island, the new 

campground near Prisoners 

Harbor on Santa Cruz Island, 

and the guided multiday trips 

on San Miguel Island would 

all contribute to this impact. 

On-island interpretation 

would also increase with new 

visitor contact stations on 

Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands, resulting in long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts on visitor experience 

opportunities. On the other 

hand, with more people 

visiting Santa Rosa Island, 

there could be long-term 

minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on the visitor 

experience at Bechers Bay due 

to perceived crowding. There 

could be a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial 

cumulative impact on 

recreational opportunities on 

Santa Rosa Island when the 

additional recreational 

opportunities available under 

alternative 3 are combined 

with more areas of Santa 

Rosa Island being open to 

public use after 2011.
Planning Actions/Alternatives

Considered but Not Analyzed Further

209

Impact Topic

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

(Preferred Alternative)

Wilderness 

Character

With use levels likely to 

slightly increase in the future, 

and no new developments, 

alternative 1 would have a 

long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impact on the 

wilderness character of the 

lands eligible for wilderness. 

Alternative 1 would result in 

no cumulative impacts on 

wilderness character.

Alternative 2 would have a 

long-term major beneficial 

impact on wilderness 

character primarily due to the 

designation of much of the 

park as wilderness and the 

closure/restoration of roads 

on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands. When other NPS 

management actions 

independent of the plan, such 

as revegetation efforts, are 

added to the effects of 

alternative 2, there would be 

the potential for a long-term 

major beneficial cumulative 

impact.

Same as alternative 2. 

Park Operations

Alternative 1 would continue 

to result in a long-term 

moderate adverse impact on 

NPS operations at the park, 

primarily due to inadequate 

funding and staffing in a 

large, spread-out marine and 

terrestrial park. When the 

effects of the alternative 1 are 

combined with other ongoing 

and likely future projects, 

there would be the potential 

for a long-term moderate 

adverse cumulative impact on 

park operations. Alternative 1 

would contribute a 

substantial amount to this 

overall adverse cumulative 

impact.

Alternative 2 would have 

both beneficial and adverse 

impacts on park operations. 

Adverse effects would be due 

to changes in facilities and 

new management actions, 

including concession 

management, new 

interpretive efforts, and 

increased monitoring of the 

park. Assuming careful 

phasing of new developments 

and management actions, 

alternative 2 would be 

expected to have a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial 

impact. This would be 

primarily due to increased 

staff and funding, new 

staff/administrative facilities, 

and reductions in some 

facilities (e.g., roads on Santa 

Rosa Island). When the effects 

of alternative 2 are combined 

with other ongoing and likely 

future projects, there would 

be the potential for a longterm moderate adverse 

cumulative impact on park 

operations. Alternative 2 

would slightly reduce the 

overall adverse cumulative 

impact. 

Same as alternative 2. 

Channel Islands National Park Ch

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

213

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the existing 

environment of Channel Islands National 

Park. The focus of this part is on key park 

resources, uses, and facilities that have the 

potential to be affected by the alternatives 

should they be implemented. Some features, 

such as threatened and endangered species, 

are discussed because they provide context 

and/or must be considered in environmental 

impact statements.

This section is not a complete description of 

the park’s terrestrial and marine 

environments. Rather, it provides an overview 

of resource conditions and trends that may be 

affected by the alternatives. For additional 

information on the Channel Islands’ natural 

and human environment, see the Channel 

Islands National Park home page 

(http://www.nps.gov/chis) and natural 

resource information web page 

(http://www.nps.gov/chis/rm/Index.htm). 

Other sources of information include:

Marine Protected Areas in NOAA’s Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Final 

Environmental Document (CDF&G 2002).

Santa Cruz Island Primary Restoration 

Plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement

(NPS 2002a).

Anacapa Island Restoration Project. Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (NPS 

2000a).

“Recovery Strategy for Island Foxes 

(Urocyon littoralis) on the Northern 

Channel Islands” (NPS 2003a).

“Thirteen Plant Taxa from the Northern 

Channel Islands Recovery Plan” (USFWS 

2000).

Proceedings of the 7th Annual California 

Islands Symposium, Oxnard, California. 

February 5-8, 2008. Edited by C.C. 

Damiani and D.K. Garcelon. Institute for 

Wildlife Studies. Arcata, CA. CD-ROM. 

414 pp. 

“Natural Resources Study of the Channel 

Islands National Monument, California” 

(Santa Barbara Natural History Museum 

1979).

Channel Islands National Park. Southwest 

Parks and Monuments Association, 

Tucson, AZ (Lamb 2000).

Draft Historic Resource Study by D.S. 

Livingston (NPS 2006).

To focus the environmental impact analysis, 

and to ensure that the alternatives were 

evaluated against relevant topics, the planning 

team selected specific impact topics for 

further analysis and eliminated others from 

evaluation. The impact topics, listed below, 

were based on public and other agency 

concerns identified during scooping; federal 

laws, regulations, and orders; and NPS 

Management Policies 2001 (NPS 2000b). Table 

20 contains a brief rationale for selecting or 

dismissing each impact topic.
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

214

TABLE 20. IMPACT TOPICS RETAINED OR DISMISSED

Impact Topic

Retained or 

Dismissed Rationale

Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy

NATURAL RESOURCE IMPACT TOPICS

Soils Retained The Organic Act and NPS Management Policies 2001

(NPS 2000b) both require the Park Service to protect 

and conserve geologic resources, including soils that 

could be affected by visitors and staff. The park’s soils 

are a critical element that help determine what 

vegetation and wildlife occur in the park, and affect 

the park’s productivity, drainage patterns, and erosion. 

Soils generally take thousands of years to develop. 

Proposed developments, the presence of nonnative 

animals, and changes to the road systems in the 

alternatives would affect the park’s soils. Any impacts 

that would adversely affect these resources would be 

of concern to park managers and the public.

Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006

Paleontological 

Resources

Retained Paleontological resources are another geologic 

resource that the Organic Act and NPS Management 

Policies 2001 mandate be protected. The Channel 

Islands’ paleontological record is one of the resources 

that contributes to the park’s distinctiveness. Some of 

the actions in the alternatives could increase the 

potential for impacts to paleontological resources. Any 

changes to this resource caused by visitors or new 

facilities would affect the park’s scientific values − one 

of the park’s purposes − and would be of concern to 

scientists, park managers, and the public. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006

Water Quality Retained Changes in marine and fresh water quality can affect 

wildlife populations and visitors. Past activities in the 

park (e.g., grazing) have polluted stream waters. The 

road networks on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands 

have caused soil erosion and contributed to water 

quality degradation. The alternatives could result in 

increased development and increased use, as well as 

increased soil erosion, all of which could affect 

freshwater and marine water quality in local areas. This 

would be of concern to visitors and park managers.

Clean Water Act; EO 

12088; NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Wetlands 

(Scorpion Valley 

and Prisoners 

Harbor)

Retained The larger islands in Channel Islands National Park 

have small wetlands along permanent and intermittent 

streams, and in the vicinity of seeps and springs, vernal 

pools, and small marshes at the estuaries of several 

canyons. Most of these wetlands would not be 

affected by the alternatives being considered in this 

document and thus are not examined here (see 

below). However, one wetland area on Santa Cruz 

Island would be affected under some alternatives. 

Wetlands are protected and managed in accordance 

with EO 11990, “Protection of Wetlands” and NPS 

DO-77-1 and accompanying handbook. This guidance 

requires the Park Service to protect and enhance 

natural wetland values, and requires the examination 

of impacts on wetlands. 

Clean Water Act; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006; EO 11990; 

DO-77-1: Wetland 

Protection
Introduction

215

Impact Topic

Retained or 

Dismissed Rationale

Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy

Floodplain 

Values and 

Flooding in 

Scorpion Valley 

and Cañada del 

Puerto

Retained Existing developments at Prisoners Harbor and in 

Scorpion Valley are on level ground in otherwise steep 

terrain, and are in or adjacent to floodplains. Although 

the alternatives being considered do not propose new 

developments in floodplains, several existing facilities 

would remain in floodplains. Floods (debris flows) in 

the past have damaged structures and posed safety 

risks to visitors in Scorpion Valley, and likely would do 

so again. The alternatives in this plan propose actions 

that would affect the management and use of these 

floodplains. EO 11988 and DO-77-2 require the 

examination of the impacts on floodplains. 

DO-77-2: Floodplain 

Management; EO 11988; 

NPS Management Policies 

2006

Terrestrial 

Vegetation

Retained One of Channel Islands’ primary natural resources is its 

vegetative communities. The park supports some of 

the finest examples of California’s coastal ecosystems 

as well as many endemic and rare plants. The Organic 

Act and NPS Management Policies 2001 (NPS 2000b) 

both require the Park Service to protect and conserve 

native plants and vegetative communities that could be 

affected by visitors, managers, and external sources. 

Actions in the alternatives could beneficially or 

adversely affect these resources, which would be of 

concern to many people as well as park managers. The 

spread of nonnative species also is a major concern in 

the park: some species have replaced thousands of 

acres of native grasslands and shrublands. 

NPS Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006

Terrestrial 

Wildlife

Retained Channel Islands National Park supports a highly diverse 

terrestrial wildlife population including seabirds, 

shorebirds, reptiles, and amphibians. Many subspecies 

are endemic to the islands. The park’s wildlife 

populations are an important park resource and one of 

the attractions that adds to the quality of the visitor 

experience in the park. As with the above resources, 

the Organic Act and NPS Management Policies 2001 

(NPS 2000b) both require the Park Service to protect 

and conserve native wildlife populations that could be 

affected by visitors, managers, and external sources. 

Changes in wildlife habitat or in wildlife populations 

due to the alternatives would be of concern to visitors, 

the public, and park managers.

NPS Organic Act; enabling 

legislation; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006

Pinnipeds (Seals 

and Sea Lions)

Retained One of the purposes of the park is to protect the 

pinnipeds that breed and pup on the islands. Five 

species of pinnipeds are found in the park, which are 

protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

The islands provide many areas where the seals and 

sea lions haul out. Point Bennett on San Miguel Island 

is world renowned for its high numbers of animals. 

The park’s pinnipeds are one of the park’s major 

attractions. 

NPS Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006; enabling legislation; 

Marine Mammal 

Protection Act 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

216

Impact Topic

Retained or 

Dismissed Rationale

Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy

Selected Federal 

and State 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species

Retained The ESA of 1973, as amended, requires an 

examination of impacts on all federally listed 

threatened or endangered plant and animal species. 

NPS Management Policies 2001 repeat this 

requirement and add the further stipulation that the 

analysis examine impacts on state-listed endangered, 

threatened, or rare species, and federal species 

proposed for listing. Channel Islands National Park 

supports 31 federally listed threatened and 

endangered species (see appendix E, eight of these 

species are also state-listed threatened and 

endangered species). Most of these species would not 

be affected by the alternatives being considered in this 

document and thus are not examined in detail (see 

below). However, three federally threatened and 

endangered wildlife species (western snowy plover, 

island night lizard, and island fox) and six federally 

threatened and endangered plant species (Hoffmann’s 

slender-flowered gilia, Santa Cruz Island chicory, island 

rush-rose, Hoffmann’s rock-cress, Santa Rosa Island 

manzanita, and island barberry) potentially could be 

affected by the GMP alternatives and thus are 

considered herein. 

ESA; NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Soundscape Retained NPS Management Policies 2001 and DO-47: 

Soundscape Preservation and Noise Management

recognize that natural soundscapes are a park resource 

and call for the Park Service to preserve, to the 

greatest extent possible, the natural soundscapes of 

parks. The policies and director’s order further state 

that the Park Service would restore degraded 

soundscapes to the natural condition whenever 

possible, and would protect natural soundscapes from 

degradation due to noise (undesirable human-caused 

sound). The Channel Islands’ natural soundscape 

(sometimes called “natural quiet”) is one of the 

resources that makes this park a special place. Noise 

can adversely affect, directly and indirectly, the natural 

soundscape and other park resources. It can also 

adversely impact the visitor experience. Presently, park 

visitors have the opportunity to experience solitude 

and tranquility in an environment of natural sounds. 

Actions in the alternatives that could potentially 

increase noise levels in parts of the islands, such as 

increased aircraft overflights and landings, would be of 

concern to some visitors, the public, and park 

managers.

NPS Management Policies 

2006; DO-47: Soundscape 

Preservation and Noise 

Management
Introduction

217

Impact Topic

Retained or 

Dismissed Rationale

Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy

Air Quality Dismissed Channel Islands is a Class II air quality area. Air quality 

impacts have occurred in the park due primarily to 

external sources, and are a concern. Normally, sea 

breezes push air pollutants from the mainland away 

and keep air pollutants at low levels on the Channel 

Islands. However, strong east winds, referred to locally 

as “Santa Anas,” can carry pollutants several hundred 

miles offshore and have the potential to greatly affect 

air quality on the islands. Other atmospheric patterns, 

such as “Catalina eddies” and eastern Pacific high 

pressure systems, also can introduce air pollutants 

from the Los Angeles basin onto the islands. Nothing 

being proposed in the alternatives for this plan would 

affect the park’s air quality compared to all sources of 

air pollutants in southern California − all of the actions 

proposed in the alternatives would have a negligible 

impact on the airshed. 

Clean Air Act; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006

Carbon 

Footprint

Dismissed For the purpose of this planning effort, “carbon 

footprint” is defined as the sum of all emissions of 

carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (e.g., 

methane and ozone) that would result from 

implementation of either of the action alternatives. 

Understanding the carbon footprint of each alternative 

is important for determining its contribution to climate 

change.

This impact topic was dismissed from detailed analysis 

for several reasons. First, operation of the park 

generates very low levels of greenhouse gases. In 

2007, greenhouse gas emissions associated with the 

park totaled an estimated 1,297 metric tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalent — roughly equivalent to the 

emissions from the electricity use of 118 households 

each year (NPS 2011) Other reasons for dismissing this 

impact topic are that (1) the alternatives would not be 

expected to result in a substantial increase in island 

visitation since the user capacity limits would not 

change; (2) few changes would occur in the way 

visitors reach the islands, and no substantial increases 

in vehicular traffic on the islands is proposed under the 

alternatives; and (3) there would be minimal new 

developments built on the islands, and newer 

sustainable building practices should help limit 

additional greenhouse gas emissions. 

Under the action alternatives there would be a minor 

increase in greenhouse gases compared to the present 

due to some increases in boat, motor vehicle, and 

aircraft traffic and due to construction activities in the 

park (although this would be a negligible amount of 

greenhouse gases compared to the greenhouse gases 

emitted along the southern California coast). However,

the National Park Service would still be able to meet its 

goal of a 10% reduction in total 2007 park 

greenhouse gas emissions, including concessioners, by 

2016 even with the increases in greenhouse gas 

emissions in the alternatives In addition, it should be 

noted that similar increases in emissions in the action 

alternatives also could occur under the no action 

alternative — visitors traveling to the park could 

increase with or without NPS action. Under all 

alternatives the National Park Service would continue 

NPS Environmental Quality 

Division’s “Draft Interim 

Guidance: Considering 

Climate Change in NEPA 

Analysis”
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

218

Impact Topic

Retained or 

Dismissed Rationale

Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy

to encourage energy efficiency in its operations and in 

concession operations (e.g., using low emission 

biodiesel fuels to power boats and motor vehicles) to 

minimize the emission of greenhouse gases. Because 

of the small increases in the amount of greenhouse 

gas emissions that would result from each alternative, 

a quantitative measurement of their carbon footprint 

was determined by the planning team not to be 

practicable.

Prime and 

Unique 

Agricultural 

Lands

Dismissed There are no data on prime and unique farmlands in 

Channel Islands National Park. However, it is believed 

that there are very little, if any, prime or unique 

farmlands in the park because of the steep terrain 

found throughout the park. If such lands do occur, 

they are probably limited to valley bottoms with slopes 

of less than 2 percent. The Natural Resource 

Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

has recently completed a soil survey for the park

(2007). The Park Service would work with the Natural 

Resource Conservation Service to determine if prime 

and unique agricultural lands occur in areas that are 

proposed for development in this plan. If such soils 

would be affected by developments, the Park Service 

would relocate the developments to avoid or minimize 

the loss of these soils. 

CEQ 1980 memorandum

Water Quantity Dismissed Water Quantity (including groundwater). Surface 

freshwater is scarce in the Channel Islands. Most 

streams in the park flow intermittently. Most water 

used in park facilities is obtained from groundwater or 

transported from the mainland to the park. None of 

the alternatives being considered would be expected 

to substantially change either surface or ground water 

flows in the park, or affect the park’s water supply. 

Visitor use levels would increase under the action 

alternatives, but water consumption would not be 

expected to increase to the point where there would 

be a noticeable impact on surface or groundwater 

water flows. 

Clean Water Act; EO 

12088; NPS Management 

Policies 2006
Introduction

219

Impact Topic

Retained or 

Dismissed Rationale

Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy

Wetlands (other 

than Scorpion 

Valley)

Dismissed Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel islands all 

support wetlands. These wetlands consist primarily of 

river drainages (riverine wetlands) and 

estuarine/intertidal/emergent wetlands near the 

interface between island drainages and the ocean. 

Additionally, vernal pools and man-made ponds occur 

on Santa Rosa, San Miguel, and Santa Cruz islands. All 

wetlands in national park units are protected and 

managed in accordance with EO 11990, “Protection of 

Wetlands,” NPS DO-77-1 and its accompanying 

handbook, and NPS Management Policies 2001 (§ 

4.6.5). This guidance requires the Park Service to 

protect and enhance natural wetland values, and 

requires the examination of impacts on wetlands. It is 

NPS policy to avoid affecting wetlands and to minimize 

impacts when they are unavoidable. Under all of the 

alternatives in this plan, facilities proposed for 

development would be sited to avoid wetlands. With 

the exception of Scorpion Valley, no developments or 

other management actions in the alternatives would 

be proposed in areas known to contain wetlands. 

Areas that may have wetlands would be mapped and 

delineated before construction of developments to 

ensure that these areas are avoided.

EO 11990, “Protection of 

Wetlands”; NPS DO-77-1 

and accompanying 

handbook; and NPS 

Management Policies 

2006

Floodplain 

Values and 

Flooding (other 

than Scorpion 

Valley)

Dismissed Floodplains exist on Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San 

Miguel islands where there are perennial and 

intermittent streams. Floodplains in national park units 

are protected and managed in accordance with EO 

11988, “Floodplain Management”; NPS DO-77-2: 

Floodplain Management; and NPS Management 

Policies (§ 4.6.4). This guidance requires the Park 

Service to protect, preserve, and restore floodplain 

values; and requires the examination of impacts on 

floodplains. It is NPS policy to avoid affecting 

floodplains and to minimize impacts when they are 

unavoidable. Under all of the alternatives in this plan, 

new developments would be sited to avoid impacts to 

floodplains. With the exception of Scorpion Valley on 

Santa Cruz Island, no new major developments would 

be proposed in floodplains in the alternatives. 

Although new restrooms would be built near the 

warehouse in the floodplain at Prisoners Harbor, this 

would have a minor adverse impact on floodplain 

values.

EO 11988, “Floodplain 

Management”; NPS 

DO-77-2: Floodplain 

Management; and NPS 

Management Policies 

2006
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

220

Impact Topic

Retained or 

Dismissed Rationale

Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy

Intertidal and 

Marine 

Nearshore 

Vegetation

Dismissed The Channel Islands support a diverse flora of benthic 

macroalgae and seagrass, as well as beds of giant kelp, 

surfgrass, and eelgrass. These marine plants provide 

food and shelter for many plant and animal species. 

Kelp beds have been disappearing in parts of the 

Channel Islands over the past two decades, due at 

least in part to overgrazing by sea urchins. However, 

none of the actions being proposed in the alternatives 

in this plan would have measurable impacts on the 

park’s marine nearshore vegetation. Although 

recreational/educational marine uses (e.g., diving, 

snorkeling, kayaking) may increase under some of the 

alternatives, these uses would not result in the loss of 

nearshore marine vegetation. No actions are being 

proposed to construct facilities in the nearshore waters 

that would affect plants. Although runoff of sediments 

from the islands may be affecting nearshore 

vegetation, it is expected that with careful attention 

and application of appropriate mitigation measures to 

prevent increased runoff, any negative impacts from 

construction of facilities in the alternatives would have 

a negligible, localized impact on nearshore vegetation.

Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006

Marine 

Invertebrates

Dismissed The waters in Channel Islands National Park support a 

rich diversity and abundance of marine invertebrates 

including corals, sponges, feather stars, anemones, 

mussels, scallops, several species of abalone, prawns, 

urchins, sea cucumber, lobster, and crabs. More than 

150 species of shellfish occur in the area (NPS 1984). 

Some invertebrate populations have dramatically 

decreased in recent years, particularly white and black 

abalone. However, none of the alternatives in this plan 

would adversely affect the park’s marine invertebrate 

populations. Marine recreational use (e.g., diving and 

snorkeling) may slightly increase in some alternatives, 

which may result in some illegal take of animals, or 

disturbance of animals (e.g., picking up animals in a 

tidepool). But with continued education/outreach 

efforts and vigilant monitoring, park visitors are not 

expected to measurably affect the park’s invertebrate 

populations.

Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006

Marine Fish Dismissed An abundance of different species of marine fish use 

the park’s waters. Some 200 species of finfish occur in 

the area (NPS 1984) including rockfish, halibut, sculpin, 

sea bass, surfperch, lingcod, sardine, mackerel, 

herring, tuna, and northern anchovie. Many of the 

park’s fish are sought by sport and commercial 

fishermen. None of the actions proposed in the 

alternatives would adversely affect fish populations 

found in the park, including impacts to water quality 

that would be large enough to adversely affect fish 

populations. Increased sport fishing may occur with 

slightly increased recreational use in some areas under 

the alternatives, but it is expected that NPS monitoring 

and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 

regulation of the fisheries would prevent adverse 

impacts to the park’s fish populations.

Organic Act, NPS 

Management Policies 

2006
Introduction

221

Impact Topic

Retained or 

Dismissed Rationale

Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy

Essential Fish 

Habitat (ESF)

Dismissed Essential fish habitat covers waters and substrates 

necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth 

to maturity. Essential fish habitat has been designated 

along the West Coast, including the park, for Pacific 

Coast groundfish (e.g., rockfish, sablefish, and flatfish). 

The Park Service is required to consult with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service regarding any action 

it authorizes, funds, or undertakes that may adversely 

affect this habitat. However, the GMP alternatives 

primarily focus on the terrestrial lands in the park. No 

changes in management actions or uses are being 

proposed in the alternatives that would adversely 

affect the groundfish essential fish habitat in the park. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and 

Management Act

Marine 

Mammals 

(excluding sea 

lions and seals)

Dismissed Channel Island National Park’s waters support a great 

diversity of marine mammals. At least 26 types of 

whales and porpoises can be found at times in the 

waters of the park (NPS 1999). Seven endangered 

whale species occur in park waters (see appendix E). 

The threatened Steller sea lion probably occurs only in 

small numbers, if at all, in the park. Similarly, southern 

sea otters, listed as a threatened species under the 

ESA, currently only occur occasionally in small numbers 

in park waters. All of these species are protected under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, and 

several are provided additional protection as 

threatened or endangered species under the federal 

and state ESA. None of the alternatives being 

considered in this document would adversely affect the 

sea otter populations. It is expected that whale 

watching would not increase substantially over current 

levels under any of the alternatives. Some inadvertent 

disturbance of whales could occur, but continuing 

education/outreach efforts and close monitoring of 

both whales and boaters should keep adverse impacts 

to a negligible level.

NPS Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006; enabling legislation; 

Marine Mammal 

Protection Act

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species (other 

than snowy 

plover, island 

fox, island night 

lizard, 

Hoffmann’s 

slenderflowered gilia, 

Santa Cruz 

Island chicory, 

island rush rose, 

Santa Rosa 

Island 

manzanita, 

Hoffmann’s 

rock-cress, and 

island barberry

Dismissed This document does not analyze in detail the 

environmental effects that the alternatives might have 

on several federal- and state-listed threatened and 

endangered species. No impacts have been identified 

on the following species as a result of implementing 

any of the alternatives considered in this document. 

However, site-specific surveys would be conducted 

before any ground disturbance took place to be sure 

they would not be affected. If any of these species are 

present, the park staff would reschedule, reroute, 

relocate, or otherwise mitigate impacts from the 

actions being taken.

ESA; NPS Management 

Policies 2006
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

222

Impact Topic

Retained or 

Dismissed Rationale

Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy

 Fish Dismissed It is possible that some federally and state endangered 

chinook salmon, from the Sacramento River Winter 

Run Evolutionarily Significant Unit, the threatened 

southern distinct population segment of the North 

American green sturgeon, and bocaccio (a fish on the 

National Marine Fisheries Service’s candidate species 

list) occasionally pass through park waters. But these 

fish are not known to be very common. No actions are 

being taken in the alternatives that would directly 

affect the fish or the water quality of the park waters 

that the fish likely pass through. Increased sport fishing 

may occur with slightly increased recreational use in 

some areas under the alternatives, but it is highly 

unlikely that these fish would be caught, given the few 

fish that use the park waters. Thus, any impacts from 

the alternatives on the Chinook, green sturgeon, and 

bocaccio fish populations in the area would not likely 

adversely affect the populations.

 Plants Dismissed Fourteen federally threatened and endangered plant 

species occur in the park, eight of which are not being 

considered in detail in this environmental impact 

statement. The federally endangered plant species not 

being analyzed in this document are: Santa Barbara 

live-forever (Dudleya traskiae, also listed by the state as 

endangered); soft-leaved paintbrush (Castilleja mollis); 

island bedstraw (Galium buxifolium); Santa Cruz Island 

bushmallow (Malacothamnus fasciculatus var. 

nesioticus, also a state endangered species); island 

malacothrix (Malacothrix squalida); island phacelia 

(Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis); and Santa Cruz Island 

fringepod (Thysanocarpus conchuliferus). One federally 

threatened species, Santa Cruz Island dudleya (Dudleya 

nesiotica), also is present in the park. All of these 

species are endemic and occur in isolated, small 

populations. They are all threatened by one or more 

causes, including habitat alteration, trampling, and 

grazing/browsing by nonnative mammals; soil loss; 

habitat alteration by native seabirds; competition with 

nonnative plants; and randomly naturally occurring 

events (USFWS 2000). 

None of these species would likely be affected by the 

alternatives being considered in this document. The 

species tend to be in remote, largely inaccessible, areas 

away from trails, roads, and beaches used by visitors; 

increased use would not likely affect the future 

existence of these species. No new developments are 

being proposed in locations where the plants are 

known to occur, and site surveys would be done 

before construction to ensure that the species are not 

present. None of these species would be expected to 

be at high risk from a wildfire on the islands (Kathryn 

McEachern, USGS, pers. comm. February 8, 2005). 

Under all of the alternatives the recovery plan for these 

species would continue to be followed (USFWS 2000). 

Populations would continue to be monitored, and 

large-scale weed control projects and ecosystem 

restoration projects would be undertaken as funding 

and personnel permit. Efforts would continue to 

protect or augment existing populations, such as what 

has occurred for the Santa Barbara Island liveforever. In 
Introduction

223

Impact Topic

Retained or 

Dismissed Rationale

Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy

the past, plants in the only known island phacelia 

population on Santa Rosa were crushed and lost due 

to vehicles driving off a spur road on the Carrington 

Point Road when it was wet and muddy. However, this 

spur road has been closed to protect the plant. These 

are all actions that are independent of this plan.

California redlegged frog (Rana 

aurora draytonii)

Dismissed This species was recorded in the vicinity of Pelican Bay 

on Santa Cruz Island in the 1920s. However, Pelican 

Bay is on TNC lands, not NPS lands. There are no 

records of the species occurring on NPS lands, and the 

species is not believed to be present on the island. In 

addition, no actions are being taken in the vicinity of 

Pelican Bay in the alternatives being considered that 

would have the potential to affect the frog. Thus, the 

plan would not affect the California red-legged frog.

 Invertebrates Dismissed The federally endangered white abalone once were 

fairly abundant in park waters, but due to overfishing 

are now very rare (CDF&G 2002). The entire fishery has 

been closed since 1993. No actions are being taken in 

the GMP alternatives that would affect the abalone or 

the waters it occurs in. (See also the above discussion 

of marine invertebrates.) Consequently, no impacts are 

anticipated.

 Scripp’s

 Murrelet

Dismissed All of the islands in the park provide habitat for the 

state threatened Scripp’s murrelet (S. scrippsi). The 

species’ only breeding ground in the United States is in 

the park. The reasons for the decline in murrelet 

numbers are unknown. Some factors that may have 

contributed to the decline of the species include 

predation by rats on Anacapa Island, degradation of 

habitat (particularly by rabbits on Santa Barbara Island), 

vegetation changes on the islands that have altered 

predator-prey relationships, and artificial lighting and 

noise from boating activities. (Artificial lighting 

decreases the cover provided by night and can expose 

the murrelets to increased predation.) However, no 

actions are being proposed in this plan that would 

detrimentally affect the murrelet or its habitat. 

Although human use on the islands may increase 

under the alternatives, this use would not be expected 

to occur in areas where the murrelets are nesting. 

Consequently, no adverse impacts are anticipated as a 

result of actions proposed in the plan.

 Sea Turtles Dismissed Four species of federally listed sea turtles may 

occasionally swim through park waters (see appendix 

E). However, sea turtles occur very rarely in the park 

and are mostly either sick animals or animals that were 

affected by El Niño. None of these species are known 

to build nests in the park, with the exception of the 

Olive Ridley sea turtle (a turtle nested on Santa Cruz 

Island in 2005). No actions are being taken in the 

alternatives that would directly affect the turtles. 

Although the water quality of nearshore marine waters 

could be affected in a few areas by the alternatives, it 

is highly unlikely that these changes would affect the 

waters the turtles use. Although there may be 

increased visitor use of marine waters in some of the 

alternatives, it is considered highly unlikely that visitors 

would encounter turtles, given the very few turtles that 

are found in park waters at any given time.
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

224

Impact Topic

Retained or 

Dismissed Rationale

Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy

 Guadalupe

 Fur Seal

Dismissed The Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendii) is 

both a federally and state-listed threatened species. 

These fur seals are very rarely seen around the Channel 

Islands, which are at the limit of the species range. A 

few nonbreeding individuals have been observed on 

San Miguel Island each year during the breeding 

season, and a pup was born on the island in 1997. But 

the park is not known to provide rookery or feeding 

sites that are essential to the conservation of the 

species. It is unlikely that the fur seals would be 

disturbed by visitors on San Miguel Island under the 

alternatives being considered. The areas the seals haul 

out on are isolated on the west end of the island, and 

very steep cliffs would keep visitors away from these 

areas. Aircraft landing at the east end of the island 

would not disturb the animals. Also, under all 

alternatives, entry to all pinniped haul-out areas would 

continue to be restricted to all but those persons 

conducting authorized research or for activities 

essential to the Park Service’s mission. Only visitors in 

guided, supervised groups would be permitted to be in 

the general vicinity of the Point Bennett haul-out area 

in the preferred alternative. There is no reason to 

expect that these groups would disturb or otherwise 

affect the few fur seals that use the park. Thus, it is 

anticipated that none of the alternatives would have 

impacts on the Guadalupe fur seal.

 Other

 Marine

 Mammals

Dismissed A number of federally listed marine mammal species, 

including whales and California sea otters, occur in 

park waters. None of the alternatives would affect 

these species. (See also the text above under the 

“Marine Mammal” heading.)

Night Sky Dismissed NPS Management Policies (2001) state that the Park 

Service would preserve, to the greatest extent possible, 

the natural lightscapes of parks, including natural 

darkness. The Park Service strives to minimize the 

intrusion of artificial light into the night scene by 

limiting the use of artificial outdoor lighting to basic 

safety requirements, shielding necessary lights when 

possible, and using minimal impact lighting 

techniques. The actions proposed in the alternatives 

could result in new facilities on several of the islands, 

some of which could necessitate some night-time 

lighting. However, the effects of this lighting would be 

localized, and minimized by the mitigation techniques 

described above. Only a small area would be affected 

by the facilities. It is expected that these few 

developments would have a negligible impact on the 

night sky.

NPS Management Policies 

2006

Natural or 

Depletable 

Resource 

Requirements 

and 

Conservation 

Potential

Dismissed None of the alternatives being considered would result 

in the extraction of resources from the park. Under all 

of the alternatives, ecological principles would be 

applied to ensure that the park’s natural resources 

were maintained and not impaired.
Introduction

225

Impact Topic

Retained or 

Dismissed Rationale

Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy

Energy 

Requirements 

and 

Conservation 

Potential

Dismissed A few more facilities may be built on the islands under 

the alternatives. The Park Service would pursue 

sustainable practices whenever possible in all decisions 

regarding park operations, facilities management, and 

developments in Channel Islands National Park. 

Whenever possible, the Park Service would use energy 

conservation technologies and renewable energy 

sources. Thus, it is expected that none of the 

alternatives would result in an appreciable change in 

energy consumption compared to current conditions. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006; CEQ Regulations

CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACT TOPICS 

Archeological 

Resources

Retained Archeological resources are identified in the park’s 

enabling legislation as a major reason for the park’s 

significance. The park manages approximately 2,500 

documented archeological resources, and it is 

estimated there are an additional 7,500 

undocumented sites within the park. The park’s

archeological resources have national and international 

research value. Four of the park’s islands are listed on 

the national register as archeological districts, and the 

fifth island is considered eligible for listing. In addition, 

the park’s submerged cultural resources are considered 

eligible for listing on the national register.

Section 106 of the 

National Historic 

Preservation Act as 

amended; DO-28; 

Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines 

for Archeology and 

Historic Preservation; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006, National Environmental Policy Act

Historic 

Structures/

Buildings 

Retained The park contains historically significant buildings, 

structures, and complexes from the ranching and 

military eras. Many of these resources contribute to 

historic districts that are listed on or eligible for listing 

on the national register. 

Section 106 of the 

National Historic 

Preservation Act as 

amended; DO-28; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006; Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines 

for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes; 

National Environmental 

Policy Act

Cultural 

Landscapes

Retained The park contains rural cultural landscapes, which are 

landscapes that evolved through use by the people 

whose activities and occupancy shaped that landscape, 

particularly in the ranching and military eras. These 

landscapes reflect the land use patterns and cultural 

traditions of the historic island occupants. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended (16 USC 

470); Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s 

(ACHP) implementing 

regulations regarding the 

“Protection of Historic 

Properties” (36 CFR 800); 

Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines 

for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes

(1996); NPS Management 

Policies 2006; NPS 

Cultural Resources 

Management Guideline

(DO-28, 1996)
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

226

Impact Topic

Retained or 

Dismissed Rationale

Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy

Ethnographic 

Resources

Retained Some anthropological sources and contemporary 

Chumash identify the Channel Islands as significant to 

the Chumash culture as their ancestral homeland. The 

islands themselves, as well as the archeological 

resources, artifacts, and burials associated with island 

Chumash occupation, are considered ethnographic 

resources. A study tracing the lineal descendants of 

Chumash peoples who inhabited the northern Channel 

Islands has identified living descendants of the island 

Chumash. The park likely has other groups that are 

traditionally associated with the islands, but have not 

yet been well investigated.

Section 106 of the 

National Historic 

Preservation Act, as 

amended; EO 13007; 

DO-28; NPS Management 

Policies 2006; National 

Environmental Policy Act

Museum 

Collections

Dismissed Museum collections were not addressed as an impact 

topic in this plan / EIS because all of the alternatives, 

including the no action alternative, would address 

museum collection management needs and facility 

improvements to meet desired conditions under 

servicewide law and policy. Nearly all of the park’s 

museum collections are stored in other institutions, 

many of which have reached their capacity for storage. 

The park also needs increased storage capacity for its 

on-site archives. These deficiencies would result in a 

negligible to minor adverse impact under all 

alternatives, including the no action alternative. Also 

under all alternatives, these impacts would be 

mitigated by the park’s ongoing efforts to improve the 

cataloging and storage of its museum collections. 

Under law and policy, the park would research, 

document, and catalogue its collections to provide the 

public and park staff with optimum interpretive and 

resource management opportunities. Museum objects 

and archival materials would be conserved, protected, 

and preserved to NPS and professional standards. A

museum management plan would be prepared and 

implemented according to NPS standards to guide 

protection, conservation, and use of objects in the 

park’s museum collections. The park would also seek 

strategies to address the park’s needs for more storage 

capacity and improved collections facilities. 

Inventorying and cataloging all of the national park’s 

museum collections would be in accordance with 

professional standards as outlined in the NPS Museum 

Handbook. Combined, these strategies would result in 

a minor beneficial impact on museum collections. 

Please refer to Appendix B: Desired Conditions and 

Strategies for Channel Islands National Park: Museum 

Collections.

Museum collections are not expected to increase at a 

steady rate as a result of research or investigations 

stemming from the actions of this plan and, therefore, 

would not be impacted beyond the negligible to minor 

range.

National Historic 

Preservation Act; 

American Religious 

Freedom Act; Archeological and Historic 

Preservation Act; 

Archeological Resources 

Protection Act; Native 

American Graves 

Protection and 

Repatriation Act; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006; NPS Museum 

Handbook; Department of 

the Interior Manual on 

Museum Property 

Management 411 DM; 

DO-24: NPS Museum 

Collections Management; 

DO-28: Cultural Resource 

Management Guideline;

NPS Special Directives 

80-1 and 87-3; 36 CFR 

79: Curation of Federally 

Owned Archeological 

Collections; National 

Environmental Policy Act
Introduction

227

Impact Topic

Retained or 

Dismissed Rationale

Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy

WILDERNESS CHARACTER

Natural, 

Undeveloped, 

Untrammeled, 

Opportunities 

for Solitude or 

Primitive and 

Unconfined 

Recreation, 

Other Features 

of Value

Retained Wilderness character is important to many of the 

park’s wildlife species and to many visitors who come, 

or want to come, to the park. DO-41 and NPS 

Management Policies 2006 require that no actions be 

taken that would diminish the wilderness eligibility of 

an area possessing wilderness character until the 

legislative process of wilderness designation has been 

completed. Any increases in the level of development 

or control of the environment; or decreases in natural 

character, opportunities for solitude, or opportunities 

for primitive, unconfined recreation (which would 

affect lands potentially eligible for wilderness 

designation). The alternatives also propose lands for 

wilderness designation. These actions would be of 

concern to some visitors, managers, and the public.

The Wilderness Act; DO41: Wilderness 

Preservation; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006

VISITOR USE, INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION TOPICS

Visitor Use, 

(Terrestrial) 

Interpretation, 

and Education

Retained The planning team identified visitor experience as an 

important issue that could be appreciably affected 

under the alternatives. The Organic Act and NPS 

Management Policies 2001 (NPS 2000b) both direct 

the Park Service to provide enjoyment opportunities for 

visitors that are uniquely suited and appropriate to the 

superlative resources found within the park. Three 

different aspects of visitation and enjoyment are 

evaluated: visitor experience, interpretation, and 

education. Terrestrial recreational opportunities include 

camping, hiking, and wildlife viewing. The two action 

alternatives could impact these opportunities. 

Therefore, the impacts of these actions were 

evaluated.

Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006

Visitor Use 

(Marine)

Dismissed Recreational marine opportunities in the park include 

boating, fishing, kayaking, swimming, snorkeling, and 

diving. These activities are regulated by the state of 

California, the NOAA, and the Park Service. None of 

the action alternatives considered by the planning 

team would change how these activities are managed 

or visitor opportunities to participate in these activities. 

Therefore, impacts on marine recreation were not 

evaluated.

Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies 

2006

Public Health 

and Safety 

Dismissed No actions are proposed in the alternatives that would 

result in identifiable adverse impacts on public health 

or safety. Although the alternatives would increase the 

access opportunities into the islands, information is 

already available to visitors about the potential risks of 

traveling in these areas (e.g., bad weather). Several 

actions would be taken to improve visitor safety, such 

as replacement of the eucalyptus groves in the 

Scorpion campground and closure of campsites during 

the winter to avoid flooding. Thus, this topic was not 

analyzed in this plan / EIS. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006, DO-58C: Public Risk 

Management Program, 

and DO-83: Public Health
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

228

Impact Topic

Retained or 

Dismissed Rationale

Relevant Law, 

Regulation, or Policy

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT TOPICS

Regional 

Socioeconomics

Dismissed Channel Islands National Park affects the 

socioeconomics of nearby communities, including 

residents and businesses within the region. However, 

the park has a negligible impact on the economy of 

the Los Angeles region and on the gateway 

communities of Ventura and Santa Barbara. Nothing 

being proposed in the GMP alternatives would 

noticeably affect the regional socioeconomics 

compared to all of the socioeconomic factors 

independent of the park (e.g., transportation, urban 

development, population growth, and energy prices). 

All of the actions proposed in the alternatives would 

have a negligible impact on regional socioeconomics.

National Environmental 

Policy Act

Conformity 

with Local Land 

Use Plans

Dismissed The basic land use of the park is in conformance with 

local land use plans, and because the proposed 

management zones under all of the alternatives would 

not change these basic uses, there are no anticipated 

conflicts with local land use planning. The creation of 

additional recreation and visitor service opportunities in 

the park, as proposed under certain of the alternatives, 

are not inconsistent with existing park land uses or 

local land use plans. Therefore, there is no need to 

analyze in detail the conformity of the alternatives with 

local land use plans. 

CEQ regulations

OTHER TOPICS

Environmental 

Justice

Dismissed EO 12898, “General Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations” requires all federal agencies to 

incorporate environmental justice into their missions by 

identifying and addressing disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs and policies on minorities and low-income 

populations and communities. No alternative would 

have health or environmental effects on minorities 

(including American Indian tribes) or low-income 

populations or communities as defined in the EPA’s 

Environmental Justice Guidance (1998). Environmental 

Justice has been dismissed as an impact topic in this 

document. 

EO 12898, “General 

Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations”

Indian Trust 

Resources

Dismissed The lands comprising Channel Islands National Park are 

not held in trust by the secretary of the interior for the 

benefit of Indians due to their status as Indians. 

Secretarial Order 3175
229

NATURAL RESOURCES

SOILS

Published information on park soils is limited 

to a study by Johnson (1979), who conducted 

a cursory investigation of soils, geology, and 

erosion problems on Santa Barbara, Anacapa, 

and San Miguel islands and the National 

Resources Conservation Service map of the 

park’s soils as part of the NPS Soils Inventory 

and Monitoring Program. In general, the 

larger islands have more diverse soils. Soils 

range from fine sandy loams to clay. Some are 

highly erodible. Cyanobacterial soil crusts are 

common on all of the islands. Surveys done by 

Belnap (1994) indicate that cyanobacterial 

crusts should cover the soil surfaces in most of 

the vegetation types found in the Channel 

Islands. These crusts are important for 

increased soil stability, water infiltration, and 

fertility of soils. They are also very susceptible 

to surface disturbance, such as through 

grazing, hooved animal and human foot 

traffic, and off-road vehicles. The absence of 

crusts can lead to increased erosion and 

disruptions of nutrient cycles. Recovery of the 

soil crusts is extremely slow, taking hundreds 

of years to fully recover (NPS 1999). 

Soils on Anacapa and Santa Barbara islands 

are thin, clayey, and of low permeability (NPS 

1980b). Three major soil types have been 

identified on Anacapa Island: soils found on 

moderately steep to steep recent erosional 

slopes (lithic xerothents); clayey soils that 

have shrink-swell characteristics, found on 

gentle to moderate slopes (typic 

chromoxererts); and clayey, organic matterrich soils that also have shrink-swell 

characteristics, occurring on the most level 

portions of the islets (vertic argixerolls). The 

same major soil types also occur on Santa 

Barbara Island (Johnson 1979).

Soils on Santa Cruz Island predominately 

range from shallow to deep to bedrock, and 

are loamy to clayey in texture (argixerolls). 

Heavy clay soils with high shrink/swell 

characteristics (vertisols) also occur on the 

island. On the east end, vertisols develop on 

those portions of the Monterey formation that 

are chalky, being composed mostly of calcium 

carbonate. When occurring on slopes greater 

than 15%, vertisols are very prone to piping 

and slumping, with some occurrences of 

sinkholes. The majority of the Monterey shale 

on Santa Cruz Island is of siliceous 

mineralogy, and weathers into loamy soils 

lacking high shrink/swell characteristics. A 

soil of particular interest occurs under the oak 

groves on the isthmus. The extra moisture 

trapped by the oaks from the foggy conditions

has caused those soils to develop a highly 

leached layer of soil overlying a less permeable 

clay layer (alfic argixerolls). The soils 

immediately outside the drip line of the oaks 

do not have the leached layer. (There is also a 

small area of the same soil on Santa Rosa 

Island on the southeastern flank of Black 

Mountain.) (Daniel Johnson, Natural 

Resource Conservation Service, pers. comm. 

September 26, 2002).

Santa Rosa Island soils tend to be shallowest 

on steep slopes greater than 35% and have 

low organic matter content. They are 

moderately deep to very deep on more level 

landforms, such as alluvial plains and coastal 

terraces, with corresponding higher organic 

matter content. The soils generally range in 

texture from fine sandy loam to clay. Soils 

with extremely high organic content occur in 

the marsh on the east end of the island and 

may be considered histosols. Sandy soils are 

associated with the dunes of both the east and 

west ends of the island. On the far western 

end of Santa Rosa, a layer of caliche (a calcium 

carbonate hardpan) exists (NPS 1995a). This 

also occurs to a lesser extent on the east end. 

Clayey soils with high shrink/swell (vertisols) 

have developed from the volcanic bedrock on 

the south side of the main fault and on the 

northwestern quarter of the island where the 

sandstone and shale bedrock is finer grained 

than that of the northeastern quarter. The 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

230

high shrink-swell soils (vertisols) are 

predominately on slopes less than 35%, and in 

the concave portions of the landform.

Soils on much of San Miguel Island are sandy 

(the western two-thirds of the island are 

covered by sand dunes), very deep, and 

permeable. Soils were mapped as deep, old 

soils, with abundant iron-rich nodules (typic 

palexerolls); and soils underlain by caliche, 

commonly buried under sands (typic 

calcixerolls); thin, shallow soils on moderately 

steep to steep recent erosional slopes (lithic 

xerorthents); thin soils formed on very recent 

sand dunes (typic xeropsamments); and clayey 

soils that can shrink and swell (typic 

pelloxerets and typic chromoxerts). The 

palexerolls, given the general name Green 

Mountain soil, have been identified as one of 

the most unusual and interesting soils in the 

United States due to their thick ironstone 

concretions (Johnson 1979). This soil is also 

found extensively on Santa Rosa Island 

extending from Carrington Point to the base 

of Black Mountain.

Soil Disturbance and Erosion

Many of the soils on the Channel Islands have 

been disturbed and altered. Soil erosion has 

occurred throughout all the islands due to a 

combination of factors including naturally 

erodible soils, erosion-prone sedimentary 

geologic formations, rugged topography with 

steep slopes, wave action, changes in 

vegetation, grazing by nonnative animals, road 

building, and cultivation practices. 

All three islets of Anacapa Island were grazed 

primarily by sheep in the early 1900s, with 

grazing occurring on the Middle and West 

Islets up until 1937 (NPS 2000a). It is believed 

that the soils were significantly affected during 

this period. The last sheep were removed from 

West Anacapa as late as the 1960s. Soils were 

also affected by vegetation stripping and 

excavation and leveling of much of the surface 

of East Anacapa for construction of Coast 

Guard facilities. Erosion due to human 

activities has subsequently been reduced, 

although trampling and disturbance of soil 

crusts by people is still likely increasing 

erosion in areas on East Anacapa. Expansion 

of gull colonies is increasing the amount of 

bare ground in nesting areas. Sea cliff erosion 

also is occurring, although not to the same 

degree as Santa Barbara Island. In particular, 

the south-facing cliffs on the eastern end of 

West Anacapa have been eroding.

On Santa Cruz Island heavy past livestock 

grazing, pig rooting, massive stripping of 

vegetation, and the presence of weakly 

cemented sedimentary formations has led to 

major erosion of soils in localized areas. Most 

of the steep slopes show large and small soil 

slumps that have resulted in high erosion and 

sedimentation in the valleys. Incised gullies 

are common throughout the drainages, and 

slope failures of all sizes are evident in many 

watersheds. The removal of cattle and sheep 

and subsequent recovery of native vegetation 

have helped reduce soil erosion and slope 

failures (Pinter and Vestal 2005). However, 

gully and sheet erosion are still actively 

occurring throughout the island, particularly 

in the sedimentary Monterey formations 

found on the island’s isthmus and east end. 

The Scorpion watershed in particular is 

extremely vulnerable to erosion due to past 

heavy sheep grazing, pig rooting, steep 

landforms, and the presence of the erosionprone Monterey geologic formation (NPS 

2002a).

Soil erosion also continues to occur on Santa 

Rosa Island. On much of the far western end 

of the island the ground is so windswept that 

most of the soil has been removed, exposing 

impermeable caliche (a calcium carbonate 

hardpan). On many of the ridges, soil has been 

stripped away by water and wind, after 

stripping of vegetation by grazing and 

browsing animals. Within the canyons, 

particularly on the south and west portions of 

the island, deep gullies have developed and 

continue to expand. Extensive sheep and 

cattle grazing; and browsing and rooting of 

vegetation by elk, mule deer, and feral pigs all 
Natural Resources

231

have accelerated soil erosion on the island. 

Erosion is also still continuing due to the 

proliferation and use of unimproved roads 

that developed or were constructed to 

support past ranching activities, oil 

exploration, archeological excavations, and 

military developments. 

Several areas of severe erosion on Santa Rosa 

Island are of particular concern. The south 

upper slope of Soledad Peak, the island’s 

highest point, continues to suffer severe 

erosion due to past sheep grazing and 

browsing, cattle grazing, and browsing and 

trails made by nonnative deer and elk. 

Construction and use of an Air Force defense 

monitoring facility, and supporting road 

development, have had major impacts on the 

rate and magnitude of erosion in this area. 

Stripping vegetation and disruption of the 

contours of the top of the peak caused 

massive surface erosion, the development of 

gullies, and desertification of the area, 

threatening groves of rare endemic Island 

Oak. Another area of severe erosion is along 

the Smith Highway, which follows the 

northern coastal terrace of the island. The 

steep gradient of the road, greater than 25% in 

places, combined with fine-grained surface 

soils, resulted in sections of the road eroding 

deeply into the surrounding topography until 

the sections became impassible gully 

networks. New roads were then established 

alongside these segments. A 0.25-mile stretch 

of the road where this has occurred, close to 

the mouth of Cherry and Windmill canyons, 

has resulted in gullies that now cause large 

amounts of sediment to run into the coastal 

waters. The Park Service has completed 

rehabilitation of these sites by installing 

erosion-control matting and revegetating the 

areas. Work also was done in the 1990s to 

rehabilitate the area occupied by an 

abandoned Air Force station at Johnson’s Lee. 

Buildings were removed, contours were 

reestablished, and straw mulch and erosioncontrol blankets were installed after seeding 

with a sterile wheatgrass/native shrub seed 

mix.

In the past, erosion was especially severe on 

San Miguel Island. The island’s vegetation and 

soils were stripped and eroded by overgrazing 

of livestock, primarily sheep, and by various 

cultivation practices over time. These 

conditions plus drought led to severe erosion 

that left two-thirds of the island covered by 

drifting soil and sand. Topsoils were largely 

stripped, the periphery of the island was 

gullied, and large unstabilized sand dunes 

developed. The island chaparral community 

once present on the island was also extirpated. 

With the removal of all of the sheep in the 

1960s, and removal of feral burros in the 

1970s, plants have reestablished and stabilized 

the sandy soil surface, which has markedly 

reduced erosion. However, in some areas, 

severe gullying and erosion is still occurring 

(NPS 1980b). 

On Santa Barbara Island, the near-vertical sea 

cliffs on the southwest and north sides of the 

island are actively eroding due to wave action, 

and are very unstable. Soils on the island 

naturally tend to have high clay contents 

(Halvorson et al. 1988; Fenn and Allardice 

1988). A higher degree of erosion can occur 

on steeper slopes where surface runoff is 

greater. Vegetation and soils have been greatly 

disturbed due to past livestock grazing and 

browsing (sheep, goats, and pigs); farming; 

extensive burning and plowing; and the 

introduction of rabbits in the middle of the 

20th century. These disturbed soils are easily 

compacted. Compacted soils allow for 

increased water runoff and limit oxygen 

exchange with plant roots, leading to reduced 

plant growth. In addition, two widespread 

annual crystalline iceplant species on the 

island have affected sodium concentration in 

the soils where they have grown. Increased 

soil sodium destroys the normal soil structure 

of clay particles in the affected areas, making 

soils highly erodible. 

Although the current grassland vegetation and 

the ongoing expansion of native shrubs help 

prevent erosion, there is a 12-acre area of 

severe erosion (the “badlands”) on one of the 

east terraces of Santa Barbara Island. This area 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

232

consists of bare soils networked with gullies 

and small patches of grass vegetation. Based 

on aerial photographs, the badlands 

developed sometime between 1943 and 1957, 

a period when rabbit populations on the 

island peaked and vegetation was especially 

heavily grazed. It is believed that a 

combination of rabbit grazing, an increase in 

crystalline iceplant colonization, and drought 

caused the badlands to develop, and they have 

been expanding at the rate of about 1% per 

year since then. Expanding gull colonies are 

exacerbating this problem. Studies of the site 

show that the topsoil is gone, leaving dense 

clayey subsoil that is still eroding at the rate of 

about 6 inches per year. The Park Service 

completed a project in 1995–1997, laying 

down erosion-control matting over about 2 

acres and encouraging vegetation 

establishment so that soil can redevelop and 

native species can reestablish.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The Channel Islands (particularly San Miguel, 

Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz) contain 

numerous plant and animal fossils that 

illuminate the past natural history of the 

California coastal region. This fossil record 

offers the opportunity to study fauna 

speciation and evolution, the development of 

plant and animal communities and their 

adaptations to varying climate conditions, and 

the effects of human colonization on the 

fauna. As a result, the Channel Islands are of 

special interest to researchers, and a number 

of paleontological studies have been done on 

the islands. 

Research indicates that the Pleistocene fauna 

of the Channel Islands is unique in several 

respects. First, it contains several extinct 

species including pygmy mammoth 

(Agenbroad et al. 1999); an owl; a flightless 

goose; a puffin; and a vampire bat (Guthrie 

1980, 1993, 1998; Guthrie et al. 2000); and two 

species of giant mouse (White 1966; Wilson 

1936). The park also contains the best 

representation of Pleistocene marine avifauna 

on the Pacific coast, with more than 70 species 

having been discovered on San Miguel Island 

(NPS 1999; Guthrie 1992; Guthrie et al. 2000). 

The most notable animal fossils, and the best 

studied aspect of island paleontology, are the 

pygmy mammoth (Mammuthus exilis). 

Remains of this species have been known on 

the Channel Islands since 1856 when they 

were discovered by a coast and geodetic 

survey. In 1994 a nearly complete adult 

skeleton was discovered and excavated on 

Santa Rosa Island (Agenbroad 1998). Pygmy 

mammoths descended from full-sized 

Columbia mammoths that swam across the 

Santa Barbara Channel to the islands during 

the Pleistocene. It is believed that during that 

period, the northern Channel Islands were 

connected into one large island because of the 

lowered sea levels. Apparently, pygmy 

mammoths died off at about the end of the 

Pleistocene (12,000 years ago). Pygmy 

mammoth fossil bones have been found on 

more than 140 sites on San Miguel, Santa 

Rosa, and Santa Cruz. These are the only 

known remains in the world (Agenbroad 

2002). On Santa Rosa, fossils are often 

exposed in sands, silts, and gravels of 

Pleistocene age anywhere on the island. Most 

specimens have been found in the sediments 

comprising the coastal terraces of the island. 

Due to the numerous questions about many 

aspects of this species’ evolution and 

development, any fossil may potentially be of 

crucial importance in answering important 

research questions. 

Another important paleontological resource is 

the caliche fossil forests, or rhizoconcretions, 

on San Miguel. Three major caliche forests are 

found on the island. These fossils are calcium 

carbonate-encrusted casts of vegetation 

buried by sand dunes more than 14,000 years 

ago. They provide evidence that the island 

once supported large trees and shrubs. These 

caliche casts are fragile and easily broken.

The Channel Islands are a continuation of the 

Santa Monica Mountains on the mainland, 

although they were never connected above sea 
Natural Resources

233

level, and are comprised of many of the same 

Tertiary marine formations. As such, they also 

have many of the same marine invertebrate 

fossils. Although there are studies on the 

invertebrate paleontology of these formations 

in the Santa Monica Mountains, research has 

not been done on their counterparts on the 

islands. There have been some studies of the 

Pleistocene invertebrate fauna of the islands 

(Valentine and Lipps 1963), but as is the case 

of the invertebrates from the Tertiary marine 

sediments, much remains to be done.

Although researchers have learned quite a bit 

about some of the park’s fossils, such as the 

pygmy mammoth, paleontological resources 

on the Channel Islands have not been very

well studied. Fossil localities containing 

smaller terrestrial species of Pleistocene age 

and invertebrate fossils embedded in the 

Miocene strata of the islands remain 

unstudied. In addition, natural and humaninduced erosion probably has degraded or 

destroyed fossil sites; unless collected 

properly and promptly, bones that are 

exposed by erosion may be scattered and lost.

WATER QUALITY

Freshwater Quality

In general, the freshwater quality of Channel 

Islands National Park is relatively good, 

although conditions vary among the islands. 

Also, all of the islands tend to have a high 

mineral content, particularly calcium and 

sodium, due to the marine sediments found 

here.

Fresh surface water is not available on 

Anacapa or Santa Barbara except for a few 

small seeps on cliff faces or deep, narrow 

canyons. The surfaces of these two islands are 

small and relatively impermeable and, 

therefore, no aquifers exist. Most rainwater 

runs into the ocean during and immediately 

after storms.

Most of the drainages on Santa Cruz are 

intermittent, although the larger watersheds 

have perennial flows in normal precipitation 

years. There are also many freshwater seeps 

and springs throughout the island. Water 

quality data have been collected on NPS lands 

on Santa Cruz. In the past, livestock and pigs 

likely were attracted to springs and streams 

and probably negatively affected water quality 

through the addition of wastes and sediments. 

Sheep, pigs, and cattle have been removed 

from the island; however, the associated 

changes in conditions that have led to 

sedimentation above natural rates are still a 

concern for water quality (NPS 2002a).

Santa Rosa has 20 major watersheds, most of 

which have year-round springs and seeps and, 

therefore, pools of water for most of the year. 

Most of the drainages are deeply incised and 

are similar to large arroyo systems that are 

common in the southwestern United States. 

Greater than 99% of the water flow in Santa 

Rosa’s streams may occur during major 

storms (NPS 1995b). In an average year, nine 

drainages have flowing water through the dry 

season. In addition to the drainages, scattered 

around the island are ephemeral ponds, both 

human-made stock ponds and natural vernal 

pools. In 1993, 1994, and 2002 the Park 

Service monitored water quality at a number 

of sites on the island. Past grazing by sheep 

and cattle, and by nonnative deer and elk, has 

substantially affected water quality. Feral and 

managed livestock eliminated or drastically 

reduced both upland and riparian vegetation, 

which in turn leads to increased sediment 

loads in streams. Total suspended sediment 

levels were recorded at thousands of times 

above baseline levels during moderate storms. 

In addition, animals deposit feces and urine in 

or near streams, resulting in high coliform 

levels and indicating a serious pollution 

problem; in 1993 and 1994 measurements in 

two canyons (Water and Quemanda)

indicated that fecal coliform levels were six or 

seven times the state water quality standards 

for body-contact recreation (NPS 1995b). 

Sedimentation from improperly sited and 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

234

unmaintained roads also has affected the 

water quality of island streams. 

In 1995, the California Central Coast Regional 

Water Quality Control Board (board) issued a 

Clean Up or Abatement Order for discharging 

unlawful concentrations of bacteria and 

sediments. The order was still in effect in 

2005. The board ordered the Park Service to 

develop and submit a plan to abate pollution 

from rangeland and road management 

practices. It is expected that with the removal 

of cattle in 1998 and the removal of deer and 

elk in 2011, the islandwide recovery of native 

vegetation, the planting of native vegetation, 

and the efforts underway to control erosion 

on roads, the island’s water quality conditions 

would improve. This expectation is supported 

by measured improvements in water quality 

and riparian habitats.

San Miguel has many small seeps and springs 

because of its porous sand blanket and a 

relatively large groundwater recharge area. 

However, most of these areas are highly 

mineralized and often contain high levels of 

sodium. There are no known major water 

quality problems on San Miguel. Preliminary 

testing of several springs done in the late 

1970s indicated that the water quality 

appeared safe when compared with the 

federal Safe Drinking Water Act maximum 

contaminant levels for noncommunity water 

systems. However, the water quality of the 

springs fell short of EPA- and state-suggested 

(but not required) standards for secondary 

contaminant levels. Salts and total suspended 

solids were high in these island waters (Power 

1980a; NPS 1980b). Thus, if new wells are 

drilled on San Miguel, there is a high potential 

for poor tasting, although technically safe, 

water. The only sizable spring of drinkable 

water is in a remote area of the west end of the 

island, far from existing NPS facilities.

Marine Water Quality

The Park Service has little data on water 

quality conditions for the marine waters in 

and surrounding the park. Generally, it is 

believed that water quality conditions are 

good, given the distance of the islands from 

the mainland, the volume of the ocean, and 

the shelves and basins near the mainland 

where many pollutants from the Los Angeles 

basin and other coastal regions settle (NPS 

1980b). However, there are many potential 

water pollution sources that likely have 

affected the park’s water quality in the past 

and may affect conditions in the future. More 

than a billion gallons of urban waste is 

discharged daily into the southern California 

Bight (NPS 1999). Agricultural and urban 

runoff from the mainland, including debris, 

sediments, nutrients such as fertilizers, 

herbicides and insecticides, toxic chemicals, 

heavy metals, and other industrial effluents, 

and potentially harmful bacteria, can easily 

reach the islands during storms. 

Petroleum pollution can occur due to many 

sources, including natural oil seeps, boat 

groundings, oil and tar from nonpoint 

sources, and oil spills and leaks from the many 

oil production platforms in the area. The 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

(CDF&G Marine Resources Division 2002) 

noted there are a variety of pollutant 

discharges associated with oil and gas 

developments, including drill cuttings and 

mud, sewage, and trash; formation waters; and 

marine corrosion products. The discharge of 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 

which are persistent and can accumulate in 

the aquatic food chain, was of particular 

concern. 

Past ocean dumping in the area may lead to 

transport of materials into park waters. Heavy 

metals and organochlorine pesticides due to 

dumping persist in ocean waters in the vicinity 

of the park. This resulted in reproductive 

failure of California brown pelicans, bald 

eagles, cormorants, and peregrine falcons, and 

caused problems for seals and sea lions (NPS 

1999). 

Increased island runoff of sediments due to 

grazing on the islands (particularly Santa Cruz, 
Natural Resources

235

Santa Rosa, and San Miguel) also affected 

offshore water quality in the past. Although 

livestock have been removed from the islands, 

no studies have been completed to determine 

if there has been a reduction in sediment 

levels offshore of the islands.

Other potentially serious water pollution 

sources that could affect marine water quality 

include discharges from ships, sewage 

disposal, and thermal pollution and effluents 

from power plants, although none of these 

sources are known to have affected the islands 

(NPS 1999).

Changes in marine water quality due to the 

above pollution sources can result in a variety 

of impacts on the park’s marine ecosystem 

including lowered photosynthesis and oxygen 

levels; introduction of disease; disturbance of 

spawning and nursery areas; loss of food 

sources and habitats; chemical disturbances; 

interference with filter feeding and respiratory 

functions of marine organisms; reproductive 

failures (such as what happened to California 

brown pelicans, bald eagles, cormorants, and 

peregrine falcons); other physiological and 

behavioral changes; injuries and deaths of 

benthic and other marine organisms; and 

changes in population levels and species 

distributions (CDF&G Marine Resources 

Division 2002). 

FLOODPLAINS (SCORPION 

VALLEY AND LOWER REACH

OF CAÑADA DEL PUERTO) 

Floodplains on Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and 

San Miguel islands exist where there are 

perennial and intermittent streams. Some of 

the floodplains are quite extensive, such as 

along Scorpion Creek or in the lower reaches 

of Cañada del Puerto. But in most cases, the 

floodplains are fairly confined and are in the 

lower reaches of the streams, in low gradient 

coastal areas. With the exception of Scorpion 

Valley and Prisoners Harbor area (mouth of 

Cañada del Puerto) on Santa Cruz, none of the 

Channel Islands floodplains have been 

mapped.

The Scorpion Creek floodplain on Santa Cruz 

is of particular concern to park managers. The 

floodplain for this creek is the entire lower 

valley, from canyon wall to wall. On 

December 5, 1997, a large flood occurred, 

which transported and deposited massive 

amounts of sediment and damaged facilities 

along the creek. Based on a subsequent study, 

it was determined that all of the park facilities, 

including historic structures and the 

campground, are in the active stream channel 

or the floodplain (NPS 1998, 2003). It was 

noted that this is a situation in which 

extremely active sedimentation processes 

interact with streamflows to cause frequent 

realignments of the channel throughout the 

entire width of the lower valley. Former 

occupants of the site addressed the flood 

threat by lowering and enlarging a selected 

channel by grading. In recent years the Park 

Service has twice excavated a portion of the 

channel to restore some flow capacity to the 

channel following flood events. Continued 

use and occupancy of this site would benefit 

from periodic excavation of sediment from 

the channel. However, any excavated channel 

is subject to additional deposition and filling 

of sediment. Consequently, the facilities along 

Scorpion Creek would always be vulnerable to 

large floods. (For more information on the 

floodplain and flood risk, see the Statement of 

Findings in appendix G.) 

The Cañada del Puerto floodplain in Prisoners 

Harbor, Santa Cruz Island, shares similar 

characteristics with the Scorpion Creek 

floodplain, although there is a far lower threat 

to people and NPS structures due to flooding. 

The floodplain for Cañada del Puerto covers 

much of Prisoners Harbor, and the historic 

warehouse is in the 100-year floodplain. Like 

Scorpion Valley, Cañada del Puerto is an 

intermittent drainage that is often dry. The 

creek emerges from a relatively steep canyon 

just upstream of the coast. The hillsides 

upstream of the Prisoners Harbor area are 

erodible and are significant source areas for 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

236

sediments. Thus, this drainage can carry a 

heavy sediment load. These heavy sediment 

loads can be deposited in flat areas in the 

Prisoners Harbor area and can exacerbate 

flooding, changing the local path of 

streamflows and frequencies of inundation. 

Near the well house (near the park boundary), 

levees have been constructed and channel 

excavation has been performed by ranchers 

(and likely the U.S. Navy) to protect the well 

and other local infrastructure from floods. 

(For more information on the floodplain and 

flood risk, see the Statement of Findings in 

appendix G.)

WETLANDS (SCORPION VALLEY

AND PRISONERS HARBOR) 

Although most of the wetlands of Channel 

Islands National Park have not been 

delineated, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San 

Miguel islands all have wetlands. Wetlands 

were delineated by NPS staff at the lower end 

of Scorpion Valley and at Prisoners Harbor in 

May 2003 (NPS 2003b). Although these areas 

may not appear to be wetlands, they have 

wetland characteristics (soil, vegetation, and 

hydrology) and are readily apparent on the 

ground and on aerial photographs. They are 

thus considered to be jurisdictional wetlands 

by the Park Service and are under the Corps of 

Engineers’ jurisdiction. 

Toward the mouth of Scorpion Creek three 

classes of wetlands are above the low tide limit 

of Scorpion Cove. All three areas are 

contiguous. Under the USFWS’s wetlands 

classification system (USFWS 1979), the rocky 

shoreline area is classified as marine/ 

intertidal/rocky shore. Above the shoreline 

the habitat is estuarine/intertidal/ emergent. 

The remaining wetland area (i.e., the stream 

channel defined by side slopes and a channel 

bottom) is classified as riverine /lower 

perennial/rock bottom.

The marine/intertidal/rocky shore and the 

riverine/lower perennial/rock bottom 

wetlands have little or no vegetation. The 

riverine/lower perennial/rock bottom 

wetlands are scoured frequently, receive sand 

and gravel from upstream sources during 

storms, and have little or no vegetation. 

The estuarine/intertidal/emergent wetland 

area is irregularly flooded. Common native 

species include saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), 

alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis), Frankenia 

(Frankenia salina), sea-blite (Suaeda taxifolia), 

California saltbush (Atriplex californica), 

Coulter’s saltbush (A. coulteri), Brewer’s 

saltbush (A. lentiformis), sandy-spurry 

(Spergularia macrotheca), and S. marina. 

Nonnative plants include foxtail (Hordeum 

murinum), rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon 

monspeliensis), yellow sweet clover (Melilotus 

indica), sicklegrass (Parapholis incurva), 

Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum), 

Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), sea 

rocket (Cakile maritima), goosefoot 

(Chenopodium murale), and Boccone's 

sandspurry (Spergularia bocconii). 

The currents along the shore and intertidal 

exchange have created and maintain a cobble 

berm along the shoreline and at the base of the 

stream channel before it empties into the 

cove. The berm disrupts intertidal exchange in 

the wetland area — it prevents salt water from 

entering the estuarine/ intertidal/emergent 

wetland. Streamflow collects behind the berm 

until it overtops the berm. On occasion 

(primarily in the winter) tides overtop the 

berm and salt water gets trapped behind the 

berm. During the rest of the year the wetland 

area surface water evaporates and the source 

hydrology becomes primarily ground water. 

The trapped salt water and the long, dry 

summers create habitat conditions that 

support a unique assemblage of plants and 

animals. A common plant species in this area, 

which is rare elsewhere on the island and in 

California, is alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis). 

This community lives around two small 

channels that were formed primarily by 

intertidal flows.

Some of the estuarine/intertidal/emergent 

areas, and the uplands surrounding the 
Natural Resources

237

wetland, have upland native plants including 

California sagebrush (Artemesia californica), 

island buckwheat (Eriogonum grande ssp.

grande), Santa Cruz Island buckwheat 

(Eriogonum arborescens), and toyon 

(Heteromeles arbutifolia). Nonnative plants 

encountered include foxtail, wild oats (Avena 

spp.), Kikuyu grass, smilo grass (Piptatherum 

miliaceum), black mustard (Brassica nigra), 

fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and milk thistle 

(Silybum marinum).

As noted above, the condition of the Scorpion 

mouth wetlands is affected by the tides and 

the duration of tidal flooding. However, 

deposits of spoils from grading of the stream 

channel also substantially raised soil levels 

throughout the area and buried wetland soils. 

Since sheep were removed from the island, 

vegetative cover has begun to increase 

dramatically. Because of this, infiltration of 

precipitation can be expected to increase, and 

storm flow amplitudes would be buffered. The 

frequency and duration of wetland inundation 

and depth of standing water might also be 

expected to gradually increase. Even in the 

short period since sheep were removed, the 

duration of flooding and the depth of standing 

water have increased dramatically (NPS 

2002a). Also, if the population of nonnative 

bluegum trees in lower Scorpion Valley is 

reduced, further rises in the water table can be 

expected. 

The wetlands at the mouth of Scorpion Creek 

have been affected by various human 

activities. The lower end of the Scorpion 

Creek riverine wetland channel, including 

part of the estuarine wetland, has been 

dramatically altered by dredging over the past 

100 years. In addition, field investigations and 

a cursory review of historic photographs and 

documents suggest that about 75% of the 

lower floodplain riparian and wetland areas 

have been graded and/or filled to create 

pasture (NPS 2003b).

In the Prisoners Harbor area three classes of 

wetlands are above the low tide limit. All three 

areas are contiguous. The rocky shoreline area 

is classified as marine/intertidal/rocky shore. 

Above the shoreline the habitat is 

palustrine/emergent/persistent, 

palustrine/scrub-shrub/broad-leaved 

deciduous, and palustrine/forested/broadleaved deciduous. The remaining wetland area 

(i.e., the stream channel defined by side slopes 

and a channel bottom) is classified as 

riverine/lower perennial/rock bottom.

The marine/intertidal/rocky shore and the 

riverine/lower perennial/rock bottom 

wetlands have little or no vegetation. The 

riverine/lower perennial/rock bottom 

wetlands are scoured frequently and receive 

sand and gravel from upstream sources during 

storms. The riverine/lower perennial/rock 

bottom wetlands also have little or no 

vegetation. 

The different types of palustrine wetlands are 

dominated by willow (Salix spp.), bulrush 

(Scirpus californicus), and cattail (Typha 

domingensis). Associated native species 

include sticky baccharis (Baccharis douglasii), 

saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), arroyo willow 

(Salix lasiolepsis), mulefat (B. salicifolia),

arrowweed (Pluchea odorata), and water 

parsnip (Berula erecta). Nonnative plants 

include Kikuyu grass, yerba mansa (Anemopsis 

california), brass buttons (Cotula 

coronopifolia), weedy cudweed (Gnaphalium 

luteo-album), loosestrife (Lythrum 

hyssopifolium), English plantain (Plantago 

major), P. lanceolata, and curly dock (Rumex 

crispus). Upstream of this wetland are 

extensive stands of nonnative eucalyptus 

(Eucalyptus spp.) and acacia (Acacia 

melanoxylon, Albizia lophanta). If these 

nonnative tree stands are reduced, the water 

table can be expected to gradually rise, and 

streamflow would continue throughout most 

of the year, providing more water to this 

wetland.

The Prisoners wetland complex has been 

dramatically altered by filling and dredging 

during the past 100 years. About 60% of the 

original wetland area has been filled or 

dredged. The presettlement wetland area 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

238

probably extended over the entire floodplain 

west of the existing stream channel and 

northeast of the dock access road (about 4 

acres). In recent years a new wetland has been 

created (about 3 acres) and the new 

interpretive corrals have been relocated.

TERRESTRIAL VEGETATIVE 

COMMUNITIES AND FLORA 

Channel Islands National Park supports a 

diverse terrestrial flora, including many rare, 

relict, and endemic species, as well as many 

nonnative species (see below). Numerous 

plants are rare on the islands but have a wider 

distribution on the mainland. On the other 

hand, due to environmental conditions and 

isolation from the mainland, many of the 

plants that are native on the California 

mainland do not grow in the park. About 790 

plant taxa, including species, subspecies, 

varieties, and forms, have been identified in 

the park, of which about 578 are native and 

205 are nonnative. Seven additional species 

occur on the island that have some 

uncertainty as to whether they are native. 

Table 21 lists the number of vascular plant 

taxa, both native and nonnative, that were 

identified on the five Channel Islands by 

Junak et al. (1995) and Junak et al. (1997). (A 

few additional plants have been added to the 

park’s plant species list since then.)

TABLE 21. NUMBER OF VASCULAR PLANT TAXA ON THE CHANNEL ISLANDS

(Native 

(Nonendemic)22 Native (Endemic)2Nonnative2Total Taxa3

Anacapa 188 (71%) 22 (8%) 72 (26%) 263

Santa Cruz1 480 (73%) 42 (6%) 170 (26%) 657

Santa Rosa 393 (77%) 39 (8%) 115 (23%) 511

San Miguel 201 (72%) 12 (4%) 75 (27%) 279

Santa Barbara 84 (67%) 13 (10%) 38 (30%) 126

Source: Adapted from S. Junak, S. Chaney, R. Philbrick, and R. Clark. 1997. “A Checklist of Vascular Plants of Channel 

Islands National Park, 1997.”

1 Taxa numbers are for the entire island, including both NPS and TNC lands.

2 The numbers in parentheses are percentages for native, endemic, and nonnative plants based on the total number of 

species for each island. The percentages for native and nonnative species do not add up to 100% because for some species 

there are questions concerning their origin. Endemic refers to plant taxa that grow only in Channel Islands National Park and 

the greater Channel Islands.

3 The number of native (nonendemic), native, and nonnative taxa do not add up to the totals shown for the islands because 

there are several additional taxa (not listed in the table) where there is uncertainty as to whether they are native. Three of 

these taxa occur on Anacapa, seven occur on Santa Cruz, three occur on Santa Rosa, and four occur on Santa Barbara.

Each island supports a unique assemblage of 

vegetative communities, which differ due to 

climate, microhabitats, topography, geology, 

soils, plant colonization history, isolation, and 

land use history. Many of the islands’ native 

vegetative communities have been greatly 

altered by people and the introduction of 

nonnative species, and are in various stages of 

recovery (see below). The major vegetative 

community types on the islands include 

coastal dune, coastal bluff, coastal sage scrub, 

grasslands, chaparral, island oak woodlands, 

mixed hardwood woodlands, pine stands, and 

riparian areas. Currently, the most extensive 

vegetation communities on the islands are 

grassland and coastal sage scrub with 

significant areas of chaparral on Santa Cruz 

Island, and to a lesser degree, on Santa Rosa 

Island. Various phases of coastal bluff scrub 

constitute the next largest category. Mixed 

broadleaf woodland stands, oak woodlands, 

and pine stands are scattered throughout the 

island on sheltered slopes and canyons, or on 

ridges exposed to frequent moist fogs. Smaller 

but no less significant vegetation communities 

include coastal dune, baccharis scrub, caliche 

scrub, and wetlands. 
Natural Resources

239

Anacapa Island

About 190 species of native plants have been 

documented on Anacapa. The differences in 

topography and exposure have resulted in a 

more varied assemblage of plant communities 

than would be expected for the size of this 

island. Grasslands, shrub communities, and 

woodlands of limited distribution are found 

on Anacapa. Middle and West Anacapa 

support more native species than East 

Anacapa because they have more topographic 

variation and have not been extensively 

developed, as was East Anacapa. These two 

islets are rich in native perennial bunchgrasses 

and have extensive stands of coreopsis scrub, 

where giant coreopsis (Coreopsis gigantea) and 

island liveforever (Dudleya caespitosa) grow. 

Many consider the large stands of brightflowering giant coreopsis one of the park’s 

outstanding vegetation features. Deep, moist 

canyons on north-facing slopes of West 

Anacapa contain small oak woodlands and 

stands of island chaparral. All three islets have 

sea cliff scrub on their northern slopes and 

coastal sage scrub or cactus scrub on their 

southern slopes. These communities are well 

developed on West Anacapa, moderately 

developed on Middle Anacapa, and 

marginally developed on East Anacapa. 

Mixed annual and perennial grasslands are 

well distributed on East Anacapa and Middle 

Anacapa, but are patchier on West Anacapa. 

Large areas of East Anacapa are also covered 

by nonnative perennial iceplant, primarily 

red-flowered iceplant (Malephora crocea). 

Iceplant is currently very limited in extent on 

the other two islets. Although East Anacapa 

has been considerably altered, the rate and 

extent of the natural recovery of disturbed 

areas has been remarkable. The islet’s 

inaccessible bluffs still support undisturbed 

communities.

East End of Santa Cruz Island

Only the vegetative communities on NPS 

lands, the eastern quarter of the island, are 

discussed. About 480 native vascular plant 

species are known to grow on Santa Cruz, 

many of which are on NPS lands. Large 

portions of the east end of Santa Cruz are 

currently grassland dominated, with remnant 

areas of coastal bluff scrub; chaparral; coastal 

sage scrub; coyote-brush scrub; woodlands; 

and wetlands (riparian, coastal marshes and 

estuaries, and vernal pools discussed earlier). 

Grasslands grow mostly on the coastal 

terraces and broad plateaus at the east end 

and extend up the broader ridges into the 

steep rocky slopes to the west. The more 

prevalent nonnative annual grasses include 

rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft-chess 

(B. hordeacous), red brome (B. madritensis ssp. 

rubens), wild oats (Avena fatua, A. barbata), 

ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), and foxtail 

barley (Hordeum murinum). Perennial native 

grasses such as purple needlegrass (Nassella 

pulchra) and California barley (Hordeum 

brachyantherum ssp. californicum) are 

becoming more extensive as natural recovery 

from sheep grazing. Also scattered throughout 

the grasslands are solitary shrubs such as 

lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), manzanita 

(Arctostaphylos spp.), and island wild lilac 

(Ceanothus spp.); seedlings of these shrubs are 

increasing rapidly. It is believed that with the 

absence of grazing, these native shrubs would 

continue to expand and change what is now 

annual grassland back to native shrub 

communities, such as coastal sage scrub and 

island chaparral (NPS 2002a).

Another widespread vegetation community 

found at elevations below 500 feet on 

moderate slopes and flats is coyote-brush 

scrub. It intergrades with coastal sage scrub on 

rocky slopes. This shrubland primarily grows 

on deep, unstable soils that are continually 

disturbed by natural forces. Many species 

found in the community are weedy 

nonnatives, particularly annual grasses and 

fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). Some areas of 

annual grassland/Baccharis scrub, such as 

those in the Rancho Del Norte area on the 

isthmus, are dominated by tall stands of 

fennel, particularly on intrinsically unstable 

clay soils that cover much of the area.
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

240

Coastal sage scrub grows on dry, rocky slopes 

throughout the island, but particularly on 

south-facing slopes. It intergrades with 

grasslands on gentle slopes with deeper soils, 

and with island chaparral on rocky northfacing slopes. Much of this community has 

been altered by browsing and grazing, and it is 

currently dominated by nonnative annual 

grasses. However, some intact areas are on the 

slopes east of Valley Anchorage on the 

isthmus. In these areas, nearly impenetrable 3- 

to 4-foot-tall thickets of shrubs grow. The 

dominant species in this community include 

California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), 

island paintbrush (Castilleja lanata ssp. 

hololeuca), Santa Cruz Island buckwheat 

(Eriogonum arborescens), California 

brittlebush (Encelia californica), sawtooth 

goldenbush (Hazardia squarrosa), coastal 

pricklypear (Opuntia littoralis), lemonade 

berry, and black sage (Salvia mellifera). 

Coastal sage shrub has recovered significantly 

since the removal of sheep from the island.

Coastal bluff scrub grows on the steep coastal 

cliffs and slopes that surround much of the 

island. Due to their inaccessibility, this plant 

community has been a refugium for some 

plant species. With the elimination of grazing, 

many plant species formerly confined to these 

coastal bluffs are spreading out into other 

areas of the island. Common plant species 

found in this community include common 

yarrow (Achillea millefolium), morning glory 

(Calystegia macrostegia ssp. macrostegia), giant 

coreopsis, Greene’s Dudleya (Dudleya 

greenei), island hazardia (Hazardia detonsa), 

and island buckwheat (Eriogonum grande var. 

grande). 

Island chaparral and oak woodlands are the 

dominant woody vegetation communities on 

the isthmus. The island chaparral community 

differs somewhat from mainland chaparral. 

Structurally, the dominant island chaparral 

species can be more arborescent, resulting in a 

more open woodland appearance, which may 

be a result of the island’s grazing history. 

Island scrub oak (Querus pacifica) tends to 

dominate the island chaparral community on 

the isthmus. Other common species include a 

prostrate variety of chamise (Adenostoma 

fasciculatum var. prostratum), McMinn’s 

manzanita (Arctostaphylos viridissima), and 

toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia). The southern 

coastal oak woodland community is 

dominated by coast live oak (Quercus 

agrifolia). This community also grows in a 

small area on the east end of the island.

Several other vegetative communities grow on 

the east end of Santa Cruz. The island 

woodland community grows on north-facing 

slopes, ravines, and canyons. This community 

intergrades with island chaparral on dry, 

rocky slopes while turning into savannas on 

the deeper soils of the flats and more gentle 

slopes. The island woodland community is 

usually dominated by one or two species of 

trees or tree-like species. Overstory species 

can vary from a mixture of island endemics 

such as island ironwood (Lyonothamnus 

floribundus ssp. aspleniifolius) and island 

cherry (Prunus ilicifolia ssp. lyonii) to pure or 

mixed stands of oak (Quercus spp.). Other 

important species include toyon, lemonade 

berry, sugarbush (Rhus ovata), and island 

redberry (Rhamus pirifolia). A large but 

scattered Bishop pine (Pinus muricata)

woodland is found south of China Harbor on 

the isthmus. A number of small areas of 

southern beach and dune community also 

grow along the perimeter of the island. Plant 

species found in these areas include stickysand verbena (Abronia maritima), silver 

beach-bur (Ambrosia chamissonis), sea rocket 

(Cakile maritima), beach evening-primrose 

(Camissonia cheiranthifolia spp. 

cheiranthifolia), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), 

California saltbush (Atriplex californica), and 

Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata). In 

the more dune-stable areas prostate coastal 

goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. sedoides), 

pink sand verbena (Abronia umbellata), and 

silver lupine (Lupinus albifrons ssp. douglasii) 

also grow. 
Natural Resources

241

Santa Rosa Island

The vegetation of Santa Rosa is diverse 

because of the island’s relatively large size and 

elevation range. A total of 387 native plant 

species have been recorded on the island. As 

with the other islands, many native species are 

now only found primarily in refuges on 

inaccessible steep sea bluffs and interior 

canyon walls. Grassland, sometimes 

dominated primarily by nonnative annual 

species but with an increasing cover of native 

perennial grasses, currently covers about twothirds of the island’s area. Native perennial 

grasses grow in various areas and dominate 

large portions of the island. This group of 

native grasses includes at least four species of 

ryegrasses (Leymus spp., Elymus spp.), three 

species of needlegrass (Nasella spp.), and 

saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). 

Coastal sage scrub and baccharis scrub are 

two of the more common native plant 

communities. As on the other islands, coastal 

sage scrub grows on steep slopes; but unlike 

the other islands, it is not so strictly confined 

to southern exposures. Baccharis scrub grows 

on the east end of the island and also 

throughout grassland areas, particularly on 

deep, unstable soils on the moist, north-facing 

slopes and terraces of the island. Baccharis 

scrub is dominated by coyotebrush (Baccharis 

pilularis). 

Island chaparral is found in three distinct 

areas of the island: the largest extent is on the 

north- and east-facing slopes of Black 

Mountain; a smaller area is on northwestfacing slopes on South Point; the third area is 

on short, north-facing slopes on the eastern 

end of the island. Island scrub oak, prostrate 

chamise, three endemic taxa of manzanita 

(including the endemic Santa Rosa Island 

manzanita [Arctostaphylos confertiflora]), 

summer-holly (Comarostaphylos diversifolia

ssp. planifolia), evergreen huckleberry 

(Vaccinium ovatum), and island monkey 

flower (Mimulus flemingii) dominate this 

community.

Less than 1% of Santa Rosa is covered by 

woodlands, which grow mostly in or 

intermixed with island chaparral. Upland 

woodlands are dominated by pines, oaks, or 

other mixed hardwoods (i.e., oak, cherry, and 

ironwood). Native trees (eight species are 

present on the island) usually grow in discrete 

groves rather than being widely distributed 

across the landscape. With the exception of 

the Torrey pines, and recently the Bishop 

pines, establishment and survival of the 

individuals of these species has been minimal 

in most stands. 

Mixed woodlands grow primarily in the larger 

canyons in the northeast portion of the island. 

Tree species in this area include coast live oak 

(Quercus agrifolia), island oak (Q. tomentella), 

and island cherry (Prunus ilicifolia ssp. lyonii). 

The island has a few small groves of Santa 

Cruz Island pines (Pinus muricata forma 

remorata) and ironwood (Lyonothamnus 

floribundus ssp. aspleniifolius), with the pine 

community being most developed on the 

north side of Black Mountain. Oak woodland, 

dominated by the endemic island oak, grows 

in groves mainly on Soledad Peak and Black 

Mountain. The grove on Black Mountain has 

recovered enough since grazing stopped that 

oak seedlings have successfully established 

around the grove. Extensive erosion is 

probably the main reason for the lack of 

seedling establishment in other groves, 

notably those near Soledad Peak. 

The island also supports the entire population 

of Santa Rosa Island Torrey pine (Pinus 

torreyana ssp. insularis) woodlands, in a single 

(occasionally discontinuous) grove on the east 

end of the island, near Bechers Bay. This is 

one of two subspecies of Torrey pines in the 

world; the other (P. t. ssp. torreyana) grows on 

the mainland north of San Diego. The Santa 

Rosa population is fairly small, covering about 

40 acres, but appears to be in good condition. 

Many seedlings have successfully established 

around the grove in recent years and, 

therefore, the grove is expanding.
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

242

A number of other vegetative communities 

occur on Santa Rosa, usually in limited and 

discontinuous areas. Caliche scrub occurs on

the west end of the island just as on San 

Miguel Island. Prostrate goldenbush (Isocoma 

meziesii var. sedoides) is the most common 

shrub in this community, with San Miguel 

locoweed (Astragalus miguelensis) also 

occurring frequently. Coastal bluff scrub has

vegetation similar to caliche scrub, notably 

goldenbush and San Miguel locoweed, but 

also contains giant coreopsis, island 

liveforever, bedstraw (Galium spp.), and the 

island endemic Santa Rosa Island soft-leaved 

paintbrush (Castilleja mollis). This community 

is primarily found on the northern and 

western coastal bluffs. 

Lupine scrub is dominated by two species of 

bush lupine (Lupinus albifrons var. douglasii 

and L. arboreus). This community is found on 

stabilized (sometimes Pleistocene relict) 

dunes on the northeast part of the island 

(Carrington Point), the eastern end of the 

island (Skunk Point), and the south side of the 

island (China Camp area). 

Coastal strand, which is very similar to the 

coastal dune community on San Miguel 

Island, grows on unconsolidated dunes near 

beaches and coastal rocks. Several wetland 

communities (riparian herbaceous, riparian 

woodland, and coastal marsh) are scattered 

throughout the island (see the earlier 

discussion of wetlands). 

San Miguel Island

Almost 200 native plant species are known to 

occur on San Miguel. Grassland and isocoma 

scrub are the island’s two most common 

vegetative communities. The dominant 

vegetation community is grassland, which 

occurs on all parts of the island and is 

estimated to cover between 33% and 50% of 

the island. The predominant species are 

nonnative annual wild oats and bromes. 

Perennial native bunchgrasses, such as purple 

needlegrass, grow in small areas toward the 

eastern end of the island. Some grassland 

areas are being invaded by low shrubby 

vegetation, in particular coyotebrush. Isocoma 

scrub, the second most abundant plant 

community, also grows throughout the island, 

on poorly developed thin, rocky, or sandy 

soils. Goldenbush dominates this community. 

It is thought that this community is 

widespread because of the extent of past 

habitat disturbance.

San Miguel is the only island in the park with 

extensive beach and coastal dunes. Two dune 

communities have been identified growing on 

beach and coastal dunes—southern beach and 

dune scrub. Dunes closest to the coast support 

little vegetation beyond sand verbena 

(Abronia maritima) and sea rocket (Cakile 

maritima), a nonnative species. Farther 

inland, away from salt spray, other species 

grow on stabilized sandy areas, including 

beachbur (Ambrosia chamissonis) and beach 

primrose (Camissonia cheiranthifolia ssp. 

cheiranthifolia). Inland dunes that are 

becoming moderately stabilized frequently 

support lush lupine scrub. Silver bush lupine 

(Luinus albifrons var. douglasii) and yellow 

bush lupine (Lupinus arboreus) commonly 

grow in the inland dune areas.

Other vegetative communities on San Miguel 

include shrub communities, coastal bluff 

communities, and riparian woodland 

(previously discussed in the “Wetlands” 

section). Besides isocoma scrub, two other 

shrub communities are found on the island. 

Coastal sage scrub covers 5% to 10% of the 

island and is most extensive on southwestfacing bluff slopes above the coastal terraces 

east and west of Crook Point, where it is 

frequently intermixed with coastal bluff scrub. 

It also is found on some south-facing canyon 

walls, occasionally forming impenetrable 

thickets. California sagebrush is the dominant 

species, with other less prominent species 

being island paintbrush and goldenbush. 

Caliche scrub is extensive on the west end of 

the island; it also occurs in the central portion 

of the island north of San Miguel Hill. San 
Natural Resources

243

Miguel Island locoweed and goldenbush are 

the dominant plant species in caliche. Two 

coastal bluff communities are found on the 

island. Coastal bluff scrub grows on steep, 

rocky cliffs and bluffs where it is exposed to 

severe winds and salt spray. It primarily grows 

in limited, inaccessible areas southwest of 

Harris Point and at Hoffman Point. The 

vegetation is generally low and prostrate. 

Nonnative crystalline iceplant has invaded 

large areas of this habitat. Coreopsis scrub 

grows in a few sites on the northern and 

eastern bluffs. In particular, dense populations 

of giant coreopsis grow on Harris Point, above 

Cuyler Harbor, and at the tops of Hoffman 

and Bay points. Smaller dense populations 

grow on the sides of shallow canyons north of 

Green Mountain. This community also has 

been invaded by crystalline iceplant species. 

Santa Barbara Island

About 88 native plant species have been 

recorded on Santa Barbara. This small island 

is dominated by a nonnative grassland, 

although native shrubs are increasing and 

spreading. More than half the island is 

covered by nonnative grasses – mainly oats 

(Avena spp.), soft chess (Bromus hordaceous), 

and barley (Hordeum). The low-growing 

nonnative sub-shrub Australian saltbush 

(Atriplex semibaccata) is a significant 

component of the grassland in some areas. 

Scattered coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) 

occurs in the grasslands and may represent a 

future succession stage in those areas. A 

variety of shrub communities also grow on the 

island, including boxthorn scrub, cactus 

scrub, Coreopsis scrub, sea cliff scrub, coastal 

sage scrub, and seabite scrub. California 

sagebrush (Artemesia californica) and 

southern island sagebrush (A. nesiotica) are 

recolonizing the south and east sides of the 

island. The cactus scrub community grows on 

warm south-facing slopes of canyons and sea 

cliffs. Disturbed areas and open sites on the 

island are also often dominated by the 

nonnative annual crystalline iceplant 

(Mesembryanthemum crystallinum). However, 

Santa Barbara’s nearly vertical sea cliffs have 

provided a refuge for native plants that have 

been eliminated or reduced in more accessible 

areas; from these seed source areas plants are 

steadily recolonizing the terrace-top 

grasslands. 

Endemic and Rare Plants

A relatively large number of the Channel 

Islands’ plant species are endemic to the 

islands. Most of these island endemics are 

relicts and represent species that once 

occurred on the mainland but for one reason 

or another, perhaps climatic change, are now 

found only on one or more of the Channel 

Islands. Island oak (Quercus tomentella) and 

ironwood (Lyonothamnus floribundus ssp.) are 

examples of this type of endemism. Evidence 

for these species having once grown on the 

mainland comes from an abundant fossil 

record. For a number of island endemics, 

however, there is no mainland fossil record 

and it is presumed that these species have 

evolved from a mainland ancestor that 

successfully established on the islands in the 

past. A list of all of the endemic plant species 

known in the park and on which islands they 

are known to grow is included in appendix E. 

Of the approximately 778 plant taxa known to 

grow in the park, 64 species, subspecies, or 

varieties are endemic to the park; 23 of the 64 

endemics are found on only one island; and 41 

of the endemics are found on more than one 

island. Each of the islands has endemic 

species, ranging between 4% and 10% of the 

total taxa on each island. 

Most of the islands’ endemic species are 

considered rare and 14 are federally listed as 

threatened or endangered.

The coastal bluff, chaparral, coastal sage 

scrub, and mixed woodland communities 

support the most rare plant taxa (NPS 1999). 

These communities occupy sites with unusual 

soils and microclimates, and they tend to 

support species found nowhere else on the 

islands. Coastal bluffs are also fairly 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

244

inaccessible and may have retained certain 

rare taxa that have since been lost from other 

more accessible communities.

Nonnative Plants

Islands generally are vulnerable to invasion of 

nonnative plants. In the case of Channel 

Islands National Park, many nonnative species 

have successfully established and spread 

rapidly on the islands during the past 150 

years. The primary factors responsible for 

their spread were the introduction and 

proliferation of feral sheep and pigs, 

uncontrolled grazing, and browsing by cattle 

and nonnative deer and elk, and the resulting 

destruction of most of the native vegetation 

cover by these animals. (At least 56 of the 

nonnative plants on Santa Cruz are 

documented as being particularly dependent 

on the disturbance caused by the island’s feral 

pigs, ranching and farming activities, and the 

arrival and spread of aggressive nonnative 

plants (NPS 2002a). 

It is estimated that nonnative species comprise 

about 25% of Channel Islands National Park’s 

flora (NPS 1999). About 197 taxa not known 

to be native to California have been 

introduced into the park since European 

contact. Thirteen species are native to the 

California mainland but have been 

accidentally or deliberately introduced to the 

islands. As indicated in Table 22, all of the 

islands have nonnative species, ranging from 

38 species on Santa Barbara (30% of the total 

flora on the island) to about 170 species on 

Santa Cruz (about 26% of the total flora). 

Eleven of Santa Cruz Island’s 88 plant families 

and 82 of its 348 plant genera are represented 

exclusively by nonnative taxa (NPS 2002a). 

These nonnative species have changed the 

overall composition and ground cover of 

many of the park’s vegetation communities; it 

is estimated that nonnative species cover twothirds of the park’s land surface (NPS 1999). 

Many of these species have become 

naturalized and persist tenaciously as part of 

the local flora. Annual grasses have spread 

over all of the islands and are probably the 

most widespread nonnatives. Between 35% 

and 75% of each island is covered by 

nonnative grasslands dominated by 

Mediterranean annual grasses, primarily 

brome (Bromus), barley (Hordeum), fescue 

(Vulpia), and oats (Avena) (McEachern 2004). 

Much of Santa Barbara, Santa Rosa, and San 

Miguel are covered by nonnative grasses. On 

Santa Barbara, more than half of the island is 

covered by nonnative annual oats (Avena), 

brome (Bromus), and barley (Hordeum) 

species. In addition, other nonnative species 

may be poised for a rapid expansion phase in 

the park, such as European olive and Italian 

stone pine on Santa Cruz.

Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), a perennial herb, 

was introduced on Santa Cruz Island in the 

late 1800s. After the removal of cattle and 

sheep, this nonnative plant flourished in much 

of the island’s open, disturbed areas. Dense to 

patchy fennel stands now cover more than 

10% of the island, primarily on the isthmus 

(1,800 acres), but including other parts of the 

island as well. With the removal of feral pigs, 

fennel is now mostly spread along roads, 

trails, and other disturbed areas. This allows 

for the spread of fennel into mostly 

undisturbed coastal sage scrub and annual 

grassland. Although there appears to be 

distinctly separate large stands of fennel 

across the island, roads and pig trails are 

obvious corridors of invasion connecting 

these fennel populations. Eradicating feral 

pigs from the island removed a primary vector 

for this plant’s dispersal and would facilitate 

fennel control throughout the island (NPS 

2002a).

Five species of perennial iceplant 

(Carpobrotus edulis, C. chilense, Malephora 

crocea, Mesesmbryanthemum crystallinum,

and M. nodiflorum) are common nonnative 

species. These species have occupied large 

areas of Santa Barbara, East Anacapa, and to a 

lesser degree San Miguel, in carpetlike mats. 

Two of the iceplant species are very successful 

weeds because they accumulate salts in their 
Natural Resources

245

tissue. When they die, the salts are released 

into the soil, creating salt levels that exceed 

the tolerance of most plants, effectively 

eliminating them.

Several opportunistic species of concern grow 

on the islands that have the potential to 

rapidly colonize available habitat and 

dominate plant communities. These species 

include bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Russian 

thistle (Salsola iberica), and spiny cocklebur 

(Xanthium spinosum). Spread by the wind and 

animals, populations of these species are all 

increasing in size, number, and range. Bull 

thistle, milk thistle, and spiny cocklebur occur 

widely as scattered individuals and in large 

patches. All of these species could form dense 

monotypic stands, completely excluding 

native island species.

Several slow-spreading weed species also 

grow on the islands, including lavatera 

(Lavatera cretica), black mustard (Brassica 

nigra), tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla), kikuyu 

grass (Pennisetum clandestinum), rice grass 

(Piptatherum miliacea), tall fescue (Festuca 

arundinacea), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon 

dactylon). These species are very persistent 

once they become established and can form 

dense populations. Their seeds are spread 

through animal feces, mud on vehicle tires, or 

animals’ feet. Kikuyu grass is particularly

aggressive and has taken over large areas of 

wetlands and riparian banks on Santa Cruz 

(NPS 2003b).

A number of stands of nonnative trees grow 

on NPS lands on Santa Cruz. A grove of olive 

trees and cypress trees are present in the 

Smugglers Cove area. In Cañada del Puerto, a 

significant percentage of the southern riparian 

woodland has been invaded by eucalyptus. 

Several eucalyptus stands are established in 

the lower drainages of Smugglers Cove and 

Scorpion Canyon. Stone pine (Pinus pinea) 

also is present on Santa Cruz, particularly near 

Prisoners Harbor.

The Park Service has taken several actions to 

control or limit the spread of nonnative plants 

in the park. There is a concentrated effort to 

remove perennial iceplant from East Anacapa. 

Occurrences of fennel and yellow star thistle 

were eliminated from Santa Rosa. Twelve 

acres of Red gum eucalyptus in the Prisoners 

Harbor wetland were cut. Efforts have been 

made to eliminate fennel from the Scorpion 

anchorage area and thousands of olive 

saplings have been eliminated from the 

backcountry of Santa Cruz Island. Many 

young stone pines were eliminated from the 

Prisoners Harbor area. A program also is 

under development to educate visitors to the 

dangers of invasive nonnative plants.

In spite of these efforts, Channel Islands 

National Park would always be subject to the 

risk of colonization and recolonization by 

nonnative plants because of transport of 

materials and vehicles to the islands, travel to 

the islands by visitors, and natural processes 

that transport nonnative plant seeds from the 

mainland to the islands.

Vegetation and People

Throughout their entire history of occupation 

on the Channel Islands, people have impacted 

the islands’ vegetation. Possibly the first 

inhabitants affected vegetation through foodgathering activities. They also may have set 

fires to encourage certain plants or to enhance 

access; cut down trees or shrubs for shelter, 

fuel, or making baskets; and deliberately or 

inadvertently introduced new plants to the 

islands.

However, it probably was not until the arrival 

of Europeans and the establishment of 

ranching or farming that the islands’ 

vegetation was substantially altered. Before 

the early 1800s, the islands were most likely 

covered by a mosaic of upland native scrub, 

riparian woodland, and coastal bluff and dune 

scrub interspersed with small native grass 

openings and grassland vegetation (NPS 1999; 

McEachern 2004). The uplands were largely 

shrublands. After Europeans settled on the 

islands, throughout the first half of the 19th
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

246

century the vegetation of all of the islands 

changed due to clearing, burning, plowing, 

and the introduction of livestock, game 

animals, and nonnative plant species. 

Ranching was the predominant land use of the 

islands beginning in the 1830s. Santa Barbara 

Island was grazed by livestock for at least 130 

years. Rabbits were also introduced, which 

foraged on island plants. Middle and West 

Anacapa had sheep ranching. On Santa Cruz, 

sheep were first introduced around 1853. By 

1875 an estimated 60,000 sheep were on the 

island, only half of which could be rounded 

up for shearing annually. From the 1920s to 

the early 1980s Santa Cruz supported the 

largest single population of feral sheep in the 

world (Van Vuren and Coblentz 1989 as cited 

in Pinter and Vestal 2005). By the 1970s, more 

than 263,000 sheep from the island had been 

captured and sent to market or slaughtered. 

Severe overgrazing resulted from this large 

population (NPS 2002a). In addition, 

domestic pigs were introduced, which 

subsequently escaped and became feral. On 

Santa Rosa ranching began during the 1840s. 

Sheep, feral pigs, cattle, horses, elk, and deer 

were introduced and grazed over much of the 

island. As many as 75,000 to 125,000 sheep 

once grazed the island in the 1800s and early 

1900s. It appears that the loss of vegetation 

due to sheep grazing was at least partially 

responsible for the development of major 

dune systems (NPS 1984). On San Miguel 

livestock ranching also occurred. The island 

was extensively overgrazed during the late 

1800s and in the early part of the 20th century. 

Ranching caused rapid and pervasive 

vegetation changes on all of the park islands. 

Land use practices during the ranching era 

resulted in the widespread conversion of 

native shrublands to grasslands, dominated by 

nonnative annual grasses, reduction in the 

extent of woody and succulent plant 

communities, loss of native plant understories 

in woodlands, weed invasion, increased rates 

of soil compaction and soil loss, and a decline 

or extirpation of populations of plant species 

due to the nonnative herbivores. Periodic 

drought exacerbated the effects of livestock 

on the island ecosystems (NPS 1999). On 

Santa Cruz Island, the severe grazing pressure 

that occurred over 150 years adversely 

affected most of the island’s plant 

communities, altering their population 

structure, the natural size and stature of 

dominant species, and species diversity and 

composition. In some areas sheep trails 

stripped the vegetation from up to 7% of the 

landscape (Van Vuren and Coblentz 1989 as 

cited in Pinter and Vestal 2005). Grazing of 

selected plant species reduced the range of 

many native species (e.g., giant coreopsis, 

Northern island hazardia [Hazardia detonsa], 

lupine [Lupinus albifrons], Island 

monkeyflower [Mimulus flemingii]), Bishop 

pine [Pinus muricata]) and increased the range 

and abundance of spiny and other grazingresistant plants (e.g., turkey mullein 

[Eremocarpus setigerus], prickly-pear cactus 

[Opuntia littoralis, O. oricola], and threadleaf 

groundsel [Senecio flaccidus]) (NPS 2002a; 

Pinter and Vestal 2005).

Several other human activities affected the 

islands’ vegetation. Some cultivation of crops 

took place on Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Santa 

Barbara, and San Miguel. Vegetation on East 

Anacapa was altered by a Coast Guard station 

and the introduction of iceplant for erosion 

control. Extensive road systems were built on 

Santa Rosa, San Miguel, and Santa Cruz. In 

addition, the vegetation of parts of Santa Rosa, 

San Miguel, and Santa Cruz was affected by 

military activities, including the construction 

of facilities on the islands and bombing 

practice/military exercises on San Miguel. 

On Santa Rosa, the phased removal of 

nonnative ungulates is resulting in slow but 

steady recovery of island vegetation, improved 

water quality, and reduced soil erosion. 

Nonnative deer and elk, introduced for 

hunting, continue to alter the island’s 

vegetation, particularly in the woodland and 

chaparral communities. The physical 

condition of the remnant chaparral habitats 

has been modified by grazing that has altered 

understory species composition, and by 
Natural Resources

247

browsing that has pruned shrubs into 

unnatural, tree-like shapes, and all but 

eliminated the establishment and survival of 

new plants. In particular, deer have intensively 

browsed and affected the flowering and seed 

production of the Santa Rosa Island 

manzanita (D. Rodriguez, Channel Islands 

National Park, pers. comm. 2011). The 

continued browsing by deer and elk on Santa 

Rosa Island has created an open “skeleton” 

community, crossed by game trails, resulting 

in herbivore access to nearly 100% of the 

habitat (Hochberg et al. 1980; Tim Thomas, 

USFWS, pers. obs. 1993, both cited in NPS 

1999). In contrast, historic reports on the 

conditions of the islands relate that the 

brushlands were impenetrable (Hochberg et 

al. 1980 cited in NPS 1999). Island woodlands 

also have been heavily affected by grazing, 

browsing, and rooting animals seeking 

summer shelter and food (Clark et al. 1990; 

Halvorson 1993, both cited in NPS 1999). 

Several researchers (Clark et al. 1990; 

Bartolome 1991; Veirs 1991, all cited in NPS 

1999) report that Bishop pine forests on Santa 

Rosa have been affected by grazing. Clark et 

al. (1990) noted that the pine forests subjected 

to grazing lack the protective nutrient layer of 

ground litter and exhibit no reproduction. 

Veirs believed that the effect of browsing on 

regeneration, combined with the high natural 

mortality of P. muricata, placed the Bishop 

pine community at risk. Deer browse has been 

observed to reduce most of the shrubs in the 

Carrington Point stand to stem tissue (C. 

Lombardo, pers. comm. 1995, as cited in NPS 

1999).

As a result of human actions, livestock 

overgrazing, and the spread of nonnative 

species, many changes have occurred to the 

native vegetative communities (NPS 1999; 

USFWS 2000; McEachern 2004). Many of the 

shrubland species that occurred on the 

uplands were confined to the steep, 

inaccessible bluffs. The grasslands have 

greatly expanded at the expense of most other 

habitat types, and are mostly comprised of 

nonnative annual species. Intensive grazing 

and ranching practices reduced the build-up 

of fuels for fires. However, the removal of 

grazing in the grass-dominated landscapes; 

increased human activities (including illegal 

campfires, smoking, and park maintenance 

activities); and changes in fuel conditions now 

pose fire hazard conditions that were never 

previously present on the islands. 

Much woody vegetation has been lost from 

the islands during the last 100 years. There has 

been very little evidence of reproduction of 

native tree species due mostly to past livestock 

grazing and browsing, and to a lesser extent, 

rooting by feral pigs. The original extent of 

coastal sage scrub, which has soft-stemmed 

plants that are palatable to browsers and 

grazers, was reduced so much by overgrazing

that up until recently it persisted only in 

inaccessible locations, such as bluffs and 

canyon walls on some islands. Riparian 

communities were heavily grazed. Wetlands 

were altered by efforts to channel streams, 

create uplands for buildings, and control 

flooding in coastal areas. In many areas the 

native riparian plant species were locally 

extirpated and replaced by nonnative weedy 

plants and grasses or were denuded of 

vegetation. The distribution, size, and physical 

condition of chaparral habitats have been 

modified; grazing has changed the understory 

composition, and browsing has pruned shrubs 

into unnatural arborescent or tree-like shapes. 

Island woodlands have been heavily affected 

by grazing, browsing, and rooting animals 

seeking shelter and food. 

The only communities that have largely 

escaped human and livestock disturbance and 

still appear relatively undisturbed are those in 

inaccessible areas, such as steep slopes and 

coastal bluffs. Coastal beach and associated 

dune habitats also appear to be relatively 

undisturbed compared to their counterparts 

on the mainland, where development and 

recreation have largely eliminated them.

Since the Park Service (and The Nature 

Conservancy on Santa Cruz) began managing 

the islands’ resources by removing nonnative

herbivores, rehabilitating eroded areas, 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

248

planting native vegetation, and taking action 

to control nonnative species, several plant 

communities are recovering. In particular, 

with the removal of nonnative grazers on 

Anacapa and San Miguel islands, the coastal 

sage scrub habitat has increased in extent. On 

San Miguel Island, much of the native 

vegetation has recovered dramatically since all 

introduced herbivores were removed in 1977. 

On Santa Cruz Island, dramatic increases in 

both the variety and density of vegetation have 

occurred since sheep were removed (Pinter 

and Vestal 2005). On both Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands, it is believed in the absence 

of grazing that native shrub communities, 

such as coastal sage scrub and island 

chaparral, would recolonize much of the areas 

now dominated by annual grasses. 

Climate Change and Terrestrial Vegetation

Climate change is likely affecting, and would 

continue to affect, the islands’ vegetation, 

although the rate and magnitude of specific 

vegetation changes are not known. Climate 

change is expected to cause increased air 

temperatures, alteration of precipitation 

patterns, alteration of fog regimes, a rise in sea 

level, changes in marine currents, altered 

species distributions and phenology, and 

alteration in the recurrence and intensity of 

storms— all of which can affect the park’s 

terrestrial vegetation. 

Changes in temperature and precipitation are 

two environmental factors that directly affect 

plants, including distribution, growth, and 

reproduction. Global climate models indicate 

temperatures are going to increase and total 

annual precipitation is going to decrease in the 

northern Channel Islands by the end of the 

century (TNC 2009). Future July maximum 

temperatures are projected to be greater than 

99 of the 100 years in the 20th century, while 

future total annual precipitation in the 

northern Channel Islands is projected to be 

less than 54 out of the 100 years in the 20th 

century. These changes are likely to result in 

moderate drought stress and high heat stress, 

which in turn can directly and indirectly affect 

plant survival (e.g., increase some plants’ 

vulnerability to pests). Increased temperatures 

can also result in the spread of more heattolerant nonnative species, such as grasses, 

which typically have a higher tolerance for a 

wide range of environmental conditions than 

native species (Largier et al. 2010).

Other changes associated with climate that 

could affect the islands’ plants include:

• potential for timing disruptions between 

pollinators and plants

• increased potential for wildfires due to 

vegetation drying out and increased 

flammability

• potential for changes in fog regimes, 

which in turn can affect plant growth and 

establishment

• rise in sea levels, affecting vegetation on 

dunes, beaches, and rocky habitats

• changes in precipitation and salt spray 

may modify soil salinity and thus affect the 

composition of beach and dune plant 

communities

• increased erosion of cliffs and hillsides 

due to larger waves from winter storms 

and higher water levels, affecting the 

physical habitat of plants (all of the 

Channel Islands have been classified as 

moderately vulnerable to shoreline 

erosion or accretion (U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) 2005)

• potential for floods due to more intensive 

storms

(California Natural Resources Agency 2009; 

Wilkinson 2002; Largier et al. 2010; 

McEachern et al. 2009).

Many Channel Islands species are at their 

northern or southern range limits, and any of 

the above changes may be enough to extirpate 

them on the islands. In addition, endemic 

species on the islands have limited 

distributions and have no place else to go in 

response to changes in climate. In other 

words, climate change could result in major 
Natural Resources

249

changes to the park’s flora due to the lack of 

connectivity and endemic nature of many of 

the park’s plants. 

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE, 

SEABIRDS, AND PINNIPEDS

Native Terrestrial Animals

Because of their isolation and remote nature, 

the Channel Islands support fewer native 

animal species than similar habitats on the 

mainland. Species that reached the islands 

could fly, such as birds and bats, or rafted 

across the water on debris and other material. 

Over time some vertebrate species evolved 

into distinct subspecies on the islands. For 

example, the deer mouse and island fox are 

recognized as distinct subspecies on their 

respective islands. A total of 23 endemic 

terrestrial animals have been identified in the 

park, including 11 landbirds, that are Channel 

Island subspecies or races (see tables E-2 and 

E-3 in appendix E). 

A small amount of data exists on terrestrial 

invertebrate fauna populations on the islands. 

Miller (1979) reported the results of a 

preliminary survey of dominant insects on 

Anacapa, San Miguel, and Santa Barbara 

islands. A total of 97 insect species and 

relatives were included on a provisional list 

for Anacapa Island, 183 for San Miguel Island, 

and 123 for Santa Barbara Island. Hochberg 

(1979) reported that the three islands 

supported eight species of land snails. A 1989 

survey reported 137 species of insects and 

other arthropods on Anacapa Island (NPS 

2000a). 

A total of 68 native terrestrial vertebrate 

species have been recorded in the park, 

including 3 amphibian, 6 reptile, 2 rodent, 2 

carnivore, 11 bat, and 46 breeding landbird 

species (see appendix E for a list of terrestrial 

vertebrate and landbird species). (This 

number does not include nonnative species or 

migratory birds.) 

Landbird populations and species 

compositions on the islands can change from 

year to year, depending on mainland species 

that reach the islands, changes in habitats, 

competitors or predators that arrive or leave 

the islands, or areas that are disturbed by 

people. Most of the bird species probably 

have experienced a loss of preferred food and 

shelter due to the alteration of the islands’ 

scrub habitats (NPS 1980a). 

Although not all listed in table E-3 in appendix 

E, many shorebirds use the park; 30 species 

have been recorded (NPS 2000a). The park’s 

islands, Santa Rosa Island in particular, are an 

important wintering area and stopover point. 

Common wintering shorebirds include willet 

(Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), wandering 

tattler (Heteroscelus incanus), whimbrel 

(Numenius phaeopus), black turnstone 

(Arenaria melanocephala), and sanderling 

(Calidris alba). 

Nine raptor species live in the park and are 

primarily seen on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands. Hawks and owls also occur 

intermittently on Anacapa, San Miguel, and 

Santa Barbara islands, which have limited 

habitat to support these birds.

Several bird species disappeared from the 

park during the 20th century. An endemic 

subspecies of song sparrow (Melospiza 

melodia graminea) on Santa Barbara was 

driven to extinction due to habitat destruction 

by introduced rabbits, direct predation by 

feral cats, and a fire in 1959 that destroyed 

much of its habitat. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) and peregrine falcons (Falco 

peregrinus anatum) also formerly bred on the 

islands, but largely disappeared due to 

harassment, shooting, egg stealing, and 

reproductive failure caused by organochlorine 

pesticides, such as DDT. However, both of 

these species are making a comeback due to 

reintroduction efforts. Peregrines were 

reintroduced on the islands in the 1980s, and 

currently about 10 active peregrine falcon 

nests are in the park. Bald eagles were 

reintroduced on Santa Cruz Island beginning 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

250

in 2002 (MSRP) and are now successfully 

nesting on Santa Cruz (five nests) and Santa 

Rosa islands (two nests). In 2011, a pair of 

bald eagles nested for the first time on 

Anacapa Island.

Golden eagles were live captured and 

removed from the park because golden eagle 

predation was responsible for the massive 

island fox decline from 1994 to 2000. Until 

recently, golden eagles never bred on the 

Channel Islands. The golden eagles are able to 

exist in the park because of feral pigs on Santa 

Cruz Island, and because bald eagles no longer 

are present to deter them (NPS 2002a, 2002b). 

Golden eagles were discovered in the winter 

of 2002–03 to also be nesting on Santa Rosa. 

Since the elimination of feral pigs from Santa 

Cruz Island in 2006, the level of predation of 

golden eagles on island foxes has dropped 

dramatically.

Bats are the largest group of native mammals 

on the islands, with 11 species recorded just 

on Santa Cruz Island. Four bat species have 

been found on both Santa Rosa and Santa 

Barbara islands, and none on Anacapa or San 

Miguel island (see table E-2 in appendix E). 

Two additional bat species, hoary and 

Mexican free-tailed bats, were recorded 

during a September 2003 survey, although 

they were thought to be migrating through the 

area (Lisa Gelczis, research assistant, 

Southwest Biological Science Center, pers. 

comm. January 2004). Of the 11 species 

recorded from park islands, three are 

breeding, year-round residents—Townsend’s 

western big-eared bat, pallid bat, and 

California myotis. 

Although they have not been well studied in 

the park, in part due to their reclusive nature, 

bats play important roles as insectivores. The 

Townsend’s western big-eared bat colony on 

Santa Cruz Island is one of the few remaining 

breeding colonies of this species in southern 

California, where it has suffered serious 

declines (Charles Drost, USGS, pers. comm. 

March 4, 2004). A two-year bat inventory 

project currently underway would better 

define the bat fauna found on the islands. It is 

possible that several additional bat species 

occur on the islands, such as several species of 

myotis and free-tailed bats (Tadarida 

brasilensis) (Brown 1980; von Bloeker 1967). 

Almost all of the native habitats on the islands 

have been altered to some degree by human 

land use practices, a situation that in turn 

affects native wildlife that evolved in the 

absence of these impacts. Areas that closely 

resemble native habitat are therefore 

especially important for terrestrial animals. 

Riparian, coastal scrub, oak woodland, and

chaparral habitats in particular support 

representative populations of landbirds, 

salamanders, snakes, lizards, and bats. 

Anacapa Island. Anacapa is a small island 

and consequently supports relatively few 

natural terrestrial animal species. However, 

the island supports a number of endemics, 

including one snail species, 18 arthropod 

species, one salamander subspecies, and one 

deer mouse subspecies. Seven landbird taxa 

also are recognized as endemic subspecies, 

occurring only on Anacapa and one or more 

of the other Channel Islands (NPS 2000a). 

Studies of invertebrates conducted in 1989 

identified 2 snail species, 130 insect species, 

and 7 other arthropod species, for a total of 

139 species (NPS 2000a). The trends for these 

invertebrate populations are not known.

One native amphibian, the Pacific slender 

salamander (Batrachoseps pacificus pacificus), 

and two native lizards, the side-blotched 

lizard (Uta stansburiana) and the southern 

alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinatus), live on 

Anacapa Island.

Eighteen landbird species are known to breed 

on Anacapa, including peregrine falcons on 

West Anacapa. Common species found there 

include orange-crowned warbler and rock 

wren. West Anacapa provides the best 

landbird habitat of the three Anacapa islets 

due to its greater topography and more 

extensive stands of native shrub vegetation, 
Natural Resources

251

including coastal sage scrub and coreopsis 

scrub.

One native mammal species occurs on 

Anacapa, an endemic subspecies of deer 

mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus anacapae). 

Like Santa Barbara, this species is an abundant 

generalist, the population of which fluctuates 

from season to season and year to year. 

Between 1993 and 1999, the average deer 

mouse density was 27 mice per hectare in the 

spring and 200 mice per hectare in the fall 

(NPS 2001b). The application of rodenticide 

in 2001 on East Anacapa and in 2002 on 

Middle and West Anacapa to eliminate black 

rats from the island had major short-term 

impacts on the mouse populations on those 

islets. However, the mitigation measures 

ensured protection of the subspecies (Howald 

et al. 2005). Ongoing monitoring of deer 

mouse populations endemic to the Anacapa 

island chain indicate that numbers have been 

fully restored to pre-rat eradication levels.

Santa Cruz Island. Santa Cruz is the largest 

island in the park, and consistent with the 

theory of island biogeography, supports more 

terrestrial wildlife species than the other 

islands. In addition to its area, Santa Cruz 

Island displays the greatest diversity of 

vegetation and topography of all of the park 

islands. The island harbors several species that 

are endemic to the island or the Channel 

Islands, including 1 amphibian, 2 reptile, 4 

mammal, and 10 landbird species (see tables 

E-2 and E-3 in appendix E). 

Distinctions have not been made between 

species that inhabit NPS lands and those that 

live on lands managed by The Nature 

Conservancy. Wildlife surveys also have not 

been conducted for the isthmus, which was 

recently acquired by the park, although an 

ongoing herpetological inventory (reptiles and 

amphibians) includes this area. All of the 

native vertebrate species on Santa Cruz Island 

are known across the island. 

Like all of the Channel Islands, the 

invertebrate fauna of Santa Cruz Island is not 

well studied. Of about 750 species of 

lepidopterans (butterflies and moths) known 

on the Channel Islands, about 550 of species 

were reported on Santa Cruz. Fourteen of 

these species were endemic to one or more of 

the Channel Islands. The native bee fauna is 

more diverse on this island than on the other 

Channel Islands due to the island’s size, 

elevations, topographical diversity, and 

habitat variability (NPS 2002a).

Five reptile and three amphibian species have 

been recorded on Santa Cruz Island. The 

Channel Islands slender salamander 

(Batrachoseps pacificus pacificus) and the 

island fence lizard (Sceloorus occidentalis 

beckii) are endemic to the Channel Islands. 

The Santa Cruz gopher snake (Pituophis 

catenifer pumilus) and Pacific tree frog occur 

only on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa. The 

yellow-bellied racer and the black-belly 

slender salamander only occur on Santa Cruz. 

These animals occur in scattered areas and in 

limited numbers on the islands. The 

salamanders should be found in most habitats. 

Very little is known about the snake.

Forty-four native landbird species are known 

to breed on Santa Cruz Island. Being the most 

topographically and ecologically diverse of the 

park islands, Santa Cruz has a greater diversity 

of breeding landbirds than the other islands. 

Extensive riparian areas, oak woodlands, 

chaparral, and pine forests provide habitat for 

acorn woodpeckers, red-breasted nuthatches, 

northern flickers, and the endemic island 

scrub-jay, as well as pacific-slope flycatchers, 

black phoebes, and spotted towhees. 

Introduced stands of eucalyptus also provide 

breeding habitat for northern saw-whet owls. 

Eight subspecies are endemic to Santa Cruz 

Island and one or more of the other northern 

Channel Islands, while the island scrub-jay 

(Aphelocoma insularis) lives only on Santa 

Cruz Island. Three of the endemic subspecies 

(horned lark, rufous-crowned sparrow, and 

loggerhead shrike) exist at low population 

levels. Several pairs of peregrine falcons breed 

annually on the island (NPS 2002a).
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

252

Fifteen mammal species are known to live on 

the island, giving this island the distinction of 

being the richest island in wildlife diversity of 

the northern Channel Islands. The relatively 

large size of the island and the diversity of 

habitats it supports allow for a relative 

abundance of terrestrial wildlife species to 

thrive on Santa Cruz Island. The deer mouse is 

the most common mammal species. Bat 

surveys conducted on the Channel Islands 

have detected the presence of 11 species of 

bats in the park (von Bloeker 1967; Brown 

1980; Brown et al. 1994; Drost 2003). All of the 

species currently recorded from the park 

occur on Santa Cruz Island, suggesting the 

presence of much suitable habitat for bats on 

that island. 

The historic masonry building at Scorpion 

Valley on Santa Cruz Island supports one of 

the few remaining known maternity colonies 

for Townsend’s western big-eared bats 

(Corynorhinus townsendii) in California, and 

the only know colony on the islands. This 

species, which is recognized as a species of 

special concern by the state of California, is 

becoming increasingly rare as historic roosts 

and maternity colony sites are lost to 

development and disturbance. The only 

known big-eared bat colonies along the 

California coast are in human-built structures. 

(A roosting site at Prisoners Harbor was torn 

down in the mid-1960s.) If the Scorpion 

structure was made unavailable or unusable 

for the bats, and alternative appropriate sites 

were not provided, it is almost certain that the 

species would be lost from the islands.

Three mammal subspecies occur only on 

Santa Cruz Island—Santa Cruz deer mouse, 

Santa Cruz Island harvest mouse, and Santa 

Cruz island fox. Widespread small mammal 

monitoring has not been conducted on Santa 

Cruz Island, although endemic deer mice 

(Peromyscus maniculatus santacruzae) would 

predictably be found in all habitat types on the 

island.

The island spotted skunk is only present on 

Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands. (It once 

occurred on San Miguel Island, but was 

extirpated from that island.) The skunks are 

nocturnal carnivores, preferring ravines, and 

to a lesser extent chaparral and grasslands. A 

direct competitor of the island fox, the 

endemic spotted skunk has always been a 

common species on Santa Cruz Island. 

Santa Rosa Island. Like Santa Cruz, Santa 

Rosa Island has a rich diversity of terrestrial 

wildlife due to its large size, topographic 

variety, and diversity of vegetative 

communities. However, the native animals of 

this island have been less studied than on most 

of the other islands. Two amphibian, three 

reptile, and four mammal species reside on 

Santa Rosa Island (table E-2 in appendix E). 

Like all of the islands, mice are the most 

common mammals found on Santa Rosa 

Island. Two subspecies, the Santa Rosa deer 

mouse and Santa Rosa Island fox, are endemic 

to this island, while the Channel Islands 

slender salamander, island fence lizard, Santa 

Cruz gopher snake, and island spotted skunk 

are endemic to Santa Rosa Island and one or 

more other Channel Islands. The population 

dynamics and distribution of deer mice have 

never been quantified for Santa Rosa Island, 

but research on other islands and 

observations strongly suggest that mice are 

widespread on the island. 

The spotted skunk, a direct competitor of the 

island fox, has always been a common species 

on Santa Rosa Island. Spotted skunks inhabit 

brush and woodland areas, and also have been 

found in association with buildings. Gopher 

snakes are found in low numbers in a variety 

of habitats. Western fence lizards are found in 

scattered areas throughout the island. Pacific 

tree frogs are found in all canyons that have 

standing pools or slow-moving streams, and 

Pacific slender salamanders are most 

commonly found in moist canyon settings. Bat 

surveys conducted in fall 2003 on Santa Rosa 

Island recorded four species of bat (hoary, 

Mexican free-tailed, Townsend’s, and 

California myotis). It is likely that California 

myotis bats roost in buildings on the island 

and in natural crevices of steep slopes and 
Natural Resources

253

canyon walls, with other bat species most 

likely being detected during their annual 

migration (Lisa Gelczis, research assistant, 

Southwest Biological Science Center, pers. 

comm. January 2004). 

Santa Rosa Island supports a relatively diverse 

landbird population. The island is an 

important wintering ground and migration 

stopover for many birds. A total of 57 species

were recorded from 1993 to 2000 on the 

island (NPS 2001a). Thirty species have been 

observed to breed on the island, including 

peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and western 

snowy plovers. None of these birds are 

endemic just to Santa Rosa Island; however, 

eight subspecies occur only here and on one 

or more of the other Channel Islands (table E3 in appendix E). Riparian habitats on the 

island generally are richer in bird abundance 

and diversity. Areas of special concern for 

landbirds (and other animals) include all 

island woodlands, all riparian areas, the 

estuary area, and the thick scrub and mixed 

woodland areas of the island canyons, 

particularly Cherry Canyon, Water Canyon, 

Lobo Canyon, and Windmill Canyon (NPS 

1995a).

San Miguel Island. In a report by the U.S. 

Navy (2002), 1 land snail and 24 species of 

arthropods and insects were reported to 

reside on San Miguel Island, all of which are 

endemic either to San Miguel or the Channel 

Islands. However, this list is incomplete. 

Other invertebrates that have been 

documented on the island include the 

California blunt top snail (Vertigo californica 

longa) and 162 species of lepidoptera 

(butterflies and moths) (I. Williams, NPS park 

ranger, pers. comm. December 6, 2002). In a 

1978–79 survey of insects and relatives, Miller 

(1979) reported more than 180 species on San 

Miguel Island. Additional species almost 

certainly exist on the island but have not yet 

been identified.

One native amphibian, two reptile, and two 

mammal species occur on San Miguel Island. 

(There are probably also some bat 

populations, although they are undocumented 

(I. Williams, pers. comm. December 6, 2002). 

With the exception of the southern alligator 

lizard, all of these animals are endemic to the 

Channel Islands. The San Miguel deer mouse 

and San Miguel island fox only occur on this 

island. Deer mice are found in all habitats on 

San Miguel Island, and are particularly dense 

in lupine scrub habitat. The other terrestrial 

animals generally are believed to occur in 

scattered small populations on the island. 

A total of 48 species of landbirds were 

recorded from 1993 to 2000 on San Miguel 

Island (NPS 2001a). Eighteen species of native 

landbirds are known to be breeding on San 

Miguel Island. Common breeding species 

include Allen’s hummingbird, San Miguel 

song sparrow, house finch, horned lark, 

orange-crowned warbler, western 

meadowlark, and lesser goldfinch. Less 

common breeders include red-tailed hawk, 

American kestrel, peregrine falcon, barn 

swallow, black phoebe, rock wren, and barn 

owl. The San Miguel song sparrow only 

occurs on this island, while four other 

subspecies are endemic to San Miguel Island 

and one or more other Channel Islands (table 

E-3 in appendix E). The song sparrow 

generally is found in coastal sage scrub on 

windswept slopes and in brushy ravines. It is 

estimated that the island population is in the 

order of 7,000 to 15,000 individuals (U.S. 

Navy 2002).

Riparian areas on San Miguel Island are 

important habitats for providing shelter from 

the wind, and in many cases, sources of fresh

water. Habitat areas that are more reminiscent 

of native island vegetation, such as the Cuyler 

Bluffs area, Harris Point, and Nidever 

Canyon, are also important. The rocky cliffs 

along the shoreline provide habitat for 

peregrine falcon nests and roosts. Certain 

beaches are also important for wildlife, such 

as western snowy plover.

Santa Barbara Island. Relatively few native 

terrestrial animal species occur on Santa 

Barbara Island. Endemic species that occur 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

254

here include the federally threatened island 

night lizard (Xantusia riversiana) and a 

subspecies of deer mouse (Peromyscus 

maniculatus elusus). In addition, the island 

supports a high diversity of land mollusks, 

with six snail species. They are found only 

where there is adequate shelter (vegetation, 

soils, and rocks); a source of calcium for shell 

building; and moisture, which triggers activity 

following the onset of winter rains. 

A total of 50 species of landbirds were 

recorded on Santa Barbara Island between 

1993 and 2000, of which 7 to 23 species were 

observed in the spring and 15 to 26 in the fall 

(NPS 2001a). Eleven species have been 

observed breeding, including peregrine 

falcons and burrowing owls (Athene 

cunicularia). Common species include 

orange-crowned warblers (frequently found 

in coreopsis in the canyons), rock wrens (on 

cliffs), and western meadowlarks (in 

grasslands). These species numbers are 

probably increasing on the island as the 

vegetation generally recovers. Santa Barbara 

Island also is well known for its landbird 

migrations in the spring and fall.

The island’s only terrestrial mammal is a 

subspecies of deer mouse. Indeed, this species 

may be more dense here than anywhere else in 

the world (Drost and Fellers 1991; NPS 

2001b). The Santa Barbara Island mouse 

population experiences large fluctuations in 

population levels likely related to annual 

rainfall, predation pressure, and season (Drost 

and Fellers 1991). Mice play a major role in 

the Santa Barbara Island ecosystem, both as 

prey for resident birds of prey and as plant 

predators, and several ongoing studies would 

further define the impacts of mice on seabirds 

and vegetation. 

The hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) is the only 

other native mammal on the island.

Seabirds

Channel Islands National Park is recognized 

as an important breeding and resting area for a 

variety of seabirds. The rich marine food 

sources and isolated islands support 

numerous colonies of seabirds. The park’s 

colonies and surrounding waters that are used 

for foraging are vital for the survival of several 

seabird species. Although the mainland may 

provide roosting areas, in most cases, seabirds 

depend on the park islands for breeding and 

nesting. Collectively, the islands constitute a 

major seabird breeding area in the eastern 

north Pacific, the largest such area in the

United States south of the Farallon Islands 

(NPS 1980b). For example, 50% of the world’s 

population of ashy storm-petrels and western 

gulls, 95% of the U.S. breeding population of 

Scripp’s murrelets (33.5% of the world’s 

population and the only breeding ground 

north of Mexico), and the only major 

breeding population of California brown 

pelicans in the U.S. occur in the park 

(CDF&G Marine Resources Division 2002; 

NPS 1999). Hunt et al. (1980) called these 

islands the most important seabird colonies in 

southern California. Jones et al. (1989) noted 

that the particular association of northern and 

southern species found here is not duplicated 

anywhere else in the world. 

Thirteen species are known to breed in 

Channel Islands National Park (table E-4 in 

appendix E), but many more species use the 

islands and/or park waters during migrations 

and in the winter. Western gulls are the most 

abundant breeding seabird in the park, with a 

population estimated at more than 15,000 

pairs, followed by Cassin’s auklet 

(approximately 12,600 pairs), brown pelican 

(more than 7,000 pairs), Brandt’s cormorant 

(approximately 4,200 pairs), and Scripp’s

murrelet (850 to 2,450 pairs). About 3,100 

pairs of Ashy storm-petrels, 3,200 pairs of 

pigeon guillemont, 2,700 pairs of pelagic 

cormorants, and 640 pairs of double-crested 

cormorants are estimated to breed on the 

islands. Five species have breeding 

populations of roughly 300 pairs or less—
Natural Resources

255

Leach’s and black storm-petrels, doublecrested cormorants, rhinoceros auklet, and 

tufted puffin (P. Martin, NPS seabird 

biologist, pers. comm. November 26, 2002; M. 

Naughton, USFWS, seabird biologist, pers. 

comm. March 31, 2004; Carter et al. 2004; 

Carter et al. 1992; Burkett et al. 2003). 

Common murres bred on Prince Island in 

2011.

Certain traditional areas on the islands are 

used by the birds for nesting and roosting, but 

there is some annual variation in the exact 

areas used. Roosting occurs throughout the 

year, while breeding generally occurs from 

March to August, often in areas traditionally 

used as roosting sites. Some species (Scripp’s

murrelet, the storm-petrels, Cassin’s auklet) 

come ashore only to breed, remaining at sea 

the remainder of the year. Generally, most 

seabirds nest in densely crowded colonies. 

The colonies on the Channel Islands tend to 

be in areas relatively free from disturbance, 

often inaccessible bluffs and cliffs, and ledges 

in dry sea caves. However, species have 

differing tolerances to disturbance. Western 

gulls, for instance, can habituate to visitors 

and nest near heavily used trails and facilities. 

Factors contributing to the selection of 

traditionally used roosting and breeding areas 

include absence of terrestrial predators, 

freedom from human disturbance, exposure 

to cooling northwest winds, presence of 

suitable nesting substrate, and availability of 

preferred prey species. Cormorants nest on 

hard ground on steep vegetated slopes or on 

cliffs. Scripp’s murrelets nest primarily in 

natural rock crevices along steep edges 

around the periphery of islands. Auklets and 

murrelets nest in rocky crevices and burrows 

dug into rocky soil. Murrelets also nest under 

bushes and in sea caves, along the walls. Nests 

that are monitored are those concentrated in 

canyons that contain rocky substrate and 

Eriophyllum bushes, although there are many 

nests on vertical cliffs as well. Nests may also 

be under buildings and other human artifacts 

that offer sufficient cover. Cassin’s auklets 

usually nest in dense colonies in rock crevices 

and in burrows they dig in rocky compacted 

soil. All of the other petrels and alcids (blackand-white, short-necked, web-footed diving 

birds of the northern seas that come to land 

only to nest in colonies) nest in natural 

crevices. Ashy storm-petrels use crevices and 

ledges in large sea caves for nesting. Black 

storm-petrels nest in natural crannies and 

recesses but seem to prefer burrows excavated 

by Cassin’s auklets or other storm-petrels. 

Rhinoceros auklets and tufted puffins also 

breed in crevices in the park. Western gull 

colonies are usually found on the exposed 

north and northwest sides of islands on rocky 

cliffs or headlands and are almost always 

associated with vegetation. California brown 

pelicans nest sites are on steep, rocky slopes 

and bluff edges. Pigeon guillemots breed 

colonially or solitarily in caverns or damp 

northern exposure sea cliffs and slopes. 

The nesting birds now found at the park in 

some cases are remnants of much larger 

populations. Many of these species are 

extremely sensitive to human disturbance, 

including Ashy storm-petrels, Cassin’s auklets, 

and Scripp’s murrelets. Disturbance can result 

in nest desertion and increased mortality. 

When adults are disturbed, they may knock 

eggs and chicks off their nests or leave them 

vulnerable to predators. For example, a single 

disturbance can flush a cormorant colony 

from their nests, resulting in a total 

reproductive failure (NPS 1980b). Fishing 

operations also can affect seabirds. Alcids 

(puffins, auklets, murrelets) and storm-petrels 

may be affected by ancillary fishing activities, 

such as the presence of vessels, generators, 

lights, and noise, near rookeries and nesting 

sites. In 1999 a large increase in nighttime 

squid fishery boat activity on park waters 

during the breeding season was believed 

responsible for increased mortality rates of 

Scripp’s murrelets and likely other alcids and 

Ashy and black storm-petrels. The bright 

lights of the vessels increase predation of the 

seabirds and may disorient the birds and cause 

them to crash into the vessels, injuring or 

killing them (CDF&G Marine Resources 

Division 2005). But it also should be noted 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

256

that some of the park’s seabird populations 

have increased due to the removal of 

predators such as black rats and cats and the 

banning of DDT.

Each of the park’s islands supports seabird 

colonies, with various species using different 

islands. However, Anacapa, San Miguel and its 

two small islets (Prince Island and Castle 

Rock), and Santa Barbara islands are 

especially important breeding areas for 

seabirds.

Anacapa Island. Carter et al. (1992) reported 

that 11,107 pairs of seabirds were on Anacapa 

Island in 1991. West Anacapa supports the 

largest California brown pelican nesting 

colony in the western United States (some 

6,000 pairs; P. Martin, pers. comm. November 

26, 2002). One of the largest western gull 

colonies in the Channel Islands is on Middle 

Anacapa. Other seabirds that breed on 

Anacapa’s three islets include Scripp’s

murrelet; Cassin’s auklet; pigeon guillemot; 

and Brandt’s, double-crested, and pelagic 

cormorants (table E-4 in appendix E). The 

presence of black rats likely resulted in 

substantial mortality to nesting seabirds. With 

the recent eradication of black rats on the 

island, it is expected that the island’s seabird 

populations would increase, and crevice and 

burrow nesters such as Scripp’s murrelets, 

Cassin’s auklets, and storm-petrel species may 

make more use of the island. There is no 

historical evidence of Ashy storm-petrels 

nesting on Anacapa Island; however, nests can 

be difficult to locate if they occur in deep 

crevices, cliffs, and steep bluffs (McChesney 

et al. 2000). Ashy storm-petrels have been 

detected in previous nocturnal mist-netting 

surveys on the island (B. McIver, USFWS, 

pers. comm. April 6, 2004). Fifty Scripp’s

murrelet nests were recorded on the island 

and in sea caves in 2009 with a hatching 

success rate of 89%. Nesting activity and 

success has increased substantially since the 

rat eradication.

Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands.

Although both of these islands do not support 

seabird colonies as big as Anacapa, San 

Miguel, and Santa Barbara islands, they do 

support a number of colonies. Most of the 

colonies either are on bluffs on the islands, in 

sea caves, or on rocks offshore of the islands. 

Carter et al. (1992) reported there were 3,752 

pairs of seabirds on Santa Cruz Island and 

3,149 pairs on Santa Rosa Island in 1991. Santa 

Cruz Island supports seven nesting seabird 

species, including California brown pelican 

and Scripp’s murrelet, while Santa Rosa Island 

has four nesting species. Santa Cruz Island 

sustains one of the most important breeding 

colonies of Ashy storm-petrels in southern 

California. Large numbers of these birds nest 

in sea caves and are likely more vulnerable to 

human disturbance from visitors than at any 

other nesting location (B. McIver, USFWS, 

pers. comm. April 16, 2004). Santa Cruz Island 

also has several small cormorant colonies and 

a small gull colony on Gull Rock just off the 

island. In addition, there are auklets breeding 

on some of the rocks offshore of Santa Cruz 

Island, and murrelets have been found in the 

dry sea caves.

San Miguel Island. San Miguel Island, and 

more importantly its two small offshore islets 

(Prince Island and Castle Rock), support the 

largest and most diverse seabird colonies in 

the Channel Islands. Sixty percent of the 

seabirds nesting in the Channel Islands and 11 

of the 13 species that breed in the park occur 

on San Miguel Island and its islets (table E-4 in 

appendix E). Hunt et al. (1980) observed that 

San Miguel Island and its islets (particularly 

Prince Island and Castle Rock) support by far 

the largest and one of the most diverse seabird 

colonies in southern California. They further 

noted that 7 of the 11 species that breed in the 

Southern California Bight have their most 

important colonies here (Leach’s and Ashy 

storm-petrel; Brandt’s, double-crested, and 

pelagic cormorant; pigeon guillemot; and 

Cassin’s auklet). (Recent observations indicate 

that the Brandt cormorant colonies on San 

Miguel Island are not quite as numerous as on 

Santa Barbara (P. Martin, pers. comm. March 

31, 2004.) Four species that breed on the 

island are listed as species of special concern 
Natural Resources

257

by the California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife—Ashy storm-petrel, double-crested 

cormorant, Scripp’s murrelet, rhinoceros 

auklet (whose population is believed to be 

increasing due to an expansion of their 

breeding range), and tufted puffin. The 

Scripp’s murrelet is listed as a threatened 

species by the California Department of Fish 

and Wildlife. 

Carter et al. (1992) reported 16,625 pairs of 

seabirds were present on San Miguel Island 

and its islets in 1991. An absence of terrestrial 

predators, a minimum of human disturbance, 

and nearby rich marine foraging areas enable 

large numbers of seabirds to successfully 

breed on Prince Island and Castle Rock. Steep 

cliffs, rocky soil (for burrowing), and isolated 

vegetated areas also provide a variety of 

preferred nesting habitats on San Miguel 

Island, although the presence of island foxes 

probably limited extensive seabird nesting in 

the past.

Santa Barbara Island. Santa Barbara Island 

with its offshore islets (Sutil Island and Shag 

Rock) is the second most important seabird 

nesting island in the park. The island supports 

11 species of breeding seabirds (table E-4 in 

appendix E). Carter et al. (1992) reported 

7,432 pairs of seabirds. Santa Barbara Island 

has the largest Scripp’s murrelet colony in the 

world. Based on 1991–2002 survey data, Santa 

Barbara Island supported between 500 and 

1,250 pairs of Scripp’s murrelets (Burkett et al. 

2003). This species was listed as a threatened 

species by the state of California on December 

22, 2004, and has been petitioned for federal 

listing. 

Santa Barbara Island also supports probably 

the only U.S. colony of black storm-petrels 

(another California species of special 

concern). The population was estimated at 

274 individuals in the early 1990s (CDF&G 

Marine Resources Division 2002). Brown 

pelicans (state endangered) roost and nest on 

the north side of Santa Barbara Island. This is 

the only place known where nesting brown 

pelicans coexist with people. A large colony of 

western gulls (approximately 7,000 pairs) is on 

the island. During the nesting season pelican 

and gull nests can cover many acres of land. 

Other seabirds that nest on Santa Barbara 

Island include Ashy storm-petrels (a 

California species of special concern); 

Brandt’s, double-breasted, and pelagic 

cormorants; Cassin’s auklet; and pigeon 

guillemot. However, the Cassin’s auklet 

breeding population has been decreasing—

only a few of these birds bred on the island in 

2002.

California Brown Pelican

As one of the species listed in the park’s 

enabling legislation, the California subspecies 

of the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis 

californicus) is of particular interest. This bird 

was classified as federally endangered in 1970 

and as endangered by the state of California in 

1971, but was delisted as a federally listed 

species in 2009. Channel Islands National 

Park provides essential habitat for this species. 

The only breeding colonies of brown pelicans 

in the western United States are on West

Anacapa and Santa Barbara islands. The 

Channel Islands also provide roosting habitat 

for the birds, with major roosting areas 

occurring on Scorpion Rock off of Santa Cruz 

Island and near the lighthouse on East 

Anacapa (USFWS 1983). 

Pelicans breed in nesting colonies on islands 

without mammalian predators and permanent 

human habitation. They typically build a nest 

on the ground and on low shrubs. On West 

Anacapa and Santa Barbara islands pelicans 

generally nest on inaccessible slopes, canyons, 

and high bluff tops and edges. Brown pelicans 

are asynchronous nesters. The nesting season 

can extend from January through October. 

The normal clutch size is three eggs. The peak 

of egg laying is usually March or April; 

however, eggs are often laid through June. 

Pelican breeding success is largely determined 

by the availability of their primary prey items, 

northern anchovies (Engraulis mordax) and 

Pacific sardines (Sagax sarinops), which 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

258

during the breeding season comprises nearly 

their whole diet (F. Gress, biologist, pers. 

comm. December 17, 2002).

In the 1970s, the park’s colonies almost 

disappeared due to eggshell thinning and 

consequent reproductive failure (Gress 1995). 

Pelicans are extremely sensitive to 

bioaccumulation of the organochlorine 

contaminants in the marine environment, 

particularly DDT and its metabolites, and 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). DDT has 

been shown to alter the birds’ calcium 

metabolism, resulting in egg-shell thinning. 

The park’s breeding populations have steadily 

increased since 1980, although they are now 

believed to be fairly stable. An estimated 6,000 

pairs were found on West Anacapa in 2002, 

although this was an unusually high number. 

Between 1979 and 2001 the colony produced a 

mean of about 3,600 nests per year. An 

estimated 1,200 pairs are on Santa Barbara 

Island. Pelicans were not known to nest on 

Santa Barbara Island in recent times until 

1980; the first significant nesting occurred in 

1985. From 1985 to 2001 the colony produced 

a mean of about 770 nests per year. Starting in 

2000 the pelicans started moving their nesting 

area around on the island. Santa Barbara 

Island is unusual in that it is the only island 

known along the Pacific Coast where both 

nesting pelicans and humans cohabit (F. 

Gress, pers. comm. December 17, 2002).

Park visitor access is restricted on West 

Anacapa. A no-entry closure from January 1 

through October 31 also keeps boats well 

offshore to protect fledglings in the vicinity of 

the nesting colony and provides a buffer zone 

to nesting pelicans. On Santa Barbara Island 

the pelican nesting area is closed to visitors 

and trails are closed when birds nest or show 

initial nesting behavior. 

Pinnipeds (Seals and Sea Lions)

Channel Islands National Park supports a 

larger and more varied population of seals and 

sea lions than any other area in the world that 

is close to a major human population center 

(NPS 1980b). In southern California, seals and 

sea lions breed and pup almost exclusively on 

the Channel Islands (NPS 1984). Large 

populations of pinnipeds seasonally still live in 

the park because they are protected from 

human disturbance in productive marine 

waters. These marine mammals represent a 

major scientific resource and a significant 

wildlife watching opportunity. 

Four species of pinnipeds breed on the 

islands, while a fifth, the Guadalupe fur seal, 

hauls out but does not regularly breed in the 

park (table E-5 in appendix E); however, a pup 

was born on San Miguel Island in 1997 (Melin 

and De Long 1999; CDF&G Marine 

Resources Division 2002). The California sea 

lion is the most common species and has 

established breeding colonies or haul-outs on 

all of the islands. Northern elephant seals are 

the second most common species and breed 

or haul out on all of the islands. Harbor seals 

are also fairly common and breed on all of the 

islands. Northern fur seals are less commonly 

seen in the park. The Guadalupe fur seal, a 

federal- and state-threatened species, occurs 

in very small numbers, usually from one to 

three individuals (CDF&G Marine Resources 

Division 2002). The Steller sea lion formerly 

bred on San Miguel and Santa Rosa islands, 

and possibly Santa Cruz Island, but due to a 

general population decline, now occurs only 

in small numbers, if at all, in park waters. With 

the exception of Steller sea lions and 

Guadalupe fur seals, all of these species’ 

overall populations continue to increase 

annually, except during El Niño events 

(Forney et al. 2000) 

California sea lions and northern fur seals 

breed between June and August, while 

northern elephant seals breed from December 

through February and harbor seals breed from 

February through May. Haul-out and rookery 

sites for pinnipeds include both beaches and 

rocks. The availability of food, exposure to 

cooling wind, freedom from human 

disturbance, substrate composition, and the 
Natural Resources

259

preferences of the animals are all factors in 

determining which specific sites are used. 

Different species of pinnipeds may haul out 

on the same site, although population 

numbers and the proportion of adults, 

juveniles, and pups, and male and female

animals vary through the year. Northern 

elephant seal pups are born in January and 

February, harbor seals pup from February 

through May, California sea lion pups are 

born in late May to June, and northern fur 

seals pup in July and August. Unlike the other

pinnipeds, harbor seals usually avoid areas 

inhabited by other seals and sea lions. They 

are much more wary than other pinnipeds and 

generally haul out only on the most secluded 

beaches, rocks, and mud flats available. 

On land, all of the park’s pinnipeds are 

sensitive to human disturbance. In particular, 

at the sight of a human or in response to 

auditory stimuli (e.g., sonic booms or 

overflights), California sea lions may panic 

and attempt to reach the water. Depending on 

the intensity of disturbance, they may startle 

to the point of a massive stampede, which can 

result in the crushing and/or abandonment of 

newborn pups as well as injuries to other 

animals. Frightened fur seals may suffer heat 

prostration, due to their dense fur, if 

immediate access to water is not available. 

Female harbor seals that are disturbed would 

often abandon their young, returning to their 

pups after the disturbance has ceased.

Anacapa Island. Limited habitat (most 

beaches are almost completely submerged 

during high tides) and heavy human visitation 

combine to make Anacapa Island somewhat 

less desirable than the other islands for stable 

pinniped populations (NPS 1980b). Harbor 

seals breed on the island, predominately on 

inaccessible areas of the southern shores of 

the three islets. While pups have been on West 

Anacapa, the role of the island as a hauling 

and breeding ground is unclear (NPS 2000a). 

California sea lions and northern elephant 

seals also haul out on Anacapa Island.

Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands. Both of 

these islands support large breeding 

populations of harbor seals. Animals that use 

the NPS lands on Santa Cruz Island tend to be 

on the north side of the island. Santa Rosa 

Island is becoming increasingly important for 

northern elephant seals. Both northern 

elephant seals and harbor seals use several 

beaches around the island for breeding, while 

California sea lions haul out on the island in a 

limited number of places.

San Miguel Island. San Miguel Island is the 

most important island in the park for 

pinnipeds. Northern fur seals, northern 

elephant seals, California sea lions, and harbor 

seals all breed there. This is also the only 

island where Guadalupe fur seals and 

northern fur seals haul out. When Steller sea 

lions used the island in the past, San Miguel 

Island was the only island where six pinniped 

species were found together — more species 

than were found in any other single location 

in the world. Cool weather, proximity to 

abundant fish, low sandy beaches, and most 

importantly, the absence of human 

disturbance, all make San Miguel Island ideal 

pinniped habitat. The island is estimated to 

support about 60,000 northern elephant seals, 

about 80,000 California sea lions, more than 

12,000 northern fur seals, and about 1,000 

harbor seals (D. Richards, NPS marine 

biologist, pers. comm. November 26, 2002; S. 

Melin, NMFS marine biologist, pers. comm. 

March 15, 2004). The species alternate 

breeding and haul-out periods on the island in 

a way that results in a continuous 

concentration of pinnipeds at preferred sites. 

Only limited areas are completely vacant 

throughout the year; most beaches and rocky 

areas have at least some pinniped use 

throughout varying times of the year. The 

Point Bennett area in particular has a very 

large population, and is one of the world’s 

most outstanding wildlife displays. The broad 

sand flats area is the largest rookery pupping 

ground and haul-out area of California sea 

lions and northern elephant seals in their 

range, as well as a major (and the 

southernmost) pupping ground for northern 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

260

fur seals. Point Bennett also is the only 

location in the United States (and the 

northernmost area) where the Guadalupe fur 

seal is found. The south side of San Miguel 

Island, from Tyler Bight to Cardwell Point, is a 

pupping ground and haul-out area for 

northern elephant seals and harbor seals in 

the winter and spring; juvenile California sea 

lions haul out in Tyler Bight during the 

summer breeding season. Harbor seals use 

smaller secluded beaches all around the 

island. Castle Rock, near the west end of the 

island, is a pupping ground and haul-out area 

for California sea lions and northern fur seals 

(NPS 1980b).

Santa Barbara Island. Although it is the 

smallest island in the park, Santa Barbara 

Island is important for pinnipeds. Because this 

island is approximately in the middle of the 

California Channel Islands group, a 

continuous stream of animals passes by, hauls 

out, and stops to breed. Most areas along the 

shoreline are used by pinnipeds, including 

Landing Cove where California sea lions haul 

out. California sea lions, northern elephant 

seals, and harbor seals all have breeding and 

pupping grounds and haul-outs on Santa 

Barbara Island. 

Nonnative Animal Species

Beginning in the 19th century, humans 

purposefully introduced a variety of 

nonnative species to the islands in the park 

including rabbits, cats, burros, horses, goats, 

pigs, sheep, and cattle. Other species may have 

stowed away on ships and escaped onto the 

islands, such as black rats. These species 

dominated the islands’ fauna and had a major 

impact on the natural vegetative communities 

and on soils (see “Vegetation and People”). 

They also caused the disappearance of several 

native species, as well as the reduction in 

numbers of other native animals. For instance, 

black rats are thought largely responsible for 

the long-term decline and lack of breeding 

success of Scripp’s murrelets and Ashy stormpetrel on Anacapa Island (NPS 2001a). In the 

past 20 years most of the nonnative animals 

have been removed from the islands. Table 22

lists the nonnative animals that still occur in 

the park. Three nonnative bird species 

(European starlings, house sparrows, and 

brown-headed cowbirds) are present on 

almost all of the islands (the house sparrow 

does not occur on Anacapa Island). The effect 

of these birds on the islands’ native birds is 

unknown.

TABLE 22. NONNATIVE VERTEBRATES AT CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK

Common Name Scientific Name

Island1

A SC SR SM SB

Black rat Rattus rattus SM

Chukar Alectoris chukar SR

California quail Callipepla californica SC SR

European starling Sturnus vulgaris A SC SR SM SB

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater A SC SR SM SB

House sparrow Passer domesticus SC SR SM SB

1 Island: A = Anacapa, SC = Santa Cruz, SR = Santa Rosa, SM = San Miguel, SB = Santa Barbara.

Anacapa Island. Nonnative animals that lived 

on Anacapa Island included cats, black rats, 

and sheep. Sheep were raised on East Anacapa 

between 1902 and 1937, and may have 

persisted until as late as the 1960s. Cats and 

rabbits have been successfully eradicated from 

the island. The Park Service carried out a 

project to eradicate rats between 2000 and 

2002. The eradication of black rats has been 

successful. Native animals on Anacapa Island 

responded positively and rapidly to the 

removal of rats.
Natural Resources

261

Santa Cruz Island. A variety of nonnative 

animals were introduced onto Santa Cruz 

Island including cattle, sheep, wild turkey, and 

California quail. These animals were 

introduced for ranching and hunting 

purposes. Cattle, sheep, turkeys, and pigs were 

subsequently removed, but five nonnative bird 

species persist on the island. Pigs were present 

on Santa Cruz Island from the 1850s. They 

were found in all locations and habitat types 

on the island. Annual estimates of the island’s 

pig population ranged from 500 to more than 

4,000 (NPS 2002a). The population fluctuated 

greatly from year to year depending on the 

availability of food. The pigs directly impacted 

the island’s vegetation, including threatened 

and endangered plants, wildlife, and 

archeological resources; and indirectly 

affected island foxes (supporting golden 

eagles, which also fed on the foxes). In 

addition, through alteration of habitat and 

direct competition, the pigs likely influenced 

the composition and abundance of the 

island’s wildlife species. The Park Service, in 

collaboration with The Nature Conservancy, 

successfully eradicated pigs from Santa Cruz 

Island by 2006. 

Santa Rosa Island. Sheep, cattle, pigs, horses, 

mule deer, elk, chukar, and California quail 

are all nonnative species that were introduced 

on Santa Rosa Island for ranching and hunting 

purposes. Pigs, sheep, and cattle have all 

subsequently been removed, with pigs 

eliminated by 1993, sheep removed by 2001, 

cattle removed by 1998, elk removed by 2011, 

and deer removed by 2013. An estimated 100 

Roosevelt elk and 100 Kaibab mule deer still 

range throughout the island, along with about 

two dozen former ranch horses. The elk and 

deer have likely influenced the composition 

and abundance of other wildlife species 

through alteration of habitat. 

San Miguel Island. Sheep, cattle, pigs, horses, 

burros, and black rats were among the 

nonnative animals that were introduced on 

San Miguel Island at differing times in the 

19th and 20th centuries. With the exception of

black rats, all of these animals were 

subsequently removed from the island. Black 

rats are a continuing problem. They have 

colonized the northwest shores on San Miguel 

Island and may be slowly expanding to the 

terraces. In addition to preying on seabird 

adults, eggs, and chicks, black rats may be 

responsible for the reduction of populations 

such as land mollusks and intertidal 

invertebrates, may outcompete the native deer 

mice, and are carriers of diseases harmful to 

animals such as the island fox (NPS 1980b; 

U.S. Navy 2002). Burrowing by black rats has 

negatively impacted the integrity of 

archeological resources.

Santa Barbara Island. Santa Barbara Island 

once had sheep, goats, feral cats, and rabbits, 

all of which were particularly devastating to 

the island’s fauna. With the exception of 

European starlings, house sparrows, and 

brown-headed cowbirds, all of these 

nonnative species have been removed from 

Santa Barbara Island.

Climate Change and Wildlife

Like vegetation, climate change probably is 

affecting, and would continue to affect, the 

islands’ wildlife, although the rate and 

magnitude of specific changes are not known. 

Increased air temperatures; alteration of 

precipitation patterns; a rise in sea level; 

altered marine water temperatures, currents, 

and acidity; and alteration in recurrence and 

intensity of storms all can affect the park’s 

plant and animal populations. In addition, 

changes in the composition and distribution 

of terrestrial vegetation due to climate change 

would indirectly affect wildlife populations. 

Over the past century the sea level along 

California’s coast has risen almost 8 inches. 

Computer model projections indicate future 

sea level rise along the California coast could 

be 1.0 to 1.4 meters (39 to 55 inches) by the 

year 2100 (Cayan et al. 2009). The U.S. 

Geological Survey mapped the relative 

vulnerability of the coastline of Channel 

Islands National Park to future sea level rise 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

262

(USGS 2005). The areas within the park that 

are likely to be most vulnerable to sea level 

rise are areas of unconsolidated sediment 

where regional coastal slope is low and wave 

energy is high. Of the 250 miles of coastline 

evaluated, 25% was determined to have a very 

high vulnerability, 28% had high vulnerability, 

19% had moderate vulnerability, and 28% had 

low vulnerability. The largest stretches of very 

high vulnerability are on San Miguel and Santa 

Rosa islands. Species that use sandy beaches 

and dune habitats in these areas, including 

pinnipeds and shorebirds, likely would 

experience habitat loss, fragmentation, and 

alteration due to sea level rise and more 

intensive storms (increasing coastal erosion) 

associated with climate change. Flooding 

would eliminate or shrink the areas where 

seals and sea lions haul out, and areas where 

seabirds nest and breed. This is a particular 

concern in the Farallon Islands off the 

northern California coast (Largier et al. 2010), 

and likely would also apply to Channel Islands 

National Park.

Increased sea levels can also flood island sea 

caves where some seabirds nest. For example, 

the sea caves that Ashy storm-petrels and 

murrelets use on the islands may no longer be 

usable with a rise in the sea level.

Another potential change regarding wildlife, 

and pinnipeds and seabirds in particular, is an 

increase in air temperature. Increases in 

extreme temperatures or increases in average 

temperatures can stress wildlife species; affect 

food and water supplies; and affect 

interactions with competitors, predators, and 

invasive species (California Natural Resources 

Agency 2009). On the northern Channel 

Islands many of the wildlife species are 

adapted to cold and windy conditions, and 

can become stressed with high temperatures. 

During unusually warm conditions, seabirds 

may abandon their nests, neglect offspring, 

and die of heat stress (Warzybok and Bradley 

2008 as cited in Largier et al. 2010). Likewise, 

seals and sea lions would likely spend less time 

hauled out and could abandon their young if 

conditions become too warm (Largier et al. 

2010). 

Increased temperatures can also increase the 

potential for the spread of insects such as 

mosquitoes and pest species that carry 

diseases, which in turn can affect the islands’ 

native wildlife populations. For example, 

warmer conditions may favor the spread of 

West Nile virus, which could infect island bird 

populations. Other invasive species could 

affect the diversity or abundance of native 

island species through competition for 

resources, predation, parasitism, and 

interbreeding with native species, or by 

causing physical or chemical changes to the 

native species’ habitats (California Natural 

Resources Agency 2009).

Phenological life cycle events, such as 

blooming, migration, insect emergence, fruit 

ripening, and breeding, also may be affected 

by climate change. As individual species react 

differently to warming, species interactions 

may change.

Several of the effects of climate change listed 

previously for plants could affect the islands’ 

wildlife including:

• increased erosion of cliffs and hillsides 

due to intensified winter precipitation, 

and larger waves from winter storms and 

higher water levels, affecting the 

frequency of rockslides and degrading 

nesting habitat, particularly for species 

that use rock crevices such as auklets and 

storm-petrels (Largier et al. 2010)

• potential for floods due to more intensive 

storms

• increased potential for wildfires

Changes in the marine environment due to 

climate change also would likely affect wildlife 

populations on the islands. In particular, 

changes that affect fish and other marine 

populations would in turn affect island 

seabird and pinniped populations. For 

instance, if northern anchovy or Pacific 
Natural Resources

263

sardine populations were to change due to an 

increase in water temperature or changes in 

upwellings, it would affect the brown pelicans 

that nest on the islands. Changes in ocean 

temperatures, currents, and upwellings can 

also affect the composition, distribution, and 

availability of phytoplankton and 

zooplankton, while ocean acidification can 

affect shell-building plankton, sea urchins, 

mussels, oysters, abalone, and crabs. This in 

turn can affect wildlife migration patterns 

(e.g., seabird and marine mammal migrations), 

abundance, timing of breeding, reproductive 

success, and behavior (Largier et al. 2010; 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2009; 

Wilkinson 2002; California Natural Resources 

Agency 2009). If the frequency and intensity 

of the El Niño Southern Oscillation event 

were to change, it would impact Channel 

Islands wildlife populations. 

Warming of ocean waters is expected to result 

in a range extension of warm water species 

and a contraction of cooler water species. 

Guadalupe fur seals are being seen more 

frequently in the park, perhaps due to the 

effects of climate change. On the other hand, 

the range for Steller sea lions has contracted 

and they no longer breed in the park, perhaps 

due to a reduction in their prey species (S. 

Allen, pers. comm. July 22, 2010).

All of the above effects associated with climate 

change would be expected to result in wildlife 

species adapting, changing their behavior (e.g., 

changing their breeding periods), persisting in 

suboptimal conditions with potentially major 

physiological costs, moving, or dying out. 

Wildlife populations that are unable to adapt 

or move may be extirpated or decline to 

extinction. And as noted previously for plants, 

many of the park’s wildlife species are 

endemic to the islands, with limited 

distributions, and would have no place else to 

go in response to changes in climate.

FEDERALLY AND STATE

LISTED THREATENED AND 

ENDANGERED SPECIES

This section addresses three federally 

threatened or endangered animals and six 

listed plant species. (Many of these species are 

also listed as threatened or endangered by the 

state.) Channel Islands National Park 

supports many other federally and listed 

species, but the alternatives being considered 

would not affect those species and they are 

not discussed here.

Island Night Lizard

Island night lizards (Xantusia riversiana) are 

an endemic Channel Islands reptile, known 

only to occur on Santa Barbara Island in the

park and on San Nicolas and San Clemente 

islands. They are the most morphologically 

distinct of the endemic vertebrates on the 

Channel Islands, indicating they have been 

isolated from the mainland for a long time 

(NPS n.d.). The best habitats for the lizards 

are boxthorn (Lycium californicum), prickly 

pear cactus (Opuntia oricola and O. littoralis), 

and cracks and crevices in and around rock 

outcrops and surface boulders. These areas 

provide protection from predators. They are 

also often found under rocks, driftwood, and 

fallen branches. Suitable habitat on Santa 

Barbara Island is in all of the canyons and on 

some of the sea cliffs, especially on the south 

side of Signal Peak. Island night lizards are 

very sedentary and have very small home 

ranges, averaging about 183 square feet (17 

square meters). They are most active at 

midday. The lizards breed in April and young 

are born in September.

Fellers and Drost found densities of 1,300 

lizards per acre in boxthorn and 1,000 lizards 

per acre in prickly pear (NPS n.d.). This high 

density is probably due to a combination of 

factors, including the lizard’s low metabolism, 

diverse diet, sedentary nature, and small, 

overlapping home ranges.
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

264

Although abundant in their favored habitats, 

island night lizards are still sensitive to 

disturbance. Individual lizards can be 

trampled and habitat damaged by people 

walking off trail.

On August 11, 1977, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service listed the island night lizard as a 

threatened species because of its restricted 

range and apparently low population levels on 

Santa Barbara and San Nicolas islands. Their 

populations were thought to have been 

reduced due to past farming and grazing, fire, 

and the introduction of nonnative animals and 

plants. However, Feller and Drost estimated 

that the total population on Santa Barbara 

Island was at least 17,600, and concluded that 

the population was not threatened with 

extinction as previously thought (NatureServe 

Explorer 2005).

Western Snowy Plover

Western snowy plovers (Charadrius 

alexandrinus nivosus) breed from Washington 

State to Baja, California, and winter in coastal 

areas from southern Washington to Central 

America. Most western snowy plovers return 

to the same site in subsequent breeding 

seasons. They breed primarily above the mean 

high tide line. Their preferred coastal nesting 

habitats are sand spits, dune-backed beaches, 

unvegetated beach strands, open areas around 

estuaries, and beaches at river mouths. Their 

nests typically are shallow scrapes or 

depressions on the ground on flat, open areas 

with sandy or saline substrates, where 

vegetation and driftwood is sparse or absent. 

The nesting season extends from early March 

through September, with peak nesting 

occurring from mid-April through midAugust. Chicks reach fledging age about one 

month after hatching. Adults forage on 

invertebrates primarily along the water’s edge. 

On the Channel Islands they forage in the wet 

sand and amidst surf-cast kelp in the intertidal 

zone and in dry, sandy areas above the high 

tide. In winter, snowy plovers are found on 

many of the beaches used for nesting as well as 

on beaches where they do not nest, and on 

estuarine sand and mud flats.

The Pacific coast population of the western 

snowy plover was listed as threatened by the 

Fish and Wildlife Service on March 5, 1993. 

The population has declined due to many 

factors. Recreational and other human 

disturbance, loss of habitat to urban 

development, introduction of beachgrass 

(Ammophila spp.) and other nonnative 

species, and expanding predator populations 

have all contributed to a decline in active 

nesting areas and in the size of the breeding 

and wintering populations. It is estimated that 

about 2,000 snowy plovers may breed along 

the U.S. Pacific Coast and that there are 157 

current or historical snowy plover breeding or 

wintering locations along the U.S. Pacific 

Coast (USFWS 2001). 

Channel Islands National Park is one of the 

few locations in southern California that still 

supports breeding and wintering populations 

of western snowy plovers. In the 1990s Santa 

Rosa and San Miguel islands had both 

breeding and wintering populations, but 

numbers have declined precipitously. A few 

birds also lived on The Nature Conservancy 

portion of Santa Cruz Island. On Santa Rosa 

Island the birds inhabited about 16 miles of 

coastline, while on San Miguel Island they 

were present on about 10 miles of shoreline 

(USFWS 2001). The Skunk Point area on 

Santa Rosa Island is an important nesting area 

and foraging area for juvenile and migrating 

plovers. Forty to fifty percent of the nests in 

this area have been found on rocky outcrops 

in the back dunes, about 490 to 980 feet (150 

to 300 meters) from the shoreline (USFWS 

1995). 

Nesting snowy plovers are sensitive to 

disturbance. Activities that are detrimental to 

nesting birds include walking, jogging, 

unleashed dogs, and beachraking, among 

other uses (USFWS 1995). Recreationists can 

inadvertently step on eggs and chicks, 

destroying them (USFWS 2001). In addition, 

adults would stay away from a nest while 
Natural Resources

265

people are present. Birds generally flush from 

nests when people come within 328 feet (100 

meters) (USFWS 1995). Separation of plover 

adults from their eggs or chicks may result in 

increasing mortality due to overheating in the 

sun, cold, blowing sand, or predators such as 

gulls or ravens. Trash left on a beach also may 

attract predators. People may cause broods of 

snowy plovers to run away from favored 

feeding areas. 

To avoid disturbance of the birds, several of 

the beaches where snowy plovers currently 

nest are closed to recreational use. 

Specifically, all of the shoreline of San Miguel 

Island, primarily to protect pinnipeds, is 

closed to public landing or entry with the 

exception of Culyer Harbor. On Santa Rosa 

Island the coastline from and including Skunk 

Point to just north of East Point is closed to 

visitors, including landing or hiking, from 

March 1 to September 15. However, some 

people occasionally land or hike on these 

beaches during the nesting season. From 

South Point to Sandy Point and from Sandy 

Point to Carrington Point, camping also is 

permitted on the beaches only from 

September 1 through December 31. Camping 

and landing are prohibited year-round at the 

beaches around Sandy Point. 

In the park, population numbers have 

declined on both Santa Rosa and San Miguel 

islands, concurrently with an overall decline 

in the breeding population in southern 

California. On Santa Rosa Island it is 

estimated that less than 30 breeding pairs were 

on the island in 2002 (most recent survey), 

down from 60 pairs in 1993. An estimated 200 

birds still winter on the island’s beaches. On 

San Miguel Island, snowy plovers are 

sometimes sighted on beaches during the 

breeding season, but they are no longer 

known to breed on the island. An unknown 

number of birds also winter here. 

Different factors may be responsible for these 

declines on the islands. On San Miguel Island 

human disturbance of plovers has not been 

documented, nor have data been collected on 

the impacts of people on the Cuyler Harbor 

beach — the only beach visitors are permitted 

to use and what was once an important 

nesting area (USFWS 1995). It is believed that 

the decline in the breeding population on San 

Miguel Island may be due to a large increase in 

the number of northern elephant seals and 

California sea lions that have occupied snowy 

plover nesting habitat. This increase occurred 

simultaneously with the western snowy plover 

decline. 

Several factors may be responsible for the 

decline of western snowy plovers on Santa 

Rosa Island. In the past, ranch activities 

affected the plovers, including cattle and 

horses trampling nests and flushing birds from 

nests. Ungulate carcasses may have attracted 

predators such as ravens. Raven numbers are 

thought to be unnaturally high on Santa Rosa 

Island, which may be resulting in an increase 

in predation by ravens on plover eggs. 

Accumulations of trash also may have 

attracted predators. In the past, visitors, 

including hikers, surfers, and kayakers, 

affected the plovers at Skunk Point (USFWS 

1995). But with the beach closures these 

impacts are happening less frequently on the 

beaches. High winds and predators are still a 

frequent cause of nest loss. In the past winds 

accounted for 28% to 34% of all nest losses, 

while predators (e.g., ravens and Santa Rosa 

Island spotted skunks) accounted for another 

26% to 44% of losses (USFWS 1995). Both 

Santa Rosa and San Miguel islands have 20- to 

30-knot winds on a regular basis through the 

plover nesting season, which can cause eggs to 

be sandblasted or blown out of the nest when 

the adult steps off the nest. It is also possible 

that ravens, which eat plover eggs and chicks, 

live on the island and may be more numerous 

than once thought due to the presence of 

ungulate carcasses. In addition, increasing 

numbers of elephant seals hauling out on the 

south beaches of Santa Rosa Island could be 

reducing nesting habitat.
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

266

Island Fox

The island fox (Urocyon littoralis), a relative of 

the mainland gray fox, is the largest native 

land mammal that lives in Channel Islands 

National Park. Three subspecies live in the 

park—the San Miguel Island fox (U. l. 

littoralis), Santa Rosa Island fox (U. l. 

santarosae), and Santa Cruz Island fox (U. l. 

santacruzae). On March 4, 2004, the three 

subspecies, along with the subspecies on Santa 

Catalina Island, were listed as endangered by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. The state of 

California also lists the entire species as 

threatened. 

Island foxes occur in virtually every habitat on 

the three islands. Their home range size varies 

by habitat type, season, and sex of the animal. 

Island foxes eat a wide variety of plants and 

animals, with their principal foods including 

mice, ground-nesting birds, arthropods, and 

fruits. Island foxes are territorial, generally 

monogamous (mating for life), and breed only 

once a year. Although they can breed at the 

end of their first year, most breeding involves 

older animals. Pairs are seen together more 

frequently beginning in January, with mating 

taking place in late February and early March. 

The gestation period is thought to be similar 

to the gray fox (about 52 days). Island foxes 

give birth in dens, which they usually do not 

dig themselves. Pups are born from late April 

through early May with litter size ranging 

from one to as many as five pups; two or three 

is considered to be average. It is believed that 

the pups undergo a period of extended 

parental care during their first summer. 

Island foxes are relatively inquisitive and 

docile. They generally show little fear of 

humans. The foxes are primarily nocturnal, 

but they are also active during daylight hours, 

with peaks occurring at dusk and dawn.

Beginning in 1994 the three island fox 

subspecies underwent major declines in 

numbers. On San Miguel Island, the island fox 

population fell from 450 in 1994 to 15 in 1999. 

On Santa Rosa Island the fox population fell 

from more than 1,500 to 14 animals in 2000. 

On Santa Cruz Island the population declined 

from about 2,000 animals in 1994 to an 

estimated 50 to 60 adults in 2001 (NPS 2001c, 

2002a, 2002b; NOAA et al. 2002). Although 

the Santa Cruz Island population had 

increased by 2003, fewer than 100 foxes were 

estimated to be living in the wild. 

The primary cause of these declines has been 

attributed to predation by golden eagles (NPS 

2001c, 2002a) (see also the discussion above of 

golden eagles under “Native Terrestrial

Animals”). The absence of bald eagles, whose 

presence may have kept golden eagles away, 

and the conversion of predominant vegetation 

from shrub to nonnative grasslands, which 

offer much less cover from aerial predators, 

are contributing factors to the increase in 

golden eagle predation. 

In 1999, the Park Service established an island 

fox captive breeding program in the park to 

restore wild populations to viable levels. 

Breeding pens were built on San Miguel Island 

in 1999, and 14 of the 15 remaining wild island 

foxes were brought into captivity. In 2000, 

pens were built on Santa Rosa Island, and the 

14 island foxes remaining on that island were 

captured. On Santa Cruz Island, where the fox 

population declined to 50 to 60 animals by 

2001, captive breeding began in 2002 as a joint 

project between the Park Service and The 

Nature Conservancy. 

All three northern island fox subspecies 

increased in captivity and reached the target 

captive breeding population size that allowed 

for releases to the wild. Releases began in 

2002, 2003, and 2004 on Santa Cruz, Santa 

Rosa, and San Miguel islands, respectively. 

Captive breeding was terminated on Santa 

Cruz and San Miguel islands in 2007 and on 

Santa Rosa Island in 2008 due to the high 

survival and reproductive success in released 

foxes. 2010 trapping data yielded population 

estimates of greater than 1,000 adults on Santa 

Cruz Island, 315 adults on San Miguel Island, 

and 169 adults on Santa Rosa Island. Annual 

survival in 2010 was also high (>90%) on all 
Natural Resources

267

but Santa Rosa Island. Reproductive effort has 

declined somewhat on San Miguel Island, 

perhaps in response to increasing fox density 

on that island (as of 2010 the recovering fox 

population on San Miguel Island had reached 

a level comparable to that before the 

predation-caused decline of the 1990s). 

Significant predation occurred on Santa Rosa 

Island in 2010, and may have been due to the 

presence of as few as one to three golden 

eagles (Aquila chrysaetos). The predation 

decreased annual survival on Santa Rosa 

Island to 66%, in 2010, with the estimated 

total number of foxes on the island declining 

from 389 to 292. 

The three island fox subspecies face a number 

of threats. Island foxes are also vulnerable to 

canine diseases, such as canine distemper 

virus, which can be transmitted to wildlife by 

domestic dogs. (Dogs occasionally come 

ashore on the islands, despite the prohibition 

on pets, and “ranch dogs” are brought to 

Santa Rosa Island.) The introduction of such a 

disease would greatly increase the risk of 

extinction for these small populations of 

foxes. If domestic cats were to be introduced 

to the islands, they could negatively affect the 

foxes through aggression, predation, disease, 

and competition for food (Laughrin 1978; 

Roelke-Parker et al. 1996, as cited in the 

Federal Register 69(44):10347). Feral cats have 

been found to displace island foxes from 

habitats on San Nicolas Island in the southern 

Channel Islands (Kovach and Dow 1985, as 

cited in the Federal Register 69(44):10347). 

Vehicle collisions on the roads could kill or 

injure animals. (This is the largest known 

source of mortality on San Nicolas and San 

Clemente islands [NPS 2001c].) Due to their 

large population declines, a lack of genetic 

variability could increase the island foxes’ 

susceptibility to disease and parasites. Finally, 

the small island fox populations are also more 

vulnerable to extinction from random, natural 

events, such as droughts or wildfires (NPS 

2002b).

Hoffmann’s Slender-flowered Gilia 

Hoffmann’s slender-flowered gilia (Gilia 

tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii) was listed as a 

federally threatened plant on July 31, 1997. It 

is an endemic, small, annual herb in the phlox 

(Polemoniaceae) family. It is a component of 

dune and lupine scrub vegetation. Plant 

density tends to be low in areas where grass 

cover is high. The gilia is known in only three 

locations on Santa Rosa Island. The largest 

population, comprised of about 3,000 to 3,500 

plants in 1994, is at Skunk Point. About 2,000 

plants in 1994 were present near East Point, 

and a small population of 88 individuals was 

observed growing in an arroyo between the 

ranch and Carrington Point (USFWS 2000).

The plant’s numbers were reduced due to 

decades of grazing by sheep, horses, cattle, 

elk, and deer, and by competition with 

nonnative grasses, which invaded the available 

habitat. Competition from nonnative grasses 

still poses a threat. Deer, elk, and horses also 

still pose a trampling and soil destabilization 

threat. A sandy service road used by the Park 

Service and former owners goes through the 

oceanward edge of the East Point population. 

In the past when the road was wet or soft, 

vehicles may have driven off the road and may 

have crushed plants. However, seasonal 

closures of the road at the intersection of the 

old ranch road and Sierra Pablo Road have 

eliminated this impact. The species is also 

threatened by random naturally occurring 

events due to its limited distribution (USFWS 

2000).

Santa Rosa Island Manzanita

Santa Rosa Island manzanita (Arctostaphylos 

confertiflora) is endemic to Santa Rosa Island. 

It is a perennial shrub in the heath (Ericaceae) 

family that grows 4 inches to 6.5 feet (0.1 to 2 

meters) high. The shrub occurs in prostate 

and upright forms. Santa Rosa Island 

manzanita reproduces or spreads only by 

seeds (obligate seeder) and requires fire for 

regeneration (USFWS 2000). The plant grows 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

268

in mixed chaparral, mixed woodland, Torrey 

pine woodland, and island pine woodland 

communities. It generally grows on sediments 

derived from San Miguel volcanics.

Surveys for the Santa Rosa Island manzanita 

have reported the plant growing in three areas 

on Santa Rosa Island—the northeast side of 

Black Mountain (less than 300 plants) 

combined with the Torrey Pine vicinity (less 

than 100 plants), the canyons on the southeast 

side of the island (less than 1,000 plants), and 

in the vicinity of South Point (about 100

plants) (USFWS 2000). 

The Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Santa 

Rosa Island manzanita as endangered on July 

31, 1997. Since nonnative herbivores were 

introduced to Santa Rosa Island, most of the 

island’s vegetation, including rare plant 

species, has been severely impacted by 

grazing. This has led to fragmentation of 

populations into small isolated units, 

diminished or nonexistent reproduction and 

recruitment, extensive soil loss, and loss of an 

adequate seed bank and seed bed for 

regeneration. The manzanita is still threatened 

by altered fuel characteristics, soil loss, and 

low reproductive success (USFWS 2000). 

Grazing and fire is a particular concern for 

this species. As a species this manzanita relies 

on the formation and maintenance of an 

adequate seed bank to perpetuate itself 

following a major event such as a fire. 

Observed shrubs have had recent twig growth 

(flowers and fruit) browsed off by deer, and 

no seedlings or young plants have been 

observed (USFWS 2000; D. Rodriquez, NPS 

botanist, pers. comm. February 17, 2005). 

Preliminary evidence suggests that the current 

seed bank in browsed areas is negligible to 

nonexistent. It is not known how long-lived 

the adults are or the age of the established 

adults. The die-off of adult plants has been 

observed. However, it would take many 

decades to adequately replenish the manzanita 

seed bank. Should the adult plants begin to be 

lost any time soon there would be no 

established seed bank to perpetuate that 

species in that local chaparral community. 

Obligate seeding manzanita species 

recruitment also depends on a seed bank that 

responds to fire stimulus for germination. 

Currently the seed bank is either absent or so 

depleted as a result of soil loss that a fire could 

eliminate the species. 

Santa Cruz Island Chicory

Santa Cruz Island chicory (Malacothrix 

indecora) is another federally threatened plant 

species that is endemic to the park. It is a matlike annual herb in the aster (Asteraceae) 

family. It occurs along the edge of vegetated 

habitat along coast bluffs, often on midden 

soils. The plant is known to occur on San 

Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz islands. 

On San Miguel Island the chicory is restricted 

to soils derived from igneous rocks. A 

scattered population of about 14,000 plants in 

five sites was identified in 1998 on the 

northeast-facing bluffs near Bay Point. On 

Santa Rosa Island the plant grows on 

sedimentary coastal bluffs and it grows at the 

mouth of Lobo Canyon. Surveys in 1998

documented more than 13,000 plants in 10 

small pockets from Lobo Canyon to about 0.6 

mile (1 kilometer) west of Cow Canyon. On 

Santa Cruz Island the plant was identified at 

Black Point (on TNC lands) with fewer than 

100 individuals observed in 1996 (USFWS

2000).

This species was affected by cattle grazing, 

trampling, and feral pig rooting. It is 

threatened by soil loss due to erosion, habitat 

alteration, and seabird nesting, which has 

altered the plant’s historical habitat on San 

Miguel Island and Prince Island. Trampling by 

hikers is another potential threat; on Santa 

Rosa Island a relatively popular trail goes to 

Lobo Canyon, and NPS rangers lead hikes 

there. Although no impacts on the population 

are known to be occurring, if hikers wander 

off the trail, they could inadvertently trample 

plants. The species is also threatened by 
Natural Resources

269

random naturally occurring events due to its 

limited distribution (USFWS 2000).

Hoffmann’s Rock-cress

Hoffmann’s rock-cress (Arabis hoffmannii), a 

member of the mustard (Brassicaceae) family, 

is a slender herb that lives for several years, 

flowers, and then dies. Although it once grew 

on Anacapa and Santa Rosa islands, it now is 

only known to grow on Santa Cruz Island. 

Although Hoffmann’s rock-cress does not 

appear to be dependent upon pollinators and 

individual plants may produce as many as 

3,000 to 4,000 seeds, the small sizes of natural 

populations indicate that establishment 

success of new plants is low (USFWS 2000). 

The species is known to grow in four small 

populations on Santa Cruz Island, which 

collectively cover less than 1 acre (0.4 hectare) 

and total fewer than 200 plants. All of the 

populations are on TNC lands within the park 

boundary. One of the four populations, 

totaling about 40 plants, was discovered in 

2004 in the Mt. Diablo region (K. McEachern, 

USGS, pers. comm. February 8, 2005). It is 

thought that the plant has a poor 

establishment success because of a lack of 

favorable seed germination sites, a high rate of 

seedling mortality, or a combination of these 

factors (Wilken 1996, as cited in USFWS 

2000). Efforts have been underway since 2004 

to grow additional plants and augment the 

existing populations.

The major threats to Hoffmann’s rock-cress 

are loss of soil, loss of shrub canopy cover, 

trampling of potential seed germination sites 

by nonnative ungulates, predation resulting 

from feral pig rooting, and competition with 

annual plants (data suggest that this plant 

cannot tolerate competition with a high cover 

of annual species; USFWS 2000). The species 

is also threatened by fire and random 

naturally occurring events due to its limited 

distribution.

Island Barberry

Listed by both the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife as endangered, island barberry 

(Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis) is a perennial 

shrub in the barberry family (Berberidaceae). 

It has spreading stems that reach 5 to 25 feet (2 

to 8 meters) high. This plant can reproduce via 

seeds and can also spread from underground 

stems (rhizomes). Thus, many stems may 

actually represent one genetic clone. Once 

known to grow on Anacapa and Santa Rosa 

islands, island barberry now is known to only 

grow on Santa Cruz Island. It is found on 

north-facing slopes in chaparral, oak 

woodlands, and pine forests (Junak et al. 1995, 

as cited in USFWS 2000). 

Three populations of island barberry are 

known to grow on Santa Cruz Island, all of 

which are on TNC lands within the park 

boundary. The populations, which total a 

handful of individual plants, grow on northfacing, rocky slopes in chaparral, oak 

woodlands, and pine forests. One population, 

which may represent one or several clone 

individuals, is in the Diablo Peak area. 

Another population is near Cañada Cristy, 

and one population (a single plant) was found 

at Hazard’s Canyon (USFWS 2000). 

Island barberry is threatened by soil loss and 

habitat alteration caused by feral pig rooting, 

lack of sexual reproduction (no new plants), 

and random naturally occurring events due to 

its limited distribution (USFWS 2000).

Island Rush-Rose

Helianthemum greenei or island rush-rose is a 

small shrub in the rock-rose (Cistaceae) 

family. It can grow up to 18 inches tall and has 

alternate leaves covered with star-shaped 

hairs. The plant grows in open, exposed areas 

in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and island 

pine forest. The Fish and Wildlife Service 

listed this species as threatened in 1997. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

270

Island rush-rose has been reported from four 

islands—San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, 

and Santa Catalina. Both McMinn (1951) and 

Thorne (1967) reported seeing island rushrose on San Miguel Island, but no collections 

from the island exist nor are there known 

extant occurrences. On Santa Rosa Island, two 

collections were made from the 1930s, but the

plant had not been seen on the island until 

April 1999 when two plants were found in a 

recently constructed elk and deer exclosure. 

In 2002, two additional occurrences of island 

rush-rose were found on Santa Rosa Island, 

consisting of one and two individuals. 

There are 34 known occurrences of island 

rush-rose on Santa Cruz Island. In 1994 and 

1995 the plant was found growing at 14 sites, 

10 of which had an average of 9 plants. The 

remaining 4 occurrences ranged between 500 

and 1,000 individuals with an average of 663 

(McEachern et al. 1997). It was subsequently 

determined the number of individuals in the 

latter four occurrences was related to recent 

fires that had occurred on the island. This 

observation of increased numbers after fires 

suggests the species is a “fire follower” and 

that an integral part of its life history is spent 

as seed stored in the soil between fire 

episodes. In 2002 six more populations were 

discovered on the eastern end of Santa Cruz 

island, and in 2003 one more occurrence was 

found on the eastern end. The largest 

population contained 25 individuals, the next 

largest contained 9 plants, and the rest were 

comprised of 1 or 2 individuals. In 2004, 13 

more populations were discovered, scattered 

in chaparral habitat around the island (K. 

McEachern, USGS, pers. comm. February 8, 

2005). In addition, in 1999 and 2000–2001 

about 10 plants were discovered in three 

locations on Santa Rosa Island (D. Rodriquez, 

NPS botanist, pers. comm. February 17, 2005).

Island rush-rose is vulnerable to soil loss, 

reduced fire frequencies, and rooting by feral 

pigs (USFWS 2000). Island rush-rose may also 

be potentially impacted by hiking. The current 

Montanon Trail, connecting the east end of 

Santa Cruz Island with the isthmus and 

Prisoners Harbor, cuts through one of the 

larger island rush-rose occurrences on the 

east end of the island. 

Climate Change and Threatened 

and Endangered Species

All of the above species could experience 

habitat and population changes as a result of 

climate change. These potential changes were 

described previously in the “Terrestrial 

Vegetation” and “Wildlife” sections. For 

example, if sea levels were to rise, the beaches 

where western snowy plovers forage and nest 

could be affected.

Climate change is also probably affecting the 

islands’ threatened and endangered plants. 

For example, climate change is already 

suspected to be affecting the endangered softleaved paintbrush, endemic to Santa Rosa 

Island. McEachern et al. (2009) have found a 

steady decline in the abundance of this species 

since 2003, which appears to be due to higher 

mean growing season temperatures. 

McEachern et al. (2009) noted that climate 

change could increasingly affect and 

counteract management actions targeted at 

addressing other environmental problems. 

SOUNDSCAPE 

An important resource at Channel Islands 

National Park is the natural soundscape. 

Sometimes referred to as “natural quiet” and 

“natural ambient sounds,” the natural 

soundscape includes not only the quiet but 

the entire symphony of natural sounds found 

in the park, including silence; the crash of 

waves on the coast; the buzz of insects; the 

calls of landbirds, gulls, and California brown 

pelicans; the barking of sea lions hauled out 

on beaches; the rustle of the wind blowing in 

the trees; and the underwater songs of whales 

and dolphins.

No scientific studies have been conducted on 

the terrestrial soundscape of Channel Islands. 
Natural Resources

271

However, the park is generally considered a 

relatively quiet place that is rich in natural 

sounds. Very little noise is caused by people in 

most of the park. One of the primary sources 

of human-caused noise is boat traffic 

motoring by the islands, and boats that are 

landing and picking up passengers, such as at 

the landing cove on Anacapa, the docks at 

Scorpion and Prisoners Harbor on Santa 

Cruz, and at Bechers Bay on Santa Rosa. 

Developed landing areas also have noise 

generated due to machinery (e.g., cranes, 

pumps, and generators); vehicles; and the 

actions of people. On East Anacapa a fog horn 

is a regular noise source. There are military, 

government, private, and commercial plane 

and helicopter flights over all of the islands. 

Occasional commercial and government 

aircraft land and take off on the airstrip at 

Santa Rosa, and NMFS- and NPS-chartered 

aircraft take off and land at the San Miguel 

airstrips, generating substantial noise for short 

periods of time. NPS administrative facilities, 

such as the housing areas at Scorpion, East 

Anacapa, and Bechers Bay, generate noise due 

to machinery, heavy equipment, generators, 

and people’s voices. In areas where there are 

concentrations of people, such as 

campgrounds, the actions of people can be a 

noise source. (In a very low ambient level 

natural soundscape, these noises sometimes 

can have greater impacts than in areas of 

higher ambient level soundscapes, such as 

urban environments.) Commercial and 

recreational boats anchored off the coast of 

the islands can generate noise on park waters 

and the islands due to the use of engines, 

compressors, and generators. Military or 

space shuttle activities occasionally generate 

sonic booms at the islands.

Away from the coastlines and developed areas 

on the islands, there are very few disruptions 

of the natural soundscape. Among the noise 

sources that occasionally can be heard are 

motor vehicles on the roads of Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa, the voices of visitors, park 

administrative operations (e.g., running 

weedeaters and mowers on trails and around 

campsites and administrative facilities), and 

NPS- and NMFS-chartered aircraft landing 

and taking off on San Miguel. (About 100 

administrative flights per year go to San 

Miguel.) Although sanctuary regulations 

prohibit aircraft overflights below 1,000 feet 

over the waters within 1 nautical mile of the 

park islands, observed violations occur an 

average of once each week (NPS 1999).

Private single-engine airplanes periodically 

circle the islands, particularly on weekends. 

Occasionally noise is heard on San Miguel 

from low and medium level flights of military 

aircraft and helicopters, Coast Guard 

helicopters, and missile launches from 

Vandenberg. 

In the marine environment Santa Barbara 

Channel, well known for its high 

concentrations and diversity of marine 

mammals, is also one of the noisiest areas in 

the ocean with an average of one ship per 

hour passing through (McKenna et al 2012). 

The combination of abundant marine life and 

high levels of shipping noise in this region has 

raised questions concerning the effect of 

sound on marine mammals (M. McDonald et 

al. 2006; McKenna et al 2009;. J. Hildebrand, 

Scripps Institute of Oceanography, pers. 

comm. 2008).
272

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The cultural resources of the Channel Islands 

are associated with the prehistory and history 

of what is today southern California. The 

archeological record is rich and extensive, 

providing a wealth of data on human adaption 

and cultural change dating from 13,000 years 

ago to the present era. Beginning in the 16th 

century, the history of the islands embraces 

activities such as European exploration; and in 

the late 18th and into the 19th centuries fur 

trading, fishing, and seal hunting; leading to 

19th and 20th centuries ranching, maritime, 

and military activities, as well as conservation 

in the 20th century. Thus the islands’ history 

and associated historic properties reflect a 

long, complex, and varied relationship 

between humans and their island 

environment. The islands’ history began as the 

home of some of the earliest immigrants into 

North America; to a storehouse of resources 

to be exploited for a market economy (first by 

Europeans and later by Americans); to a place 

critical to maritime navigation and conducting 

military training and national security during 

World War II; and finally as a place valued for 

its unique island ecosystems, flora and fauna, 

and heritage worthy of preservation as a 

national park. 

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Prehistory

Archeological resources within the park have 

an unusually high level of significance in terms 

of criteria for inclusion on the national 

register. In fact, the resources may be 

considered among the most valuable in North 

America. They relate to a rich heritage of 

island occupation over a period that may have 

begun as early as 13,000 years ago, and 

because of their abundance and high degree of 

preservation, they have the potential to inform 

on aspects of prehistory and history that 

cannot be adequately revealed through 

archeological research on the mainland. 

Below are considered the specific factors that 

contribute to the significance of prehistoric 

and historic archeological resources.

First, an unusual number of prehistoric sites 

on Santa Rosa and San Miguel islands date 

more than 9,000 years ago. In fact, nowhere 

else in North America is there as large a 

concentration of sites known to be of this 

antiquity. Second, dated site deposits are well 

distributed throughout the rest of prehistory, 

making the park’s archeological record ideal

for studying processes of cultural change and 

evolution. Third, the park’s prehistoric sites

contain evidence for the development of 

maritime adaptations, particularly with regard 

to implications of new or improved 

technology in such realms as watercraft and 

fishing and relationship to population growth 

or decline. Fourth, existing records of 

environmental change, in particular a highresolution record of sea surface temperature 

fluctuation over the last 12,000 years, allow 

investigation of human responses to foodresource fluctuation. Fifth, environmental

characteristics of the islands foster excellent 

preservation of prehistoric cultural remains. 

The combination of a semiarid environment 

and basic soils foster preservation of faunal 

remains, and the lack of gophers and ground 

squirrels has resulted in less breakage of 

faunal and floral remains than is the case on 

the adjacent mainland. Finally, the minimal 

amount of land development and the access to 

large tracts of land for study — virtually whole 

islands — opens the possibility of studying 

settlement systems in their entirety as well as 

their landscape contexts. 

The date of the arrival of the first humans on 

the Channel Islands is not known, but the 

earliest concrete evidence of human 

habitation has been radiocarbon dated at ca. 

12,000 to 13,000 years BP (before present). 

Current research indicates that the northern 

Channel Islands were settled about the same 

time as the southern California mainland and 
Cultural Resources

273

somewhat earlier than the southern Channel 

Islands. This evidence consists of a few human 

bones discovered on northwestern Santa Rosa 

Island and habitation debris on San Miguel 

Island. The natural abundance of the 

surrounding sea, together with the terrestrial 

plants, provided subsistence and met most of 

the needs of the early island residents. An 

extensive trade network with the mainland 

peoples supplemented island provisions.

Over the millennia, island inhabitants left 

innumerable traces of their occupation. These 

archeological resources and artifacts reveal 

much of what is known about some 12,000 

years of cultural adaptation as well as the ebb 

and flow of island populations. The diet of 

these early people consisted mostly of 

intertidal shellfish and other marine life, 

supplemented by seasonal berries, nuts, roots, 

bulbs, and plants. 

There is evidence that for extended periods 

ocean temperatures rose, causing a change in 

the dynamics of marine and terrestrial 

resources. When the availability of certain 

resources declined, island populations 

responded by concentrating on different 

species. Changes in resources resulted in 

fluctuations in island population numbers, 

and it is believed that these changes also 

contributed to the development of a complex 

social organization by AD 1150. 

Canonized as a “tribe” in A.L. Kroeber’s 

Handbook of California Indians (1925), the 

“Chumash” are commonly misunderstood to 

consist of a single, sovereign group. The label 

“Chumash” used today is derived from the 

name of an American Indian linguistic family 

in south-central California. The Chumash 

people lived in an area that extended from San 

Luis Obispo to Malibu, including the five 

northern Channel Islands. At least three 

mutually unintelligible Chumashan languages 

were spoken within the Chumash territory. 

The islanders differed from the people on the 

mainland in many ways, in addition to the 

language they spoke. They depended more on 

the resources of the sea than on those of the 

land, although they probably burned portions 

of the islands to encourage the growth of 

certain plants, carefully tended patches of 

sedges and rushes for weaving baskets, and 

possibly cultivated plants for food and other 

uses. At the time the European explorers 

encountered the island Chumash, the 

Chumash controlled a money-based economy 

by making drills from Santa Cruz Island chert 

to manufacture olivella shells into beads. Shell 

beads were used as currency among 

themselves and with mainland Indians in their 

wide-ranging trade network, which stretched 

into the Central Valley of California and 

beyond. European colonization of Chumash 

lands disrupted the Chumash economy and 

settlements and trading networks, and 

introduced new diseases. These events led to 

the decline of the Chumash population and 

social structure and the eventual removal of 

the Chumash from the islands to the mainland 

Spanish missions. 

The picture emerging from archeological 

research shows the Chumash to have been a 

resourceful people coping with an abundant, 

but often capricious, environment. The 

Chumash clearly learned to exploit their 

environment with increasing effectiveness 

over the centuries, developing a unique 

watercraft, the tomol (see following 

paragraph), to fish offshore, and facilitate 

trade between the islands and mainland.

By 1350 the Chumash had become one of the 

most numerous of California’s native cultures, 

trading extensively and crossing the Santa 

Barbara Channel in redwood tomols—

double-ended plank canoes built by lashing 

rough planks of driftwood together to form a 

hull and sealing the seams with a mixture of 

pine pitch and asphaltum. The tomol’s

enhanced seaworthiness sparked increased 

trade across the Santa Barbara Channel and 

increased offshore fishing and more intensive 

hunting of seals and sea lions.

Steatite or soapstone cooking implements and 

decorative items, probably from Catalina 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

274

Island, were common on the Channel Islands 

as were ground stone vessels. Island chert, 

found in outcrops along the Montanon region 

of Santa Cruz Island and in scattered locations 

on the other islands, has specific properties 

advantageous to tool-making. Island chert is 

well suited to making precise tools such as 

bead drills, and this material was highly 

prized. Basketry impressions on asphaltum are 

found on the islands, but the woven material 

itself is rare, fragmentary, and unadorned. 

Some vessels were made from terrestrial 

plants such as willow and cattails, and many 

examples of woven material are of sea grass. A 

sea grass sandal fragment from a site on San 

Miguel Island is estimated to be more than 

9,000 years old—the oldest woven textile 

known from the Pacific Coast.

The Chumash developed a thriving complex 

culture characterized by the emergence of a 

socially stratified society and craft 

specialization, particularly well demonstrated 

in bead making. Chumash society featured an 

upper class of chiefs, shamans, boat builders, 

and artisans. Each village had its chief, or wot, 

and 13 shamans, or antap, who were 

responsible for keeping the forces of the 

universe in harmony. Local chiefs 

independently controlled one or more 

villages, contending with others for control as 

alliances shifted. Chumash society also 

consisted of a middle class of workers, 

fishermen, and hunters, as well as a lower class 

of poor people and outcasts. 

Island resources and the food and 

commodities obtained from coastal trading 

partners supported many villages, some 

having hundreds of inhabitants. Generally 

concentrated along the coastline, the villages 

consisted of circular thatched huts up to 30 

feet or more in diameter. 

Other typical village structures included the 

chief’s house, sweat lodges, food storage 

facilities, and a temporary hut where infants 

were born. Nearby were places for games, a 

cemetery, and an area for rituals to 

accommodate the increasing complexity of 

Chumash ceremonial life. 

Between 3,000 and 10,000 Chumash live in 

California today, and many individuals trace 

their ancestry to the islands. The Park Service, 

working with the Santa Barbara Museum of 

Natural History, completed a detailed study of 

mission records and other census data to 

identify lineal descendants from the historical 

villages in the national park.

The archeological resources of Santa Barbara, 

Anacapa, Santa Cruz, and San Miguel islands 

are listed on the national register as 

archeological districts. A nomination for the 

resources on Santa Rosa Island will be 

prepared following further survey of the 

island. A significant site on San Miguel Island 

has been proposed for national historic 

landmark designation.

European-American Explorers

In 1542, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo sailed north 

into the Santa Barbara Channel from Mexico 

with two ships — San Salvador and La 

Victoria. The first European to land on the 

islands, Cabrillo was a seasoned Portuguese 

navigator who accepted the offer of Antonio 

de Mendoza, the viceroy of New Spain, to 

explore the northwest coast of New Spain and 

search for the so-called Northwest Passage, a 

legendary route to shorten trade routes 

between Europe and Asia. On October 18, 

1542, the Cabrillo expedition discovered and 

named the present-day islands of San Miguel 

and Santa Rosa the “Islas de San Lucas.” The 

native people his expedition encountered 

along the mainland coast and on the islands 

were hospitable for the most part, but his 

ships struggled against strong winds from the 

north and the powerful California Current, 

and the local people began to resist the 

Spanish presence. 

Cabrillo wintered on one of the Channel 

Islands (possibly Cuyler Harbor on San 

Miguel Island or possibly on Santa Rosa 
Cultural Resources

275

Island) where he was badly injured in a fall on 

shore. His expedition resumed the journey 

northward but turned back at Point 

Conception, apparently returning to one of 

the Channel Islands where Cabrillo died from 

an infection of the broken limb. Although he 

may have been buried on one of the islands, 

his grave has never been found. The fleet 

again attempted to sail north under a new 

captain, Bartolome Ferrer, but north of 

Mendocino the expedition’s ships turned 

back for the last time, having explored some 

1,200 miles of the California coastline that was 

claimed for Spain. In 1937, the Cabrillo Civic 

Clubs of California, a statewide Portuguese 

organization, placed a monument to Cabrillo 

on a knoll overlooking Cuyler Harbor.

Although Sebastian Rodriguez Cermeno 

visited some of the Channel Islands aboard 

the ship San Agustin in 1595, the next explorer 

to leave his mark on the islands was Sebastian 

Vizcaino, who traversed along and mapped 

the coast of California as far north as Point 

Reyes, also looking for the elusive Northwest 

Passage and seeking a suitable harbor for the 

trading ships that sailed from Manila to 

Mexico. Landing on one of the southern 

Channel Islands on the feast day of Santa 

Barbara (December 4, 1602), Vizcaino named 

it for the patron saint of navigators. Vizcaino 

also named the other southernmost Channel 

Islands — San Clemente, Santa Catalina, and 

San Nicolas. These names would survive, 

although those he chose for the northern 

islands would not.

Coastal California attracted little attention 

from Europeans until the 18th century. 

Eventually Spanish authorities decided to 

establish a presence on the coast, partly in 

reaction to increasing Russian, English, and 

Dutch interest. In 1769 a large expedition 

under Gaspar de Portola moved north 

through Chumash country by land and sea en 

route to Monterey Bay, which had been noted 

earlier by Vizcaino as a possible port. The 

seagoing part of the expedition examined 

several of the Channel Islands, including San 

Clemente and Santa Cruz, the latter being 

given its present day name.

The Franciscan missionary Father Junipero 

Serra began establishing missions up the 

California coast, starting in San Diego in 1769. 

Between 1772 and 1804, six Spanish missions 

were established in or adjacent to territories 

occupied by people speaking several different 

Chumash languages. From north to south, 

these missions were San Luis Obispo, La 

Purisima Concepcion, Santa Ines, Santa 

Barbara, San Buenaventura, and San 

Fernando.

Sailing under British colors, Captain George 

Vancouver swept down the California coast in 

1793, hoping to establish claims for England 

while gathering information on the expanding 

Spanish settlements. After studying the old 

charts of the region, he settled on the island 

names for Santa Rosa, San Miguel, and 

Anacapa and standardized and finalized the

present names of the eight Channel Islands on 

nautical charts.

The arrival of the Europeans began the 

devastation of Chumash culture. Epidemics of 

measles and other European diseases wiped 

out entire Chumash villages. By the late 1820s, 

the few remaining island Chumash were 

removed from their villages and placed into 

the Spanish missions. 

Fur Traders and Sealers

Beginning in the late 18th century and 

continuing through the mid-19th century, 

Russian, British, and American fur hunters 

and traders searched the Channel Islands’ 

coves and shorelines for sea otter. Kanakas 

from Hawaii and Aleut natives from Alaska, 

brought by Russian, English, and American 

ships, established camps on the islands and 

paddled in their waters in kayaks — called 

baidarkas by the Aleuts — hunting the sea 

otter, whose fur coats were highly prized in 

Europe and Asia. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

276

Soon the government of New Spain joined in 

the slaughter, encouraging the Indians to hunt 

sea otter along the California coast and among 

the islands and to bring the pelts to the 

missions. Once in the hands of the Spaniards, 

the furs were traded for quicksilver in the 

China trade. Quicksilver, used in the process 

of extracting gold from crushed ore, was vital 

to the development of the Spanish mining 

interests in Mexico. Moreover, by harvesting 

the otter, the Spaniards hoped to keep other 

Europeans out of their lands. 

Mexico won independence from Spain in 

1821, and the new government quickly 

opened its trade markets to boost its 

economy. European nations, including Russia, 

England, France, and Portugal, were allowed 

to hunt in the Channel Islands, provided they 

paid duties to Mexico. The new government 

had no vessels for patrolling the islands, 

however, so the fur traders, whose vessels 

were large and heavily armed, simply took 

what they wanted.

Hunters expanded their quarry to include 

whales, fur seals, elephant seals, and sea lions, 

which they slaughtered for oil, bone, baleen 

hides, fur, and even whiskers with which to 

clean tobacco pipes in the United States and 

opium pipes in China. By the late 1800s, the 

sea otter was virtually extinct in the Channel 

Islands, along with the Guadaloupe fur seal, 

northern fur seal, northern elephant seal, and 

sea lion. 

The Chumash and Gabrielino people also 

suffered as a result of the competitive fur 

hunting. Aleuts raided their villages, shooting 

and raising general havoc among them. To 

secure the area for Spain against the Russian 

and Aleut fur traders and at the same time gain 

more converts for the church, the Spanish 

began to transport the Chumash to the coastal 

missions on the mainland. Between 1813 and 

1817 most Chumash islanders migrated to the 

missions, settling primarily in and around 

Santa Barbara and San Buenaventura, where 

their way of life was submerged beneath the 

introduced religion and routine of mission 

work that they were compelled to follow. By 

the time of the secularization of the missions 

in 1833–1834, Chumash populations, further 

decimated by infectious diseases against 

which they held no natural immunity, had 

been reduced to about 15% of their estimated 

levels at the beginning of Spanish 

colonization. 

Settlers and Ranchers

After Mexico declared its independence from 

Spain, the Mexican government granted three 

of the Channel Islands — Santa Rosa, Santa 

Cruz, and Santa Catalina — to settlers during 

the period of Mexican rule from 1821 to 1848. 

Ranching began on Santa Cruz in 1839 with a 

land grant to Andres Castillero. In 1843, Jose 

Antonio Carrillo and Carlos Carrillo secured a 

grant to Santa Rosa Island, but the men soon 

assigned their rights to Carlos’ two daughters. 

Although the Channel Islands were not 

specifically mentioned in the Treaty of 

Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the MexicanAmerican War in 1848, they were ceded, along 

with the rest of California, to the United 

States. Titles to the three privately owned 

islands (Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa 

Catalina) were confirmed by the United 

States, but the remaining five islands became 

the property of the U.S. government.

The period of Mexican rule was also

characterized by transient settlement of the 

islands. The fur hunters occasionally 

established temporary camps on the islands, 

while others, mostly vagabonds, drifted in and 

out. Prisoners’ Harbor on Santa Cruz Island 

reputedly was used as a convict colony for a 

few months during spring 1830, when 

prisoners from Mexico were transported to 

the island along with supplies, livestock, and 

grain.

During the early 1860s, when California began 

to boom, some Chinese immigrants, who had 

come to the United States to labor in the gold 

fields and construct the nation’s expanding 

railroads, discovered their own bonanza in the 
Cultural Resources

277

tidepools of the islands and the mainland. 

Populations of abalone — huge, flattened 

marine snails with heavy, bowl-like shells and 

subtly flavored meat — were increasing in the 

Channel Islands, because their traditional 

predators — the sea otter and Indians — had 

all but disappeared.

Working out of makeshift fishing camps, 

particularly along the southwest coast of Santa 

Rosa Island, the Chinese exploited the 

abalone, moving from one abalone-rich cove 

to another. Abalone meat was dried and 

shipped to San Francisco and then 

transported to China and also sold to the large 

local Chinese community in San Francisco. By 

1879 more than 4 million pounds of abalone 

meat a year were being exported, while the 

abalone shells were sent to markets in the 

United States, France, and Germany for use in 

the manufacture of jewelry and buttons.

By the mid-1880s, Americans, Portuguese, 

Slavs, Japanese, Italians, and Swedes had 

moved to the California coast to develop an 

extensive fishing industry that took advantage 

of the rich marine resources of the area. 

Fishermen rented space on island shorelines 

or squatted as trespassers living in makeshift 

shacks while conducting their fishing 

operations. The fishermen were often 

subsidized by businesses, such as the Larco 

Fish Company or the Castagnola Brothers 

who made frequent pick-ups of lobsters, 

crabs, and fish from the island fishermen for 

sale on the mainland.

Some of the fishermen of this era have become 

part of island lore. During the 1890s and early 

1900s, for instance, Heaman Bayfield Webster, 

a Ventura businessman, lived part time on 

Santa Barbara Island as a fisherman and seal 

hunter. During 1907–17, Webster leased 

Anacapa Island and contracted with the 

government to run sheep and operate a fishing 

concession. He and his family lived on Middle 

Anacapa at Sheep Camp, the location of the 

main headquarters for the sheep operation. 

Raymond “Frenchy” LeDreau, a Frenchman 

who lived as a hermit from the late 1920s to 

the mid-1950s on West Anacapa at the spot 

now known as Frenchy’s Cove, made money 

during prohibition by helping bootleggers and 

rumrunners. Along with his wife and two 

daughters, Herbert S. Lester, the legendary 

king of San Miguel, lived on that remote island 

from 1930 to 1942.

The ranchers who arrived in the Channel 

Islands during the 19th century cleared parts 

of the islands by burning and cutting the 

vegetation. Next they planted crops in the 

open, plowed fields. The seeds they brought 

inevitably contained weeds, mostly foxtails 

and mustard, although some of the seeds may 

have arrived on the clothing, tools, supplies, 

livestock, and pets of the settlers. The crops 

were fast-growing Mediterranean grains, such 

as oats and barley, which often choked out the 

native vegetation entirely. The settlers also 

introduced exotic species, such as eucalyptus 

trees, which still grow on parts of Anacapa, 

Santa Cruz, and Santa Rosa islands.

Ranching probably began on San Miguel 

sometime during the 1850s, and in 1863 

Captain George Nidever, a frontiersman and 

trapper, bought some 6,000 sheep, 125 cattle, 

and 25 horses, as well as an undivided onehalf interest in the island at a sheriff’s sale. 

Nidever constructed an adobe above Cuyler 

Harbor, the remains of which are barely 

visible today. In the early days, the sheep were 

often allowed to roam and reproduce freely. 

Consequently large natural areas were 

ravaged. Native plants were cropped to the 

roots, and some plant species unique to the 

island may have perished as a result.

Not until the 20th century was Santa Barbara 

Island settled to any extent. During the 1910s 

and early 1920s, Hyder family members leased 

the island from the U.S. government, living on 

the island; planting potatoes, barley, and hay; 

and raising sheep, chickens, turkeys, geese, 

pigs, goats, and rabbits. Intentional burning by 

island residents and the introduction of 

rabbits, which proved to be more devastating 

than sheep, severely damaged the native 

vegetation. Originally brought to the island to 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

278

provide extra food for island residents, the 

rabbits multiplied at a tremendous rate, 

denuding the island’s vegetation and plant life. 

In 1954 a rabbit-control program was initiated 

to check the wholesale onslaught upon the 

native vegetation, and today the plant life is 

recovering.

In 1853, Dr. James Barron Shaw, acting as 

agent for Castillero and Santa Cruz Island’s 

subsequent owners, the Barron and Forbes 

Company, began stocking the island with 

sheep, horses, cattle, and hogs. The island 

ranching system developed by Shaw included 

the main ranch and satellite ranches at the east 

and west ends of the island and at La Playa 

(Prisoners Harbor). Shaw managed the island 

rancho until 1869, developing several ranch 

outposts and the infrastructure that linked 

them. In 1869, 10 San Francisco investors 

purchased the island and formed the Santa 

Cruz Island Company. Justinian Caire, a 

Frenchman who had come to California as 

part of the gold rush and was one of the 10 

investors, acquired the majority of the shares 

in the company during an economic 

downturn in the 1870s and became sole owner 

of the island by the end of the 1880s or early 

1890s. 

After moving to the island, Caire established 

an extensive, self-sufficient sheep and cattle

ranch and winery, employing more than 100 

French, Italian, Hispanic, and Native 

American permanent and seasonal laborers, 

thus reflecting his French origins, his wife’s 

Italian heritage, and the local population. 

Employees included a blacksmith, carpenters, 

painters, team drivers, dairymen, cooks, stone 

cutters and masons, gardeners, vintners, grape 

pickers, sheep shearers, wagon and saddle 

makers, a cobbler, a butcher, a baker, and a 

sea captain and sailors. Caire based his 

operations at headquarters in the central 

valley that included a residence, bunkhouses 

for winemakers, shepherds, and vaqueros; 

barns; winery buildings; a dining hall; a 

bakery; a laundry, a kitchen, shops for wagon 

makers, blacksmiths, and tool and saddle 

makers; and a chapel. Agricultural operations 

included fruit and nut orchards, vineyards, 

vegetables, olives, hay, and other crops. 

Plantings of eucalyptus, Monterey cypress, 

pepper tree, and other ornamental species, 

dating primarily to the Caire era, are found at 

the ranch sites and elsewhere on the island. 

Most of the earliest buildings constructed 

under Shaw’s superintendency were of adobe 

or wood, and most have disappeared. During 

the Caire era, much of the permanent 

construction was of stone masonry or brick. 

The design of the extant buildings with their 

whitewashed stucco surfaces, large corner 

quoins, and cobble walkways exhibit the 

Mediterranean heritage of their owners. Many 

of the construction materials were gleaned 

from the island; bricks for construction and 

lime for mortar and plaster were produced in 

island kilns. 

Most of the island’s road system dates to the 

Caire development period, although the Ridge 

Road or “Camino Viejo” predated Caire. The 

central valley roads lined with eucalyptus trees 

form grand avenues near the main ranch. The 

Stanton family developed many dirt ranch 

roads during the 1940s to 1960s, especially on 

the isthmus. 

Dry stone structures, built in the late 19th 

century by Italian masons and laborers, are 

found throughout Santa Cruz Island. 

Structures include stone-lined wells, rock 

retaining walls along stream channels and 

roads, and more than 200 check dams on the 

east end alone, built to control water flow and 

slow erosion. Large rock piles, created when 

the fields were cleared for cultivation, dot the 

east end of the island. 

Caire continued to use the ranches that had 

been developed by Shaw and established 

additional outranches and camps at other 

locations on the island. The main ranch and 

the outranches at Prisoners’ Harbor, Scorpion 

Valley, and Smugglers Cove on the east end of 

the island, and Christy on the west end of the 

central valley, remained the primary ranches 

through the Caire period, although five other 
Cultural Resources

279

smaller outranches were developed on the 

island, including Rancho Punta West, Rancho

Nuevo, Buena Vista, Portezuela, and Rancho 

Sur. The island’s sheep population reached 

40,000 to 50,000 head under Caire, the wool 

and meat being shipped to market from 

Scorpion and Prisoners Harbor. 

When Caire died in 1897, an unequal 

distribution of his estate among his heirs led 

to prolonged litigation. Ultimately, the dispute 

was settled by a court-ordered partition of the 

island in 1925, which divided the island into 

parcels, the western 90% of the island going to 

Caire’s widow and four of their children and 

the eastern 10% going to the two married 

Caire daughters. The Caire family maintained 

the western portion of the island until 1937 

when the land was sold to Los Angeles 

businessman Edwin L. Stanton. After 

unsuccessfully attempting to revive the 

island’s sheep business, which had declined 

dramatically after Caire’s death, Stanton 

switched to cattle ranching. Although the 19th 

century fence lines and features on the eastern 

end of the island remain relatively unchanged 

since their construction, the ones on the 

western part of the island were altered to 

accommodate Stanton’s cattle operations. A 

Stanton-period outranch was built at Del 

Norte in 1952–53. 

Edwin Stanton’s son and heir, Dr. Carey 

Stanton, continued the cattle ranching 

operations after his father’s death in 1963. In 

1978 the Santa Cruz Island Company (the 

Stanton holdings), recognizing the importance 

of keeping the island intact for the future and 

needing to pay his nephew for his share in the 

Santa Cruz Island Company, entered into a 

conservation agreement with The Nature 

Conservancy, a private, nonprofit 

organization dedicated to land preservation, 

research, and educational use of unique 

natural habitats worldwide. Dr. Stanton and 

his nephew received remuneration for shares 

in the Santa Cruz Island Company and Dr. 

Stanton retained control of the island until his 

death in 1987, at which time the remainder of 

Dr. Stanton’s interest in the property passed 

to The Nature Conservancy. 

The east end of the island remained in the 

hands of the Caire descendants, consolidated 

under the ownership of Ambrose and Maria 

Gherini. They continued the sheep ranching 

operation, with headquarters at Scorpion 

Valley. The ranch operations were overseen 

by a series of superintendents and caretakers 

until the island was converted to a private 

hunting, camping, and recreational venture in 

the early 1980s. The Park Service purchased a 

three-quarter interest in the Gherini property 

in 1989 and 1992. In 1997 the Park Service 

acquired the remaining quarter interest 

through a legislative taking.

The Thompson family operated a ranch on 

Santa Rosa Island from 1844 to 1860, and by 

1857 it was reported that there were 8,000 

cattle and 2,000 sheep on Santa Rosa Island. 

During the More family tenure on the island 

(1860 to 1901) it was used primarily as a sheep 

ranch and became one of the major wool 

producers in southern California. At one 

point, more than 100,000 sheep were said to 

be on the island. The early sheep operation on 

the island gave way to cattle after 1901 when 

Walter L. Vail and J.V. Vickers established the 

Vail & Vickers Company and purchased the 

island. Thereafter, the company operated an 

extensive cattle ranch on the island under the 

management of three generations of the Vail 

family until 1998. At various times, deer, elk, 

and feral pigs were introduced on the island 

for food and sport hunting. 

Various other activities have also been 

conducted on the Channel Islands during the 

20th century. These include hunting clubs, 

Hollywood filmmaking, oil exploration, and 

many forms of recreation. Ira and Margaret 

Eaton’s rustic resort at Pelican Bay on Santa 

Cruz Island attracted hundreds of visitors 

during its heyday from 1910 to 1937. 

Bootleggers and rumrunners found the 

islands’ isolation to be beneficial during 

Prohibition. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

280

The Park Service has completed 

determinations of eligibility for the national 

register for two historic island ranching 

districts. The proposed Santa Cruz Island 

Ranching District is a 14,000-acre vernacular 

ranching landscape on the NPS-managed 

portion of the island. The ranching district is 

locally significant. The district is comprised of 

four distinct developed areas — Prisoners 

Harbor, Scorpion Valley, Smugglers Ranch, 

and Rancho Del Norte. The ranching district 

also includes linear features such as fence 

lines, roads, and isolated features such as drylaid rock structures and landscape plantings. 

The Santa Rosa Island Historic Ranching 

District is a 53,000-acre rural vernacular 

landscape. The ranching district has statewide 

significance. The district includes the main 

ranch development area at Bechers Bay, as 

well as linear features such as fence lines and 

roads, isolated features such as constructed 

water features and line camps, and landscape 

plantings. 

AIDS TO NAVIGATION 

Shortly after the 1853 wreck of the Winfield 

Scott off Middle Anacapa, the U.S. Coast 

Survey pointed out the need for a permanent 

lighthouse facility on the island. During the 

next 58 years, many shipwrecks would occur 

in waters around the Channel Islands, more 

than a dozen of which were off Anacapa. 

Finally in 1911, the U.S. Lighthouse Service 

(later replaced by the Coast Guard in 1939) 

erected the first navigational aid — a whistling 

buoy anchored five-eighths of a mile from the 

east end of East Anacapa. In 1932, the

acetylene light was replaced by a 600,000-

candlepower lighthouse (and ancillary 

building complex) — the last major lighthouse 

to be constructed on the West Coast of the 

United States; it was fully automated in 1968.

The wreck of the Winfield Scott and the

Anacapa Island Light Station Historic District 

are both listed on the national register.

Although Santa Barbara Island was reserved 

for lighthouse purposes in 1905, it was not 

until 1929 that an acetylene lantern 

navigational light was installed on the 

northwest corner of the island. In 1986 a 

solar-powered battery-operated light replaced 

this system. A second light tower was 

constructed at the south end of the island in 

1934. This light was destroyed in the 1959 fire 

that swept two-thirds of the island. 

Thereafter, the Coast Guard discontinued that 

light, leaving only one functioning unmanned 

light on the island. By 1979 the light tower was 

in poor condition and was removed and 

replaced by a modern steel tower with a solarpowered beacon.

Other aids to navigation on the islands include 

a lighthouse that operated at Crook Point on 

the south side of San Miguel Island from 1943 

to 1955 and the South Point Light Station that 

operated on Santa Rosa Island from 1925 until 

the 1980s. 

MILITARY ACTIVITIES

During World War II, the Coastal Lookout 

Organization was established to provide 

surveillance along the California coastline 

from Point Arguello to the Mexican border. 

Lookout stations were established — three on 

San Clemente Island and one on each of the 

other Channel Islands — for the purpose of 

reporting enemy airplanes and vessels, and 

patrol vessels cruised the islands’ waters. 

Station personnel were trained in night 

surveillance and vessel recognition, and each 

station was supplied with binoculars and 

arms. On July 1, 1945, as the threat of enemy 

attack subsided toward the end of the war, the 

Coastal Lookout Organization was abolished.

In 1943, the U.S. Army established a radar 

station on the south side of Santa Rosa Island. 

During the early 1950s, the U.S. Air Force 

leased and developed approximately 10 acres 

on the only harbor — Johnson’s Lee — on the 

south side of the island, operating it as an Air 

Control and Warning Station. Facilities 
Cultural Resources

281

associated with the station were also 

constructed atop Soledad Peak, the island’s 

highest promontory, and two smaller units 

were built to the southeast and northwest of 

Johnson’s Lee. The station was manned from 

1951 to 1963 (at its peak, about 300 men were 

stationed there), but it was officially 

abandoned in 1965.

Beginning in 1948 the U.S. Navy used San 

Miguel Island as a bombing range and tactical 

target for both airplanes and ships. In 1963 the 

U.S. Navy transferred partial responsibility for 

the island to the commander of the Pacific 

Missile Range. Radar guidance systems were 

tested and major fleet exercises were 

conducted around the island. 

During the early 1960s, the U.S. Navy 

established a photo-tracking station on Santa 

Barbara Island. 

ERA OF CONSERVATION — 

EVOLUTION OF THE 

NATIONAL PARK

As early as 1932 the NPS considered the 

Channel Islands for national park status. On 

April 26, 1938, President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt issued an executive order 

proclaiming Santa Barbara and Anacapa 

Islands as a national monument to preserve 

mammoth fossils and other notable scientific 

features. On June 10, 1949, President Harry S 

Truman added the submerged lands within 1 

nautical mile of the two islands to the 

monument. In 1974 the two islands were 

opened for public visitation, and in 1976 the 

Park Service and the U.S. Navy signed an 

agreement allowing supervised public 

visitation of San Miguel Island as well. 

On March 5, 1980, President Jimmy Carter 

signed a bill establishing Channel Islands 

National Park, the country’s 40th national 

park. The boundaries of the new park 

included the four northern islands (Anacapa, 

San Miguel, Santa Cruz, and Santa Rosa) and 

Santa Barbara Island, as well as the waters 

extending 1 nautical mile from each. Later 

that year, protection of the park area was 

augmented by designation of the sanctuary 

(an entity administered by the NOAA) that 

extends 6 miles out from the high tide line of 

each of the islands to cover a total of 1,658 

square miles. The same boundaries constitute 

one of the reserves included in the 

International Man and the Biosphere Program 

— the Channel Islands Biosphere Reserve — 

that had been designated in 1976. The 

international program was designed to 

conserve representative samples of the Earth’s 

ecosystems and genetic diversity, and thus 

provide an environmental baseline for 

research and resource monitoring throughout 

the world. 

The state of California retains ownership of 

the seabed and all the marine resources in the 

water column within 3 miles of the Channel 

Islands. California has designated Areas of 

Special Biological Significance around the 

islands to protect special biological 

communities by prohibiting discharges of 

waste to the 300-foot isobath. 

In 2002, the California Fish and Game 

Commission established a network of MPAs 

within 3 miles of the park islands. NOAA 

expanded the MPA network into the federal 

waters in 2006 and 2007.

The entire MPA network consists of 11 

marine reserves where all take and harvest is 

prohibited, and two marine conservation 

areas that allow limited take of lobster and 

pelagic fish. This MPA network encompasses 

241 square nautical miles (or 318 square 

miles), making it the largest network off of the 

continental United States. 

In addition, the State Lands Commission 

manages and protects cultural resources, 

including shipwrecks, from mean high tide to 

3 nautical miles offshore. Although marine 

mammals are protected under the federal 

Marine Mammal Act, the state of California 

manages all other plants and animals in the 

water portion of the national park, which 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

282

includes several commercial and sport 

fisheries.

PROPERTIES LISTED IN, 

OR POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE FOR 

LISTING IN, THE NATIONAL 

REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

Anacapa, Santa Barbara, and San Miguel 

islands were listed in the national register on 

September 12, 1979 as archeological districts 

that have a regional level of significance. The 

portion of Santa Cruz Island (about 90% of 

the island) owned by The Nature 

Conservancy was also listed in the national 

register as an archeological district on January 

30, 1980, and the Park Service is updating the 

national register documentation to include the 

entire island. There is no question that the 

archeology of the eastern portion of the island 

is at least as significant as the current 

archeological district, particularly since it 

contains most of the chert quarries exploited 

by island Chumash. Santa Rosa Island, which 

contains some of the most significant 

archeological resources in the park, is not yet 

listed in the national register, although it also 

is considered by the Park Service to be eligible 

for listing as an archeological district.

According to the Society for American 

Archeology, several archeological resources 

on the islands may be eligible for designation 

as national historic landmarks. These include 

Daisy Cave on San Miguel Island and 

Arlington Canyon on Santa Rosa Island.

The 1853 wreck of the Winfield Scott, off 

Middle Anacapa Island, and the Anacapa 

Island Light Station were listed in the national 

register on September 12, 1988 and September 

3, 1991, respectively. The Anacapa Island 

Light Station historic property includes 13 

structures that are listed as contributing 

resources—light house tower, fog signal 

building, keeper’s residence, power house, oil 

house, general service building, tank house, 

rain shed, derrick building, upper derrick 

landing, lower landing, landing stairway, and 

flagpole. The Park Service is planning to 

amend the Anacapa Island Light Station 

national register form to include elements of 

the installation’s cultural landscape such as 

roads and circulation patterns, walkways, 

landscaping, and the water catchment basin.

Taken as a general entity, the islands and 

adjacent waters of the national park represent 

a gallery of shipwrecks and maritime history. 

An NPS Submerged Cultural Resources 

Assessment in 1996 outlined maritime trade in 

the Channel Islands area, described individual 

shipwrecks according to vessel type, and made 

recommendations for further study. The 

document, however, did not address a 

national register historic district. Although 

one shipwreck (the Winfield Scott) has been 

listed, the islands’ shipwrecks, according to 

some, may be eligible as a maritime 

archeological district. A draft national register 

nomination form has been prepared for the 

Golden Horn, a shipwreck off the coast of 

Santa Rosa Island.

Cultural landscape inventories of Santa Cruz 

and Santa Rosa islands resulted in 

determinations that the island ranching 

districts are eligible for listing in the national 

register.

DESCRIPTION OF PARK’S 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Overview

The park’s significance with respect to 

cultural resources lies in its long and varied 

prehistoric and historic occupation and use. 

Evidence of the islands’ prehistoric 

occupation is found in the archeological 

remains of villages, campsites, quarries, and 

cemeteries. Some of the earliest sites in 

California and on the Pacific Coast of North 

America are in the park. The absence of 

burrowing animals and limited human access 

have contributed greatly to the preservation of 

archeological resources and surrounding 

areas in a relatively undisturbed state. 
Cultural Resources

283

Remnants of early European exploration and 

exploitation of the islands, the functioning 

1930s-era light station on Anacapa Island, and 

the cattle and sheep ranching complexes on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, elements 

of which date back to the 19th century, 

illustrate the islands’ principal historic periods 

of use.

Channel Islands National Park contains a 

record of more than 12,000 years of human 

use and occupation. This record is contained 

in some 2,500 recorded archeological 

resources both on the islands and beneath 

park waters, and in the historic structures and 

landscape features associated with European 

exploration and settlement of the islands. At 

least 100 more sites have been identified by 

archeologists but remain unrecorded. The 

number of archeological resources on the 

islands is estimated to be more than three 

times the number of recorded and known 

sites. 

A human presence on the islands had most 

likely been established by the end of the 

Pleistocene era. The park contains the oldest 

dated archeological site on the North 

American West Coast (radiocarbon dated at 

11000 to 13000 BP) at Daisy Cave on San 

Miguel Island. In addition to this cave, the 

dating of “Arlington Man,” a partial skeleton 

excavated on Santa Rosa Island in 1961 that 

dates to about 13000 BP, relates to the earliest 

known human occupation in the region.

Although artifact collection and site vandalism 

have occurred on all of the islands, many sites 

retain enormous research potential. With the 

rapid destruction of sites on the mainland, the 

record of human occupation in the park is 

becoming the best remaining resource base 

for understanding not only island prehistory, 

but also the development of Chumash and 

Gabrieleno-Tongva cultures. The northern 

Channel Islands retain Chumash material; and 

Santa Barbara Island, primarily occupied by 

the Gabrieleno-Tongva but often visited by 

the Chumash, should be studied in 

coordination with research undertaken on 

Santa Catalina, San Clemente, and San 

Nicholas Islands, as well as that of the 

northern islands.

The prehistoric period ended as Europeans 

reached the Channel Islands area, 

spearheaded by Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo’s 

explorations in 1542. While Cabrillo is 

traditionally said to have been buried on San 

Miguel Island, his remains have not been 

located, and it is some believe that they might 

be on Santa Rosa, Santa Catalina, or one of the 

other Channel Islands. 

After the removal of Chumash populations to 

mainland missions during 1813–17 and a 

period of intensive sea otter hunting, Santa 

Cruz and Santa Rosa islands became land 

grants and were subsequently developed as 

livestock ranches that operated nearly to the 

present day. Historic buildings and objects on 

both islands, while different in character, 

remain as elements of the islands’ ranching 

legacy. San Miguel Island, never a formal land 

grant, was leased to various ranchers over the 

years; its buildings and ranching features are 

now archeological ruins. Santa Barbara and 

Anacapa islands were also leased for sheep 

grazing operations. Ranching on the islands 

chronicles a period of resource use and 

exploitation that often resulted in negative 

impacts on the islands’ natural ecosystems.

Other examples of occupation of the islands 

have occurred during the 20th century. The 

Anacapa Island Light Station, constructed in 

1932, became an automated station in 1968 

with the Park Service taking over use of the 

station’s support buildings. Ruins of a small 

U.S. Air Force installation on Santa Rosa 

Island demonstrates an increasing military 

presence on the islands beginning with the 

lead up to World War II. Santa Cruz and Santa 

Rosa islands contain remains of oil 

exploration, exemplifying early technology in 

petroleum exploration.

As a consequence of long human occupation, 

rising sea levels in geologically recent times, 

and centuries of prehistoric sea travel, 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

284

prehistoric sites are potentially present in park 

waters. Some artifacts have been recovered by 

scuba divers. Park waters and beaches also 

contain at least 50 historic shipwrecks 

representing a wide variety of significant 

maritime trades; of this number, 20 have been 

found and identified. Shipwrecks in the park 

boundaries are known to include the 

• Winfield Scott, a California gold-rush-era 

passenger steamship

• Golden Horn and Aggi, large 19th century 

sailing vessels

• the lumber schooners Comet, Dora, 

Bluhm, J.M. Colman, Jane L. Stanford, 

Watson A. West, and G.W. Prescott

• sealing ships NB, Kate and Anna, Surprise, 

and Ella G.

• 19th century steamships Crown of England

and Cuba

• early purse seiners, Labor, Adriatic, and 

Balboa

The wrecks of these vessels, not all of which 

have been located, identified, and 

documented, do not constitute a 

comprehensive inventory of all shipwrecks in 

the park.

Archeological Resources

Background. Archeological survey data have 

been integrated into the park’s geographic 

information system (GIS), greatly improving 

the park’s planning capabilities. A predictive 

model for erosion on and near Santa Rosa 

Island archeological resources was developed 

in 2003, which also produced a workable site 

prediction model for this island. About 25% 

of the park has been surveyed for 

archeological resources. Sites on Anacapa and 

Santa Barbara islands have been identified, 

and both islands are listed as archeological 

districts on the national register. San Miguel is 

also listed on the national register as an 

archeological district, although archeological 

investigations on the islands continue to 

locate previously unknown sites and produce 

updates to existing site records. About 25% of 

the park lands on Santa Cruz Island and 15% 

of Santa Rosa Island have been surveyed. The 

resulting data indicate that Santa Rosa Island 

is eligible for listing on the national register as 

an archeological district, and that the east end 

of Santa Cruz Island should be included in an 

expanded national register archeological 

district encompassing the island. All of the 

park’s archeological resource records have 

been entered into the NPS Automated Site 

Management Information System (ASMIS), 

with condition assessments for approximately 

54%. Less than 1% of all sites in the park have 

been radiocarbon dated, and of those, more 

than 50% have associated dates that should be 

reanalyzed in light of improved dating 

techniques. Research goals are to investigate 

unsurveyed areas of Santa Cruz and Santa 

Rosa islands and document newly discovered 

sites, relocate recorded sites and upgrade 

documentation and assessments, update the 

radiocarbon database with new analysis on 

selected sites, obtain radiocarbon dates from 

specific sites not yet tested, develop erosion 

and site prediction models for Santa Cruz and 

San Miguel islands, stabilize eroding sites, and 

integrate a program of ground-truthing 

existing site location data and data editing for 

the park’s geographic information system.

Very little is known about submerged 

prehistoric cultural resources in the park. 

What is known is that Pleistocene shorelines 

are now inundated, and it is reasonable to 

assume that occupation sites exist from 12,000 

to 13,000 years ago. It is also reasonable to 

assume that at least some of the watercraft 

used by the islands’ prehistoric occupants 

should have wrecked and sunk and may now 

lie unnoticed on the ocean floor. It is believed 

that these resources could be identified given 

the right conditions, technology, and 

expertise. 

A total of 94 vessels are known to have 

wrecked in the park and an undetermined 

number of generally smaller undocumented 

vessels remain unrecorded. These were both 

transient and local vessels engaged in 
Cultural Resources

285

commerce, the lumber trade, fishing, sealing, 

military, or purely leisure activities. A goldrush-era side-wheel passenger steamer, the 

Winfield Scott, was wrecked off Anacapa 

Island in 1853, and was entered into the 

national register in 1988. Two Grumman 

airplanes are also known to have wrecked in 

park waters. 

Formal archeological investigations of 

shipwrecks began in the early 1980s, with 

much of the work being accomplished by 

volunteers. Documentation and monitoring of 

select submerged resources is a long-term 

project in partnership with the Park Service, 

the National Ocean and Atmospheric 

Administration, and the Coastal Maritime 

Archeological Resources (CMAR), an 

avocational organization.

Surveys and Inventories. Although 

investigators have conducted archeological 

surveys and studies on the Channel Islands for 

more than 100 years, about 85% of the land 

area of the park lacks basic inventory. 

Nevertheless, the park’s archeological 

resources are assuming increasing importance 

as mainland sites are impacted ever more 

severely by urban development. Although the 

largest Chumash populations lived along the 

mainland coast, most of these sites have been 

destroyed or covered over by recent 

development, leaving the island resources as 

the best preserved Chumash sites for new and

innovative research techniques. 

Anacapa, Santa Barbara, and San Miguel 

islands have been surveyed for archeological 

resources to a level adequate to establish their 

significance and list them on the national 

register as archeological districts. Recent 

surveys of selected areas of Santa Rosa Island 

project the existence of 2,000 to 3,000 sites, 

including many caves and rock shelters that 

may have research potential. During the 

1970s, TNC property on Santa Cruz Island 

was surveyed by Albert Spalding and Michael 

Glassow with the University of California, 

Santa Barbara, who projected the existence of 

3,000 sites from the 10% of the island that was 

thoroughly covered. Thus, The Nature 

Conservancy portion of the island was listed 

in the national register as an archeological 

district. Before public acquisition in 1997, no 

archeological research had occurred on East 

Santa Cruz Island since 1928. Fieldwork 

during recent years has located more than 70 

additional sites with more than a dozen 

radiocarbon dates, indicating occupation 

some 6,000 years ago (at least six of these sites 

are on NPS-administered lands). Habitation 

and task-specific sites occur throughout the 

island from sea level to an elevation of 1,700 

feet.

Archeologists from the park and the Santa 

Barbara Museum of Natural History obtained 

radiocarbon dates from the femur, known as 

Arlington Man, which was first excavated in 

1961 in Arlington Canyon on Santa Rosa 

Island. They concluded these are the oldest 

securely dated human remains in North 

America — some 13,000 years old. 

Excavations at Daisy Cave on San Miguel 

Island have revealed shell midden deposits, 

fragments of basketry, and seagrass cordage 

dating to about 9,000 years ago. A chert flake 

and bone fragment may date earlier than 

13,000 years.

These discoveries have changed the way 

scientists look at this little understood period 

in human history. Although roving bands of 

big game hunters had been thought to be the 

first arrivals in North America, it now appears 

they had local neighbors. This early period of 

human history may have had a greater 

diversity of ancient lifestyles and cultures than 

previously thought.

The Channel Islands are the focus of much of 

the current Pacific Rim archeological 

research, and continue to produce solid 

evidence of early coastal migration and some 

of the earliest human occupation of North 

America.

The absence of some burrowing animals, such 

as gophers and squirrels, removes a major 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

286

impact on the archeological record; such 

animals have affected nearly all mainland sites 

by massive disturbance of underground 

deposits. Clear and detailed stratigraphy is 

common in the middens of island sites. 

Frequently these middens are 1 meter or more 

thick and contain a wide variety of items in the 

matrix of mussel and abalone that dominate 

the deposits. 

Archeological investigations of Chumash 

cultural sequence show the development of an 

extremely complex culture from relatively 

simple beginnings, all sustained on a hunting 

and gathering subsistence base without the 

development of agriculture. Through time, a 

growing population, accompanied by more 

intensive resource use, more elaborate 

technology, widespread trade networks, and 

an increasingly complex society, made more 

effective and efficient use of the natural 

environment, with relatively minor impact on 

natural conditions. The Chumash experience 

stands in stark contrast to the historic period 

in the park, which saw increasingly heavy and 

disruptive use of the island’s ecosystems.

The early beginnings of the Chumash cultural 

sequence are found at Daisy Cave on San 

Miguel Island and Arlington Canyon on Santa 

Rosa Island. Several more sites on San Miguel 

and Santa Rosa date from 7000 BP, which 

marks the beginning of the Early Phase of the 

Chumash cultural sequence. Sites associated 

with this period are along the northern coast 

of Santa Rosa Island where they are often 

found with red abalone middens and 

calichified sand strata; they are probably 

present throughout the island.

Sites of the Middle Phase (2600 to 800 BP) are 

relatively common on the islands, although 

few have been definitively dated. This period 

had an expanding island population along 

with increasing exploitation of fish and 

pinnipeds. The development of the tomol

occurred during this period, greatly aiding 

transportation and fishing in the Channel 

Islands region.

The transition from the Middle to the Late 

Phase is associated with the emergence of a 

socially stratified society and craft 

specialization, particularly well demonstrated 

in bead making. Presumably ceremonial life 

also became more elaborate during this time.

The Late Phase, essentially the society that the 

Spanish under Cabrillo encountered, brought 

the rise of an elaborate trade system in the 

Santa Barbara Channel and efforts to control 

access to critical natural resources, such as the 

chert quarries on Santa Cruz Island that were 

necessary for bead manufacture.

Archeological resources on the Channel 

Islands have been receiving increasing 

attention from archeologists because of the 

relatively long and undisturbed record 

remaining on the islands. The dominant use of 

the islands for grazing has preserved the vistas 

and open space associated with prehistoric 

times, although grazing has altered prehistoric 

ecosystems substantially. Cattle and sheep 

have trampled and ground the surface strata 

of many accessible sites into dust, but the most 

notable impacts on archeological resources on 

Santa Cruz Island have resulted from the 

rooting activities of feral pigs. Archeological 

resources have also been impacted by 

pothunters, coastal erosion, and large-scale 

early “excavations” that recovered many 

artifacts while destroying much data. 

Prominent artifacts, such as stone bowls, tend 

to be more scarce on the islands today than 

was the case 100 years ago, judging from the 

notes of early excavators.

Well-designed sampling surveys covered 

roughly 10% of TNC property on Santa Cruz 

Island during the early 1970s. The surveys 

were augmented during the 1980s by Larry 

Wilcoxon and Dr. Jeanne Arnold with the 

University of California, Los Angeles. 

Wilcoxon concentrated on the habitation sites 

on the west end of the island, while Arnold 

focused on the use of chert quarries along the 

eastern boundary line of TNC property. 

About 20% of the island is now considered 

intensively surveyed. Surveys of East Santa 
Cultural Resources

287

Cruz Island have recorded many large chert 

quarries as well as several habitation sites and 

rock shelters; however, historic materials such 

as rock piles, abandoned buildings, subsurface 

foundations, aboveground ruins, trash dumps, 

privies, check dams, old roads and trails, 

shipwreck debris, and fishing camps on the 

island have not been recorded in a 

comprehensive manner. In addition, site 

records are deficient for several 

ethnographically documented Chumash 

villages. Other types of sites exist but have not 

been recorded, such as a complex of red 

abalone middens near the Christy Ranch on 

the west end of the island. Recent 

reconnaissance and examination of aerial 

photographs of the eastern end of the island 

under NPS administration have located 

additional rock shelters, including two sea 

caves containing cultural resources, as well as 

numerous surface middens in this area. There 

are already more than 200 recorded 

archeological resources on NPS lands.

Santa Cruz Island seems to have supported a 

large human population during most of 

prehistory. Recent archeological research on 

Santa Cruz Island shows evidence of human 

occupation 8,900 years ago, and the potential 

for even older material exists. Like Santa Rosa 

and San Miguel islands, deposits on the west 

end containing pygmy mammoth remains 

could also contain evidence of older human 

occupation. Eleven historic villages are known 

for Santa Cruz Island, equal to the total 

number recognized for both Santa Rosa and 

San Miguel islands. Earlier sites, ranging from 

only a few meters square to extensive shell 

mounds covering hundreds of square meters, 

are found along the coastline and in the 

interior. Some of these mounds contain 

distinctive layers of red abalone shell, 

indicative of occupation about 5,000 to 8,000 

years ago. In addition to shell mounds, 

prehistoric sites include chert quarries and 

workshop sites, rock shelters, and rock 

platforms identified as shrines. One of the 

rock shelters contains rock art of a style quite 

distinct from that known on the mainland. 

Formal cemeteries are found close to many 

villages, especially at later sites, and isolated 

human burials have been recorded on the 

island at seemingly random locations. The 

potential number of burials ranges into the 

tens of thousands.

Although only some 20% of Santa Cruz Island 

has been surveyed intensively for 

archeological resources, 750 archeological 

sites have been recorded (NPS and TNC lands 

combined). It is estimated that the entire 

island probably contains about 3,000 

archeological resources.

Although the islands of San Miguel, Anacapa, 

and Santa Barbara have been relatively well 

surveyed for archeological resources, Santa 

Rosa Island was last surveyed in the 1950s in a 

manner considered to be inconsistent with 

current professional standards. From the 

1940s through 1963, Philip C. Orr with the 

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History 

recorded 182 “site areas,” representing 

perhaps 220 sites as they would be defined 

today. However, a recent study in Wreck 

Canyon recorded 34 sites where Orr had 

recorded one. At Bechers Bay, the largest site 

in the area, if not on the island, was missed, 

although it had been discussed in an earlier 

publication. Recent reconnaissance in this 

area reveals a much more diverse site 

assemblage, including historic shipwreck 

scatters, smaller prehistoric sites representing 

specialized activities, and Chinese abalone 

camps of the late historic period. 

Nonetheless, Santa Rosa Island contains an 

estimated 2,000 to 3,000 prehistoric sites, 

including some of the earliest known 

occupation of the islands. Survey efforts to 

date on Santa Rosa Island have recorded 640 

sites while covering only about 25% of the 

island. According to these surveys, prehistoric 

settlement was concentrated along the coast, 

although inland rock shelters in favorable 

locations show regular use as well. Systematic 

use of maritime products clearly occurred, 

although the degree to which island plants and 

other terrestrial products may have been used 

remains to be documented by properly 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

288

designed research projects. Considerable 

opportunity exists for understanding trade 

relationships through analysis of the 

distribution of the often uniquely occurring 

trade items such as the bead drills from the 

chert deposits on Santa Cruz Island.

In addition to the Chumash record, extensive 

historic archeological opportunities are 

centered on the islands where ranches and 

coastal fishing, recreational camps, and 

lighthouse installations developed. In 

addition, there are remnants of shipwrecks, 

settlement activities, oil exploration 

endeavors, and abandoned military 

installations.

Submerged Archeological Resources. Since 

the first attempt at mapping the Winfield Scott

in 1983, 19 more wreck scatters, including two 

Grumman military aircraft, have been 

documented in the park. Remains of 

shipwrecks in the park area are associated 

with the gold rush era, maritime commerce 

during the period from the 1870s to the 

present, and the evolution of merchant 

shipping since the 1870s. The maritime 

lumber trade is particularly well represented, 

with six such vessels wrecked around the 

islands. Other shipwrecks relate to historic 

exploitation of the maritime resources in the 

islands’ surrounding waters, particularly seals 

and sea otters. Also present are the remains of 

three vessels that supported the islands’ cattle 

and sheep ranching activities. The Anacapa 

lighthouse and its supporting structures — the 

last lighthouse complex to be constructed 

along the Pacific coast — illustrate the theme 

of navigational aid development to facilitate 

maritime transportation. An unstudied series 

of small shipwrecks and fishing camps, which 

are now historic archeological resources, 

contain data relating to the development of 

commercial fishing in the islands’ waters. The 

shipwreck scatters reflect the rise of Los 

Angeles as a major ocean port, the increasing 

harvest of the islands’ maritime resources, and 

the integration of the Channel Islands into the 

growing global economy.

Shipwrecks are the best known component of 

the submerged cultural resources of Channel 

Islands National Park, although recovery of 

stone artifacts by scuba divers indicates the 

existence of prehistoric artifacts, if not entire 

archeological resources, beneath park waters. 

As the study of these materials proceeds, it is 

increasingly clear that many wrecks, especially 

of wooden vessels, lie on or near the high tide 

line and, therefore, contain “unsubmerged” 

elements. Even entirely submerged wrecks 

may relate to terrestrial manifestations. For 

instance, the Golden Horn wreck off the 

southwest coast of Santa Rosa Island 

contributed its cargo of coal to the local 

tidepools where Chinese abalone fishermen 

collected it in piles seen today at various sites 

on the island. The documented remains of 

some wooden wrecks, such as the Comet and 

the Jane L. Stanford, are above the high tide 

line and probably contain submerged 

elements. The distinction between 

“submerged” and “terrestrial” resources at 

Channel Islands is a highly artificial 

distinction in most cases, relating most 

meaningfully only to the logistics of access to 

the resource for research and documentation.

Conditions and Threats. Archeological 

resources in the park are subject to erosion, 

especially those on Santa Cruz, San Miguel, 

and Santa Rosa islands. Accelerated plant 

growth since the end of grazing is retarding 

erosion for many of these sites, but coastal 

erosion would continue to damage many 

important localities, particularly in dune 

environments. At least 1,000 cubic meters of 

midden are lost each year from Santa Rosa 

Island from coastal erosion. In the future, 

climate change could also increase threats to 

the park’s archeological resources due to a 

rise in sea level and increased coastal erosion. 

In addition, other sources of erosion in inland 

locations are destroying an unknown amount 

of archeological resources. Grazing, feral pig 

rooting, and associated activities also have 

degraded the resource.

Looters and vandals have targeted cultural 

and historic sites at coastal sites and in 
Cultural Resources

289

submerged and intertidal areas of the park. 

Submerged sites in areas of high visitation are 

also susceptible to damage from boat anchors 

and other related activities.

Vandalism and pothunting continue to occur 

in the park despite the protection afforded by 

the isolation of the islands. Several instances 

of vandalism have occurred during the past 

few years, and some of these, including one 

felony, have been successfully prosecuted. It is 

anticipated that increasing visitor access to the 

islands would result in increased amounts of 

intentional pilfering, as well as higher levels of 

unintentional disturbance, to both historic 

and prehistoric resources. Artifacts associated 

with shipwrecks in the park boundaries are 

particularly vulnerable to pilfering, especially 

highly prized brass and bronze objects that are 

found in most shipwrecks.

In the absence of national register 

nominations and other studies that evaluate 

the significance of the park’s prehistoric and 

historic resources, particularly for Santa Cruz 

and Santa Rosa islands, actions may be taken 

that would affect the integrity of those 

resources. Although cultural resources are 

protected to a high degree by isolation and 

somewhat difficult and expensive access, 

monitoring would become increasingly 

necessary as visitation increases and visitors 

travel more independently.

Historic Structures / Buildings

Background. A historic resource study 

describes the historic use and occupation of 

all of the park islands and identifies the 

historic resources on the islands (NPS 2006). 

The study provides the historic context for 

the national register nominations and 

determinations of eligibility for the historic 

resources of Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands. For a structure or building to be listed 

in the national register, it must meet one or 

more of the following criteria of significance: 

(A) associated with events that have made a 

significant contribution to the broad patterns 

of American history; (B) associated with the 

lives of persons significant in our past; (C) 

embody the distinctive characteristics of a 

type, period, or method of construction, or 

represent the work of a master, or possess 

high artistic value, or represent a significant 

and distinguishable entity whose components 

may lack individual distinction; (D) have 

yielded, or may be likely to yield, information 

important in prehistory or history. In 

addition, the structure or building must 

possess integrity of location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association (National Register Bulletin, How to 

Apply the National Register Criteria for 

Evaluation).

Most of the park’s historic buildings and 

structures are included in the NPS List of 

Classified Structures. Historic structure 

reports, which provide detailed information 

about the history of the buildings and 

recommendations for preservation 

treatments, have been completed for three 

masonry buildings on Santa Cruz Island and 

the main ranch house and barns on Santa 

Rosa Island. Condition assessments of the Del 

Norte ranch house on Santa Cruz Island and 

the Anacapa Island Light Station buildings are 

needed to identify needed repairs and 

preservation measures.

The Channel Islands contain the remains of 

stock ranches dating back to Mexican land 

grants circa 1840. Buildings on both Santa 

Cruz and Santa Rosa islands represent the 

span of ranching development from that time 

to the present. The ranch structures represent 

a wide variety of types and styles, from 

plastered adobe and rubble masonry buildings 

on Santa Cruz Island to large frame structures 

on Santa Rosa Island. Included are residences, 

barns, corrals, storage sheds, bunkhouses, 

assorted utilitarian structures, and historic 

agricultural equipment associated with the 

cattle and sheep ranches.

Other historic resources on the islands 

include the Anacapa Island Light Station 

complex and military sites and structures 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

290

associated with World War II and the Cold 

War periods. Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands contain remains of oil well drilling rigs, 

illustrating early technology in petroleum 

exploration.

Currently, 69 structures are listed in the park’s 

List of Classified Structures (see appendix H 

for a list of structures). The list is a 

computerized, evaluated inventory of all 

prehistoric and historic structures having 

historical, architectural, or engineering 

significance in which the Park Service has or 

plans to acquire any legal interest. Included in 

the list are structures that individually meet 

the evaluation criteria of the national register 

or are contributing resources of sites and 

districts that meet national register evaluation 

criteria. Also included are other structures — 

moved, reconstructed, and commemorative 

structures as well as structures achieving 

significance within the last 50 years — that are 

managed as cultural resources because of 

management decisions that have been made 

pursuant to park planning processes. 

Conditions and Threats. Historic buildings 

and structures are deteriorating and require 

repairs, seismic retrofit, and rehabilitation to 

ensure their long-term preservation. The 

historic buildings and complexes are 

vulnerable to destruction by flood, fire, 

earthquake, other natural disasters, and 

extreme local weather and climatic 

conditions. Climate change could exacerbate 

these impacts with increased storms and a 

higher potential for wildfires.

Cultural Landscapes

According to the NPS Cultural Resource 

Management Guideline (DO-28), a cultural 

landscape is

...a reflection of human adaptation 

and use of natural resources and is 

often expressed in the way land is 

organized and divided, patterns of 

settlement, land use, systems of 

circulation, and the types of 

structures that are built. The 

character of a cultural landscape is 

defined both by physical materials, 

such as roads, buildings, walls, and 

vegetation, and by use reflecting 

cultural values and traditions.

The NPS Cultural Landscape Inventory 

database identifies three national registereligible or listed cultural landscapes, one of 

which has three component landscapes – 

Santa Cruz Island Ranching District 

(Smugglers Cove Ranch, Caire-Gherini Ranch 

Historic District, and Rancho Del Norte); 

Santa Rosa Island Ranching District; and 

Anacapa Island Light Station. The inventories 

provide information about the contributing 

buildings, structures, clusters, small-scale 

elements, vegetation, circulation patterns, and 

other resources that form the cultural 

landscape. For a cultural landscape to be listed 

in the national register, it must meet one or 

more of the following criteria of significance: 

(A) associated with events that have made a 

significant contribution to the broad patterns 

of American history; (B) associated with the 

lives of persons significant in our past; (C) 

embody the distinctive characteristics of a 

type, period, or method of construction, or 

represent the work of a master, or possess 

high artistic value, or represent a significant 

and distinguishable entity whose components 

may lack individual distinction; (D) have 

yielded, or may be likely to yield, information 

important in prehistory or history (National 

Register Bulletin, How to Apply the National 

Register Criteria for Evaluation). The 

landscape must also have integrity of those 

patterns and features — spatial organization 

and landforms; topography; vegetation; 

circulation networks; water features; and 

structures / buildings, site furnishings, or 

objects — necessary to convey its significance 

(Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes). 
Cultural Resources

291

The Anacapa Island Light Station, listed in the 

national register, is predominantly a designed 

cultural landscape. Other cultural landscapes 

that are eligible for inclusion in the national 

register as rural cultural landscapes include 

the Santa Rosa Island ranching district, the 

east end of Santa Cruz Island, and the Del 

Norte ranch and Prisoners Harbor on Santa 

Cruz Island. It is conceivable that all or most 

of the terrain of the islands could be 

incorporated into a prehistoric vernacular 

landscape, particularly because the 

archeological resources and ethno-historically 

documented Chumash villages in the park are 

in a relatively unspoiled, natural setting.

Ethnographic Resources

According to the Park Service, ethnographic 

resources are any “site, structure, object, 

landscape, or natural resource feature 

assigned traditional legendary, religious, 

subsistence, or other significance in the 

cultural system of a group traditionally 

associated with it” (DO-28: Cultural Resource 

Management Guideline, 181). Ethnographic 

resources are associated with cultural 

practices, beliefs, the sense of purpose, or 

existence of a living community that is rooted 

in that community’s history or is important in 

maintaining its cultural identity and 

development as an ethnically distinctive 

people.

Chumash people populated the California 

coast from around San Luis Obispo to Malibu 

for thousands of years. The earliest 

inhabitants of the Northern Channel Islands 

arrived some 13,000 years ago. The Chumash 

occupied the islands until the 1810s, when the 

remaining island populations were removed 

to the mainland missions. Ethnographic 

resources associated with the Chumash 

include historic island village sites; 

archeological resources and artifacts; museum 

collections; stories and songs that have 

survived through descendants; information 

such as linguistics, ceremonies, dances, songs, 

customs, and other data captured by 

ethnographers; and traditional activities that 

continue to be practiced. A Chumash story 

holds that the islands were the birthplace of 

the Chumash people, and Chumash groups 

continue to carry out activities on the islands, 

such as crossing the Santa Barbara Channel in 

a tomol, the traditional Chumash watercraft. A 

NPS ethnographic study completed in 1999 

identified descendants of island populations, 

which assists the park in consulting with 

appropriate Chumash parties under the 

National Historic Preservation Act, the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act, and other laws and NPS policies. Tribal 

representatives and island Chumash 

descendants have carried out reburial and 

treatment of ancestral Chumash remains that 

have eroded out of island burials in areas 

likely to be frequented by park visitors.

Other groups, such as fishermen or vaqueros, 

that have traditionally used or occupied the 

islands for several generations also have 

ethnographic ties to the islands. These groups 

require additional investigation as to their 

identity and associated resources.

Places of traditional cultural use may be found 

on the islands. Some of these areas may be 

eligible for inclusion in the national register as 

traditional cultural properties because of their 

association with cultural practices or beliefs of 

a living community that are (a) rooted in that 

community’s history and (b) important in 

maintaining the continuing cultural identity of 

the community (National Register Bulletin, 

Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting 

Traditional Cultural Properties).
292

VISITOR USE, INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION

CURRENT VISITOR USE

In 2011, Channel Islands National Park 

reported approximately 243,000 visitors. Of 

this number, about 153,000 people stopped at 

the visitor center in Ventura and about 6,600

visited the interagency contact station in Santa 

Barbara. Table 23 shows the 2008-2009 annual 

recreation visits to the islands. (These years

were used as representative years because in 

2010 and 2011 access was limited on Anacapa 

Island.) As Table 23 shows, most people who 

come to the mainland visitor centers never 

actually visit the park.

Although visitation varies from year to year it 

has generally increased over time. Visitation is 

expected to continue to increase as the 

regional population and tourism increases.

The five islands receive use year-round, 

although the greatest number of visitors come 

between March and October. In recent years 

winter use has been increasing on the islands.

Very little visitor profile information has been 

collected on the visitors who actually go out to 

the islands. An August 1993 survey of visitors 

at the Ventura visitor center and of boats 

anchored offshore of the islands described 

some characteristics of visitors. It should be 

stressed however, that these data are more 

than 10 years old and represent a limited 

sample both in the visitors that were surveyed 

(e.g., no concessioner passengers were 

surveyed) and in the area and season of use. 

The 1993 survey revealed the following:

• Most visitors to the islands are residents of 

the three gateway counties—Santa 

Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles. 

• Visitors were most often in family groups 

(56%). 

• Forty-six percent of visitors were between 

the ages of 26 and 50; and 25% were 15 

years old or younger.

• More than half (54%) had made previous 

visits to the park.

• Most U.S. visitors (75%) came from 

California.

• Visitors from foreign countries comprised 

5% of the visitation.

• Fifty-two percent of visitors reported 

staying two hours or less at the Ventura 

visitor center.

• Thirty-six percent of visitors spent two 

days at the park; another 36% of the 

visitors spent five days or more.

• Visitors most often used previous visits 

(50%), advice from friends and relatives 

(40%), and a travel guide/tour book (30%) 

as sources of information about the park 

before their visit.

TABLE 23. VISITOR DATA 2008–2009

Island

2008 Visitors on 

Boats

2008 Visitors 

Ashore

2009 Visitors on 

Boats

2009 Visitors 

Ashore

Anacapa 8,165 12,998 27,415 10,385

Santa Cruz 53,389 50,055 27,762 51,064

Santa Rosa 9,766 4,306 9,108 3,580

San Miguel 2,662 1,053 3,646 1,409

Santa Barbara 1,118 561 1,140 543
Visitor Use, Interpretation, and Education

293

VISITOR ACCESS

The Ventura visitor center is near the 101 

Freeway and is accessible by both private 

vehicles and public transportation. (However, 

there is no space for boaters to tie up and 

enter the visitor center.) The Santa Barbara 

Harbor visitor contact station is also 

accessible by both private and public 

transportation.

Visitors can access the islands in the park 

using both private and concession-operated 

boats. Private boats can land in designated 

areas on all five of the park islands; some areas 

are subject to seasonal closures to avoid 

disturbance of wildlife. Two park 

concessioners (one boat and one air service) 

bring visitors to the islands for both one and 

multiday trips. Public air transport is available 

via a concessioner to Santa Rosa Island. The 

concession operators can transport a defined 

number of visitors to the islands each day. The 

number of visitors varies for each island and is 

determined in part by the size of the island, 

the natural and cultural resources, and the 

infrastructure available to visitors.

Visitor access to some areas of the islands 

varies by season. Areas are most commonly 

closed to visitors to avoid disturbance to 

wildlife or for safety reasons. When venturing 

on Anacapa, Santa Barbara, and San Miguel 

islands, visitors must stay on trails at all times 

for their own safety and to protect vegetation 

and nesting seabirds. Once on Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands, visitors can explore the 

islands on foot using both trails and roads. 

With the exception of Santa Rosa Island, there 

is no motorized transport available on the 

park’s islands. (On Santa Rosa there is limited 

motorized transportation available for 

visitors, which is provided by the park staff.) 

PRINCIPAL VISITOR 

RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

In August 1993, visitors were asked what 

activities they participated in when they 

visited Channel Islands National Park. The 

most common visitor activities were marine 

mammal watching (45%), birdwatching 

(34%), photography (33%), and hiking (27%). 

Other activities engaged in included nature 

study (25%), attending interpretive programs 

(23%), recreational fishing (22%), power 

boating (20%), diving (17%), sailing (16%), 

kayaking (6%), and camping (4%). Since this 

survey was done, kayaking has substantially 

increased in popularity.

All of the islands have hiking opportunities, 

although there are no trails on Middle and 

West Anacapa and access is restricted. Visitors 

to San Miguel Island must be accompanied by 

a ranger when hiking beyond the ranger 

station. Some trails also are closed seasonally 

to protect wildlife and for safety reasons. The 

trails on the islands range from relatively flat 

and well maintained on East Anacapa to the 

more rugged and mountainous trails on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands. Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands offer the greatest variety of 

hiking opportunities in the park. The trails 

allow visitors to explore and experience the 

islands outside of the developed areas at their 

own pace.

Visitors may camp on East Anacapa, Santa 

Cruz, Santa Rosa, San Miguel, and Santa 

Barbara in designated campgrounds. 

Backcountry camping opportunities are 

available on both Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands. On Santa Rosa Island all backcountry 

camping is limited to certain beaches and is 

closed seasonally. The only backcountry 

campground in the park is near Rancho Del 

Norte on Santa Cruz Island. Camping on the 

islands allows visitors to have a wider range of 

experiences than might be available when 

visiting for the day.

Beach exploration is another popular activity 

on all of the islands. Some island beaches on 

Santa Rosa and San Miguel islands are closed 

or are only open seasonally. Most beaches can 

be accessed from the water and some are 

accessible from trails on the islands as well. 

Water-based recreational activities that could 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

294

begin from the beaches include swimming, 

surfing, tidepooling, snorkeling, diving, and 

kayaking. Because of extremely windy 

conditions on Santa Rosa and San Miguel 

islands, kayaking is not recommended for 

novice kayakers or anyone who is not 

properly trained, conditioned, or equipped.

The islands offer superlative opportunities for 

birdwatching, photography, and wildlife 

viewing. Marine mammals can be seen from 

the islands as well as the water. Visitors also 

have an opportunity to see wildlife that is 

endemic to the islands during their visit such 

as the island scrub jay, which is found only on 

Santa Cruz Island.

As noted in chapter 1, climate change could 

affect visitor use and experiences on Channel 

Islands National Park in the future. If weather 

was to become more unstable and storms 

were to increase, it would affect opportunities 

for visitors to reach the islands. Likewise, if 

climate change were to affect wildlife 

populations such as the park’s marine 

mammal and bird populations, it would in 

turn affect wildlife viewing opportunities on 

the islands. A loss of beaches would affect 

opportunities for exploring beaches and 

tidepools, fishing, surfing, diving, and 

kayaking.

INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION

The park visitor center in Ventura offers 

visitors an introduction to the islands and 

information about some of the special marine 

and terrestrial resources in the park. In 

addition to maps and interpretive displays, the 

park film is shown in the theatre. A virtual visit 

to the park is provided during live interactive 

underwater and terrestrial programs 

broadcast from Anacapa and Santa Cruz 

islands to the mainland via microwave, 

videoconferencing, and the Internet. Most

park visitors do not venture to the islands so 

these programs, especially Channel Islands 

Live dives and hikes, offer views of the park 

that most visitors would never see otherwise.

The Santa Barbara Harbor contact station 

includes orientation materials on the islands. 

Volunteers staff the contact station. 

Channel Islands National Park has an 

extensive outreach/education program. 

Interest in these outreach and education 

programs is high, and the programs target 

local schools in the neighboring communities 

and classrooms throughout the country via 

distance learning. The park partnership with 

the Ventura County Office of Education 

delivers Channel Islands Live programs, and 

curricula to students and the public. Some 

school groups are able to visit the islands on 

concession boats; East Anacapa, Scorpion, 

and Frenchy’s Cove are popular destinations. 

For the school groups that are unable to visit 

the islands, the Ventura visitor center is the 

primary interface with park resources. Parks 

as classroom educational programs are 

provided at school sites in the neighboring 

counties. However, the visitor center is too 

small and not designed to accommodate the 

growing education program. Current 

interpretive themes include a focus on 

ecosystem management and the fragile 

interrelationship of all park resources. The 

park does not have adequate space or 

resources to expand the interpretive themes 

to include a more in-depth treatment of the 

history of ranching on the islands or the 

Chumash Indians. 

Interpretive and educational services on the 

islands vary by island. On-island 

interpretation includes guided interpretive 

programs and live interactive dives and hikes 

provided by both park staff and trained 

volunteers. Interpretive rangers are assigned 

to support on-island visitor services, but no 

interpretive rangers are stationed on any of 

the islands. Park staff also provide training to 

concession and tour boat staff. Wayside and 

visitor center exhibits and interpretive 

publications on the islands also help visitors 

become oriented and learn more about island

resources. There are unstaffed visitor contact 

stations on Anacapa, Santa Cruz, and Santa 

Barbara islands, but no facilities on San 

Miguel and Santa Rosa islands. 
295

WILDERNESS CHARACTER

Wilderness character is the fundamental 

concept in the Wilderness Act of 1964 and is 

broadly defined in section 2(c) of the act. The 

Wilderness Act speaks of wilderness as a 

resource in itself. A wilderness, in contrast to 

those areas where humans dominate the 

landscape, is defined by the qualities 

comprising its wilderness character. 

Wilderness character encompasses a 

combination of biophysical, experiential, and 

symbolic elements as described by four 

principal qualities—natural, undeveloped, 

untrammeled, and having outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation. A fifth 

quality—other features of value—also may 

apply and is unique to individual areas. These 

five qualities are of equal importance and can 

be defined in the following ways. 

Note: The following section applies to lands 

found eligible for wilderness designation in 

the park. The text also applies only to the 

terrestrial portion of the park. The park’s 

marine waters share many of the same 

qualities as the islands, and the Park Service 

strives to preserve these qualities; however, 

these marine water qualities are not described 

in this section. It should be stressed that 

although the eligible lands being described 

have wilderness character qualities, and the 

National Park Service is required to manage 

these lands to ensure the qualities that make 

them eligible are not degraded (per NPS 

Management Policies 2006 § 6.3.1), these lands 

are not “wilderness” until Congress takes 

action.

NATURAL

The term “natural” refers to ecological 

systems that are substantially free from the 

effects of modern civilization. It also refers to 

maintenance of natural ecological 

relationships and processes, and continued 

existence of native wildlife and plants in 

largely natural conditions. This quality can be 

degraded by intended or unintended effects of 

modern people on the ecological systems 

(Landres et al. 2008). Naturalness can be 

degraded by such actions as large groups of 

people, mechanization, evidence of human 

manipulation, unnatural noises, signs, and 

other modern artifacts.

To most visitors, Channel Islands National 

Park appears to be “natural,” covered largely 

by natural-looking vegetation. Although the 

islands within the park were at various times 

inhabited by the Chumash and Gabrielino 

peoples and were used for military and 

maritime activities, ranching, cultivation of 

crops, and hunting, they retain a sense of 

naturalness because of the distance from the 

mainland, the small footprints of 

development, the ruggedness of the terrain, 

and the climate. On the larger islands, such as 

Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa, the variable 

terrain, including steep cliffs, deep valleys, and 

rolling hills and mountains, dwarf the 

development on the islands and give the 

islands an overall sense of naturalness.

As described earlier in the “Vegetation” 

section, much of the islands’ native vegetation 

and wildlife has been altered directly and 

indirectly by past human activities, including 

the spread of nonnative plants. For example, 

much of the woody vegetation that was once 

on the islands no longer exists. Also, climate 

change would likely alter the islands’ 

ecosystems in the future. 

Since the park was established in 1980, and for 

considerably longer on some islands, the 

majority of the islands have been left to the 

forces of nature. Today, the signs of obvious 

past human activity are generally no longer 

visible. From an overall perspective (and 

compared to most of the country), the five 

islands are relatively free from the effects of 

people. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

296

UNDEVELOPED

Undeveloped refers to areas without 

permanent improvements or modern human 

habitation. 

Although Channel Islands National Park has 

been occupied by people for thousands of 

years, permanent human habitation today is 

limited to only a few small areas. The majority 

of the islands are undeveloped. There is some 

development on all of the islands in the park, 

but it is generally concentrated around the 

historic structures and landscapes such as the 

ranch house at Scorpion Valley on Santa Cruz 

Island, the former Coast Guard facilities on 

East Anacapa Island, and the Bechers Bay 

ranch complex on Santa Rosa Island.

There is little variation in the terrain across 

East Anacapa’s 117 acres. Development 

includes NPS and former Coast Guard 

facilities, a small primitive campground, and a 

dock. Visitor facilities are limited to pit toilets, 

and there is no potable water for visitors on 

the island. Outside the developed area there 

are 2 miles of trails around the island. The 

former Coast Guard facilities are visible from 

all areas of the island.

There is no development on Middle and West 

Anacapa islets.

Of the 14,476 acres of NPS land on Santa Cruz 

Island, 97% is undeveloped. Developed areas 

on NPS lands include the historic Scorpion 

Valley area, the Smugglers Ranch area, and the 

Rancho Del Norte area. Other development 

includes a U.S. Navy facility on the ridge. 

Some backcountry camping sites are present 

near Rancho Del Norte. In addition to hiking 

trails, there are a number of unimproved 

gravel roads.

Of Santa Rosa Island’s approximately 51,000

acres 99% is undeveloped. Development on 

Santa Rosa Island is concentrated in Bechers 

Bay. Two campgrounds are on the island near 

Bechers Bay and in the Torrey Pines area. 

Visitor facilities are limited to pit toilets. There 

is an airstrip used by a park concessioner to 

bring in visitors. Although there are two-track 

roads throughout the island, these roads are 

unimproved gravel roads.

Because the U.S. Navy used San Miguel Island 

for many years as a bombing range, there is 

very limited development on the island’s 9,376 

acres. Development is limited to the Cabrillo 

Monument and ranch complex areas. Visitor 

facilities are limited to pit toilets in the 

campground.

Of Santa Barbara Island’s 640 acres, 99% is 

undeveloped. Development on the island 

consists of an NPS administrative cabin, Coast 

Guard navigation aids, a primitive public 

campground, and a dock. Outside the 

developed area are 6 miles of trails. Visitor 

facilities are limited to pit toilets. Typically the 

NPS and Coast Guard structures are not 

visible once visitors leave the developed area.

UNTRAMMELED

Untrammeled refers to an area essentially 

unhindered and free from modern human 

control or manipulation, including landscape 

restoration activities. This quality can be 

degraded by modern human activities or 

actions that control or manipulate the 

components or processes of ecological 

systems (Landres et al. 2008). Even if actions 

may be taken to restore natural conditions, 

these actions degrade the untrammeled 

quality of wilderness character.

The majority of the Channel Islands National 

Park is untrammeled today. On most of the 

islands, most of the year there is no evidence 

of efforts to control or manage the landscape, 

including vegetation and wildlife. However, 

large-scale trammeling activities have 

occurred in the past (e.g., ranching). NPS 

habitat restoration activities also have 

occurred on all of the islands. These 

management activities continue to occur on 

parts of the islands, including erosion-control 

efforts, control/eradication of nonnative plant 
Wilderness Character

297

and wildlife species, reintroductions of native 

species, restoration of wetlands, and removal 

of hazardous fuels. However, much of the 

restoration work tends to be in areas not being 

proposed for wilderness designation. In the 

areas proposed for wilderness designation, the 

restoration work is largely undetectable, and 

from a parkwide perspective, is a relatively 

small percentage of the islands. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOLITUDE 

AND PRIMITIVE AND UNCONFINED 

RECREATION AND OPPORTUNITIES 

Solitude refers to opportunities to be alone, 

remote, or separated from other people and 

the sounds and sights of civilization. 

Opportunities for solitude often relate to the 

likelihood of encountering other people; if the 

likelihood of encountering other people is 

low, there are greater opportunities for 

solitude. Primitive recreational opportunities 

refer to nonmotorized recreational activities. 

In the park these activities include marine 

mammal observation, bird watching, camping, 

photography, and hiking. Primitive 

unconfined recreation refers to opportunities 

for people to travel by nonmotorized and 

nonmechanized means, and to rely on 

personal skills rather than relying on facilities 

or outside help, free of societal or managerial 

controls. It refers to freedom to explore and 

the ability to be spontaneous. It means selfsufficiency without support facilities or 

motorized transportation, and experiencing 

weather, terrain, and other aspects of the 

natural world with minimal shelter or 

assistance from devices of modern civilization. 

This quality can be degraded by elements that 

reduce these opportunities, such as visitor

encounters, signs of modern civilization, 

recreation facilities, and management of or 

restriction on visitor behavior (Landres et al. 

2008). For example, some would consider the 

requirement that all visitors camp in 

designated areas an adverse impact on their 

opportunity for unconfined recreation.

Channel Islands National Park has many 

opportunities for solitude. The park is 

relatively quiet, with natural sounds 

dominating the soundscape for much of the 

year (with the exception of noise from 

motorized watercraft going to the islands and 

occasional aircraft landing on Santa Rosa 

Island and a few aircraft on San Miguel 

Island). Relatively few people visit the 

islands—and most of those who do visit them 

do not go into the interior of the islands or do 

not spend much time there. The islands are 

logistically challenging to reach. Several of the 

islands’ shorelines are steep or rocky, making 

access difficult or impossible in many areas. 

There are a few developed areas where 

relatively large groups of people (10 to 30 or 

more) gather at one time, particularly on 

weekends and holidays. 

Among the islands, opportunities for solitude 

vary depending on factors such as distance 

from the mainland, size of the island, 

topography, level of development, weather, 

and level of use. For example, the number of 

visitors who journey to East Anacapa 

frequently reaches the capacity set for 

concession tours, and the small size of the islet 

limits opportunities for solitude at times. On 

the other hand, Santa Barbara Island, one of 

the smaller islands, still has many 

opportunities for solitude because visitation is 

so low and the development footprint is small. 

In general, the larger islands (e.g., Santa Rosa 

and Santa Cruz) provide more opportunities 

for solitude than the smaller islands. On these 

islands, outside of the developed areas, it is 

possible to walk for miles without 

encountering another visitor. The islands 

farther from the mainland (e.g., San Miguel 

and Santa Barbara) also provide more 

opportunities for solitude than the islands 

closer to the mainland.

Because of the limited amount of 

development on the islands, there are many 

opportunities for primitive recreation. The 

opportunities vary at each island according to 

size, current level of development and use, 

presence of sensitive resources, and 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

298

topography. With the exception of Santa Rosa 

Island, once visitors are on the islands, no 

recreational activities involve motorized 

vehicles and, therefore, are considered 

primitive. 

Recreational use in the park is both confined 

and unconfined. Once visitors are on the 

islands, there are many areas people can visit, 

and access is largely unregulated. On the other 

hand, the number of people allowed on the 

islands is limited because of the sensitivity of 

the resources, potential for visitor impacts on 

resources, and lack of visitor support 

infrastructure. Likewise, various areas are 

closed to visitors at different times because of 

the sensitivity of the resources. The presence 

of wildlife at the access points sometimes can 

limit visitors from going on an island. All 

visitors camping on the islands also are 

required to obtain permits.

Anacapa Island

The opportunity for primitive, unconfined 

recreation or solitude is limited on East 

Anacapa by the high number of people who 

visit the island annually and the size of the 

islet. East Anacapa is one of two locations in 

the park where the number of visitors 

routinely reaches the established user 

capacity. The island has only 2 miles of trails. 

The opportunities for solitude for some 

visitors are limited by the size of the island, 

and the relative openness of the terrain. On 

the other hand, people who stay overnight at 

the campground after the day users depart 

have excellent opportunities to experience 

solitude. 

Visitation on Middle Anacapa is highly 

confined. No visitors are allowed on the islet 

without an NPS-approved guide. However, 

for those able to visit the island, opportunities 

for solitude and primitive, unconfined 

recreation are plentiful.

Access on West Anacapa is limited to 

Frenchy’s Cove, which limits the 

opportunities for unconfined recreation as 

well as opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation on the island. 

Recreational opportunities in the cove vary by 

season. In the winter when the tide is low, 

visitors typically come to the area to see the 

tidepools. Fewer visitors venture into the cove 

in the summer when the tide is higher and 

visitation shifts to the beach area. Frenchy’s 

Cove is a popular destination, and 

opportunities for solitude vary with the 

seasons; typically more visitors venture to the 

cove in the winter; therefore, the opportunity 

for solitude is less during this season than in 

other less popular or more remote 

destinations. 

Santa Cruz Island

Santa Cruz Island has the greatest number of 

visitors of any island in the park. However, 

because the island is large, it is possible to 

quickly walk away from Scorpion Valley, 

Smugglers Cove, and Prisoners Harbor and 

find many opportunities for solitude and 

outstanding primitive, unconfined 

recreational activities. The terrain outside the 

developed area is varied and, as with any 

backcountry experience, visitors assume some 

level of risk. 

Santa Rosa Island

Santa Rosa Island has few visitors and most of 

the island is undeveloped; therefore, the 

opportunities for solitude are generally high. 

There are also many opportunities for 

primitive, unconfined recreation for hikers 

outside of Bechers Bay. However, parts of the 

island are closed seasonally or throughout the 

year to protect wildlife (e.g., nesting plovers 

on beaches). These closures also limit the 

opportunities for unconfined primitive 

recreation.
Wilderness Character

299

San Miguel Island

Because San Miguel Island is relatively remote 

and weather conditions are highly 

unpredictable with strong winds, rain, and 

thick fog frequently occurring, the island 

receives the fewest number of visitors of the 

five islands. For safety reasons, a permit is 

required to hike beyond the ranch complex 

and visitors must be escorted by a ranger to 

explore the island beyond the ranger station. 

Because visitation is relatively low, there are 

opportunities for solitude even in the ranch 

area. Although few people venture across the 

island, it is not necessarily a solitary 

experience because they must travel with a 

NPS ranger. Similarly, although the island 

offers primitive recreational opportunities, the 

safety requirements restrict visitors to a few 

trails. The closures of much of the island to 

public entry due to the presence of marine 

mammals and other sensitive resources, as 

well as the potential for unexploded military 

ordinance, highly confine visitor recreational 

opportunities. 

Santa Barbara Island

Although the island is small, 6 miles of trails 

on the island are available to visitors outside 

of the developed area. Because the island 

currently has so few visitors, there are 

plentiful opportunities for solitude and 

primitive unconfined recreation. However, 

some portions of the trail system are closed to 

visitors during the pelican nesting season, 

which limits opportunities for unconfined 

recreation. 

OTHER FEATURES OF VALUE

This quality applies to those values and 

features that are not fully covered in the other 

four qualities, including features of scientific

or cultural value. These features are unique to 

the proposed Channel Islands wilderness area.

Cultural resources are an important part of 

wilderness character. These resources teach 

about the history and special significance of 

people’s relationship to the land. The islands 

have a history of occupation by people for 

about 13,000 years. Some of the earliest 

archeological resources in California and the 

Pacific Coast of North America, representing 

some of the earliest immigrants into North 

America, are in the proposed wilderness area. 

Archeological resources within the proposed 

wilderness area include artifacts, middens, 

quarries, habitation sites, and rock shelters.

Other signs of historical features, representing 

ranching, hunting, military activities, and 

other human endeavors from a wide range of 

cultures and time periods, are also present, 

including structures such as fences, round-up 

corrals, and dry stone checkdams and 

retaining walls. The Chumash people of today 

have centuries of cultural connections with 

the islands. Chumash groups have a spiritual 

connection to the islands and the proposed 

wilderness area.

As noted in Chapter 1, the Channel Islands 

have long been recognized for their scientific 

values and are of great value to researchers. 

The proposed wilderness area is fairly 

undisturbed and provides many opportunities 

for scientific research. Many features of 

exceptional paleontological value are 

preserved because of their location in the 

proposed wilderness. Of particular note are 

the remains of the pygmy mammoth fossil 

bones (found on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands) — many of which were in wilderness.

These are features of great scientific interest 

that help us understand evolutionary and 

geologic processes. The extensive 

archeological record, unique island 

ecosystems and taxa, and isolation from 

development all make the proposed

wilderness area of interest to scientists. 

Decades of research, monitoring, and 

collections have occurred in the proposed 

wilderness area.
300

PARK OPERATIONS

The superintendent is responsible for overall 

management and operation of the park. The 

park headquarters is in Ventura, California. 

All divisions are managed from park 

headquarters, overseeing operations on five of 

the eight Channel Islands. The park staff is 

operationally organized into seven divisions, 

each with a functional area of responsibility. 

The Facility Management Division is 

responsible for buildings; grounds; roads; 

trails; docks; piers; airstrips; utilities (water, 

power, sewer, and solid waste); equipment 

maintenance; crane operation; and 

construction project management. Employees 

are stationed on three of the primarily visited 

islands. 

The Division of Visitor and Resource 

Protection is responsible for resource 

protection; law enforcement; public safety; 

visitor use management and emergency 

services (emergency medical services, search 

and rescue, major incident management); 

structural and wilderness fire management; 

campground management; and special use 

permits. Legal matters involving tort, civil, and 

criminal proceedings; land acquisitions; 

easements and liaison with the Department of 

the Interior, Field Solicitor, U.S. Attorney’s 

Office, and the District Court for the park are 

managed by the chief ranger. Concessions 

management is performed by the chief ranger. 

Park rangers are duty stationed on all five of 

the park islands.

The Natural Resource Management Division 

is organized as a parkwide function and is 

responsible for all natural resource 

management and research. This entails 

documenting and ensuring the well-being of 

natural resources, managing studies, and 

environmental compliance. The division is 

divided into marine and terrestrial resources. 

The division is primarily located at park 

headquarters.

The Division of Interpretation is organized 

and managed on a parkwide basis and is 

responsible for communication and 

information services, outreach education, 

interpretive services, and visitor center and 

field operations. The division is primarily 

based at park headquarters. 

The Division of Cultural Resources 

Management is managed on a parkwide basis 

and is responsible for documenting and 

preserving archeological, historic 

architectural and landscape resources, 

curation of museum collections, and 

compliance.

 

The Division of Administration includes 

personnel, property and procurement, and 

fiscal management. The division reports 

directly to the office of the superintendent. 

The Division of Transportation is managed to 

include parkwide dispatch, contract aircraft 

scheduling, housing reservations, marine 

operations and scheduling, and safety and 

information management.

Staff expertise and specialties are distributed 

throughout the divisions using position 

management planning (Table 24).
Park Operations

301

TABLE 24. EXISTING PARK STAFFING 2011

Title

Number of 

FTEs Staff Levels

Superintendent 1 park manager (1)

Administration 6 HR specialist (1)

IT specialist (1)

contract specialist (1)

budget analyst (1)

fiscal assistant (1)

administrative specialist (1)

Interpretation 9.8 supervisory park ranger – chief (1)

supervisory park ranger – vc (1)

interpretive park rangers – interpretive (5) 

(one of which is also the dive officer) 

volunteer coordinator assistant (.8)

education coordinator (1)

biological science technician (1)

Visitor and Resource 

Protection

10 supervisory park ranger — chief ranger (1)

supervisory park rangers (2)

park rangers – law enforcement (4)

park rangers marine law enforcement (2)

budget and financial support assistant (1)

Natural Resources 12 supervisory resource management specialist (1)

supervisory natural resource managers (2)

natural resource managers (1)

wildlife biologist (1)

ecologists (2)

botanist (1)

biologists (2)

biological science technician (1)

administrative support assistant (1)

Maintenance 11 facility manager (1)

crane operator supervisors (2)

crane operators (3) 

maintenance mechanics (2)

maintenance workers (2)

administrative support assistant (1)

Transportation 4.5 supervisory small craft operator (1)

small craft operators (2.5)

deckhand (1)

Cultural Resources 4.4 chief of cultural resources (1)

archeologists (.8)

exhibit specialist (1)

preservation specialists (1.6)

TOTAL 58.7

Terms: 12

Seasonals: 13.5
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

302

PARK ROADS 

Santa Rosa Island has 139 miles of roads and 

Santa Cruz Island has 20.2 miles of roads. The 

existing road system in general emerged over 

time to meet access needs for previous 

landowners and the military. The roads for 

the most part are in poor to fair condition and 

are impassable during wet conditions. The 

majority of the roads require four-wheel drive 

vehicles, even when dry. The park would 

continue to maintain all existing roads at 

minimum standards on Santa Rosa and Santa 

Cruz islands and all roads are maintained 

solely to meet park operational needs. The 

only exception is on Santa Rosa Island where 

a concession ground transportation system is 

proposed. 

OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AND 

FACILITIES 

Park facilities and infrastructure include: 

Robert J. Lagomarsino Visitor Center and 

administrative office complex and three 

rented office facilities in the Ventura Harbor 

and the outdoor Santa Barbara contact station 

at the wharf in Santa Barbara. Park rangers 

provide visitor services on all islands. There 

are employee housing units for on-site 

protection, resource management, and park 

maintenance distributed over the five Channel 

Islands that comprise the national park. 

East Anacapa Island has a public dock, a 

historic derrick crane, a lighthouse, a fog 

signal building, visitor contact station, 2 miles 

of hiking trails, plus a campground that 

accommodates 30 people. A single-family 

residence (in the assistant lightkeeper’s 

house), an efficiency apartment (in the 

historic generator building), and a bunkhouse 

in the historic storage building (which also 

houses the visitor contact station) serve as 

employee housing. 

On Santa Cruz Island, Scorpion Valley

provides camping in a 240-person 

campground and a visitor center in the 1883 

ranch house in the valley. This area features 5 

miles of unpaved primitive road and 19 miles 

of hiking trails. Park housing consists of six 

temporary housing units, a bathhouse, and a 

community kitchen/dining area. There is also 

a public landing pier and three public comfort 

stations. Also on Santa Cruz Island, the 

Prisoners Harbor anchorage includes a 2,400-

square-foot historic warehouse, a 374-foot 

timber pile pier, 15 miles of primitive road, 10 

miles of hiking trails, and a vehicle fleet for 

park operations. A 16-person primitive 

backcountry campground is near Rancho Del 

Norte.

Santa Rosa Island offers backcountry hiking 

and beach camping in addition to a 

campground that accommodates 75 campers. 

The historic ranch at Bechers Bay includes 18 

historic structures. There are 54 miles of 

primitive unpaved road, 12 miles of hiking 

trails, a public pier, a 2,250-foot administrative 

dirt airstrip, a park operations vehicle fleet, 

and two garages. NPS employee housing 

includes two 2-bedroom duplexes and two 1-

bedroom duplexes.

San Miguel Island offers a campground that 

accommodates 30 campers, 14 miles of trails, 

and a combination ranger station / residences 

/ bunkhouse. The island also has a research 

station and two dirt administrative airstrips. 

Santa Barbara Island offers a visitor contact 

station, a campground that accommodates 30 

campers, a public dock, and 6 miles of scenic 

trails. NPS employee housing includes a 

combination one-bedroom unit (in the visitor 

contact station) and bunkhouse.
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Channel Islands National Park Ch

305

INTRODUCTION

The National Environmental Policy Act 

mandates that environmental impact 

statements disclose the environmental effects 

of proposed federal actions. In this case, the 

proposed federal action would be the 

adoption of a general management plan for 

Channel Islands National Park. This 

“Environmental Consequences” chapter 

analyzes the potential effects of three 

management alternatives on natural resources, 

cultural resources, the visitor experience, and 

wilderness character of the park. By 

examining the environmental consequences 

of all alternatives on an equivalent basis, 

decision makers can decide which approach 

creates the most desirable combination of the 

greatest beneficial results with the fewest 

adverse effects on the park.

The alternatives in this plan provide broad 

management directions. Because of the 

general nature of the alternatives, the 

potential consequences of the alternatives are 

analyzed in similarly general terms using 

qualitative analyses. Thus, this environmental 

impact statement should be considered a 

programmatic analysis. For the purposes of 

analysis, in the environmental impact 

statement it is assumed that all of the specific 

actions proposed in the alternatives would 

occur during the life of the plan. 

For several actions in the alternatives there is 

not detailed information on the proposed 

actions and their locations. These actions 

include the removal of roads and the possible 

construction of campsites, trails, and 

campgrounds on Santa Rosa Island; the 

development of a research/education field 

station on Santa Rosa Island; the possible 

development of an education/research field 

camp on Santa Cruz Island; the development 

of a NPS housing area in the Prisoners Harbor 

area; the possible development of campsites 

and trails on Santa Cruz Island; the periodic 

excavation of sediments from the Scorpion 

channel on Santa Cruz Island; and the 

possible construction of new trails on San 

Miguel Island. This general management plan

generally analyzes these actions, but 

additional environmental analyses with 

appropriate NEPA documentation would be 

needed before they could be implemented. 

The existing conditions for all of the impact 

topics that are analyzed here were identified 

in the “Affected Environment” chapter. All of 

the impact topics are assessed for each 

alternative. For each impact topic, there is a 

description of the positive (beneficial) and 

negative (adverse) effects of the alternative, a 

discussion of the cumulative effects when this 

project is considered in conjunction with 

other actions occurring in the region, and a 

brief conclusion.

The no action alternative (continue current 

management) analysis identifies what future 

conditions would be if no changes to facilities 

or park management occurred. The two 

action alternatives were then compared to the 

no action alternative to identify the 

incremental changes that would occur as a 

result of changes in park facilities and 

management. Impacts of recent decisions and 

approved plans, such as the Santa Cruz Island 

restoration effort, are not evaluated as part of 

this environmental analysis. Although these 

actions would occur during the life of the 

plan, they have been (or would be) evaluated 

in other environmental documents. Also, the 

impacts of the marine reserve areas and 

marine conservation areas within the park 

waters, which the state of California recently 

adopted, are not evaluated in this document 

(see CDF&G 2002 for the environmental 

impacts of these marine protected areas).

At the end of each alternative there is a brief 

discussion of energy requirements and 

conservation potential; unavoidable adverse 

impacts; irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources; and the 

relationship of short-term uses of the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

306

environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity. 

Unavoidable adverse effects focus on longterm permanent effects on park resources. 

These are impacts that cannot be fully 

mitigated or avoided — they are residual 

impacts that would remain after mitigation 

was implemented. Irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of resources 

explore long-term effects of an alternative and 

whether or not the productivity of park 

resources is being traded for the immediate 

use of land. The relationship of short-term 

uses of the environment and the maintenance 

and enhancement of long-term productivity 

explores long-term effects of an alternative 

and whether or not the productivity of park 

resources is being traded for the immediate 

use of land.

A brief summary of the impacts of each 

alternative is provided in Table 19 at the end 

of the “Alternatives, including the Preferred 

Alternative” chapter.

ASSUMPTIONS 

For the purposes of this analysis several 

assumptions were made in analyzing impacts 

of the alternatives:

• All changes to park facilities are phased in 

over 20 to 40 years as described in the 

alternatives.

• The deer and elk on Santa Rosa Island 

were removed in 2011 as required under a 

court agreement.

• Parkwide, visitor use levels and patterns 

do not substantially change from current 

levels and patterns, although there may be 

noticeable increases on individual islands. 

Most visitors, however, would continue to

stay within developed areas.

• All facilities proposed in the alternatives 

are built.

• All proposed commercial services in the 

alternatives occur.

• Congress designates wilderness in the 

park as proposed in alternatives 2 and 3. 

• In alternative 3 it is assumed that visitors 

would be able to fly to San Miguel Island 

on a limited basis during the trial period.

CLIMATE CHANGE

The impacts of climate change on the park are 

not expected to differ among the alternatives, 

and the lack of qualitative and quantitative

information about climate change effects adds 

to the difficulty of predicting how these 

impacts would be realized in the park. 

Additionally, management actions that are 

inherently part of each alternative, such as 

allowing natural processes to dominate or

managing nonnative plants to prevent 

spreading, would not fundamentally change 

with the anticipated added effects of climate 

change. Also, the range of variability in the 

potential effects of climate change is large in 

comparison to what is known about the future 

under an altered climate regime in the park in 

particular, even if larger-scale climatic 

patterns have been predicted for the 

California Coast (California Natural 

Resources Agency 2009). Therefore, the 

potential effects of this dynamic climate on 

national park resources were included in 

“Chapter 3: Affected Environment.” 

However, these effects are not analyzed in 

“Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences” in 

general with respect to each alternative 

because of the uncertainty and variability of 

outcomes, and because these outcomes or 

management are not expected to differ among 

the alternatives. 
307

METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

The planning team based the impact analysis 

and conclusions in this chapter largely on 

information provided by experts in the Park 

Service, park staff insights and professional 

judgments, and the review of existing 

literature and studies. The team’s method of 

analyzing impacts is further explained below. 

It is important to remember that it is assumed 

in the analyses that the mitigation measures 

described in the alternatives chapter would be 

applied to minimize or avoid impacts. If these 

measures were not applied, the potential for 

resource impacts and the magnitude of those 

impacts would increase.

The environmental consequences for each 

impact topic were defined based on impact 

type, intensity, context, and duration. 

Cumulative effects also were identified, but 

are discussed later in this section. 

Effects can be either adverse or beneficial for 

the topic being analyzed. The effects also can 

be direct or indirect. Direct effects are caused 

by an action and occur at the same time and 

place as the action. Indirect effects are caused 

by the action and occur later or farther away, 

but are still reasonably foreseeable. 

Impact intensity refers to the degree or 

magnitude to which a resource would be 

positively or negatively affected. Each impact 

was identified as negligible, minor, moderate, 

or major in conformance with the criteria for 

these classifications provided below by impact 

topic. Because this is a programmatic 

document, the intensities were expressed 

qualitatively.

Context refers to the setting within which an 

impact is analyzed, such as the affected region 

or locality. In this document most impacts are 

either localized (site-specific) or parkwide. 

Cumulative impacts are either parkwide or 

regional (e.g., marine water quality impacts). 

For special status species, such as threatened 

and endangered species, the context is the 

species’ range.

Impact duration refers to how long an impact 

would last. The planning horizon for this plan 

is approximately 20 years. Unless otherwise 

specified, in this document the following 

terms are used to describe the duration of the 

impacts: 

Short term: The impact would be 

temporary in nature, lasting five years or 

less, such as impacts associated with 

construction.

Long term: The impact would last more 

than five years and can be permanent in 

nature, such as the loss of soil due to the 

construction of a new facility. (Although an 

impact may only occur for a short duration 

at one time, if it occurs regularly over time 

the impact may be considered long-term— 

e.g., the noise from a vehicle driving on a 

road would be heard for a short time and 

intermittently, but because vehicles would 

be driving the same road throughout the 

20-year life of the plan, the impact on the 

natural soundscape would be considered 

long-term.)

NEGLIGIBLE IMPACT REQUIREMENT 

The enabling legislation for the park mandates 

the intensity of impacts due to visitor use that 

can occur in the park. Section 204(b) of PL 96-

199 states:

In recognition of the special fragility and 

sensitivity of the park’s resources, it is 

the intent of Congress that the visitor use 

within the park be limited to assure 

negligible adverse impact on the park 

resources.

The Park Service has interpreted this to mean 

that all visitor impacts on natural resources 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

308

(including impacts due to visitor numbers, 

visitor behavior, new visitor facilities, or 

administrative facilities that relate to visitors) 

in the GMP alternatives cannot exceed a 

parkwide negligible adverse impact. In 

other words, all visitor impacts in the GMP 

alternatives should be beneficial, or at worst, 

have a negligible impact on natural resources 

from a parkwide perspective. If an impact 

were to be more severe than negligible, then 

the visitor use, activity, or facility should not 

be permitted. The Park Service has further 

interpreted this provision to mean that an 

impact at a localized site could exceed a 

negligible impact on a natural resource so long 

as the overall parkwide impact is negligible or 

less.

As documented in this chapter, some of the 

visitor use impacts are greater than a negligible 

impact in localized areas. However, none of 

the natural resource impacts identified were 

greater than a negligible impact when viewed 

from a parkwide perspective. [This is noted 

under the conclusions for each of the natural 

resource impact topics.]

NATURAL RESOURCE 

METHODOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS 

The natural resource impact topics analyzed 

in this document include soils, paleontological 

resources, fresh and marine water quality, 

floodplains and wetlands on Santa Cruz 

Island, terrestrial vegetation, terrestrial and 

marine wildlife (including seabirds and 

pinnipeds), federal- and state-listed 

threatened and endangered species, and 

soundscape. Information on known resources 

was compiled and compared with the 

locations of proposed developments and 

other actions. The impact analysis was based 

on the knowledge and best professional 

judgment of planners, resource specialists, 

data from park records, and studies of similar 

actions and impacts when applicable. The 

planning team qualitatively evaluated the 

impact intensities for all of the natural 

resource impact topics. 

The following impact intensity definitions for 

soils were used:

• Negligible Impact — An impact that may 

result in a change in a soil, but the change 

would be at the lowest level of detection 

and highly localized. The effects on soil 

productivity would be slight.

• Minor Impact — An impact that would 

result in a detectable change, but the 

change would be slight and would be 

localized. Effects on soil productivity 

would be small. There could be changes in 

a soil’s profile in a relatively small area, but 

the change would not noticeably increase 

the potential for erosion.

• Moderate Impact — An impact that would 

result in a clearly detectable change in the 

soil character and properties over a 

relatively wide area. The effect on soil 

productivity would be apparent. The 

potential for erosion to remove small 

quantities of additional soil would 

noticeably increase or decrease.

• Major Impact — An impact that would 

result in a substantial change in the soil 

character and soil productivity over a 

large area. There would be a strong 

likelihood that erosion would remove 

large quantities of additional soil or 

erosion would be substantially reduced.

For paleontological impacts, the following 

definitions were used:

• Minor Impact — A few fossils may be lost 

due to collecting, or there would be a low 

probability of impact due to a grounddisturbing activity because (1) the activity 

would occur in a geologic layer not known 

to contain extensive fossils and the 

volume of bedrock disturbance would be 

negligible, or (2) the activity would occur 

in a fossil-rich geologic layer, but the 

volume of bedrock disturbed would be 

nearly indiscernible. Monitoring would 

likely detect fossils and the loss of fossils 

and/or associated contextual information 

would be minimal.
Methodology for Analyzing Impacts

309

• Moderate Impact — A number of fossils 

may be lost due to collecting, or a 

moderate probability of impact due to a 

ground-disturbing activity because (1) the 

activity would occur in a geologic layer 

not known to contain extensive fossils and 

the volume of bedrock disturbance would 

be large, or (2) the activity would occur in 

a fossil-rich area and the volume of 

bedrock disturbance would be small. 

Most fossils uncovered would likely be 

found by monitoring, but some fossils 

and/or associated contextual information 

may be lost.

• Major Impact — Many fossils may be lost 

due to collecting or there would be a high 

probability of impact due to a grounddisturbing activity because the activity 

would occur in a geologic layer of high 

fossil richness and the volume of bedrock 

disturbance would be large. Even with 

monitoring, many fossils and/or 

associated contextual information would 

likely be lost.

The following impact intensity definitions for 

fresh and marine water quality impacts were 

used:

• Negligible Impact — Changes would be 

either nondetectable or if detected, would 

have effects that would be considered 

slight and localized.

• Minor Impact — Changes in water quality 

would be measurable, although the 

changes would be small and the effects 

would be localized. The changes would be 

within historical or desired water quality 

conditions. 

• Moderate Impact — Changes in water 

quality would be clearly measurable and 

relatively local. The changes may 

sometimes alter water quality from the 

historical baseline or desired conditions. 

The change potentially would affect a 

number of populations or natural 

ecological processes. Alternatively, the 

impact would be visible to some visitors.

• Major Impact — Changes in water quality 

would be readily measurable and would 

be noticed on a parkwide or regional 

scale. The changes would frequently alter 

water quality from the historical baseline 

or desired conditions. The change 

potentially would affect many populations 

or natural ecological processes. 

Alternatively, the impact would be easily 

visible to visitors.

For floodplain values and flooding, the 

following impact intensity definitions were 

used:

• Negligible Impact — Impacts would occur 

outside the regulatory floodplain, as 

defined by the “Floodplain Management 

Guideline” (NPS 1993; 100-year or 500-

year floodplain, depending on the type of 

action), or there would be no measurable 

or perceptible change in the ability of the 

floodplain to function naturally. There 

would be essentially no risk to life or 

property.

• Minor Impact — Impacts within the 

regulatory floodplain would slightly 

degrade or improve natural floodplain 

values (e.g., river processes or aquatic 

habitat) in a localized area. There would 

be a slight increase or decrease in the risk 

of damage to property, but there would be 

little risk to life. Placement of a small-scale 

development on the margin of the 

regulatory floodplain might be an example 

of an action that would result in minor 

adverse impacts. Removing flood 

protection devices or small facilities 

would result in beneficial impacts.

• Moderate Impact — Impacts within the 

regulatory floodplain would interfere with 

or enhance natural floodplain values (e.g., 

river processes or aquatic habitat) in a 

substantial way or in a large area. There 

would be a noticeable increase or decrease 

in the risk to life or property. Examples of 

adverse moderate impacts would include 

substantial modification of streambanks to 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

310

protect roads in multiple locations, or to 

protect large compounds.

• Major Impact — An impact would 

permanently alter or improve natural 

floodplain values or significantly alter or 

improve natural river processes or aquatic 

habitat. There would be a substantial 

increase or decrease in the risk that severe 

damage to property would occur or 

people would be lost. An example might 

be placement of a new levee in a 

regulatory floodplain to protect a park 

development.

For wetlands, the following impact intensity 

definitions were used:

• Negligible Impact — Changes would be 

either nondetectable, or if detected, would 

have effects that would be considered 

slight and localized. There would be no 

measurable or perceptible changes in 

wetland size, integrity, or functions.

• Minor Impact — Changes would be 

measurable, although the changes would 

be relatively small in terms of area and the 

nature of the changes. Although there 

could be a small change in integrity or 

continuity, the overall viability and 

functions of the wetland would not be 

affected. 

• Moderate Impact — The changes would be 

readily apparent in a relatively small, 

localized area. There could be a small 

change in the size, integrity, continuity, 

and a few functions of the wetland, 

including a small, but permanent, loss or 

gain in acreage.

• Major Impact — The effects would be 

readily apparent over a relatively large 

area, and would be highly noticeable. The 

change would permanently alter the size, 

integrity, continuity, and functions of the 

wetland, such as the permanent loss of 

large wetlands. 

For vegetation and wildlife the following 

impact intensity definitions were used:

• Negligible Impact — An impact that might 

result in a change in vegetation or wildlife, 

but the change would be at the lowest 

level of detection. Ecological processes 

would not be affected.

• Minor Impact — An impact that would 

result in a detectable change, but the 

change would be slight and would have a 

localized effect on a population. This 

could include changes in the abundance 

or distribution of individuals in a localized 

area, but not changes that affect the 

viability of local populations. Changes to 

localized ecological processes would be 

minimal.

• Moderate Impact — An impact that would 

result in a clearly detectable change in a 

population and that could have an 

appreciable effect. This could include 

changes in the abundance or distribution 

of local populations, but not changes that 

affect the viability of regional populations. 

Changes to localized ecological processes 

would be of limited extent.

• Major Impact — An impact that would be 

severely adverse or exceptionally 

beneficial to a population. These impacts 

would be substantial, highly noticeable, 

and might result in widespread change

and be permanent in nature. This could 

include changes in the abundance or 

distribution of a local or regional 

population to the extent that the 

population would not be likely to recover 

(adverse) or would return to a sustainable 

level (beneficial). Significant ecological 

processes would be altered, and 

landscape-level changes would be 

expected.

For federal- and state-listed species, 

including proposed species, the following 

impact intensities apply. These definitions are 

consistent with the language used to 

determine effects on threatened and 

endangered species under the federal ESA: 

• Negligible Effect —The action could result 

in a change to a population or individuals 
Methodology for Analyzing Impacts

311

of a species or designated critical habitat, 

but the change would be so small that it 

would not be of any measurable or 

perceptible consequence and would be 

well within natural fluctuations. This 

impact intensity equates to a Fish and 

Wildlife Service “may affect, not likely to 

adversely affect” determination.

• Minor Impact — The action would result 

in a change to a population or individuals 

of a species or designated critical habitat. 

The change would be measurable, but 

small, and not outside the range of natural 

variability. This impact intensity equates 

to a Fish and Wildlife Service “may affect, 

not likely to adversely affect” or a “likely 

to adversely affect” determination.

• Moderate Impact — The action would 

result in a detectable change to a 

population or individuals of a species or 

designated critical habitat. Changes to the 

population or habitat might deviate from 

natural variability, but the changes would 

not threaten the continued existence of 

the species in the park. This impact 

intensity equates to a Fish and Wildlife 

Service “may affect, not likely to adversely 

affect” or a “likely to adversely affect” 

determination.

• Major Impact — The action would result 

in a noticeable effect on the viability of a 

population or individuals of a species or 

designated critical habitat. Considerable 

changes may occur during key time 

periods for a species. Changes to the 

population or habitat would substantially 

deviate from natural variability and 

threaten or help ensure the continued 

existence of the species in the park. A 

major adverse impact would be 

considered a “take” situation and would 

equate to a Fish and Wildlife Service 

“likely to adversely affect” determination.

For soundscape impacts, the following 

impact intensity definitions were used: 

• Negligible Impact — For natural areas the 

alternative would rarely cause a change in 

the natural ambient sound conditions 

and/or there would be little or no change 

in periods of time between noise events. 

Natural sounds predominate. The amount 

of time that noise from the alternative is 

audible would cause changes so slight they 

would not be measurable or perceptible. 

For developed/frontcountry areas humancaused noise may be present much of the 

time during daylight hours, but it is 

concentrated at the sources and only 

travels short distances from the sources. 

Natural sounds still predominate in large 

portions of the frontcountry area. When 

noise is present, it is mostly at low levels.

• Minor Impact — For natural areas the 

alternative would occasionally cause a 

change in the natural ambient sound 

conditions, and/or there would be a small 

change in periods of time between noise 

events. The amount of time that noise is 

audible from the alternative would change 

a small amount from the natural ambient 

sound conditions. Sound sources would 

be identifiable. For 

developed/frontcountry areas humancaused noise may predominate during 

daylight hours, but for the majority of the 

time the noise is at low levels, is only rarely 

greater than medium levels, and does not 

travel more than medium distances 

throughout frontcountry areas.

• Moderate Impact — For natural areas the 

alternative would cause a change in 

natural ambient sound conditions for an 

intermediate amount of the day, and/or 

there would be an intermediate change in 

periods of time between noise events 

caused by the alternative. The amount of 

time that noise is audible would change an 

intermediate amount from natural 

ambient. Human-caused sounds would be 

readily apparent and identifiable. For 

developed/frontcountry areas humancaused noise may predominate, but it is at 

medium or lower levels a majority of the 

time. Localized areas may experience 

medium to high levels of human-caused 

noise during half of the daylight hours. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

312

Noise travels medium distances 

throughout frontcountry areas.

• Major Impact — For natural areas the 

alternative would cause a change in 

natural ambient sound conditions for a 

large amount of the day, and/or there 

would be more than an intermediate 

change in periods of time between noise 

events caused by the alternative. The 

amount of time that noise is audible would 

be substantial and at a level that obscures 

or masks natural sounds. For 

developed/frontcountry areas humancaused noise predominates during 

daylight hours and is at greater than 

medium levels a majority of the time the 

noise is present. Large portions of the 

frontcountry area are affected by medium 

to high levels of noise during a majority of 

the daylight hours.

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 

AND SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

In this plan / EIS, impacts on archeological 

(including submerged maritime) resources, 

ethnographic resources, historic 

structures/buildings, and cultural landscapes 

are described in terms of type, context, 

duration, and intensity that is consistent with 

CEQ regulations and implement the 

provisions of NEPA. These impact analyses 

are intended, however, to comply with the 

requirements of both NEPA and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA). In accordance with the ACHP’s 

regulations implementing Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 

Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties), 

impacts on archeological (including 

submerged maritime) resources, ethnographic 

resources, historic structures/buildings, and 

cultural landscapes were identified and 

evaluated by (1) determining the area of 

potential effects; (2) identifying cultural 

resources present in the area of potential 

effects that are either listed in or determined 

eligible to be listed in the national register; 

(3) applying the criteria of adverse effect to 

affected cultural resources either listed in or 

determined eligible to be listed in the national 

register; and (4) considering ways to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects.

Under the advisory council’s regulations a 

determination of either adverse effect or no 

adverse effect must also be made for affected 

national register-eligible or -listed cultural 

resources. An adverse effect occurs whenever 

an impact alters, directly or indirectly, any 

characteristic of a cultural resource that 

qualifies it for inclusion in the national register 

(e.g., diminishing the integrity of the 

resource’s location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, or association). 

Adverse effects also include reasonably 

foreseeable effects caused by the preferred 

alternative that would occur later in time, be 

farther removed in distance, or be cumulative 

(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects). A determination of no adverse effect 

means there is an effect, but the effect would 

not diminish in any way the characteristics of 

the cultural resource that qualify it for 

inclusion in the national register.

CEQ regulations and the NPS Conservation 

Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and 

Decision-making (DO-12) also call for a 

discussion of the appropriateness of 

mitigation, as well as an analysis of how 

effective the mitigation would be in reducing 

the intensity of a potential impact (e.g., 

reducing the intensity of an impact from 

major to moderate or minor). Any resultant 

reduction in intensity of impact due to 

mitigation, however, is an estimate of the 

effectiveness of mitigation under NEPA only. 

It does not suggest that the level of effect, as 

defined by Section 106, is similarly reduced. 

Although adverse effects under Section 106 

may be mitigated, the effect remains adverse.

A Section 106 summary is included in the 

impact analysis sections for archeological 

(including submerged maritime) resources, 

ethnographic resources, historic structures / 

buildings, and cultural landscapes. The 
Methodology for Analyzing Impacts

313

Section 106 summary is intended to meet the 

requirements of Section 106 and is an

assessment of the effect of the undertaking 

(implementation of the alternative) on cultural 

resources, based upon the criteria of effect 

and adverse effect found in the advisory 

council’s regulations.

CULTURAL RESOURCE 

METHODOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS 

Archeological Resources (Including 

Submerged Maritime Resources)

For purposes of analyzing impacts on 

archeological resources either listed in or 

eligible to be listed in the national register, the 

thresholds of change for intensity of an impact 

are defined below:

• Negligible — Impact is at the lowest levels 

of detection — Barely measurable with no 

perceptible consequences, either adverse 

or beneficial, on archeological resources. 

For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect.

• Minor — Adverse impact: Disturbance of a 

site(s) results in little, if any, loss of 

significance or integrity and the national 

register eligibility of the site(s) is 

unaffected. For purposes of Section 106, 

the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. Beneficial impact: 

Maintenance and preservation of a site(s). 

For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect.

• Moderate —Adverse impact: Disturbance 

of a site(s) does not diminish the 

significance or integrity of the site(s) to 

the extent that its national register 

eligibility is jeopardized. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect 

would be no adverse effect. Beneficial 

impact: Stabilization of a site(s). For 

purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect.

• Major — Adverse impact: Disturbance of a 

site(s) diminishes the significance and 

integrity of the site(s) to the extent that it 

is no longer eligible to be listed in the 

national register. For purposes of Section 

106, the determination of effect would be 

adverse effect. Beneficial impact: Active 

intervention to preserve a site(s). For 

purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect.

Ethnographic Resources

For purposes of analyzing potential impacts 

on ethnographic resources, the thresholds of 

change for the intensity of an impact are 

defined below.

• Negligible — Impact(s) would be barely 

perceptible and would neither alter 

resource conditions, such as traditional 

access or site preservation, nor alter the 

relationship between the resource and the 

affiliated group’s body of practices and 

beliefs. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect on traditional 

cultural properties would be no adverse 

effect.

• Minor — Adverse impact: Impact(s) would 

be slight but noticeable, but would neither 

appreciably alter resource conditions, 

such as traditional access or site 

preservation, nor alter the relationship 

between the resource and the affiliated 

group’s body of practices and beliefs. For 

purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect on traditional 

cultural properties would be no adverse 

effect. Beneficial impact: Would allow 

access to and/or accommodate a group’s 

traditional practices or beliefs. For 

purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect on traditional 

cultural properties would be no adverse 

effect. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

314

• Moderate — Adverse impact: Impact(s) 

would be apparent and would alter 

resource conditions. Something would 

interfere with traditional access, site 

preservation, or the relationship between 

the resource and the affiliated group’s 

practices and beliefs, even though the 

group’s practices and beliefs would 

survive. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect on traditional 

cultural properties would be no adverse 

effect. Beneficial impact: Would facilitate 

traditional access and/or accommodate a 

group’s practices or beliefs. For purposes 

of Section 106, the determination of effect 

on traditional cultural properties would be 

no adverse effect.

• Major — Adverse impact: Impact(s) would 

alter resource conditions. Something 

would block or greatly affect traditional 

access, site preservation, or the 

relationship between the resource and the 

affiliated group’s body of practices and 

beliefs to the extent that the survival of a 

group’s practices and/or beliefs would be 

jeopardized. For purposes of Section 106, 

the determination of effect on traditional 

cultural properties would be adverse 

effect. Beneficial impact: Would 

encourage traditional access and/or 

accommodate a group’s practices or 

beliefs. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect on traditional 

cultural properties would be no adverse 

effect.

Historic Structures / Buildings

For purposes of analyzing potential impacts 

on historic structures/buildings, the 

thresholds of change for the intensity of an 

impact are defined as follows:

• Negligible — Impact(s) is at the lowest 

levels of detection — barely perceptible 

and not measurable. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect 

would be no adverse effect.

• Minor — Adverse impact: Impact would 

not affect the character-defining features 

of a national register-eligible or -listed 

structure or building. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect 

would be no adverse effect. Beneficial 

impact: Stabilization / preservation of 

character-defining features in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties. For purposes of Section 106, 

the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect.

• Moderate — Adverse impact: Impact 

would alter a character-defining feature(s) 

of the structure or building but would not 

diminish the integrity of the resource to 

the extent that its national register 

eligibility is jeopardized. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect 

would be no adverse effect. Beneficial 

impact: Rehabilitation of a structure or 

building in accordance with the Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties. For 

purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect.

• Major — Adverse impact: Impact would 

alter a character-defining feature(s) of the 

structure or building, diminishing the 

integrity of the resource to the extent that 

it is no longer eligible to be listed in the 

national register. For purposes of Section 

106, the determination of effect would be 

adverse effect. Beneficial impact: 

Restoration of a structure or building in 

accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect 

would be no adverse effect.

Cultural Landscapes

For purposes of analyzing potential impacts 

on cultural landscapes, the thresholds of 
Methodology for Analyzing Impacts

315

change for the intensity of an impact are 

defined as follows:

• Negligible — Impact(s) is at the lowest 

levels of detection — barely perceptible 

and not measurable. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect 

would be no adverse effect.

• Minor — Adverse impact: Impact(s) would 

not affect the character-defining patterns 

and features of a national register-eligible 

or -listed cultural landscape. For purposes 

of Section 106, the determination of effect 

would be no adverse effect. Beneficial 

impact: Preservation of character-defining 

patterns and features in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes. For purposes of Section 106, 

the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. 

• Moderate — Adverse impact: Impact(s) 

would alter a character-defining pattern(s) 

or feature(s) of the cultural landscape but 

would not diminish the integrity of the 

landscape to the extent that its national 

register eligibility is jeopardized. For 

purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect. Beneficial impact: 

Rehabilitation of a landscape or its 

patterns and features in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes. For purposes of Section 106, 

the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect.

• Major — Adverse impact: Impact(s) would 

alter a character-defining pattern(s) or 

feature(s) of the cultural landscape, 

diminishing the integrity of the landscape 

to the extent that it is no longer eligible to 

be listed in the national register. For 

purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be adverse 

effect. Beneficial impact: Restoration of a 

landscape or its patterns and features in 

accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. For 

purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE, 

INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION 

METHODOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS 

The planning team identified visitor 

experience as an important issue that could be 

appreciably affected under the alternatives. 

The Organic Act and NPS Management 

Policies 2001 (NPS 2000b) both direct the Park 

Service to provide visitor enjoyment 

opportunities that are uniquely suited and 

appropriate to the superlative resources found 

in the park. Two different aspects of visitation 

and enjoyment are evaluated in this chapter – 

visitor experience and interpretation / 

education. The visitor experience component 

evaluates the quality, characteristic, and 

diversity of the visitor experience in terms of 

the actions and management zones in the 

alternatives. The visitor experience 

component also evaluates the diversity of 

recreational opportunities on the islands and 

the ability of visitors to take advantage of 

these opportunities. Every visitor to the park 

brings unique expectations and, thus, each has 

a unique experience. As a result, the 

environmental impact statement identifies, 

where possible, how the quality of the 

experience would change the given 

application of actions and management 

zoning in each of the alternatives.

The interpretation and education component 

evaluates opportunities for and quality of 

visitor orientation, as well as interpretive and 

educational experiences. Impact analysis for 

this component was based on whether there 

would be a change in the access to, quality of, 

and diversity of media and programs and 

recreational opportunities throughout the 

park resulting from the actions and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

316

management zones in the alternatives. This 

assessment focused on the intensity and 

duration of impacts that would result from the 

proposed actions relative to the aspects of 

visitor experience, interpretation, and 

education; and whether those impacts were 

considered beneficial or adverse. The 

assessment looked specifically at whether 

there were changes in the characteristics or 

the quality of the experience. This discussion 

was provided for context purposes only to 

facilitate the reader’s understanding of the 

implications of an impact.

The visitor experience and interpretation and 

education impact intensity definitions are as 

follows:

• Negligible Impact — Negligible impacts 

were effects considered not detectable to 

the visitor and, therefore, were expected 

to have no discernible effect. 

• Minor Impact — Minor impacts would be 

slightly detectable, though not expected to 

have an overall effect on the visitor 

experience.

• Moderate Impact — Moderate impacts 

would be clearly detectable to the visitor 

and could have an appreciable effect on 

the visitor experience.

• Major Impact — Major impacts would 

have a substantial, highly noticeable 

influence on the visitor experience and 

could permanently alter access to and 

availability of various aspects of the visitor 

experience.

WILDERNESS CHARACTER

This impact topic was analyzed by evaluating 

the effects of the alternatives on four 

characteristics of wilderness: natural; 

undeveloped; untrammeled; and 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation (see chapter 3 for 

definitions of these four qualities.) The area 

analyzed was limited to the areas found 

eligible for wilderness designation. Thus, for 

example, San Miguel Island, which was found 

ineligible for wilderness designation, was not 

analyzed. As noted previously, for all but the 

no action alternative, this plan assumes that 

areas proposed for designated wilderness are 

ultimately designated as such by Congress.

For the no action alternative, this assessment 

assumes continuation of the current 

management direction — the Park Service 

would continue to manage the areas to 

maintain their existing wilderness character 

until “Congress determines otherwise.” In the 

action alternatives impacts were analyzed due 

to the wilderness proposal and due to other 

actions in the alternatives that could affect the 

wilderness character of the areas being 

proposed as wilderness. Because each of the 

action alternatives proposes wilderness in the 

park, and based on the Wilderness Act’s 

mandate to preserve wilderness character, this 

impact topic focuses on the extent to which a 

particular wilderness proposal secures for the 

public the benefits of an enduring 

(permanent) resource of wilderness, including 

preservation of wilderness character.

The intensity of impacts on wilderness 

characteristics was determined using the 

following definitions:

• Negligible —The change would either be 

barely noticeable or highly localized and 

would have no discernible effect on 

wilderness character on a parkwide scale. 

Any changes in natural conditions due to 

human-caused actions would be confined 

to a very small area. Effects on 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation would be small. 

• Minor — The change to wilderness 

character would be slight but noticeable, 

affecting a small area. Changes in natural 

conditions due to human-caused actions 

(either beneficial or adverse) would be 

apparent but confined to small areas. 

Effects on opportunities for solitude or 

primitive and unconfined recreation 

would be slightly beneficial or adverse and 

confined to a limited area, such as along a 

single trail.
Methodology for Analyzing Impacts

317

• Moderate — The change to wilderness 

character would be noticeable and spread 

over a number of locations in different 

areas. Changes in natural conditions due 

to human-caused actions (beneficial or 

adverse) would be apparent in several 

areas. Effects on opportunities for solitude 

or primitive and unconfined recreation 

(beneficial or adverse) would be apparent 

to many visitors in limited areas. 

• Major — The change to wilderness 

character would be highly noticeable and 

widespread, affecting substantial areas, 

and could result in substantial changes 

that enhance or detract from the qualities 

of the wilderness character. Changes in 

natural conditions due to human-caused 

actions (beneficial or adverse) would be 

readily apparent in a large area. Effects on 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation would be obvious 

to most visitors throughout the park.

PARK OPERATIONS

The impact analysis evaluated the effects of 

the alternatives on park operations, including 

staffing, infrastructure, maintenance, visitor 

facilities and services, and time required for 

park staff to get to and from various park sites 

requiring attention (e.g., research or 

monitoring campsites).

The analysis focused on how park operations 

and facilities might vary with the different 

management alternatives. It addresses the 

effectiveness and efficiency with which NPS 

staff perform their duties and responsibilities. 

The analysis is qualitative rather than 

quantitative because of the conceptual nature 

of the alternatives. Consequently, professional 

judgment was used to reach reasonable 

conclusions as to the intensity, duration, and 

type of potential impact.

The intensity of impacts on park operations 

was determined using the following 

definitions:

• Negligible — The effect would be at or 

below the lower levels of detection, and 

would not have an appreciable effect on 

park operations.

• Minor — The effects would be detectable, 

but would be of a magnitude that would 

not have an appreciable effect on park 

operations. The change would be 

noticeable to park staff but probably not 

to the public.

• Moderate — The effects would be readily 

apparent and would result in a change in 

park operations in a manner noticeable to 

staff and possibly to the public.

• Major — The effects would be readily 

apparent and would result in a substantial, 

widespread change in park operations in a 

manner highly noticeable to park staff and 

the public.

DURATION

Short-term impacts are those that would 

occur in a single year or during construction. 

Long-term impacts are those that would occur 

for longer than one year. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

define a cumulative impact as the 

impact on the environment which 

results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, regardless of what 

agency (federal or nonfederal) or 

person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor, but collectively 

significant, actions taking place over a 

period of time. Each cumulative impact 

analysis is additive, considering the 

overall impact of the alternative when 

combined with effects of other actions 

(inside and outside the park) that have 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

318

occurred or would occur in the 

foreseeable future.

To determine potential cumulative impacts, 

projects in about a 50-mile area surrounding 

the park were identified. For pinnipeds and 

birds the area of influence covers the 

Southern California Bight, an area bounded by 

Point Conception in the north and Punta 

Banda, Mexico, in the south.

The primary projects and actions that could 

contribute to cumulative effects are 

summarized below. These include ongoing 

and planned actions and projects in the park, 

marine sanctuary and adjacent waters, and 

nearby communities.

Actions and Projects Inside the Park

Past, present, and future actions and projects

inside the park independent of the plan 

include the following:

• Island fox captive breeding and 

reintroduction (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, 

and Santa Cruz islands) (past action).

• Bald eagle restoration efforts (past 

actions).

• Capture and relocation of golden eagles 

on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands.

• Other approved ecosystem restoration 

efforts (e.g., nonnative vegetation removal 

on all islands). 

• Possible establishment of new populations 

of listed plant species on the islands and 

seed collections.

• Elimination of horses from Santa Rosa 

Island.

• Replacement of the Bechers Bay and 

Scorpion Harbor piers. 

• Management of fish populations and 

fisheries by the state and federal 

governments.

• Management of marine protected areas.

• Management/maintenance of roads and 

trails.

• Efforts would be made to establish new 

populations of listed plant species on the 

islands and to establish seed collections.

• The Nature Conservancy would continue 

to manage resources on its lands on Santa 

Cruz Island.

• Harvest of marine resources would 

continue in most park waters with the 

exception of marine protected areas; 

harvest would include use of equipment 

such as traps, nets, lights, and hooks and 

lines.

• Restoration of native plant communities 

through removal of nonnative plants and 

planting of native plants.

• Restoration of the wetlands in the 

Prisoners Harbor area.

• Permitted scientific research and 

inventory and monitoring of natural and 

cultural resources would continue.

• Commercial and sport fishing in waters 

within the park boundary.

• Replace in-kind island infrastructures 

(e.g., piers, docks, cranes, housing, and 

utility systems).

Actions and Projects Outside the Park

• Drilling oil and gas and continuing 

exploration for oil and gas.

• Revision of the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary Plan (past action).

• Continuing the use of the Santa Barbara 

channel by large vessel north-south traffic. 

• Continuing military use of the Santa Cruz 

Navy base.

• Expanding testing and training operations 

at the Naval Air Warfare Center’s Point 

Mugu Sea Range.

• Managing fish populations and fisheries 

by the federal and state governments.

The Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary’s revised 2009 management plan set 

priorities, described planned programs and 

projects, contained regulations, guided the 

development of future activities, and set 
Methodology for Analyzing Impacts

319

performance measures to gauge effectiveness. 

Modifications to existing sanctuary 

regulations (found at 15 CFR 922.71 through 

922.74) were also promulgated. These 

sanctuary regulations included:

• prohibiting mineral exploration, 

production, and development

• continuing to prohibit oil and gas 

exploration, production, and 

development

• clarifying and strengthening the 

prohibition of discharges and deposits 

into sanctuary waters that are not 

incidental to vessel use

• prohibiting discharges beyond the 

boundary of the sanctuary that enter and 

damage the sanctuary’s resources

• extending seabed disturbance prohibition 

into deeper waters of the sanctuary (while 

maintaining existing exemptions for 

anchoring and trawling)

• improving habitat protection by limiting 

or prohibiting activities that impact the sea 

floor

• clarifying and strengthening existing 

regulations requiring vessels carrying 

cargo, bulk carriers, barges, and tankers to 

stay 1 nautical mile from island shores to 

include other vessels exceeding a certain 

gross tonnage 

• prohibiting take or possession of seabirds 

and marine mammals except when 

otherwise permitted under the Marine 

Mammals Protection Act, ESA, or 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

• clarifying and strengthening existing 

regulations prohibiting damage or 

removal of historical or cultural resources

• prohibiting the release of exotic species

• continuing to prohibit disturbing marine 

mammals or seabirds by low-flying aircraft
320 

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION)

NATURAL RESOURCES

Soils

Analysis. Under alternative 1 there would be 

little change to soils on the islands. Assuming 

use levels do not substantially rise on 

Anacapa, San Miguel, and Santa Barbara 

islands; and visitors largely stay at existing 

developed areas and hike on trails, impacts on 

soils due to erosion would be expected to 

continue to be long-term and negligible to 

minor. Some soils also would continue to be 

compacted and altered in local areas on Santa 

Cruz and Santa Rosa islands due to hikers and 

backpackers walking cross-country or off 

trails. Informal social trails could be formed 

on the two islands over time, which would 

result in a long-term minor adverse impact. 

Erosion also would likely continue to be a 

problem at various spots along the roads on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, resulting in 

a continuing localized long-term moderate 

adverse impact.

Overall, from a parkwide perspective, 

alternative 1 would have a long-term minor 

adverse impact on soils primarily due to 

continued visitor use eroding and compacting 

soils.

Cumulative Impacts. In the past, soil erosion 

was a major problem on parts of all of the 

islands. Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San 

Miguel islands in particular suffered severe 

soil erosion due to overgrazing by livestock, 

removing native vegetation, developing roads 

on Santa Rosa Island, and pig rooting on Santa 

Cruz Island, causing soil compaction and 

erosion. Also in the past, browsing by elk and 

deer, two nonnative species on Santa Rosa 

Island, resulted in the loss of vegetation and 

compaction of soils and erosion in areas.

The recent removal of deer and elk from Santa 

Rosa Island and the elimination of feral pigs 

on Santa Cruz Island would be expected to 

result in a localized long-term moderate 

beneficial impact on these islands. 

Revegetation and soil erosion control efforts 

would continue on the islands, independent 

of this plan, such as efforts to rehabilitate 

eroding areas on the Smith Highway and 

Soledad Peak on Santa Rosa Island. These 

continuing restoration efforts should over 

time reduce the loss of soil in many problem 

areas, resulting in a continuing long-term 

moderate to major beneficial impact. 

When the minor adverse impacts from 

continuing visitor use on soils under 

alternative 1 are added to the above beneficial 

impacts, they would slightly detract from the 

beneficial impacts, resulting in a long-term 

moderate to major beneficial cumulative 

impact on soils, primarily due to continuing 

revegetation and soil erosion control efforts 

(although alternative 1 would continue to add 

a minor adverse increment to this impact). 

Conclusion. Under alternative 1 soil erosion 

would continue to be a problem in places on 

the islands and there would be some longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts due 

to visitor use in localized areas. From a 

parkwide perspective, alternative 1 would 

have a long-term minor adverse impact on 

park soils. There would be the potential for a 

long-term moderate to major beneficial 

cumulative impact when the effects of 

alternative 1 are added to present and future 

actions including revegetation and soil control 

efforts (although alternative 1 would add a 

minor adverse increment to this impact). 

Paleontological Resources

Analysis. It is unknown if or how many fossils 

are illegally collected in the park. But with low 

numbers of visitors and the fossils not being 

apparent to most visitors or readily accessible 

on most of the islands, it is likely that only a 
Impacts of Alternative 1 (No Action)

321

few, if any, resources are being lost. If use 

levels increase slightly in the future, there is 

the potential for some illegal fossil collecting 

to occur. However, there is no reason to 

expect that there would be a noticeable 

change in the numbers of fossils being illegally 

collected — most visitors would stay in 

developed areas and would not be in areas 

known to have fossils. On San Miguel Island, 

the requirement that all hikers be 

accompanied by a ranger should avoid 

impacts on paleontological resources. With 

only ranger-led hikes allowed through the 

caliche forest, minimal impacts would be 

expected on the island. 

Because no new ground-disturbing 

construction would occur under alternative 1, 

no impacts on paleontological resources 

would occur.

Overall, from a parkwide perspective, 

alternative 1 would likely have a long-term 

minor adverse impact on paleontological 

resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. None of the current or 

likely projects or actions inside or outside the 

park are believed to be affecting the park’s 

paleontological resources. Thus, alternative 1 

would not add an increment to other impacts 

that would result in a cumulative impact.

Conclusion. Overall, expected slight increases 

in use in the backcountry in the future under 

alternative 1 could have a long-term minor 

adverse impact on the park’s paleontological 

resources. No cumulative impacts to park 

resources or values would occur due to 

human activities. 

Water Quality

Analysis. Because no new facilities would be 

built and very small changes in visitor use 

levels would be expected on Anacapa, San 

Miguel, and Santa Barbara islands, no changes 

to freshwater quality would be expected on 

these islands. 

On Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands no 

impacts on water quality would occur due to 

new facilities being built. Low numbers of 

visitors would continue to hike and camp in 

the backcountry on both islands, resulting in a

continuing negligible adverse impact on 

freshwater quality. 

Some marine water quality impacts would 

continue due to the disposal of waste by beach 

campers on Santa Rosa Island. However, these 

adverse impacts would be expected to be 

minor and long-term due to the relatively low 

use levels and the diluting effect of the ocean. 

It is expected that boat use in waters around 

the islands would increase over time. Some 

boats might discharge wastes and fuel into 

park waters. The overall impact on marine 

water quality would probably be a minor 

adverse impact, given that there would still be 

relatively few boats scattered over a large area 

and the large volume of ocean. However, in 

areas where concentrations of boats occur, 

such as at Scorpion, Smugglers, and East 

Anacapa on weekends and holidays 

depending on weather and tides, there could 

continue to be a long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impact on water quality.

From a parkwide perspective, overall 

alternative 1 would be expected to result in a 

long-term negligible impact on the park’s 

freshwater and a minor adverse impact on the 

park’s water quality due primarily to pollution 

from boats.

Cumulative Impacts. In the past, sheep and 

cattle on the islands, deer and elk on Santa 

Rosa Island, and pigs on Santa Cruz Island 

added wastes and sediment to water 

drainages, resulting in long-term moderate 

adverse impacts. Erosion of soils along roads 

on Santa Rosa Island in the past, and likely 

continuing along some roads, would adversely 

affect freshwater quality of some drainages, 

increasing sediment and turbidity levels. 

Restoration activities on the islands would 

have a beneficial impact on freshwater quality. 

Past, continuing, and future revegetation 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

322

efforts and erosion control efforts on roads 

would reduce runoff, and would result in a 

localized long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impact on water quality. Overall, the 

negligible adverse impacts of alternative 1 

added to the impacts of past, present, and 

future revegetation and erosion control 

efforts, would result in a minor to moderate 

beneficial cumulative impact on freshwater 

quality (although alternative 1 would continue 

to add a very minor adverse increment to this 

impact). 

With regard to marine waters, the 

replacement of the Bechers Bay pier would 

result in increased turbidity during the 

construction period (including the removal of 

the existing pier) and would likely result in 

short-term minor adverse impacts on water 

quality in this area. There are also many 

nonpark sources that have affected, and can 

affect, the park’s water quality, such as 

discharges or spills from ships and oil and gas 

platforms, sewage disposal, agricultural and 

urban runoff from the mainland, and ocean 

dumping. The 2009 Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary regulations addressed 

discharges of ships into marine waters, among 

other actions. Enforcement of these 

regulations and education of boaters and 

shipping companies would be expected to be a 

long-term beneficial impact, although the 

magnitude of this impact is not known — the 

impact would depend on the level of 

enforcement and public education efforts, 

how much of a deterrent the regulations 

would have, and other factors. When the 

above external pollution sources are added to 

minor water quality adverse impacts resulting 

from an increase in visitor boat use under 

alternative 1, there would be the potential for 

an adverse cumulative impact. Although the 

very large diluting volume of ocean would 

reduce the impact, a long-term minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative impact could 

occur to water quality in places around the 

islands. However, the increment added by 

visitor boat use under alternative 1 to the 

overall cumulative impact from nonpark 

sources would likely be minor.

Conclusion. Continuing visitor use would 

likely result in a negligible adverse impact to 

freshwater quality on the islands in alternative 

1. There would be a continuing long-term 

minor adverse impact on marine water quality 

due to boat discharges in park waters and the 

disposal of human waste on Santa Rosa Island 

beaches, with possible localized long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impacts. There 

would be a long-term minor to moderate 

cumulative impact on the park’s freshwater 

quality when the negligible adverse impacts of 

visitor use in alternative 1 are added to 

continuing ecosystem restoration efforts. 

There would be a reduction in sedimentation 

and wastes in localized areas. This would have 

a long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impact on water quality (although alternative 

1 would add a minor adverse increment to this 

impact). A long-term minor to moderate 

adverse cumulative impact on the park’s 

marine water quality in local areas would 

occur when nonpark water pollution sources 

are added to the minor adverse impacts of 

discharges from more visitor boats in 

alternative 1 (although the increment 

contributed by actions in alternative 1 would 

be very minor). 

Floodplain Values and Flooding at

Scorpion Valley on Santa Cruz Island

Analysis. No new developments would occur 

in this alternative. Although structures would 

remain in the floodplain in Scorpion Valley, 

no new actions would be taken to address the 

threat of major future floods. The presence of 

several structures in the floodplain would 

continue to have a long-term negligible 

adverse impact on natural floodplain values 

because the structures occupy a very small 

portion of the floodplain. It can be expected 

that flooding would continue to periodically 

occur, and that floodwaters would damage the 

structures. Thus, alternative 1 would continue 

to have the potential for a long-term moderate 

adverse impact due to flooding risk to human 

life and/or property in this area.
Impacts of Alternative 1 (No Action)

323

Cumulative Impacts. No other known 

actions or activities inside or outside the park 

would affect these floodplains. Thus, there 

would be no cumulative impacts due to 

alternative 1. 

Conclusion. Overall, alternative 1 would have 

a negligible long-term impact on the Scorpion 

Valley floodplain and flooding. However, 

there would continue to be a potential longterm moderate impact on human life and/or 

property due to possible flooding. No 

cumulative impacts would occur. 

Wetlands (Scorpion Valley)

Analysis. No new developments, uses, or 

other actions would occur under this 

alternative that would affect the wetlands at 

the mouth of Scorpion Valley. Thus, 

alternative 1 would have no effect on the 

park’s wetlands.

Cumulative Impacts. The restoration of the 

Prisoners Harbor wetland would beneficially 

affect this area. However, no actions are being 

taken in alternative 1 that would affect 

wetlands. Thus, there would be no cumulative 

impacts due to alternative 1. 

Conclusion. Alternative 1 would have no 

effect on the Scorpion Valley and Prisoners 

Harbor wetlands. No cumulative impacts 

would occur.

Terrestrial Plant 

Communities and Vegetation

Analysis. Under alternative 1, visitors and 

NPS staff would likely continue to 

accidentally introduce or spread nonnative 

plants to the islands over time. The impact of 

these introductions cannot be predicted, but 

could vary from long-term negligible to major 

adverse impacts depending on the species 

(e.g., how invasive they are) that is 

unintentionally introduced. Competition with 

nonnative and native plants could include 

changes in native plant distribution, numbers, 

structure, and ecological processes (e.g., 

recycling of nutrients and fire). 

Under alternative 1 there would be no loss of 

vegetation due to new developments on the 

islands. On Anacapa, San Miguel, and Santa 

Barbara islands no new actions are being 

taken in the alternative that would affect 

vegetation. No major changes in visitation 

patterns would occur. Most people would 

continue to stay in existing developed areas 

and stay on trails. As a result, it is expected 

that alternative 1 would have a negligible 

adverse impact on vegetation on these three 

islands. 

Although most visitors would stay on trails 

and roads on the NPS portion of Santa Cruz 

Island and the backcountry of Santa Rosa 

Island, some trampling of vegetation could 

occur in local areas, destroying and damaging 

individual plants, if there is a slight increase in 

use levels. This would have a minor adverse 

impact on some plant populations. It is not 

expected that a slight increase in visitor use 

would affect the islands’ rare endemic plant 

populations. Most visitors would continue to 

stay at developed areas, and visitors who hike 

along roads or trails to destinations such as 

beaches and overlooks would generally avoid 

areas where rare endemic plants are growing. 

Visitors are not known to currently be 

affecting these populations, and there is no 

reason to believe that this would change in the 

future. Most areas with endemic species, such 

as coastal sage scrub, chaparral, coastal dunes, 

and the faces of coastal bluffs, would remain 

inaccessible or their habitats would receive 

very little use by visitors.

The presence of visitors in alternative 1 would 

continue to present the risk of an accidental 

fire. The potential adverse consequences of 

fires have changed on the islands due to the 

widespread conversion of native plant 

communities to annual grasses, which burn 

more easily than native vegetation. Also, many 

nonnative plants would spread following fire. 

Although there is little information on the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

324

abundance and viability of the native plant 

seed bank on Santa Rosa Island, given the 

history of grazing on the island and the level 

of soil erosion, there is likely a diminished 

seed bank. The effect of a wildfire is 

unknown, but the loss of native vegetation 

and loss of the seed bank could have a longterm moderate to major adverse effect on 

vegetation. However, the likelihood of such a 

wildfire being sparked by visitors is 

considered low, given the relatively few 

visitors that would be on the island and the 

prohibitions on open fires in the backcountry. 

Biologists would continue to oversee a 

program to control or eliminate aggressive, 

nonnative plants under the no action 

alternative. However, no new actions would 

be taken in this alternative to eliminate the 

source plants for those invasive species that 

are considered important parts of the islands’ 

cultural landscapes such as olive, stone pine, 

and pepper trees on Santa Cruz Island. 

Although NPS staff would continue efforts to 

control the spread of these plants outside of 

the cultural landscapes, the consequences of 

not removing the source plants would be 

continued invasion — and ultimately potential 

dominance — of native plant communities by 

the nonnative plants over time. Some native 

plants would likely be extirpated or reduced 

in numbers as a result of the spread of these 

nonnative species. This would have a longterm moderate to major adverse impact on 

plant communities on Santa Cruz Island. 

Overall, from a parkwide perspective, 

alternative 1 would have a long-term minor 

adverse impact on the park’s vegetation, 

although moderate adverse impacts could 

occur in localized areas (e.g., Santa Cruz 

Island).

Cumulative Impacts. As described in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter, people have 

substantially changed the vegetation of the 

Channel Islands in the past. Ranching in 

particular changed the natural landscape, 

resulting in widespread changes to native 

plants and vegetative communities on all of 

the islands. For example, past grazing of sheep 

and cattle on Santa Rosa Island resulted in 

major adverse impacts on the island’s 

vegetation, including loss of seed banks and 

reductions in populations of native plants. 

With the removal of livestock and other 

actions taken after the Park Service began 

managing the islands, all nonnative animals 

have been eliminated from Anacapa and Santa 

Barbara islands, and only black rats remain on 

San Miguel Island (which are not believed to 

be substantially affecting vegetation). As a 

result, although some areas continue to show 

continuing impacts from the era of sheep 

ranching or the presence of particularly 

deleterious nonnative plants, overall plant 

communities and native plant populations are 

recovering on the islands.

The elimination of the deer, elk, and pigs 

stopped browsing and soil impacts caused by 

these nonnative animal species. As a result of 

these efforts, native vegetation on Santa Cruz 

and Santa Rosa islands is recovering, 

particularly native vegetation in riparian areas, 

as well as rare plant species on the islands. 

This would likely have a localized long-term 

moderate to major beneficial effect on native 

plants on the islands. 

Other restoration activities would continue on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, including 

revegetation efforts on the islands, efforts to 

control the introduction and spread of 

nonnative plant populations, and efforts to 

control soil erosion. These efforts all would 

have a localized long-term moderate to major 

beneficial impact on vegetation. 

Adding together the minor adverse impacts of 

alternative 1 to the other past, present, and 

future actions occurring independent of the 

alternative, there would be the potential for 

long-term moderate to major beneficial 

cumulative impacts. The beneficial cumulative 

impact would be due to the continuing 

ecosystem restoration efforts. The no action 

alternative would add a very minor adverse 

increment to the overall beneficial cumulative 

impact.
Impacts of Alternative 1 (No Action)

325

Conclusion. Overall, alternative 1 would have 

a long-term minor adverse impact on the 

park’s vegetation, although long-term 

moderate adverse impacts could occur in 

localized areas (e.g., Santa Cruz Island), 

primarily due to the continuing spread of 

nonnative species like the stone pine and 

pepper trees on Santa Cruz Island, the 

potential for additional introductions of 

nonnative plants by people, and an expected 

slight increase in backcountry visitation levels. 

The adverse effects of alternative 1 plus the 

effects of other actions occurring independent 

of the alternative would likely result in a longterm moderate to major beneficial cumulative 

impact (although alternative 1 would add a 

very minor adverse increment to both of these 

overall cumulative impacts). 

Terrestrial and Marine Wildlife

Analysis. Most wildlife populations on the 

islands would not be affected by the actions 

proposed in alternative 1. Although some 

animals could be disturbed or displaced, 

visitor impacts would not be expected to 

adversely affect the park’s overall populations 

or habitats. No new developments or 

substantial changes in visitation patterns 

would occur that would affect wildlife. 

Under alternative 1 major seabird colonies 

and pinniped rookeries would continue to be 

protected. However, the number of kayakers 

and other boaters that would land and spend 

some time on beaches that are not closed to 

access would likely slightly increase on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands. If pinnipeds and 

seabirds are using these beaches, which can 

change from year to year, there would be a 

high potential for disturbance and/or 

displacement of animals. The extent of the 

impact would depend on the intensity, time, 

and frequency of disturbance, the species, and

the number of animals using the beaches at 

the time people are present. Assuming visitor 

numbers do not substantially increase, that 

visitors do not enter areas with major colonies 

and rookeries, that there are adequate 

educational outreach programs, and that 

occasional NPS patrols continue, impacts on 

pinnipeds and seabirds would be localized, 

short-term, and minor.

A slight increase in use levels on the NPS 

portion of Santa Cruz Island and the 

backcountry of Santa Rosa Island might 

disturb some wildlife. Some animals might be 

temporarily displaced or they might alter their 

behavior, such as mice, songbirds, island jays, 

and island spotted skunks. However, once 

people have passed by, these animals probably 

would return. Some improper food storage 

and feeding of wildlife in the backcountry 

could attract some animals such as mice and 

ravens. These actions would have a localized 

negligible adverse impact on the park’s 

wildlife populations.

From a parkwide perspective, alternative 1 

would be expected to result in a long-term 

negligible adverse impact on the park’s 

wildlife populations and habitat, with some 

localized minor adverse impacts due to 

disturbance of individual animals by visitors. 

Cumulative Impacts. The replacement of the 

existing piers at Bechers Bay and Scorpion 

Harbor with new piers could adversely affect 

some marine mammals in the area. Noise from 

construction activities, including drilling and 

removing the existing pier, would likely harass 

pinnipeds in the area. However, these areas 

are not known to be key marine mammal 

habitat or harbor large numbers of marine 

mammals. With the application of appropriate 

mitigative measures and consultations with 

the National Marine Fisheries Services once 

more details are known about the location, 

size, and design of the piers, it is anticipated 

that the adverse impact on marine mammals 

would be short-term and minor. 

Many potential actions outside the park could 

substantially affect pinnipeds and seabird 

populations in the region, such as oil spills or 

an oil platform blowout, new diseases and 

nonnative species that spread through the 

area, U.S. Navy testing and training 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

326

operations, or changes in fish populations due 

to global climate change or fishing. However, 

some of these impacts are considered unlikely 

(e.g., oil platform blowouts), and for others it 

is not possible to predict that these events 

would occur during the life of this plan. 

Although other actions can affect these 

animals (e.g., fishermen may shoot seabirds or 

pinnipeds, military training operations may 

disturb or harass animals, seabirds may get 

hooked or tangled in fishermen nets, 

introduced nonnative predators can devastate 

a seabird colony, or a pinniped may collide 

with a ship in the shipping lanes), most of 

these actions would affect individual or a few 

animals, not large populations.

There are indications of long-term decline of 

several species of seabirds in the park. The 

causes of the declines are not known, but are 

likely to be conditions in the marine 

environment. Some NPS restoration actions, 

such as the elimination of rats from Anacapa 

Island and restoration of vegetation, would 

positively impact seabird populations.

The state marine protected areas around the 

park have closed areas to commercial and 

sport fishing. The marine protected areas 

would be expected over time to have a longterm beneficial impact on seabirds and 

pinnipeds, possibly decreasing disturbance 

caused by boats in the area and increasing fish 

populations these species depend on. 

However, the state marine protected areas 

have been in place for only a short time; 

therefore, the magnitude of the impact is 

unknown.

The implementation of sanctuary regulations 

(including protecting the area’s water quality 

and limiting or prohibiting activities that 

impact the sea floor) probably has had a 

beneficial impact on the park’s marine wildlife 

populations by preventing pollution that 

could affect wildlife, although the magnitude 

of the impact is unknown and would vary 

depending on the level of enforcement and 

education efforts.

In April 2005, the state of California 

implemented regulations affecting squid 

fishing operations in the vicinity of the park. 

In addition, the state eliminated the 

emergency light restrictions that were in place 

to reduce nighttime disturbance by fishermen 

of breeding colonies of Scripp’s murrelet (and 

probably other alcids and storm-petrels) on 

Santa Barbara and Anacapa islands. There are 

documented impacts on seabirds that are 

nocturnal in colony or foraging habits from 

lighted fishing vessels in the Channel Islands 

including inflight strikes, increased predation, 

disorientation of fledgling birds, and 

disruptions in normal nesting activities 

(CDF&G Marine Resources Division 2005; 

USFWS 2005). As a result, it is likely that squid 

boats fishing in park waters during the seabird 

breeding season, even with shielded lights and 

wattage restrictions, would result in mortality 

of Scripp’s murrelets, ashy storm-petrels, 

black storm-petrels, rhinoceros auklets, and 

Cassin’s auklets. The California Department 

of Fish and Wildlife stated conservation 

efforts on the islands 

could be negatively countered by lost 

reproduction as a result of disturbance 

by large levels of artificial illumination 

from nearby vessels. . . . Given what we 

know about the effects of artificial night 

lighting and human disturbance of 

colonies for these seabird species . . . 

artificial night lighting associated with 

the market squid fishery could 

significantly impact recovery of these 

species if it occurs during the breeding 

season. (CDF&G Marine Resources 

Division 2005)

In another report on the Scripp’s murrelet, the 

agency stated “Artificial light pollution is a 

threat to the survival of the Scripp’s murrelet, 

particularly at breeding sites” (Burkett et al. 

2003). It is uncertain what impacts the squid 

fishing is having on the park’s seabirds since 

the location of the fleet varies from year to 

year, but it would be expected to result in 

some decreases in the abundance of local 

populations, resulting in a long-term 
Impacts of Alternative 1 (No Action)

327

unknown adverse impact. Also, squid fishing 

would likely affect pinnipeds feeding on 

squid. Squid are the primary prey of California 

sea lions and are eaten by most of the 

pinnipeds using the park. If squid harvest 

levels increase relative to past harvest levels, 

and/or if harvest levels continue at high levels 

over the life of this plan, there could be a longterm adverse impact of unknown magnitude 

on the pinniped populations using the park 

(Jeff Laake, NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center, pers. comm. March 18, 2005). 

When the above adverse impacts are added to 

the beneficial effects of the marine protected 

areas and marine sanctuary regulations, and 

the effects of alternative 1, there could be a 

long-term beneficial cumulative impact on 

pinnipeds and seabirds using the park. 

However, given the uncertainty and lack of 

data, it is not possible to determine the 

magnitude of such a beneficial cumulative 

impact. Alternative 1 would add a minor 

adverse increment to this cumulative impact 

due to the potential effects of increased 

numbers of kayakers and other recreational 

boaters visiting the park, which would not 

alter the overall intensity of the cumulative 

impact.

Past and ongoing restoration efforts on the 

islands (such as the rat eradication effort on 

Anacapa Island and the elimination of 

nonnative herbivores on Santa Rosa, Santa 

Cruz, and San Miguel islands) have also 

beneficially affected the islands’ native 

terrestrial fauna. Ecosystem restoration 

actions would continue independent of this 

plan, including the elimination of rats and 

vegetation restoration efforts. These actions 

would have a moderate to major beneficial 

effect on native wildlife populations, 

eliminating some sources of competition, 

providing more habitat, and generally 

increasing native wildlife populations 

including the side-blotched lizard, Channel 

Islands slender salamander, Santa Cruz 

gopher snake, mice, and landbirds such as the 

island scrub jay. The recovery of native 

vegetation due to these restoration efforts also 

would benefit native wildlife populations. 

Some negligible adverse impacts could occur 

to wildlife in local areas due to slight increases 

in use levels. 

Overall, when the negligible to minor adverse 

visitor impacts associated with alternative 1 

are added to the beneficial impacts of past, 

present, and future ecosystem restoration 

efforts, there could be a long-term moderate 

to major beneficial cumulative impact on the 

islands’ native terrestrial wildlife populations, 

primarily due to continuing ecosystem 

restoration efforts. The negligible to minor 

adverse impacts of alternative 1 would not 

substantially detract from the overall 

beneficial cumulative impact. There could also 

be a long-term beneficial cumulative impact of 

unknown magnitude on seabirds and 

pinnipeds due to non-NPS actions in park 

waters, such as from the state marine 

protected areas and actions taken by the 

Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary. 

Conclusion. Overall, negligible to minor 

adverse impacts would be expected to most of 

the park’s wildlife populations as a result of 

alternative 1, assuming that use levels do not 

substantially increase in backcountry areas. 

But there would be a potential for minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on marine and 

terrestrial wildlife populations in local areas 

on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, 

primarily due to increased use by boaters on 

beaches. When the effects of alternative 1 are 

added to the effects of ecosystem restoration 

efforts in the park, there could be a long-term 

moderate to major beneficial cumulative 

impact on native terrestrial wildlife

populations (although alternative 1 would add 

a minor adverse increment to this impact). 

There could also be a long-term beneficial 

cumulative impact on seabirds and pinnipeds 

of unknown magnitude when the effects of 

the non-NPS actions in park waters, such as 

the marine protected areas, are added to the 

effects of visitor use under alternative 1 

(although alternative 1 would add a very 

minor adverse increment to this overall 

beneficial cumulative impact). 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

328

Threatened and Endangered Species

Analysis. No new developments or uses 

would affect the island night lizard, snowy 

plover, or island fox under alternative 1. 

Current visitation patterns are having no 

known effect on the island night lizard, and 

slight increases in use on Santa Barbara Island 

would not likely affect the population in the 

future. 

Snowy plover breeding numbers have been 

declining and may continue to decline on the 

islands due to several possible reasons, but no 

actions are being taken as part of alternative 1 

that would contribute to this trend. Snowy 

plover habitat would continue to be protected 

under alternative 1. Visitor use patterns also 

would not likely appreciably change. All of 

San Miguel Island’s and many of Santa Rosa 

Island’s snowy plover breeding beaches would 

continue to be closed to public use during the 

nesting season. A few visitors would likely 

continue to land or hike on Santa Rosa 

Island’s beaches that are open to use. Some 

plovers may be temporarily disturbed on these 

beaches. However, there is no information to 

indicate that this very low level of use is 

adversely affecting the populations. With the 

low numbers of plovers scattered around the 

islands, and the very low use of the beaches 

due to their remoteness, it is anticipated that 

visitor impacts would be infrequent. If visitor 

use impacts were identified in the future, park 

staff would consult with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to identify and implement appropriate 

mitigation measures, such as signing or closing 

additional beaches to access. Consequently, it 

is believed that alternative 1 would have a 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impact, 

which may affect, but would not likely 

adversely affect, the park’s snowy plover 

populations. 

Visitors would rarely see foxes in the wild on 

Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel 

islands due to the large areas of the islands, 

low fox populations, and expected low use 

levels. On a rare occasion, some visitors may 

see or encounter foxes, which could affect the 

foxes’ behavior. Some feeding of foxes may 

occasionally occur, with the result that some 

foxes may become habituated to humans and 

expect to be fed. Vehicles used for 

administrative purposes on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands could run over and kill or 

injure foxes. However, this has not been 

known to happen on the islands in the recent 

past — the relatively few vehicles that drive on 

the roads and the condition of the roads, 

which force slower vehicle speeds, make 

collisions with foxes highly unlikely. Thus, it is 

not likely that visitor or administrative 

activities would adversely affect the fox 

populations. Alternative 1 would have a longterm negligible adverse impact on the foxes, 

which may affect, but would not likely 

adversely affect, the park’s island fox 

populations.

No actions would occur under alternative 1 

that would adversely affect the Hoffmann’s 

slender-flowered gilia, island rush rose, or the 

Santa Cruz Island chicory. Slight increases in 

visitor use would not likely affect the islands’ 

populations. There could be some trampling 

of chicory on the Lobo Canyon trail on Santa 

Rosa Island and island rush-rose on the 

Montanon Trail on Santa Cruz Island if hikers 

were to wander off the trails. However, with 

adequate warning given to visitors and rangerled hikes, these impacts would not be 

expected. Overall, it is believed that 

alternative 1 would have a long-term minor 

adverse impact, which may affect, but would 

not likely adversely affect, the populations of 

these listed plant species.

The potential for the outbreak and spread of 

wildfires is a concern for several listed plants, 

but not for Hoffmann’s slender-flowered gilia 

and Santa Cruz Island chicory. These species 

would be somewhat insulated from the 

impacts of fire by the locations and habitats 

where they occur. Hoffmann’s slenderflowered gilia is found in dune and lupine 

scrub vegetation, while Santa Cruz Island 

chicory occurs in coastal bluff areas. Neither 

of these communities are known to support 

the spread of fire, although annual grasses 
Impacts of Alternative 1 (No Action)

329

have invaded the gilia habitat and increase the 

potential to carry fire. Another insulating 

factor is the life-form of these two species. As 

annual species, a particular year’s generation 

would likely have set seed and senesced by the 

summer or fall — those periods when a fire is 

likely to spread.

Three other listed plants, Santa Rosa Island 

manzanita on Santa Rosa Island and 

Hoffmann’s rock-cress and island barberry on 

Santa Cruz Island, all face a threat if a fire 

were to occur on the islands, accidentally 

sparked either by visitors or NPS staff. Fires, 

while infrequent, have occurred on the islands 

in the past (most recently Santa Rosa Island in 

2002). The three listed plants all survive in 

small isolated populations. If a wildfire were 

to occur, it could quickly spread through the 

nonnative vegetation before a response could 

be organized and extirpate some or all of these 

populations. However, this risk has been 

present for many years and a fire could be 

caused by lightning as well as by people. 

Although no new actions are being proposed 

under alternative 1 that would directly or 

indirectly affect the Santa Rosa Island 

manzanita, Hoffmann’s rock-cress, and island 

barberry, the risk of fire would always be 

present. Thus, it is believed alternative 1 

would have a long-term negligible impact, and 

may continue to affect, but would not likely 

adversely affect, the Santa Rosa Island 

manzanita, Hoffmann’s rock-cress, and island 

barberry.

Overall, from a parkwide perspective, the 

actions continuing in alternative 1 would be 

expected to have a long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impact on the park’s listed 

species. Alternative 1 may affect, but would 

not likely adversely affect, these species.

Cumulative Impacts. In the case of the island 

night lizard, past and ongoing ecosystem 

restoration efforts on Santa Barbara Island, 

particularly the elimination of rabbits, have 

increased the boxthorn habitat where the 

lizards occur. No actions would be taken 

under alternative 1 that would add to these 

impacts. Thus, there would be no cumulative 

impacts.

The Park Service is continuing to protect the 

island fox on the islands independent of this 

plan. The past effort to remove pigs from 

Santa Cruz Island indirectly benefited the 

island fox by removing a primary prey source 

for the golden eagles, which also feed on the 

foxes — without the pigs, the island is not as 

attractive to the eagles and island fox 

mortality due to eagles has subsequently 

declined. However, no actions are being taken 

under alternative 1 that would affect the 

species. Consequently, alternative 1 would not 

result in a cumulative impact on the foxes.

Outside the park, the western snowy plover 

population has increased at several locations 

on the California mainland during the past 

few breeding seasons due to past and ongoing 

efforts to protect the birds. In particular, 

efforts to control predators, protect nesting 

areas from disturbance, and make people 

aware of the sensitivity of the birds have 

resulted in increasing numbers of fledglings 

and nesting birds at several key breeding areas 

along the mainland coast (David Pereksta, 

USFWS, Ventura, pers. comm. March 26, 

2003). If their productivity continues to 

increase, plovers may spread into new or 

historic breeding areas and eventually may 

recolonize parts of the park. When these 

positive impacts are added to the effects of 

occasional disturbance of plovers caused by 

visitors under alternative 1, there is the 

potential for a long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial cumulative impact, which may 

affect, but would not likely adversely affect, 

the species. Although alternative 1 would add 

a negative increment to this cumulative 

impact, the effect would be very minor and 

would not alter the overall intensity of the 

cumulative impact.

For the Hoffmann’s rock-cress and island 

rush-rose, no additional NPS or other agency 

actions are occurring on or off the islands, nor 

are future actions expected, that would affect 

these species. Thus, no cumulative impacts 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

330

would occur due to the additive effects of 

alternative 1 on these species.

In the case of the island barberry and Santa 

Cruz Island chicory, it is expected that the 

Park Service and U.S. Geological Survey 

would continue to research methods for 

establishing or expanding populations on the 

islands to assist their recovery. This action 

would occur independent of this plan. No 

additional NPS or other agency actions or 

activities are occurring on or off the islands 

that are known to be affecting the island 

barberry or Santa Cruz Island chicory. Thus, 

no cumulative impacts would occur due to 

additive effects of alternative 1 on these 

species.

The conversion of native vegetation to 

nonnative annual grasslands during the 

ranching era would be a continuing impact on 

Hoffmann’s slender-flowered gilia on Santa 

Rosa Island. On the other hand, it is expected 

that research would continue on methods for 

establishing or expanding the Hoffmann’s 

slender-flowered gilia, and efforts would 

likely continue to establish new populations 

or expand the boundaries of existing 

populations on the island. These actions, 

which would be taken independent of this 

planning effort, should help maintain the 

taxon. In the past there were impacts on one 

of the populations of the Hoffmann’s slenderflowered gilia on Santa Rosa Island due to 

grading of the service road to East Point; 

however, this no longer occurs. No actions are 

occurring under alternative 1 that would 

affect this species. Thus, no cumulative 

impacts would occur to this plant as a result of 

implementing alternative 1. 

With regard to the Santa Rosa Island 

manzanita, several impacts may occur in 

addition to the possibility of fire. Deer have 

browsed the manzanita in the past, affecting 

plant growth and reproduction. However, the 

recent removal of deer from the island likely 

has had a beneficial impact on the plant. The 

plant, which also grows along roadsides, could 

be affected by NPS maintenance activities. In 

addition, the Park Service and U.S. Geological 

Service plan to establish a seed collection, 

which would help ensure that the manzanita 

would not be extirpated on the island. 

However, the Park Service would be not be 

taking new actions under alternative 1 that 

would beneficially or adversely affect the 

plant. Thus, alternative 1 would have no 

cumulative effects on the Santa Rosa Island 

manzanita.

Conclusion. Overall, no new developments or 

substantial changes in visitor use or island 

management would occur under alternative 1 

that would affect the nine threatened and 

endangered plant and animal species being 

analyzed. The alternative would have no effect 

on the island night lizard. Expected slight 

increases in visitor use levels on the islands 

under the alternative may affect, but would 

not likely adversely affect, the island fox, 

snowy plover, Hoffmann’s slender-flowered 

gilia, Santa Cruz Island chicory, island rushrose, island barberry, and Hoffmann’s rockcress populations. Likewise, actions in 

alternative 1 may affect, but would not likely 

adversely affect, the Santa Rosa Island 

manzanita. No measurable cumulative 

impacts would be expected as a result of the 

alternative on most of the species. However, 

there could be a long-term moderate 

beneficial cumulative impact on western 

snowy plovers when the effects of actions 

independent of this plan are added to 

alternative 1 (although alternative 1 would 

only slightly detract from these beneficial 

impacts). 

Soundscape

Analysis. No new facilities or substantial 

increases in use would occur under alternative 

1. Thus, no changes in noise levels would 

occur in most of the park. The primary 

sources of noise on the islands would 

continue to be from concentrations of visitors 

and boats, and the operation of machinery in 

localized areas, such as Bechers Bay, 

Smugglers, Prisoners, Scorpion, and East 
Impacts of Alternative 1 (No Action)

331

Anacapa Island. Human-caused sounds 

(noise) would be apparent, changing the 

distribution of sound frequencies and 

oftentimes masking natural sounds. Thus, 

there would continue to be a long-term 

moderate adverse impact of noise in these 

areas at varying times (e.g., holidays and 

weekends). A long-term moderate adverse 

noise impact would continue to occur when 

NPS and NMFS aircraft land and take off on 

Santa Rosa and San Miguel islands. These 

impacts would be highly transitory, but would 

continue in the future. Noise from the 

occasional operation of NPS and TNC 

vehicles on the roads on Santa Cruz Island 

and NPS vehicles on Santa Rosa Island also 

would continue to have a long-term minor 

adverse impact on the soundscape. 

From a parkwide perspective, visitor use and 

management actions in alternative 1 would 

occasionally change natural sound ambient 

conditions in localized areas, resulting in a 

long-term minor adverse impact to the 

soundscape, with long-term moderate adverse 

impacts in popular use areas.

Cumulative Impacts. Noise from high flying 

aircraft and from boats and ships not 

connected to park visitors or NPS or NMFS 

management would likely continue to be 

periodically heard on the islands. Noise due to 

ecosystem restoration efforts independent of 

the plan (e.g., vegetation/soil restoration 

efforts on the islands) also would be 

periodically heard on the islands. In addition, 

noise may be periodically heard due to 

maintenance of the roads on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands, boat and ship motors in 

waters within the park boundary, use of the 

Santa Cruz Island Navy base, and testing and 

training operations in the Point Mugu Sea 

Range. Short-term noise would be heard 

when the Bechers Bay and Scorpion Harbor 

piers are replaced. When all of these noise 

impacts are added to the noise impacts of 

visitors and park operations in alternative 1, 

there would be potential for a long-term 

minor adverse cumulative impact on the 

park’s soundscape, with localized long-term 

minor to moderate cumulative adverse 

impacts on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands.

Conclusion. In most of the park alternative 1 

would have no effect on the soundscape. In 

localized areas, particularly at popular entry 

points and attractions on the islands, there 

would continue to be a long-term moderate 

adverse noise impact due to concentrations of 

visitors, boats, and park operations. A longterm minor adverse cumulative impact would 

occur when the noises resulting from actions 

proposed in this alternative are added to other 

noise sources, such as high flying aircraft and 

ships offshore of the islands, with localized 

long-term minor to moderate cumulative 

adverse impacts on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Archeological (including Submerged 

Maritime) Resources

Analysis. As staffing and funding permit, 

archeological resources would be surveyed, 

inventoried, and evaluated under national 

register criteria of evaluation to determine 

their eligibility for listing in the national 

register. The surveys and research necessary 

to determine the eligibility of such resources 

for listing in the national register are a 

prerequisite for understanding the resources’ 

significance, as well as the basis of informed 

decision making in the future regarding how 

the resources should be managed. Such 

surveys and research would have long-term 

minor beneficial impacts. 

Archeological surveys and substantial testing 

would precede any ground-disturbing 

activities, and significant archeological 

resources would be avoided during 

construction. If during construction 

previously unknown archeological resources 

were discovered, all work in the immediate 

vicinity of the discovery would be halted until 

the resources could be identified and 

documented and, if the resources could not be 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

332

preserved in situ, an appropriate mitigation 

strategy developed in consultation with the 

California SHPO and representatives of 

associated American Indian tribes. In the 

unlikely event that human remains, funerary 

objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural 

patrimony are discovered during 

construction, provisions outlined in the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (25 USC 3001) of 1990 would 

be followed. Any adverse impacts would be 

expected to be permanent and minor. 

Although impacts on archeological resources 

would be monitored and efforts would be 

undertaken to minimize or mitigate potential 

impacts from human activity or natural 

causes, an unknown number of archeological 

resources would continue to be subject to 

long-term or permanent minor adverse 

impacts from erosion, especially those on 

Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands. Although 

accelerated plant growth since the end of 

grazing is retarding erosion for many of these 

sites, coastal erosion would continue to 

degrade many other important localities. In 

addition, other sources of erosion in inland 

locations, including fire, wind, and other 

climatic conditions, would continue to

destroy an unknown number of archeological 

resources. Increased sea levels resulting from 

climate change would increase impacts from 

erosion.

Archeological resources adjacent to, or easily 

accessible from, visitor use areas or trails 

would be vulnerable to inadvertent damage 

and vandalism. Inadvertent impacts would 

include picking up or otherwise displacing 

artifacts, the compaction of cultural deposits, 

and the creation of social trails (which can 

lead to erosion and destabilization of the 

original site architecture). Intentional 

vandalism includes removing artifacts and 

probing and digging sites. Inadvertent damage 

and vandalism would result in a loss of surface 

archeological materials, alteration of artifact 

distribution, and a reduction of contextual 

evidence. Such adverse impacts could be 

mitigated through additional stabilization of 

the site, the elimination of social trails to 

disturbed or vulnerable sites, and/or the 

systematic collection of surface artifacts for 

long-term curation. Continued ranger patrol 

and emphasis on visitor education regarding 

the significance and fragility of such resources 

and how visitors can reduce their impacts to 

archeological resources would help 

discourage vandalism and inadvertent impacts 

and minimize adverse impacts. Potential 

adverse impacts would be permanent and 

minor. 

Although ongoing programs to expand 

monitoring and law enforcement in the 

marine protected areas would continue, 

looters and vandals would likely continue to 

target submerged maritime resources lying off 

the islands, and submerged sites in areas of 

high visitation would continue to be 

susceptible to damage from boat anchors and 

other related activities. Artifacts associated 

with shipwrecks in the park boundaries would 

continue to be vulnerable to pilfering, 

especially highly prized brass and bronze 

objects that are found in most shipwreck 

scatters. Any adverse impacts would be 

expected to be permanent and minor.

Cumulative Impacts. The past action of 

eliminating cattle, deer, elk, and horses from 

Santa Rosa Island has resulted in 

archeological resources being better protected 

because they are not being disturbed or 

compacted by these animals. Impacts to 

archeological resources would be site-specific, 

long-term, beneficial, and minor.

The past action of revising the Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

Management Plan (2009) to include the 

regulation of prohibiting damage or removal 

of cultural resources resulted in archeological 

resources being better protected from 

vandalism and looting. Impacts to 

archeological resources would be site-specific, 

long-term, negligible, and beneficial.

The past, present, and future action of 

restoring native plant communities through 
Impacts of Alternative 1 (No Action)

333

the removal of nonnative plants and planting 

native plants has resulted in, or has the 

potential to result in, the disturbance of 

unknown archeological resources. Impacts to 

archeological resources would be site-specific, 

long-term, minor, adverse, and permanent.

The past, present, future action of allowing 

researchers to study and inventory and 

monitor cultural resources via a research 

permit would be long-term, negligible, and 

beneficial. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 1 would result in impacts that are 

permanent, minor, and adverse. These 

impacts, in combination with the long-term 

negligible adverse impacts of other past, 

present, and future actions, would result in 

long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impacts 

to archeological resources. The adverse 

impacts of alternative 1 would be a negligible 

component of the adverse cumulative impact.

Conclusion. Archeological investigations 

would be undertaken before development to 

ensure that such resources were understood 

and that they would not be damaged or lost as 

a result of NPS actions. However, there would 

be continuing long-term or permanent minor 

adverse impacts on an unknown number of 

archeological resources in the park under this 

alternative as a result of human activities and 

natural causes.

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

advisory council’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse

Effects), the Park Service concludes the 

proposed undertakings outlined in alternative 

1 would be a no adverse effect on archeological 

resources.

Ethnographic Resources

Analysis. The islands in the park hold a 

prominent place in the preservation and 

revitalization of Chumash culture and 

tradition, containing spiritual values and 

locations such as contact period village sites 

with direct historical significance. Actions 

under this alternative would generally have 

long-term minor beneficial impacts on 

ethnographic resources in the park because 

the Park Service would continue ongoing 

consultation and coordination with Chumash 

groups and individuals to address matters of 

mutual concern on the Channel Islands and 

encourage Chumash groups and individuals to 

participate in the preparation of programs, 

exhibits, replica artifacts, and literature to 

assist the park staff in accurately interpreting 

the cultural history of the early inhabitants of 

the islands. The Park Service would continue 

to allow access to and/or accommodate 

traditional practices and beliefs, and facilitate 

reburial of ancestral Chumash remains, both 

those exposed by natural weathering and 

those recovered from pothunters, under the 

provisions of the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act. An 

ethnographic study prepared in December 

1999 identified descendants of island 

populations to enable the Park Service to 

carry out consultations more effectively to 

preserve and protect ethnographic resources 

in the park.

Cumulative Impacts. The past, present, and 

future action of allowing researchers to study, 

inventory, and monitor cultural resources via 

a research permit would be long-term, 

negligible, and beneficial.

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 1 would result in long-term minor 

beneficial impacts. These impacts, in 

combination with the long-term negligible 

beneficial impacts of other past, present, and 

future actions, would result in long-term 

minor beneficial cumulative impacts to 

ethnographic resources. The beneficial 

impacts of alternative 1 would be a slight 

component of the beneficial cumulative 

impact.

Conclusion. Actions under alternative 1 

would generally have long-term minor 

beneficial impacts on ethnographic resources 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

334

in the park because the Park Service would 

continue ongoing consultation and 

coordination with Chumash groups and 

individuals to address matters of mutual 

concern on the Channel Islands and to allow 

access to and/or accommodate traditional 

practices and beliefs.

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

advisory council’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse

Effects), the Park Service concludes the 

proposed undertakings outlined in alternative 

1 would be a no adverse effect on ethnographic 

resources.

Historic Structures/Buildings

Analysis. As staffing and funding permit, 

structures and buildings in the park would be 

surveyed, inventoried, and evaluated to 

determine their eligibility for listing in the 

national register. The surveys and research 

necessary to determine the eligibility of a 

structure, building, or historic district for 

listing in the national register are a 

prerequisite for understanding the resources’ 

significance, as well as the basis of informed 

decision making in the future regarding how 

the resources should be managed. Such 

surveys and research would have long-term 

minor beneficial impacts.

To appropriately preserve and protect 

national register-listed or eligible structures 

and buildings, all stabilization, preservation, 

and rehabilitation efforts would be 

undertaken in accordance with the Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). Any materials 

removed during rehabilitation efforts would 

be evaluated to determine their value to be 

added to the park’s museum collection and/or 

their comparative use in future preservation 

work at the site. Any adverse impacts would 

be long-term and negligible to minor due to 

the removal of historic materials (an 

unavoidable occurrence when materials are 

unrepairable due to deterioration). 

The national register-listed Anacapa Island 

Light Station would continue to be used for 

maintenance, housing, visitor activities, and 

Coast Guard aids to navigation. Impacts to 

historic structures and buildings would be 

long-term, negligible, and beneficial.

Cumulative Impacts. The past, present, and 

future action of allowing researchers to study, 

inventory, and monitor cultural resources via 

a research permit would be long-term, 

negligible, and beneficial.

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 1 would result in impacts that are 

site-specific, long-term, minor, and beneficial. 

These impacts, in combination with the longterm negligible beneficial impacts of other 

past, present, and future actions, would result 

in long-term minor beneficial cumulative 

impacts to historic structures and buildings. 

The beneficial impacts of alternative 1 would 

be a minor component of the beneficial 

cumulative impact.

Conclusion. Actions under alternative 1 

would generally have long-term minor 

beneficial impacts on historic structures and 

buildings in the park because they would 

continue to be surveyed and evaluated for 

their eligibility for listing in the national 

register, and listed or determined eligible 

structures would be managed to preserve their 

documented values.

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

advisory council’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse

Effects), the Park Service concludes the 

proposed undertakings outlined in alternative 

1 would be a no adverse effect on historic 

structures and buildings.

Cultural Landscapes

Analysis. As staffing and funding permit, 

landscapes and their features and patterns 

would be surveyed, inventoried, and evaluated 

to determine their eligibility for listing in the 
Impacts of Alternative 1 (No Action)

335

national register. Cultural landscape reports, 

including treatment plans, would be prepared

for landscapes eligible for listing in the 

national register as a prerequisite for 

understanding the landscape’s significance, as 

well as the basis of informed decision making 

in the future regarding how the landscape and 

its features and patterns should be managed. 

Such surveys, research, and the preparation of 

cultural landscape reports would have longterm minor beneficial impacts.

Under alternative 1, the historic olive grove at 

Smugglers Cove would continue to be 

maintained in a manner that perpetuates the 

grove as a contributing landscape feature. 

Small stands of eucalyptus and the long row of 

trees between the upper and lower Scorpion 

campgrounds would continue to be preserved 

as a remnant of the historic landscape tree 

plantings provided the spread of eucalyptus 

can be contained. Individual eucalyptus trees 

would continue to be removed on a case-bycase basis from the campground if the trees 

present a hazard to visitors. Adverse impacts 

from this continued maintenance and the 

potential for thinning or removal of 

contributing vegetation would be long-term 

and minor to moderate. 

To appropriately preserve and protect 

national register-listed or eligible cultural 

landscapes, all stabilization and preservation 

efforts would be performed in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes. Any adverse impacts would be 

long-term and negligible to minor.

Cumulative Impacts. The past, present, and 

future action of adding small-scale features to 

the landscape (antennas, solar array, weather 

station, and other equipment) and restoring 

native plant communities through the removal 

of nonnative plants and planting native plants 

has and would continue to result in impacts 

on significant landscape patterns and features 

(e.g., spatial organization, land use patterns, 

circulation systems, topography, structures 

and buildings, cluster arrangements, smallscale features, views and vistas, and 

archeological resources). Impacts to cultural 

landscapes would be site-specific, long-term, 

minor to moderate, and adverse. 

The past, present, and future action of 

allowing researchers to study, inventory, and 

monitor cultural resources via a research 

permit would be long-term, negligible, and 

beneficial.

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 1 would result in site-specific longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

These impacts, in combination with the longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts and 

the minor beneficial impacts of other past, 

present, and future actions, would result in 

long-term minor to moderate cumulative 

impacts to cultural landscapes. The adverse 

impacts of alternative 1 would be a small

component of the beneficial cumulative 

impact.

Conclusion. Actions under alternative 1 

would generally have long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on cultural 

landscapes because of the removal of historic 

vegetation. Overall, the known cultural 

landscapes would be preserved in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

advisory council’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse

Effects), the Park Service concludes the 

proposed undertakings outlined in alternative 

1 would be a no adverse effect on cultural 

landscapes.
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

336

VISITOR EXPERIENCE, 

INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION

Analysis

Under alternative 1, visitors would continue 

to engage in a variety of recreational activities, 

encounter low to moderate levels of visitation, 

and participate in group activities. Access to 

the park would remain unchanged. Most 

visitors would continue to travel to the islands 

via concessioner-operated boats. Access to all 

of the islands would continue to be available 

to private boats. Visitors would also continue 

to visit Santa Rosa Island through an air 

transport service operated by a concessioner. 

The number of visitors to the islands arriving 

by concession-related transportation is 

established in the contracts with the 

concessioners. Visitors could also continue to 

visit the islands via private boats. Although the 

level of visitation to the islands is expected to 

slightly increase over time, the increase is not 

expected to have an appreciable impact on 

much of the park.

Although opportunities to visit the islands 

would continue to be provided, some visitors 

would be unable to afford passage, or may 

find it difficult to reach the transportation 

providers. This would continue to have a 

long-term moderate adverse impact on those 

unable to travel to the islands.

The quality and diversity of recreational 

opportunities and visitor experiences on the 

islands would remain unchanged under 

alternative 1. 

Parkwide

The park’s education program would 

continue to be restricted primarily to the 

mainland Ventura visitor center and staff visits 

to area schools; however, the visitor center 

would remain too small to accommodate the 

number of school groups that would like to 

visit the facility. As visitation increases at the 

Ventura visitor center, visitors could 

experience more periods of crowding and 

might not be able to participate in activities 

because of inadequate capacity. This would be 

a long-term minor to moderate adverse 

impact on visitor experience in the park, 

particularly for groups who may not be able to 

experience the park at all because there is no 

availability at the visitor center or because the 

quality of the experience is poor because of 

crowding. 

There would be no facility on any of the 

islands to accommodate educational groups 

who desired to visit. Education in parks is 

usually better when students can have direct 

experiences with tangible resources. Although 

education activities at the visitor center and in 

the schools can provide some level of 

experience, the lack of firsthand interaction 

with park resources would constitute a longterm moderate adverse impact on the visitor 

experience. 

There would continue to be no dedicated 

interpretive staff stationed on any of the 

islands. Thus interpretation on the islands 

would continue to be limited primarily to 

minimal wayside exhibits and other 

nonpersonal means of communication. As a 

result, on-island interpretation of some of the 

key park stories/themes would continue to be 

inadequate. For example, other than rangerguided programs that reach a small percentage 

of island visitors, there would be little 

opportunity for visitors to learn about the 

Chumash Indians who lived on the islands 

and who continue to interact with island 

resources. The long history of ranching on the 

islands also would not be adequately told, 

leaving visitors to wonder about the many 

structures and other remnants of the ranching 

era. The lack of adequate interpretive media 

on the islands to give visitors a better 

understanding and appreciation of elements 

of the primary interpretive themes would 

continue to have a long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impact on the visitor 

experience. Resources of interest to the 

public, such as the lighthouse on East Anacapa 

Island, also would continue to be closed. This 
Impacts of Alternative 1 (No Action)

337

would continue to be a long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impact on interpretation and 

education on the islands. 

Anacapa Island

The campground on East Anacapa Island 

would continue to be visually intrusive for 

some visitors. The potential for continued 

conflict between day use visitors walking the 

trails and campers also would continue. This 

would have a long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impact on the overall experience for 

some visitors. 

Middle Anacapa Island would only be 

accessible to a limited number of people 

because these visitors must be accompanied 

by a NPS-approved guide. Given the 

uniqueness of the experience, this would be a 

long-term beneficial impact on the visitors 

who are able to see the island, but the impact 

would be negligible overall because so few 

visitors would be affected. Access would 

continue to be limited to Frenchy’s Cove. The 

number of visitors to the cove has been 

limited based on resource protection and 

visitor experience considerations. This would 

continue to be a long-term beneficial impact 

on visitors to the cove. The impact is 

negligible in relation to the remainder of the 

park because of the relatively small number of 

visitors who would be affected. 

Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, San Miguel,

and Santa Barbara Islands

The recreational opportunities on Santa Cruz, 

Santa Rosa, San Miguel, and Santa Barbara 

islands would remain unchanged. Being able 

to take advantage of these recreational 

opportunities would continue to generally be 

a long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impact for the visitors who reach the islands. 

However, due to their size, large portions of 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands would 

remain inaccessible to many visitors, 

especially day use visitors, limiting 

opportunities for many to experience some of 

the islands’ special resources. Only those 

visitors wishing to camp overnight on the 

islands would have opportunities to connect 

with these resources and learn more about the 

ranching history and other primary 

interpretive themes. However, no actions 

would be taken under alternative 1 that would 

either expand or constrain the current 

recreational opportunities on the islands. 

Cumulative Impacts

With a few exceptions, there would be no 

actions occurring inside or outside the park, 

independent of alternative 1, that could result 

in cumulative visitor experience impacts. 

Currently, some areas of Santa Rosa Island are 

closed to visitors during hunting season for 

safety reasons. Per a court settlement 

agreement, the hunting operations would end 

in 2011. As a result, some areas of the island 

that were closed for safety reasons would 

eventually be open for visitors year-round. 

This would expand the range of experiences 

available to visitors on the island. For most 

visitors to Santa Rosa Island this would be a 

long-term minor beneficial impact on visitor 

experience because although some areas of 

the island previously closed much of the year 

would now be open, most visitors would be 

on foot and would not be able to take 

advantage of this opportunity. When this 

action is added to the continued existing 

recreational opportunities on Santa Rosa 

Island under alternative 1, there would be a 

long-term minor beneficial cumulative impact. 

Conclusion

Under the no action alternative, no change 

would occur with respect to visitor 

experience, education, and interpretation 

opportunities in the park as a whole. 

Recreational opportunities would remain 

unchanged on the islands and would continue 

to be a long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impact on visitor use and enjoyment 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

338

of the park. The variety of experiences 

available on the islands, coupled with 

interpretive and educational media and 

programs on the mainland, would enable 

visitors to understand and appreciate park 

resources and elements of the primary 

interpretive themes. On-island visitors would 

continue to find limited interpretive and 

educational media and programs, and limited 

personal interpretive services to help them 

better understand aspects of the park stories. 

With use levels to the mainland visitor center 

expected to increase, crowding could detract 

from the visitor experience, resulting in a 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impact 

on visitor use. There could be a long-term 

minor beneficial cumulative impact on 

recreational opportunities on Santa Rosa 

Island after 2011 when hunting ceases and 

more areas of the park are open to public use. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER

Analysis

Per NPS Management Policies 2006, eligible 

lands in the park would continue to be 

managed to preserve the wilderness character 

and maintain potential eligibility for 

wilderness designation; however, lands in the 

park would not receive any special status or 

protection from wilderness designation. 

Under this alternative there would be no 

additional development on the islands; 

therefore, the areas that retained natural 

characteristics would remain unchanged. 

Most of the islands would continue to appear 

natural and undeveloped. Likewise, 

alternative 1 would have no effect on the 

“untrammeled” or uncontrolled quality of 

wilderness character. 

Opportunities would continue for primitive 

unconfined recreation on all of the lands 

eligible for wilderness, as well as opportunities 

for solitude for visitors who venture away 

from the developed areas on each of the 

islands. In the long term, the number of 

visitors to the islands is expected to slightly 

increase, and most of this use would likely 

occur during the summer. This increase could 

adversely impact the opportunity for solitude 

because with more visitors on the islands, 

hikers might need to travel farther from the 

developed areas for a solitary experience. An 

increase in visitation would be more 

noticeable on Santa Barbara Island, resulting 

in a long-term minor adverse impact on this 

element of wilderness character. On Middle 

and West Anacapa islands use levels would 

not be expected to change, and with use 

highly restricted there would be very limited 

opportunities for primitive, unconfined 

recreation, resulting in a continuing long-term 

minor adverse impact for this quality. 

Closures of certain beaches, either seasonally 

or year-round, on Santa Rosa Island for 

wildlife protection purposes also would result 

in a continuing long-term minor adverse 

impact on opportunities for primitive, 

unconfined recreation. On Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands, increased use levels would 

largely affect the developed areas and the 

areas nearby, but most of the lands eligible for 

wilderness designation on these islands would 

still have many opportunities for solitude and 

primitive, unconfined recreation. Thus, the 

adverse impact on wilderness character on

these islands would likely be long-term and 

negligible to minor. 

With regard to the other features of value (the 

fifth quality of wilderness character), as stated 

earlier, alternative 1 would have a long-term 

minor adverse impact on paleontological 

resources and a negligible impact on 

ethnographic and archeological resources due 

to continuing human activities, which would 

affect scientific research opportunities and 

cultural resources in the area eligible for 

wilderness designation.

From a parkwide perspective, overall 

alternative 1 would have a long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impact on the 

character of lands eligible for wilderness, 

primarily affecting opportunities for solitude, 

primitive unconfined recreation, and other 

features of value in localized areas.
Impacts of Alternative 1 (No Action)

339

Cumulative Impacts

Several NPS projects would continue on the 

islands independent of alternative 1, including 

vegetative restoration efforts, threatened and 

endangered species recovery efforts, and 

control of nonnative species, which would 

continue to adversely affect opportunities for 

solitude. In addition, these ongoing NPS 

resource management activities on the islands 

would continue to improve the long-term 

naturalness of the lands eligible for 

wilderness. These management activities also 

would adversely affect the “untrammeled” or 

uncontrolled quality of wilderness character, 

although eventually they would be expected 

to end and the area would be more “natural” 

than it is currently. Because no changes would 

occur to opportunities for solitude or 

primitive unconfined recreation, the natural 

and undeveloped appearance of the island, or 

the untrammeled quality as a result of 

alternative 1, there would be no additive 

impact on wilderness character. Therefore, 

there would be no cumulative impacts

associated with implementation of this 

alternative.

Conclusion

With use levels likely to slightly increase in the 

future, and no new developments, alternative 

1 would have a long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impact on the wilderness character of 

the lands eligible for wilderness. Alternative 1 

would result in no cumulative impacts on 

wilderness character. 

PARK OPERATIONS

Analysis

Under the no action alternative (and all of the 

other alternatives as well), NPS operations 

would continue to be characterized by (1) a 

substantial number of facilities or assets (e.g., 

visitor contact stations, campsites, trails, and 

historic structures and landscapes) that must 

be maintained; (2) visitor-related operational 

demands (e.g., interpretive services, patrols, 

and campground maintenance) that are much 

greater in the busy summer visitor season than 

at other times of the year; and (3) island 

operations that command a disproportionate 

share of the park’s annual operating budget 

due to the logistics of transporting equipment, 

materials, and staff to and from the islands.

With the park spread out over 1 million acres, 

the geography of the park’s islands poses 

operational challenges. Staff, equipment, 

supplies, and facilities would continue to be 

spread out over various locations on the 

islands and mainland. Staff would continue to 

travel back and forth between the islands and 

mainland. Thus, the physical separation of the 

maintenance/operations facilities, staff, and 

the geography of the park would continue to 

result in some inefficiency for park operations 

and maintenance management, including staff 

and equipment mobilization and travel. Staff 

on the mainland would continue to operate in 

different buildings, with administrative/

operational staff separated from maintenance 

and resource management staff. There also 

would continue to be the absence of a staff 

facility at Prisoners Harbor. All of these 

conditions adversely affect staff productivity 

and detract from the park staff’s ability to 

effectively and efficiently protect park 

resources and meet visitor needs. As a result, 

all of the above conditions would continue to 

have a long-term moderate adverse impact on 

park operations.

Current funding levels have caused some 

positions to remain vacant, which has had an 

effect on the park’s organizational capacity. 

All of the park’s divisions have identified 

staffing shortages through business planning 

models, and the impact of staffing deficiencies 

would likely continue, resulting in a long-term 

moderate adverse effect on park operations.

Assuming current funding trends continue 

and staffing levels remain similar to the 

present, the Park Service would continue to be 

unable to fully achieve desired conditions in 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

340

program areas such as resource protection, 

visitor services, and cyclic maintenance; and 

the deferred maintenance backlog would 

continue to grow over time. Natural and 

cultural resource programs would also be 

adversely affected. The no action alternative 

would have continuing long-term moderate 

adverse impacts on NPS operations, but there 

would be no new impacts.

Cumulative Impacts

As described in the cumulative impacts 

scenario, a large number of ongoing and 

future actions independent of the plan would 

be expected, including maintenance and 

replacement of facilities, ecosystem 

restoration efforts, and other resource 

management activities. In addition, park staff 

would continue to be engaged in actions and 

projects independent of keeping the park 

functioning, and/or activities outside of the 

park that require staff time, such as issuing 

permits for scientific research and commercial 

services, and implementation and 

enforcement of the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary Management Plan (2009)

and regulations. Many of these projects 

require intensive planning, coordination, and 

involvement from park staff, and represent a 

substantial operational burden on park staff. 

The impact of all of these actions on the park 

staff would be long-term, moderate, and 

adverse.

Overall, when the long-term moderate 

adverse impacts of alternative 1 are combined 

with the effects of other ongoing and planned 

projects, there would likely be a long-term 

moderate adverse cumulative impact on park 

operations. Alternative 1 would contribute a 

substantial increment to the overall adverse 

cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Alternative 1 would continue to result in a 

long-term moderate adverse impact on NPS 

operations at the park, primarily due to 

inadequate funding and staffing in a large, 

spread-out marine and terrestrial park. When 

the effects of the no action alternative are 

combined with other ongoing and likely 

future projects, there would be the potential 

for a long-term moderate adverse cumulative 

impact on park operations. The no action 

alternative would contribute a substantial 

amount to this overall adverse cumulative 

impact.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The following paragraphs describe the more 

important (moderate and major intensity) 

adverse impacts that would result from 

implementing alternative 1. The negligible and 

minor impacts were described in the 

foregoing analysis.

Unavoidable moderate adverse impacts on 

some natural resources would continue to 

occur in localized areas in the park. Most of 

these unavoidable adverse impacts would be 

due to the presence of people and nonnative 

plants. Erosion would likely continue to be a 

long-term problem at various locations along 

the roads on Santa Rosa Island, such as the 

Smith Highway. Impacts on water quality 

could occur at times (depending on weather 

and tides) in areas where concentrations of 

boats occur, such as at East Anacapa Island, 

Scorpion, and Smugglers, on weekends and 

holidays. In localized areas, particularly at 

entry points to the islands, there would 

continue to be noise impacts due to 

concentrations of visitors, boats, and park 

operations and invasion of nonnative plants or 

animals. Fire risk would also be higher due to 

slightly increased visitor use. There would be 

potential for unavoidable minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on marine and terrestrial 

wildlife populations in local areas on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, primarily due to 

increased use by boaters on beaches. The 

spread of nonnative vegetation also would 

continue to have the potential to result in an 

unavoidable moderate to major adverse 
Impacts of Alternative 1 (No Action)

341

impact on the islands’ natural vegetative 

communities under alternative 1.

There would be no unavoidable moderate or 

major adverse impacts on cultural resources. 

Opportunities to visit the islands would 

continue to be provided, although some 

visitors would be unable to afford passage, or 

might find it difficult to reach the 

transportation providers. This would 

continue to have an unavoidable long-term 

moderate adverse impact on those unable to 

travel to the islands.

On-island visitors would continue to find 

limited interpretive and educational media 

and programs to help them better understand 

aspects of the park stories. This would 

continue to have an unavoidable long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impact on the 

overall visitor experience on the islands. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

No new actions would be taken that would 

either result in the consumption of 

nonrenewable natural or cultural resources or 

in the use of renewable resources that would 

preclude other uses for a period of time. 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 

SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY

Under alternative 1 most of the park would 

continue to be protected in a natural state and 

would maintain its long-term productivity; the 

Park Service would manage the islands to 

maintain ecological processes and native 

biological communities. Most areas would be 

protected in their current state and would 

maintain their long-term productivity. No 

changes would occur in the developed areas 

of the park under alternative 1 that would 

affect ecological productivity. If use levels 

increase in the future, some vegetation and 

soils in localized areas may be adversely 

affected (e.g., trampling of vegetation), which 

would reduce the productivity of these areas. 

Maintaining facilities in the Scorpion Creek 

floodplain would cause long-term reduction 

in natural and beneficial values of the 

floodplain and prevent it from functioning 

naturally.
342 

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2

NATURAL RESOURCES

Soils

Analysis. Like alternative 1, alternative 2 

would result in little change to soils on Santa 

Barbara, Anacapa, and San Miguel islands. 

Assuming that use levels do not substantially 

change in alternative 2 and visitors largely stay 

at developed areas and do not hike off trails, 

the alternative would have a negligible adverse 

impact on soils due to erosion caused by 

visitors. The construction of a new housing 

unit and a small equipment storage building 

on East Anacapa Island would result in the 

loss/modification of soils but would have a 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impact 

on soils in this previously disturbed area. The 

closure and restoration of part of the 

campground on East Anacapa Island would 

result in people no longer disturbing these 

soils, resulting in a long-term negligible 

beneficial impact. The designation of an area 

for a spike camp and building a new small 

storage facility on San Miguel Island would 

disturb some soils due to soil compaction and 

erosion, and would have a localized long-term 

minor impact on soils.

Most of the soil impacts under alternative 2 

would continue to occur on Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands. Alternative 2 would result 

in higher use levels on Santa Rosa and Santa 

Cruz islands than in alternative 1, but use 

levels would still be expected to be relatively

low. Although most people would remain in 

the developed areas, more people would hike 

and backpack in the backcountry of these 

islands, which would result in some soils being 

compacted and soil horizons altered in local 

areas due to people walking cross-country or 

off trails. Some informal trails could be 

formed. There also would likely be more use 

of the roads on Santa Rosa Island by vehicles 

transporting visitors, resulting in increased 

erosion of silty soils along the roads. 

However, given the size of the islands and 

relatively low use levels that would occur, the 

long-term adverse impact on soils would likely 

be localized and minor to moderate.

The new visitor developments on Santa Cruz 

Island would affect some areas. An orientation 

area at Scorpion and additional restrooms at 

Prisoners Harbor would be built in previously 

disturbed areas and would have a localized 

long-term minor adverse impact due to soils 

being lost from the site or soil properties being 

altered. Reconfiguring the Scorpion 

campground would occur in a previously 

disturbed area and would have a long-term 

negligible adverse effect on soils. The possible 

development and use of backcountry 

campsites and trails on the islands would 

cause some erosion and loss of soil from these 

areas and/or alteration of soil properties, 

resulting in a localized long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impact depending on the sites 

and use levels. 

Several new administrative developments on 

Santa Cruz Island would affect soils. In the 

Scorpion area the construction of new office 

space, a new concessions housing area, 

expansion of the NPS housing area, relocation 

of the maintenance area, and construction of 

an interpretive barn by the corral would likely 

result in the erosion and loss of some soil from 

these sites and/or alteration of soil properties, 

affecting approximately 3 acres. Assuming the 

construction and facility footprints are kept 

small and best management practices are 

followed (e.g., use of silt fences and prompt 

revegetation), soil erosion and disturbance 

would be minimized and the adverse impacts 

would be localized, long-term, and minor. 

The development of new administrative 

facilities in the Prisoners Harbor area would 

also affect soils. Soils would be lost and/or soil 

properties altered by the development and use 

of new housing and storage and maintenance 

facilities in the Prisoners Harbor area, 
Impacts of Alternative 2

343

covering about 1.5 acres, which would result 

in a long-term minor adverse impact. 

On Santa Rosa Island development of a new 

transportation/operations center and field 

station in the Bechers Bay area and the 

development of a new backcountry ranger 

station at Johnson’s Lee would affect about 

1.5 acres, resulting in a long-term minor 

adverse impact due to the loss and/or 

alteration of soil properties. The development 

of a new field station on the Bechers Bay 

marine terrace also would affect about 1 acre, 

resulting in a long-term minor adverse soils 

impact.

Under alternative 2 several visitor 

developments on Santa Rosa Island would 

affect soils. The restoration of part of the 

Water Canyon campground would have a 

long-term minor beneficial impact due to 

visitors no longer disturbing these soils. On 

the other hand, the construction of a new 

campground on the marine terrace within the 

ranch complex in Bechers Bay would affect 

approximately 4 acres, and the development 

of a new day use facility at Johnson’s Lee 

would affect less than 2 acres. The loss of soil 

and/or alteration of soil properties would 

result in a localized long-term minor adverse 

impact. Rehabilitating the ranch complex 

facilities for other functions (e.g., lodging and 

visitor contact station) should have no 

impacts on soils because no additional soil 

disturbance would be expected.

Another action in alternative 2 that would 

affect soils is the periodic excavation of 

Scorpion Creek. The deposition of sediments 

on land due to the excavation of the creek 

would result in localized long-term moderate 

adverse impacts on soils due to construction 

equipment driving over an estimated 2,000-

foot area and temporarily stockpiling the 

sediments on an area by the drainage. 

Although excavation activities would occur on 

an irregular basis and the sediments would 

only be temporarily stockpiled, the excavation 

of the creek would occur on a regular basis. 

Thus, these impacts are considered long-term. 

The biggest difference between alternatives 1 

and 2 would be due to the actions taken 

regarding the road systems on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands. The conversion of roads to 

trails and/or recontouring and revegetating 

approximately 12 miles on Santa Cruz Island 

and 73 miles of roads on Santa Rosa Island, 

particularly those segments that are 

experiencing erosion problems, would 

substantially decrease soil erosion in these 

areas. As a result, alternative 2 could have a 

long-term moderate to major beneficial 

impact on the two islands. Even with these 

restoration efforts, erosion on several roads 

on Santa Rosa Island could still result in minor 

to moderate adverse soil impacts due to soil 

erosion in local areas. 

The wilderness designation on several of the 

islands would provide permanent long-term 

protection to soils. This action would have a 

negligible beneficial effect as it would not 

result in noticeable changes in the islands’ 

soils.

From a parkwide perspective, when compared 

to alternative 1, alternative 2 would have both 

long-term beneficial and adverse impacts. The 

construction of new visitor and administrative 

facilities on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands 

would affect a total of less than about 15 acres, 

resulting in localized long-term minor adverse 

soil impacts. Long-term moderate to major 

beneficial impacts would occur primarily due 

to the removal and restoration of roads on 

Santa Rosa Island. Overall, alternative 2 would 

have a long-term moderate beneficial impact 

on soils, primarily due to the closure of roads 

on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands.

Cumulative Impacts. As in alternative 1, soils 

in the park have been adversely affected by 

past actions, particularly due to overgrazing 

by livestock, the construction of roads, and 

pig rooting on Santa Cruz Island, causing soil 

compaction and erosion. Also like alternative 

1, the recent removal of nonnative deer and

elk from Santa Rosa Island and the 

elimination of feral pigs on Santa Cruz Island 

would be expected to result in a localized 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

344

long-term moderate beneficial impact on 

these islands. Revegetation and soil erosion 

control efforts also would continue on the 

islands, independent of this plan, such as 

efforts to rehabilitate eroding areas on the 

Smith Highway and Soledad Peak on Santa 

Rosa Island. These continuing restoration 

efforts should over time reduce the loss of soil 

in many problem areas, resulting in a 

continuing long-term moderate to major 

beneficial impact. When these impacts are 

added to the beneficial impacts on soils of 

closing and rehabilitating roads on Santa Rosa 

Island under alternative 2, and the localized 

long-term minor adverse impacts due to 

construction of new facilities, there could be a 

long-term moderate beneficial cumulative 

impact on soils. Although adverse impacts due 

to visitor use on the islands and the 

development of administrative facilities on the 

islands would detract from this beneficial 

cumulative impact, the restoration actions due 

to the alternative (particularly the closure of

roads on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands) 

and other NPS beneficial restoration efforts 

independent of the alternative would far 

outweigh the minor adverse impacts.

Conclusion. Most of the park’s soils would 

not be affected by alternative 2. Soil impacts 

would largely be limited to Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands, and the alternative would 

have both beneficial and adverse impacts. No 

impacts due to changes in visitor uses under 

alternative 2 would result in greater than a 

negligible impact when considered from a 

parkwide perspective. Although alternative 2 

would result in some long-term minor adverse 

impacts to approximately 15 acres of soils 

(primarily due to the construction of new 

facilities in localized areas), when compared 

to alternative 1, alternative 2 would result in a 

long-term moderate beneficial impact, 

primarily due to the removal of roads and 

consequent decrease in erosion on Santa Rosa 

and Santa Cruz islands. 

Paleontological Resources

Analysis. Under alternative 2 backcountry use 

would increase on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands, which potentially could result in an 

increase in the number of fossils that are 

illegally collected. Any fossils that are illegally 

collected would be a permanent loss of the 

resource. Because it is not known how many 

fossils are currently being illegally collected on 

the islands, it is difficult to know what the 

additional impacts of increased visitor use 

would be in alternative 2. Compared to 

alternative 1, the change in backcountry 

visitor use could result in a long-term adverse 

impact on paleontological resources. 

However, it is expected that few fossils would 

be lost because the increase in use would be 

limited and the fossils would not be apparent 

or readily accessible to most visitors to the 

islands. The closure and rehabilitation of 

roads on both Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands would help reduce areas where fossil 

collecting could occur. As in alternative 1, the 

requirement that all hikers must be escorted 

by a ranger should minimize impacts to 

paleontological resources on San Miguel 

Island. With ranger-led hikes negligible 

impacts would be expected to the caliche 

forest on the island. Thus, compared to 

alternative 1, it is likely the change in visitor 

use levels in alternative 2 could result in a 

long-term minor adverse impact on 

paleontological resources.

Most of the developments proposed under 

alternative 2 would occur in previously 

disturbed areas and, therefore, would not be 

expected to increase the level of disturbance 

to paleontological resources beyond what 

already has occurred. Surveys would be 

conducted prior to building new 

campgrounds, backcountry campsites, day use 

areas, and trails on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands, which should avoid impacts to areas 

likely to have fossils. It is not known if 

construction of administrative facilities near 

the Prisoners Harbor area would occur in a 

fossiliferous area. Assuming the area is 

surveyed for fossils before construction 
Impacts of Alternative 2

345

begins, impacts should be largely avoided to 

this resource. However, even with surveys, 

some fossils could be lost, resulting in a longterm minor adverse impact in these areas.

Under alternative 2 expanded partnerships 

and more research would be expected to 

provide more information on the park’s 

paleontological resources, and enable the park 

staff to better manage the park to avoid future 

impacts from visitor use. This would be 

expected to have a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impact.

The wilderness designation on several of the 

islands would provide permanent long-term 

protection to paleontological resources, 

precluding most potential developments that 

could adversely affect these resources. This 

action would have a negligible beneficial effect 

as it would not result in noticeable changes in 

the islands’ paleontological resources.

Overall, from a parkwide viewpoint, 

alternative 2 would likely have a long-term 

minor adverse impact on paleontological 

resources when compared to alternative 1, 

primarily due to an increase in backcountry 

visitor use on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands and the resulting potential increase for 

loss of fossils.

Cumulative Impacts. Aside from the actions 

in alternative 2, no known actions or projects 

inside or outside the park are believed to be 

affecting the park’s paleontological resources. 

Thus, alternative 2 would not have a 

cumulative impact on the park’s 

paleontological resources. 

Conclusion. Although it is very difficult to 

determine the intensity of impacts on 

paleontological resources due to a lack of 

information, compared to alternative 1, 

alternative 2 could have long-term minor 

adverse impacts due to increased backcountry 

use and possible illegal collecting of fossils. 

No cumulative impacts would occur. 

Water Quality

Analysis. Like alternative 1, no changes 

would occur to freshwater quality on Santa 

Barbara and San Miguel islands. With just a 

small storage facility proposed on San Miguel 

Island, no new facilities on Santa Barbara 

Island, very small changes expected in visitor 

use levels, and with adequate sanitation 

facilities being provided, no changes to 

freshwater quality would be expected on these 

islands. 

On East Anacapa Island the construction of a 

new housing unit on the site of previous 

residences and a new storage facility would 

not be near freshwater sources and should not 

affect water quality. The new housing unit’s 

sanitation system would dispose of human 

waste, resulting in no impacts to water quality.

Several administrative and visitor facilities 

would be built on Santa Cruz Island in the 

Prisoners Harbor area, and in and above 

Scorpion Valley under this alternative. 

Assuming best management practices are 

followed in the construction of these 

developments, few sediments would run off 

into nearby drainages that would affect water 

turbidity, resulting in short-term negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on freshwater quality. 

The development of new restrooms at 

Prisoners Harbor and a new orientation area 

with restrooms near the Scorpion beach 

should not adversely affect water quality, 

provided they are properly designed and

maintained.

Because Scorpion Creek is often dry in the 

summer, the periodic excavation of sediment 

from the flood channel should occur when 

water is not flowing in the channel. Thus, this 

action should have no effect on water quality. 

The construction of several visitor and 

administrative facilities on Santa Rosa Island, 

including a new campground and employee 

housing, would be built in previously 

disturbed areas and should not affect 

drainages — with proper design and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

346

mitigation measures there should be no 

impact on water quality. 

Although there would be higher levels of 

visitors in the backcountry on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands than under alternative 1, 

levels would still be relatively low. Little 

measurable water pollution would be 

expected from these visitors. Thus, this 

change would have a long-term negligible 

adverse impact on freshwater quality. 

The closure and rehabilitation of roads or 

conversion of roads to trails in this alternative 

would reduce runoff and erosion, which 

would have a localized long-term moderate 

beneficial impact on water quality compared 

to alternative 1. Some local water pollution 

would still occur due to sedimentation from 

roads that are maintained, affecting water 

turbidity of some drainages. It is expected that 

this would be a minor adverse water quality 

impact. 

The wilderness designation on several of the 

islands would provide permanent long-term 

protection to water resources. This action 

would have a negligible beneficial effect as it 

would not result in noticeable changes in 

freshwater resources on the islands.

Alternative 2 would likely result in the same 

impacts on marine water quality due to boat 

use as described under alternative 1. It is 

expected that boat use in park waters would 

increase over time. Some boats would 

probably discharge wastes such as gray water 

and fuel into park waters. Long-term adverse 

impacts would be due to discharges of 

petroleum products from visitor boats using 

the pier. The overall impact of visitor boats on 

the park’s marine water quality would 

probably be a minor adverse impact. But in 

areas where there are concentrations of boats, 

such as Scorpion, Smugglers Cove, and East 

Anacapa, there could be localized long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on water 

quality due to the discharges of pollutants 

(e.g., petroleum products and human waste) 

over the life of this plan.

Under alternative 2 there would be expanded 

partnerships and more research, which could 

mean additional efforts to monitor water 

quality. With more information on status and 

trends for the park’s water quality, it is 

expected that park managers would be able to 

better avoid water quality impacts due to 

visitors and administrative actions. This could 

have a long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impact.

From a parkwide perspective, alternative 2 

would have both beneficial and adverse 

impacts on water quality. Adverse water 

quality impacts would occur due to the 

construction and use of new visitor and 

administrative facilities and increased boat use 

in localized areas. However, overall, 

alternative 2 would have a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impact on freshwater 

quality, primarily due to the closure and 

rehabilitation of roads on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands, and a long-term minor 

adverse impact on marine water quality 

primarily due to discharges from visitors’ 

boats. 

Cumulative Impacts. As noted under 

alternative 1, ongoing restoration activities on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands would have 

a beneficial impact on freshwater quality. Less 

erosion of sediments would occur in these 

areas, decreasing turbidity and improving 

water quality. 

Adding together the beneficial impacts of 

alternative 2 (due to the closure of roads on 

Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands) and the 

negligible to minor adverse impacts (due to 

increased visitor use in the backcountry and 

construction of new facilities on Santa Cruz 

and Santa Rosa islands) of alternative 2, with 

the impacts of continuing revegetation and 

erosion control efforts independent of the 

plan, overall there would be a minor to 

moderate beneficial cumulative impact on 

freshwater quality in local areas. 

With regard to marine waters, alternative 2 

would have about the same potential for 
Impacts of Alternative 2

347

cumulative impacts as alternative 1. The 

replacement of the Bechers Bay and Scorpion 

Harbor piers would result in increases in 

turbidity during the construction period 

(including removal of the existing piers), 

resulting in a long-term minor adverse impact 

on water quality in these areas. Nonpark 

sources, such as discharges or spills from 

visitors’ boats, ships, and oil and gas 

platforms; sewage disposal; and agricultural 

and urban runoff from the mainland have 

affected, and can affect, the park’s water 

quality. Enforcement and education efforts 

regarding the 2009 Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary regulations would be 

expected to help avoid discharges by boaters 

and shipping companies and, therefore, would 

likely have a long-term beneficial impact of 

unknown magnitude. Adding the adverse 

impacts of alternative 2 (increase in water 

pollution due to more boats) to the impacts of 

other nonpark pollution sources could result 

in an adverse cumulative impact. Although the 

very large diluting volume of ocean and the 

beneficial impacts of alternative 2 (increased 

monitoring and research) would reduce the 

additive impact of all of these pollution 

sources, a long-term minor to moderate 

adverse cumulative impact to water quality 

could occur in places around the islands. 

However, the negative increment added from 

visitor boat use under alternative 2 to the 

overall cumulative impact from nonpark 

sources would be inconsequential.

Conclusion. Like alternative 1, freshwater 

quality on most of the islands would not be 

affected by alternative 2. Compared to 

alternative 1, overall alternative 2 would result 

in a long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impact on freshwater quality, primarily due to 

the closure and rehabilitation of roads on 

Santa Rosa Island, and localized long-term 

minor adverse impacts on marine water 

quality primarily due to discharges from 

visitors’ boats. There could also be a longterm minor to moderate beneficial cumulative 

impact on freshwater quality in local areas and 

a long-term minor to moderate adverse 

cumulative impact on the park’s marine water 

quality in local areas (although the increment 

contributed by alternative 2 would be minor). 

Floodplain Values and Flooding 

in Scorpion Valley on Santa Cruz Island

Analysis. Under alternative 2 the Scorpion 

Valley maintenance area, including fuel and a 

hazardous materials storage area, a plant 

nursery, and storage structures, would be built 

adjacent to the corral, above the Scorpion 

Creek floodplain but near another small 

drainage. These facilities would be located 

here because the natural floodplain in this 

area has already been disturbed and there 

were no other suitable locations (see also 

appendix G). Building these administrative 

facilities would have a long-term minor 

adverse impact on the small drainage 

floodplain values, primarily due to the 

alteration of soils and vegetation. Building the 

facilities would pose a long-term minor 

adverse impact on human life and property 

due to flooding. Because the alternative calls 

for hazardous materials to be stored outside 

the 500-year floodplain, there should be no 

impact on floodplain values. Although floods 

could occur in the area, due to the time these 

facilities would be used (primarily during the 

summer), the risk is considered low that these 

facilities would be seriously damaged or 

people would be hurt during the life of this 

plan.

Under alternative 2 actions at the mouth of 

Scorpion Creek, including reestablishment of 

native vegetation and removal of the road that 

crosses through the wetland, would help 

restore floodplain values and functions, and 

would have a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact. On the other hand, sediment from the 

stream channel also would be periodically 

excavated to reduce the risk of future major 

floods. As noted in the alternative, an 

estimated 8,000 cubic yards of material would 

be removed from the channel and temporarily 

stockpiled on the south side of the stream 

above the upper road crossing to the west. 

These actions would alter the path of natural 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

348

streamflows, riparian soils, and vegetation, 

and could have a long-term minor to 

moderate adverse effect on this floodplain’s 

values. The magnitude of the impact would 

depend on how often the excavation occurs, 

when and where it is done, how much 

sediment is removed, where it is deposited, 

and what mitigation measures are employed. 

This impact would be further evaluated in a 

future compliance document. In addition, 

permits from the Corps of Engineers and 

California Central Coast Regional Water 

Quality Control Board would need to be 

obtained before the actions could occur. 

The wilderness designation would have no 

effect on the floodplain values and flooding in 

Scorpion Valley.

Alternative 2 also would have a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impact due to a 

reduced risk to human life and park facilities 

in the Scorpion Valley. The various measures 

noted above would decrease the likelihood of 

a flood occurring that would result in the loss 

of park facilities or pose a risk to people. 

However, these measures would not eliminate 

the risk — there would continue to be a risk of 

damage or loss of structures if a major flood 

occurred in this area. 

Cumulative Impacts. No other known 

actions or activities inside or outside the park 

would affect the Scorpion Valley floodplain. 

Thus, there would be no cumulative impacts 

due to alternative 2. 

Conclusion. Alternative 2 would have a longterm moderate beneficial impact on natural 

floodplain values in the Scorpion Valley due 

to restoration of the small estuarine wetland at 

the mouth of the creek, and also long-term 

moderate adverse impacts due to the periodic 

removal of sediment from the Scorpion 

drainage. Actions in the Prisoners Harbor 

floodplain would not affect floodplain values. 

From a flood risk standpoint, the actions at 

Scorpion Valley would have a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impact on 

reducing flood risks and reducing the risk to 

human life and property in these areas 

(although there would continue to be a risk of 

damage or loss of structures from a future 

flood in the Scorpion area). No cumulative 

impacts would occur as a result of the 

alternative. 

Wetlands (Scorpion Valley)

Analysis. Under alternative 2 several actions 

would be taken that would affect wetlands at 

the mouth of Scorpion Valley. The actions 

taken to restore riverine channel habitat and 

plant native vegetation would enhance 

wetland values (e.g., vegetation and 

hydrology) in this area and would be expected 

to have a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact. 

Periodically dredging the Scorpion Creek 

channel could adversely affect the riverine/ 

lower perennial/rock bottom wetlands. 

However, this area has no vegetation, flooding 

periodically alters the channel, and the area 

has already been adversely affected by past 

human activities. Thus, the impact of 

dredging, assuming the equipment stays in the 

channel and operations are closely monitored, 

would be expected to have a long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impact on this 

wetland. 

The wilderness designation would have no 

effect on the wetlands in Scorpion Valley.

Overall, alternative 2 would have a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impact on the 

Scorpion Creek wetland, primarily due to the 

floodplain restoration effort, when compared 

with alternative 1. Permits from the Corps of 

Engineers and California Central Coastal 

Regional Water Quality Control Board would 

need to be obtained before any of the above 

actions could occur.

Cumulative Impacts. No known actions or 

activities inside or outside the park would 

affect this wetland. Thus, there would be no 

cumulative impact on this wetland.
Impacts of Alternative 2

349

Conclusion. Alternative 2 would have a longterm moderate beneficial impact on the 

wetland at the mouth of Scorpion Valley due 

to the restoration activities that would take 

place in this alternative. There also would be a 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impact 

on riverine wetlands in Scorpion Valley due to 

periodic dredging operations. No cumulative 

impacts would occur as a result of the 

alternative. 

Terrestrial Plant 

Communities and Vegetation

Analysis. As in alternative 1, from a parkwide 

standpoint visitors and NPS staff would likely 

continue to accidentally introduce or help 

spread nonnative plants on the islands. 

Although many nonnative species are already 

widespread in the park, additional people on 

the islands would increase the potential for 

the introduction and spread of nonnative 

species. The potential for the introduction of 

these species would be reduced with visitor 

education efforts and providing visitors with 

brushes and boot scrapers to rid their boots 

and clothing of nonnative plant seeds before 

they set foot on the islands. But in spite of 

these mitigative actions, nonnative plant 

species would still likely be introduced in the 

park. Competition between nonnative and 

native plants could include changes in native 

plant distribution, numbers, structure, and 

ecological processes (e.g., recycling of 

nutrients and fire). The impact of these 

introductions cannot be predicted, but could 

vary from long-term negligible to major 

adverse impacts depending on the 

characteristics of the nonnative plant species 

(e.g., how aggressive it is) that is 

unintentionally introduced.

Like alternative 1, under alternative 2 there 

would be no major changes in management or 

use of Santa Barbara, Anacapa, or San Miguel 

island. No new developments would be built 

on these islands, except for building a new

housing unit and small equipment storage 

building on East Anacapa Island and a small 

storage facility on San Miguel Island. These 

sites would be located in previously disturbed 

areas and should have a long-term negligible 

adverse impact on native vegetation. Reducing 

the size of the East Anacapa campground and 

revegetating the abandoned campsites with 

native plants would have a long-term minor 

beneficial impact.

On San Miguel Island, there would likely be a 

small increase in use due to guided trips to the

western end of the island. However, as long as 

visitors are required to be with a guide when 

they go hiking, the impact on native vegetation 

should be negligible. The designation of an 

area for a spike camp would have a localized 

long-term minor adverse impact on vegetation 

due to trampling and resulting damage to 

plants in this area.

Increased dispersed backcountry use in 

alternative 2 would increase the potential for 

disturbance of vegetation in more areas on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands. Although 

most hikers probably would stay on trails or 

roads, some would wander off and 

inadvertently crush or trample vegetation, 

resulting in the loss of some plants. However, 

it is not expected that rare endemic plant 

populations would be adversely affected by 

more people hiking along roads or trails in the 

backcountry. Visitors are not known to 

currently affect these populations and there is 

no reason to believe that more people would 

affect the rare plants. Most areas with 

endemic species, such as coastal sage scrub, 

chaparral, coastal dunes, and the faces of 

coastal bluffs, would remain inaccessible or 

their habitats would receive very little use by 

visitors. Overall, it is expected that compared 

to alternative 1, visitor use in alternative 2 

would have a long-term minor adverse impact 

on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands’ 

vegetation, provided the level of backcountry 

use does not substantially increase. (But if 

nonnative plants were to be introduced by 

visitors on the islands, depending on the plant 

species, the impact could increase to a longterm moderate to major adverse impact.)
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

350

Compared to alternative 1, increased visitor 

numbers in alternative 2 also may increase the 

risk of an accidental fire. The potential 

adverse consequences of fires on the islands 

have changed due to the widespread 

conversion of native plant communities to 

annual grasses. Additionally, the presence of 

invasive weed plants would exacerbate the 

negative effects of a wildfire. Many nonnative 

plants would spread following a fire. 

However, the likelihood of such a wildfire 

being sparked by a small increase in visitor 

numbers is considered low, given the 

relatively few visitors that would be on the 

islands and the prohibitions on open fires in 

the backcountry. 

New developments on Santa Cruz and Santa 

Rosa islands under alternative 2 would result 

in local impacts on vegetation. Some small 

developments would be built in previously 

disturbed areas or areas with little native 

vegetation. In Scorpion Valley on Santa Cruz 

Island, the development of a maintenance 

structure, an interpretive storage barn, a new 

orientation area near the beach, a concessions 

housing area near the campground, and the 

expansion of the existing NPS housing area 

would all occur in areas where native 

vegetation has already been altered. Similarly, 

the maintenance/storage structure and 

parking spaces at Prisoners Harbor would be 

built in areas where native vegetation has 

already been altered. Likewise, on Santa Rosa 

Island the expanded NPS housing area, new 

campground and field station, NPS 

concession/transportation staging area, visitor 

orientation area, island transportation 

hub/operations center at Bechers Bay, and the 

administrative support and day use areas at 

Johnson’s Lee would be in areas where native 

vegetation has already been altered. As a 

result, although some vegetation would be lost 

due to the new developments, little native 

vegetation would be affected by these 

developments. Thus, these actions would be 

expected to have a long-term minor adverse 

impact on native vegetation provided 

construction equipment stays in the existing 

footprints and/or disturbed areas. 

Construction work involved in converting 

some of the existing ranch buildings at 

Bechers Bay to visitor and administrative 

facilities would be expected to have a shortterm negligible impact on native vegetation 

because this area has lost much of its native 

plant cover. 

The construction and use of new backcountry 

campsites and trails on Santa Cruz and Santa 

Rosa islands also would result in vegetation 

being cleared and the loss and alteration of 

vegetation in localized areas, resulting in longterm minor adverse impacts.

Construction of an employee housing area in 

the Prisoners Harbor area would result in the 

loss and/or alteration of less than about 1 acre

of vegetation. The loss of native vegetation in 

this area would result in a localized long-term 

minor adverse impact. 

Periodic excavation of sediment in the 

Scorpion Creek on Santa Cruz Island and 

deposition of sediments on land could 

adversely affect vegetation along or near the 

stream channel, depending on where the 

sediment is placed. Construction equipment 

also could crush and smash vegetation by 

driving to the disposal site. However, the 

identified disposal site is an area that has been 

disturbed in the past and has little native 

vegetation. Assuming care is taken in this 

operation, there probably would be a longterm minor adverse impact on native 

vegetation in a limited area.

Under alternative 2 additional steps would be 

taken to control invasive nonnative plants, 

such as stone pine, eucalyptus, and pepper 

trees, which contribute to Santa Cruz Island’s 

cultural landscapes. If it is not possible to 

control the spread of these trees, under the 

alternative these trees could be removed. The 

containment and possible replacement of 

eucalyptus trees in the Scorpion campgrounds 

would also help prevent the spread of these 

nonnative trees. In addition, the Smugglers 

Cove’s olive grove would be managed to 

substantially reduce the spread of olives 
Impacts of Alternative 2

351

throughout the island. All of the above actions 

would prevent the invasive nonnative plants 

from spreading across the island and 

outcompeting and displacing native plants. As 

a result, compared to alternative 1, alternative 

2 would have a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact on island native vegetation.

Other actions in alternative 2 would have 

beneficial effects on vegetation. The closure 

and rehabilitation of about 72 miles of roads 

on Santa Rosa Island and about 12 miles on 

Santa Cruz Island would help eliminate the

loss of vegetation due to erosion and increase 

natural vegetative cover. Depending on what 

efforts are taken to restore vegetation, the 

alternative could have a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact on those islands’ vegetation. 

The restoration efforts in the Scorpion 

estuarine wetland, including the planting of 

native vegetation, would have a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impact on native 

vegetation growing in the area, increasing the 

distribution and cover of native plants in this 

area.

Expanded partnerships and more research 

and inventorying/monitoring would provide 

more information on status and trends for the 

park’s vegetation. This would be expected to 

better enable managers to be aware of threats 

and avoid potential future impacts, which 

could result in a long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impact.

The wilderness designation on several of the 

islands would provide permanent long-term 

protection to the park’s natural resources, 

including terrestrial vegetation. This action 

would have a negligible to minor beneficial 

effect. Most restoration activities would be in 

nonwilderness areas and would not be 

affected by the designation. Precluding most 

future developments would benefit 

vegetation. Since Channel Islands is already a 

national park and the islands are being largely 

zoned to protect native species and ecological 

processes, the wilderness designation by itself 

would result in few noticeable changes in 

vegetation on the islands.

From a parkwide perspective, alternative 2 

would have both beneficial and adverse 

impacts on the park’s native vegetation. 

Overall, the alternative would be expected to 

have a long-term moderate beneficial effect on 

the islands’ vegetation, primarily due to steps 

taken to control nonnative species on Santa 

Cruz Island and the closure and rehabilitation 

of roads on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands. However, long-term minor adverse 

impacts would occur in localized areas on the 

islands due to increased visitor use and 

construction of facilities — a total of about 1.5 

acres of relatively natural vegetation would be 

lost or altered due to new developments on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands. 

Cumulative Impacts. As described in the 

impacts of alternative 1, the vegetation of the 

park has been substantially altered by past 

human actions, although some native plant 

populations and vegetative communities are 

now recovering. 

The elimination of deer, elk, and pigs stopped 

browsing and soil impacts caused by these 

nonnative animal species. As a result of these 

efforts, native vegetation on Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands is recovering, particularly 

native vegetation in riparian areas as well as 

rare plant species on the islands. This would 

likely have a localized long-term moderate to 

major beneficial effect on native plants on the 

islands. 

Also like alternative 1, other restoration 

activities would continue on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands, including revegetation 

efforts on the islands, efforts to control the 

introduction and spread of nonnative plant 

populations, and soil erosion control efforts. 

These efforts all would have a localized longterm moderate to major beneficial impact on 

vegetation due to an increase in the 

abundance and distribution of native plant 

species on the islands.

When the long-term moderate beneficial 

impacts of alternative 2 are added to the longterm moderate to major beneficial effects of 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

352

other past, present, and future restoration 

actions occurring independently of this plan, 

there would be a long-term moderate 

beneficial cumulative impact primarily due to 

the restoration of natural vegetation in more 

areas of the park. Alternative 2 would add 

both a beneficial increment and a minor 

adverse increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Most of the park’s vegetation 

would not be directly affected by alternative 2. 

Alternative 2 would result in some localized 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts 

to vegetation on the islands due to increases in 

backcountry use and a few new administrative 

and visitor facilities. A total of about 1.5 acres 

of relatively natural vegetation would be lost 

or altered due to new developments on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands. But overall, 

compared to alternative 1, alternative 2 would 

have a long-term moderate beneficial impact, 

primarily due to the closure of roads on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, the restoration 

of the Scorpion estuarine wetland, the 

replacement of the eucalyptus trees with 

native trees in the Scorpion campground, 

management of the Smugglers olive grove, and 

additional controls of invasive nonnative 

plants that contribute to cultural landscapes 

on Santa Cruz Island. There also would be a 

moderate beneficial cumulative impact on 

vegetation when actions in the alternative are 

added to other actions that would occur 

independently of the plan (although 

alternative 2 would add a minor increment to 

this overall cumulative impact). 

Terrestrial and Marine Wildlife

Analysis. Like alternative 1, most wildlife 

populations on the islands would not be 

affected by alternative 2. No new 

developments or substantial changes in 

visitation patterns would occur that would 

affect wildlife. The new backcountry

management zone areas would increase 

protection in some areas, avoiding potential 

future disturbance of pinnipeds and seabirds 

by visitors. In particular, the backcountry

management areas along the Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz island coastlines would help avoid 

impacts to pinnipeds and seabirds that might 

otherwise be caused by kayakers and other 

boaters. Although many of these areas are 

currently closed to visitor access, other 

beaches are still open to use. Pinnipeds and 

seabirds are highly susceptible to disturbance 

due to the presence of people (Anderson and 

Keith 1980; Anderson 1988; Brasseur 1993; 

Engelhard et al. 2002; Johnson et al. 1989; 

Suryan and Harvey 1999). By avoiding 

potential disturbance and displacement of 

animals in these areas, the new management 

areas would have a localized long-term minor 

to moderate beneficial impact on seabirds and 

pinniped populations (as well as other

terrestrial wildlife) compared to alternative 1. 

More people would likely visit San Miguel 

Island to participate in the guided multiday 

hikes to see pinnipeds, although use levels 

would not be expected to substantially 

increase. So long as visitors are required to be 

accompanied by a ranger while hiking on the 

island, long-term negligible adverse impacts 

would occur to pinnipeds and other wildlife. 

The designation of a spike camp on San 

Miguel Island for the guided hikes would 

result in the temporary displacement or 

change in behavior of some wildlife, such as 

insects, mice, and landbirds, but the animals 

should return when the people leave, resulting 

in a long-term negligible adverse impact.

The construction and use of new backcountry 

campsites and trails on Santa Rosa and Santa 

Cruz islands in alternative 2 would result in 

the loss of wildlife habitat in localized areas, 

but if the facilities are located to avoid 

important wildlife areas, they should have a 

negligible impact on island wildlife 

populations. 

As in alternative 1, a small increase in 

backcountry use might temporarily disturb 

and/or displace or change the behavior of 

some animals such as mice, songbirds, island 

jay, and island spotted skunk due to the 
Impacts of Alternative 2

353

presence of people on Santa Rosa and Santa 

Cruz islands. However, once the visitors have 

passed by, these animals probably would 

return. Any improper food storage and 

feeding of wildlife in the backcountry could 

attract some animals such as mice and ravens, 

which also would have the same local 

negligible impact as alternative 1. Thus, the 

increase in backcountry use in alternative 2 

would be expected to have a localized longterm negligible to minor adverse impact.

Most of the new administrative and visitor 

facilities proposed under alternative 2 on East 

Anacapa Island, in the Scorpion Valley area 

and Prisoners Harbor on Santa Cruz Island, at 

Bechers Bay and Johnson’s Lee on Santa Rosa 

Island, and on San Miguel Island, would occur 

in sites that have been previously disturbed.

New developments on Santa Cruz Island (e.g., 

the NPS housing area near Prisoners Harbor), 

on Santa Rosa Island (e.g., the developed 

visitor area at Johnson’s Lee), and on San 

Miguel Island (the spike camp) would result in 

the loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

However, most wildlife populations in the 

above areas have been altered by past human 

actions and little habitat would be lost. No 

known habitats important for breeding, 

nesting, or foraging would be lost by the 

construction of these developments — 

animals that are displaced could find other 

habitat on the islands to use. Some localized 

short-term negligible adverse impacts would 

occur during the construction periods, with 

some wildlife being temporarily displaced. 

Use of these developments also would be 

expected to have a long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impact on native wildlife 

habitat and populations in localized areas. 

Expansion of facilities and the number of 

people (e.g., personnel, cooperators, and 

visitors) would increase the risk of accidental 

introductions of nonnative animals. As an 

example, the field station at Bechers Bay on 

Santa Rosa Island would result in an increase 

in luggage, food, equipment, and trash, which 

would in turn increase the chance of an 

accidental transfer of nonnative animals onto 

an island. 

Several management actions under this 

alternative would affect nonnative vegetation, 

including control of nonnative tree species on 

Santa Cruz Island. This could affect species 

such as hummingbirds that feed on the 

eucalyptus flowers, and on animals such as 

scrub jays and island spotted skunks that feed 

on olives. Because other food sources are 

present, additional efforts to control the 

spread of these trees would be expected to 

have a long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impact on some wildlife populations of the 

island. 

The periodic removal of sediment from the 

Scorpion Creek channel would be in a 

previously disturbed area where people and 

facilities have been present. Thus, this action 

should result in a long-term negligible adverse 

impact to wildlife populations.

Alternative 2 would result in several beneficial 

impacts on wildlife habitat due to the 

revegetation/restoration of areas on Santa 

Cruz and Santa Rosa islands. On Santa Cruz 

Island, the restoration actions in the estuarine 

wetland at Scorpion would have a long-term 

minor beneficial impact for species such as 

salamanders, waterfowl, and passerines such 

as the orange-crowned warbler and rubycrowned kinglet. 

The closure and revegetation of some roads 

on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands would 

result in areas where few, if any, people 

ventured. However, visitor disturbance of 

wildlife would be highly unlikely in many of 

these areas — few people would likely go into 

many of the remote areas even if the roads 

were present, given the time needed to reach 

the areas. Thus, the beneficial impact of 

closing the roads on native wildlife 

populations such as landbirds and mammals 

probably would be minor.

Expanded partnerships to do more research 

and monitoring would provide more 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

354

information on the status and trends for the 

park’s wildlife, which should better enable 

managers to identify future threats and avoid 

impacts. This action would be expected to 

have a long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impact.

The wilderness designation on the islands 

would provide permanent long-term 

protection to the park’s terrestrial wildlife. 

This action would have a negligible to minor 

beneficial effect. Precluding most future 

developments would benefit wildlife. Since 

Channel Islands is already a national park and 

the islands are being largely zoned to protect 

native species and ecological processes, 

wilderness designation by itself would result 

in few noticeable changes in wildlife on the 

islands. 

Although alternative 2 would have some 

localized negligible to minor adverse impacts, 

from a parkwide perspective, alternative 2 

would have a long-term minor beneficial 

impact on the park’s terrestrial and marine 

wildlife populations, primarily due to 

restoration actions included under the 

alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts. The replacement of the 

existing piers at Bechers Bay and Scorpion 

Harbor with new piers could adversely affect 

some marine mammals in the area. Noise from 

construction activities, including drilling and 

removing the existing piers, would likely 

harass pinnipeds in the area. However, these 

areas are not known to be key marine mammal 

habitat or harbor large numbers of marine 

mammals. With the application of appropriate 

mitigative measures and consultations with 

the National Marine Fisheries Services once 

more details are known about the location, 

size, and design of the piers, it is anticipated 

that the adverse impact on marine mammals 

would be short-term and minor. 

Like alternative 1, many potential actions 

outside the park could substantially affect 

pinnipeds and seabird populations in the 

region, such as oil spills, pollutants, or changes 

in fish populations due to harvests. However, 

these impacts are considered unlikely and/or 

it is not possible to predict that these events 

would occur during the life of this plan.

Also, as described under alternative 1, the 

state marine protected areas around the park 

would be expected over time to have a longterm beneficial impact on both seabirds and 

pinnipeds, possibly decrease disturbance 

caused by boats in the areas, and increase the 

fish populations these species feed on. 

However, the state marine protected areas 

have been in place for only a short time; 

therefore, the magnitude of the impact is 

unknown. 

The implementation of the sanctuary 

regulations, including protecting the area’s 

water quality and limiting or prohibiting 

activities that impact the sea floor, probably 

has had a beneficial impact on the park’s 

marine wildlife populations, preventing 

pollution that could affect wildlife, although 

the magnitude of the impact is unknown and 

would vary depending on the level of 

enforcement and education efforts.

On the other hand, as described in alternative 

1, it is likely that squid boats fishing in park 

waters during the seabird breeding season, 

even with shielded lights and wattage 

restrictions, would result in mortality of 

Scripp’s murrelets, ashy storm-petrels, black 

storm-petrels, rhinoceros auklets, and 

Cassin’s auklets. It is uncertain what impacts 

the squid fishing is having on the park’s 

seabirds since the location of the fleet varies 

from year to year, but it would be expected to 

result in some decreases in the abundance of 

local populations, resulting in a long-term 

unknown adverse impact. Also, squid fishing 

would likely affect pinnipeds feeding on 

squid. Squid are the primary prey of California 

sea lions and are eaten by most of the 

pinnipeds using the park. If squid harvest 

levels increase relative to past harvest levels, 

and/or if harvest levels continue at high levels 

over the life of this plan, there could be a longterm adverse impact of unknown magnitude 
Impacts of Alternative 2

355

on the pinniped populations using the park 

(Jeff Laake, NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center, pers. comm. March 18, 2005). 

When the above adverse impacts are added to 

the potential beneficial effects of the marine 

protected areas and marine sanctuary 

regulations, and the minor beneficial and 

adverse effects of alternative 2, there could be 

a long-term beneficial cumulative impact to 

pinnipeds and seabirds using the park. 

However, given the uncertainty and lack of 

data, it is not possible to determine the 

magnitude of such a beneficial cumulative 

impact. Alternative 2 would add a minor 

beneficial increment to this overall cumulative 

impact due to the new backcountry 

management zones and a negative increment 

due to the potential effects of increased 

numbers of kayakers and other recreational 

boaters visiting the park. However, neither of 

these actions would substantially alter the 

overall intensity of the cumulative impact. 

As stated under alternative 1, past and 

ongoing restoration efforts on the islands have 

had a major beneficial effect on the islands’ 

native terrestrial fauna. Ecosystem restoration 

actions on Anacapa, Santa Rosa, and Santa 

Cruz islands would continue independent of 

this plan, including revegetation efforts. These 

actions, particularly the elimination of 

nonnative wildlife, would have a substantial 

beneficial effect on native wildlife 

populations, eliminating sources of 

competition, providing more habitat, and 

generally increasing native wildlife 

populations including side-blotched lizard, 

Channel Islands slender salamander, island 

fox, Santa Cruz gopher snake, mice, and 

landbirds such as the island scrub jay. The 

recovery of native vegetation due to these 

restoration efforts also would benefit native 

wildlife populations. 

Overall, when the beneficial actions in 

alternative 2 (e.g., designation of new 

backcountry management areas, increased 

monitoring and research, and the closure of 

roads) are added to the above continuing 

ecosystem restoration impacts, there could be 

a long-term moderate to major beneficial 

cumulative impact on native terrestrial wildlife 

populations, although alternative 2 would 

likely add only a minor beneficial increment 

to this impact. The minor adverse impacts of 

alternative 2 due to increased backcountry use 

and a few new small developments would not 

substantially detract from the overall 

beneficial cumulative impact. There could also 

be a long-term beneficial cumulative impact of 

unknown magnitude on seabirds and 

pinnipeds due to non-NPS actions in park 

waters, such as from the state marine 

protected areas and actions taken by the 

Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary.

Conclusion. Overall, most wildlife 

populations would not be affected by the 

actions under alternative 2. Compared to 

alternative 1, there would be some localized 

short- and long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts to wildlife habitat due to the 

construction of a few new small visitor and 

administrative developments and long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts due to 

increased numbers of people in backcountry 

areas on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands. 

Alternative 2 also would have a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impact due to 

the designation of backcountry management 

zones, increased monitoring and research, and 

closure of roads on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands. When combined with continuing 

restoration efforts, alternative 2 could have a 

long-term moderate to major beneficial 

cumulative impact on native terrestrial wildlife 

(although the alternative would add a minor 

beneficial increment to these impacts). There 

could also be a long-term beneficial 

cumulative impact on the park’s seabirds and 

pinnipeds of unknown magnitude when the 

effects of non-NPS actions in park waters, 

such as the marine protected areas, are added 

to the beneficial and adverse effects of 

alternative 2 (although alternative 2 would 

add very minor beneficial and negative 

increments to these overall beneficial 

cumulative impacts). 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

356

Threatened and Endangered Species

Analysis. No new developments or uses 

would likely affect the island night lizard, 

snowy plover, or island fox under alternative 

2. No changes in visitation patterns would 

occur on Santa Barbara Island as a result of 

this alternative that would affect the island 

night lizard. 

Snowy plover breeding numbers have been 

declining and may continue to decline on the 

islands due to several possible reasons, but no 

actions are being taken as part of this 

alternative that would likely affect this trend. 

Snowy plover habitat would be more 

protected under alternative 2 than alternative 

1 — all of San Miguel and Santa Rosa islands’ 

primary snowy plover beaches would be in 

backcountry management zones that are 

closed to public use or closed during the 

nesting season. Although more dispersed use 

would be encouraged in alternative 2, it is not 

likely that visitor use patterns would 

substantially change on the beaches used by 

the plovers due to their remoteness. A small 

number of plovers sometimes use these 

beaches and some birds may be temporarily 

disturbed by visitors who land or hike on the 

beaches. However, no information indicates 

that current low numbers of visitors are 

adversely affecting the island’s population. 

Assuming visitor use of the beaches does not 

substantially increase, and with sufficient 

educational outreach efforts and periodic 

NPS patrols, any impacts would be expected 

to be infrequent due to the small number of 

plovers scattered on the beaches. If visitor use 

impacts were identified in the future, the park 

staff would consult with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to identify and implement appropriate 

mitigation measures such as signs or closing 

beaches to access. Consequently, alternative 2 

would have about the same effect as 

alternative 1 — a long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impact, which may affect, but 

would not likely adversely affect, the park’s 

snowy plover populations. 

Visitors would rarely see foxes in the wild on 

Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel 

islands due to the large areas of the islands, 

low fox populations, and expected low use 

levels. On a rare occasion, some visitors may 

see or encounter foxes, affecting the foxes’ 

behavior. Some feeding of foxes may occur, 

with the result that some foxes may become 

habituated to humans and expect to be fed. 

However, this would not adversely affect the 

fox populations. 

Visitor shuttles driving on roads on Santa 

Rosa Island could hit and kill or injure foxes. 

However, this would be a rare occurrence —

relatively few vehicles would be using the 

roads, the condition of the roads forces slower 

vehicle speeds, and given the extensive road 

system, it would be highly unlikely that a fox 

would be crossing a road at the same time and 

place as a vehicle. Closing roads also would 

reduce this possible mortality factor. Thus, 

alternative 2 would likely have the same effect 

on the island fox as alternative 1 — a longterm negligible adverse impact on the foxes, 

which may affect, but would not likely 

adversely affect, the park’s island fox 

populations.

The increase in backcountry use on Santa 

Rosa Island under alternative 2 should not 

occur in areas where the major populations of 

Hoffmann’s slender-flowered gilia occur. In 

addition, the Skunk Point population would 

be protected by zoning as a backcountry

management zone and would be closed to 

public use. As a result, the abundance of this 

population could experience a small increase. 

Thus, alternative 2 would have a minor 

beneficial impact on this species compared to 

alternative 1, and may affect, but would not 

likely adversely affect, the gilia.

As in alternative 1, under alternative 2 there 

could be some trampling of the Santa Cruz 

Island chicory off the Lobo Canyon trail on 

Santa Rosa Island and trampling of the island 

rush-rose off the Montanon Trail on Santa 

Cruz Island if hikers wander off the trails. 

Because visitor numbers would not 
Impacts of Alternative 2

357

substantially increase, the potential for 

impacts occurring under alternative 2 would 

not be expected to differ from alternative 1. In 

both alternatives, with adequate warning 

given to visitors and ranger-led hikes, adverse 

impacts would not be expected. If impacts 

were to occur to these plant populations, park 

staff would consult with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service on additional actions to take to 

protect these populations, such as increasing 

education efforts or closing areas to access. 

Overall, alternative 2 would likely have a 

negligible adverse impact and may affect, but 

would not likely adversely affect, the Santa 

Cruz Island chicory and the island rush-rose.

No actions in alternative 2 would directly 

affect the habitat or populations of the Santa 

Rosa Island manzanita or Hoffmann’s rockcress and island barberry on Santa Cruz 

Island. But under alternative 2, as in 

alternative 1, these plants would face a threat 

if a wildfire were to occur on the islands, 

accidentally sparked either by visitors or NPS 

staff. With the potential for increased visitor 

use, and backcountry use being encouraged, 

the potential also would increase for an 

accidental fire to start and spread on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands — although the 

probability of this occurring would be 

expected to be low, given user capacity limits 

and the relatively few additional people 

coming to the islands who would be near 

these plants’ habitat. Nevertheless, if a 

human-caused wildfire were to occur, it could 

quickly spread through the vegetation before 

a response could be organized and extirpate 

some or all of these small isolated populations. 

Although there would be a slight increase in 

the risk of a wildfire affecting one or several of 

these three listed species, the mitigation 

actions being proposed (e.g., informing people 

about the risk of fire, closing areas with high 

fire danger, monitoring populations of the 

plants, and establishing seed collections) 

would reduce the risk of wildfire affecting the 

populations on the islands. The risk of 

wildfire would always be present, 

consequently, alternative 2 would have the 

same long-term negligible adverse impact as 

alternative 1 — the alternative may affect, but 

would not likely adversely affect, the Santa 

Rosa Island manzanita, Hoffmann’s rockcress, and island barberry.

The wilderness designation on the islands 

would provide permanent long-term 

protection to the park’s listed species. This 

action would have a negligible to minor 

beneficial effect. Precluding most future 

developments would benefit the species. Since 

Channel Islands is already a national park and 

the islands are being largely zoned to protect 

native species and ecological processes, as 

well as the protection bestowed by the ESA, 

wilderness designation by itself would result 

in few noticeable changes in the threatened 

and endangered species on the islands.

Overall, from a parkwide perspective, 

alternative 2 would have the same effect on 

the listed animal and plant species as 

alternative 1 – a long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impact on the park’s listed species, 

which may affect, but would not likely 

adversely affect, these species. There could be 

a long-term minor beneficial impact to the 

Hoffmann’s slender-flowered gilia.

Cumulative Impacts. As noted under 

alternative 1, past and ongoing ecosystem 

restoration efforts on Santa Barbara Island 

have benefited the island night lizard by 

increasing its boxthorn habitat. No actions in 

alternative 2 plus actions by others would 

combine to affect the island night lizard. Thus, 

no cumulative impacts would occur to the 

species as a result of alternative 2.

In the case of the island fox, the Park Service 

is continuing to protect this species on the 

islands independent of this plan. Alternative 2 

would close roads on Santa Rosa and Santa 

Cruz islands, which would reduce a possible 

mortality factor and permit a visitor 

transportation system, which could increase 

the potential for road kills. When the effects 

of alternative 2 are added to the positive 

effects of continued protection efforts, there 

could be a long-term minor beneficial 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

358

cumulative impact on the island foxes that 

may affect, but would not likely adversely 

affect, the species (although alternative 2 

would add a minor increment to this impact). 

As noted in alternative 1, the number of 

western snowy plovers has increased at 

several locations on the California mainland 

during the past few breeding seasons due 

primarily to past and ongoing efforts to 

control predators, protect nesting areas from 

disturbance, and make people aware of the 

sensitivity of the birds. If their productivity 

continues to increase, plovers may spread into 

more areas and eventually may recolonize 

parts of the park. When these positive impacts 

are added to the effects of occasional 

disturbance of plovers caused by visitors 

under alternative 2, there would be about the 

same potential for a cumulative effect as 

alternative 1 — there would be the potential 

for a long-term cumulative minor to moderate 

beneficial impact that would likely affect, but 

not adversely affect, the species. Although 

alternative 2 may add a negative increment to 

this cumulative impact, the effect would be 

very minor and would not alter the overall 

intensity of the cumulative impact.

For the island rush-rose, no additional NPS or 

other agency actions are occurring that would 

affect this species. Thus, no cumulative 

impacts would occur on this species due to the 

additive effects of alternative 2. 

In the case of the Santa Cruz Island chicory, it 

is expected that the Park Service and U.S. 

Geological Survey would continue to research 

methods for establishing or expanding 

populations on the islands to assist their 

recovery. This action would occur 

independently of this plan. No additional NPS 

or other agency actions or activities are 

occurring on or off the islands that are known 

to be affecting the chicory. Therefore, no 

cumulative impacts would occur due to 

additive effects of alternative 2 on the Santa 

Cruz Island chicory.

As noted above, alternative 2 would pose a 

risk of fire affecting the island barberry and 

Hoffmann’s rock-cress, although with the 

proposed mitigation measures it is believed 

the alternative may affect, but would not likely 

adversely affect, the species. However, the risk 

of wildfire would always be present regardless 

of the alternative. No actions are occurring in 

alternative 2 that would directly affect these 

species. Independent of this plan, it is 

expected that the Park Service and U.S. 

Geological Survey would continue to research 

methods for establishing or expanding 

populations of island barberry to assist in its 

recovery. Adding the effects of alternative 2 to 

the other action would not be expected to 

result in a cumulative effect on the island 

barberry or Hoffmann’s rock-cress.

The conversion of native vegetation to 

nonnative annual grasslands during the 

ranching era would be a continuing impact to 

Hoffmann’s slender-flowered gilia on Santa 

Rosa Island. On the other hand, it is expected 

that research would continue on methods for 

establishing or expanding the Hoffmann’s 

slender-flowered gilia, and efforts would 

likely continue to establish new populations 

or expand the boundaries of existing 

populations on the island. These actions, 

which would be taken independent of this 

planning effort, should help maintain the 

taxon. Although in the past there were 

impacts on one of the populations of the 

Hoffmann’s slender-flowered gilia on Santa 

Rosa Island due to grading of the service road 

to East Point, this no longer occurs. No 

actions are occurring under alternative 2 that 

would affect this species. Thus, there would 

be no cumulative impact of alternative 2 on 

the Hoffmann’s slender-flowered gilia. 

As noted above, alternative 2 would pose a 

risk of fire affecting the Santa Rosa Island 

manzanita, although with the proposed 

mitigation measures it is believed the 

alternative may affect, but would not likely 

adversely affect, the species. In addition to the 

possibility of a wildfire, several other impacts 

may occur on the Santa Rosa Island 
Impacts of Alternative 2

359

manzanita. Deer have browsed the manzanita 

in the past, but the recent removal of deer 

likely has had a beneficial impact on the plant. 

The plant, which also grows along roadsides, 

could be affected by NPS maintenance 

activities. In addition, the Park Service and 

U.S. Geological Service plan to establish a 

seed collection, which would help ensure that 

the manzanita would not be extirpated on the 

island. However, the Park Service would be 

taking no new actions under alternative 2 that 

would beneficially or adversely affect the 

plant. Thus, alternative 2 would result in no 

cumulative impacts that may affect the Santa 

Rosa Island manzanita.

Conclusion. Overall, no new developments or 

changes in visitor use or island management 

would occur under alternative 2 that would 

adversely affect the nine threatened and 

endangered animal and plant species being 

analyzed. Actions proposed in alternative 2 

would have no effect on the island night 

lizard. Expected visitor use levels on the 

islands under alternative 2, like alternative 1, 

would likely result in a negligible to minor 

adverse effect, which may affect, but would 

not likely adversely affect, the island fox, 

snowy plover, Santa Cruz Island chicory, 

island rush-rose, Santa Rosa manzanita, 

Hoffmann’s rock-cress, or island barberry 

populations. There could be a long-term 

minor beneficial impact to the Hoffmann’s 

slender-flowered gilia. Alternative 2 would 

result in no cumulative impacts to the listed 

plant species, and there would be the potential 

for the same long-term minor beneficial 

cumulative impacts to the snowy plover and 

island fox as alternative 1. 

Soundscape

Analysis. No substantial increases in use 

would be expected under alternative 2. Thus, 

no changes in noise levels due to the presence 

of visitors would occur in most of the park. 

But like alternative 1, the primary sources of 

noise on the islands under alternative 2 would 

continue to be from concentrations of visitors 

and boats, and the operation of machinery in 

localized areas, such as East Anacapa, 

Scorpion Valley, Smugglers Cove, Prisoners 

Harbor, and Bechers Bay. As in alternative 1, 

there would be long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on the natural soundscape in 

these areas at varying times (e.g., holidays and 

weekends). Human-caused sounds (noise) 

would be apparent, changing the distribution 

of sound frequencies and oftentimes masking 

natural sounds. A long-term moderate adverse 

noise impact would continue to occur when 

aircraft land and take off on Santa Rosa Island 

and much less frequently on San Miguel 

Island (due to NPS and NMFS aircraft landing 

and taking off). 

As in alternative 1, the occasional operation of 

administrative motor vehicles on the roads on 

Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands also would 

continue to have a long-term minor adverse 

impact on the natural soundscape. These 

impacts would be highly transitory, but would 

continue over the life of this plan. In addition, 

under alternative 2 there would be an increase 

in motor vehicles being used to transport 

visitors to Torrey Pines and the trailhead at 

Lobo Canyon on Santa Rosa Island. 

Compared to alternative 1, operating 

additional vehicles on the Santa Rosa Island 

roads would likely have a long-term minor 

adverse impact on the natural soundscape, 

depending on the number, type, and 

frequency of vehicles driving on the roads. On 

the other hand, the closure of roads on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands would reduce the 

areas where motor vehicle noise would be 

heard and would have a long-term minor 

beneficial impact.

The periodic excavation of the channel in the 

Scorpion Valley and restoration actions in the 

Scorpion wetland would result in localized 

short-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on the soundscape due to noise 

generated from the operation of machinery 

and equipment.

Short-term minor noise impacts would occur 

in alternative 2 due to the construction of 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

360

several administrative and visitor facilities in 

the park on East Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa 

Rosa, and San Miguel islands. Construction 

equipment and people would generate higher 

levels of noise, masking the natural 

soundscape at times during the construction 

period.

Most of the new facilities would be in areas 

that have other visitors and/or administrative 

facilities (e.g., construction of the new housing 

unit on East Anacapa). Thus, the use of most 

of these facilities would result in long-term 

minor noise impacts in these areas compared 

to alternative 1. However, more people would 

use the new campground, field station, 

lodging area, and island transportation 

hub/operations center at Bechers Bay 

compared to alternative 1, and thus would 

result in increased levels of noise and a longterm minor to moderate adverse impact on 

the natural soundscape in these areas. 

Several new facilities would be built in areas 

that currently receive little, if any, use in 

alternative 2. The new housing area and field 

camp at Prisoners Harbor, the new facilities at 

Johnson’s Lee, and the field station at Bechers 

Bay all would increase use of these areas, 

which in turn would result in higher noise 

levels from people and equipment in the area. 

This would result in a short-term moderate 

adverse impact during construction and longterm minor to moderate adverse impact, 

depending on the level of use that occurs in 

these areas.

The possible development and use of new 

backcountry campsites and trails on Santa 

Cruz and Santa Rosa islands, and the 

establishment and use of a spike camp on San 

Miguel Island would result in more people 

using parts of the islands that received very 

little use in the past. Noise due to people in 

these areas would be noticeable compared to 

the no action alternative, and would result in a 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impact 

on the natural soundscape in the areas.

The wilderness designation on several of the 

islands would provide permanent long-term 

protection to the park’s natural resources, 

including the soundscape. This action would 

have a negligible to minor beneficial effect. 

Precluding most future developments would 

benefit the natural soundscape. Since Channel 

Islands is already a national park and the 

islands are being largely zoned to protect 

natural resources, and with few human 

sources of noise in these areas, wilderness 

designation by itself would result in few 

noticeable changes in the islands’ soundscape. 

From a parkwide perspective, visitor use, new 

developments, and management actions in 

alternative 2 would result in a long-term 

minor adverse impact compared to alternative 

1. However, changes in natural sound ambient 

conditions in localized popular use areas 

would result in a short- and long-term minor 

to moderate adverse impact to the 

soundscape.

Cumulative Impacts. Noise from high flying 

aircraft and from offshore ships and boats that 

are not connected to park visitors or 

management would likely continue to be 

periodically heard on the islands. Noise due to 

ecosystem restoration efforts independent of 

this plan (e.g., vegetation restoration efforts 

on the islands) and maintenance work also 

would be periodically heard on the islands. In 

addition, noise may be periodically heard due 

to maintenance of roads on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands, use of the Santa Cruz 

Island Navy base, and testing and training 

operations in the Point Mugu Sea Range. 

Short-term noise would be heard when the 

Bechers Bay and Scorpion Harbor piers are

replaced. When the noise impacts of the above 

actions are added to the noise impacts of 

visitors and new facilities under alternative 2, 

the overall noise levels would increase, 

particularly on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands. Thus, there would be the potential for 

a localized long-term minor to moderate 

cumulative adverse impact on the park’s 

natural soundscape. 
Impacts of Alternative 2

361

Conclusion. Like alternative 1, in most of the 

park, alternative 2 would have no effect on the 

natural soundscape. In localized areas, 

particularly at entry points to the islands, 

there would continue to be a long-term minor 

to moderate adverse noise impact due to 

concentrations of visitors, boats, and park 

operations. From a parkwide perspective, 

visitor use, new developments, and 

management actions in alternative 2 would 

result in a long-term minor adverse impact 

compared to alternative 1. However, changes 

in natural sound ambient conditions from 

construction and use of new visitor and 

administrative facilities in several developed 

areas, including parts of Bechers Bay, 

Prisoners Harbor, and Johnson’s Lee, would 

result in a short- and long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impact to the soundscape. 

When the effects of alternative 2 are added to 

other actions occurring independently of the 

alternative, there would also be the potential 

for localized long-term minor to moderate 

cumulative adverse impacts on the park’s 

natural soundscape. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Archeological (including Submerged 

Maritime) Resources

Analysis. As staffing and funding permit, 

archeological resources would be surveyed, 

inventoried, and evaluated under national 

register criteria of evaluation to determine 

their eligibility for listing in the national 

register. The surveys and research necessary 

to determine the eligibility of such resources 

for listing in the national register are a 

prerequisite for understanding the resources’ 

significance, as well as the basis of informed 

decision making in the future regarding how 

the resources should be managed. Such 

surveys and research would have long-term 

minor beneficial impacts. 

Archeological surveys and testing would 

occur as part of project planning and would 

precede any ground-disturbing activities (e.g., 

developing additional backcountry camping 

on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, 

constructing park housing and an access road 

on the Santa Cruz “isthmus,” developing an 

environmental / research camp on Santa Rosa 

Island, concession development on east Santa 

Cruz and Santa Rosa islands, and installing 

blinds for wildlife viewing on Santa Barbara 

Island). Development increases the potential 

of encountering archeological resources. 

Significant archeological resources would be 

avoided during planning and construction. If 

during construction previously unknown 

archeological resources were discovered, all 

work in the immediate vicinity of the 

discovery would be halted until the resources 

could be identified and documented and, if 

the resources could not be preserved in situ, 

an appropriate mitigation strategy would be 

developed in consultation with the California 

SHPO and representatives of associated 

American Indian tribes. In the event that 

human remains, funerary objects, sacred 

objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are 

discovered during construction, provisions 

outlined in the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act (25 USC 

3001) of 1990 would be followed. These 

actions would help ensure that grounddisturbing activities would not impact the 

integrity of the site to the extent that the 

national register eligibility would be 

jeopardized. Because these efforts would be 

made to avoid or reduce impacts on 

archeological resources during grounddisturbing undertakings, any impacts on 

archeological resources would be permanent, 

adverse, and would be kept in the minor to 

moderate range.

Wilderness designation in alternative 2 would 

have a permanent negligible to minor adverse 

impact on archeological resources due to 

increased human activities in the backcountry, 

which would affect scientific research 

opportunities and cultural resources in the 

area proposed for wilderness designation. 

However, alternative 2 also would have a 

long-term minor beneficial impact on 

archeological resources due to the permanent 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

362

protection bestowed by wilderness 

designation. The impact would be minor 

because the designation would result in few 

noticeable changes to these resources.

Provisions for more wilderness-dispersed 

visitor use opportunities on the islands would 

occur under this alternative. Archeological 

resources would be vulnerable to inadvertent 

damage and vandalism. Inadvertent impacts 

would include picking up or otherwise 

displacing artifacts, compacting cultural 

deposits, and creating social trails (which can 

lead to erosion and destabilization of the 

original site architecture). Intentional 

vandalism includes removing artifacts and 

probing and digging sites. Inadvertent damage 

and vandalism would result in a loss of surface 

archeological materials, alteration of artifact 

distribution, and a reduction of contextual 

evidence. Such adverse impacts could be 

mitigated through additional stabilization of 

the site, elimination of social trails to 

disturbed or vulnerable sites, and/or the 

systematic collection of surface artifacts for 

long-term curation. Continued ranger patrol 

and emphasis on visitor education regarding 

the significance and fragility of such resources 

and how visitors can reduce their impacts to 

archeological resources would help 

discourage vandalism and inadvertent impacts 

and minimize adverse impacts. Potential 

adverse impacts would be permanent and 

minor. 

More controlled visitor access to the waters 

surrounding the islands would better protect 

submerged maritime resources from boat 

anchors and artifact hunting, which would be 

a long-term minor beneficial impact.

Cumulative Impacts. The past action of 

eliminating cattle, deer, elk, and horses from 

Santa Rosa Island has resulted in 

archeological resources being better protected 

because they are not being disturbed or 

compacted by these animals. Impacts to 

archeological resources would be site-specific, 

long-term, minor, and beneficial.

The past, present, and future action of 

restoring native plant communities through 

the removal of nonnative plants and planting 

native plants has resulted in, or has the 

potential to result in, the disturbance of 

unknown archeological resources. Impacts to 

archeological resources would be site-specific, 

long-term, minor, adverse, and permanent.

The past, present, and future action of 

allowing researchers to study, inventory, and 

monitor cultural resources via a research 

permit would be long-term, negligible, and 

beneficial.

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 2 would result in permanent minor

to moderate and adverse and long-term minor 

beneficial impacts. These impacts, in 

combination with the long-term minor

adverse impacts of other past, present, and 

future actions, would result in long-term 

minor beneficial impacts and permanent

minor to moderate adverse cumulative

impacts on archeological resources. The 

adverse impacts of alternative 2 would be a 

minor component of the adverse cumulative 

impact.

Conclusion. Under alternative 2 adverse 

impacts due to the loss or destruction of 

archeological resources in the park would be 

minimized as a result of more controlled 

visitor access, more emphasis on preservation 

treatment and site monitoring, and increased 

public education for resource stewardship. 

Thus, alternative 2 would result in permanent 

minor to moderate adverse impacts to a 

discrete number of sites and long-term minor 

beneficial impacts on archeological resources.

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

advisory council’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse

Effects), the Park Service concludes the 

proposed undertakings outlined in alternative 

2 would most likely be no adverse effect on 

archeological resources. 
Impacts of Alternative 2

363

Ethnographic Resources

Because alternative 2 would provide for a 

slight increase in the number of island visitors, 

construction of new facilities for visitor use, 

and an expanded diversity of visitor 

experiences in the park, actions under this 

alternative could be expected to have some 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts 

on ethnographic resources. However, 

consultations with the Chumash would be 

undertaken to minimize and mitigate such 

impacts; therefore, the impacts, although 

noticeable, would neither appreciably alter 

resource conditions nor alter the relationship 

between the resource and Chumash practices 

and beliefs.

Research regarding other traditionally 

associated groups, such as fishermen, 

vaqueros, and others, would increase the 

understanding of other ethnographic 

resources and values of the islands. This 

information would allow park staff to more 

adequately consult with these groups, 

interpret their history, and identify and 

protect associated resources. This would 

result in a long-term minor beneficial impact 

on ethnographic resources. 

Wilderness designation in alternative 2 would 

have a long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impact on ethnographic resources due to 

increased human activities in the backcountry, 

which would affect scientific research 

opportunities and cultural resources in the 

area proposed for wilderness designation. 

However, alternative 2 also would have a 

long-term minor beneficial impact on 

ethnographic resources due to the permanent 

protection bestowed by wilderness 

designation. The impact would be minor 

because the designation would result in few 

noticeable changes to these resources.

Cumulative Impacts. The past, present, and 

future action of allowing researchers to study, 

inventory, and monitor cultural resources via 

a research permit would be long-term, 

negligible, and beneficial.

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 2 would result in long-term

negligible to minor adverse impacts and longterm minor beneficial impacts. These impacts, 

in combination with the long-term negligible 

beneficial impacts of other past, present, and 

future actions, would result in long-term 

minor beneficial cumulative impacts to 

ethnographic resources. The adverse impacts 

of alternative 2 would be a slight component 

of the cumulative impact.

Conclusion. Actions under alternative 2 

would generally have long-term negligible to

minor adverse impacts and long-term minor

beneficial impacts on ethnographic resources.

Section 106 Summary. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of effect of 

actions under this alternative on ethnographic 

resources would be no adverse effect. After 

applying the advisory council’s criteria of 

adverse effects (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment 

of Adverse Effects), the Park Service concludes 

the proposed undertakings outlined in 

alternative 2 would be a no adverse effect on 

ethnographic resources.

Historic Structures/Buildings

Analysis. As staffing and funding permit, 

structures and buildings in the park would be 

surveyed, inventoried, and evaluated to 

determine their eligibility for listing in the 

national register. The surveys and research 

necessary to determine the eligibility of a 

structure, building, or historic district for 

listing in the national register are a 

prerequisite for understanding the resources’ 

significance, as well as the basis of informed 

decision making in the future regarding how 

the resources should be managed. Such 

surveys and research would have long-term 

minor beneficial impacts.

To appropriately preserve and protect 

national register-listed or eligible structures 

and buildings, all stabilization, preservation, 

and rehabilitation efforts, including the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

364

rehabilitation of Prisoners warehouse on 

Santa Cruz Island for use as a visitor contact 

station and rehabilitation of ranch buildings 

on Santa Rosa Island for NPS or concessioner 

use would be undertaken in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, 

Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic 

Buildings (1995) and NPS Management 

Policies for cultural resources (section 5.3.5). 

Any materials removed during rehabilitation 

efforts would be evaluated to determine their 

value to be added to the park’s museum 

collection and/or their comparative use in 

future preservation work at the site. Any 

adverse impacts would be long-term and 

minor to moderate depending on the nature 

and extent of the alterations to accommodate 

new uses and current codes. 

Historic structures and buildings could suffer 

wear and tear from visitation, and unstaffed or 

minimally staffed structures and buildings 

could be more susceptible to vandalism. 

Continued ranger patrols and emphasis on 

visitor education regarding their significance 

and the fragility of such resources and how 

visitors can reduce their impacts to historic 

structures and buildings would discourage 

inadvertent impacts and vandalism, 

minimizing adverse impacts. Also, monitoring 

the carrying capacity of historic structures and 

buildings could occur, which would result in 

imposition of visitation levels or constraints 

that would contribute to the stability or 

integrity of the resources without unduly 

hindering interpretation for visitors. Any 

adverse impacts to historic structures and 

buildings from visitation would be long-term

and negligible to minor. 

Cumulative Impacts. The past, present, and 

future action of allowing researchers to study, 

inventory, and monitor cultural resources via 

a research permit would be long-term, 

negligible, and beneficial.

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 2 would result in site-specific longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

These impacts, in combination with the longterm negligible beneficial impacts of other 

past, present, and future actions, would result 

in long-term minor adverse cumulative 

impacts on historic structures and buildings. 

The adverse impacts of alternative 2 would be 

a minor component of the adverse cumulative 

impact.

Conclusion. Actions under alternative 2 

would generally have greater impacts on 

historic structures and buildings than those 

listed under alternative 1. Visitor use and 

preservation treatments would result in longterm minor to moderate impacts on historic 

structures and buildings, while survey and 

research would have a long-term minor 

beneficial impact. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

advisory council’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse

Effects), the Park Service concludes the 

proposed undertakings outlined in alternative 

2 would be no adverse effect on historic 

structures and buildings.

Cultural Landscapes

Analysis. As staffing and funding permit, 

landscapes and their features and patterns 

would be surveyed, inventoried, and evaluated 

to determine their eligibility for listing in the 

national register. The surveys and research 

necessary to determine the eligibility of a 

landscape for listing in the national register 

are a prerequisite for understanding the 

landscape’s significance, as well as the basis of 

informed decision making in the future 

regarding how the landscape and its features 

and patterns should be managed. Such surveys 

and research would have long-term minor 

beneficial impacts.

To appropriately preserve and protect 

national register-listed or eligible cultural 

landscapes, all stabilization and preservation 

efforts would be performed in accordance 
Impacts of Alternative 2

365

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes and with NPS Management 

Policies for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes (section 5.3.5.2). Any adverse 

impacts would be long-term and negligible to 

minor.

A new housing unit would be constructed in 

the Anacapa Island Light Station Historic 

District. Careful design would ensure that the 

construction of the housing unit would 

minimally affect the scale and visual 

relationships among landscape features. The 

new construction would be similar in scale, 

style, size, and materials to existing structures 

and buildings, and the landscape’s land use 

patterns, topography, patterns of vegetation, 

and circulation systems would be unaltered. 

Any adverse impacts would be long-term and 

minor.

Rehabilitation of the cultural landscapes at 

Rancho Del Norte and Scorpion Valley, and 

the rehabilitation and adaptive use of the 

facilities at the ranch to provide for lodging 

and food service would be done in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes. Introduction of new structures 

for concession operations at Scorpion Valley

and the Bechers Bay Ranch could have minor 

to moderate adverse impacts, depending on 

the sensitivity of their design and location. 

Any adverse impacts would be long-term. 

The introduction of a small concessionoperated vehicle transport system on Santa 

Rosa Island would result in negligible impacts 

to cultural landscapes. Vehicles would use 

existing roads, and land use and circulation 

patterns would be unaltered.

The rehabilitation of unneeded roads or 

conversion of such roads to trails on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands would alter the 

spatial organization, land use, and circulation 

patterns of the landscape. Any impacts would 

be long-term, moderate, and adverse.

The historic olive grove at Smugglers Ranch 

on Santa Cruz Island would be maintained in a 

manner that perpetuates the grove as a 

cultural landscape feature but prevents the 

olive trees from spreading, as much as 

possible. The park would develop an olive 

orchard management plan that addresses the 

preservation of the orchard while preventing 

the spread of olive trees beyond the cultural 

landscape. For example, if it is not possible to 

control the spread of olives, approximately 

one-fifth of the grove, consisting of the trees 

that are the largest olive producers, would be 

removed and replaced with an appropriate 

substitute, such as nonfruiting olive trees. This 

reduction would be minimal enough to ensure 

that the integrity of the historic olive grove as 

a historic landscape is retained, and the 

cultural landscape would continue to be 

eligible for listing in the national register. The 

remaining four-fifths of the grove would be 

maintained, thus preserving the physical 

character of the grove: the plantings, patterns, 

density, and grid lines of the trees. The impact 

from the tree reduction would be long-term, 

moderate, and adverse. 

The eucalyptus trees at Scorpion Valley are 

contributing elements of the cultural 

landscape and, therefore, their possible 

replacement with less-hazardous native trees 

would affect character-defining features of the 

Scorpion Valley cultural landscape. However,

the majority of the contributing landscape 

features would be retained, preserving the 

integrity of the cultural landscape such that it 

would continue to be eligible for listing in the 

national register. The impact from the tree 

removal would be long-term, moderate, and 

adverse.

Construction activities would temporarily 

introduce nonhistoric visual, audible, and 

atmospheric elements into affected cultural 

landscapes. Such intrusions would be shortterm, lasting only as long as construction. Any 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

366

adverse impacts would be short-term and 

negligible to minor.

Cumulative Impacts. The past, present, and 

future actions of adding small-scale features to 

the landscape (antennas, solar array, weather 

station, and other equipment) and restoring 

native plant communities through the removal 

of nonnative plants and planting native plants 

has and would continue to result in impacts

on significant landscape patterns and features 

(e.g., spatial organization, land use patterns, 

circulation systems, topography, structures 

and buildings, cluster arrangements, smallscale features, views and vistas, and 

archeological resources). Impacts on cultural 

landscapes would be site-specific, long-term, 

minor to moderate, and adverse.

The past, present, future action of allowing 

researchers to study and inventory and 

monitor cultural resources via a research 

permit would be beneficial, negligible and 

long-term.

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 2 would result in impacts that are 

adverse, minor to moderate, site-specific, and 

long-term. These impacts, in combination 

with the long-term minor to moderate impacts 

of other past, present, and future actions, 

would result in long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse cumulative impacts to cultural 

landscapes. The adverse impacts of alternative

2 would be a minor component of the adverse 

cumulative impact.

Conclusion. Actions under alternative 2 

would have greater impacts on cultural 

landscapes than those listed under alternative 

1 due to more actions involving cultural 

landscape features. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

advisory council’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse

Effects), the Park Service concludes the 

proposed undertakings outlined in alternative 

2 would be no adverse effect on cultural 

landscapes.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE, 

INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION

Analysis

Under alternative 2 visitors would continue to 

engage in a variety of recreational activities, 

encounter low to moderate levels of visitation 

on the islands, and participate in group 

activities. Existing opportunities to access the 

island would not change, but the origins of 

concession operations that provide access to 

the islands would no longer be limited to 

Oxnard and Santa Barbara. Some visitors 

would not have to drive as far to reach a 

concession boat to visit the islands. For these 

visitors this would be a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impact on their 

experience. Although opportunities to visit 

the islands would continue to be provided, 

some visitors would be unable to afford 

passage or may find it difficult to reach the 

transportation providers. This would 

continue to have a long-term moderate 

adverse impact on those unable to travel to the 

islands.

The visitor center on the mainland in Ventura 

Harbor would be enlarged to accommodate 

expanded orientation, interpretation, and 

educational opportunities for a greater 

number of visitors. For the visitors who are 

able to participate this would be a long-term 

minor beneficial impact. The underwater 

video program would extend into the school 

year, allowing not only expanded viewing 

opportunities in the visitor center but 

ultimately to schools both locally and 

nationwide. This would be a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact on the educational 

experience of students who visit the visitor 

center as well as students in remote locations. 

With an expanded visitor center, visitors 

would also be able to explore the full array of 

interpretive themes of the park, including the 

history of ranching on the islands as well as of 

the Chumash Indians, two themes not 

currently explored in depth. This would be a 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impact on interpretation in the park. 
Impacts of Alternative 2

367

Under alternative 2 a core interpretive team 

would be established to support on-island 

visitor services and programs. This would be a 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impact on the interpretation and educational 

services in the park. 

The wilderness designation on the islands 

would permanently preserve opportunities for 

wilderness-related recreation and preclude 

activities and developments that could 

adversely affect these activities. Designating 

wilderness also would not preclude 

recreational activities that already occur. 

However, the islands are already remote and 

provide many opportunities for solitude and 

primitive, unconfined recreation. The park’s 

enabling legislation also limits the level of 

visitor use. Thus, designating wilderness 

would not affect most visitors, and would 

have a long-term minor beneficial effect.

East Anacapa Island

The historic lighthouse and accompanying 

exhibits would be open to the public for the 

first time. This would be a long-term minor 

beneficial impact on visitor experiences in the 

park because it would open a landmark on 

one of the most popular destinations in the 

park to visitation. The number of sites in the 

campground would be reduced to 16 and the 

remaining sites would be dispersed within the 

existing campground. The decrease in 

campsite density would have both adverse and 

beneficial consequences. Some people who 

would want to camp on East Anacapa might 

not be able to do so when they want, which 

would be a long-term moderate adverse 

impact on some visitors’ experiences. On the 

other hand, modifications to the campground 

could decrease the visual impact of the 

campground for some visitors who find it 

intrusive. There could also be reduced conflict 

between day use visitors walking the trails and 

campers when the campsites are dispersed 

across the campground away from the trail. 

This would be a long-term minor beneficial 

impact for these visitors. In both cases the 

overall impact of this action would be 

negligible because of the number of visitors 

who would be affected by the change. 

Middle Anacapa Island

Visitor access would continue to be limited to 

groups with a NPS-approved guide and the 

visitor experience would not change. Thus, 

alternative 2 would have the same long-term 

minor beneficial impact on visitor experience 

as alternative 1.

West Anacapa Island

Access would continue to be limited to 

Frenchy’s Cove, and the visitor experience in 

the cove would not change. Thus alternative 2 

would have the same long-term minor 

beneficial impact on visitor experience 

opportunities on West Anacapa Island as 

alternative 1.

Santa Cruz Island

With the establishment of a visitor contact 

station at Prisoners Harbor, more 

interpretation opportunities would be 

available on the island. This would be a longterm minor to moderate beneficial impact on 

education and interpretation on the island, 

especially for those who are coming to the 

island for the first time. Once the backcountry 

management plan is completed, there might 

be more opportunities for visitors who want 

to camp and hike in the island’s interior. This 

would be a long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impact on visitors because more 

areas of the island would be available for 

exploring.

All but 10 of the campsites in the campground 

in Scorpion would be closed during the winter 

because of the potential for flooding. This 

would have both beneficial and adverse 

effects. For those people who were able to 

camp in the winter, the closure would be a 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

368

long-term minor beneficial impact because the 

risk from flooding would be reduced and 

because with fewer people the quality of the 

experience might improve for some. On the 

other hand, some visitors who wanted to 

winter camp might not be able to camp when 

they wanted to, which would result in a longterm minor to moderate adverse impact, 

depending on if they could find other suitable 

dates to camp.

For health and safety reasons most of the 

historic eucalyptus groves in the campground 

would be replaced with native or noninvasive 

varieties. The eucalyptus trees drop limbs and 

are a hazard for visitors. Small stands of the 

eucalyptus trees and the long row of trees 

between upper and lower Scorpion would 

remain to provide visitors with a sense of the 

historic ranching landscape. Because visitors’ 

risk of injury as a result of the eucalyptus trees 

would be reduced, this would be a long-term 

beneficial impact on visitor experience in the 

park. However, until the new trees mature, the 

lack of shade would be perceived as detracting 

from the visitor experience. Thus, overall the 

removal of eucalyptus groves from the 

campground would be perceived as a longterm moderate adverse impact.

Santa Rosa Island

Formal educational opportunities on the 

island (and in the park as a whole) would be 

expanded through the development of a 

research facility/education center. The 

research facility would provide additional and 

in-depth opportunity for more education

groups, researchers, and others to experience 

and learn more about the park’s terrestrial, 

marine, and cultural resources. Thus, the 

education facility would have a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact on the educational 

opportunities in the park. The development of 

a visitor contact station with exhibits in the 

ranch complex would create additional 

opportunities for visitors to become oriented, 

to gain a more in-depth understanding of the 

islands, and to make a stronger connection 

between the interpretive themes and the 

island’s natural and cultural resources. A 

visitor contact station would be a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impact on visitor 

interpretation on the island. 

If the economic feasibility study indicates that 

a concession lodging operation would be 

sustainable, this would allow visitors who do 

not want to camp, such as the elderly and 

families with young children, an opportunity 

to stay overnight on the island and give them 

additional opportunities to experience the 

island. The adaptive reuse of the ranch 

buildings for this use would be a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact for visitors on 

Santa Rosa Island.

If a concession island-based transport 

operation was developed, it would increase 

the diversity of available island recreational 

experiences. With transportation, visitors 

would be able see more of the island outside 

of Bechers Bay. Day use visitors would be able 

to experience more of the island, and 

backpackers would also be able to venture 

further into the backcountry. This would be a 

long-term moderate to major beneficial 

impact for visitors to Santa Rosa Island.

Once the backcountry management plan is 

completed there may be more opportunities 

for visitors to camp and hike in the island’s 

interior. This would be a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impact on visitors, 

depending on what the backcountry plan 

proposes, because more areas of the island 

would likely be available for exploring. 

With more opportunities to recreate, explore, 

and learn about Santa Rosa Island in 

alternative 2, more people would likely visit 

the island. Island user capacity limits and 

other constraints on the concessioners’ 

operations (e.g., weather conditions, boat 

sizes, transit times, and fuel costs) would limit 

the number of people who actually come out 

to the island. Visitors would also be dispersing 

out to other locations from Bechers Bay. 

Nevertheless, larger numbers of people would 
Impacts of Alternative 2

369

likely be present at the Bechers Bay developed 

area in alternative 2 compared to alternative 1. 

This would have both beneficial and adverse 

impacts on visitors’ experiences. Because 

more people could visit and enjoy this area 

there would be a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impact on many visitors’ 

experiences. On the other hand, for some 

visitors (particularly people who have visited 

in the past) the area might be perceived as 

being more crowded, which could have a 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impact 

on these visitors’ experiences.

San Miguel Island

If guided multiday trips on the island were 

provided, this would provide an experience 

not currently available on the island. (Most 

visitors cannot currently hike to Point Bennett 

to see the pinnipeds in the time they have 

available.) As people learned about the 

opportunity, more people would likely try to

come to the island to take advantage of this 

experience. This would be a long-term major 

beneficial impact for visitors because of the 

uniqueness of the experience, even though 

only a relatively small number of visitors 

would be impacted. 

Santa Barbara Island

Park staff would look for opportunities to 

construct temporary wildlife blinds to 

improve visitors’ opportunities to see nesting 

California brown pelicans, seabirds, and 

marine mammals. This would be a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impact for 

visitors. 

Cumulative Impacts

With a few exceptions, there would be no 

actions occurring inside or outside the park 

(independent of alternative 2) that could 

result in cumulative visitor experience 

impacts. Ongoing and future restoration, 

construction, and other management 

activities, particularly on Santa Rosa and Santa 

Cruz islands, would result in temporary 

closures of areas for recreational use. This 

would have short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on visitor experience 

opportunities, because although areas would 

be closed, there would usually be other 

opportunities for visitors to take advantage of 

their time on the islands. 

Some areas of Santa Rosa Island are currently 

closed to visitors during hunting season for 

safety reasons. Per a court settlement 

agreement, the hunting operations end in 

2011. As a result, some areas of the island that 

were closed for safety reasons would 

eventually be open for visitors year-round. 

This would expand the range of experiences 

available to visitors on the island. For most 

visitors to Santa Rosa Island, this would be a 

long-term negligible to moderate beneficial 

impact on their experience, depending on 

what time of year they visit the island. When 

this action and the effects of NPS 

administrative and construction activities are 

added to the additional recreational 

opportunities on Santa Rosa Island under 

alternative 2, there would be a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial cumulative 

impact on visitor experience opportunities on 

Santa Rosa Island.

Conclusion

Visitor experiences, including recreational 

opportunities as well as interpretation and 

educational opportunities, would increase in 

much of the park under alternative 2, 

compared to alternative 1. Overall, alternative 

2 would have a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact on opportunities for visitor 

experiences, largely due to the increase in 

recreational opportunities on Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands that would allow visitors a 

greater diversity of experiences on the islands. 

The expansion of the visitor center in 

Ventura, the new research/education center 

on Santa Rosa Island, and the guided multiday 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

370

trips on San Miguel Island would all 

contribute to this impact. On-island 

interpretation would also increase with new 

visitor contact stations (in adaptively used 

structures) on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands, resulting in long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts on visitor 

experience opportunities. On the other hand, 

with more people visiting Santa Rosa Island, 

there could be long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on the visitor experience at 

Bechers Bay due to perceived crowding.

There could be a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial cumulative impact on 

recreational opportunities on Santa Rosa 

Island when the additional recreational 

opportunities available under alternative 2 are 

combined with more areas of Santa Rosa 

Island being open to public use after 2011.

WILDERNESS CHARACTER

Analysis

Under alternative 2, 66,637 acres or 

approximately 53% of the land portion of the 

park would be proposed for wilderness 

designation. Assuming Congress approves the 

wilderness proposal, the wilderness resources 

of all of Middle and West Anacapa islands, 

most of the NPS lands on Santa Cruz Island, 

almost all of Santa Rosa Island, and almost all 

of Santa Barbara Island would be permanently 

protected. The areas would be permanently 

undeveloped, and would be protected and 

managed to preserve their natural character. 

Visitors would be assured of outstanding 

opportunities for solitude and primitive, 

unconfined recreation. Because of the large 

area designated as wilderness, this would have 

a long-term major beneficial impact on 

wilderness character.

No other actions are being proposed in the 

alternative that would affect visitation or 

wilderness character on Santa Barbara Island. 

However, several other actions in the 

alternative would affect the qualities of 

wilderness character of the other islands. 

Although visitor use levels in alternative 2 

would likely increase as more visitors come to 

the islands, compared to alternative 1, visitors 

should still be able to find opportunities for 

solitude and primitive unconfined recreation 

in the larger wilderness areas on Santa Rosa 

and Santa Cruz islands. For example, more 

visitors may go out into the interior of Santa 

Rosa Island using the concession vehicles, but 

given the large area of the island, it is unlikely 

that visitors would often encounter other 

visitors. Although encounters would be of 

short duration, they would periodically occur 

over the life of the plan and are considered 

long-term impacts. Thus, any adverse impacts 

on wilderness character would be expected to 

be long-term and minor.

As in all of the alternatives, certain parts of the 

proposed wilderness area would be restricted 

or closed to visitor use seasonally or annually, 

including Middle and West Anacapa islands, 

and certain beaches on Santa Rosa Island. 

These actions would affect opportunities for 

primitive, unconfined recreation. However, 

because there would be no change between 

alternative 2 and alternative 1, there would be 

no effect — alternative 2 would have the same 

long-term minor adverse impact as alternative 

1.

Under alternative 2 about 72 miles of existing 

roads within the proposed wilderness area on 

Santa Rosa Island and about 12 miles of roads 

within the proposed wilderness area on Santa 

Cruz Island would be closed and either 

converted to trails or recontoured and 

revegetated. Although the application of 

wilderness minimum requirements would 

help minimize impacts of this restoration 

effort, in the short term, these actions would 

affect the untrammeled quality of the area, 

resulting in a moderate adverse impact to 

wilderness character in these areas. However 

in the long term, these actions would improve 

the natural quality of the landscape, resulting 

in a moderate to major beneficial impact.

None of the proposed developments in 

Scorpion Valley, Prisoners Harbor, Bechers 
Impacts of Alternative 2

371

Bay, and Johnson’s Lee would occur in areas 

that would be proposed for wilderness and, 

therefore, would have no effect on wilderness 

character. 

The future backcountry management plan 

could also increase the opportunity for 

backcountry camping and trails on Santa Cruz 

and Santa Rosa islands. An increase in 

backcountry sites would increase 

opportunities for both primitive and 

unconfined recreation on the island and 

would be a long-term minor beneficial impact. 

An increase in the number of backcountry 

camping sites and trails also could increase 

opportunities for solitude because more 

visitors would have the opportunity to camp 

and hike farther away from the developed 

areas. The increase in the number of visitors 

would be offset by the size of the area open to 

visitors, as well as increases in the areas open 

to hiking and camping. The campsites and 

trails also would adversely affect the natural 

quality of the islands. The magnitude of these 

beneficial and adverse impacts would depend 

on the number and location of backcountry 

campsites and trails, and cannot be 

determined in this impact assessment. 

With regard to the other features of value (the 

fifthquality of wilderness character), as stated 

earlier, alternative 2 would have a long-term 

minor adverse impact on paleontological 

resources and a permanent long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impact on 

ethnographic and archeological resources. 

These impacts would be due to increased 

human activities in the backcountry, which 

would affect scientific research opportunities 

and cultural resources in the area proposed 

for wilderness designation. However, 

alternative 2 also would have a long-term 

negligible to minor beneficial impact on 

paleontological and ethnographic and 

archeological resources due to the permanent 

protection bestowed by wilderness 

designation. The impact would be negligible 

to minor because the designation by itself

would result in few noticeable changes to 

these resources.

From an overall parkwide perspective, 

alternative 2 would have a long-term major 

beneficial impact on wilderness character, 

primarily due to the designation of much of 

the park as wilderness and the 

closure/restoration of roads on Santa Rosa 

and Santa Cruz islands.

Cumulative Impacts

Several NPS projects would occur on the 

islands independent of alternative 2, including 

vegetative restoration efforts, threatened and 

endangered species recovery efforts, and 

control of nonnative species, which would 

adversely affect opportunities for solitude. 

These management activities also would 

adversely affect the “untrammeled” or 

uncontrolled quality of wilderness character 

in the short term (although the application of 

the wilderness minimum requirements 

process would help mitigate these impacts). 

On the other hand, these NPS resource 

management activities on the islands would 

improve the long-term naturalness of the 

lands proposed for wilderness. When these 

actions are added to the major beneficial 

impacts of the actions being proposed in 

alternative 2, there would be the potential for 

a long-term major beneficial cumulative 

impact primarily due to the proposal to 

designate much of the park as wilderness. 

Conclusion

Overall alternative 2 would have a long-term 

major beneficial impact on wilderness 

character primarily due to the designation of 

much of the park as wilderness and the 

closure/restoration of roads on Santa Rosa 

and Santa Cruz islands. When other NPS 

management actions independent of the plan, 

such as revegetation efforts, are added to the 

effects of alternative 2, there would be the 

potential for a long-term major beneficial 

cumulative impact. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

372

PARK OPERATIONS

Analysis

As in all of the alternatives, the park’s physical 

geography would pose an operational 

challenge. NPS operations would continue to 

be characterized in alternative 2 by (1) a 

substantial number of facilities or assets (e.g., 

visitor contact stations, campsites, trails, and 

historic structures and landscapes) that must 

be maintained; (2) visitor-related operational 

demands (e.g., interpretive services, patrols, 

and campground maintenance) that are much 

greater in the busy summer visitor season than 

at other times of the year; and (3) island 

operations that command a disproportionate 

share of the park’s annual operating budget 

due to the logistics of transporting equipment, 

materials, and staff to and from the islands.

Alternative 2 would both beneficially and 

adversely affect park operations. The 

alternative calls for new facilities and 

management actions that would require new 

staff as well as investments to plan and 

implement. These new facilities and projects 

would add to the scope and complexity of 

park operations. Assuming the new facilities 

and projects are spread out over the 20-year 

life of the plan and that new staff and funding 

are also carefully planned for and integrated 

into existing park operations would help 

mitigate potential disruptions to and 

conflicting workload demands on park staff. 

Nevertheless, some adverse impacts would 

still occur, as noted below.

Alternative 2 would add 16 FTE employees, 

who would work on the various facilities and 

projects called for under the plan. These new 

employees would have a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact on the park’s operational 

capabilities. However, this additional staff also 

would require office space and equipment, 

information technology and 

telecommunications, human resources, and 

other support. This would result in long-term 

minor adverse impacts on park operations by 

further straining park operational resources.

Alternative 2 would require additional 

managerial and contracting staff time to 

oversee the design and construction of new 

facilities both on the mainland (e.g., expansion 

of the existing visitor center) and on the 

islands (e.g., new campgrounds, a day use 

facility at Johnson’s Lee, ranger stations, an 

education/volunteer camp, and a 

research/education field station). 

Rehabilitation/adaptive reuse of the Bechers 

Bay ranch complex would take substantial 

time to manage. Removal of facilities, such as 

roads on Santa Rosa Island and reductions in 

the campgrounds at Scorpion Valley and 

Anacapa Island, also would take staff time to 

oversee. Establishment of a concession

program, covering lodging, food, and visitor 

transportation on Santa Rosa Island, would 

take substantial amount of time in the short 

term to start, but then would take less staff 

time to run. New interpretive efforts, such as 

at Oxnard and the enlargement/development 

of interpretive exhibits at the mainland visitor 

center and on the islands would take time. 

Additional effort would be needed to maintain 

all of the new facilities. Providing a new 

guided overnight visitor opportunity on San 

Miguel Island would require staff time. 

Additional effort also would be needed to 

monitor the user capacity indicators to ensure 

unacceptable conditions are not occurring. 

With the designation of wilderness, 

maintenance staff would be required to use 

the minimum requirements process to 

determine what kind of equipment would be 

needed to build and maintain trails. Visitor 

and resource protection and natural and 

cultural resource staff would be limited in 

their use of motorized vehicles in wilderness, 

which could reduce their effectiveness. 

Although the staff could continue to conduct 

natural resource management, surveys, 

patrols, and other day-to-day operations in 

the wilderness, it would likely be more time

consuming and costly, which in turn would 

reduce the work that is completed. Even with 

phasing of the new developments and new 

staff and funding, all of these actions 

considered together would likely have shortterm moderate to major adverse impacts and 
Impacts of Alternative 2

373

long-term moderate adverse impacts on park 

operations.

Wilderness designation on the islands would 

avoid some potential developments and 

activities that might otherwise require park 

staff time. However, wilderness designation 

would require the staff to carefully consider 

its activities in these areas, completing 

minimum requirement analyses. Although the 

staff could continue to conduct surveys, 

patrols, and other day-to-day operations in 

the wilderness, it may be more timeconsuming and costly. This change would be 

noticeable to the staff but not to visitors. Thus, 

wilderness designation would have a longterm minor adverse impact on park 

operations.

Alternative 2 also would result in several 

actions that would beneficially affect park 

operations. Providing new office space on the 

mainland, replacing temporary housing at 

Scorpion Valley with permanent housing and 

office space, moving maintenance operations 

to a new facility at Scorpion Valley, providing 

employee housing at Prisoners Harbor, 

providing new staff housing facilities at 

Bechers Bay and on Anacapa Island, 

substantially decreasing the number of roads 

to be maintained on Santa Rosa Island, and 

providing new ranger stations at Johnson’s 

Lee and Bechers Bay all would beneficially 

affect park operations by improving staff 

productivity and efficiency in managing park 

resources and visitors. This would have a 

long-term moderate to major beneficial 

impact on park operations.

Overall, considering all of the direct potential 

impacts, over a 20-year timeframe, with 

additional staff and funding and adequate 

phasing of new developments and projects, 

compared to alternative 1, alternative 2 would 

be expected to have a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial effect on park operations. 

Park staff would be more productive and 

efficient in managing resources and visitors, 

and achieving desired conditions in 

alternative 2 compared to alternative 1.

Cumulative Impacts

As described in the cumulative impacts 

scenario, a large number of past, ongoing, and 

future actions independent of the plan would 

be expected, including maintenance and 

replacement of existing facilities, issuing 

permits for scientific research and commercial 

services, ecosystem restoration efforts, and 

other resource management activities. In 

addition, park staff would continue to be 

engaged in actions and projects independent 

of keeping the park functioning, such as 

coordination/consultation activities on 

actions that could affect the park, 

environmental education outreach activities, 

and implementation and enforcement of the 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

General Management Plan (2009) and 

regulations. Some of these projects require 

intensive planning, coordination, and 

involvement from park staff, and represent a 

substantial operational burden on park staff. 

All of these actions, taken together, would 

likely have a long-term moderate adverse 

impact on park staff.

Overall, when the long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts of park 

operations associated with alternative 2 are 

combined with the effects other ongoing and 

planned projects, there would likely be a longterm moderate adverse cumulative impact on 

park operations. Alternative 2 would slightly 

reduce the overall adverse cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Alternative 2 would have both beneficial and 

adverse impacts on park operations. Adverse 

effects would be due to changes in facilities 

and new management actions, including 

concession management, new interpretive 

efforts, and increased monitoring of the park. 

Overall, however, assuming careful phasing of 

new developments and management actions, 

compared to alternative 1, alternative 2 would 

be expected to have a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impact. This would be 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

374

primarily due to increased staff and funding, 

new staff/administrative facilities, and 

reductions in some facilities (e.g., roads on 

Santa Rosa Island). When the effects of 

alternative 2 are combined with other ongoing 

and likely future projects, there would be the 

potential for a long-term moderate adverse 

cumulative impact on park operations. 

Alternative 2 would slightly reduce the overall 

adverse cumulative impact. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The following paragraphs describe the more 

important (moderate and major intensity) 

adverse impacts that would result from 

implementing alternative 2. These are residual 

impacts that would remain after mitigation 

was implemented. The negligible and minor 

impacts are described in the preceding 

analysis.

Under alternative 2 unavoidable moderate 

adverse impacts on some natural resources 

would occur in localized areas in the park. 

Even with road restoration efforts, erosion on 

several roads on Santa Rosa Island could still 

result in localized minor to moderate adverse 

soil impacts. Periodic excavation of sediments 

from the Scorpion Creek channel to protect 

existing facilities would have a minor to 

moderate adverse effect on natural floodplain 

values. In localized areas, particularly at entry 

points to the islands such as East Anacapa, 

Scorpion Valley, Prisoners Harbor, Smugglers 

Cove, and Bechers Bay, there would continue 

to be minor to moderate noise impacts due to 

concentrations of visitors, boats, and park 

operations. As in alternative 1, long-term 

moderate adverse noise impacts would 

continue to occur when aircraft land and take 

off at the existing airstrip on Santa Rosa 

Island. Increased visitor and administrative 

uses under alternative 2 also would increase 

the risk of nonnative species introduction and 

wildfires, which in turn could adversely affect 

the islands’ vegetation and native wildlife 

populations.

The lack of adequate interpretive media on 

the islands to give visitors a better 

understanding and appreciation of elements 

of the other primary interpretive themes and 

the lack of firsthand interaction with park 

resources would have an unavoidable longterm minor to moderate adverse impact on 

the visitor experience.

Opportunities to visit the islands would 

continue to be provided, although some 

visitors would be unable to afford passage or 

may find it difficult to reach the 

transportation providers. This would 

continue to have an unavoidable long-term 

moderate adverse impact on those unable to 

travel to the islands.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

Construction materials and energy used 

would be irretrievably lost. There would also 

be an irretrievable and irreversible 

commitment of resources in terms of funds 

expended on both labor and construction 

materials. The construction of new facilities 

would result in the irreversible loss of natural 

resources in localized areas.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 

SHORT-TERM USES OF THE

ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY

Under alternative 2 most of the park would 

continue to be protected in a natural state and 

would maintain its long-term productivity — 

the Park Service would manage the islands to 

maintain ecological processes and native 

biological communities. Most areas would be 

protected in their current state and would 

maintain their long-term productivity. With 

increased use levels resulting from the 

alternative, some vegetation and soils in 

localized areas may be adversely affected (e.g., 

trampling of vegetation), which would reduce 
Impacts of Alternative 2

375

the productivity of these areas. In developed 

areas (e.g., part of East Anacapa Island, 

Scorpion Valley, Prisoners Harbor, Bechers 

Bay, and Johnson’s Lee) the primary shortterm uses would be for recreational and 

education/ scientific use. Under alternative 2 

there would be expanded development to 

support these uses and for park operations, 

resulting in some localized loss of ecological 

productivity in areas that had no previous 

development. Adverse impacts on the areas’ 

vegetation and soils would reduce the longterm ecological productivity of these areas, 

although overall, only a relatively small 

reduction in the park’s productivity would be 

expected. On the other hand, efforts to restore 

vegetation in a few sites (e.g., East Anacapa 

campground) and along the roads on Santa 

Rosa Island, would increase long-term 

productivity in these areas. As in all of the 

alternatives, maintaining facilities in the 

Scorpion Creek floodplain would continue a 

long-term reduction in natural and beneficial 

values of the floodplain and prevent it from 

functioning naturally.
376

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3

NATURAL RESOURCES

Soils

Analysis. Alternative 3 would result in little 

change to soils on Anacapa, Santa Barbara, 

and San Miguel islands. Assuming that use 

levels do not substantially change and visitors 

largely stay at developed areas and do not hike 

off trails, the alternative would have a 

negligible adverse impact on soils due to 

erosion caused by visitors. The construction 

of new housing units and a small storage 

building on East Anacapa Island would result 

in the loss/modification of soils, but would 

have a long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impact on soils in this previously disturbed 

area. The reduction in the size and restoration 

of part of the East Anacapa campground 

would reduce foot traffic in that area, 

reducing the compaction and disturbance of 

soils, which would have a negligible beneficial 

impact on soils. The designation of an area for 

a spike camp and building a new small storage 

facility on San Miguel Island would result in 

the loss of some soil and/or alteration of soil 

properties on these sites and would have a 

localized long-term minor impact on soils.

Alternative 3 would result in higher use levels 

on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands than in 

alternative 1, but use levels would still be 

expected to be relatively low. Although most 

people would remain in the developed areas, 

more people would hike and backpack in the 

backcountry of these islands, which would 

result in some soils being compacted and soil 

horizons altered in local areas due to people 

walking cross-country or off trails. Some 

informal trails could be formed. There also 

would likely be more use of the roads on Santa 

Rosa Island by vehicles transporting visitors, 

resulting in increased erosion of silty soils 

along the roads. However, given the size of 

these islands and relatively low use levels that 

would occur, the long-term adverse impact on 

soils would likely be minor to moderate in 

localized areas.

Like alternative 2, most of the soil impacts due 

to construction and use of new developments 

under alternative 3 would occur on Santa 

Cruz and Santa Rosa islands. The new visitor 

developments on Santa Cruz (including a new 

orientation area at Scorpion, and additional 

restrooms at Prisoners Harbor, would be built 

in previously disturbed areas and would have 

a localized long-term minor adverse impact 

due to soils being lost from the sites and/or 

soil properties altered. Reconfiguring the 

Scorpion campground would occur in 

previously disturbed areas and would have a 

long-term negligible adverse effect on soils. 

Development and use of a new primitive 

campground near Prisoners Harbor would 

affect about a 4-acre area, resulting in a longterm minor adverse impact due to the loss 

and/or alteration of soils. The possible 

development and use of backcountry 

campsites and trails on Santa Cruz and Santa 

Rosa islands would likely cause some erosion 

and/or changes in soil properties, resulting in 

a localized long-term minor adverse impact, 

depending on the sites and use levels. 

Several new administrative developments on 

Santa Cruz Island would affect soils. In the 

Scorpion area the construction of new office 

space, a new concessions housing area, the 

expansion of the NPS housing area, the 

relocation of the maintenance area, and the 

construction of an interpretive barn by the 

corral would likely result in the erosion and 

loss of some soil from these sites and/or 

alteration of soil properties, affecting a total of

approximately 3 acres. Assuming the 

construction and facility footprints are kept 

small and best management practices are 

followed (e.g., use of silt fences and prompt 

revegetation), soil erosion and disturbance 

would be minimized and the adverse impacts 

would be localized, long-term, and minor. 
Impacts of Alternative 3

377

The development of new administrative 

facilities in the Prisoners Harbor area would 

also affect soils. Soils would be lost and/or soil 

properties altered by the development and use 

of new housing, storage, and maintenance 

facilities in the Prisoners Harbor area, 

covering about 1.5 acres, resulting in a longterm minor adverse impact.

On Santa Rosa Island development of a new 

transportation/operations center and field 

station in the Bechers Bay area and the 

development of a new backcountry ranger 

station at Johnson’s Lee would affect a total of 

about 1.5 acres, resulting in a long-term minor 

adverse impact due to the loss and/or 

alteration of soil properties. The development 

of a new field station north of the Bechers Bay 

developed area also would affect about 0.5 

acre, resulting in a long-term minor adverse 

impact on soils.

Several visitor developments on Santa Rosa 

Island in alternative 3 would affect soils. The 

restoration of part of the Water Canyon 

campground would have a long-term minor 

beneficial impact due to visitors no longer 

disturbing these soils. On the other hand, the 

construction of a new campground on the 

marine terrace within the ranch complex in 

Bechers Bay would affect approximately 4 

acres, while the development of a new 

primitive campground/day use facility at 

Johnson’s Lee would affect approximately 5 

acres. The loss of soil and/or alteration of soil 

properties would result in a localized longterm minor adverse impact. Rehabilitating the 

ranch complex facilities for other functions 

(e.g., lodging and visitor contact station) 

should have no impacts on soils because no 

additional soil disturbance would be needed.

Like alternative 2, stockpiling sediments on 

land due to the periodic excavation of 

Scorpion Creek in alternative 3 would result 

in localized long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on soils due to construction 

equipment driving over the area. Although 

excavation activities would occur on an 

irregular basis and the sediments would only 

be temporarily stockpiled, they are considered 

a long-term impact. 

The biggest difference between alternatives 1 

and 3 would be due to the actions taken 

regarding the road systems on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands. The conversion of roads to 

trails and/or recontouring and revegetating 

approximately 12 miles on Santa Cruz Island 

and 72 miles of road on Santa Rosa Island, 

particularly those segments that are 

experiencing erosion problems, would 

substantially decrease soil erosion in these 

areas. As a result, compared to alternative 1, 

alternative 3 would likely have a long-term 

moderate to major beneficial impact on the 

two islands. However, even with these 

restoration efforts it is likely that localized 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on soils 

would continue due to erosion on several 

roads on Santa Rosa Island. 

The wilderness designation on several of the 

islands would provide permanent long-term 

protection to soils. This action would have a 

negligible beneficial effect as it would not 

result in noticeable changes in the islands’ 

soils.

From a parkwide perspective, when compared 

to alternative 1, alternative 3 would have both 

long-term beneficial and adverse impacts. The 

construction of new visitor and administrative 

facilities on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands 

would affect a total of about 21 acres, resulting 

in localized long-term minor adverse soil 

impacts. Long-term moderate to major 

beneficial impacts would occur primarily due 

to the removal and restoration of roads on 

Santa Rosa Island. Overall, alternative 3 would 

have a long-term moderate beneficial impact 

on soils, primarily due to the closure of roads 

on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands.

Cumulative Impacts. As noted in the 

previous alternatives, soils in the park have 

been adversely affected by past actions, 

particularly due to overgrazing by livestock, 

construction of roads, and pig rooting on 

Santa Cruz Island, causing soil compaction 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

378

and erosion. Also like alternative 1, the recent 

removal of nonnative deer and elk from Santa 

Rosa Island and the elimination of feral pigs 

on Santa Cruz Island would be expected to 

result in a localized long-term moderate 

beneficial impact on soils on these islands. 

Revegetation and soil erosion control efforts 

also would continue on the islands, 

independent of this plan, such as efforts to 

rehabilitate eroding areas on the Smith 

Highway and Soledad Peak on Santa Rosa 

Island. These continuing restoration efforts 

should over time reduce the loss of soil in 

many problem areas, resulting in a continuing 

long-term moderate to major beneficial 

impact. When these impacts are added to the 

beneficial impacts on soils of closing and 

rehabilitating roads on these islands under 

alternative 3, and the localized long-term 

minor adverse impacts due to construction of 

new facilities, there would be a long-term 

moderate beneficial cumulative impact on 

soils. Although adverse impacts due to visitor 

use on the islands and development and use of 

several new facilities on the islands would 

detract from this beneficial cumulative impact, 

the restoration actions due to the alternative 

(particularly the closure of roads on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands) and other NPS 

beneficial restoration efforts independent of 

this plan would far outweigh these minor 

adverse impacts. 

Conclusion. Most of the park’s soils would 

not be affected by alternative 3. Soil impacts 

would largely be limited to Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands, and alternative 3 would 

have both beneficial and adverse impacts. No 

impacts due to changes in visitor uses under 

alternative 3 would result in greater than a 

negligible impact when considered from a 

parkwide perspective. Although alternative 3 

would result in some long-term minor adverse 

impacts to approximately 21 acres of soils 

(primarily due to the construction of new 

facilities in localized areas), when compared 

to alternative 1, alternative 3 overall would 

result in a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact, primarily due to the removal of roads 

and consequent decrease in erosion on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands. 

Paleontological Resources

Analysis. Alternative 3 probably would result 

in the highest use levels of the three 

alternatives, although these use levels would 

still be low. Most people would stay at the 

primary developed areas on Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands. There probably would be 

an increase in backcountry use on Santa Cruz 

and Santa Rosa islands, and to a much lesser 

degree on San Miguel Island, which 

potentially could result in an increase in the 

number of fossils that are illegally collected. 

Any fossils that are illegally collected would be 

a permanent loss of the resource. Because it is 

not known how many fossils are currently 

being collected illegally on the islands, it is 

difficult to know what the additional impacts 

of increased visitor use would be in alternative 

3. However, it is expected that only a few, if 

any, fossils would be lost because the increase 

in use would be limited and the fossils would 

not be apparent or readily accessible to most 

visitors to the islands. With adequate visitor 

education efforts and ranger patrols, the risk 

of these potential impacts could be further 

reduced. The closure and rehabilitation of 

some roads on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands would help reduce areas where fossil 

collecting could occur. As in alternative 1, the 

requirement that all hikers must be 

accompanied by a ranger should minimize 

impacts on paleontological resources on San 

Miguel Island. With ranger-led hikes, 

negligible impacts would be expected to the 

caliche forest on the island. Overall, compared 

to alternative 1, the change in visitor use levels 

in alternative 3 could result in a long-term 

minor adverse impact on paleontological 

resources.

Most of the island developments proposed 

under alternative 3 would occur in areas that 

have been previously disturbed, including the 

new administrative and visitor facilities in the 

Scorpion Valley area, the new administrative 
Impacts of Alternative 3

379

and visitor facilities in the Prisoners Harbor 

area on Santa Cruz Island, and the new 

developments at Bechers Bay on Santa Rosa 

Island. Surveys would be conducted prior to 

building new backcountry campsites and trails 

on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, which 

should avoid impacts to areas likely to have 

fossils. It is not known if any of the proposed 

new facilities on Santa Cruz or Santa Rosa 

island would increase access into fossiliferous 

areas that are currently inaccessible. 

Under alternative 3 expanded partnerships 

and more research would be expected to 

provide more information on the park’s 

paleontological resources, and enable park 

staff to better manage the park to avoid future 

impacts from visitor use. This would be 

expected to have a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impact.

The wilderness designation on several of the 

islands would provide permanent long-term 

protection to paleontological resources, 

precluding most potential developments that 

could adversely affect these resources. This 

action would have a negligible beneficial effect 

as it would not result in noticeable changes in 

the islands’ paleontological resources.

Overall, from a parkwide viewpoint, 

alternative 3 would likely have a long-term 

minor adverse impact on paleontological 

resources when compared to alternative 1, 

primarily due to an increase in backcountry 

visitor use on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands and the resulting increased potential 

for loss of fossils.

Cumulative Impacts. Aside from the actions 

in alternative 3, no known actions or projects 

inside or outside the park are believed to be 

affecting the park’s paleontological resources. 

Thus, alternative 3 would not have a 

cumulative impact on the park’s 

paleontological resources. 

Conclusion. Without adequate information 

on the presence and location of 

paleontological resources in the park, it is 

difficult to determine the intensity of impacts 

due to alternative 3. However, compared to 

alternative 1, alternative 3 could have longterm minor adverse impacts, primarily due to 

increased backcountry use and possible illegal 

collecting of fossils. No cumulative impacts 

would be expected to occur.

Water Quality

Analysis. Like alternative 1, no changes 

would occur to freshwater quality on Santa 

Barbara and San Miguel islands. With only 

one small storage facility being built on San 

Miguel Island, no new permanent facilities on 

Santa Barbara Island, small increases expected 

in visitor use levels on both islands, and with 

adequate sanitation facilities being provided, 

no changes to freshwater quality would be 

expected on these islands. 

On East Anacapa Island the construction of 

new residences and a new storage facility 

would not be near freshwater sources and 

should not affect water quality. Assuming the 

new residences would have sanitation systems 

to dispose of human waste, no impacts on 

water quality would occur.

Several administrative and visitor facilities 

would be built on Santa Cruz Island in the 

Prisoners Harbor area, and in and above 

Scorpion Valley under this alternative. 

Assuming best management practices are 

followed in the construction of these 

developments, few sediments would run off 

into nearby drainages, which would affect 

water turbidity, resulting in short-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

freshwater quality. The development of new 

restrooms at Prisoners Harbor and a new 

orientation area with restrooms near the 

Scorpion beach would not adversely affect 

water quality, provided they are properly 

designed and maintained.

The construction of several new visitor and 

administrative facilities on Santa Rosa Island, 

including a new campground and employee 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

380

housing, would occur in previously disturbed 

areas and would not affect drainages — with 

proper design and mitigation measures there 

would be no impact on water quality. 

Although there would be higher levels of 

visitors in the backcountry on Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands than in alternative 1, levels 

would still be relatively low. Little measurable 

water pollution would be expected from these 

visitors. This change would have a long-term 

negligible adverse impact on freshwater 

quality. 

Roads on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands 

would be closed and revegetated or converted 

into trails in alternative 3, which would reduce 

runoff and erosion. This would have a 

localized long-term moderate beneficial 

impact on water quality compared to 

alternative 1. Some local water pollution 

would still occur due to sedimentation from 

roads that are maintained, affecting water 

turbidity of some drainages. It is expected that 

this would be a long-term minor adverse 

impact on water quality. 

The wilderness designation on the islands 

would provide permanent long-term 

protection to water resources. This action 

would have a negligible beneficial effect as it 

would not result in noticeable changes in 

freshwater resources on the islands.

Alternative 3 would likely result in the same 

impacts on marine water quality due to boat 

use as alternatives 1 and 2. It is expected that 

boat use in park waters would increase over 

time compared to alternative 1, As in the other 

alternatives, some boats would probably 

discharge wastes such as gray water and fuel 

into park waters. Long-term adverse impacts 

would be due to discharges of petroleum 

products from visitor boats using the pier. The 

overall impact of visitor boats on the park’s 

marine water quality would probably be a 

minor adverse impact. But like alternatives 1 

and 2, in areas where there are concentrations 

of boats (such as Scorpion, Smugglers, and 

East Anacapa Island), there could be a 

localized long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impact on water quality due to the 

discharges of pollutants (e.g., petroleum 

products and human waste) over the life of 

this plan.

Under alternative 3 there would be expanded 

partnerships and more research, which could 

mean additional efforts to monitor water 

quality. With more information on status and 

trends for the park’s water quality, it is 

expected that park managers would be able to 

better avoid water quality impacts due to 

visitors and administrative actions. This could 

have a long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impact.

From a parkwide perspective, alternative 3 

would have both beneficial and adverse 

impacts on water quality. Adverse water 

quality impacts would occur due to the 

construction and use of new visitor and 

administrative facilities and increased boat use 

in localized areas. However, overall, 

alternative 3 would have a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impact on freshwater 

quality, primarily due to the closure and 

rehabilitation of roads on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands, and a long-term minor 

adverse impact on marine water quality 

primarily due to discharges from visitors’ 

boats.

Cumulative Impacts. As in the previous 

alternatives, ongoing restoration activities on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands would have 

a beneficial impact on freshwater quality. Less 

erosion of sediments would occur in these 

areas, decreasing turbidity and improving 

water quality. 

Adding together the beneficial impacts of 

alternative 3 (due to the closure of roads on 

Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands) and the 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts 

(due to the construction of new developments 

and increased visitor use in the backcountry 

on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands) of 

alternative 3 with the impacts of continuing 

revegetation and erosion control efforts 
Impacts of Alternative 3

381

independent of the plan, overall there would 

be a localized minor to moderate beneficial 

cumulative impact on freshwater quality. 

With regard to marine waters, alternative 3 

would have about the same potential for a 

cumulative impact as alternative 1. The 

replacement of the Bechers Bay and Scorpion 

Harbor piers would result in increases in 

turbidity during the construction period 

(including removal of the existing piers), 

resulting in a long-term minor adverse impact 

on water quality in these areas. Nonpark 

sources, such as discharges or spills from 

visitors’ boats, ships, and oil and gas 

platforms; sewage disposal; and agricultural 

and urban runoff from the mainland have 

affected, and can affect, the park’s water 

quality. Enforcement and education efforts 

regarding the 2009 Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary regulations would be 

expected to help avoid discharges by boaters 

and shipping companies and, therefore, would 

likely have a long-term beneficial impact of 

unknown magnitude. Adding the adverse 

impacts of alternative 3 (increase in water 

pollution due to more boats and the impacts 

of other nonpark pollution sources) could 

result in an adverse cumulative impact. 

Although the very large diluting volume of the 

ocean would reduce the additive impact of all 

of these pollution sources, a long-term minor 

to moderate adverse cumulative impact on 

water quality could occur in places around the 

islands. However, the increment added by 

visitor boat use and facility construction 

under alternative 3 to the overall cumulative 

impact from nonpark sources would be very 

minor.

Conclusion. Freshwater quality on most of 

the islands would not be affected by 

implementing alternative 3. Compared to 

alternative 1, alternative 3 overall would result 

in a long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impact, primarily due to the closure of and 

revegetation of roads on Santa Rosa and Santa 

Cruz islands and localized long-term minor 

adverse impacts on marine water quality 

primarily due to discharges from visitors’ 

boats. Alternative 3 could also result in a 

localized long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial cumulative impact on freshwater 

quality, and a localized long-term minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative impact on the 

park’s marine water quality (although the 

increment contributed by alternative 3 would 

be very minor). 

Floodplain Values and Flooding in 

Scorpion Valley on Santa Cruz Island

Analysis. Under alternative 3 a maintenance 

area (including fuel and hazardous material 

storage facilities, and plant nursery) and 

storage structures would be built adjacent to 

the corral, above the Scorpion Creek 

floodplain but near another small drainage. 

These facilities would be located here because 

the natural floodplain in this area has already 

been disturbed and there were no other 

suitable locations (see appendix G). Building 

these administrative facilities would have a 

long-term minor adverse impact on a small 

drainage and floodplain values (primarily due 

to the alteration of soils and vegetation). 

Building the facilities would result in a longterm minor adverse impact on human life and 

property due to flooding. Because the 

alternative calls for hazardous materials to be 

stored outside the 500-year floodplain, there 

should be no impact on floodplain values. 

Although floods could occur in the area, due 

to the time these facilities would be used 

(primarily during the summer), the risk is 

considered low that these facilities would be 

seriously damaged or people would be hurt 

during the life of this plan.

Like alternative 2, under alternative 3 

restoration actions at the mouth of Scorpion 

Creek, including reestablishment of native 

vegetation and removal of the road that 

crosses through the wetland, would help 

restore floodplain values and functions, and 

would have a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact. On the other hand, sediment from the 

Scorpion stream channel would be 

periodically excavated to reduce the risk of 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

382

future major floods. As noted in the 

alternative, an estimated 8,000 cubic yards of 

material would be periodically removed from 

the channel and temporarily stockpiled on the 

south side of the stream, above the upper road 

crossing to the west. These actions would alter 

the path of natural streamflows, riparian soils, 

and vegetation, and could have a long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impact on the 

floodplain values. The magnitude of the 

impact would depend on how often the 

excavation occurs, when and where it is done, 

how much sediment is removed, where it is 

deposited, and what mitigation measures are 

employed. This impact would be further 

evaluated in a future compliance document. In 

addition, permits from the Corps of Engineers 

and California Central Coast Regional Water 

Quality Control Board would need to be 

obtained before the actions could occur. 

The wilderness designation would have no 

effect on the floodplain values and flooding in 

Scorpion Valley.

Alternative 3 also would have a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impact due to a 

reduced risk to human life and park facilities 

in the Scorpion Valley area. The various 

measures noted above would decrease the 

likelihood of a flood occurring that would 

result in the loss of park facilities or pose a risk 

to people. However, these measures would 

not eliminate the risk — there would continue 

to be a risk of damage or loss of structures due 

to a future flood in this area under alternative 

3. 

Cumulative Impacts. No other known 

actions or activities inside or outside the park 

would affect the Scorpion Valley floodplain. 

Thus, there would be no cumulative impacts 

due to alternative 3. 

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would have about 

the same effects as alternative 2. Restoration 

actions in the small estuarine wetland at the 

mouth of Scorpion Valley would have longterm moderate beneficial impacts on natural 

floodplain values, while there would be longterm moderate adverse impacts due to the

periodic removal of sediment from the 

Scorpion drainage. From a flood risk 

standpoint, the actions at Scorpion Valley 

would have a long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impact on reducing flood risks and 

reducing the risk to human life and property 

in these areas (although there would continue 

to be a risk of damage or loss of structures 

from a future flood in the Scorpion area). 

Wetlands (Scorpion Valley)

Analysis. Alternative 3 would have the same 

effects on the Scorpion Valley wetlands as 

alternative 2. In Scorpion Valley the actions 

taken to restore riverine channel habitat and 

plant native vegetation would enhance 

wetland values (e.g., vegetation and 

hydrology) in this area and would be expected 

to have a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact. Periodically dredging the Scorpion 

Creek channel could adversely affect the 

riverine/ lower perennial/rock bottom 

wetlands. However, this area has no 

vegetation, flooding periodically alters the 

channel, and the area has already been 

adversely affected by past human activities. 

Thus, the impact of dredging, assuming the 

equipment stays in the channel and operations 

are closely monitored, would likely have a 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impact 

on this wetland.

The wilderness designation would have no 

impact on the wetlands in Scorpion Valley.

Cumulative Impacts. No known actions or 

activities inside or outside the park would 

affect this wetland. Thus, there would be no 

cumulative impact on the wetland at the 

mouth of the Scorpion Valley.

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would have a longterm moderate beneficial impact on the 

wetland at the mouth of Scorpion Valley due 

to the floodplain restoration activities that 

would take place in this alternative. There also 

would be a long-term negligible to minor 
Impacts of Alternative 3

383

adverse impact on riverine wetlands in 

Scorpion Valley due to periodic dredging 

operations. No cumulative impacts would 

occur as a result of the alternative. 

Terrestrial Plant 

Communities and Vegetation

Analysis. As in the previous alternatives, from 

a parkwide standpoint visitors and NPS staff 

would likely continue to accidentally 

introduce or spread nonnative plants to the 

islands. Although many nonnative species are 

already widespread on the islands, additional 

people on the islands would increase the 

potential for the introduction and spread of 

nonnative species. The potential for the 

introduction of these species would be 

reduced with visitor education efforts and 

providing visitors with brushes and boot 

scrapers to rid their boots and clothing of 

nonnative plant seeds before they set foot on 

the islands. But in spite of these mitigative 

actions, nonnative plant species would still 

likely be introduced in the park. Competition 

between nonnative and native plants could 

result in changes in native plant distribution, 

numbers, structure, and ecological processes 

(e.g., recycling of nutrients and fire). The 

impact of these introductions cannot be 

predicted, but could vary from long-term 

negligible to major adverse impacts depending 

on the characteristics of the nonnative plant 

species (e.g., how aggressive it is) that is 

unintentionally introduced. 

Like the other alternatives, there would be no 

major changes in management or use of Santa 

Barbara, Anacapa, or San Miguel island under 

alternative 3. The two new housing units and a 

small equipment storage building that would 

be built on East Anacapa Island and a small 

storage facility on San Miguel Island would be 

located in previously disturbed areas and 

would have a negligible impact on native 

vegetation. Reducing the size of the East 

Anacapa campground and revegetating the 

abandoned campsites with native plants 

would have a minor beneficial impact.

On San Miguel Island, there would likely be a 

small increase in use due to guided trips to the 

western end of the island; however, as long as 

visitors are required to be with a guide when 

they go hiking, the impact on native vegetation 

should be negligible. The designation of an 

area for a spike camp would have a localized 

long-term minor adverse impact on vegetation 

due to trampling and resulting damage to 

vegetation. 

As noted previously, use levels would increase 

in alternative 3 compared to alternative 1 

(although use levels would still be relatively 

low). Most visitors would stay in the primary 

developed areas and would not affect native 

vegetation. However, backcountry use on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands would 

likely increase, which would increase the 

potential for disturbance of vegetation in 

more areas than in alternative 1. Providing 

commercial vehicle operations on Santa Rosa 

Island would mean that more of the island 

could be impacted by visitors. Most hikers 

would stay on trails or roads, but some would 

wander off, inadvertently crushing or 

trampling vegetation. It is not expected that 

rare endemic plant populations would be 

adversely affected by a small increase in 

people hiking along roads or trails in the 

backcountry. Visitors are not known to 

currently affect these populations, and there is 

no reason to believe that more people would 

affect the plants. Most areas with endemic 

species, such as areas with coastal sage scrub, 

chaparral, coastal dunes, and the faces of 

coastal bluffs, would remain inaccessible or 

their habitats would not be frequently used by 

visitors. Overall, compared to alternative 1 it is 

expected that visitor use in alternative 3 would 

likely have a long-term minor adverse impact 

on vegetation on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands, provided the level of backcountry use 

does not substantially increase. (However, if 

nonnative plants were to be introduced to the 

islands by visitors, depending on the plant 

species, the impact could increase to a longterm moderate to major adverse impact.)
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

384

Compared to alternative 1, increased visitor 

numbers in alternative 3 also might increase 

the risk of an accidental fire. The potential 

adverse consequences of fires have changed 

on the islands due to the widespread 

conversion of native plant communities to 

annual grasses. The presence of invasive weed 

plants would exacerbate the negative effects 

of a wildfire. Many nonnative plants would 

spread following a wildfire. However, the 

likelihood of such a wildfire being sparked by 

visitors, even with an increase in visitor 

numbers, is considered low, given the 

relatively few visitors that would be on the 

islands and the prohibitions on open fires in 

the backcountry 

New developments on Santa Cruz and Santa 

Rosa islands under alternative 3 would have 

local impacts on vegetation. Some small 

developments would be built in previously 

disturbed areas or areas with little native 

vegetation. In the Scorpion Valley, the 

development of a maintenance structure, an 

interpretive storage barn, a new orientation 

area near the beach, a concessions housing 

area near the campground, and the expansion 

of the existing NPS housing area would all be 

built in areas where native vegetation has 

already been altered. Similarly, the 

maintenance/storage structure and parking 

spaces at Prisoners Harbor would be built in 

areas where native vegetation has already been 

altered. Likewise, on Santa Rosa Island the 

expanded NPS housing area, new 

campground and field station, NPS 

concession/transportation staging area, visitor 

orientation area, and island transportation 

hub/operations center at Bechers Bay, and the 

administrative support and day use areas at 

Johnson’s Lee would be in areas where native 

vegetation already has been altered. As a 

result, although some vegetation would be lost 

due to the above new developments, little 

native vegetation would be affected by these 

developments. Thus, all of the above actions 

would be expected to have a long-term minor 

adverse impact on native vegetation provided 

construction equipment stays in the existing 

footprints and/or disturbed areas. 

Construction work involved in converting 

some of the existing ranch buildings to visitor 

and administrative facilities at Bechers Bay 

would be expected to have a negligible shortterm impact on native vegetation because this 

area also has lost most of its native plant cover. 

The construction and use of new backcountry 

campsites and trails on the Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands also would result in 

vegetation being cleared and the loss and 

alteration of vegetation in localized areas, 

resulting in a long-term minor adverse impact.

Construction of an employee housing area in 

the Prisoners Harbor area would result in the 

loss and/or alteration of less than about 1 acre 

of vegetation. The loss of native vegetation in 

this area would result in a localized long-term 

minor adverse impact. 

Like alternative 2, under alternative 3 periodic 

excavation of sediment in Scorpion Creek on 

Santa Cruz Island and deposition of sediments 

on land could adversely affect vegetation 

along or near the stream channel, depending 

on where the sediment is placed. Construction 

equipment also could crush vegetation on the 

way to the disposal site. However, the 

identified disposal site is an area that has been 

disturbed in the past and has little native 

vegetation. Assuming that care is taken in this 

operation, there likely would be a long-term 

minor adverse impact on native vegetation in a 

limited area.

Several actions in alternative 3 would have a 

beneficial impact on native vegetation. The 

closure and rehabilitation or conversion to 

trails of 72 miles of roads on Santa Rosa Island 

and 12 miles of roads on Santa Cruz Island 

would help eliminate the loss of vegetation 

due to erosion and increase natural vegetative 

cover. Depending on what efforts are taken to 

restore vegetation, the alternative could have a 

long-term moderate beneficial impact on the 

vegetation at those islands.

Under alternative 3 additional actions would 

be taken to control invasive nonnative plants, 
Impacts of Alternative 3

385

such as stone pine, eucalyptus, and pepper 

trees, which contribute to Santa Cruz Island’s 

cultural landscapes. As noted in the 

alternative, the removal of the nonnative 

plants in cultural landscapes would only occur 

if the spread of the plants cannot be 

controlled. The containment and possible 

replacement of eucalyptus trees in the 

Scorpion campgrounds would also help 

prevent the spread of these nonnative trees. In 

addition, management of the Smugglers 

Cove’s olive grove to substantially reduce the 

spread of olives throughout the island would 

have a long-term beneficial impact on island 

native vegetation. All of these actions would 

help prevent the invasive nonnative plants 

from spreading across the island and 

outcompeting and displacing native plants. As 

a result, compared to alternative 1, alternative 

3 would have a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact on plant communities on Santa Cruz 

Island.

As in alternative 2, under alternative 3 

expanded partnerships and more research and 

inventorying/monitoring would provide more 

information on status and trends for the 

park’s vegetation. This would be expected to 

better enable managers to be aware of threats 

and avoid potential future impacts, which 

could result in a long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impact.

The wilderness designation on several of the 

islands would provide permanent long-term 

protection to the park’s terrestrial vegetation. 

This action would have a negligible to minor 

beneficial effect. Most restoration activities 

would be in nonwilderness areas and would 

not be affected by the designation. Precluding 

most future developments would benefit 

vegetation. Since Channel Islands is already a 

national park and the islands are being largely 

zoned to protect native species and ecological 

processes, the wilderness designation by itself 

would result in few noticeable changes in 

vegetation on the islands.

From a parkwide perspective, alternative 3 

would have both beneficial and adverse 

impacts on the park’s native vegetation. 

Overall, the alternative would be expected to 

have a long-term moderate beneficial effect on 

the islands’ vegetation, primarily due to steps 

taken to control nonnative species on Santa 

Cruz Island and the closure and rehabilitation 

of roads on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands. However, long-term minor adverse 

impacts would occur in localized areas on the 

islands due to increased visitor use and 

construction of facilities — a total of about 2 

acres of relatively natural vegetation would be 

lost or altered due to new developments on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands. 

Cumulative Impacts. As described in the 

impacts of alternative 1, the vegetation of the 

park has been substantially altered by past 

human actions, although some native plant 

populations and vegetative communities are 

recovering. 

The elimination of deer, elk, and pigs stopped 

browsing and soil impacts caused by these 

nonnative animal species. As a result of these 

efforts, native vegetation on Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands is recovering, particularly 

native vegetation in riparian areas, as well as 

rare plant species on the islands. This would 

likely have a localized long-term moderate to 

major beneficial effect on native plants on the 

islands. 

Also like alternative 1, other restoration 

activities would continue on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands, independent of this plan, 

including revegetation efforts on the islands, 

efforts to control the introduction and spread 

of nonnative plant populations, and soil 

erosion control efforts. These efforts all 

would have a localized long-term moderate to 

major beneficial impact on vegetation due to 

an increase the abundance and distribution of 

native plant species on the islands. 

When the long-term moderate beneficial 

impacts of alternative 3 are added to the longterm moderate to major beneficial effects of 

other past, present, and future restoration 

actions occurring independently of this plan, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

386

there would be a long-term moderate 

beneficial cumulative impact primarily due to 

the restoration of natural vegetation in more 

areas of the park. Alternative 3 would add 

both a beneficial and a minor adverse 

increment to this overall cumulative impact.

Conclusion. Like the previous alternatives, 

most of the park’s vegetation would not be 

directly affected by alternative 3. The 

alternative would result in several long-term 

minor adverse impacts in local areas on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, primarily due to 

the clearing of vegetation for a number of new 

administrative and visitor facilities and an 

increase in backcountry use. A total of about 

1.5 acres of relatively natural vegetation would 

be lost or altered due to new developments on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands. Overall, 

compared to alternative 1, alternative 3 would 

have a long-term moderate beneficial impact 

primarily due to the closure of roads on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, and additional 

actions taken to control the spread of invasive 

nonnative species on Santa Cruz Island. There 

also would be a moderate beneficial 

cumulative impact on vegetation when the 

actions in the alternative are added to other 

actions that would occur independently of the 

plan (although alternative 3 would add a 

minor adverse increment to this overall 

cumulative impact). 

Terrestrial and Marine Wildlife

Analysis. Like alternatives 1 and 2, most 

wildlife populations on the islands would not 

be affected by alternative 3. No major new 

developments or substantial changes in 

visitation patterns would occur that would 

likely affect wildlife. Like alternative 2, the 

new backcountry management zones would 

increase protection in some areas. In 

particular, the backcountry management 

zones along the Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

island coastlines would help avoid impacts on 

pinnipeds and seabirds that might otherwise 

be caused by kayakers and other boaters. 

Although many of these areas are currently 

closed to visitor access, other beaches are still 

open to use. Pinnipeds and seabirds are highly 

susceptible to disturbance due to the presence 

of people (Anderson and Keith 1980; 

Anderson 1988; Brasseur 1993; Engelhard et 

al. 2002; Johnson et al. 1989; Suryan and 

Harvey 1999). By avoiding potential 

disturbance and displacement of animals in 

these areas, the new management areas would 

have a localized long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impact on pinniped and seabird 

populations compared to alternative 1. 

More people would likely visit San Miguel 

Island to participate in the guided multiday 

hikes to see pinnipeds compared to alternative 

1, although use levels would not be expected 

to substantially increase. So long as visitors are 

required to be accompanied by a ranger while 

hiking on the island, negligible impacts should 

occur to pinnipeds and other wildlife. The 

designation of a spike camp on San Miguel 

Island for the guided hikes would also result 

in the temporary displacement or change in 

behavior of some wildlife, such as insects, 

mice, and landbirds, but the animals should 

return when the people leave, resulting in a 

long-term negligible adverse impact.

The construction and use of new backcountry 

campsites and trails on Santa Rosa and Santa 

Cruz islands in alternative 3 would result in 

the loss of wildlife habitat in localized areas, 

but if the facilities are located to avoid 

important wildlife areas, they should have a 

negligible impact on island wildlife 

populations.

Alternative 3 would likely result in higher 

visitor levels on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands compared to alternative 1. However, 

most of these people would likely stay in the 

primary developed areas and would not affect 

wildlife. There likely would be a small increase 

in backcountry use on Santa Cruz and Santa 

Rosa islands, which might temporarily disturb 

and/or displace or change the behavior of 

some animals, such as mice, songbirds, island 

jays, and island spotted skunks. However, 

once the visitors have passed by, these animals 
Impacts of Alternative 3

387

would return. Any improper food storage and 

feeding of wildlife in the backcountry could 

attract animals such as mice and ravens, which 

also would have the same impact as alternative 

1 — a localized long-term negligible adverse 

impact. Thus, the increase in backcountry use 

in alternative 3 would be expected to have a 

localized long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impact.

Most of the new administrative and visitor 

facilities in alternative 3 on East Anacapa 

Island, in the Scorpion Valley area and 

Prisoners Harbor on Santa Cruz Island, at 

Bechers Bay and Johnson’s Lee on Santa Rosa 

Island, and on San Miguel Island would be 

built in areas that have been disturbed by 

people and are not important wildlife habitat. 

New developments on Santa Cruz Island (e.g., 

the NPS housing area near Prisoners Harbor) 

and on Santa Rosa Island (e.g., the field station 

near Bechers Bay and the developed visitor 

area at Johnson’s Lee), and on San Miguel 

Island (the spike camp) would result in the 

loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

However, none of the facilities would be in 

key feeding, nesting, roosting, or breeding

areas or migration routes. Some animals such 

as mice may be temporarily displaced during 

construction of the facilities, resulting in 

localized short-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts. Use of these developments 

would be expected to have a localized longterm negligible to minor adverse impact on 

native wildlife habitat and populations.

Expansion of facilities and the number of 

people (personnel, cooperators, and visitors) 

would increase the risk of accidental 

introductions of nonnative animals. As an 

example, the lodge at Santa Rosa Island would 

result in an increase in luggage, food, 

equipment, and trash as a result of this 

operation, which in turn would increase the 

chance of an accidental transfer of nonnative 

animals onto an island. 

Several management actions under this 

alternative would affect nonnative vegetation, 

including control of nonnative tree species on 

Santa Cruz Island. This could affect species, 

such as hummingbirds that feed on eucalyptus 

flowers, and animals such as scrub jays and

island spotted skunks that feed on olives. 

Because other food sources are present, 

additional efforts to control the spread of 

these trees would be expected to have a longterm negligible to minor adverse impact on 

the wildlife populations of the island. 

The periodic removal of sediment from the 

Scorpion Creek channel would be in a 

previously disturbed area where people and 

facilities have been present. Thus, this action 

should result in a long-term negligible adverse 

impact to wildlife populations.

Alternative 3 would result in several beneficial 

impacts on wildlife habitat due to the 

revegetation/restoration of areas on Santa 

Cruz and Santa Rosa islands. On Santa Cruz 

Island the restoration actions in the estuarine 

wetland at Scorpion would have a long-term 

minor beneficial impact on species such as 

salamanders, waterfowl, and passerines such 

as the orange-crowned warbler and rubycrowned kinglet. 

The closure and revegetation of roads on 

Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands would 

result in areas where few, if any, people 

ventured. However, visitor disturbance of 

wildlife would be highly unlikely in many of 

these areas — few people would likely go into 

the remote areas even if the roads were 

present, given the time needed to reach the 

areas. Thus, the beneficial impact of the road 

closures on wildlife populations likely would 

be minor.

As in alternative 2, alternative 3 expanded 

partnerships to do more research and 

monitoring would provide more information 

on status and trends for the park’s wildlife, 

which should better enable managers to 

identify future threats and avoid impacts. This 

action would be expected to have a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impact.
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

388

The wilderness designation on the islands 

would provide permanent long-term 

protection to the park’s terrestrial wildlife. 

This action would have a negligible to minor 

beneficial effect. Precluding most future 

developments would benefit wildlife. Since 

Channel Islands is already a national park and 

the islands are being largely zoned to protect

native species and ecological processes, 

wilderness designation by itself would result 

in few noticeable changes in wildlife on the 

islands.

Although alternative 3 would have some 

localized negligible to minor adverse impacts, 

from a parkwide perspective, alternative 3 

would have a long-term minor beneficial 

impact on the park’s terrestrial and marine 

wildlife populations, primarily due to 

restoration actions included under the 

alternative.

Cumulative Impacts. The replacement of the 

Bechers Bay and Scorpion Harbor piers would 

result in increases in turbidity during the 

construction period (including removal of the 

existing piers), resulting in a long-term minor 

adverse impact on water quality in these areas.

As in alternative 2, alternative 3 would have 

the same potential for cumulative effects on 

seabird and pinniped populations in the 

region such as oil spills, pollutants, or changes 

in fish populations due to harvests. However, 

these impacts are considered unlikely and/or 

it is not possible to predict that these events 

would occur during the life of this plan.

As described under alternative 1, the marine 

protected areas around the park would be 

expected over time to have a beneficial impact 

on seabirds and pinnipeds, possibly 

decreasing disturbance caused by boats in the 

area and increasing fish populations these 

species feed on. However, the state marine 

protected areas have been in place for only a 

short time; therefore, the magnitude of the 

impact is unknown.

The implementation of the sanctuary 

regulations, including protecting the area’s 

water quality and limiting or prohibiting 

activities that impact the sea floor, likely has 

had a beneficial impact on the park’s marine 

wildlife populations, preventing pollution that 

could affect wildlife, although the magnitude 

of the impact is unknown and would vary 

depending on the level of enforcement and 

education efforts.

On the other hand, as described in alternative 

1, it is likely that squid boats fishing in park 

waters during the seabird breeding season, 

even with shielded lights and wattage 

restrictions, would result in mortality of 

Scripp’s murrelets, ashy storm-petrels, black 

storm-petrels, rhinoceros auklets, and 

Cassin’s auklets. It is uncertain what impacts 

the squid fishing is having on the park’s 

seabirds since the location of the fleet varies 

from year to year, but it would be expected to 

result in some decreases in the abundance of 

local populations, resulting in a long-term 

unknown adverse impact. Also, squid fishing 

would likely affect pinnipeds feeding on 

squid. Squid are the primary prey of California 

sea lions and are eaten by most of the 

pinnipeds using the park. If squid harvest 

levels increase relative to past harvest levels 

and/or if harvest levels continue at high levels 

over the life of this plan, there could be a longterm adverse impact of unknown magnitude 

on the pinniped populations using the park 

(Jeff Laake, NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center, pers. comm. March 18, 2005).

When the above adverse impacts are added to 

the potential beneficial effects of the marine 

protected areas and marine sanctuary 

regulations, and the minor beneficial and 

adverse effects of alternative 3, there could be 

a long-term beneficial cumulative impact to 

pinnipeds and seabirds that use the park. 

However, given the uncertainty and lack of 

data, it is not possible to determine the 

magnitude of such a beneficial cumulative 

impact. Alternative 3 would add a minor 

beneficial increment to this overall cumulative 

impact due to the new backcountry
Impacts of Alternative 3

389

management zones, and a negative increment 

due to the potential effects of increased 

numbers of kayakers and other recreational 

boaters visiting the park. However, neither of 

these actions would substantially alter the 

overall intensity of the cumulative impact. 

As stated under alternative 1, past and 

ongoing restoration efforts on the islands have 

had a major beneficial effect on the islands’ 

native terrestrial fauna. As in all of the 

alternatives, ecosystem restoration efforts on 

Anacapa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Rosa islands 

would continue independent of this plan, 

including revegetation efforts. These actions, 

particularly the elimination of nonnative 

wildlife, would have a substantial beneficial 

effect on native wildlife populations, 

eliminating sources of competition, providing 

more habitat, and generally increasing native 

wildlife populations, including the sideblotched lizard, Channel Islands slender 

salamander, island fox, Santa Cruz gopher 

snake, mice, and landbirds such as the island 

scrub jay. The recovery of native vegetation 

due to these restoration efforts also would 

benefit native wildlife populations. When the 

beneficial impacts of alternative 3 (e.g., 

designating areas as backcountry management 

zones, the closure of some roads on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, and increased 

monitoring and research) are added to the 

ongoing and future beneficial restoration 

actions occurring independently of this 

alternative, the result could be a long-term 

moderate to major beneficial impact on 

terrestrial wildlife populations such as 

salamanders, lizards, bats, and landbirds 

(although alternative 3 would likely add a 

minor beneficial increment to this overall 

impact). The minor adverse impacts of 

alternative 3 due to increased backcountry use 

and new developments would not 

substantially detract from the overall 

beneficial cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Overall, most wildlife 

populations would not be affected by the 

actions under alternative 3. Compared to 

alternative 1, there would be long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

wildlife habitat due to the construction of 

several new small visitor and administrative 

developments, and long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impacts due to increased 

numbers of people in backcountry areas on 

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands. Alternative 

3 also would result in some localized longterm minor to moderate beneficial impacts 

due to the designation of backcountry

management zone along the coasts of Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, the closure of 

roads, and increased monitoring and research. 

When combined with continuing restoration 

efforts, alternative 3 could have a long-term 

moderate to major beneficial cumulative 

impact on native terrestrial wildlife (although 

the alternative would add a minor beneficial 

increment to these impacts). There could also 

be a long-term beneficial cumulative impact 

on the park’s seabirds and pinnipeds of 

unknown magnitude when the effects of nonNPS actions in park waters, such as the marine 

protected areas, are added to the beneficial 

and adverse effects of alternative 3. 

Threatened and Endangered Species

Analysis. As in the other alternatives, no new 

developments would likely affect the park’s 

island night lizard, snowy plover, or island fox 

populations under alternative 3. No changes 

in visitation patterns would occur on Santa 

Barbara Island as a result of this alternative 

that would affect the island night lizard.

Snowy plover breeding numbers have been 

declining and may continue to decline on the 

islands due to several possible reasons, but no 

actions are being taken as part of this 

alternative that would likely affect this trend. 

Snowy plover habitat would be provided more 

protection under alternative 3 than under 

alternative 1 — all of San Miguel and Santa 

Rosa islands’ primary snowy plover beaches 

would be in the backcountry management 

zone, which would be closed to public use or 

closed during the nesting season. Although 

use levels would increase under alternative 3, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

390

these visitors would largely stay in developed 

areas and would not affect the birds. It is not 

likely that visitor use patterns would 

substantially change on the beaches used by 

the plovers. Some birds might be temporarily 

disturbed by visitors who land or hike on the 

beaches, but no information indicates that 

current low numbers of visitors are adversely 

affecting the island’s population. Assuming 

visitor use of the beaches does not 

substantially increase, and with sufficient 

educational outreach efforts and periodic 

NPS patrols, any impacts would be expected 

to be infrequent due to the small number of 

plovers scattered on the beaches. If visitor use 

impacts were identified in the future, the park 

staff would consult with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to identify and implement appropriate 

mitigation measures, such as signs or closing 

beaches to access. Consequently, alternative 3 

would have about the same effect as 

alternative 1 — a long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impact, which may affect, but 

would not likely adversely affect, the park’s 

snowy plover populations. 

Visitors would rarely see foxes in the wild on 

Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel 

islands due to the large areas of the islands, 

small fox populations, and expected low use 

levels. On a rare occasion, some visitors may 

see or encounter foxes, affecting the foxes’ 

behavior. Some feeding of foxes may occur, 

with the result that some foxes may become 

habituated to humans and expect to be fed. 

However, this would not adversely affect the 

fox populations. 

Visitor shuttles driving on roads on Santa 

Rosa Island could hit and kill or injure foxes. 

However, this would be a very rare 

occurrence — relatively few vehicles would be 

using the roads, the condition of the roads 

forces slower vehicle speeds, and given the 

extensive road system it would be highly 

unlikely that a fox would be crossing a road at 

the same time and place as a vehicle. Closing 

some roads also would reduce this possible 

mortality factor. Thus, alternative 3 would 

likely have the same effect on the island fox as 

alternative 1 — a long-term negligible adverse 

impact on the foxes, which may affect, but 

would not likely adversely affect, the park’s 

island fox populations.

Although visitor use would increase on Santa 

Rosa Island under this alternative, most 

visitors would not go into the backcountry. 

Visitors who do go into the backcountry 

should not affect the areas where the major 

populations of Hoffmann’s slender-flowered 

gilia occur. Also, the Skunk Point population 

would be in an area that would be closed to 

public use and would be protected by zoning 

as a backcountry management zone. As a 

result, the abundance of this population could 

experience a small increase. Thus, alternative 

3 would have a beneficial impact on this 

species compared to alternative 1 and may 

affect, but would not likely adversely affect, 

the gilia. 

As in the other alternatives, there could be 

some trampling of Santa Cruz Island chicory 

off the Lobo Canyon trail on Santa Rosa 

Island and trampling of island rush-rose off 

the Montanon Trail on Santa Cruz Island if 

hikers wander off the trails. Because visitor 

numbers would not substantially increase, the 

potential for impacts occurring under 

alternative 3 should not differ from alternative 

1. In both alternatives, with adequate warning 

given to visitors and ranger-led hikes, adverse 

impacts would not be expected. If visitor 

impacts were to occur to the plant 

populations, the park staff would consult with 

the Fish and Wildlife Service on additional 

actions to take to protect these plants, such as 

increasing education efforts or closing areas to 

access. Overall, alternative 3 would have a 

negligible adverse impact and may affect, but 

would not likely adversely affect, the Santa 

Cruz Island chicory and the island rush-rose.

No actions in alternative 3 would directly 

affect the habitat or populations of the Santa 

Rosa Island manzanita or the Hoffmann’s 

rock-cress and island barberry on Santa Cruz 

Island. But like alternative 2, under alternative 

3 these three listed plants would face a threat 
Impacts of Alternative 3

391

if a wildfire were to occur on the islands, 

accidentally sparked by visitors or NPS staff. 

With the potential for increased visitor use, 

the potential also would increase for an 

accidental fire to start and spread on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands — although the 

probability of this occurring would still be 

expected to be low, given user capacity limits 

and the relatively few additional people 

coming to the islands who would be near 

these plants’ habitat. Nevertheless, if a 

human-caused wildfire were to occur, it could 

quickly spread through the vegetation before 

a response could be organized and could 

extirpate some or all of these small isolated 

populations. Although there would be a slight 

increase in the risk of a fire affecting one or 

several of these three listed species, the 

mitigation actions being proposed (e.g., 

informing people about the risk of fire, closing 

areas with high fire danger, monitoring 

populations of the plants, and establishing 

seed collections) would reduce the risk of a 

wildfire affecting the populations on the 

islands. Thus, because the risk of fire would 

always be present, alternative 3 would have 

the same long-term negligible adverse impact 

as alternative 1 — the alternative may affect, 

but would not likely adversely affect, the Santa 

Rosa Island manzanita, Hoffmann’s rockcress, and island barberry.

The wilderness designation on the islands 

would provide permanent long-term 

protection to the park’s listed species. This 

action would have a negligible to minor 

beneficial effect. Precluding most future 

developments would benefit the listed species. 

Since Channel Islands is already a national 

park and the islands are being largely zoned to 

protect native species and ecological 

processes, as well as the protection bestowed 

by the ESA, wilderness designation by itself 

would result in few noticeable changes in the 

threatened and endangered species on the 

islands.

Overall, from a parkwide perspective, 

alternative 3 would have the same effect on 

the listed animal and plant species as 

alternative 1 – a long-term negligible to minor

adverse impact on the park’s listed species, 

which may affect, but would not likely 

adversely affect, these species. There could be 

a long-term minor beneficial impact to the 

Hoffmann’s slender-flowered gilia.

Cumulative Impacts. As noted under 

alternative 1, past and ongoing ecosystem 

restoration efforts on Santa Barbara Island 

have benefited the island night lizard by 

increasing its boxthorn habitat. No actions in 

alternative 3 plus actions by others would 

combine to affect the island night lizard. Thus, 

no cumulative impacts would occur to this 

species as a result of alternative 3.

In the case of the island fox, the Park Service 

is working to continue to protect this species 

on the islands independent of this plan. 

Alternative 3 would close roads on Santa Rosa 

and Santa Cruz islands, which would reduce a 

possible mortality factor, and permit visitor 

shuttles, which could increase the potential 

for road kills, although this is not likely. When 

the effects of alternative 3 are added to the 

positive effects of the recovery and ecosystem 

restoration efforts independent of this plan, 

there could be a long-term minor beneficial 

cumulative impact on the island foxes, which 

may affect but would not adversely affect, the 

island foxes (although alternative 3 would add 

a minor increment to this impact). 

As noted in alternative 1, the number of 

western snowy plovers has increased at 

several locations on the California mainland 

during the past few breeding seasons due 

primarily to past and ongoing efforts to 

control predators, protect nesting areas from 

disturbance, and make people aware of the 

sensitivity of the birds. If their productivity 

continues to increase, plovers may spread into 

more areas and eventually may recolonize 

parts of the park. When these positive impacts 

are added to the effects of occasional 

disturbance of plovers caused by visitors 

under alternative 3, there would be about the 

same potential for a cumulative effect as 

alternative 1 — there would be the potential 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

392

for a long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

cumulative impact, which likely would affect, 

but would not adversely affect, the species. 

Although alternative 3 may add an adverse 

increment to this cumulative impact, the effect 

would be very minor and would not alter the 

overall intensity of the cumulative impact.

For the island rush-rose, no additional NPS or 

other agency actions are occurring that would 

affect this species, no additional NPS or other 

agency actions are occurring on or off the 

islands, and no future actions are expected 

that would affect the plant. Thus, no 

cumulative impacts would occur due to the 

additive effects of alternative 3 on this species. 

In the case of the Santa Cruz Island chicory, it 

is expected that the Park Service and U.S. 

Geological Survey would continue to research 

methods for establishing or expanding 

populations on the islands to assist their 

recovery. This action would occur 

independently of this plan. No additional NPS 

or other agency actions or activities are 

occurring on or off the islands that are known 

to be affecting the chicory. Thus, no 

cumulative impacts would occur due to 

additive effects of alternative 3 on the Santa 

Cruz Island chicory.

As noted above, alternative 3 would pose a 

risk of fire affecting the island barberry and 

Hoffmann’s rock-cress, although with the 

proposed mitigation measures it is believed 

that the alternative may affect, but would not 

likely adversely affect, the species. However, 

the risk of wildfire would always be present, 

regardless of the alternative. No actions are 

occurring in alternative 3 that would directly 

affect these species. Independent of this plan, 

it is expected that the Park Service and U.S. 

Geological Survey would continue to research 

methods for establishing or expanding 

populations of island barberry to assist in its 

recovery. Adding the effects of alternative 3 to 

this other action would not be expected to 

result in a cumulative effect on the island 

barberry or the Hoffmann’s rock-cress.

The conversion of native vegetation to 

nonnative annual grasslands during the 

ranching era would be a continuing impact on 

the Hoffmann’s slender-flowered gilia on 

Santa Rosa Island. On the other hand, it is 

expected that research would continue on 

methods for establishing or expanding the 

Hoffmann’s slender-flowered gilia, and efforts 

would likely continue to establish new 

populations or expand the boundaries of 

existing populations on the island. These 

actions, which would be taken independent of 

this planning effort, should help maintain the 

taxon. Although in the past there were 

impacts on one of the populations of the 

Hoffmann’s slender-flowered gilia on Santa 

Rosa Island due to grading of the service road 

to East Point, this no longer occurs. No 

actions are occurring under alternative 3 that 

would affect this species. Thus, there would 

be no cumulative impact of alternative 3 on 

the Hoffmann’s slender-flowered gilia.

Alternative 3 also would pose a risk of fire 

affecting the Santa Rosa Island manzanita, 

although again, with the proposed mitigation 

measures, the alternative may affect, but 

would not likely adversely affect, the 

manzanita. In addition to the possibility of a 

wildfire, several other impacts may occur on 

the Santa Rosa Island manzanita. Deer have 

browsed the manzanita in the past, but the 

recent removal of deer likely has had a 

beneficial impact on the plant. In addition, the 

Park Service and U.S. Geological Service plan 

to establish a seed collection, which would 

help ensure that the manzanita would not be 

extirpated on the island. However, the Park 

Service would be taking no new actions under 

alternative 3 that would beneficially or 

adversely affect the plant. Thus, alternative 3 

would result in no cumulative impacts that 

may affect the Santa Rosa Island manzanita.

Conclusion. Overall, no new developments or 

changes in visitor use or island management 

would occur under alternative 3 that would 

adversely affect the nine threatened and 

endangered animal and plant species being 

analyzed. Alternative 3 would have no effect 
Impacts of Alternative 3

393

on the island night lizard. Expected visitor use 

levels on the islands under alternative 3, like 

alternative 1, would likely result in a negligible 

to minor adverse effect, which may affect, but 

would not likely adversely affect, the island 

fox, snowy plover, Santa Cruz Island chicory, 

island rush-rose, Santa Rosa manzanita, 

Hoffmann’s rock-cress, and island barberry 

populations. There could be a long-term 

minor beneficial impact to the Hoffmann’s 

slender-flowered gilia. Alternative 3 would 

result in no cumulative impacts to the listed 

plant species, and there would be the potential 

for the same long-term minor beneficial 

cumulative impacts to the snowy plover and 

island fox as alternative 1. 

Soundscape

Analysis. No substantial increases in visitor 

use would be expected under alternative 3. As 

in alternative 1, the primary sources of noise 

on the islands would continue to be from 

concentrations of visitors and boats, and the 

operation of machinery in localized areas, 

such as East Anacapa Island, Bechers Bay, 

Scorpion, Smugglers Cove, and Prisoners 

Harbor. There would be long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on the natural 

soundscape in these areas at varying times 

(e.g., holidays and weekends). Human-caused 

sounds (noise) would be apparent, changing 

the distribution of sound frequencies and 

oftentimes masking natural sounds. A longterm moderate adverse noise impact would 

continue to occur when aircraft land and take 

off on Santa Rosa Island, and much less 

frequently on San Miguel Island. 

As in alternative 1, the occasional operation of 

administrative motor vehicles on the roads on 

Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands also would 

continue to have a long-term minor adverse 

impact on the natural soundscape. In 

addition, under alternative 3 there would be 

an increase in motor vehicles (compared to 

alternative 1) being used to transport visitors 

to Torrey Pines, the trailhead at Lobo Canyon, 

and other locations on Santa Rosa Island. 

Compared to alternative 1 driving additional 

vehicles on the Santa Rosa Island roads would 

likely have a long-term minor adverse impact 

on the natural soundscape, depending on the 

number, type, and frequency of vehicles 

driving on the roads. On the other hand, the 

closure of roads on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands would reduce the areas where motor 

vehicle noise would be heard and would have 

a long-term minor beneficial impact.

The periodic excavation of the channel in 

Scorpion Valley and restoration actions in the 

Scorpion estuarine wetland would result in 

localized short-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on the soundscape due to 

noise generated by the operation of 

machinery and equipment.

Short-term minor noise impacts would occur 

in alternative 3 due to the construction of 

several administrative and visitor facilities in 

the park on East Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa 

Rosa, and San Miguel islands. Construction 

equipment and people would generate higher 

levels of noise, masking the natural 

soundscape at times. 

Most of the new facilities would be in areas 

that have other visitors and/or administrative 

facilities. Thus, the use of most of these 

facilities would result in long-term minor 

noise impacts in these areas compared to 

alternative 1. However, more people would 

use the new campground, lodging area, and 

island transportation hub/operations center at 

Bechers Bay compared to alternative 1 and, 

therefore, would result in increased levels of 

noise and a long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impact on the natural soundscape in 

these areas. 

Under alternative 3 several new facilities 

would be built in areas that currently receive 

little, if any, use. The new housing area, 

campground, and field camp at Prisoners 

Harbor, the new facilities at Johnson’s Lee, 

and the field station at Bechers Bay all would 

increase use of these areas, which in turn 

would result in higher noise levels from 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

394

people and equipment in the area. This would 

result in a short-term moderate adverse 

impact during construction and long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impact, depending 

on the level of use that occurs in these areas.

As in alternative 2, the possible development 

and use of new backcountry campsites and 

trails on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands 

and the establishment and use of a spike camp 

on San Miguel Island under alternative 3 

would result in more people using parts of the 

islands that received very little use in the past. 

Noise due to people in this area would be 

noticeable, compared to alternative 1, and 

would result in a long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impact on the natural 

soundscape in this area.

The wilderness designation on several of the 

islands would provide permanent long-term 

protection to the park’s natural soundscape. 

This action would have a negligible to minor 

beneficial effect. Precluding most future 

developments would benefit the natural 

soundscape. Since Channel Islands is already a 

national park and the islands are being largely 

zoned to protect natural resources, and with 

few human sources of noise in these areas, 

wilderness designation by itself would result 

in few noticeable changes in the islands’ 

soundscape.

From a parkwide perspective, visitor use, new 

developments, and management actions in 

alternative 3 would result in a long-term 

minor adverse impact compared to alternative 

1. However, changes in natural sound ambient 

conditions in popular use areas would result 

in localized short- and long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impact to the soundscape.

Cumulative Impacts. Noise from high flying 

aircraft and from offshore ships and boats that 

are not connected to park visitors or 

management would likely continue to be 

periodically heard on the islands. Noise due to 

ecosystem restoration efforts independent of 

this plan (e.g., vegetation restoration efforts 

on the islands) also would be periodically 

heard on the islands. In addition, noise may be 

periodically heard due to maintenance of 

roads on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, 

use of the Santa Cruz Island Navy Base, and 

testing and training operations in the Point 

Mugu Sea Range. Short-term noise would be 

heard when the Bechers Bay and Scorpion 

Harbor piers are replaced. When the noise 

impacts of the above actions are added to the 

noise impacts of the new developments, 

visitors, and park operations under alternative 

3, there would be the potential for a long-term 

minor to moderate cumulative adverse impact 

on the park’s natural soundscape in localized 

areas.

Conclusion. Like alternative 1, alternative 3 

would have no effect on the soundscape in 

most of the park. In localized areas, 

particularly at entry points to the islands, 

there would continue to be a long-term minor 

to moderate adverse noise impact due to 

concentrations of visitors, boats, and park 

operations. From a parkwide perspective, 

visitor use, new developments, and 

management actions in alternative 3 would 

result in a long-term minor adverse impact 

compared to alternative 1. However, changes 

in natural sound ambient conditions from 

construction and use of new visitor and 

administrative facilities in several developed 

areas, including parts of Bechers Bay, 

Prisoners Harbor, and Johnson’s Lee, would 

result in short- and long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts to the soundscape. 

When the effects of alternative 3 are added to 

other actions occurring independently of the 

alternative, there would also be the potential 

for localized long-term minor to moderate 

cumulative adverse impacts on the park’s 

natural soundscape. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Archeological (including Submerged 

Maritime) Resources

Analysis. As staffing and funding permit, 

archeological resources would be surveyed, 
Impacts of Alternative 3

395

inventoried, and evaluated under national 

register criteria of evaluation to determine 

their eligibility for listing in the national 

register. The surveys and research necessary 

to determine the eligibility of such resources 

for listing in the national register are a 

prerequisite for understanding the resources’ 

significance, as well as the basis of informed 

decision making in the future regarding how 

the resources should be managed. Such 

surveys and research would have long-term 

minor beneficial impacts.

Archeological surveys would occur as part of 

project planning and would precede any 

ground-disturbing activities (e.g., developing 

additional backcountry camping on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands, building 

concession facilities at Scorpion, constructing 

park housing and an access road on the Santa 

Cruz “isthmus,” developing concession 

facilities and an environmental / research 

camp on Santa Rosa Island, offering guided 

walks to pinniped rookeries on San Miguel 

Island, and installing blinds for wildlife 

viewing on Santa Barbara Island). Significant 

archeological resources would be avoided 

during construction. If during construction 

previously unknown archeological resources 

were discovered, all work in the immediate 

vicinity of the discovery would be halted until 

the resources could be identified and 

documented and, if the resources could not be 

preserved in situ, an appropriate mitigation 

strategy developed in consultation with the 

California SHPO and representatives of 

associated American Indian tribes. In the 

event that human remains, funerary objects, 

sacred objects, or objects of cultural 

patrimony are discovered during 

construction, provisions outlined in the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (25 USC 3001) of 1990 would 

be followed. These actions would help ensure 

that ground-disturbing activities would not 

impact the integrity of the site to the extent 

that the national register eligibility would be 

jeopardized. Because of these efforts to avoid 

or reduce adverse impacts on archeological 

resources, any adverse impacts would be 

expected to be site-specific, permanent, and 

kept in the minor to moderate range. 

Wilderness designation in alternative 3 would 

have a permanent negligible to minor adverse 

impact on archeological resources due to 

increased human activities in the backcountry, 

which would affect scientific research 

opportunities and cultural resources in the 

area proposed for wilderness designation. 

However, alternative 3 also would have a 

long-term minor beneficial impact on 

archeological resources due to the permanent 

protection bestowed by wilderness 

designation. The impact would be minor 

because the designation would result in few 

noticeable changes to these resources.

Increasing numbers of island visitors, 

additional backcountry camping, and an 

expanded diversity of visitor experiences and 

opportunities in the park would occur under 

this alternative. Archeological resources 

would be vulnerable to inadvertent damage 

and vandalism. Inadvertent impacts would 

include picking up or otherwise displacing 

artifacts, compacting cultural deposits, and 

creating social trails (which can lead to 

erosion and destabilization of the original site 

architecture). Intentional vandalism includes 

removing artifacts and probing and digging 

sites. Inadvertent damage and vandalism 

would result in a loss of surface archeological 

materials, alteration of artifact distribution, 

and a reduction of contextual evidence. Such 

adverse impacts could be mitigated through 

additional stabilization of the site, the 

elimination of social trails to disturbed or 

vulnerable sites, and/or the systematic 

collection of surface artifacts for long-term 

curation. Continued ranger patrol and 

emphasis on visitor education regarding the 

significance and fragility of such resources 

and how visitors can reduce their impacts to 

archeological resources would help 

discourage vandalism and inadvertent impacts 

and minimize adverse impacts. Potential 

adverse impacts would be permanent and 

minor. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

396

Cumulative Impacts. The past action of 

eliminating cattle, deer, elk, and horses from 

Santa Rosa Island has resulted in 

archeological resources being better protected 

because they are not being disturbed or 

compacted by these animals. Impacts to 

archeological resources would be site-specific, 

long term, minor and beneficial.

The past, present, and future action of 

restoring native plant communities through 

the removal of nonnative plants and planting 

native plants has resulted in, or has the 

potential to result in, the disturbance of 

unknown archeological resources. Impacts to 

archeological resources would be site-specific, 

long-term, minor, adverse, and permanent.

The past, present, and future action of 

allowing researchers to study, inventory, and 

monitor cultural resources via a research 

permit would be long-term, negligible, and 

beneficial.

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 3 would result in permanent minor 

to moderate adverse impacts and long-term 

minor beneficial impacts. These impacts, in 

combination with the long-term negligible 

adverse impacts of other past, present, and 

future actions, would result in long-term 

minor to moderate adverse cumulative 

impacts on archeological resources. The 

adverse impacts of alternative 3 would be a 

minor component of the adverse cumulative 

impact.

Conclusion. Increasing numbers of island 

visitors, development of new facilities for 

visitor use, and provision for an expanded 

diversity of visitor experiences and 

opportunities in alternative 3 would be 

expected to result in some long-term to 

permanent minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on an unknown number of 

archeological resources because of 

inadvertent and intentional ground 

disturbance. Alternative 3 would also result in 

long-term minor beneficial impacts on 

archeological resource due to the protection 

bestowed by wilderness designation. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

advisory council’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse

Effects), the Park Service concludes the 

proposed undertakings outlined in alternative 

3 would most likely be no adverse effect on 

archeological resources. The adverse effect 

determination would result from grounddisturbing activities.

Ethnographic Resources

Analysis. Actions under alternative 3 would 

generally have slighter greater impacts on 

ethnographic resources as those listed under 

alternative 2. Because this alternative would 

provide for increasing numbers of island 

visitors, construction of new facilities for 

visitor use, and an expanded diversity of 

visitor experiences in the park, actions under 

this alternative could be expected to have 

some long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on ethnographic resources. However, 

consultations with the Chumash would be 

undertaken to minimize and mitigate such 

impacts; therefore, the impacts, although 

noticeable, would neither appreciably alter 

resource conditions nor alter the relationship 

between the resource and Chumash practices 

and beliefs.

Research regarding other traditionally 

associated groups, such as fishermen, 

vaqueros, and others, would increase the 

understanding of other ethnographic 

resources and values of the islands. This 

information would allow park staff to more 

adequately consult with these groups, 

interpret their history, and identify and 

protect associated resources. This would 

result in a long-term minor beneficial impact 

on ethnographic resources.

Wilderness designation in alternative 3 would 

have a long term negligible to minor adverse 

impact on ethnographic resources due to 
Impacts of Alternative 3

397

increased human activities in the backcountry, 

which would affect scientific research 

opportunities and cultural resources in the 

area proposed for wilderness designation. 

However, alternative 3 also would have a 

long-term minor beneficial impact on 

ethnographic resources due to the permanent 

protection bestowed by wilderness 

designation. The impact would be minor 

because the designation would result in few 

noticeable changes to these resources.

Cumulative Impacts. The past, present, and 

future action of allowing researchers to study, 

inventory, and monitor cultural resources via 

a research permit would be long-term, 

negligible, and beneficial.

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 3 would result in long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts and longterm minor beneficial impacts. These impacts, 

in combination with the long-term negligible 

beneficial impacts of other past, present, and 

future actions, would result in long-term 

negligible adverse cumulative impacts to 

ethnographic resources. The adverse impacts 

of alternative 3 would be a slight component 

of the adverse cumulative impact.

Conclusion. Actions under alternative 3 

would have the same adverse impacts on 

ethnographic resources as those listed under 

alternative 2. Increasing numbers of visitors 

and an expanded diversity of visitor 

experiences on the islands under this 

alternative could be expected to have some 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts

plus long-term minor beneficial impacts on 

ethnographic resources.

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

advisory council’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse

Effects), the Park Service concludes the 

proposed undertakings outlined in alternative 

3 would be a no adverse effect on ethnographic 

resources.

Historic Structures/Buildings

Analysis. As staffing and funding permit, 

structures and buildings in the park would be 

surveyed, inventoried, and evaluated to 

determine their eligibility for listing in the 

national register. The surveys and research 

necessary to determine the eligibility of a 

structure, building, or historic district for 

listing in the national register are a 

prerequisite for understanding the resources’ 

significance, as well as the basis of informed 

decision making in the future regarding how 

the resources should be managed. Such 

surveys and research would have long-term 

minor beneficial impacts.

To appropriately preserve and protect 

national register-listed or eligible structures 

and buildings, all stabilization, preservation, 

and rehabilitation efforts (including the 

rehabilitation of historic structures and 

buildings at Scorpion and Smugglers ranches, 

Prisoners Harbor, and Bechers Bay) would be 

undertaken in accordance with the Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). Any materials 

removed during rehabilitation efforts would 

be evaluated to determine their value to be 

added to the park’s museum collection and/or 

their comparative use in future preservation 

work at the site. Any adverse impacts would 

be long-term and minor to moderate 

depending on the nature and extent of the 

alterations to accommodate new uses and 

current codes.

Increasing numbers of island visitors would be 

expected under this alternative. Historic 

structures and buildings could suffer wear and 

tear from visitation, and unstaffed or 

minimally staffed structures and buildings 

could be more susceptible to vandalism. 

Continued ranger patrols and emphasis on 

visitor education regarding the significance 

and fragility of such resources and how 

visitors can reduce their impacts to historic 

structures and buildings would discourage 

inadvertent impacts and vandalism, 

minimizing adverse impacts. Also, monitoring 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

398

the carrying capacity of historic structures and 

buildings could occur, which would result in 

imposition of visitation levels or constraints 

that would contribute to the stability or 

integrity of the resources without unduly 

hindering interpretation for visitors. Any 

adverse impacts to historic structures and 

buildings from visitation would be long-term 

and negligible to minor.

Cumulative Impacts. The past, present, and 

future action of allowing researchers to study, 

inventory, and monitor cultural resources via 

a research permit would be long-term, 

negligible, and beneficial.

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 3 would result in site-specific longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

These impacts, in combination with the longterm negligible beneficial impacts of other 

past, present, and future actions, would result 

in long-term minor adverse cumulative

impacts to historic structures and buildings. 

The adverse impacts of alternative 3 would be 

a minor component of the adverse cumulative 

impact.

Conclusion. Actions under alternative 3 

would have greater impacts on historic 

structures and buildings than those listed 

under alternative 1. Increased visitor use and 

rehabilitation efforts of historic structures and 

buildings on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz 

islands would have a long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impact. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

advisory council’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse

Effects), the Park Service concludes the 

proposed undertakings outlined in alternative 

3 would be a no adverse effect on historic 

structures and buildings.

Cultural Landscapes

Analysis. As staffing and funding permit, 

landscapes and their features and patterns 

would be surveyed, inventoried, and evaluated 

to determine their eligibility for listing in the 

national register. The surveys and research 

necessary to determine the eligibility of a 

landscape for listing in the national register 

are a prerequisite for understanding the 

landscape’s significance, as well as the basis of 

informed decision making in the future 

regarding how the landscape and its features 

and patterns should be managed. Such surveys 

and research would have long-term minor 

beneficial impacts.

To appropriately preserve and protect 

national register-listed or eligible cultural 

landscapes, all stabilization and preservation 

efforts would be performed in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes. Any adverse impacts would be 

long-term and negligible to minor.

Two new housing units would be constructed 

in the Anacapa Island Light Station Historic 

District; concession facilities would be added 

at Scorpion Valley; and a new campground, 

research camp, and visitor and concession 

facilities would be built in the historic ranch 

complex at Bechers Bay. Careful design would 

ensure that new construction would 

minimally affect the scale and visual 

relationships among landscape features, 

patterns of vegetation, and circulation systems 

and, as appropriate, new construction would 

be similar in style, scale, size, and materials to 

existing structures and buildings. Any adverse 

impacts would be long-term and minor.

The introduction of a small concessionoperated vehicle transport system on Santa 

Rosa Island would result in negligible impacts 

to cultural landscapes. Vehicles would use 

existing roads, and land use and circulation 

patterns would be unaltered.

The historic olive grove would be maintained 

in a manner that perpetuates the grove as a 

cultural landscape feature but prevents the 

olive trees from spreading, as much as 
Impacts of Alternative 3

399

possible, throughout the island. If it is not 

possible to control the spread of olives from 

birds, approximately one-fifth of the grove, 

consisting of the trees that are the largest olive 

producers, would be removed and replaced 

with an appropriate substitute, such as 

nonfruiting olive trees. This reduction would 

be minimal enough to ensure that the integrity 

of the historic olive grove as a historic 

landscape is retained, and the cultural 

landscape would continue to be eligible for 

listing in the national register. The remaining 

four-fifths of the grove would be maintained, 

thus preserving the physical character of the 

grove: the plantings, patterns, density, and 

grid lines of the trees. The impact from the 

tree removal would be long-term, moderate, 

and adverse. 

The eucalyptus trees at Scorpion Valley are 

contributing elements of the cultural 

landscape, and therefore their possible 

replacement with less-hazardous, native trees 

would affect character-defining features of the 

Scorpion Valley cultural landscape. However, 

the majority of the contributing landscape 

features would be retained, preserving the 

integrity of the cultural landscape such that it 

would continue to be eligible for listing in the 

national register. The impact from the tree 

removal would be long-term, moderate, and 

adverse.

The rehabilitation of unneeded roads or 

conversion of such roads to trails on Santa 

Rosa and Santa Cruz islands would alter the 

spatial organization, land use, and circulation 

patterns of the landscape. Any impacts would 

be long-term, moderate, and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. The past, present, and 

future action of restoring native plant 

communities through the removal of 

nonnative plants and planting native plants 

has and would continue to alter the historic 

character of the ranches. Impacts on cultural 

landscapes would be site-specific, long-term, 

minor to moderate, and adverse. 

The past, present, and future action of 

allowing researchers to study, inventory, and 

monitor cultural resources via a research 

permit would be long-term, negligible, and 

beneficial.

As described above, implementation of 

alternative 3 would result in site-specific longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

These impacts, in combination with the longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts of 

other past, present, and future actions, would 

result in long-term minor to moderate adverse 

cumulative impacts on cultural landscapes. 

The adverse impacts of alternative 3 would be 

a minor component of the adverse cumulative 

impact.

Conclusion. Actions under alternative 3 

would have greater impacts on cultural 

landscapes than those listed under alternative 

1 due to more actions involving cultural 

landscape features.

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

advisory council’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse

Effects), the Park Service concludes the 

proposed undertakings outlined in alternative 

3 would be no adverse effect on cultural 

landscapes.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE, 

INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION

Analysis 

Under alternative 3 visitors would continue to 

engage in a variety of recreational activities, 

encounter low to moderate levels of visitation, 

and participate in group activities. Existing 

opportunities to access the island would not 

change, but the origins of concession 

operations that provide access to the islands 

would no longer be limited to Oxnard and 

Santa Barbara. Some visitors would not have 

to drive as far to reach a concession boat to 

visit the islands. For these visitors, this would 

be a long-term minor to moderate beneficial 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

400

impact on their experience. Although 

opportunities to visit the islands would 

continue to be provided, some visitors would 

be unable to afford passage or may find it 

difficult to reach the transportation providers. 

This would continue to have a long-term 

moderate adverse impact on those unable to 

travel to the islands.

A new visitor center on the mainland in 

Ventura Harbor would be constructed to 

accommodate expanded orientation, 

interpretation, and educational opportunities 

for more visitors. For the visitors who are able 

to participate, this would be a long-term 

minor beneficial impact on visitors. The 

underwater video program would extend into 

the fall, thus allowing not only expanded 

viewing opportunities in the visitor center but 

ultimately to schools both locally and 

nationwide. This would be a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact on the educational 

experience of students who visit the visitor 

center as well as students in remote locations. 

With an expended visitor center, visitors 

would also be able to explore the full array of 

interpretive themes of the park, including the 

history of ranching on the islands as well as of 

the Chumash Indians, two themes not 

currently explored in depth. This would be a 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impact on interpretation and visitor 

experiences in the park. 

As in alternative 2, a core interpretive team 

would be established to support on-island 

visitor services and programs. This would be a 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impact on interpretation and educational 

services and, thus, visitor experiences in the 

park. 

The wilderness designation on the islands 

would permanently preserve opportunities for 

wilderness-related recreation and preclude 

activities and developments that could 

adversely affect these activities. Designating 

wilderness also would not preclude 

recreational activities that already occur. 

However, the islands are already remote and 

provide many opportunities for solitude and 

primitive, unconfined recreation. The park’s 

enabling legislation also limits the level of 

visitor use. Thus, designating wilderness 

would not affect most visitors and would have 

a long-term minor beneficial effect.

East Anacapa Island

The historic lighthouse and accompanying 

exhibits would be open to the public for the 

first time. This would be a long-term minor 

beneficial impact on visitor experiences in the 

park because it would open a landmark on 

one of the most popular destinations in the 

park. The number of sites in the campground 

would be reduced to 25, and the remaining 

sites would have both adverse and beneficial 

consequences. Some people who would want 

to camp on East Anacapa Island might not be 

able to do so when they want, which would be 

a long-term moderate adverse impact on some 

visitors’ experiences. On the other hand, 

modifications to the campground could 

decrease the visual impact of the campground 

for some visitors who find it intrusive. There 

could also be reduced conflict between day 

use visitors walking the trails and campers 

when the campsites are dispersed across the 

campground away from the trail. This would 

be a long-term minor beneficial impact for 

these visitors. In both cases, the overall impact 

of this action would be negligible because of 

the number of visitors who would be affected 

by the change. 

Middle Anacapa Island

Alternative 3 would have the same impact on 

visitor experience opportunities on Middle 

Anacapa Island as alternatives 1 and 2. Visitor 

access would continue to be limited to groups 

with a NPS-approved guide, and the visitor 

experience would not change. Thus, 

alternative 3 would have a long-term minor 

beneficial impact on visitor experience 

opportunities.
Impacts of Alternative 3

401

West Anacapa Island

Access would continue to be limited to 

Frenchy’s Cove and the visitor experience in 

the cove would not change. Thus, alternative 3 

would have the same long-term minor 

beneficial impact on visitor experience 

opportunities on West Anacapa Island as 

alternatives 1 and 2. 

Santa Cruz Island

The impacts of alternative 3 on visitor 

experience opportunities on Santa Cruz 

Island would be the same as those described 

for alternative 2. With the establishment of a 

visitor contact station at Prisoners Harbor, 

more interpretation opportunities would be 

available on the island. This would be a longterm minor to moderate beneficial impact on 

education and interpretation on the island, 

especially for those who are coming to the 

island for the first time. Once the backcountry 

management plan is completed, there might 

be more opportunities for visitors who want 

to hike and camp in the island’s interior. This 

would be a long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impact on visitors because more 

areas of the island would be available for 

exploring. A new 24-camper campground also 

would be provided between Prisoners Harbor 

and Eagle Ridge, which would be a long-term 

moderate benefit for visitors who want to 

camp and enjoy increased recreational 

opportunities available on this part of the 

island. 

All but 10 of the campsites in the campground 

in Scorpion would be closed during the winter 

because of the potential for flooding. As with 

alternative 2, this would have both beneficial 

and adverse effects. For those people who 

were able to camp in the winter, the closure 

would be a long-term minor beneficial impact 

because the risk from flooding would be 

reduced and because with fewer people, the 

quality of the experience might improve for 

some. On the other hand, some visitors who 

wanted to winter camp might not be able to 

camp when they wanted, which would result 

in a long-term minor to moderate adverse 

impact, depending on if they could find other 

suitable dates to camp.

For health and safety reasons, most of the 

historic eucalyptus groves in the campground 

would be replaced with native or noninvasive 

tree varieties. The eucalyptus trees drop limbs 

and are a hazard for visitors. Small stands of 

the eucalyptus trees and the long row of trees 

between upper and lower Scorpion would 

remain to provide visitors with a sense of the 

historic ranching landscape. As in alternative 

2, the risk of injury to visitors as a result of the 

eucalyptus trees would be reduced, which 

would be a long-term beneficial impact on 

visitor experience in the park. However, until 

the new trees mature, the lack of shade would 

be perceived as detracting from the visitor 

experience. Thus overall, the removal of 

eucalyptus groves from the campground 

would be perceived as a long-term moderate 

adverse impact. 

Santa Rosa Island

Alternative 3 would have many of the same 

effects on visitor recreation and 

interpretation/education opportunities on 

Santa Rosa as alternative 2. However, unlike 

alternative 2, under alternative 3 a new 

campground with individual and group sites 

would be developed at the eastern edge of the 

historic ranching complex at Bechers Bay. 

This would be a long-term moderate benefit 

for visitors to the island because it would 

increase opportunities for people to stay 

overnight on the island as well as make group 

camping available.

Formal educational opportunities on the

island (and in the park as a whole) would be 

expanded in alternative 3 through the 

development of a research facility/education 

camp that includes a classroom facility. The 

research camp would provide additional and 

in-depth opportunity for more education

groups, researchers, and others to experience 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

402

and learn more about the park’s terrestrial, 

marine, and cultural resources. Thus, the 

education camp would have a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact on the educational 

opportunities in the park. Development of a 

visitor contact station with exhibits would 

create additional opportunities for visitors to 

get oriented, gain a more in-depth 

understanding about the islands, and make a 

stronger connection between the interpretive 

themes and the island’s natural and cultural 

resources. A visitor contact station would be a 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impact on visitor interpretation on the island.

If the economic feasibility study indicates that 

a concession lodging operation would be 

sustainable, this would allow visitors who do 

not want to camp an opportunity to stay 

overnight on the island, such as the elderly 

and families with young children, and give 

them additional opportunities to experience 

the island. The impacts associated with new 

lodging opportunities would be the same as 

alternative 2 — a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact for visitors to Santa Rosa 

Island.

If a concession island-based transport 

operation was developed, it would increase 

the diversity of recreational experiences 

available to visitors on Santa Rosa Island. 

With transportation, visitors would be able 

see more of the island outside of Bechers Bay. 

Day use visitors would be able to experience 

more of the island and backpackers would 

also be able to venture farther into the 

backcountry. The impacts would be the same 

as alternative 2 — a long-term moderate to 

major beneficial impact on visitors to Santa 

Rosa Island. 

Like alternative 2, once the backcountry 

management plan is completed, there might 

be more opportunities for visitors who want 

to hike and camp in the island’s interior. This 

would be a long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impact on visitors, depending on 

what the backcountry management plan 

proposes, because more areas of the island 

would likely be available for exploring.

With more opportunities to recreate, explore, 

and learn about Santa Rosa Island in 

alternative 3, more people would likely visit 

the island. Island user capacity limits and 

other constraints on the concessioners’ 

operations (e.g., weather conditions, boat 

sizes, transit times, and fuel costs) would limit 

the number of people that actually come to 

the island. Visitors would also be dispersing 

out to other locations from Bechers Bay. 

Nevertheless, larger numbers of people would 

likely be present at the Bechers Bay developed 

area in alternative 3 compared to alternative 1. 

This would have both beneficial and adverse 

impacts on the visitor experience. Because 

more people could visit and enjoy this area, 

there would be a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impact on many visitors’ 

experiences. On the other hand, for some 

visitors (particularly people who have visited 

in the past), the area might be perceived as 

being more crowded, which could have a 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impact 

on those visitors’ experiences.

San Miguel Island

Alternative 3 would have the same impact on 

visitor experience opportunities on San 

Miguel Island as alternative 2. If guided 

multiday trips were provided, this would 

provide an experience not currently available 

on the island. (Most visitors cannot currently 

hike to Point Bennett to see the pinnipeds in 

the time they have available.) As people 

learned about the opportunity, more people 

would likely try to come to the island to take 

advantage of this experience. As with 

alternative 2, this would be a long-term major 

beneficial impact for visitors because of the 

uniqueness of the experience, even though 

only a relatively small number of visitors 

would be impacted. 
Impacts of Alternative 3

403

Santa Barbara Island

Park staff would look for opportunities to 

construct temporary wildlife blinds to 

improve visitor opportunities to see nesting 

California brown pelicans, seabirds, and 

marine mammals. This would be a long-term 

minor to moderate benefit for visitors.

Cumulative Impacts 

With a few exceptions, no actions would 

occur inside or outside the park, independent 

of alternative 3, which could result in 

cumulative visitor experience impacts. 

Ongoing and future restoration and 

management activities and construction 

activities, particularly on Santa Rosa and Santa 

Cruz islands, would result in temporary 

closures of areas for recreational use. This 

would have short- and long-term minor 

adverse effects on visitor experience 

opportunities, because although areas would 

be closed, there would usually be other 

opportunities for visitors to take advantage of 

their time on the islands. 

Some areas of Santa Rosa Island are currently 

closed to visitors during hunting season for 

safety reasons. Per a court settlement 

agreement, the hunting operations end in

2011. As a result, some areas of the island that 

were closed for safety reasons would 

eventually be open for visitors year-round. 

This would expand the range of experiences 

available to visitors on the island. For most 

visitors to Santa Rosa Island, this would be a 

long-term negligible to moderate beneficial 

impact on their experience depending on 

what time of year they visit the island. When 

this action and the effects of NPS 

administrative and construction activities are 

added to the additional recreational 

opportunities on Santa Rosa Island under 

alternative 3, there would be a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial cumulative 

impact on visitor experience opportunities.

Conclusion

The diversity of visitor experiences, including 

recreational opportunities, as well as 

interpretation and educational opportunities, 

would increase in much of the park under 

alternative 3 compared to alternative 1. 

Overall, alternative 3 would have a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact on visitor 

experience opportunities, largely due to the 

increase in recreational opportunities on 

Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands that would 

allow visitors a greater diversity of 

experiences on the islands. The new visitor 

center in Ventura, the new education camp 

and campground on Santa Rosa Island, the 

new campground near Prisoners Harbor on 

Santa Cruz Island, and the guided multiday 

trips on San Miguel Island would all 

contribute to this impact. On-island 

interpretation would also increase with new 

visitor contact stations (in adaptively used 

structures) on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa 

islands, resulting in long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts on visitor 

experience opportunities. On the other hand, 

with more people visiting Santa Rosa Island, 

there could be long-term minor to moderate

adverse impacts on the visitor experience at 

Bechers Bay due to perceived crowding. 

There could be a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial cumulative impact on 

recreational opportunities on Santa Rosa 

Island when the additional recreational 

opportunities available under alternative 3 are 

combined with more areas of Santa Rosa 

Island being open to public use after 2011. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTER

Analysis

Under alternative 3, 66,637 acres or 

approximately 53% of the land portion of the 

park would be proposed for wilderness 

designation. Assuming Congress was to 

approve the wilderness proposal, the 

wilderness resources of all of Middle and 

West Anacapa islands, most of the NPS lands 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

404

on Santa Cruz Island, almost all of Santa Rosa 

Island, and almost all of Santa Barbara Island 

would be permanently protected. The areas 

would be permanently undeveloped, and 

would be protected and managed to preserve 

their natural character. Visitors would be 

assured of outstanding opportunities for 

solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation. 

Because of the large area designated as 

wilderness, this would have a long-term, 

major beneficial impact on wilderness 

character.

No other actions are being proposed in the 

alternative that would affect visitation or 

wilderness character on Santa Barbara Island. 

However, several other actions in the 

alternative would affect the qualities of 

wilderness character of the other islands. 

Although visitor use levels in alternative 3 

would likely increase as more visitors come to 

the islands, compared to alternative 1, visitors 

should still be able to find opportunities for 

solitude and primitive unconfined recreation 

in the larger wilderness areas on Santa Rosa 

and Santa Cruz islands. For example, more 

visitors may go into the interior of Santa Rosa

Island using concession vehicles, but given the 

large area of the island, it is unlikely that 

visitors would often encounter other visitors. 

Although encounters would be of short 

duration, they would periodically occur over 

the life of the plan and are considered longterm impacts. Thus, any adverse impacts on 

wilderness character would be expected to be 

long-term and minor.

As in all of the alternatives, certain parts of the 

proposed wilderness area would be restricted 

or closed to visitor use seasonally or annually, 

including Middle and West Anacapa islands, 

and certain beaches on Santa Rosa Island. 

These actions would affect opportunities for 

primitive, unconfined recreation. However, 

because there would be no change between 

alternative 3 and alternative 1, there would be 

no effect — alternative 3 would have the same 

long-term minor adverse impact as alternative 

1.

Under alternative 3 about 71 miles of existing 

roads within the proposed wilderness area on 

Santa Rosa Island and about 12 miles of roads 

within the proposed wilderness area on Santa 

Cruz Island would be closed and either 

converted to trails or recontoured and 

revegetated. Although the application of 

wilderness minimum requirements would 

help minimize impacts of this restoration 

effort, in the short term, these actions would 

affect the untrammeled quality of the area, 

resulting in a moderate adverse impact to 

wilderness character in these areas. However, 

in the long term, these actions would improve 

the natural quality of the landscape, resulting 

in a moderate to major beneficial impact.

None of the proposed developments in 

Scorpion Valley, Prisoners Harbor, Bechers 

Bay, and Johnson’s Lee would occur in areas 

that would be proposed for wilderness and, 

therefore, would have no effect on wilderness 

character. 

The future backcountry management plan 

could also increase the opportunity for 

backcountry camping and trails on Santa Cruz 

and Santa Rosa islands. An increase in 

backcountry sites would increase 

opportunities for both primitive and 

unconfined recreation on the island, and 

would be a long-term minor beneficial impact. 

An increase in the number of backcountry 

camping sites and trails also could increase 

opportunities for solitude because more 

visitors would have the opportunity to camp 

and hike farther away from the developed 

areas. The increase in the number of visitors 

would be offset by the size of the area open to 

visitors, as well as increases in the areas open 

to hiking and camping. The campsites and 

trails also would adversely affect the natural 

quality of the islands. The magnitude of these 

beneficial and adverse impacts would depend 

on the number and location of backcountry 

campsites and trails, and cannot be 

determined in this impact assessment. 

With regard to the other features of value (the 

fifthquality of wilderness character), as stated 
Impacts of Alternative 3

405

earlier, alternative 3 would have a long-term 

minor adverse impact on paleontological 

resources, a long-term negligible to minor

adverse impact on ethnographic resources, 

and a permanent negligible to minor adverse 

impact on archeological resources due to 

increased human activities in the backcountry, 

which would affect scientific research 

opportunities and cultural resources in the 

area proposed for wilderness designation. 

However, alternative 3 also would have a 

long-term minor beneficial impact on 

paleontological, ethnographic, and 

archeological resources due to the permanent 

protection bestowed by wilderness 

designation. The impact would be minor 

because the designation would result in few 

noticeable changes to these resources.

From an overall parkwide perspective, 

alternative 3 would have a long-term major 

beneficial impact on wilderness character, 

primarily due to the designation of much of 

the park as wilderness and the 

closure/restoration of roads on Santa Rosa 

and Santa Cruz islands.

Cumulative Impacts

Alternative 3 would have the same potential 

for cumulative impacts as alternative 2. Several 

NPS projects would occur on the islands 

independent of alternative 3, including 

vegetative restoration efforts, threatened and 

endangered species recovery efforts, and 

control of nonnative species, which would 

adversely affect opportunities for solitude. 

These management activities also would 

adversely affect the “untrammeled” or 

uncontrolled quality of wilderness character 

in the short term (although the application of 

the wilderness minimum requirements 

process would help mitigate these impacts). 

On the other hand, these NPS resource 

management activities on the islands would 

improve the long-term naturalness of the 

lands proposed for wilderness. When these 

actions are added to the major beneficial 

impacts of the actions being proposed in 

alternative 3, there would be the potential for 

a long-term major beneficial cumulative 

impact, primarily due to the proposal to 

designate much of the park as wilderness. 

Conclusion

Overall, alternative 3 would have a long-term 

major beneficial impact on wilderness 

character, primarily due to the designation of 

much of the park as wilderness and the 

closure/restoration of roads on Santa Rosa 

and Santa Cruz islands. When other NPS 

management actions independent of this plan, 

such as revegetation efforts, are added to the 

effects of alternative 3, there would be the 

potential for a long-term major beneficial 

cumulative impact. 

PARK OPERATIONS

Analysis

Like the previous alternatives, the park’s 

physical geography would pose an operational 

challenge in alternative 3. NPS operations 

would continue to be characterized in the 

alternative by (1) a substantial number of 

facilities or assets (e.g., visitor contact stations, 

campsites, trails, and historic structures and 

landscapes) that must be maintained; (2) 

visitor-related operational demands (e.g., 

interpretive services, patrols, and campground 

maintenance) that are much greater in the 

busy summer visitor season than at other 

times of the year; and (3) island operations 

that command a disproportionate share of the 

park’s annual operating budget due to the 

logistics of transporting equipment, materials, 

and staff to and from the islands.

Alternative 3 would have many of the same 

beneficial and adverse effects as alternative 2 

on park operations. Alternative 3 calls for new 

facilities and management actions that would 

require new staff as well as investments to 

plan and implement. These new facilities and 

projects would add to the scope and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

406

complexity of park operations. Assuming the 

new facilities and projects are spread out over 

the 20-year life of the plan and that new staff 

and funding are also carefully planned for and 

integrated into existing park operations would 

help mitigate potential disruptions to and 

conflicting workload demands on park staff. 

Nevertheless, some adverse impacts would 

still occur, as noted below.

Alternative 3 would add 16 FTE employees, 

who would work on the various facilities and 

projects called for under the plan. These new 

employees would have a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact on the park’s operational 

capabilities. However, this additional staff also 

would require office space and equipment, 

information technology and 

telecommunications, human resources, and 

other support. This would result in long-term 

minor adverse impacts on park operations by 

further straining park operational resources.

Alternative 3 would require additional 

managerial and contracting staff time to 

oversee the design and construction of new 

facilities both on the mainland (e.g., 

development of a new visitor center) and on 

the islands (e.g., new campgrounds, ranger 

stations, an education center/volunteer camp, 

and a research/education field station). 

Rehabilitation/adaptive reuse of the Bechers 

Bay ranch complex would take substantial 

time to manage. Removal of facilities, such as 

roads on Santa Rosa Island and reductions in 

the campgrounds at Scorpion Valley and 

Anacapa Island, would take some staff time to 

oversee. Establishment of a concession 

program covering lodging, food, and visitor 

transportation on Santa Rosa Island would 

take a substantial amount of time in the short 

term to start, but then would take less staff 

time to run. New interpretive efforts, such as 

at Oxnard and the development of new 

interpretive exhibits at the mainland visitor 

center and on the islands, would take time. 

Additional effort would be needed to maintain 

all of the new facilities. Providing a new 

guided overnight visitor opportunity on San 

Miguel Island and overseeing additional 

visitors arriving on concession aircraft would 

require staff time. Additional effort would be 

needed to monitor the user capacity 

indicators to ensure unacceptable conditions 

are not occurring. With the designation of 

wilderness, maintenance staff would be 

required to use the minimum requirements 

process to determine what kind of equipment 

would be needed to build and maintain trails. 

Visitor and resource protection and natural 

and cultural resource staff would be limited in 

their use of motorized vehicles in wilderness, 

which could reduce their effectiveness. 

Although the staff could continue to conduct 

natural resource management, surveys, 

patrols, and other day-to-day operations in 

the wilderness, it would likely be more time

consuming and costly, which in turn would 

reduce the work that is completed. Even with 

phasing of the new developments and new 

staff and funding, all of these actions 

considered together would likely have shortterm moderate to major adverse impacts and 

long-term moderate adverse impacts on park 

operations.

Wilderness designation the islands would 

avoid some potential developments and 

activities that might otherwise require park 

staff time. However, wilderness designation 

would require the staff to carefully consider 

activities in these areas, completing minimum 

requirement analyses. Although the staff 

could continue to conduct surveys, patrols, 

and other day-to-day operations in the 

wilderness, it may be more time consuming 

and costly. This change would be noticeable 

to the staff but not to visitors. Thus, 

wilderness designation would have a longterm minor adverse impact on park 

operations.

Alternative 3 also would result in several 

actions that would beneficially affect park 

operations. Providing new office space on the 

mainland, replacing temporary housing at 

Scorpion Valley with permanent housing and 

office space, moving maintenance operations 

to a new facility at Scorpion Valley, providing 

employee housing at Prisoners Harbor, 
Impacts of Alternative 3

407

providing new staff housing facilities at 

Bechers Bay and on Anacapa Island, 

substantially decreasing the number of roads 

to be maintained on Santa Rosa Island, and 

providing new ranger stations at Johnson’s 

Lee and Bechers Bay all would beneficially 

affect park operations, improving staff 

productivity and efficiency in managing park 

resources and visitors. This would have a 

long-term moderate to major beneficial 

impact on park operations.

Overall, considering all of the direct potential 

impacts, over a 20-year timeframe, with 

additional staff and funding and adequate 

phasing of new developments and projects, 

compared to alternative 1, alternative 3 would 

be expected to have a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial effect on park operations. 

Park staff would be more productive and 

efficient in managing resources and visitors 

and achieving desired conditions in 

alternative 3 compared to alternative 1.

Cumulative Impacts

As described in the cumulative impacts 

scenario, a large number of ongoing and 

future actions independent of the plan would 

be expected, including maintenance and 

replacement of facilities, issuing permits for 

scientific research and commercial services, 

ecosystem restoration efforts, and other 

resource management activities. In addition, 

park staff would continue to be engaged in 

actions and projects independent of keeping 

the park functioning, such as general 

coordination/consultation activities on 

actions that could affect the park and activities

outside of the park that require staff time, 

such as implementation and enforcement of 

the Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary General Management Plan (2009) 

and regulations. Some of these projects 

require intensive planning, coordination, and 

involvement from park staff, and represent a 

substantial operational burden on park staff. 

All of these actions, taken together, would 

likely have a long-term moderate adverse 

impact on park staff.

Overall, when the long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts of park 

operations associated with alternative 3 are 

combined with the effects of other ongoing 

and planned projects, there would likely be a 

long-term moderate adverse cumulative 

impact on park operations. Alternative 3 

would slightly reduce the overall adverse 

cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Like alternative 2, alternative 3 would have 

both beneficial and adverse effects on park 

operations. Adverse effects would be due to 

changes in facilities and new management 

actions, including concession management, 

new interpretive efforts, and increased 

monitoring of the park. Overall, however, 

assuming careful phasing of new 

developments and management actions, 

compared to alternative 1, alternative 3 would 

be expected to have a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impact. This would be 

primarily due to increased staff and funding, 

new staff/administrative facilities, and 

reductions in some facilities (e.g., roads on 

Santa Rosa Island). When the effects of 

alternative 3 are combined with other ongoing 

and likely future projects, there would be the 

potential for a long-term moderate adverse 

cumulative impact on park operations. 

Alternative 3 would slightly reduce the overall 

adverse cumulative impact. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The following paragraphs describe the more 

important (moderate and major intensity) 

adverse impacts that would result from 

implementing alternative 3. These are residual 

impacts that would remain after mitigation 

was implemented. The negligible and minor 

impacts are described in the foregoing 

analysis.
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

408

Unavoidable moderate adverse impacts on 

some natural resources would occur in 

localized areas within the park as a result of 

implementing alternative 3. Even with road 

restoration efforts, erosion on several roads 

on Santa Rosa Island could still result in 

adverse soil impacts in local areas. Periodic 

excavation of sediments from the Scorpion 

Creek channel to protect existing facilities 

would have a minor to moderate adverse 

effect on natural floodplain values. In 

localized areas, particularly at entry points to 

the islands (such as East Anacapa Island, 

Scorpion Valley, Smugglers Cove, Prisoners 

Harbor, and Bechers Bay), there would 

continue to be minor to moderate noise 

impacts due to concentrations of visitors, 

boats, and park operations. As in alternative 1, 

long-term moderate adverse noise impacts 

would continue to occur when aircraft land 

and take off at the airstrip on Santa Rosa 

Island. In addition, in alternative 3 the 

increased landings of aircraft on San Miguel 

Island would result in a long-term moderate 

adverse impact on the soundscape. Increased 

visitor and administrative uses under 

alternative 3 also would increase the risk of 

nonnative species introduction and wildfires, 

which in turn could adversely affect the 

islands’ vegetation and native wildlife 

populations.

The lack of adequate interpretive media on 

the islands to give visitors a better 

understanding and appreciation of elements 

of the other primary interpretive themes and 

the lack of firsthand interaction with park 

resources would have an unavoidable longterm minor to moderate adverse impact on 

the visitor experience.

Opportunities to visit the islands would 

continue to be provided, although some 

visitors would be unable to afford passage or 

may find it difficult to reach the 

transportation providers. This would 

continue to have an unavoidable long-term 

moderate adverse impact on those unable to 

travel to the islands.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

Construction materials and energy used 

would be irretrievably lost. There would also 

be an irretrievable and irreversible 

commitment of resources in terms of funds 

expended on both labor and construction 

materials. The construction of new facilities 

would result in the irreversible loss of natural 

resources in localized areas.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 

SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY

Under alternative 3 most of the park would 

continue to be protected in a natural state and 

would maintain its long-term productivity — 

the Park Service would manage the islands to 

maintain ecological processes and native 

biological communities. Most areas would be 

protected in their current state and would 

maintain their long-term productivity. With 

increased use levels resulting from the 

alternative, some vegetation and soils in 

localized areas may be adversely affected (e.g., 

trampling of vegetation), which would reduce 

the productivity of these areas. In developed 

areas (e.g., part of East Anacapa Island, 

Scorpion Valley, Prisoners Harbor, Bechers 

Bay, and Johnson’s Lee) the primary shortterm uses would be for recreational and 

education/scientific use. Under alternative 3 

there would be expanded development to 

support these uses and for park operations, 

resulting in some localized loss of ecological 

productivity in areas that had no previous 

development. Adverse impacts on the areas’ 

vegetation and soils would reduce the longterm ecological productivity of these areas, 

although overall only a relatively small 

reduction in the park’s productivity would be 

expected. On the other hand, efforts to restore 

vegetation in a few sites (e.g., the estuarine 

wetland and floodplains at the mouth of 

Scorpion Creek on Santa Cruz Island) and 
Impacts of Alternative 3

409

along roads on Santa Rosa Island would 

increase long-term productivity in these areas. 

As in all of the alternatives, maintaining 

facilities in the Scorpion Creek floodplain 

would continue a long-term reduction in 

natural and beneficial values of the floodplain 

and prevent it from functioning naturally.

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

Channel Islands National Park Ch

413

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Consultation and coordination among 

governmental agencies, organizations, and the 

public were vitally important throughout the 

planning process for the Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement for Channel Islands National Park. 

The public had two primary avenues by which 

it participated during the development of the 

plan – participation in public meetings and 

response to newsletters.

PUBLIC MEETINGS AND 

NEWSLETTERS

Public meetings and newsletters were used to 

keep the public informed and involved in the 

planning process for Channel Islands National 

Park. A mailing list was compiled that 

consisted of members of governmental 

agencies, nongovernmental groups, 

businesses, legislators, local governments, and 

interested citizens.

The notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 8, 2001. A newsletter issued in 

October 2001 described the planning effort. A 

total of 53 electronic and mailed comments 

were received in response to that newsletter. 

Public meetings were held on November 12, 

2001 (Santa Barbara); November 13, 2001 (Los 

Angeles); November 14, 2001 (Oxnard); and 

November 15, 2001 (Ventura). The planning 

team also met on April 11, 2002 with 

representatives from the Coast Guard, 

Minerals Management Service, U.S. Navy, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, California Regional Water 

Quality Control Board, California State 

Historic Preservation Office, Ventura County, 

Ventura Port District, Santa Cruz Island 

Foundation, and Vail & Vickers to listen to 

their concerns for the plan. In addition, 

planning team members met with 

representatives from The Nature Conservancy 

and the sanctuary to discuss their concerns. 

Comments received in the above meetings and 

in response to the newsletter were 

incorporated into issues for the plan.

A second newsletter distributed in August 

2002 described the preliminary alternatives 

for managing the park. In addition, public 

meetings were held on the preliminary 

alternatives on September 18, 2002 (Ventura) 

and on September 19, 2002 (Santa Barbara). A 

total of 91 separate written responses 

(including mailback response forms, letters, 

and e-mails) were received in response to the 

newsletter. The respondents were fairly 

evenly spread out among their favored 

alternatives − no one alternative stood out 

substantially above the others. 

CONSULTATION WITH THE STATE 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 

AND THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

Agencies that have direct or indirect 

jurisdiction over historic properties are 

required by Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

(16 USC 470, et seq.) to take into account the 

effect of any undertaking on properties 

eligible for the national register. To meet the 

requirements of 36 CFR 800, the Park Service 

sent letters to the state historic preservation 

office and the advisory council on September 

10, 2001, inviting their participation in the 

planning process. Both offices were sent all of 

the newsletters with a request for comments. 

CONSULTATION WITH 

NATIVE AMERICANS

On September 10, 2001, a letter was sent to the 

Santa Ynez Band of the Mission Indians, the 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

414

only federally recognized tribe associated with 

the park, to invite their participation in the 

planning process. Other groups and members 

of the Chumash community were briefed on 

the scope of the planning project and the 

preliminary alternatives by newsletter. More 

recently (in early 2011), the park held 

consultation meetings with the Chumash 

community to seek their input prior to the 

completion of this draft GMP/EIS. The 

federally recognized tribe and members of the 

Chumash community would also have an 

opportunity to review and comment on this 

draft plan.

CONSULTATION WITH THE 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

AND NATIONAL MARINE 

FISHERIES SERVICE

Informal consultation with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service began in August 2002 with a 

request for a list of threatened and 

endangered species that may occur in or near 

the park. Responses dated August 30, 2002 

and December 13, 2002 were received and are 

included in appendix F. (The National Marine 

Fisheries Service subsequently dropped three 

of the species petitioned for listing under the 

ESA. These changes are reflected in the list of 

species in appendix E.)

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 

AND CONSULTATION

Federal agency activities in or affecting 

California’s coastal zone must comply with 

§ 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act 

and implementing regulations, which require 

that such federal activities be conducted in a 

manner consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable with California’s Coastal 

Management Program. 

Although Channel Islands National Park is 

federal land and excluded from California’s 

coastal zone, the park is geographically within 

the coastal zone. The Park Service has 

determined that the preferred alternative 

described in this plan is consistent with 

California’s Coastal Management Program. 

Specifically, the preferred alternative is 

consistent with chapter 3 of the California 

Coastal Act of 1976 regarding public access, 

recreation, the marine environment, land 

resources, and development.

This plan provides the substantive basis for 

the NPS’s consistency determination and the 

Park Service has submitted this document to 

the California Coastal Commission for its 

concurrence. This consistency determination 

and the commission’s concurrence comply 

with the requirements of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act. If the state of California 

concurs with the NPS’s consistency 

determination, it would transmit its formal 

concurrence and that letter would be 

published in the Final General Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. 

FUTURE COMPLIANCE 

REQUIREMENTS

The following section indicates future actions 

the Park Service and/or its contractors would 

carry out during implementation of the 

preferred alternative to ensure compliance 

with applicable federal and state laws. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Compliance

The following actions discussed under the 

preferred alternative but not analyzed in this 

plan would likely require additional 

environmental analyses with appropriate 

documentation before they are implemented, 

consistent with the provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act:
Summary of Public Involvement

415

• development of backcountry trails/road 

management plans for Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands, including the removal 

of roads from the islands and specific 

closures and/or conversions of roads to 

trails

• development of subsequent 

implementation plans (e.g., commercial 

services, vegetation management, and fire 

management plans)

• periodic excavation of sediments from the 

Scorpion channel on Santa Cruz Island

• construction of a new visitor center on the 

mainland

• additional site-specific construction 

projects (e.g., construction of a 

campground at Bechers Bay on Santa Rosa 

Island, development of specific campsites 

and trails on Santa Cruz Island, and 

development of employee residences in 

the Prisoners Harbor area)

In addition to these actions, other actions in 

the preferred alternative could require 

additional NEPA compliance.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Section 7 of the ESA, as amended (16 USC 

1531 et seq.) requires all federal agencies to 

consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

ensure that any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by any agency would not 

jeopardize the continued existence of listed 

species or critical habitat. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service, which implement the ESA, 

have been informally consulted regarding 

effects on threatened and endangered species 

(see appendix F). The Park Service would 

continue to consult with both the Fish and

Wildlife Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service to ensure that actions in the 

preferred alternative would not adversely 

affect threatened and endangered species and 

their habitats (e.g., development of new 

campsites on Santa Rosa Island). 

Essential Fish Habitat

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its 

amendments, federal agencies are required to 

identify and protect important marine and 

anadromous fish habitat. Federal agencies that 

fund, authorize, or undertake activities that 

might adversely affect essential fish habitat are 

required to consult with the NOAA Fisheries 

Service regarding the potential effects of their 

actions on essential fish habitat, and respond 

in writing to that agency’s conservation 

recommendations. 

Water Resources

In accordance with the Clean Water Act, a 

Section 404 permit from the Corps of 

Engineers would be required for the discharge 

or placement of fill material into waters of the 

United States. Any dredging activity within the 

Scorpion stream channel would require a 

permit review from the Corps of Engineers. A 

Section 401 water quality certification also 

would need to be obtained from the state’s 

central coast regional water quality control 

board.

Cultural Resources 

The Park Service has developed a list of 

actions associated with the proposed plan that 

could have an effect on cultural resources. 

Some of these actions are covered by 

programmatic exclusions and would require 

no further state historic preservation office 

(SHPO)/ACHP review. Other actions would 

need further SHPO/ACHP review. This 

information is presented in Table 25. The 

Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement would 

include a listing of those actions with which 

the state historic preservation office concurs, 

and any additional requests or comments that 

office may have.
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

416

TABLE 25. IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS THAT COULD AFFECT CULTURAL RESOURCES AND ASSOCIATED SHPO

AND ACHP COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

Actions Compliance Requirements

Removal, improvement, or conversion of roads into trails 

on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands. 

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources and cultural 

landscapes.

Establishment of new concessions and commercial uses 

and associated construction of new facilities or adaptive 

use of existing structures on various islands.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources, historic 

structures, cultural landscapes, and ethnographic 

resources.

Elimination, control, or management of invasive nonnative 

vegetation and trees on various islands. 

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources and cultural 

landscapes.

Expanded backcountry beach camping on Santa Rosa and 

Santa Cruz islands.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources and cultural 

landscapes.

Adaptive use of historic structures in the Anacapa Island 

Light Station Historic District for park operational and 

visitor service purposes, opening the district’s historic 

lighthouse to the public, and construction of two 

additional housing units on the footprint of the district’s 

historic residences.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources, historic 

structures, and cultural landscapes.

Adaptive use of historic structures at Scorpion Valley. Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on historic structures.

Restoration of natural conditions and removal of historic 

eucalyptus groves at Scorpion Valley.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources and cultural 

landscapes.

Adaptive use of historic structures and control or removal 

of nonnative trees at Prisoners Harbor.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources, historic 

structures, and cultural landscapes.

Development of a new maintenance area at Scorpion 

Valley.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources and cultural 

landscapes.

Construction of a new barn/interpretive structure at 

Scorpion Valley.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources and cultural 

landscapes.

Upgrade water system at Smugglers Ranch. Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources, historic 

structures, and cultural landscapes.

Potential construction of residential units at Prisoners 

Harbor.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources and cultural 

landscapes.

Development of a small maintenance area at Prisoners 

Harbor.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources and cultural 

landscapes.

Potential development of campsite locations and suitable 

trail alignments in the NPS portion of Santa Cruz Island.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources and cultural 

landscapes.

Development of a new campground between Prisoners 

Harbor and Eagle Ridge.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources and cultural 

landscapes.

Adaptive use of Bechers Bay ranch complex buildings and 

potential construction of new buildings for park 

operations, concessioner facilities, research 

facility/environmental education camp, visitor services, staff 

housing, and visitor lodging.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources, historic 

structures, and cultural landscapes.
Summary of Public Involvement

417

Actions Compliance Requirements

Potential establishment of commercial vehicle operations 

on Santa Rosa Island.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on historic roads and cultural landscapes.

Potential construction of pit toilets at various visitor 

destinations/trailheads on Santa Rosa and San Miguel 

islands.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources and cultural 

landscapes.

Development of a new campground at the eastern end of 

the Bechers Bay historic ranch complex.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources.

Potential development of guided multiday trips and 

associated construction of a spike camp, and development/ 

construction of trails via commercial services and trail plans 

on San Miguel Island.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine

impacts on archeological resources and cultural 

landscapes.

Construction of an equipment storage building on San 

Miguel Island.

Requires further SHPO/ACHP review to determine 

impacts on archeological resources.
418

AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS TO WHOM 

THIS DOCUMENT WAS SENT

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Department of Justice

Department of the Air Force

Vandenberg Air Force Base

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

Los Angeles District

South Pacific Division

Ventura Field Office

Department of the Navy

Naval Air Station, Point Mugu

Naval Construction Battalion Ctr., Port 

Hueneme

Minerals Management Service

National Marine Fisheries Service

Seattle, WA

Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary

National Marine Sanctuary Program

Office of General Counsel

National Park Service

Columbia Cascades Support Office

Santa Monica Mountains National 

Recreation Area

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

U.S. Coast Guard

11th District, Alameda

Channel Islands Harbor Station

San Pedro

Santa Barbara

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Research Center

Ventura Office

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC Office

San Francisco Office

U.S. Forest Service

Los Padres National Forest

U.S. Geological Survey

Biological Resource Division

U.S. SENATORS AND 

REPRESENTATIVES

Representative Lois Capps

Representative Elton Gallegly

Representative Brad Sherman

Senator Barbara Boxer

Senator Diane Feinstein

CALIFORNIA STATE AGENCIES 

California Coastal Commission

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

California Division of Tourism

California Environmental Protection Agency

California Resources Agency, Ocean 

Resources Program

California State Lands Commission

California State Parks

Office of California Attorney General

State Historic Preservation Office

CALIFORNIA STATE OFFICIALS 

Senator Jack O’Connell

Representative Hannah-Beth Jackson 

AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES WITH 

POTENTIAL CULTURAL AFFILIATION 

TO THE PARK

Barbareno Chumash Council 

Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Chumash 

Indians 

Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation

Gabrieleno-Tonga Tribal Council

Northern Chumash Tribal Council

Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians

yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini – The Northern 

Chumash
Agencies and Organizations to Whom 

this Document was Sent

419

LOCAL, CITY, COUNTY, AND 

REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS

Cachuma Resources Conservation District

Central Coast Regional Quality Control Board

City of San Diego

City of Santa Barbara

City of Ventura

Santa Barbara County

 Arts Commission

Board of Supervisors

Planning Department

Public Health Officer

Harbor Patrol

Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council

Ventura County

Air Pollution Control

Board of Supervisors

Parks Department

Planning Department

Public Health Services

 Harbor Patrol

Ventura Port District

Ventura Harbor

ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES

Adventours Outdoor Excursions

ALMAR Ltd. – Ventura Isle Marina

American Bird Conservancy

American Oceans Campaign

American Museum of Natural History

American Sportfishing Association

Anacapa Isle Marina

Anacapa Yacht Club

Antelope Valley Indian Museum

Aqua Adventures

Aquasports, Ocean Kayak Adventures

Aspen Helicopters

Audubon Society of Santa Barbara

Avalon Harbor

Boojum Institute

Buenger Enterprises, Inc.

California Cattlemen’s Association

California Native Plant Society

California Preservation Foundation

California Wilderness Association

Catalina Island Conservancy

Catalina Island Visitors Bureau

Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikes

Channel Islands Aviation

Channel Islands Kayak Center

Channel Islands Marina, Inc.

Channel Islands Yacht Club

Chinese Historical Society of Southern 

California

Chumash Maritime Assoc.

CICESE Research Center of Mexico

Coastal Conservancy

Concerned Off-Road Bicyclists Assn.

Condor Express

Defenders of Wildlife

Dibblee Geological Foundation

Endangered Species Recovery Council

Environmental Defense Center

Far West Marine Center

Guided Discoveries

Historical Society of Southern California

Horizons West

International Mountain Bicycling Association

Institute for Wildlife Studies

Island Packers Co.

Jepson Herbarium

Lady Raquel Charters

Los Angeles Maritime Museum

The Mail Buoy

The Marine Mammal Center Marin 

Headlands

Multiple Use Managers

National Parks Conservation Association

National Technical Information Service

National Trust for Historic Preservation

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles 

County

Oakbrook Park Chumash Interpretive Center

Ocean Aire Electronics

Outdoor and Aquatic Recreation Specialists 

(OAARS) 

Oxnard Tourism Bureau

Pacific Corinthian Yacht Club

Pacific Seabird Group

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

Pacific Winds Sailing Company

Paddle Sports

Padre Associates

Peabody Museum of Natural History

Peninsula Yacht Anchorage

Pierpont Bay Yacht Club

Point Reyes Bird Observatory
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

420 

Range Watch

San Buenaventura Research Association

Santa Barbara Botanic Garden

Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce

Santa Barbara County Cattlemen’s 

Association

Santa Barbara Equine Practice

Santa Barbara Historical Consortium

Santa Barbara Historical Society

Santa Barbara League of Women Voters

Santa Barbara Maritime Museum

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History

Santa Barbara Sailing Club

Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation

Santa Barbara Visitors Bureau

Santa Barbara Yacht Club

Santa Catalina Island Conservancy

Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society

Santa Cruz Island Foundation

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Sea Center

Sierra Club

Smithsonian Institution, Museum of Natural 

History

Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of 

the American Indian

Society for California Archeology, California 

State University

Southwind Kayak Center

Spirit of Santa Barbara

Surfrider Foundation, Ventura County 

Chapter

The Nature Conservancy

Santa Cruz Island Preserve

California Field Office

The Ocean Conservancy, Pacific Region

Truth Aquatics

UCLA Institute of Archeology, Fowler 

Museum of Cultural History

UCSB Recreation Center, Outdoor Recreation 

Adventure Programs

University of California

Dept. of Anthropology, Central Coast 

Information Ctr. 

Public History Information Unit

Santa Barbara Marine Science Institute

Vail & Vickers

Ventura County Maritime Museum

Ventura County Museum of History and Art

Ventura Harbor Boatyard

Ventura Sailing Club

Ventura Visitors and Convention Bureau

Ventura West Marina

Ventura Yacht Club

The Vickers Co., Ltd

Washington Native Plant Society

Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology

Westlake Yacht Club

MEDIA 

American Press Service

Antelope Valley Press

Associated Press

Beverly Hills Today

Cable Channel 6

Camarillo Star Free Press

Cox Cable

Daily News

El Vida Newspaper

Event Source

Filmore Herald

Happenings Magazine

KABC-TV

Key Magazine

KCAL-TV

KCBS-FM & KNX-FM 

KCET-TV

KCLU Radio

KCOP-TV

KCSB UCSB

KDB News Dept.

KEYT-TV

KHAY/KVEN 

KIIS-FM/AM

KKGO-FM

KKHJ-FM

Kleber Pr Network

KLOS-FM

KLVE-FM & KTNQ-AM 

KMEX-TV

KMGQ, KRUZ

KNBC-TV

KOLI Communications

The Korean Central Daily

KOST-FM & KACE-FM & KFI-AM 

KPWR-FM

KRTH-FM 

KSPE
Agencies and Organizations to Whom 

this Document was Sent

421

KTTV

KTWV-FM & KFWB-AM

KUHL/KXFM News

KWKW-AM

KYSR-FM & KXEZ-FM 

KZBN

KZLA-FM & KLAC-FM

KZTR Radio 

L.A. Daily News

La Opinion

Latitude 38

Long Beach Press -Telegram

Los Angeles Times

Montecito Magazine

Ojai Valley News

Outdoor Network

Pasadena Star - News

Power Boat Magazine

Rafu Shimpo

Reuters America, Inc.

San Gabriel Valley Tribune

Santa Barbara Independent

Santa Barbara News Press

Santa Maria Times

Santa Ynez Valley News

Santana

SB Magazine

Sea Magazine

The Navy Dispatch

Today Publications

UCSB Daily Nexus

UPN News 13

Ventura County Parent Magazine

Ventura County Reporter

Ventura County Star Newspaper

Via Magazine

LIBRARIES

Buellton City Library, Santa Ynez

Camarillo City Library

Carpinteria Library

City of Los Angeles Library

E.P. Foster Library, Ventura

Eastside Library, Santa Barbara

Filmore Library

Goleta Library

H.P. Wright Library, Ventura

Moorpark Library

Ojai Library

Oxnard Library

Port Hueneme — Prueter Library

Santa Barbara City Library

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History 

Library

Santa Paula Public Library

Thousand Oaks City Library

Appendixes, Selected References, 

Preparers and Consultants, Index

Channel Islands National Park Ch

425

APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY FOR CHANNEL 

ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK 

On April 26, 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed proclamation 2281 designating 

Anacapa and Santa Barbara islands as the Channel Islands National Monument. The 

proclamation noted that the islands warranted protection because they “contain fossils of 

Pleistocene elephants and ancient trees, and furnish noteworthy examples of volcanism, 

deposition, and active sea erosion, and have situated thereon various other objects of geological 

and scientific interest . . . . Several parts of the islands were reserved for lighthouse purposes.”

On February 9, 1949, President Harry S Truman issued another proclamation (2825) that added 

17,635 acres to the monument. Specifically, the proclamation added the area within 1 nautical 

mile of the shoreline of Anacapa and Santa Barbara islands, which included several small islets 

and rocks and the offshore kelp beds around the islands. It was noted that these islets and rocks 

were “required for the proper care, management, and protection of the objects of geological and 

scientific interest located on lands within the said monument.”

PL 93-477 (88 Stat 1445), enacted on October 26, 1974, authorized funds for the development of 

an administrative (headquarters) site and visitor facilities for the monument. Section 401 of the 

act authorized the secretary of the interior to accept the donation of the fee simple title of up to 5 

acres of land and submerged land within the Ventura Marina in Ventura for these facilities.

On March 5, 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed PL 96-199 (94 Stat 67), which established 

Channel Islands National Park. The act included in the park Santa Barbara and Anacapa islands 

from the original monument, plus Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and San Miguel islands (the later to 

remain under the ownership of the U.S. Navy but managed by the Park Service). Prince Island was 

also included in the park, as well as the rocks, islets, and submerged lands and waters within 1 

nautical mile of each island. The act stated that lands owned by The Nature Conservancy could be 

acquired only with their consent. Privately owned lands on Santa Rosa were to be acquired “as 

expeditiously as possible.” The act specifically stated that nothing would affect the rights and 

jurisdiction of the state of California within the park, including its authority over submerged 

lands, waters, and marine resources within the park boundaries. Section 204(a) of the act declared 

that the park “shall be administered on a low-intensity, limited-entry basis.” Section 204(b) 

further stated that “in recognition of the special fragility and sensitivity of the park’s resources, it 

is the intent of Congress that the visitor use within the park be limited to assure negligible adverse 

impact on the park resources. The Secretary shall establish appropriate visitor carrying capacities 

within the park.” Section 206 called for a review of the suitability or nonsuitability of the park for 

designation as wilderness within three fiscal years after the date of the enactment of the law. 

Section 207 stated that no fees shall be charged for entrance to the park. Section 208 provided for 

expenditure of federal funds for the cooperative management of The Nature Conservancy and 

other private property for research, resource management, and visitor protection and use.
426

APPENDIX B. SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO 

CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK

TABLE B-1. SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

Relations with 

Private and Public 

Organizations, 

Owners of Adjacent 

Land, and 

Governmental 

Agencies 

Desired Conditions: The park is managed as part of a greater ecological, social, economic, and 

cultural system.

Good relations are maintained with adjacent landowners, surrounding communities, and private 

and public groups that affect, and are affected by, the park. The area is managed proactively to 

resolve external issues and concerns and ensure that area values are not compromised.

As noted above, Channel Islands National Park is socially, politically, ecologically, and historically a 

part of a greater area. The Park Service must consider how its actions in Channel Islands affect the 

surrounding environment and society. For instance, the management of the park influences local 

economies through tourism expenditures and the goods and services the Park Service purchases 

to support park operations.

Strategies: To ensure that the Park Service maintains good relations with landowners and 

communities surrounding Channel Islands National Park, and to ensure that the park is managed 

proactively to resolve external issues and concerns, the following strategies would be 

implemented:

• The park staff would continue to establish and foster partnerships with public and private 

organizations to achieve the purposes and mission of the park. Partnerships would be sought 

for resource protection, research, education, visitor enjoyment, visitor access, and corridor 

management purposes.

• To foster a spirit of cooperation with neighbors and encourage compatible adjacent land uses, 

the park staff would keep landowners, land managers, tribes, local governments, and the 

public informed about park management activities. Periodic consultations would occur with 

landowners and communities who are affected by, or potentially affected by, park visitors and 

management actions. Park staff would respond promptly to conflicts that arise over their 

activities, visitor access, and proposed activities and developments on adjacent lands that could 

affect Channel Islands. Park managers would seek agreements with landowners to encourage 

their lands to be managed in a manner compatible with park purposes. Park staff also would 

seek ways to provide landowners with technical and management assistance to address issues 

of mutual interest.

• The Park Service would work closely with federal, state, and local agencies and tribal 

governments whose programs affect, or are affected by, activities in Channel Islands. The park 

staff would continue to coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies. In particular, park 

managers would maintain a close working relationship with the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary, U.S. Navy, and The Nature Conservancy, whose lands abut much of the 

park, to meet mutual management needs. Park managers also would pursue cooperative 

regional planning whenever possible to integrate the park into issues of regional concern.

• The park staff would work with other government managers to encourage the adoption of 

practices to conserve and improve marine resources in waters within and surrounding the park. 
Appendix B. Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Channel Islands National Park

427

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

Government-toGovernment 

Relations between 

American Indian 

Tribes and Channel 

Islands National Park 

Desired Conditions: The California Channel Islands have long been significant to several Native 

American groups. The park staff would work to ensure that traditional Native American ties to the 

islands are recognized and maintain positive, productive, government-to-government and/or 

consulting relationships with groups culturally associated with the islands.

Strategies: To enhance the Park Service’s relationship with interested Native American groups, 

the strategies and actions listed below would be followed.

Consult regularly and maintain government-to-government relations with the Santa Ynez Band of 

Mission Indians, the federally recognized tribe with traditional ties to resources within the park. 

Also, the park would consult regularly with individuals known to be lineal descendants of the 

islands and other interested Native American parties. The park staff would build on existing 

relationships, identifying partnerships and activities of mutual benefit. 

Continue to identify and deepen the understanding of the significance of the park’s resources and 

landscapes to the recognized tribes, lineal descendants and interested Native American parties 

through collaborative research and information sharing.

Ensure the participation of the tribes, lineal descendants, and interested Native American parties 

in protecting the park’s natural and cultural resources of interest and concern to them.

Involve the tribes, lineal descendants and interested Native American parties in the park’s 

interpretation program to promote accuracy of information regarding Native American cultural 

values and to enhance public appreciation of those values.

Support continuation of traditional Native American activities in the park, to the extent allowed by 

applicable laws and regulations.

Natural Resources

Ecosystem 

Management

NPS Management Policies 2001 (§ 1.5, 4, 4.1, 4.1.4, 4.4.1) provides general direction for 

managing park units from an ecosystem perspective.

The park lies within an extensive landscape of human, biological, and physical dimensions. Park 

resources and their management are affected by natural processes and social circumstances, 

which often extend beyond park boundaries. For example, although the park staff protects 

seabird breeding areas and pinniped haul-out areas in the park, the size and health of the wildlife 

populations that use the park also depends upon actions taken elsewhere in the waters of the 

Southern California Bight and beyond. 

In the past, many park units were managed in a way that did not adapt to natural or social 

change, or consider influences beyond park boundaries. Managing for a static environment in the 

human or natural dimension would not provide the means to meet the needs of future 

generations or accommodate the change inherent to, and resulting from, natural processes. 

Approaches to ecosystem management are varied and occur at many levels. Achieving the desired 

future conditions stated in the plan for park resources requires that a regional perspective be

considered, recognizing that actions outside the park directly and indirectly affect the park. Many 

of the threats to park resources, such as invasive, nonnative species, and air pollution, come from 

outside of the park boundaries, requiring an ecosystem approach to understand and manage the 

park’s natural resources.

Imperative in this effort is understanding the health or condition of the ecosystem. Without a 

planned monitoring program, improvement or degradation of resources cannot be determined 

with any certainty. Key indicators of resource or system conditions must be identified and 

monitored (see the natural resources section below).

Cooperation, coordination, negotiation, and partnerships with other federal and state agencies 

are also crucial to meeting or maintaining desired future conditions for the park while recognizing 

the need to accommodate multiple uses on a regional scale. This approach to ecosystem 

management may involve many parties or cooperative agreements to obtain a better 

understanding of transboundary issues.
APPENDIXES

428

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

In terms of biological, geological, and hydrologic resources, the management of the park’s natural 

resources is focused on allowing natural processes to shape the landscape, while also taking 

restoration actions to conserve native biological communities and species to achieve their natural 

functioning condition.

Desired Conditions: Channel Islands National Park is managed holistically as part of a greater 

ecological, social, economic, and cultural system. The Park Service demonstrates leadership in 

resource stewardship and conservation of ecosystem values within and outside the park. The park 

is managed from an ecosystem perspective, where internal and external factors affecting visitor 

use, environmental quality, and resource stewardship goals are considered at a scale appropriate 

to their impact on affected resources. Natural processes and population fluctuations occur with as 

little human intervention as possible. Park resources and visitors are managed considering the 

ecological and social conditions of the park and surrounding area. Park managers adapt to 

changing ecological and social conditions within and external to the park and continue as

partners in regional planning and land and water management. The park is managed proactively 

to resolve external issues and concerns to ensure park values are not compromised.

Strategies: Park staff would continue to participate in and encourage ongoing partnerships with 

federal, state, and local agencies; educational institutions; and other organizations in programs 

that have importance within and beyond park boundaries. Cooperative agreements, partnerships, 

and other arrangements can be used to set an example in resource conservation and innovation, 

and to facilitate research related to park resources and their management. Partnerships important 

to the long-term viability of natural and cultural resources include, but are not limited to:

• inventorying, monitoring, and managing terrestrial resources on Santa Cruz Island with The 

Nature Conservancy;

• monitoring, enforcing regulations, and managing marine resources with the California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife; 

• monitoring, enforcing regulations, and managing marine resources with the Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary (sanctuary);

• monitoring and managing federally threatened and endangered species with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service;

• monitoring and managing pinnipeds with the National Marine Fisheries Service

• monitoring and managing water quality with the local regional water quality control boards 

and the state water resources control board; and

• supporting scientific research and ecological monitoring to guide recovery/conservation efforts 

in collaboration with professionals from federal and state agencies, academic institutions, 

museums, and research organizations.

All resource management questions are approached from an ecosystem standpoint, taking into 

account all biological interrelationships.

Long-term monitoring of the change in condition of cultural and natural resources and related 

human influences continues (see natural resources strategies). 

Cooperative research and resource management efforts would be encouraged in areas of joint 

administration and overlapping political boundaries. 

To increase communication and sharing between park managers and scientists, and thus more 

effectively address management issues and problems, the Channel Islands research coordinating 

committee would be reestablished.

When feasible, partnerships would be sought with other public agencies (and The Nature 

Conservancy on Santa Cruz Island) in sharing office space, orientation and contact stations, and 

employee housing.

Areas external to the park where ecological processes, natural and cultural resources, and human 

use affect park resources or are closely related to park resource management considerations 

would be identified; joint management actions, agreements, or partnerships to promote resource 

conservation would be initiated (see natural resources strategies).
Appendix B. Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Channel Islands National Park

429

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

Natural Resources

(General)

Protection, study, and management of the park’s natural resources and processes is essential for 

achieving the park’s purposes and mission. NPS Management Policies 2001 (§ 4) and “NPS-77 

Natural Resources Management Guideline” provide general direction on natural resource 

management for the park.

Desired Conditions: Channel Islands National Park retains its ecological integrity, including its 

natural resources and processes. The park continues to be a dynamic, bio-diverse environment. 

The natural features of the park remain unimpaired. The islands are dominated by a mosaic of 

native vegetation and wildlife. Natural processes and populations fluctuate with as little human 

intervention as possible. Sources of air, water, and noise pollution affecting park resources are 

limited to the greatest degree possible. Potential threats to park resources are identified early and 

proactively addressed. Park visitors and staff recognize and understand the value of the park’s 

natural resources. Park staff uses the best available scientific information and technology to 

manage the park’s natural resources. The park is recognized and valued as an outstanding 

example of resource stewardship, conservation, education, and public use.

Strategies: Science-based, adaptive, decision-making would be followed, with the results of 

resource monitoring and research incorporated into all aspects of park operations. 

Park staff would apply ecological principles to ensure that natural resources are maintained and 

not impaired. Integrated pest management procedures would be used when necessary to control 

nonnative organisms or other pests. 

Park staff and other scientists would continue to inventory park resources to quantify, locate, and 

document biotic and abiotic resources in the park and to assess their status and trends. In 

particular, the park’s soils, floodplains, and wetlands need to be identified and mapped. The 

park’s sea caves would continue to be surveyed and monitored to determine the nature of the 

resources and the interaction occurring between resources and people.

Park staff and other scientists would continue the long-term systematic monitoring of resources 

and processes to discern natural and anthropogenically induced trends, document changes in 

species or communities, evaluate the effectiveness of management actions taken to protect and 

restore resources, and mitigate impacts on resources.

The park staff would expand monitoring programs to include geographic areas and resources that 

are not currently monitored. Partnerships with institutions, agencies, and scientists would be an 

important component of this endeavor.

A systematic survey and inventory of rare plants and animals would be completed on Santa Cruz. 

Monitoring of rare and endemic plants and communities would be conducted on all of the 

islands. Population dynamics studies would be completed for the park’s sensitive species.

Future facilities would be built in previously disturbed areas or in carefully selected sites with as 

small a construction footprint as possible. Park staff would also apply mitigation techniques to 

minimize the impacts of construction and other activities on park resources. 

Actions that have the potential to result in significant soil disturbance would be evaluated to 

determine if erosion control measures need to be applied.

In all instances where manipulation of the environment is required, special care would be taken to 

avoid further contamination of the unique gene pools that exist on each island. Seed necessary 

for revegetation would be obtained only from sources on the island where the work is being 

done. The most genetically appropriate individuals would be used in all restorations of extirpated 

species.

Any activities or programs that result in disturbance of pinnipeds or rare marine birds and do not 

contribute to management of the species would be prohibited, especially during breeding 

seasons. Park rangers would continue to assist in protecting these species through both 

interpretive programs and law enforcement activities.

To protect wildlife, such as marine mammals, marine birds, and other natural resources, the 

following closures and restrictions would continue:
APPENDIXES

430

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

• landing on all offshore rocks and islets would continue to be prohibited;

• motorized aircraft would continue to be prohibited from flying at less than 1,000 feet over the 

waters within 1 nautical mile of any island except for enforcement purposes, to engage in kelp 

bed surveys, or to transport persons or supplies to or from an island, as per the sanctuary 

regulations;

• sea caves that are important for sea bird breeding and nesting would continue to be closed to 

public entry;

• all of the shoreline of San Miguel Island would continue to be closed to public landing or entry, 

with the exception of Cuyler Harbor; all hikers also would continue to be required to be 

accompanied beyond the ranger station by a park ranger;

• all visitors would continue to be required to be accompanied by a park ranger on Middle 

Anacapa; and

• Beach camping would be prohibited on Santa Barbara, Anacapa, Santa Cruz, and San Miguel 

islands.

Visitors would continue to be prohibited from bringing pets onto the islands in order to prevent 

the introduction of nonnative species, including diseases and parasites that could affect native 

wildlife. 

Roads on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands would be closed if they pass through areas with 

sensitive resources or are highly susceptible to erosion. Roads that are maintained would be 

managed to minimize erosion and sedimentation.

Scientific research would be encouraged. Cooperative basic and applied research would be 

encouraged through various partnerships and agreements to increase the understanding of park 

resources, natural processes, and human interactions with the environment, or to answer specific 

management questions. Marine bird and pinniped monitoring/research programs that provide 

basic information for management would continue to be encouraged and supported. The 

pinniped program would be coordinated through and in agreement with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service or its designated agents.

Collaboration and consultation with the scientific community would continue to be encouraged in 

order to guide resource management. A symposium bringing together researchers doing work on

the Channel Islands would continue to be held approximately every five years.

Park managers would ensure that laboratory facilities are available to meet the needs of park staff 

and independent scientists engaged in fundamental physical, biological, and cultural studies and 

analyses.

The park staff would continue to expand the data management system, including GIS, a research 

database, and a literature database, for analyzing, modeling, predicting, and testing trends in 

resource conditions.

Park managers would prepare and regularly update a resource stewardship strategy, which 

includes a list of prioritized actions to achieve the desired resource conditions identified in the 

General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. 

Ecosystem 

Restoration 

Efforts

NPS Management Policies 2001 (§ 4.4) call for the Park Service to maintain natural ecosystems in 

parks and to restore native plant and animal populations. “NPS-77, Natural Resources 

Management Guideline” also provides general direction on the restoration of natural resources 

for Channel Islands National Park. 

Many of the Channel Island’s natural ecosystems have been altered by the activities of people and 

the introduction of nonnative species. More specifically, the condition of natural vegetation 

communities has declined in the park due to extensive grazing by nonnative animals, erosion, and 

weed infestations. NPS Management Policies 2001 (§ 4.4) call for the Park Service to maintain 

natural ecosystems in parks and to restore native plant and animal populations. For more than 30 

years, the Park Service has been working to restore the islands’ natural ecosystems; eradicating 

nonnative species; reintroducing native species; increasing the cover of native plant species; 

stabilizing soils and controlling soil erosion; promoting the conservation and recovery of 

threatened, endangered, and rare species, and the habitats they depend on; and eliminating 

other sources of disturbance. Restoration plans are underway for Anacapa and Santa Cruz islands 
Appendix B. Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Channel Islands National Park

431

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

(NPS 2000b, 2002). Substantial restoration has already occurred on Santa Barbara, Santa Rosa, 

and San Miguel islands as a result of the removal of nonnative animals. Efforts are being made, in 

collaboration with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the sanctuary, to enhance 

protection and restoration of marine resources.

Desired Conditions: The islands are a model of successful ecological restoration efforts. With the 

exception of historic ranch sites, altered ecosystems (including terrestrial, intertidal, and marine 

systems) are restored as nearly as possible to conditions they would be in today had natural 

ecological processes not been disturbed. Island vegetation is in a condition reminiscent of the 

period before Europeans began altering the islands. All federally and state threatened and 

endangered species are no longer in danger of extinction and are at least stable in the park. The 

natural fire regime has been restored. 

Strategies: Active restoration efforts would continue on all of the islands, primarily focusing on 

eradication of nonnative wildlife species, weed control, revegetation of native plants, restoration 

of native plants and animals, and erosion control. 

The long-term restoration goals, interim goals, and ecological standards specified for 14 native 

terrestrial plant communities in the park’s 1999 Resource Management Plan would continue to be 

pursued.

Research would continue to be encouraged to gain a better understanding of the life history, 

population dynamics, and responses of listed plant species to management activities, such as on 

seed production and dispersal mechanisms, soil seed banks, and the effects of fire management. 

(See USFWS 2000 for a list of research topics.) Actions would also be taken to develop, evaluate, 

and implement techniques to artificially enhance or introduce plant populations.

Efforts would continue, in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy, and other 

public and private institutions, to survey, restore, and recover all listed federal and state terrestrial 

and marine threatened and endangered species. Listed species and their habitats would be 

inventoried and monitored to determine population status and trends, and to evaluate the 

effectiveness of efforts being taken to reduce threats and recover the species. Efforts would be 

undertaken to preserve the genetic diversity of these species, such as through collecting and 

storing seeds. 

Inventories and monitoring of invasive nonnative plant species would continue on all of the 

islands. Efforts would continue to control or eradicate nonnative plants that are particularly 

invasive and destructive pests, or have the potential to rapidly spread and dominate plant 

communities, such as iceplant, fennel, bull thistle, milk thistle, and spiny cocklebur.

Efforts would continue to remove feral mammals on the islands. Efforts would continue to 

eradicate rats from San Miguel Island. 

Efforts would continue to reduce human-caused erosion on all of the islands to a minimal level 

and aid in the recovery of soils and vegetation.

Park managers would restore disturbed lands as much as possible and determine on a site-by-site 

basis whether passive or active restoration is necessary. Park staff would carry out the active 

restoration of previously or newly disturbed areas using native genetic materials to regain 

maximum habitat value. Should facilities be removed, the disturbed lands would be rehabilitated 

to restore natural topography and soils, and the areas would be revegetated with native species. 

Under some circumstances, primarily in frontcountry developed areas, it may be appropriate and 

within policy to use nonnative plants in restoration efforts. Only plants that are noninvasive and 

would remain within developed areas would be used. 

On Santa Cruz Island, restoration efforts would be conducted in concert with TNC restoration 

activities,.

Additional attention would be devoted to preventing future introductions of nonnative species on 

the islands. Actions that may be taken include rodent-proofing storage areas and containers that 

haul equipment and supplies to the islands; checking planes, boats, and helicopters that transport 
APPENDIXES

432

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

people and materials to the islands for rodents and other nonnative species; and informing and 

educating visitors, concessioners, contractors, employees, permittees, and researchers on the 

importance of this task.

Emergency response plans would be prepared that would set priorities and direct what actions to 

take should rats or other nonnative species be discovered on an island. Materials such as traps 

and bait would be in place on the islands to respond immediately to this event.

Historically, fire has occurred infrequently in the park. However, in more recent times, fires have 

increased in frequency. Fire danger is higher now, with nonnative grasslands and fuel buildup. 

The potential for nonnatural, catastrophic fires would continue during the transition period in 

vegetation recovery and in the presence of nonnative herbivores on some islands. If use increases 

in the park, the potential for wild fires could increase. It is important to complete a fire 

management plan for the park, which provides short- and long-term directions for using fire as a 

restoration tool and for controlling wildfires in the park. In some cases, prescribed burns may be 

used to eliminate nonnative plants in tightly managed conditions. Additional attention also needs 

to be devoted to educating visitors to avoid wildfires on the islands. All visitors would be informed 

about the need to prevent fires on the islands. No smoking on trails or in brush areas would 

continue to be enforced. Charcoal or other types of open fires would continue to be prohibited 

on all islands, except seasonally in designated areas at Scorpion beach on Santa Cruz Island. As 

ecosystem restoration efforts proceed, and native vegetation replaces nonnative vegetation, the 

potential for fires should decline in the long term.

Paleontological 

Resources

NPS Management Policies 2001 (§ 4.8.2) and “NPS Natural Resource Management Reference 

Manual #77” provide direction for the protection and management of paleontological resources 

in park units.

The Channel Islands, particularly San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz, contain numerous plant 

and animal fossils that illuminate the past natural history of the California coastal region. Pygmy 

mammoth fossils discovered on the islands are of special interest. Although scientists have learned 

quite a lot about some of the park’s fossils, paleontological resources on the Channel Islands have 

not been very well studied. 

Desired Conditions: Channel Islands National Park’s paleontological resources, including both 

organic and mineralized remains in body or trace form, are protected and preserved in situ, with 

opportunities for public education, interpretation, and scientific research. Impacts to 

paleontological resources from human activities, including construction of facilities and illegal 

collecting, are minimized.

Strategies: A paleontological research plan that directs future research efforts would be prepared 

and updated as needed.

A paleontological resource inventory and assessment would be conducted to determine the 

extent and scientific significance of the park’s paleontological resources, and to ensure that these 

nonrenewable resources are not lost. Fossil localities and associated geologic data would be 

documented when specimens are collected. Paleontological resource stability indicators, covering 

such elements as rates of erosion and human activity, would be developed and monitored to 

establish vital signs and assess the conditions for fossil resources. 

A variety of methods would be followed to protect resources such as data recording, stabilization 

in the field, collection, preparation, and placement of specimens in a museum collection, or 

construction of shelters over specimens. 

Paleontological resources would be managed and studied in their geologic context, which 

provides information about the ancient environment.

NPS staff would be a partner with other federal and state agencies, The Nature Conservancy, and 

academic institutions to conduct paleontological research. NPS staff would expand opportunities 

for researchers to use the monument’s fossil collection to further paleontological knowledge.

Human-induced erosion in areas with known or likely paleontological resources would be 

minimized as much as possible. If destructive and preventable erosion occurs or ground-disturbing 
Appendix B. Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Channel Islands National Park

433

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

activities are proposed in areas with potential paleontological resources, a qualified paleontologist 

would survey the areas for paleontological resources, evaluate their significance, and specify if 

data recording, stabilization, or specimen collection is necessary. New facilities would be avoided 

on areas that may yield fossils, or if necessary, the resource may be collected prior to the initiation 

of construction. 

Management actions would be taken to prevent illegal collecting and may be taken to prevent 

damage from natural processes such as erosion. Paleontological resources along high use trails 

and/or roads would be monitored and actions taken to reduce impacts.

Interpretive and educational programs would continue to be developed to educate visitors and 

the public about paleontology. Fossils would be prepared, exhibited, and stored according to NPS 

museum standards.

Air Quality

The Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.) gives federal land managers the responsibility for 

protecting air quality and related values, including visibility, plants, animals, soils, water quality, 

cultural resources, and public health, from adverse air pollution impacts. NPS Management 

Policies 2001 (§ 4.7), and “NPS Natural Resource Management Reference Manual #77” provide 

further direction on the protection of air quality and related values for park units.

Channel Islands National Park is classified as a Class II area This air quality classification is the 

second most stringent and is designed to protect the majority of the country from air quality 

degradation. The Clean Air Act gives federal land managers the responsibility for protecting air 

quality and related values, including visibility, plants, animals, soils, water quality, cultural 

resources, and public health, from adverse air pollution impacts. The park is located in the South 

Central Coast Air Basin. The regulatory agencies responsible for overseeing air quality are the 

Ventura County and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control districts. 

Air quality impacts in the park are due primarily to external sources, and are a concern. Normally, 

sea breezes push air pollutants inland, which keeps air quality on the islands good. However, 

infrequently “Santa Ana” winds carry pollutants several hundred miles offshore and have the 

potential to greatly affect air quality on the islands. Other atmospheric patterns, such as “Catalina 

eddies” and eastern Pacific high pressure systems, also can introduce air pollutants from 

stationary, area, and mobile sources in the Los Angeles basin onto the islands. Polluted air from 

mainland sources and offshore oil and gas facilities has reduced visibility and may threaten native 

vegetation in the park.

Air pollution sources within the park include stationary sources such as furnaces, boilers, 

campfires, and generators. Motor vehicles are mobile sources and emissions primarily include 

carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons (or volatile organic compounds). Most of 

the stationary and area sources are associated with park operations. Marine vessels constitute the 

largest sources of mobile-source emissions in the Channel Islands. However, none of the sources 

in the park, or actions being proposed in the plan, would negatively affect the park’s air quality 

compared to pollution sources outside the park.

The South Central Coast Air Basin, which includes the park, is classified by the California Air 

Resources Board as being in nonattainment for ozone and particulate matter. Both Ventura and 

Santa Barbara counties also currently exceed the national ambient air quality standards for ozone. 

However, the federal and state ozone standards have not been exceeded on Santa Rosa Island, 

where ambient ozone has been monitored since 1997. 

Desired Conditions: Good to excellent air quality is maintained on all of the islands and at park 

headquarters. Scenic views, both day and night, are protected unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

current and future park visitors. 

Strategies: The park staff would continue to work with appropriate federal and state 

governmental agencies, nearby communities, and the Ventura County and Santa Barbara County 

Air Pollution Control districts to maintain and improve park regional air quality. Park staff would 

participate in regional air quality planning and research, and the implementation of air quality 

standards. 
APPENDIXES

434

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

Park staff and other scientists would inventory and monitor air quality in the park to gain baseline 

information and to measure any significant changes (improvement or deterioration) to the 

Channel Islands’ airshed.

Emissions associated with administrative and recreational use of the park would be reduced. 

Using zero emission and/or low emission vehicles in the park would help prevent damage to park 

air quality.

To minimize smoke impacts, controlled burns would occur only when favorable meteorological 

conditions are present. The vegetation to be burned shall be in a condition that would facilitate 

combustion and minimize the amount of smoke emitted during combustion.

Educational programs would inform visitors, as well as regional residents, about the threats of air 

pollution to park resources.

Water Quality

Water is a key resource in Channel Islands National Park, shaping the landscape and affecting 

plants, animals, and visitor use. The Clean Water Act strives to restore and maintain the integrity 

of U.S. waters, which includes waters found in the park. NPS Management Policies 2001 (§ 4.6.3) 

and “NPS Natural Resource Management Reference Manual #77” provide direction on the 

protection and management of water in the park. 

Desired Conditions: The park’s fresh and marine water quality reflects natural conditions and 

supports native plant and animal communities, and administrative and recreational uses. All 

sources of water pollution from the islands have been eliminated.

Strategies: Park managers would seek to restore the natural functioning of hydrological systems 

that have been altered on the islands.

Park personnel would develop a program to manage human waste in all areas. 

Park managers would work with the state and regional water quality control boards to prevent 

water pollution and minimize the risk of water-borne diseases. Park managers would also 

participate in state or national water quality remediation and watershed planning programs.

A water resource inventory would be completed in order to develop a comprehensive water 

resources management plan for the park.

Park staff would strive to develop a long-term water quality monitoring program for Santa Rosa, 

Santa Cruz, and San Miguel islands. The nearshore marine waters should also be monitored. 

These monitoring programs would regularly measure the park’s water quality, including physical, 

chemical, and biological properties.

Park staff would strive to conserve water in all park operations. Examples of actions that could be 

taken include installing low-flow fixtures such as toilets and showers, or installing self-contained, 

composting toilets.

Visitor interpretive and education efforts would emphasize the hazards from flash flooding that 

exist in the park (e.g., in Scorpion Valley) and appropriate responses when flooding occurs. 

Visitors would be educated in techniques to prevent water pollution and safely collect and treat 

drinking water from natural sources.

Management of 

Marine Resources

Channel Islands National Park encompasses the surrounding 1 nautical mile of ocean around the 

islands. Half of the park’s acreage (124,299 acres) is under the ocean and jurisdiction is shared 

with the state of California and the sanctuary. These waters support productive, diverse biological 

resources, including many important commercial resources. NPS Management Policies 2001 

(§§ 4.1, 4.4) and “NPS Natural Resource Management Reference Manual #77” provide direction 

on the protection and management of marine resources within the park boundary. 

Desired Conditions: The natural diversity and abundance of marine life within the park 

boundary, and the structure, function, and integrity of marine ecosystems are protected. The 

park’s waters provide a sanctuary for fish and other sea life. Marine populations are sustained and 

conserved, including those of economic value. Depleted populations have been rebuilt. 

Representative and unique marine habitats are protected. The park’s marine life provides a 

reference point against which scientists can measure changes elsewhere in the marine 
Appendix B. Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Channel Islands National Park

435

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

environment. There is minimal human disturbance of marine ecosystems. Prevent establishment 

of nonnative species.

Strategies: Park staff would cooperate with and assist the California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife in monitoring, enforcing, and managing the recently established marine protected areas 

and in educating the public about the purposes of these areas.

The Park Service would regulate activities on marine waters in the park, such as the prohibition on 

personal watercraft, to protect sensitive resources and the visitor experience.

Park managers would assist the state in management of the nearshore and intertidal zones to 

ensure the perpetuation of marine resources.

Park managers would encourage state and federal agencies to manage the marine and associated 

resources around the Channel Islands to ensure adequate food reserves for marine birds,

cetaceans, and pinnipeds.

Cooperative research efforts designed to provide management information for subtidal, intertidal, 

and marine resources would be encouraged and supported.

Artificial reefs and aquaculture operations would not be permitted in the park. They would 

adversely impact the park’s natural marine environment and are not consistent with the purposes 

of the park. Aquaculture operations outside park waters would be monitored to ensure that these 

operations do not adversely affect park resources.

There is a possibility that sounds from ships are affecting the park’s marine environment, 

particularly cetecans. Research would be conducted to determine the nature and extent of 

impacts that are occurring to the marine soundscape and marine wildlife.

Park managers would cooperate with and assist appropriate federal and state agencies in 

implementing existing action plans for containment and clean-up of oil spills to protect marine 

resources surrounding the islands.

Floodplains

Floodplains exist on Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel islands where there are perennial 

and intermittent streams. Some of the floodplains are extensive, such as along Scorpion Creek. 

But in most cases the floodplains are fairly confined and occur in the lower reaches of the 

streams, in low gradient coastal areas. Existing developments at Prisoners Harbor and in Scorpion 

Valley are in or near floodplains. Large floods can occur at Scorpion Valley. Floods in the past have 

damaged structures and posed safety risks to visitors in Scorpion, and likely would do so again in 

the future if no action is taken.

Floodplains are protected and managed in accordance with EO 11988, “Floodplain 

Management”; NPS DO-77-2 and its accompanying procedural manual; and NPS Management 

Policies 2001 (§ 4.6.4).

Desired Conditions: Natural floodplain values are preserved or restored. Long- and short-term 

impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains are avoided. Hazardous 

conditions associated with flooding that could affect visitor safety are minimized. 

Strategies: Whenever possible, new developments would be located on sites outside of 

floodplains. If it is not possible to avoid locating a new development on a floodplain or avoid a 

management action that would affect a floodplain, the Park Service would:

• prepare and approve a statement of findings in accordance with DO-77-2 

• use nonstructural measures as much as practicable to reduce hazards to human life and 

property while minimizing impacts on the natural resources of floodplains

• ensure that structures and facilities are designed to be consistent with the intent of the 

standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (44 CFR 60)

A trails construction expert would examine the trail on a hillside down-valley from the masonry 

building at Scorpion to consider water management concerns and steps that can be taken to 

reduce flooding, such as installing water bars and swales, while not causing new gullies or other 

problems. In addition, the tributary channel and berm would be examined to determine if they 

need to be enlarged and repaired to provide additional protection against flooding from this 

tributary. 
APPENDIXES

436

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

Mitigation measures would be required as part of construction to avoid any potential indirect 

effects to floodplains. Before initiating any ground-disturbing projects, further investigation would 

be conducted to determine if floodplain resources would be affected. Floodplains would be 

addressed at the project level to ensure that projects are consistent with NPS policy and EO 

11988.

Wetlands

The larger islands in Channel Islands National Park have small wetlands along permanent and 

intermittent streams, and in the vicinity of seeps and springs, vernal pools, and small marshes at 

the estuaries of canyons. Wetlands are protected and managed in accordance with EO 11990, 

“Protection of Wetlands” and NPS DO-77-1 and its accompanying procedural manual.

Desired Conditions: The natural values of wetlands are maintained and protected. When 

practicable, natural wetland cultural values are enhanced by using them for educational, 

recreational, scientific, and similar purposes that do not disrupt natural wetland functions. Natural 

wetlands that have been degraded due to past human actions, including the introduction of 

nonnative species, are restored to predisturbance conditions whenever feasible.

Strategies: A parkwide wetland inventory, condition assessment, and functional evaluation 

would be conducted to help ensure proper management and protection of wetland resources. 

More detailed wetland mapping would be conducted in areas proposed for development or are 

otherwise susceptible to degradation or loss due to human activities.

The construction of new developments in island wetlands would be avoided. If it is not possible to 

avoid locating a new development in a wetland or avoid a management action that would 

adversely affect a wetland, the Park Service would comply with the provisions of EO 11990, the 

Clean Water Act, and DO-77-1. All practicable measures (including the Best Management 

Practices described in appendix 2 of the “NPS Procedural Manual #77-1: Wetland Protection”) 

would be included in the proposed action to minimize harm to wetlands. The loss of any wetlands 

would be compensated.

A statement of findings for wetlands would be prepared (according to the guidelines defined in 

the NPS Procedural Manual #77-1) if the action would result in an adverse impact on a wetland. 

The statement of findings would include an analysis of the alternatives, delineation of the 

wetland, a wetland restoration plan to identify mitigation, and a wetland functional analysis of 

the impact site and restoration site. 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

Under the ESA, the Park Service is mandated to promote the conservation of all federally 

threatened and endangered species and their critical habitats within the park boundaries. NPS

Management Policies 2001 (§ 4.4.2.3) also call for the agency to survey for, protect, and strive to 

recover all species native to national park system units that are listed under the ESA. In addition, 

the Park Service is directed to inventory, monitor, and manage state-listed species in a manner 

similar to the treatment of federally listed species, to the greatest extent possible. Channel Islands 

National Park supports 37 federally listed threatened and endangered species and one federally 

proposed threatened species − one of the highest number of listed species in a unit of the 

national park system. A number of these species are also listed by the state as being threatened or 

endangered.

Desired Conditions: All listed species and species proposed for listing have recovered in 

sufficient numbers so that the species can be delisted. Essential habitats that support these 

species are all protected. 

Strategies: Park staff would continue to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife to ensure that NPS actions help 

federal- and state-listed species recover. If any state- or federal-listed or proposed threatened or 

endangered species were found in areas that would be affected by construction, visitor use, or 

restoration activities proposed under any of the alternatives in this plan, park staff would first 

consult informally with the above agencies. Park staff would then attempt to avoid, minimize, 

rectify, reduce, compensate, or otherwise mitigate any potential adverse impacts on federal- or 

state-listed species. Should it be determined through informal consultation that an action might 

adversely affect a federally listed or proposed species, park staff would initiate formal consultation 

under Section 7 of the ESA. 

Park staff would cooperate with the above agencies in inventorying, monitoring, protecting, and 

perpetuating the natural distribution and abundance of all federal- and state-listed species and 
Appendix B. Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Channel Islands National Park

437

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

their essential habitats in Channel Islands National Park. These species and their required habitats 

would be specifically considered in ongoing planning and management activities.

Park staff would participate in the recovery planning process, including the provision of members 

on recovery teams where appropriate.

Active management programs would be undertaken to monitor, restore, and maintain listed 

species’ habitats, control detrimental nonnative species, control detrimental visitor access, and 

reestablish extirpated populations as necessary to maintain the species and the habitats upon 

which they depend.

Efforts would continue to propagate and seed bank listed plant species in order to minimize the 

effects of a potential catastrophic event.

Park managers would encourage and cooperate with the Fish and Wildlife Service and California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife in reintroducing or allowing the repopulation of sea otters in park 

waters.

Lightscape 

Management / Night 

Sky

NPS Management Policies 2001 (§ 4.10) provides general direction on preserving the natural 

landscape of park units; Channel Island’s night sky is a feature that significantly contributes to the 

visitor experience. The policy states that the Park Service would seek to minimize the intrusion of 

artificial light into the night scene. In natural areas, artificial outdoor lighting would be limited to 

meeting basic safety requirements and would be shielded when possible.

Desired Conditions: Opportunities to view the night sky are available. Artificial light sources 

within the park do not impair night sky viewing opportunities or adversely affect wildlife 

populations. 

Strategies: Impacts on the night sky caused by facilities within Channel Islands National Park 

would be evaluated. To the extent possible, park staff would work within a regional context to 

protect night sky quality.

If it is determined that light sources within the park affect views of the night sky, alternatives 

would be studied to existing lighting sources such as shielding lights, changing lamp types, or 

eliminating unnecessary sources.

Park managers would work with the state and boat operators to avoid or minimize adverse 

wildlife impacts due to light sources on boats.

Natural Soundscape

NPS Management Policies 2001 (§ 4.9) and NPS DO-47: Sound Preservation and Noise 

Management require park managers to strive to preserve the natural soundscape (natural quiet) 

associated with the physical and biological resources (e.g., the sounds of the wind in the trees). 

The concept of natural quiet was further defined in the Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights 

on the National Park System (NPS 1995b). 

What is natural quiet? Parks and wildernesses offer a variety of unique, pristine sounds not found 

in most urban or suburban environments. They also offer a complete absence of sounds that are

found in such environments. Together, these two conditions provide a very special dimension to a 

park experience — quiet itself. In the absence of any discernible source of sound (especially 

manmade), quiet is an important element of the feeling of solitude. Quiet also affords visitors an 

opportunity to hear faint or very distant sounds, such as animal activity and waterfalls. Such an 

experience provides an important perspective on the vastness of the environment in which the 

visitor is located, often beyond the visual boundaries determined by trees, terrain, and the like. In 

considering natural quiet as a resource, the ability to clearly hear the delicate and quieter 

intermittent sounds of nature, the ability to experience interludes of extreme quiet for their own 

sake, and the opportunity to do so for extended periods of time is what natural quiet is all about.

Aircraft flights over the park for sightseeing, photography, or filming purposes can adversely 

affect the natural soundscape. The potential exists for air tours and associated noise impacts in 

the park. Land-based sources, such as motor vehicles, can also affect natural sounds.

Desired Conditions: Natural sounds predominate in Channel Islands National Park. Visitors have 

opportunities throughout much of the park to experience natural sounds in an unimpaired 

condition. The sounds of civilization are generally confined to developed areas.
APPENDIXES

438

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

Strategies: Park managers would continue to follow several policies and practices to minimize 

noise both from land and air sources. 

The National Parks Air Tour Management Act (Act) of 2000 (PL 106-181), as amended, requires 

that all persons conducting or intending to conduct a commercial air tour operation below 5,000 

feet above ground level over or within 0.5 mile of the boundary of a national park system unit 

apply to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for authority to undertake such activity before 

engaging in that activity. The Act further requires that the Administrator of the FAA 

(Administrator), in cooperation with the NPS Director (Director), establish an Air Tour 

Management Plan (ATMP) for each park that does not have such a plan in effect at the time that 

a person applies to the FAA for authority to conduct a commercial air tour operation. As of 2012, 

no commercial air tour operators have applied for authority to conduct air tours over Channel 

Islands National Park; however, some commercial air tour operators advertise air tours within 

Channel Islands National Park and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. 

Park managers would work with the FAA to educate air tour operators about the requirements of 

the Act. If an air tour operator applies to conduct commercial air tour operations for Channel 

Islands, park managers would work with the FAA tour operators and all other interested parties in 

developing the ATMP. This plan would determine if commercial air tours would be appropriate for 

the park, and if so, under what conditions (e.g., if air tours are appropriate in some or the entire 

park, the plan could establish conditions such as routes, altitudes, times of day, and maximum 

number of flights per unit of time). 

As an alternative to an ATMP, the Director and Administrator may enter into an agreement with a 

commercial air tour operator who has applied to conduct commercial air tour operations over a 

national park (49 USC § 40128(b)(7)(A)). In such cases, the Act requires that the agreement 

address the management issues necessary to protect the resources and visitor use of the park 

without compromising aviation safety or the air traffic control system (49 USC § 40128(b)(7)(B)).

The Park Service would work with the FAA, tour operators, commercial businesses, and general 

aviation interests to minimize noise and visual impacts of aviation to the park. Aircraft would be 

encouraged to fly outside the park, especially for those flights where the presence of the park was 

incidental to the purpose of the flight (i.e., transit between two points). Actions that may be 

considered for encouraging pilots to fly outside park boundaries include identifying the park on 

route maps as a noise-sensitive area, educating pilots about the reasons for keeping a distance 

from the park, and encouraging pilots to fly in compliance with FAA regulations and advisory 

guidance in a manner that minimizes noise and other impacts.

The Park Service would work with the Department of Defense to develop a process to address the 

occasional problems that arise from military flights over the park. 

The existing quiet hours in campgrounds would be maintained.

Park managers would minimize noise generated by park management activities by strictly 

regulating NPS and concession administrative use of noise-producing machinery such as aircraft 

and motorized equipment. Noise would be a consideration when procuring and using park 

equipment. Park managers also would prepare a soundscape preservation and noise management 

plan to provide guidance for managing all noise sources in the park including generators, NPS 

equipment, other aircraft, and external sources.

Cultural Resources 

(General)

Channel Islands National Park’s cultural resources, including its archeological (including 

submerged maritime) sites, historic structures/buildings, cultural landscapes, ethnographic 

resources, and museum collections, are an integral part of the park. Protection of these resources 

is essential for understanding peoples’ past, present, and future relationship with the park 

environment as well as its expressions of America’s cultural heritage. The park’s Resource 

Management Plan provides details on the strategies and actions to address the park’s most 

important cultural resource problems, issues, and research needs.

Desired Conditions: The park’s cultural resources are protected and the integrity of the park’s 

cultural resources is preserved unimpaired. Park visitors and employees recognize, understand, 

and appreciate the value of the park’s cultural resources and their relationship to America’s 

cultural heritage. The park is recognized and valued as an example of resource stewardship, 

conservation, education, and public use.
Appendix B. Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Channel Islands National Park

439

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

Strategies: Support basic and applied research, directly and through various partnerships and 

agreements, to enhance the understanding of cultural resources and processes and to solve 

specific management questions relating to cultural resources.

Use the best available scientific information and technology for making decisions and managing 

the park’s cultural resources. 

Provide historic preservation training to park resource and maintenance staff and make them 

aware of the most recent preservation technology and applications available.

Employ technically sound historic preservation practices through routine preservation maintenance 

actions that are intended to slow the rate of deterioration and protect the fabric, character, and 

design of historic structures/buildings.

Collect and analyze information to fill gaps in the knowledge and understanding of Channel 

Islands’ cultural resources, and to assess their status and trends and more effectively protect and 

manage the resources.

Continue long-term monitoring of archeological (including submerged maritime) sites to measure 

the deterioration from natural and human sources and to evaluate the effectiveness of 

management actions to protect resources and mitigate impacts.

Use and expand a data management system, including GIS, to analyze, model, predict, and test 

trends in cultural resource conditions.

Research, document, and catalogue the park’s museum collections to provide the public and park 

staff with optimum interpretive and resource management opportunities. Museum objects and 

archival materials would be conserved, protected, and preserved to NPS and professional 

standards. 

Locate, identify, evaluate, and protect park resources in accordance with Sections 106 and 110 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, to determine if they are eligible for 

listing in the national register.

Manage historic structures/buildings and landscapes as cultural resources and give full 

consideration to their historical values that may be affected as a result of park planning efforts.

Employ visitor use management and construction mitigation techniques to ensure that human 

activities are not impairing park resources. Park managers would rely on a variety of actions to 

minimize these impacts, including visitor education and interpretation, and use of foot patrols to 

enforce the Archeological Resources Protection Act.

Regularly update the park’s Resource Stewardship Strategy and prioritize actions needed to 

protect park resources.

Apply the following measures to ensure that impacts on sensitive cultural resources are avoided or 

minimized:

• Consult the California state historic preservation officer and undertake an archeological survey 

to determine the extent and significance of archeological resources in areas that have not been 

surveyed for actions that could involve ground disturbance or affect structures/buildings and/or 

cultural landscapes that are either listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the national 

register.

• Where possible, locate projects and facilities in previously disturbed or developed locations.

• Whenever possible, modify project design features to avoid effects to national register-listed or 

-eligible properties.

• Ensure that archeological monitors are present during all construction activities that could 

impact subsurface cultural deposits.

• Add signs and physical barriers to protect national register-listed or -eligible sites.
APPENDIXES

440

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

Archeological

(including 

submerged maritime) 

Resources 

Although Channel Islands National Park includes several archeological districts, the archeological 

(including submerged maritime) sites in the park have not all been systematically surveyed or 

inventoried. Precise information about the location, characteristics, significance, and condition of 

most archeological resources in the national park is lacking, and impacts are difficult to measure. 

Desired Conditions: Archeological resources are protected in an undisturbed condition unless it 

is determined through formal consulting processes that disturbance or natural deterioration is 

unavoidable. Mitigation of such disturbance or deterioration would be undertaken.

Strategies: Survey and inventory archeological resources and document their significance.

Treat all archeological resources as eligible for listing in the national register pending the 

determination of the California state historic preservation officer and a formal determination by 

the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places as to their significance.

Protect all archeological resources listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the national 

register. If disturbance to such resources is determined to be unavoidable, formal consultations 

with the advisory council and the California state historic preservation officer would be conducted 

in accordance with the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

Archeological resources are preserved as much as possible. The most highly valued sites (i.e., 

those with high research potential) are avoided during new construction or development 

wherever possible. No new development is in areas where human burials are known to exist. 

Development that is causing ongoing site degradation would be removed and the site 

rehabilitated wherever possible. Where special opportunities exist, prehistoric and historic 

archeological resources would be interpreted to visitors. Surface prehistoric archeological features, 

local Chumash traditions, and important historic archeological features would be interpreted.

Known archeological resources that would be subject to sea level rise would be documented prior 

to flooding.

Historic Structures

Channel Islands National Park includes historic structures/buildings, as well as historic districts, 

that are listed in the national register. In addition, other historic structures/buildings and historic 

districts are considered by the Park Service to be eligible for listing on the national register and 

evaluation work is ongoing to achieve that objective. 

Desired Conditions: The qualities of historic structures/buildings and districts that contribute to 

their listing in, or being determined eligible for listing in, the national register are protected in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and 

Historic Preservation unless it is determined through a formal consulting process that alteration, 

demolition, or natural deterioration is unavoidable.

Strategies: Complete a survey, inventory, and evaluation of historic structures/buildings under 

national register criteria.

Submit the inventory and evaluation results to the California state historic preservation officer and 

keeper of the national register with recommendations for eligibility for listing in the national 

register.

Determine the appropriate level of preservation for each historic property listed in, or determined 

eligible for listing in, the national register in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. 

Implement and maintain the appropriate level of preservation for such properties.

Ethnographic

Resources

Certain contemporary American Indian and other communities are permitted by law, regulation, or 

policy to pursue customary religious, subsistence, and other cultural uses of resources in Channel 

Islands National Park with which they are traditionally associated. 

Desired Conditions: Recognizing that its resource protection mandate affects this human use as well 

as the cultural context of resources in the national park, the Park Service plans and executes programs 

in ways that safeguard cultural and natural resources while reflecting informed concern for the 

contemporary peoples and cultures traditionally associated with them.
Appendix B. Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Channel Islands National Park

441

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

Strategies: Survey and inventory ethnographic resources and document their significance. 

Protect all ethnographic resources listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the national register. If 

disturbance to such resources is unavoidable, formal consultations with the advisory council, the 

California state historic preservation officer, and relevant tribal historic preservation officers would be 

conducted in accordance with the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended.

Conduct regular consultations with the recognized tribes, lineal descendants, and interested Native 

American parties to continue to improve communications and resolve any problems or 

misunderstandings that might occur.

Provide for access to, and use of, natural and cultural resources in the national park and collections by 

American Indians that are consistent with national park purposes, do not unreasonably interfere with 

American Indian use of traditional areas or sacred resources, and do not degrade national park 

resources.

Through existing agreements and ongoing consultation with culturally associated American Indian 

tribes, access to and use of special resources in Channel Islands National Park continues. Access would 

continue for American Indian participants in traditional and ceremonial activities. Known burial areas 

are protected. These areas are considered among the valued resources of American Indian people and 

were treated as such during this planning effort.

Where burials are discovered, provisions outlined in the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act and its implementing regulations are followed. Other important areas, such as 

gathering locations, historic Indian villages, and areas of spiritual or traditional importance, are 

protected as much as possible.

Cultural Landscapes

Channel Islands National Park includes cultural landscapes that the Park Service considers eligible 

for listing in the national register. 

Desired Conditions: The qualities of cultural landscapes that contribute to their listing in, or 

being determined eligible for listing in, the national register are protected in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation

unless it is determined through a formal consulting process that disturbance or natural 

deterioration is unavoidable.

Strategies: Complete a survey, inventory, and evaluation of cultural landscapes under national 

register criteria.

Submit the inventory and evaluation results to the California state historic preservation officer and 

the keeper of the national register with recommendations for eligibility for listing in the national 

register.

Determine the appropriate level of preservation for each cultural landscape listed in, or 

determined eligible for listing in, the national register, subject to the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes. 

Implement and maintain the appropriate level of preservation for such cultural landscapes.

Museum Collections

Channel Islands National Park maintains a museum collection of nearly 400,000 items. Most of 

the objects in the park’s collections are housed in repositories at other institutions and universities. 

The park is curating the majority of its museum collection at the Santa Barbara Museum of 

Natural History. The park’s herbarium is curated at the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. The

majority of the park’s archives, historical objects, and small study collections of natural and 

cultural items are maintained at the park headquarters. Several objects are on exhibit in visitor 

centers at the Anacapa and Santa Cruz islands and at several local museums.

Desired Conditions: All museum collections (objects, specimens, and manuscript collections) are 

identified and inventoried, catalogued, documented, preserved, and protected. The qualities that 

contribute to the significance of the collections are protected in accordance with established 

standards. Provision is made for access to the collections for their use as exhibits, research, and 

interpretation. 
APPENDIXES

442

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

Strategies: Inventory and catalog all of the national park’s museum collections in accordance 

with professional standards as outlined in the NPS Museum Handbook.

Develop and implement a collection management program according to NPS standards to guide 

protection, conservation, and use of objects in the park’s museum collections.

Provide on-line and/or physical access to park collections for research, education, interpretation, 

and other appropriate purposes.

Visitor Use and Experience

Visitor Information, 

Orientation, 

Education, and 

Interpretation

The Park Service and its partners use a variety of methods to orient visitors to Channel Islands 

National Park, provide information about the park, interpret the park’s resources, and provide 

educational programs and activities. In concert with the plan, the park, park partners, and 

stakeholders would develop a comprehensive interpretive plan (CIP). Using the park purpose, 

mission, resource significance, interpretive themes, visitor experience goals, and the applicable 

recommendations in the General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement, the CIP 

would describe what the park and its partners would do to provide visitors with information, 

orientation, interpretation, and education services. The CIP would recommend specific media and 

programs that include exhibits, films, wayside exhibits, publications, and a variety of guided 

programs and activities.

In addition to the CIP, the park, park partners, and representatives from the educational 

community would develop an education plan for the park. The education plan would be resourcebased, address the primary interpretive themes, and be directly tied to local, regional, state, and 

national school curriculum guidelines and standards. 

Desired Conditions: Visitors to Channel Islands National Park would have opportunities to have 

a safe and satisfying visit, and ensuring opportunities exist where they may:

• Get information about the park (in multiple languages) before leaving home.

• Get on-site information and an overview of the park (in multiple languages).

• Choose from a variety of recreational, interpretive, and educational experiences geared to 

diverse needs, interests, and abilities.

• Easily find park facilities and concession operations (i.e., boat and air transportation).

• Visit the islands at a reasonable cost.

• Know that the islands are public lands and that they are accessible.

• Learn what comfort and safety equipment and precautions are necessary.

• Learn about other theme-related sites and programs in the region.

• Escape the routines and stresses of the urban environment.

Visitors to Channel Islands National Park would have opportunities to make connections between 

park resources and their meanings, which may occur when visitors:

• Understand elements of each of the primary interpretive themes (see the “Planning 

Background” section). 

• Experience the serenity, isolation, and solitude of the islands.

• Appreciate the diverse range of plant and animal species.

• Experience key elements of the islands’ history.

• Interact with park staff.

• Witness resource preservation in action.

• Contribute to the support of park programs and preservation efforts.

• Create personal and family memories from their park experiences.

• Engage in forms of artistic expression.

• Explore and discover the islands alone or with others.

• Experience the island and marine wilderness areas.

• See the underwater resources.

• See the results of evolutionary processes.

• Experience the islands through all their senses.

Strategies: Park managers would complete and develop implementation strategies for the CIP. 

The CIP would emphasize providing information, orientation, and interpretive services through the 

most effective means. The CIP also would provide the foundation and overall concept for the 
Appendix B. Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Channel Islands National Park

443

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

park’s education plan—a plan that would be developed by the park in partnership with area 

educators.

Park staff would stay informed of the park’s existing and changing visitor demographics and 

psychographics to better tailor programs and media to meet diverse needs and desires. All media 

and programs would reflect the park’s purpose, mission, resource significance, and desired visitor 

conditions (including the primary interpretive themes). 

Park staff would seek new ways to increase awareness of the park, its resources, and themes. This 

would include reaching out to segments of the population that do not use the park or know of its 

significance. Park staff would work with local communities and other theme-related sites to tell 

aspects of the Channel Islands stories in a coordinated and comprehensive fashion. Partnerships 

with other state, regional, and national parks; educational institutions; tribes; and other 

organizations would be sought to enrich interpretation and education opportunities about the 

park themes.

Levels and Types of 

Park Development

A variety of different types of development exist in Channel Islands to transport, house, inform, 

and serve visitors and park staff. Most visitor and operational developments are concentrated at 

Scorpion Valley, Prisoners Harbor on Santa Cruz Island, the historic ranch area on Santa Rosa 

Island, Cabrillo Monument/ranch complex on San Miguel Island, Ventura Harbor, Bechers Bay on 

Santa Rosa Island, and East Anacapa.

Desired Conditions: Park development is the minimum necessary to serve visitor needs and 

provide for the protection of park resources. Visitor and management facilities at Channel Islands 

and its concessioners meet sustainability standards, and are harmonious with park resources, 

compatible with natural processes and surrounding landscapes, aesthetically pleasing, and 

functional. The Park Service continues to provide access to and use of Channel Islands’ facilities 

for physically and learning disabled visitors, in conformance with applicable laws, regulations, and 

NPS policies.

Strategies: Park staff would properly maintain and upgrade existing development using 

sustainability principles where necessary to serve the park mission. They would consider and plan 

for flood hazards and mitigation efforts as appropriate.

Park managers would consider the availability of existing or planned facilities in nearby 

communities and adjacent lands when deciding whether to construct new developments in the 

park. This would ensure that any additional development in the park is necessary, appropriate, 

and cost effective.

The Park Service would modify existing facilities to meet accessibility standards as funding allowed 

or as facilities were replaced or rehabilitated. Park staff would periodically consult with disabled 

persons or their representatives to increase awareness of the needs of the disabled and to 

determine how to make the park more accessible.

Park managers would work with other governmental, private, and nonprofit organizations to find 

partners and funding sources for a research / environmental education facility and to explore 

locations within and outside the park to establish the facility.

Commercial Services

A commercial activity is defined as any activity for which compensation is exchanged. It includes 

activities by for-profit and nonprofit operators. Commercial services are more than just 

concessions. They include concession contracts, commercial use authorizations, leases, 

cooperative agreements, rights-of-way, and special use permits. 

Desired Conditions: Commercial services are integral to the visitor experience and the 

management of Channel Islands National Park. The Park Service permits commercial services at 

Channel Islands, including guiding services and transportation. These services have added to 

visitors’ enjoyment of the park, have enabled many people to see parts of the park they might not 

otherwise see, and have helped to protect park resources.

Strategies: 

• Manage businesses through concession contracts and commercial use authorizations; other 

activities, such as commercial filming, would continue to be managed through special use 

permits.
APPENDIXES

444

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

• Ensure that all commercial activities within the park provide high-quality visitor experiences 

while protecting important natural, cultural, and scenic resources.

• Ensure that before concession contracts and commercial use authorizations are renewed or 

readvertised, the types of authorized use are still necessary and/or appropriate, the levels of use 

are consistent with resource protection and quality visitor experiences, and the commercial 

services program can be managed in an efficient and effective manner.

Other Topics

Sustainable Design /

Development

Sustainability can be described as doing things in ways that do not compromise the environment 

or its capacity to provide for present and future generations. Sustainable practices consider local 

and global consequences to minimize the short- and long-term environmental impacts of human 

actions and developments through resource conservation, recycling, waste minimization, and the 

use of energy-efficient and ecologically responsible materials and techniques.

Over the past several years, the federal government has been emphasizing the adoption of 

sustainable practices. In particular, several statutes and executive orders are noteworthy for 

federal agency sustainable practices, including: the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2005; 

the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; EO 13423 (strengthens federal 

environmental, energy, and transportation management); and EO 13514 (sets requirements for 

federal greenhouse gas emissions, water conservation, building performance, and other 

sustainable practices). NPS Management Policies 2006 (§ 1.8, 9.1) also provide direction regarding 

sustainability of practices and facilities.

Desired Conditions: The park is a leader in sustainable practices. All decisions regarding park 

operations, facilities management, and development in Channel Islands National Park − from the 

initial concept through design and construction − reflect principles of resource conservation. Thus, 

all park developments and park operations are sustainable to the maximum degree possible and 

practical. New developments and existing facilities are located, built, and modified according to 

the Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (NPS 1993) or other similar guidelines. The park has 

state-of-the-art water systems for conserving water, and energy conservation technologies and 

renewable energy sources whenever possible. Biodegradable, nontoxic, and durable materials are 

used in the park whenever possible. The reduction, use, and recycling of materials is promoted, 

while materials that are nondurable, environmentally detrimental, or that require transportation 

from great distances are avoided as much as possible.

General Strategies: Park staff would work with experts both inside and outside the Park Service 

to make Channel Islands’ facilities and programs sustainable. Partnerships would be sought to 

implement sustainable practices in the park. Park staff also would work with stakeholders and 

business partners to augment NPS environmental leadership and sustainability efforts.

Park managers would perform value analysis and value engineering, including life cycle analysis, 

to examine the energy, environmental, and economic implications of proposed park 

developments. 

Park staff would support and encourage the service of suppliers, contractors, and concessioners 

that follow sustainable practices. Concessioners would be encouraged to embrace principles of 

environmental stewardship that enhance the protection, conservation, and preservation of 

resources.

Energy usage would be substantially reduced and energy-efficient practices and renewable energy 

sources would be promoted wherever possible.

Park interpretive programs would address sustainable park and nonpark practices. Visitors would 

be educated on the principles of environmental leadership and sustainability through exhibits, 

media, and printed material.

Park staff would be educated to have a comprehensive understanding of their relationship to 

environmental leadership and sustainability.

Park staff would work with local communities to develop comprehensive greening plan(s) where 

appropriate. By collaborating with local communities, the Park Service can reduce outside impacts 

to the park and maximize conservation efforts in the region.

Park managers would measure and track environmental compliance and performance. Audits 

would ensure environmental compliance, emphasize best management practices, and educate 

employees at all levels about environmental management responsibilities.

Climate Change

Climate change is occurring and is expected to affect the park’s weather; resources (e.g., 

shorelines, vegetation, fish and wildlife, historic structures, and archeological resources); facilities 

(e.g., docks); and visitors (e.g., wildlife viewing). These changes would have direct implications on 
Appendix B. Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Channel Islands National Park

445

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

resource management and park operations, and the way visitors use and experience the park. 

Although climate change would affect the park during the life of this plan, many of the specific 

effects, the rate of changes, and the severity of impacts are not known. 

While there are no laws that provide direct guidance on addressing climate change, there is policy 

and executive order guidance that directly or indirectly addresses climate change, including the 

NPS Organic Act, EO 13423 (includes requirements for energy and water conservation measures), 

EO 13514 (sets requirements for federal greenhouse gas emissions), Department of the Interior 

Secretarial Order 3226 (ensures that climate change impacts be taken into account in connection 

with departmental planning and decision making), and NPS Management Policies 2006 (including 

sections on environmental leadership [§ 1.8], sustainable energy design [§ 9.1.1.6], and energy 

management [§ 9.1.7]). The NPS Climate Change Response Strategy provides agency direction, 

focusing on science, adaptation, mitigation, and communication (NPS 2010). The Green Parks 

Plan also calls for the National Park Service to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt 

facilities at risk from climate change. 

Desired Conditions: Channel Islands National Park is a leader in its efforts to address climate 

change, reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, increase its use of renewable energy and other 

sustainable practices so it is a carbon neutral park, and prepare for and mitigate climate change 

impacts. Education and interpretive efforts help park visitors understand the process of climate 

change, its threats to the park and the wider environment, and how they can respond. Park staff 

promote innovation, best practices, adaptive management, and partnerships to respond to the 

challenges of climate change and its effects on park resources. Park staff proactively monitor, 

plan, and adapt to the effects of climate change by using the best information as it becomes 

available. 

Strategies: As a member of the Climate Friendly Parks program, Channel Islands National Park 

continues to implement its climate friendly action plan, measure park-based greenhouse 

emissions, develop sustainable strategies to mitigate these emissions and adapt to climate change 

impacts, educate the public about these efforts, and develop future action plans.

Key ecosystem features and processes would continue to be restored and key cultural resources 

would be protected to increase their resiliency to climate change. By reducing other types of 

impacts on resources, the overall condition of the resources should improve, and they would more 

easily recover from or resist the impacts of climate change.

Scientific studies and inventories would be encouraged to identify and document changes caused 

by climate change, to predict potential changes, and to assist in identifying potential responses to 

climate change. Key natural and cultural resources and visitor amenities that are at risk from 

climate change would be identified and monitored.

Since emissions from all motorized vehicles and watercraft contribute to the park’s emissions, 

options to improve transportation efficiencies would be explored, including NPS and visitor 

activities on the water and on the islands. Emissions from visitors and NPS employees flying or 

taking a motorboat to get to the park all add to the emissions associated with the park. 

Opportunities for alternative transportation options, as well as effective carbon offset strategies, 

would be explored. Use of low-emission vehicles for NPS operations would be used when 

possible.

Park education and interpretive efforts would engage park employees, partners, visitors, and the 

public on climate change, providing the latest park research and monitoring data and trends, 

informing the public about what responses are being taken at the park, and inspiring visitors to 

reduce their carbon footprint.

NPS staff would work with partners to plan for climate change and identify actions that can be 

taken to respond to these changes. Concessioners and other partners would be encouraged to 

provide or use low-emission vehicles in their activities, both within and outside the park.

Anticipated climate change impacts, such as increases in sea levels and changes in vegetation, 

would be incorporated into future management plans.

(See also the strategies identified above under “Sustainable Design/Practices.”)
APPENDIXES

446

Topic Desired Conditions and Strategies for Channel Islands National Park

Park Accessibility

The policy of the Park Service is that park buildings, facilities, programs, and services are accessible 

to and usable by all people, including those with disabilities, to the highest level that is 

reasonable. Guidance on this topic is provided by federal statutes, regulations, and guidelines, 

including: the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968; 28 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 36; 

Title 36, 43 CFR Part 17; the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards of 1984; the ADA

Accessibility Guidelines (2004); the Draft Final Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed 

Areas (2009); DO-42: Accessibility for Visitors with Disabilities in National Park Service Programs 

and Services; and NPS Management Policies 2006. 

Desired Conditions: Channel Islands National Park’s buildings, facilities, programs, and services 

are accessible to and usable by all people, including those with disabilities to the extent possible. 

All new and renovated buildings and facilities, including those provided by concessioners, are 

designed and constructed to provide access to people with disabilities. All services and programs, 

including those offered by concessioners, volunteers, cooperating associations, and interpreters, 

also are designed to be accessible by people with disabilities. There are opportunities for all 

people to access parts of the park’s backcountry.

Strategies: Existing buildings and facilities would be evaluated to determine the degree to which 

they are currently accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, and to identify barriers that 

limit access. Action plans would be developed identifying if barriers could be removed.

Similarly, existing programs, activities, and services (including interpretation, telecommunications, 

media, and web pages) would be evaluated to determine the degree to which they are currently 

accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, and to identify barriers to access. Action plans 

would be developed identifying how barriers would be removed.

Utilities and 

Communication 

Facilities

Basic utilities and related access are necessary within the park to support visitor services and 

administrative operations and to provide for visitor and employee safety. Occasional maintenance, 

upgrades, and minor route adjustments are carried out within existing corridors. 

Desired Conditions: Utility and communications facilities support park operations and public 

safety with a high degree of reliability, anticipate future loads and needs, minimize impacts on 

park resources, and are jointly located with other existing facilities and rights-of-way to the 

greatest extent possible. Only those communications facilities necessary to provide for public 

safety and administrative efficiency are located in the park.

Strategies: New or reconstructed utilities and communications infrastructure would be located in 

association with existing structures and along roads or other established corridors in developed 

areas. This would allow ready access for repair and maintenance, thereby reducing potential visual 

quality impacts and resource disturbance from overland transport of vehicles and equipment. 

When utilities require reconstruction or extension into developed areas not currently serviced, 

park staff would select routes that would minimize impacts on the park’s natural, cultural, and 

visual resources. Rights-of-way would continue in effect or be established for service lines to 

existing and planned park facilities (including concessions facilities). Rights-of-way would not be 

granted for utilities, water conveyance, or other facilities within suitable wilderness areas except 

where valid existing rights are established.

Utility lines would be placed underground to the maximum extent possible. 

Commercial telecommunications applications (Telecommunications Act of 1996) would be 

processed in accordance with NPS policies (Reference Manual 53) and NEPA guidelines. The 

primary tests for the applications would be whether there is a documented public safety need, 

whether or not there are feasible alternatives, and whether a facility would result in derogation of 

the resources, values, and purposes for which the park was established. For NPS and commercial 

communications needs there would be no facilities located within suitable wilderness areas, 

except as specifically provided by law or policy. 
447

APPENDIX C. USES, DEVELOPMENTS, AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 

PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED IN WILDERNESS

Table C-1 summarizes the recreational uses, management actions, and developments permitted 

and prohibited in wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act of 1964 and NPS policies.

TABLE C-1. USES, DEVELOPMENTS, AND MANAGEMENT IN WILDERNESS

A variety of recreational uses, management actions, and facilities are permitted in wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act 

and NPS policies. Among the uses, management actions, and facilities permitted in wilderness are: 

• nonmotorized recreational uses (e.g., hiking, backpacking, picnicking, and camping);

• hunting and trapping (where otherwise permitted by law), and fishing;

• American Indian religious activities and other actions recognized under treaty-reserved rights;

• guided interpretive walks and on-site talks and presentations;

• wheelchair use by individuals whose disability requires its use, if that wheelchair meets both parts of the definition of a 

wheelchair as stated in the ADA Title V, section 508c: “the term wheelchair means a device designed solely for use by a 

mobility impaired person for locomotion, that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area”; 

• scientific activities, research, and monitoring (provided the activities are appropriate and use the minimum tool required 

to achieve project objectives);

• management actions taken to correct past mistakes or impacts of human use, including restoration of extirpated 

species, controlling invasive alien species, endangered species management, and protection of air and water quality;

• fire management activities (including fire suppression) as approved in the fire management plan;

• preservation of historic properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; 

• trails necessary for resource protection and/or providing for visitor use campsites when essential for resource protection 

and preservation or to meet other specific wilderness management objectives, including those facilities necessary for 

resource protection or visitor safety (e.g., tent pads and bear-proof storage boxes);

• toilets, signs, and other infrastructure necessary for visitor safety or to protect wilderness resources; 

• certain administrative facilities if necessary to carry out wilderness management objectives (e.g., storage or support 

structures and ranger station); and

• uses and facilities permitted for landowners or lessees with valid property rights in a wilderness area.

NOTE: For administrative management actions and all of the above facilities, the management actions and facilities must be 

determined to be the minimum necessary to meet the purposes of wilderness (e.g., essential for resource protection and 

preservation, essential for administration of a wilderness area).

The Wilderness Act also specifically prohibits certain uses and developments:

• permanent improvements or human habitation (§ 2(c) of the Act); 

• structures or installations (§ 4(c));

• permanent and temporary roads (§ 4(c));

• use of motor vehicles and motorized equipment (except for emergency purposes) (§ 4(c));

• landing of aircraft (except for emergency purposes) (§ 4(c));

• other forms of mechanical transport (e.g., bicycles) (§ 4(c)); and

• commercial enterprises (except for commercial services that are necessary for realizing the recreational or other 

wilderness purposes of the area, such as guiding and outfitting) (§ 4(c)) and § 4(d)(6)).

With the exception of permanent roads and commercial enterprises, the Wilderness Act does recognize that the above uses 

may be permitted if necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the area as wilderness or for 

emergency purposes.
APPENDIXES

448

In addition to the above prohibitions, NPS policies also prohibit some developments:

• new utility lines;

• permanent equipment caches (unless necessary for health and safety purposes or determined to be necessary through a 

minimum requirement analysis);

• borrow pits (except for small quantity use of borrow material for trails);

• new shelters for public use;

• picnic tables, except when necessary for resource protection; and

• interpretive signs, trails, and waysides (unless necessary for visitor safety or to protect wilderness resources).
449

APPENDIX D. RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS TO THIS 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Several plans have influenced or would be influenced by the approved General Management Plan 

/ Environmental Impact Statement (plan) for Channel Islands National Park. What follows is a 

brief description of each plan and their relationship to the plan.

OTHER NPS PLANS AND RELATED GUIDANCE

Scorpion Harbor Pier Replacement / Environmental Impact Statement (in process)

The Park Service has initiated work to prepare a plan to replace and potentially relocate the 

existing Scorpion Harbor pier. The EIS would also evaluate opportunities to improve the existing 

access road connecting to the pier. The two alternatives currently under consideration include 

replacing the pier in its existing location and replacing the pier at a location approximately 150 

feet to the south. If the pier is replaced in its present location, this would include some armoring 

of the shoreline to protect the pier access road. If a new pier is constructed to the south, the pier 

would span the beach and shoreline and would require only a short access road with a small 

amount of scour protection. In either location, the new pier would need to be longer and higher 

than the existing pier to facilitate safer vessel mooring in deeper water. Both of the alternatives are 

consistent with and complement the actions being proposed for Scorpion Harbor in this 

GMP/EIS.

Prisoners Harbor Coastal Wetland Restoration Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

(2010)

This plan calls for the restoration of a 3.1-acre coastal wetland at Prisoners Harbor and a 40-acre 

associated stream corridor in the lower Cañada del Puerto Creek. Under the plan, all of the cattle 

corrals would be removed and the scale house would be relocated to its pre-1960s location, 

eucalyptus would be removed and other invasive species controlled, and a barrier would be built 

to protect archeological resources and improve the visitor experience. In addition, a portion of 

the berm would be removed, thereby reconnecting the creek to its floodplain. All of the actions in 

this plan are consistent with the management directions in the plan. 

“Superintendent’s Compendium” (2009)

This is a list of designations, closures, permit requirements, and other restrictions on uses in 

Channel Islands National Park promulgated under the discretionary authority of the 

superintendent. The compendium covers visitor hours, public use limits, closures, and area 

designations for specific uses or activities, restrictions on activities in sea caves, a list of activities 

that require a NPS permit, and general regulations regarding preservation of natural and cultural 

resources, wildlife protection, fishing, camping and food storage, pets, and use of bicycles, among 

other topics. The compendium would be modified as necessary to reflect any changes resulting 

from implementation of the plan.
APPENDIXES

450

Channel Islands National Park Business Plan – Fiscal Year 2004

The business plan provided a synopsis of the park’s funding history and a detailed picture of the 

state of current park operations and funding. It also outlined park priorities and funding 

strategies. The priorities and strategies outlined in the business plan (including operations 

priorities, investment priorities, island restoration efforts, and strategies for reducing costs) were 

considered during the development of the plan. 

Recovery Strategy for Island Foxes (2003)

This plan is a road map to recovery for three subspecies of island foxes that occur in the park and 

that are considered to be on the brink of extinction. The actions called for in the strategy are an 

extension of the emergency actions that the Park Service has been implementing since 1999: 

captive breeding of island foxes and removal of golden eagles. The latter is required because 

predation by golden eagles is the primary source of mortality for island foxes on the northern 

Channel Islands. The recovery strategy builds on the emergency measures by extending both 

captive breeding of island foxes and removal of golden eagles until no longer required. The 

strategy identifies recovery goals, which for San Miguel and Santa Rosa islands are wild 

populations of approximately 200 foxes that are either stable or increasing. All of the alternatives 

that were considered in the development of the plan were written to be consistent with the 

desired conditions and actions called for in this recovery plan.

Santa Cruz Island Primary Restoration Plan (2002)

This document analyzed four alternatives for restoring Santa Cruz Island’s ecosystems. The plan 

proposes to eradicate nonnative feral pigs, reduce the spread and presence of fennel (a nonnative 

plant), promote the conservation and recovery of rare plant and animal species and their habitats, 

and eliminate disturbance and degradation of archeological resources. Specific actions in the plan 

include using a variety of techniques to eradicate feral pigs, construction of pig-proof fences, 

treating dense fennel stands with herbicide, and instituting a prescribed burn. All of the 

alternatives that were considered in the development of the plan were written to be consistent 

with the desired conditions and actions called for in this restoration plan.

Feasibility Study for Reestablishment of Bald Eagles (2002)

This study examined the feasibility of reestablishing a breeding population of bald eagles in the 

northern Channel Islands. It was proposed that 12 captive-bred or translocated wild eagles be 

released annually on Santa Cruz over a five-year period. Contaminants in the released birds, their 

eggs, and their food would be monitored to determine if concentrations of DDT were present, 

which may impact the ability of the eagles to successfully reproduce. The results of this study 

would be used to determine whether to proceed with a full-scale bald eagle reintroduction 

program in the northern Channel Islands. All of the alternatives that were considered in the 

development of the plan were written to be consistent with the actions called for in reestablishing 

bald eagles in the park.
Appendix D. Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to this Plan

451

Anacapa Island Restoration Project (2000)

This document evaluated six alternatives for restoring Anacapa Island’s ecosystems. The purpose 

of the plan was to eradicate introduced black rats on Anacapa Island and keep it and all of the 

other islands rat-free. The plan called for the eradication of the black rat on Anacapa Island 

through the use of a rodenticide bait. It adopted an emergency response plan for the accidental 

introduction of rodents on Anacapa, Santa Barbara, Prince, and Sutil islands; and provided a 

prevention strategy to reduce the potential for rodents to be accidentally introduced into the 

park. All of the alternatives that were considered in the development of the plan were written to 

be consistent with the desired conditions and actions called for in this restoration plan.

Santa Rosa Island Development Concept Plan (1995)

This document evaluated two alternatives for the management of Santa Rosa Island. The plan 

called for expanded NPS operations. NPS-guided recreational activities, such as walks and kayak 

trips, would be provided. Housing for employees and researchers and a maintenance facility 

would be constructed in the vicinity of Bechers Bay. Temporary trails and NPS-operated vehicles 

would move visitors on the island to interpretive media (waysides and guided walks) and to the 

campground in Water Canyon. The facilities and actions called for in this plan have been 

incorporated into and/or have been superseded by the directions in the plan.

Statement for Management (1991)

The statement for management discussed different influences that affect management of the park, 

including legislative and administrative requirements, resource conditions, land uses and trends, 

visitor uses and trends, and facilities. Major issues facing the park were identified, including land 

protection, alien species, restoration of native ecosystems, external threats, and access. General 

management objectives were identified for natural ecosystems, cultural resources, visitor use, and 

facility development and staffing. Although no longer being prepared by the Park Service, the 

“Statement for Management” was used as a foundation document in preparing the plan.

General Management Plan Supplement (1985)

This plan focused on the future management of Santa Rosa Island and the eastern portion of 

Santa Cruz Island. It also proposed management actions for the park waters for all five islands and 

it recommended changes in the use of Anacapa and San Miguel islands. The plan called for all of 

east Santa Cruz Island and Santa Rosa Island to be managed on a limited-entry, low-intensity use 

basis. Three existing developed areas would serve as entry points. The restoration and 

preservation of natural biotic associations would be emphasized. Visitor facilities, other than 

backcountry campsites, would be provided only in existing developed areas or already altered 

areas, and existing structures would be used to the extent feasible. Scorpion Valley would be the 

primary visitor access point on east Santa Cruz Island, while the main ranch area at Bechers Bay 

and Johnson’s Lee would be the primary access points on Santa Rosa Island. An environmental 

education/research field station would be established in existing structures at Johnson’s Lee if 

feasible. Campgrounds and backcountry campsites would be available, but capacities would be 

limited. All overnight visitors in the park, and all visitors to San Miguel Island, would be required 

to first obtain permits. Landings on the islands would be limited to selected beaches. The plan 
APPENDIXES

452

called for the removal of the campground on East Anacapa Island, and for a supervised group day 

use area at Frenchy’s Cove on West Anacapa Island. Marine resource management would 

emphasize nonconsumptive use. The designation of ecological reserves around all of the islands 

would be sought, along with regulations to ensure long-term resource protection. Marine 

interpretive and educational programs would be expanded. The facilities and actions called for in 

this 1985 plan supplement have been incorporated into and/or superseded by the directions in 

the plan.

General Management Plan – Anacapa − Santa Barbara − San Miguel Islands (1980)

This two-volume plan addressed management of the three islands. Volume 1 addressed visitor 

use, interpretation, and general development. Volume 2 addressed natural and cultural resource 

management. The plan called for the preservation and restoration of natural ecosystems, 

reduction or elimination of exotic species, protection of special status species, and preservation of 

archeological and historical features. Visitor capacity levels were set for each island. Visitor use 

was restricted on use of the islands, with portions of the islands closed seasonally or year-round 

to visitors. Except for the mainland headquarters, development would be minimal and generally 

consist of renovation or replacement of existing facilities. The campground on Anacapa Island 

and the picnic area at Frenchy’s Cove would be removed. Emphasis was placed on personal 

services provided by island staff and for increased staff/visitor contact in park waters. Finally, 

extensive resource monitoring programs were proposed. The facilities and actions called for in 

this plan have been incorporated into and/or superseded by the directions in the 1980 General 

Management Plan. 

OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PLANS

Termination of the Southern Sea Otter Translocation Program 2013

The Fish and Wildlife Service is removing the regulations that govern the southern sea otter 

(Enhydra lutris nereis) translocation program, including the establishment of an experimental 

population of southern sea otters, and all associated management actions.

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan Revision

In 2009, the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (sanctuary) completed its management 

plan, which was originally implemented in 1983. The revised sanctuary management plan sets 

priorities, describes planned programs and projects, contains regulations, guides the development 

of future activities, and sets performance measures to gauge effectiveness. (For more details on 

this plan, see the discussion of “Cumulative Impacts” in the beginning of the “Environmental 

Consequences” chapter.) In preparing the plan, the planning team consulted with the sanctuary 

planning team to ensure that inconsistencies were avoided between the two plans. Actions in the 

sanctuary plan were also considered in the analysis of cumulative impacts in the plan.
Appendix D. Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to this Plan

453

State of California Final Environmental Document on the Proposed Marine

Protected Areas within the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (2002)

This environmental document analyzed the potential environmental impacts of seven alternatives 

to establish a network of marine protected areas in state waters within the sanctuary. The 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended that a network of 12 marine protected 

areas (10 state marine reserves and 2 state marine conservation areas) be established, 

encompassing approximately 132 square nautical miles within the sanctuary. In the state marine 

reserves it would be unlawful to damage, take, or possess any living, geological, or cultural marine 

resource, except under a permit or specific authorization from the state fish and game 

commission for research, restoration, or monitoring purposes. In one of the marine conservation 

areas only the recreational take of spiny lobster and pelagic finfish would be allowed; in the other 

marine conservation area only the commercial and recreational take of spiny lobster and the 

recreational take of pelagic finfish would be allowed. The existing regulations for the ecological 

reserves at Anacapa, Santa Barbara, and San Miguel islands would be repealed, and new 

regulations implemented. The plan incorporates the state’s marine protected areas into the NPS 

management zones and overall management of marine waters and resources within the park 

boundary.

Point Mugu Sea Range Final Environmental Impact Statement (2002)

This environmental document examines three alternatives for modernizing facilities at the Naval 

Air Station Point Mugu and San Nicolas Island to enhance the Sea Range’s capability to support 

existing and future operations, including theater missile defense testing and training, and an 

increase in current levels of training exercises. Under the plan, the Sea Range would 

accommodate an increase in the level of current fleet training and special warfare training 

activities. The actions proposed in the Point Mugu environmental impact statement were 

considered in the analysis of cumulative impacts in the plan.

Recovery Plan for Thirteen Plant Taxa from the Northern Channel Islands (2000)

This plan identifies actions needed to recover 13 endemic plant taxa on Anacapa, Santa Cruz, 

Santa Rosa, San Miguel, and Santa Catalina islands. Two of the plant species are federally listed as 

endangered, and one is listed as threatened. The actions include controlling alien species, 

conducting thorough surveys, restoring habitats, conducting research, storing seeds, and 

developing successful outplanting techniques. Recovery criteria are identified for each of the 

plant taxa. All of the alternatives, desired conditions, and strategies that were considered in the 

development of the plan were written to be consistent with the actions called for in this recovery 

plan.

Recovery Plan for the California Brown Pelican (1983)

This plan identifies actions to recover the endangered California brown pelican. Specific 

objectives are identified to restore and maintain stable, self-sustaining populations throughout 

the bird’s range. Actions that are identified in the recovery plan include protecting pelican 

populations in Mexico, maintaining self-sustaining pelican breeding populations in the Southern 

California Bight (and specifically Anacapa Island), protecting pelican food resources and feeding 
APPENDIXES

454

habitat, protecting major roosting areas, delineating essential habitat, monitoring pelican 

populations, conducting research, and disseminating public information and conservation 

education. All of the alternatives, desired conditions, and strategies that were considered in the 

development of the plan were written to be consistent with the actions called for in this recovery 

plan.

SOURCES

California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Final 2002 Environmental Document. Marine 

Protected Areas in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary. Marine Region Field Office. Santa Barbara, CA.

Department of the Navy. 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement / Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement. Point Mugu Sea Range. Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division. Point 

Mugu, CA.

NPS. 2003. “Superintendent’s Compendium.” Available on the Internet at: 

http://www.nps.gov/chis/Compendium2003.htm. 

NPS. 2002. Santa Cruz Island Primary Restoration Plan (2002) Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Ventura, CA.

NPS. 2002. “Feasibility Study for Reestablishment of Bald Eagles on the Northern Channel 

Islands, California. Environmental Assessment. Available on the Internet at: 

http://www.nps.gov/chis/rm/HTMLPages/BaldEagleEIS.doc.

NPS. 2002. “Annual Performance Plan for Channel Islands National Park. Fiscal Year 2003.” 

Available on the Internet at: http://www.nps.gov/chis/admin/fy03annualworkplan.doc.

NPS. 2000. Anacapa Island Restoration Project. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Available 

on the Internet at: http://www.nps.gov/chis/rm/HTMLPages/AI_restoration_pdfs.htm.

NPS. 2001. “Draft Recovery Plan for Island Foxes (Urocyon littoralis) on the Northern Channel 

Islands.” Available on the Internet at: 

http://www.nps.gov/chis/rm/HTMLPages/FoxRecoverPlan.htm. 

NPS. 1998. “Strategic Plan for Channel Islands National Park. October 1, 1999 − September 30, 

2005.” Available on the Internet at: http://www.nps.gov/chis/admin/fy00strategicplan.htm.

NPS. 1999. “Resources Management Plan Update. Channel Islands National Park.” Available on 

the Internet at: http://www.nps.gov/chis/rm/HTMLPages/RMP.htm.

NPS. 1995. Development Concept Plan & Environmental Impact Statement. Santa Rosa Island, 

Channel Islands National Park. Ventura, CA.

NPS. 1991. Statement for Management. Channel Islands National Park. December 1991 Revision. 

Ventura, CA. 

NPS. 1984. Draft General Management Plan Supplement. Environmental Assessment. Ventura, CA.
Appendix D. Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to this Plan

455

NPS. 1980. General Management Plan. Anacapa − Santa Barbara − San Miguel Islands. Vol. 1. 

Visitor Use / Interpretation / General Development. Ventura, CA.

NPS. 1980. General Management Plan. Anacapa − Santa Barbara − San Miguel Islands. Vol. 2. 

Natural / Cultural Resource Management. Ventura, CA.

USFWS. 2000. Thirteen Plant Taxa From the Northern Channel Islands Recovery Plan. Region 1. 

Portland, OR.

USFWS. 1983. The California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan. Prepared under contract by F. Gress

(California Dept. of Fish and Game) and D.W. Anderson (Univ. of California-Davis). Region 1. 

Portland, OR.
456

APPENDIX E. SPECIES LISTS

TABLE E-1. ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES BY ISLAND IN CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK

Species Anacapa

Santa

Cruz*

San

Miguel

Santa

Rosa

Santa 

Barbara Comment

Arabis hoffmannii - P - P - Hoffmann’s rockcress is listed as federally 

endangered.

Arctostaphylos 

confertiflora

- - - P - Santa Rosa Island manzanita is listed as 

federally endangered.

Arctostaphylos 

insularis

- P - - -

Arctostaphylos 

tomentosa ssp. 

insulicola

- P - P - Rare species without legal status.

Arctostaphylos 

viridissima

- P - - - McMinn’s is rare without legal status.

Artemisia nesiotica - - - - P

Astragalus 

miguelensis

P P P P - San Miguel locoweed is rare, without legal 

status.

Astragalus traskiae - - - - P Trask’s locoweed is listed as federally 

endangered.

Berberis pinnata ssp. 

insularis

-E P - -E - Island barberry is presumed extirpated on Santa 

Rosa and Anacapa islands. This species is now 

found only on Santa Cruz Island. It is listed as 

federally endangered.

Calystegia 

macrostegia ssp. 

amplissima

- - - - P Southern island morning glory is rare, without 

legal status.

Calystegia 

macrostegia ssp. 

macrostegia

P P P -

Castilleja lanata ssp. 

hololeuca

P P P P

Castilleja mollis - - E P - Soft-leaved paintbrush is listed as federally 

endangered.

Ceanothus arboreus - P - P

Ceanothus 

megacarpus ssp. 

insularis

P P E P - Island big pod ceanothus is rare without legal 

status.

Chorizanthe wheeleri - P - P - Species is rare without legal status.

Dendromecon rigida 

ssp. harfordii

- P - P - Northern island bush poppy is rare without 

legal status.

Dudleya blochmaniae 

ssp. insularis

- - - P - Santa Rosa Island live-forever is rare without 

legal status.

Dudleya candelabrum - P P P - Candelholder dudleya is rare without legal 

status.

Dudleya gnoma - - - P - East Point dwarf dudleya is rare without legal 

status.

Dudleya greenei - P P P - Greene’s dudleya is rare without legal status. 

Dudleya nesiotica - P - - - Species is listed as federally threatened. 

Dudleya traskiae - - - - P Species is listed as federally endangered.

Eriogonum 

arborescens

P P - P -

Eriogonum 

giganteum var. 

compactum

- - - - P Rare plant without legal status. California 

Native Plant Society list 1B.

Eriogonum grande 

var. grande

P P - - Island buckwheat is rare without legal status.

Eriogonum grande 

var. rubescens

P P P P - ‘Red buckwheat’ is rare without legal status.
Appendix E. Species Lists

457

Species Anacapa

Santa

Cruz*

San

Miguel

Santa

Rosa

Santa 

Barbara Comment

Eriophyllum nevinii - - - - P Species is rare without legal status.

Erysimum insulare P P P P - Species is rare without legal status.

Eschscholzia ramosa - P - P P Species is rare without legal status.

Galium angustifolium 

ssp. foliosum

P P - P -

Galium buxifolium - P P - - Species is listed as federally endangered.

Galium californicum 

spp. miguelense

- - P P -

Galium nuttallii ssp. 

insulare

- P - P - Species is rare without legal status.

Gambelia speciosa - - - - ? Island snapdragon is Galvezia speciosa in 

Jepson. Species locale or identity is questionable 

on Santa Barbara Island. 

Gilia nevinii P P - P P Species is rare without legal status.

Gilia tenuiflora ssp. 

hoffmannii

- - - P - Hoffmann’s slender flowered gilia is listed as 

federally endangered.

Hazardia detonsa P P - P - Northern island hazardia was Haplopappus 

dentonsa. Species is rare without legal status.

Helianthemum 

greenei

- P E P - Island rushrose is presumed extirpated from San 

Miguel. Now it occurs only on Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands. The species is listed as 

federally threatened.

Hemizonia clementina P - - P Species is rare without legal status.

Heuchera maxima P P - P - Island alum-root is rare without legal status.

Jepsonia malvifolia - P - P - Rare species without legal status.

Lavatera 

assurgentiflora ssp. 

assurgentiflora

P P Rare species without legal status.

Lotus argophyllus ssp. 

ornithopus

- - - - P

Lotus argophyllus ssp. 

niveus

- P - - -

Lotus dendroideus 

var. dendroideus

P P - P -

Lyonothamnus 

floribundus ssp. 

aspleniifolius

- P - P - Santa Cruz Island ironwood is rare without legal 

status. 

Malacothamnus 

fasciculatus var. 

nesioticus

- P - - - Santa Cruz Island bush mallow is listed as 

federally endangered.

Malacothrix foliosa 

ssp. crispifolia

P - - - - Anacapa Island chicory is rare without legal 

status. Subspecies is only found on Anacapa 

Island.

Malacothrix foliosa 

ssp. philbrickii

- - - - P Santa Barbara Island chicory or Philbrick’s island 

chicory. Subspecies is only found on Santa 

Barbara Island. California Native Plant Society 

list 1B. 

Malacothrix indecora - P P P - Santa Cruz Island chicory is listed as federally 

endangered.

Malacothrix junakii P - - - - Junak’s island chicory is rare without legal 

status. 

Malacothrix saxatilis 

var. implicata

P P P P -

Malacothrix squalida P P - - - Island malacothrix is listed as federally 

endangered.

Mimulus brandegeei - E - - - Santa Cruz Island monkeyflower is presumed 

extirpated.
APPENDIXES

458

Species Anacapa

Santa

Cruz*

San

Miguel

Santa

Rosa

Santa 

Barbara Comment

Mimulus flemingii P P - P - Island monkeyflower was Diplacus parviflorus. 

Submerged into M. auranticus in Jepson. Rare 

plant without legal status. California Native 

Plant Society list 4.

Phacelia insularis var. 

insularis

- - P P - Northern island phacelia is listed as federally 

endangered.

Pinus torreyana ssp. 

insularis

- - - P - Santa Rosa Island Torrey pine is rare without 

legal status. California Native Plant Society list 

1B.

Platystemon 

californicus var. 

ciliatus

P Santa Barbara Island cream cups is rare without 

legal status. Subspecies is only found on Santa 

Barbara Island and is on California Native Plant 

Society list 1B.

Quercus pacifica - P - P - Island scrub oak was Q. dumosa v. polycarpa. 

California Native Plant Society list 4.

Quercus tomentella P P - P - California Native Plant Society list 4.

Rhamnus pirifolia - P E P - Island redberry is presumed extirpated from San 

Miguel Island. California Native Plant Society list 

4.

Ribes thacherianum - P - - - Santa Cruz Island gooseberry is rare without 

legal status. California Native Plant Society list 

1B.

Sibara filifolia - E - - - Island rock cress is presumed extirpated from 

Santa Cruz Island.

Solanum clokeyi - P - P - Island nightshade was S. wallaceii v. c. 

Submerged into S. wallacei in Jepson. Rare 

species without legal status. California Native 

Plant Society list 4.

Thysanocarpus 

conchuliferus

- P - - - Santa Cruz Island lacepod is listed as federally 

endangered.

Trifolium palmeri - - - - P Southern island is rare without legal status.

Source: Adapted from S. Junak, T. Ayers, R. Scott, D. Wilken, D. Young. 1995. A Flora of Santa Cruz Island. Santa Barbara Botanic 

Garden and California Native Plant Society. In: NPS 1999 and S. Junak, S. Chaney, R. Philbrick, and R. Clark. 1997. “A Checklist of 

Vascular Plants of Channel Islands National Park 1997.”

P = Present on island.

E = Presumed extirpated from island.

? = Historical record but may be incorrect locale.

* All of the Santa Cruz species are within the park boundary, but some are on TNC lands and not on NPS lands.
Appendix E. Species Lists

459

TABLE E-2. NONAVIAN NATIVE TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES OF CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK

Common Name Scientific Name1

Island2 Legal 

Status3 A SC SR SM SB Endemic

AMPHIBIANS

Blackbelly slender 

salamander

Batrachoseps nigriventris SC

Channel Islands slender 

salamander

B. pacificus pacificus A SC SR SM Channel Islands

Pacific tree frog Pseudacris regilla SC SR

REPTILES

Southern alligator 

lizard

Elgaria multicarinata A SC SR SM

Island fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis 

beckii

SC SR SM Channel Islands

Side-blotched lizard Uta stansburnia A SC

Santa Cruz gopher 

snake

Pituophis catenifer 

pumilus

SC SR CSC Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands

Western yellowbelly 

racer

Coluber constrictor 

mormon

SC

Island night lizard Xantusia riversiana SB FT

MAMMALS

California myotis Myotis californicus SC SR

Longeared myotis4 M. evotis SC

Fringed myotis4 M. thysanodes SC

Townsend’s western 

big-eared bat

Corynorhinus townsendii 

townsendii

SC SR CSC

Big brown bat4 Eptesicus fuscus SC

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SC CSC

Silver-haired bat4 Lasionycteris noctivagans SC

Hoary bat4 Lasiurus cinereus SC SR SB

Western bat4 L. blossevillii (= L.borealis, 

in part)

SC

Mexican free-tailed 

bat4

Tadarida brasiliensis SC SR

Western mastiff bat4 Eumops perotis SC CSC

Santa Barbara deer 

mouse

Peromyscus maniculatus 

elusus

SB

Anacapa deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 

anacapae

A CSC Anacapa Island

Santa Cruz deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 

santacruzae

SC Santa Cruz Island

Santa Rosa deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 

santarosae

SR Santa Rosa Island

San Miguel deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 

streatori

SM San Miguel Island

Santa Cruz Island 

harvest mouse

Reithrodontomys 

megalotis santacruzae

SC Santa Cruz Island

Santa Cruz Island fox Urocyon littoralis 

santacruzae

SC ST, FP Santa Cruz Island

Santa Rosa Island fox Urocyon littoralis 

santarosae

SR ST, FP Santa Rosa Island

San Miguel Island fox Urocyon littoralis littoralis SM ST, FP San Miguel Island

Island spotted skunk Spilogale gracilis 

amphiala

SC SR CSC Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa islands

1 Nomenclature for reptiles and amphibians is from Collins (1990).

2 Island: A = Anacapa, SC = Santa Cruz, SR = Santa Rosa, SM = San Miguel, SB = Santa Barbara.

3 FP = Proposed by USFWS as Threatened or Endangered, FT = Federally listed as Threatened; CSC = California Species of Special 

Concern; ST = State-listed as Threatened. Data on legal status is from California Department of Fish and Game (2002).

4 Probable migrant.
APPENDIXES

460

TABLE E-3. BREEDING LANDBIRDS OF CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK

Common Name1 Scientific Name

Island2 Legal 

Status3

Endemic / 

A SC SR SM SB Introduced

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SM5

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos SC SR CSC, FP

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis A SC SR SM

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus A SC SR SM SB SE, FD

American kestrel Falco sparverius A SC SR SM SB

Chukar Alectoris chukar SR Introduced

California quail Callipepla californica SC SR Introduced 

Great blue heron Ardea herodias SR

Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus 

nivosus

SC SR FT

Killdeer Charadrius vociferous SC SR

Black oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani A SC SR SM SB

American oystercatcher Haematopus palliates SC

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura SC SR

Barn owl Tyto alba A SC SR SM SB

Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus SC

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia SB CSC

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus SB

White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis A SC SR

Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna SC SM

Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin 

sedentarius

A SC SR SM All Channel 

Islands

Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus SC

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus SC

Pacific-slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis 

insulicola

A SC SR All Channel 

Islands

Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans SC SR SM

Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens SC SR

Horned lark Eremophila alpestris 

insularis

SC SR SM SB All Channel 

Islands

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica A SC SR SM SB

Common raven Corvus corax SC SR

Island scrub-jay Aphelocoma insularis SC Santa Cruz 

Island

Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus SC

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta Canadensis SC

Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus A SC SR SM SB

Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii 

nesophilus

A SC SR Northern 

Channel Islands

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea SC

Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos SC SR

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

anthonyi

SC SR Northern islands 

plus San 

Clemente

European starling Sturnus vulgaris A SC SR SM SB Introduced

Hutton’s vireo Vireo huttoni A SC SR

Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata sordida A SC SR SM SB All Channel 

Islands

Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus 

melanocephalus

SC

Rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps 

obscura

A SC Anacapa and 

Santa Cruz 

islands

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia 

clementae

SC SR Santa Cruz and 

Santa Rosa 

islands

San Miguel song sparrow Melospiza melodia 

micronyx

SM San Miguel 

Island
Appendix E. Species Lists

461

Common Name1 Scientific Name

Island2 Legal 

Status3

Endemic / 

A SC SR SM SB Introduced

Spotted towhee Pipilo maculates SC SR

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerine A SC SR

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus SC

Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta A SC SR SM SB

Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria SC SR SM

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus 

frontalis

A SC SR SM All islands but 

Santa Barbara

Source: Diamond and Jones 1980; Jones et al. 1989.

1 Nomenclature for birds is from California Department of Fish and Game (2003).

2 Island: A = Anacapa, SC = Santa Cruz, SR = Santa Rosa, SM = San Miguel, SB = Santa Barbara.

3 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 (2004).

4 Endemic status is from Johnson (1972).

5 T. Coonan, NPS, unpubl. data. 
APPENDIXES

462

TABLE E-4. SEABIRD SPECIES NESTING ON THE NORTHERN CHANNEL ISLANDS 

Name Status1

Anacapa

Island

Santa 

Cruz 

Island

Santa 

Rosa 

Island

San 

Miguel 

Island

Santa 

Barbara 

Island

Storm-Petrels

Ashy storm-petrel

 Oceanodroma 

homochroa

CSC B2 B - B B

Black storm-petrel

 O. meliana

CSC - - - B? B

Leach’s storm-petrel

 O. leucorhoa

- - - B B?

Cormorants

Brandt’s cormorants

 Phalacrocrax penicillatus

B B B B B

Double-crested cormorant

 P. auritus

CSC B O - B B

Pelagic cormorant

 P. pelagicus

B B B B B

Pelicans

California brown pelican

 Pelecanus occidentalis 

Californicus

B O - O B

Gulls

Western gull

 Larus occidentalis

B B B B B

Alcids

Cassin’s auklet

 Ptychoramphus aleuticus

CSC B B - B B

Pigeon guillemot

 Cepphus columba

B B B B B

Scripp’s murrelet

 S. Scrippsi

ST B B - B3 B

Rhinoceros auklet

Cerorhinca monocerata

B? - - B? -

Tufted puffin

Lundra cirrhata

CSC BP-NA4

Common murre

Uria aalge

B

Source: Baird 1993; L. Harvey, National Park Service, pers. comm. (2012); H. Carter, pers. comm. (2011); P. Martin, National 

Park Service, pers. comm. November 26, 2002; Carter et al. 1992; McChesney et al. 1995; Carter et al. 2008. 

1 F = Federal, S = State, E = Endangered, T = Threatened, FP = California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Fully Protected, 

CSC = California Species of Special Concern.

2 B = Breeding.

3 The Scripp’s murrelet was listed as a threatened species by the state of California on December 22, 2004.

4 Previously bred, not currently attending.

O = Occasional colony.

Largest colony within the park is in Bold.
Appendix E. Species Lists

463

TABLE E-5. DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF PINNIPEDS (SEALS AND SEA LIONS) ON THE NORTHERN 

CHANNEL ISLANDS 

Name Status

Anacapa

Island

Santa Cruz 

Island

Santa Rosa 

Island

San Miguel 

Island

Santa 

Barbara 

Island

Northern fur seal

Callorhinus ursinus

B

Northern elephant 

seal

Mirounga 

angustirostris

H H B B B

California sea lion

Zalophus 

californianus

H H H B B

Harbor seal

Phoca vitulina

B B B B B

Steller sea lion

Eumetopias jubatus

FT FP

Guadalupe fur seal

Arctostephalus 

townsendii

FT, ST

?

H

Source: Data from Koski et al. 1998.

F = Federal, S = State, E = Endangered, T = Threatened, B = Breeding, H = Haulout, FP = Formerly Present.
464

APPENDIX F. LETTERS FROM THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

AND NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ON THREATENED AND 

ENDANGERED SPECIES IN CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK

(Note: Since these letters were received, some species’ status has changed.) 
Appendix F. Letters Regarding Threatened and Endangered 

Species in Channel Islands National Park

465
APPENDIXES

466
Appendix F. Letters Regarding Threatened and Endangered 

Species in Channel Islands National Park

467
APPENDIXES

468

I. SPECIES LISTED AS ENDANGERED/THREATENED UNDER THE ENDANGERED 

SPECIES ACT

Marine Mammals

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) – endangered

Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) – endangered

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) – endangered

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) – endangered

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) – endangered

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) – endangered

Steller sea lion, eastern U.S. stock (Distinct Population Segment) (Eumetopias jubatus) – 

threatened

Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) – threatened

Sea Turtles

Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) – endangered

Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) – threatened

Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) – endangered/threatened

Olive ridley turtle (Lepodochelys olivacea) – threatened

Invertebrates 

White abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) – endangered

Black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) – endangered

Fish

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) – (difficult to determine which evolutionarily 

significant units (ESU), likely:

Sacramento River Winter Run ESU) – endangered

Southern distinct population segment of North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) –

threatened*

II. SPECIES ON THE NMFS CANDIDATE SPECIES LIST (I.E., SPECIES OF 

CONCERN)

Green abalone (Haliotis fulgens)

*

Pink abalone (Haliotis corrugata)

*

Cowcod (Sebastis levis)

*

Bocaccio (Southern Distinct Population Segment) (Sebastes paucispinis)

**
Appendix F. Letters Regarding Threatened and Endangered 

Species in Channel Islands National Park

469

III. SPECIES PROTECTED UNDER MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT 

(MMPA), BUT NOT UNDER ESA 

Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) 

Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni) 

Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) 

Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 

Long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus capensis) 

Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) 

Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) 

Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) 

Northern right whale dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis) 

Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) 

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) 

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) 

Dall’s porpoise (Phoconoides dalli) 

Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) 

Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) 

California sea lion (Zalophus californianus californianus) 

Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) 
470

APPENDIX G. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS FOR SCORPION CREEK

STATEMENTS OF FINDINGS FOR

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

SCORPION VALLEY DEVELOPED AREA, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK

Recommended:_________________________________________________________________ 

Superintendent, Channel Islands National Park Date

Concurred:____________________________________________________________________ 

Chief, Water Resources Division Date

Concurred:____________________________________________________________________ 

Regional Safety Officer Date

Approved:_____________________________________________________________________ 

Director, Pacific West Region Date
Appendix G. Statement of Findings for Scorpion Creek

471

INTRODUCTION

In accordance with Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management” and NPS guidelines for 

implementing the order, the Park Service has evaluated the flood hazards for the developments in 

Scorpion Valley, Santa Cruz Island, and has prepared this statement of findings (SOF). As an 

integral part of the effort to develop a general management plan (plan) for the park, the SOF 

describes the flood hazard, alternatives, and mitigation measures for the continued use of this 

area. Additional detail regarding the park, future actions to be taken in the area, and 

environmental impacts may be found in the General Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement (plan). 

Much of the following text is based on two reports on the area prepared by the NPS Water 

Resources Division (NPS 1998, 2003), and from a 1995 trip report (NPS 1995).

Description of the Site

Scorpion Creek drains a small portion of the north side of the easternmost tip of Santa Cruz 

Island. The watershed area is approximately 2.4 square miles, with a total relief of 1,350 feet and a 

total length of slightly less than 3 miles. The watershed is steep and highly dissected. The creek is 

alluvial (depositional) for about 1.5 miles upstream from its mouth. Upstream from that point the 

stream is extremely steep and deeply incised. 

Scorpion Creek experiences wide fluctuations in flow. Generally in the summer the creek does 

not flow, except after occasional storms. In the winter heavy storms over a period of several days 

can produce large flows.

Because Scorpion Valley is a relatively narrow valley confined by steep hillsides, developments 

and uses of this area occur largely along the bottom of the valley. The lower alluvial reaches of the 

valley have a long history of human occupation. Ranch structures dating back to the 1800s are 

located on the left side of the valley, approximately 700 to 1,200 feet upstream from the mouth of 

the creek, including a historic masonry building. Farther upstream, a campground with 40 sites is 

spread out along the valley floor 0.5 to 1 mile from the beach. 

General Characterization of Floodplain Values, Nature of 

Flooding, and Associated Floodplain Processes in the Area

Scorpion Valley’s natural floodplain values have largely been altered by past human habitation. 

Vegetation cover is poor due in large part to a long history of intensive grazing by domestic 

animals. 

Geomorphically, the area is very unstable due to the steep mainstem and tributary channels 

upstream and the erodible nature of the surrounding hillsides. Watershed conditions in this area 

are such that rainfall runs off the surrounding hillside surfaces rapidly, mass hillslope failures are 

common, and tributary channels are extremely erosive. It is likely that debris flows occur on steep 

tributaries during periods of intense rainfall, contributing enormous amounts of sediment to the 

stream. These heavy sediment loads can exacerbate flooding; sediment deposition can change the 

local paths of streamflows and frequencies of inundation.
APPENDIXES

472

Scorpion Valley is subject to periodic floods, some of which can be large events, although there 

are no long-term data on the frequency of flooding. As with other drainages on Santa Cruz Island, 

flooding usually occurs in the winter after several days of heavy rain.

All of the developments in Scorpion Valley, including the campground, are in the floodplain, and 

many are within the active flood channel. Extremely active sedimentation processes interact with 

streamflow to cause frequent realignments of the channel throughout the entire width of the 

lower valley. Sediments also can accumulate in the channel, which results in the stream 

overflowing its banks and causing sedimentation in surrounding areas. Evidence indicates that 

periodic channel excavation historically has been required to minimize flooding and debris 

accumulation and thus permit sustained occupation of the valley.

JUSTIFICATION FOR USE OF THE FLOODPLAIN

Description of the Preferred Alternative and 

Why Facilities Would be Retained in the Floodplain

The preferred alternative in the GMP retains the historic ranch structures (including the masonry 

building) and the campground in their present locations. All of these structures are in the active 

flood channel, while the campground is considered to be in the 100-year floodplain (NPS 1995, 

1998, 2003). 

As noted in the “Affected Environment” section, the floodplain for Scorpion Creek extends from 

valley wall to valley wall. Thus, no structures within the valley can be located outside of the 

floodplain. This is a very popular recreational site, with one of the park’s few campgrounds. The 

area also is a cultural landscape and several of the ranch structures are on the national register. 

Moving the facilities would adversely affect these structures and recreational opportunities 

provided on Santa Cruz Island. In addition, moving the developments out of the valley to another 

site is not practicable — there are no level sites relatively close to the beach that visitors could 

easily hike to or that could support the functions provided by the existing developments.

Investigation of Alternative Sites

No alternatives considered in the plan would remove the historic ranch structures and the 

campground from the floodplain. However, two new locations were considered and rejected for 

the campground. One site was a slightly elevated area farther up the valley on the southern side. 

While providing some additional protection from flooding, this site doubled the distance visitors 

would have to walk and haul camping gear from the water. The site is smaller than the existing 

campgrounds, requiring a reduced number of sites, and is much steeper than the existing site, 

requiring design and manipulation to accommodate campsites. Finally, the site is less desirable 

because it has no shade or screening between campsites. The existing housing/maintenance area 

overlooks a second potential site up a side canyon to the north. This site is also smaller than the 

existing campground, requiring a reduced number of sites, and the site is much steeper than the 

existing campground, requiring design and manipulation to accommodate sites. In addition, this 

site is exposed with no shade or screening between campsites. Finally, the site has historic check 

dams and water structures that would be impacted by construction of a campground. 
Appendix G. Statement of Findings for Scorpion Creek

473

DESCRIPTION OF SITE-SPECIFIC FLOOD RISK

As noted above, the geology of the Scorpion Creek watershed is unstable and naturally prone to 

flood, mud, and debris flows, and mass failure. Extensive grazing by domestic animals has almost 

certainly accelerated the rates of erosion and caused more sedimentation and flooding than 

historical norms. Small to medium-sized slumps are found extensively in the watershed. Many of 

these mass failures are contributing sediment to the main channel and rapid aggradation of the 

channel occurs during every flood event (NPS 2003). Flooding has occurred historically and was 

handled by former occupants of the site by bulldozing the channel. In recent years, the Park 

Service has also excavated the channel to restore some flow capacity to the channel following 

flood events.

Scorpion Creek has probably flooded repeatedly over the past century. In 1997, a large flood 

caused substantial damage in the area. High water overflowed the streambanks and into the area 

occupied by the historic ranch house and other buildings. Also, a small channel draining an 

adjacent hillslope flooded and eroded a gully. Sediments eroded out of the enlarged gully 

deposited around the historic masonry structure. A detailed discussion of this event can be found 

in NPS 1998.

The reason for frequent flooding in the ranch complex is the limited capacity of the Scorpion 

Creek channel, even in its excavated state, and the flat topography of the overbank area between 

the channel and the buildings. Based on a flood hazard assessment (NPS 2003), the 100-year flood 

for Scorpion Creek is expected to span the entire valley width and be about 2 feet deep at the 

masonry structure. Velocities are predicted to be high over the entire width of flow. When 

aggradation of the channel and floodplain occurs during a flood, the flood magnitude needed to 

reach the building complex is much less than the 100-year flood. Given this set of circumstances, 

it is apparent that any attempt by park staff to maintain this building complex would require 

periodic channel excavation to rebuild flow capacity following floods. Furthermore, even with 

channel excavation, it can be expected that floodwaters would continue to periodically cause 

damage the masonry structure and nearby structures (NPS 2003).

The campground should be considered to be within the 100-year floodplain. Depths of flow of 2 

feet or more can be expected during such a flood event with significant flow velocities. However, 

it should be noted that placement of a low-investment campground in the 100-year floodplain can 

be in compliance with NPS floodplain management procedures provided that flood risk to 

humans is managed to an acceptable level. In this case, risk to campers is small because most, if 

not all, flooding episodes would occur during prolonged wet periods in the winter months when 

visitation levels are very low.

Scorpion Creek floods usually occur after several days of heavy rains. Thus, there would be ample 

time to warn people, and the risk of people being trapped or caught in a flood would be very low. 

If a flood does occur, visitors and park staff can evacuate to a high ground site, such as the park 

staff housing area.

FLOOD MITIGATION MEASURES

Several actions can be taken in the Scorpion Valley to reduce the risk to life or property. The most 

important action would be to periodically excavate the channel and remove sediments to rebuild 

streamflow capacity and keep the stream in the active channel away from park facilities. However, 
APPENDIXES

474

even with channel excavation, it can be expected that floodwaters would continue to periodically 

damage the masonry building and nearby structures (NPS 2003). It is estimated that up to about 

2,009 linear feet of the channel would need to be dredged to varying depths (tapering up to the 

campground) from the beach side at the start of the rock wall up to the west end of the lower 

campground. An estimated maximum 8,000 cubic yards of material may need to be removed from 

the channel. However, based on the minimal deposition of sediments that occurred after heavy 

rains in 2004–2005, it is likely that significantly less sediment would need to be dredged. The 

dredged material would be stockpiled on the south side of the stream, above the upper road 

crossing to the west. Although the stockpile probably would be in the 100-year floodplain, the 

material would be stored on a temporary basis (a year or less) and then would be moved out of the 

floodplain to maintain the road to Smugglers Cove. 

Because the Scorpion masonry building and other ranch structures would continue to be 

vulnerable to damage and loss during large floods, even with the above measures, no irreplaceable 

records, archeological artifacts or museum collections would be placed in the buildings. Signs also 

would be placed in the masonry building informing visitors and staffs of the flood risk and 

suggested actions in the event of flooding (e.g., an evacuation route).

Periodic cleanup of sediments following floods may be needed for continued use of the Scorpion 

Valley campground. In the peak use time (May to October), rangers are usually present and can 

warn people of storms and possible flooding. Park staff would post warnings on a campground 

kiosk and identify where to go in the event of flooding. However, from November through April 

(the most likely time floods would occur) there is a good chance no rangers would be present. 

Consequently, in the winter the NPS staff would restrict camping permits and limit camping to 10 

campsites that are usually safe to camp in, out of flood danger. 

SUMMARY 

The Park Service has determined that there is no practicable alternative to maintaining the 

historic ranch structures and campground within the floodplain of Scorpion Creek. This 

determination was based on the decision to continue to use Scorpion Valley as a primary visitor 

use area within the park, with provision for overnight and day use facilities. Although these 

facilities are within an area subject to flooding, there would be ample time to warn the few people 

using the area in the winter, and the risk to people being trapped or caught in a flood would be 

very low. If a flood does occur, visitors and park staff can evacuate to a high ground site, such as 

the park staff housing area. The proposed flood mitigation measures would reduce the risk to life 

or property, although even with these measures floodwaters would continue to periodically 

damage the masonry building and nearby structures — leaving facilities in the valley, even with 

mitigation measures, means that there would continue to be a risk to property and a small risk to 

human life due to flooding.

SOURCES

NPS. 1995. “Trip Report for Travel by Smillie to Channel Islands National Park. September 27-29, 

1995.” Unpublished report, on file at NPS Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO.
Appendix G. Statement of Findings for Scorpion Creek

475

NPS. 1998. Preliminary Hydrologic and Geomorphic Analysis: Scorpion Creek Flood. December 5, 

1997. Santa Cruz Island, Channel Islands National Park, CA. Tech. Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR98/172. Prepared by William L. Jackson. Water Resources Div., Fort Collins, CO.

NPS. 2003. “Trip Report for Travel by Gary Smillie and Kimberly Johnson to Channel Islands 

National Park. January 5-10, 2003.” Unpublished report, on file at NPS Water Resources Division, 

Fort Collins, CO.
476

APPENDIX H. LIST OF CLASSIFIED STRUCTURES 

Anacapa Island Lighthouse Tower

Anacapa Island Light Station Fog Signal Building

Anacapa Island Light Station Keeper’s Residence

Anacapa Island Light Station Power House

Anacapa Island Light Station Oil House

Anacapa Island Light Station General Service Building

Anacapa Island Light Station Tank House

Anacapa Island Light Station Rain Shed

Anacapa Island Light Station Derrick Building

Anacapa Island Light Station Upper Derrick Landing

Anacapa Island Light Station Lower Landing

Monument to Cabrillo

Vail & Vickers Ranch Branding Shed

Vail & Vickers Ranch Scale House

Vail & Vickers Ranch Old School House

Vail & Vickers Ranch House

Vail & Vickers Ranch Generator Barn

Vail & Vickers Ranch Horse Barn

Vail & Vickers Ranch House Fence

Vail & Vickers Ranch Corrals 

Vail & Vickers Ranch Pasture Fences

Vail & Vickers Ranch Outhouse

Vail & Vickers Corral Outhouse

Nidever Cave

Scorpion Valley Old Forge

Scorpion Valley Masonry Building

Scorpion Valley Bunkhouse

Scorpion Valley Storage Shed

Scorpion Valley Stone Wells and Wind Pump

Scorpion Valley Dairy Cave

Scorpion Valley Potato Cave

Scorpion Valley to Smugglers Ranch Road

Gherini Ranch Fences and Gates

Scorpion Valley Road Retaining Walls

Scorpion Valley Rock Piles

Smugglers Ranch Masonry Building

Smugglers Ranch Water System

Vail & Vickers Ranch China Camp Cabin

Anacapa Island Light Station Flagpole

Scorpion Valley Outhouse

Gherini Ranch Rock Walls and Check Dams

South Point Lighthouse

Vail & Vickers Ranch Smith Highway

Vail & Vickers Ranch Soledad Road

Vail & Vickers Ranch Arlington Roundup

Vail & Vickers Ranch China Camp Roundup

Vail & Vickers Ranch Wreck Roundup
Appendix H. List of Classified Structures

477

Vail & Vickers Ranch Clapp Springs

Vail & Vickers Ranch Carrington Point Water System

Prisoners’ Harbor Warehouse

Prisoners’ Harbor Corrals and Scale House

Campo del Norte Ranch House

Campo del Norte Corrals and Sheds

Stanton Ranch Fences and Gates

Stanton Ranch Water System

Main Ranch Trail

Scorpion Valley Reservoir

Scorpion Valley Meat House

Vail & Vickers Ranch Rope House

Vail & Vickers Ranch Small Outhouse

Rancho del Norte Troughs

Rancho del Norte Feed Cribs

Santa Cruz Island Telephone Poles and Line

Ranch House Fence

Rancho del Norte Horse Barn

Rancho del Norte Medicine Shed

Santa Cruz Island Lime Kilns

Anacapa Island Light Station Residence Sidewalks/Patios

Anacapa Island Light Station Concrete Markers
478 

SELECTED REFERENCES

Agenbroad, L.D.

1998 “New Pygmy Mammoth (Mammuthus exilis) Localities and Radiocarbon Dates from San Miguel, 

Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands, California.” In Contributions to the Geology of the Northern 

Channel Islands, Southern California, edited by P.W. Weigand, Pp. 169-175. American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists, Pacific Section, MP 45.

2002 “New Localities, Chronology and Comparisons for the Pygmy Mammoth (Mammuthus exilis): 

1994-1998.” In Proceedings of the Fifth Channel Islands Symposium, edited by H. Browne and H. 

Cheney. USDI-Mineral Management Service and the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. 

Vol. 2, pp. 518-524. Santa Barbara, CA.

Agenbroad, L.D., D. Morris, and L. Roth

1999 “Pygmy Mammoths Mammuthus exilis from Channel Islands National Park, California USA.” In

Mammoths and Mammoth Fauna: Studies of an Extinct Ecosystem, edited by G. Haynes, J. 

Klimowicz, and J.W.F. Reumer. Pp. 89-102. Deinsea 6.

Anderson, D.W.

1988 “Dose-response Relationship between Human Disturbance and Brown Pelican Breeding 

Success.” Wildlife Society Bull. 16:340-345.

Anderson, D.W. and J.O. Keith

1980 “The Human Influence on Seabird Nesting Success: Conservation Implications.” Biol. Conserv.

18:65-80.

Baird, P. 

1993 “Birds.” In Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation, edited by M.D. 

Dailey, D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson, Pp. 541-603. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Belnap, J.

1994 “Cyanobacterial-lichen Soil Crusts of San Nicholas Island” In Abstracts, The Fourth California 

Islands Symposium: Update on the Status of Resources, March 23-24,1994, edited by W.L. 

Halvorson and G.J. Maender. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Santa Barbara, CA.

Braje, T.J., J.G. Costello, J.M. Erlandson, M.A. Glassow, J.R. Johnson, D.P. Morris, J.E. Perry, and T.C. Rick

2010 “Channel Islands National Park Archeological Overview and Assessment,” edited by M.A. 

Glassow. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Brown, P.E.

1980 “Distribution of Bats of the California Channel Islands.” In California Islands. Proceedings of a 

Multidisciplinary Symposium. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Brown, P.E., R. Berry, and C. Brown

1994 “Foraging Behavior of Townsend’s Big-eared Bats (Plecotus townsendii) on Santa Cruz Island.” In

The Fourth California Islands Symposium: Update on the Status of Resources edited by W.L. 

Halvorson and G.J. Meander. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA.

Burkett, E.E., N.A. Rojek, A.E. Henry, M.J. Fluharty, L. Comrack, P.R. Kelly, A.C. Mahaney, and K.M. Fien

2003 “Report to the California Fish and Game Commission: Status Review of Xantus’s Murrelet 

(Synthliboramphus hypoleucus) in California.” Status Report 2003-01. California Dept. of Fish and 

Game, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch.
Selected References

479

California Department of Fish and Game

2002 Special animals. CDF&G Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Database. Available at: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/ spanimal.pdf. 

California Department of Fish and Game, Marine Resources Division

2002 Marine Protected Areas in NOAA’s Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Final 

environmental document.

2005 Final Market Squid Fishery Management Plan Environmental Document. Available at: 

www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/msfmp. (Accessed: March 14, 2005).

California Natural Resources Agency

2009 “Executive Summary. 2009 California Adaptation Strategy. A Report to the Governor of the State 

of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008.” Available at: 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CNRA-1000-2009-027/CNRA-1000-2009-027-

F.PDF

California Ocean Protection Council

2011 “Resolution of the California Ocean Protection Council on Sea-Level Rise.” Adopted on March 

11, 2011. Available at: 

http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/OPC_SeaLevelRise_Resolution_Adopted03111

1.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.” Draft report to Minerals 

Management Service.

Carter, H.R., R.J. Young, G.J. McChesney, W.R. McIver, R.T. Golightly, and F. Gress

2004 “Breeding Colony Surveys of Brandt’s Cormorants and Other Seabirds in California in 2003.” 

Vol. 1. Draft report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dixon, CA. (unpublished 

final report).

Carter, H.R., W.R. McIver, and G.J. McChesney 

2008 Ashy Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma homochroa). Pages 117-124 In: W.D. Shuford, and T. Gardali 

(eds.). California Bird Species of Special Concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, 

and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies in 

Western Birds 1.

Cayan, D., M. Tyree, M. Dettinger, H. Hidalgo, T. Das, E. Maurer, P. Bromirski, N. Graham, and R. Flick

2009 Climate Change Scenarios and Sea Level Rise Estimates for California 2008 Climate Change 

Scenarios Assessment. California Climate Change Center. CEC–500–2009–014–F.

Collins, J.T.

1990 “Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians and 

Reptiles.” Herpetological Circular No. 19. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.

Diamond, J.M. and H.L. Jones

1980 “Breeding Landbirds of the Channel Islands.” In California Islands: Proceedings of a 

Multidisciplinary Symposium, edited by D.M. Power. Pp. 597 –612. Santa Barbara Museum of 

Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA.

Drost, C.

2003 “Scorpion Ranch House Bat Assessment.” Report prepared for National Park Service, Channel 

Islands National Park. USGS Southwest Biological Science Center, Colorado Plateau Field 

Station. Flagstaff, AZ.
SELECTED REFERENCES

480

Drost, C.A. and G.M. Fellers

1991 “Density Cycles in an Island Population of Deer Mice, Peromyscus maniculatus.” Oikos 60:351-

364.

Engelhard, G.H., A.N.J. Baarspul, M. Broekman, J.C.S. Creuwels, and P.J.H. Reijnders

2002 “Human disturbance, nursing behaviour, and lactational pup growth in a declining southern 

elephant seal (Mirounga leonina) population.” Canadian Journal of Zoology 1886.11 (2002):1876-

1886.

Fellers, G.M. and C.A. Drost

1991 “Terrestrial Invertebrate Monitoring Handbook.” Channel Islands National Park. Ventura, CA. 

On file at Channel Islands National Park headquarters.

Fenn, D.B. and W.R. Allardice

1988 Soil and vegetation of Santa Barbara Island [Santa Barbara Co.], Channel Islands National Park, 

CA, USA. Environm. Management 12:109—118.

Forney, K.A., J. Barlow, M.M. Muto, M. Lowry, J. Baker, G. Cameron, J. Mobley, C. Stinchcomb, and J.V. 

Carretta

2000 “U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2000.” U.S. Department of Commerce, La 

Jolla, CA. (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-300) 276p. Available at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ prot_res/readingrm/MMSARS/ 2000PacificSARs.pdf.

Garcelon, D.K., C.C. Newman, Z. Nelson, M. Dennis, J. DePue, and G.A. Schmidt

2003 “Status of the Island Spotted Skunk on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands.” Paper presented at 6th

California Islands Symposium, December 1-3 2003. Ventura, CA. 

Gonzalez, P., R.P. Neilson, J.M. Lenihan, and R.J. Drapek

2010 “Global Patterns in the Vulnerability of Ecosystems to Vegetation Shifts Due to Climate Change.”

Global Ecology and Biogeography 19: 755-768.

Gress, F. 

1995 “Organochlorines, Eggshell Thinning, and Productivity Relationships in Brown Pelicans 

Breeding in the Southern California Bight.” Ph.D. dissertation. Univ. of Calif., Davis.

Guthrie, D.A.

1980 Analysis of Avifaunal and Bat Remains from Midden Sites on San Miguel Island. In The 

California Islands: Proceedings of a Multidisciplinary Symposium, edited by D.M. Power. pp. 703-

717. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA.

1992 “A Late Pleistocene Avifauna from San Miguel Island, California.” Natural History Museum Los 

Angeles County Science Series No. 36:317-327.

1993 “New Information on the Prehistoric Fauna of San Miguel Island, California.” In the Third 

California Islands Symposium: Recent Advances in Research on the California Islands, edited by F. 

G. Hochberg.

1998 “Fossil Vertebrates from Pleistocene Terrestrial Deposits on the Northern Channel Islands, 

Southern California.” In Contributions to the Geology of the Northern Channel Islands, Southern 

California, edited by P.W. Weigand. Pp. 187-192. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 

Pacific Section, MP 45.

Guthrie, D.A., H.W. Thomas, and G.L. Kennedy

2000 “A New Species of Extinct Late Pleistocene Puffin (Aves: Alcidae) From the Southern California 

Channel Islands.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, pp. 525-530.
Selected References

481

Halvorson, W.L., D.B. Fenn, and W.R. Allardice

1988 “Soils and Vegetation of Santa Barbara Island, Channel Islands National Park, California, USA.” 

Environmental Management 12(1):109-118.

Heberger, M., H. Cooley, P. Herrera, P. Gleick, and E. Moore

2009 “The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast.” A paper from the California Climate 

Change Center. Available at: http://pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/report.pdf. 

Hochberg, F.G. Jr.

1979 “Invertebrate Zoology: Land Molluscs.” In Natural Resources Study of the Channel Islands 

National Monument, California, edited by D.M. Power. Prepared for the National Park Service by 

the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Santa Barbara, CA.

Howald, G.R., K.R. Faulkner, B. Tershy, B. Keitt, H. Gellerman, E.M. Creel, M. Grinnell, S.T. Ortega, and 

D.A. Croll

2005 “Eradication of Black Rats from Anacapa Island: Biological and Social Considerations.” In 6th

California Islands Symposium. December 1-3 2003. Ventura, California. Edited by D.K. Garcelon 

and C.A. Shwemm. NPS Tech Pub CHIS-05-01. Institute for Wildlife Studies, Arcata, CA.

Hunt, G.L., Jr., R.L. Ptiman, and H.L. Jones

1980 “Distribution and Abundance of Seabirds Breeding on the California Channel Islands.” In The 

California Islands: Proceedings of a Multidisciplinary Symposium, edited by D.M. Power. Pp. 443-

459. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

2007 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Johnson, D.L.

1979 “Geology, Soils, and Erosion.” In Natural Resources Study of the Channel Islands National 

Monument, California, edited by D.M. Power. Prepared for the National Park Service by the 

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Santa Barbara, CA.

Johnson, N.K.

1972 “Origin and Differentiation of the Avifauna of the Channel Islands, California.” Condor

74(3):295-315.

Johnson, S.R., J.J. Burns, C.I. Malme, and R.A. Davis

1989 (1989). Synthesis of information on the effects of noise and disturbance on major haulout 

concentrations of Bering Sea pinnipeds (OCS Study MMS 88-0092; NTIS PB89-191373). 

Anchorage: LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc. for U.S. Minerals Management Service. 

Available at: www.boemre.gov/alaska/reports/1980rpts/88_0092/88_0092a.pdf.

Jones, L., P. Collins, and R. Stefani

1989 “A Checklist of the Birds of Channel Islands National Park.” Southwest Parks and Monuments 

Association, Tucson, AZ.

Junak, S., T. Ayers, R. Scott, D. Wilken, and D. Young

1995 A Flora of Santa Cruz Island. Santa Barbara Botanic Garden and California Native Plant Society.

Junak, S., S. Chaney, R. Philbrick, and R. Clark

1997 “A Checklist of Vascular Plants of Channel Islands National Park, 1997.” Southwest Parks and 

Monuments Association, Tucson, AZ. 
SELECTED REFERENCES

482

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.

Kovach, S.D. and R.J. Dow

1985 “Island Fox Research, San Nicholas Island, Ventura County, California: 1984 Annual Report.” 

Unpublished report to the California Department of Fish and Game. 

Kroeber, A.L.

1925 Kroeber's Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

Lamb, S.

2000 Channel Islands National Park. Southwest Parks and Monuments Association, Tucson, AZ.

Landres, P., C. Barns, J.G. Dennis, T. Devine, P. Geissler, C.S. McCasland, L. Merigliano, J. Seastrand, and 

R. Swain

2008 “Keeping it Wild: An Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character Across the 

National Wilderness Preservation System.” USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-212. Fort Collins, CO.

Largier, J.L., B.S. Cheng, and K.D. Higgason, ed.

2010 Climate Change Impacts: Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries.

Report of a Joint Working Group of the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National 

Marine Sanctuaries Advisory Councils. Available at: 

http://farallones.noaa.gov/eco/climate/pdf/gfcb_climate_impacts_060310.pdf. 

Laughrin, L.L. 

1978 “Status Report on the San Nicolas Island Fox.” University of California, Santa Barbara.

Livingston, D.S.

2000 “Draft Historic Resource Study, Channel Islands National Park.” Prepared for the National Park 

Service. On file at park headquarters.

McChesney, G.J., H.R. Carter, and D.L. Whitworth

1995 Reoccupation and extension of southern breeding limits of Tufted Puffins and Rhinoceros 

Auklets in California. Colon. Waterbirds 18:79–90.

McChesney, G.J., F. Gress, H.R. Carter, and D.L. Whitworth

2000 “Nesting Habitat Assessment for Xantus’s Murrelets and Other Crevice-nesting Seabirds at 

Anacapa Island, California, in 1997.” Unpublished report. U.S. Geological Survey, Western 

Ecological Research Center, Dixon, CA, and Humboldt State Univ., Dept. of Wildlife, Arcata, 

CA.

McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand, and S.M. Wiggins

2006 “Increases in Deep Ocean Ambient Noise West of San Nicolas Island, California. J. Acoust. Soc. 

Am. 120(2):711-717.

McEachern, K.

1996 “Summary of Proposed Endangered Plant Data Collected on Santa Rosa Island by National 

Biological Service Staff and Collaborators, 1994-1996.” USGS-NBS, Channel Islands Research 

Station, Ventura, CA.

2004 “Ecological Effects of Animal Introduction at Channel Islands National Park” Park Science 22(2): 

46-52.
Selected References

483

McEachern, K. and D. Wilken

1996 “Inventory and Monitoring of California Islands Candidate Plant Taxa — Final National 

Biological Service Report. Channel Islands National Park, California.” USGS-NBS, Channel 

Islands Research Station, Ventura, CA.

McEachern, A., D. Thomson, and K. Chess.

2009 “Climate alters response of an endemic island plant to removal of invasive herbivores.” Ecological 

Adaptations 19(6):1574-1584.

McEachern, K., D. Wilden, and K. Chess

1997 “Inventory and Monitoring of California Islands Candidate Plant Taxa.” U.S. Geological Survey 

Open File Report 00-73. USGS-Biological Resources Discipline-Western Ecological Research 

Center, Sacramento, CA.

McKenna, M.F., M. Soldevilla, E. Oleson, W.S.M. Wiggins, and J.A. Hildebrand

2009 “Increased underwater noise levels in the Santa Barbara Channel from commercial ship traffic 

and its potential impact on Blue Whales (Balaenoptera musculus).” In Proceedings of the Seventh 

California Islands Symposium. Institute for Wildlife Studies, edited by C.C. Damiani and D.K. 

Garcelon. Institute for Wildlife Studies, Arcata, CA.

McKenna, M.F., S.L. Katz, S.M. Wiggins, D. Ross, and J.A. Hildebrand

2012 “A Quieting Ocean: Unintended Consequence of a Fluctuating Economy.” The Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America 132: EL169–75.

McMinn, H.E.

1951 An Illustrated Manual of California Shrubs. University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA. 

Melin, S.R. and R.L. DeLong

1999 “Observations of a Guadalupe Fur Seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) Female and Pup at San Miguel 

Island, California.” Marine Mammal Science 15(3):885-888.

Miller, S.E.

1979 “Invertebrate Zoology: Insects and Their Relatives.” In Natural Resources Study of the Channel 

Islands National Monument, California, edited by D.M. Power. Prepared for the National Park 

Service by the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA.

Mitchell, T.D. and P.D. Jones

2005 “An Improved Method of Constructing a Database of Monthly Climate Observations and 

Associated High-Resolution Grids.” International Journal of Climatology 25:693-712.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

n.d. “The Island Night Lizard — A Unique Channel Islands Endemic.” By G.M. Fellers and C.A. 

Drost. Unpublished report. On file on park headquarters.

1980a General Management Plan, Anacapa, Santa Barbara, San Miguel Islands, Channel Islands National 

Park. Vol. 1. Visitor Use / Interpretation / General Development. Denver Service Center, Denver, 

CO.

1980b General Management Plan. Anacapa-Santa Barbara-San Miguel Islands, Channel Islands National 

Park. Vol. 2. Natural / Cultural Resource Management. Denver Service Center, Denver CO.

1984 Draft General Management Plan Supplement Environmental Assessment, Channel Islands National 

Park / California. Denver Service Center. Denver, CO.

1991 “Statement for Management.” Copy available at park headquarters.

1995a Santa Rosa Island Development Concept Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. Pacific West Field 

Area.

1995b “Inventory of Water Quality on Santa Rosa Island.” Technical Report Number 95-07. On file at 

park headquarters.
SELECTED REFERENCES

484

1998 “Preliminary Hydrologic and Geomorphic Analysis: Scorpion Creek Flood. December 5, 1997. 

Santa Cruz Island, Channel Islands National Park, CA.” Tech. Report NPS/NRWRD/ NRTR98/172. Prepared by W.L. Jackson, Water Resources Div., Fort Collins, CO.

1999 “Resource Management Plan” Update. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/chis/

rm/HTMLPages/RMP.htm. 

2000a Anacapa Island Restoration Project. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Copy available at park 

headquarters.

2000b Management Policies 2001. Washington, DC.

2001a “Landbird Monitoring 1995-2000 Annual Report.” Tech. Report 2001-03. Channel Islands 

National Park. On file at park headquarters. Available at: 

http://www1.nature.nps.gov/im/units/chis/PDFReports/Terrestrial/9500LBAnnl.pdf. 

2001b “Status and Ecology of Deer Mice (Peromyscus maniculatus subsp.) on Anacapa, Santa Barbara, 

and San Miguel Islands, California. Summary of Monitoring 1992 – 2000,” by C.A. Schwemm and 

T.J. Coonan. Tech. Report 01-02. On file at park headquarters.

2002a Santa Cruz Island Primary Restoration Plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement.

2002b “Island Fox Captive Breeding Program. 2001 Annual Report.” Tech. Rept. 02-01. Prepared by T. 

Coonan and K. Rutz. Ventura, CA.

2003a “Recovery Strategy for Island Foxes (Urocyon littoralis) on the Northern Channel Islands.” 

Prepared by T. Coonan. Ventura, CA.

2003b “Report for Travel to Channel Islands National Park During May 11-16, 2003.” Unpublished 

report. Copy on file at park headquarters.

2006 “Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at Channel Islands National 

Park, California.” Prepared by D.L. Engle. Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2006/354. 

Water Resources Division, Natural Resource Program Center. Ft. Collins, CO.

2010 National Park Service. Climate Change Response Strategy. NPS Climate Change Response 

Program, Fort Collins, CO.

2011 “Climate Friendly Parks. Channel Islands National Park Action Plan.” Available at: 

http://www.nps.gov/climatefriendlyparks/parks/CHIS.html. 

2012a Green Parks Plan. Available at: www.nps.gov/greenparksplan. 

2012b 2012 Call to Action Plan. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/calltoaction/. Accessed: January 2013.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park 

Service, California Dept. of Fish and Game, California State Lands Commission, California Dept. of Parks 

and Recreation

2002 Feasibility Study for Reestablishment of Bald Eagles on the Northern Channel Islands, California. 

Environmental Assessment. Montrose Settlements Restoration Program. Long Beach, CA.

The Nature Conservancy

2009 “Climate Stress Reports: Version 1.1. Northern Channel Islands — Last Great Place.” Unpub. 

report.

NatureServe Explorer 

2005 NatureServe Explorer, An Online Encyclopedia of Life (web application). Version 4.2 

NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Last accessed: 

January 24, 2005.

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

2008 “Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Condition Report. 2009.” U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver 

Spring, MD. Available at: 

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/condition/pdfs/cinms_conditionreport09.pdf. 

Pinter, N. and W.D. Vestal

2005 “El Nino-drive Landsliding and Postgrazing Vegetative Recovery, Santa Cruz Island, California.” 

Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 110, F02003.
Selected References

485

Power, D.M. (ed.) 

1980a “Hydrology and Water Resources.” In The California Islands: Proceedings of a Multidisciplinary 

Symposium. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA. Pp. 443-459.

1980b Natural Resources Study of the Channel Islands National Monument, California. Prepared for the 

National Park Service by the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Santa Barbara, CA.

Roelke-Parker, M.E., L. Munson, C. Packer, R. Kock, S. Cleaveland, M. Carpenter, S.J. O’Brien, A. 

Pospischil, R. Hofmann-Lehmann, and H. Lutz

1996 “A Canine Distemper Virus Epidemic in Serengeti Lions (Panthera leo).” Nature 379(6564):441-5.

Suryan, R.M. and J.T. Harvey

1999 Variability in reactions of Pacific harbor seals Phoca vitulina richardsi, to disturbance. Fishery 

Bulletin 97:332–339.

Thorne, R.F.

1967 “A Flora of Santa Catalina Island, California.” Aliso 6(3):45.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

2007 Soil survey of Channel Islands National Park, California. Available at: 

http://soils.usda.gov/survey/printed_surveys/. 

U.S. Department of the Navy

2002 “Final Natural Resources Summary Report. San Miguel Island.” Naval Air Warfare Center 

Weapons Division, Point Mugu, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological 

Services. FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, DC.

1983 The California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by F. 

Gress and D.W. Anderson. Portland, OR.

1995 “Biological Opinion for the Effects of Park Activities on Western Snowy Plovers and Brown 

Pelicans at Channel Islands National Park, California (1-8-94-F-32).” Memorandum from the 

Acting Field Supervisor, Ventura Field Office. On file at park headquarters.

2000 Thirteen Plant Taxa from the Northern Channel Islands Recovery Plan. Prepared by T. Thomas. 

Portland, OR.

2001 Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) Pacific Coast Population Draft Recovery 

Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR.

2005 Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region. Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, 

Pacific Region. Portland, OR.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Department of the Interior

2005 “Relative Coastal Vulnerability Assessment of Channel Islands National Park (CHIS) to SeaLevel Rise.” USGS Open File Report 2005-1057. Prepared by E. Pendleton, E. Thieler, and S. 

Williams. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1057/images/pdf/chis.pdf. 

Valentine, J.W. and J.H. Lipps

1963 “Late Cenozoic Rocky-shore Assemblages from Anacapa Island, California.” Journal of 

Paleontology 37:1292-1302.

Van Vuren, D. and B.E. Coblentz

1989 “Population Characteristics of Feral Sheep on Santa Cruz Island.” J. Wildlife Management 53:306-

313.
SELECTED REFERENCES

486

Von Blocker, J.C. Jr.

1967 “The Land Mammals of the Southern California Islands.” In Proceedings of the Symposium on the 

Biology of the California Islands, edited by R.N. Philbrick. Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, Santa 

Barbara, CA.

Warzybok, P. and R.W. Bradley 

2008 “Population size and reproductive performance of seabirds on Southeast Farallon Island, 2008.” 

Unpub. report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. PRBO Conservation Science, Petaluma.

White, J.A.

1966 “A New Peromyscus from the Late Pleistocene of Anacapa Island, California, with Notes on 

Variation in Peromyscus nesodytes.” Los Angeles County Museum Contributions in Science No. 

96:1-8.

Wilken, D.

1996 “Reproductive Strategies of Four Plants Restricted to the Northern Channel Islands.” Report 

prepared by the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Santa 

Barbara, CA.

Wilkinson R.

2002 “Preparing for a Changing Climate. The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and 

Change for California.” A Report of the California Regional Assessment Group for the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program. Available at: 

http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/pubs/CA_Report.pdf. 

Wilson, R.W.

1936 “A New Pleistocene Deer-mouse from Santa Rosa Island.” Journal of Mammalogy 17:408-410.
 487

PREPARERS

CORE PLANNING TEAM

Denver Service Center, National Park Service

Steve DeGrush, Natural Resource Specialist. B.S. Natural Resources and M.S. Land Use Planning 

and Community Development. 4 years with the National Park Service. Contributed to the 

financial planning overview section of the plan.

Tom Gibney, Landscape Architect. B.A. Classical Civilizations, M.L.A. Landscape Architecture, 

certificate in historic preservation. 2.5 years with the National Park Service. Worked on

development concept planning and site design for Scorpion Valley, Prisoners Harbor, and 

Bechers Bay in the alternatives chapter (now project manager). 

Gregory Jarvis, Natural Resource Specialist. B.S. Geology. 24 years with the National Park Service. 

Project Manager. Overall responsibility for preparation of the plan.

Carrie Miller, Cultural Resource Specialist. B.S. and M.Arh. Architectural History. 3 years with 

the National Park Service, 7 years in cultural resource management in the private sector. 

Responsible for addressing comments on impacts analysis of cultural resources.

Michael Rees, Natural Resource Specialist. B.A. Environmental Studies and M.F.S. Forest 

Science. 22 years with the National Park Service. Responsible for writing the description of the 

park’s natural resources and wilderness character, assessing impacts on these resources, and 

writing the floodplain statement of findings.

Harlan Unrau, Cultural Resource Specialist. B.A. and M.A. History. (retired) 33 years with the 

National Park Service. Responsible for writing the description of the park’s cultural resources 

and initially assessing impacts on these resources.

Terri Urbanowski, Landscape Architect. M.L.A. Landscape Architecture. 21 years with the 

National Park Service. Worked on development concept planning and site design for Scorpion 

and Prisoners Harbor areas in the alternatives chapter.

Harper’s Ferry Center, National Park Service

Paul Lee, Interpretive Planner. B.S. Education/Biology, M.S. Plant Ecology (retired). 41 years with 

the National Park Service. Responsible for writing the description of the park’s visitor use and 

assessing impacts on visitor uses and experiences. 

Channel Islands National Park

Rhonda Brooks, Chief of Transportation (no longer with the park). B.A. Geography. 19 years with 

the National Park Service. Involved in development of alternatives for the general 

management plan and in addressing island transportation concerns and needs in the plan.

Kate Faulkner, Chief of Natural Resources Management. B.S. and M.S. Natural Resources 

Management. 33 years with the National Park Service. Involved in development of alternatives 

for the general management plan and in addressing natural resource concerns, needs, and 

impacts in the plan.

Jack Fitzgerald, Chief Park Ranger (retired). B.A. Communication Arts. 30 years with the National 

Park Service. Involved in development of alternatives for the general management plan, and in 

addressing visitor protection needs, concerns, and impacts in the plan.
PREPARERS

488

Russell Galipeau, Superintendent. B.S. Forest Resource Conservation. 32 years with the National 

Park Service. Responsible for providing overall management and oversight for all aspects of 

the plan, including development of the alternatives and selection of the preferred alternative. 

Tim Glass, Facilities Manager. B.S. Business Management (retired). 23 years with the National 

Park Service. Involved in development of alternatives and in addressing facility costs, 

concerns, needs, and impacts in the plan.

Ann Huston, Chief of Cultural Resources Management. B.A. Social Science, M.A. Historic 

Preservation. 33 years with the National Park Service. Involved in development of alternatives 

and in addressing cultural resource concerns, needs, and impacts in the plan.

Yvonne Menard, Chief of Interpretation. B.A. Interpretation of Natural and Cultural History. 32

years with the National Park Service. Involved in development of alternatives and in 

addressing visitor use and interpretive needs, concerns, and impacts in the plan.

Cathy Schwemm, Wildlife Biologist (GIS Specialist) (no longer with the National Park Service). 

B.S. and M.S. Wildlife Biology. 22 years with the National Park Service. Involved in 

development of alternatives and in GIS mapping). 

Publication Services, NPS Denver Service Center

Christy Fischer, Editor (retired)

Glenda Heronema, Visual Information Specialist (retired)

Lori Yokomizo, Web Developer

OTHER CONTRIBUTORS AND CONSULTANTS

Denver Service Center

Rick Alesch, former Project Manager

Kerri Cahill, Branch Chief

Tamara Delaplane, Project Specialist (Landscape Architect) 

Pam Holtman, Cultural Resource Specialist (now with WASO Park Planning and Special Studies)

Barbara J. Johnson, Chief of Planning

Dave Kreger, Branch Chief

Charles Notzon, Outdoor Recreation Planner

Megan Truebenbach, Landscape Architect

Pacific West Region

Keith Dunbar, Chief of Planning (retired)

Ray Murray, Chief Partnership Program

Alan Schmierer, Environmental Protection Specialist

Trystan Stern, Chief of Concessions

Stephanie Toothman, Chief of Cultural Resources (now in Washington, D.C.)
Preparers 

489

Channel Islands National Park

David Ashe, Chief Ranger

Karl Bachman, Facility Manager

Trish Buffington, Budget Officer

Sarah Chaney, Vegetation Biologist

Tim Coonan, Terrestrial Biologist

Gary Davis, Research Scientist (retired)

Tom Dore, Interpretive Ranger (no longer with the National Park Service) 

Georganna Hawley, Archeologist (no longer with the National Park Service)

Paige Martin, Seabird Biologist (now with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Steve Ortega, Natural Resource Specialist (now with Golden Gate National Recreation Area)

Dan Richards, Marine Biologist (retired)

Dirk Rodriquez, Botanist

NPS Natural Resource Program Center, Water Resources Division

Kevin Noon, Natural Resource Specialist (Wetlands)

Gary Smillie, Hydrologist

NPS Natural Resource Program Center, Geologic Resources Division

Pete Biggam, Soil Scientist

Greg McDonald, Paleontologist (now NPS Senior Curator of Natural History)

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division

Kathryn McEachern, Senior Plant Ecologist

Natural Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Daniel Johnson, Soil Scientist Project Leader (Monroe, Louisiana)

Private Consultants

Dornbush Associates 

Jason Bass, Principal (socioeconomic analysis)

ERO Resources Corporation

David Hesker, Graphics Consultant
490

INDEX

adaptive management, 32, 444

air quality, 217, 433

American Indian, xvii, 178, 228, 273, 332, 

361, 395, 418, 420, 427, 440, 447, 493

archeology, 4, 177, 225, 282, 420, 440, 441

campers, 55, 56, 88, 132, 185, 401

campground, ix, 26, 42, 47, 53, 55-57, 61, 64, 

65, 73, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 92, 95, 99, 101-

105, 113, 114, 124, 126, 129, 132, 136, 139, 

144, 147, 148, 150-152, 159-161, 170, 172, 

185, 191-193, 195, 197, 202, 208, 227, 235, 

293,296, 298, 300, 302, 335, 337, 339, 342, 

343, 345, 349, 350, 352, 360, 367, 368, 372, 

375-377, 379, 383, 384, 393, 398, 400, 401, 

403, 405, 415-417, 451, 452, 471-473, 474

camping, ix, 5, 6, 7, 37, 38, 42, 45, 52, 53, 61, 

62, 64, 65, 73, 81, 88, 89, 98, 99, 103-105, 

113-115, 123, 124, 126, 128, 132, 144, 149-

151, 159, 160, 169, 170, 172, 177, 181, 185, 

187, 188, 190, 191, 193, 197, 227, 265, 279, 

293, 296-298, 302, 361, 371, 395, 401, 404, 

416, 429, 447, 449, 472, 474

carrying capacity, 41, 364, 398

cultural resources, v, xii-xvi, xix, 3, 4, 9, 12, 

15, 17-22, 28, 31, 35, 37-39, 50, 51, 53, 54, 

57, 58, 61, 64, 73, 86, 89, 93, 96, 98, 101, 

102, 113, 129, 130, 133, 135, 137, 140, 143, 

147, 148, 159, 174, 177, 179, 182-184, 192, 

225, 272, 281, 282, 284, 287-290, 293, 299-

301, 305, 312, 313, 318, 319, 331-335, 338, 

341, 361-364, 366, 368, 371, 394-399, 402, 

405, 415, 416, 427, 433, 438, 440, 444, 449, 

451, 487, 488

endangered species, xx, 22, 216, 221, 222, 

270, 415, 419, 436, 447, 468

environmental justice, 228

erosion, 5, 28, 91, 135, 174-176, 199, 214, 

229, 230, 231, 233, 234, 241, 246, 248, 262, 

268, 278, 284, 286, 288, 296, 308, 320, 321, 

324, 332, 340, 342-344, 346, 351, 362, 374, 

376-378, 380, 384, 385, 395, 408, 425, 429, 

430, 432, 473, 481

ethnographic resources, vii-ix, 17, 51, 73, 86, 

87, 129, 130, 178, 183, 206, 226, 291, 312, 

313, 333, 334, 363, 396, 397, 405, 416, 438, 

440

fire, 57, 104, 105, 152, 177, 247, 249, 264, 

267-270, 280, 290, 300, 323, 328-330, 332, 

340, 349, 350, 357, 358, 383, 384, 391, 392, 

415, 430, 447

fishing, 16-18, 21, 22, 29, 37, 38, 39, 42, 220, 

222, 227, 255, 272, 273, 277, 285-288, 293, 

294, 318, 326, 354, 388, 447, 449

flooding, vii, 101, 147, 175, 201, 215, 219, 

227, 235, 237, 247, 262, 309, 322, 323, 347, 

348, 367, 381, 382, 401, 434, 435, 440, 471-

474

floodplains, viii, ix, 26, 64, 66, 101, 104-106, 

147, 150-152, 175, 192, 194, 201, 215, 219, 

235, 237, 238, 309, 310, 322, 323, 341, 347, 

348, 374, 375, 381, 382, 408, 409, 435, 449, 

471, 472-474, 487

floods, 64, 85, 101, 104, 105, 129, 150, 151, 

175, 176, 192, 193, 201, 235, 236, 262, 290, 

309, 345, 348, 382, 435, 443, 471-475, 484

fundamental resources and values, 12, 15, 16, 

36, 93, 137

hiking, 6, 7, 37, 38, 45, 52, 55, 56, 61, 64, 73, 

81, 83, 88, 91, 98, 103, 105, 113, 115, 123, 

126, 132, 135, 144, 149, 151, 159-161, 169, 

172, 190, 196, 227, 265, 270, 293, 296, 297, 

302, 349, 352, 371, 383, 386, 404, 447

interpretation, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, 3, 18, 37, 38, 

39, 54, 57, 58, 64, 89, 93, 95, 113, 133, 136, 

137, 139, 159, 191, 193, 208, 227, 292, 294, 

300, 301, 315, 316, 336, 337, 364, 366-369, 

398-403, 427, 432, 438, 441, 442, 446, 452, 

455, 478, 483, 488

invasive species, 38, 39

mitigation measures, 35, 175, 177, 178, 220, 

251, 307, 328, 346, 348, 356, 358, 380, 382, 

390, 392, 435, 471, 473, 474

National Environmental Policy Act, vii, xv, 

xx, 3, 14, 29, 177, 181, 183, 184, 217, 225, 

226, 228, 305, 312, 317, 414, 415, 446

National Historic Preservation Act, xvi, xx, 

22, 23, 24, 177, 225, 226, 291, 312, 413, 438, 

440

National Register of Historic Places, xv, 5-7, 

86, 129, 177, 178, 181, 183, 207, 225, 272, 

274, 280, 282, 284, 285, 289-291, 312-315, 

331, 334, 335, 361, 363-365, 395, 397-399, 

413, 438, 440, 441, 447, 472
Index

491

Native American, xvii, 15, 19, 22, 31, 51, 86, 

87, 130, 178, 226, 278, 291, 332, 333, 361, 

395, 413, 427, 440

natural resources, vii, viii, xii-xvi, 3, 28, 37, 

38, 50, 58, 61, 64, 73, 81, 83, 86, 93, 94, 98, 

101, 113, 123, 126, 129, 137, 138, 143, 147, 

159, 169, 172, 174, 181, 183, 213, 215, 224, 

229, 248, 262, 263, 286, 290, 300, 301, 305-

307, 320, 340, 342, 351, 360, 374, 376, 394, 

408, 418, 427, 429, 430, 435, 440, 479, 481, 

483, 485, 487, 493

nonnative species, 11, 17, 176, 202, 215, 238, 

242, 244, 247-249, 260, 261, 264, 320, 324, 

325, 339, 349, 351, 371, 374, 383, 385, 386, 

405, 408, 427, 429, 430, 434, 436 

Section 106, xvi, 177, 183, 206, 207, 225, 226, 

312-315, 333-335, 362-364, 366, 396-399, 

413

soils, xv, 174, 186, 199, 214, 218, 229, 230, 

231, 232, 237-243, 254, 260, 268, 272, 308, 

320, 321, 341-344, 347, 348, 374, 376-378, 

381, 382, 408, 429, 430, 433, 481, 485

soundscapes, vii-ix, xv, 17, 18, 205, 216, 270, 

271, 297, 307, 308, 311, 330, 331, 359-361, 

393, 394, 408, 434, 437

sustainability, 32, 443, 444

threatened and endangered species, vii-ix, 

xv, xvii, 21, 31, 42, 176, 204, 213, 216, 221, 

263, 307, 308, 310, 328, 339, 356, 357, 371, 

389, 391, 405, 414, 415, 427, 430, 436, 464

trails, 6, 7, 65, 88, 103, 105, 113-115, 123, 126, 

132, 149, 151, 159, 161, 169, 172, 174, 197, 

264, 268, 270, 299, 316, 328, 356, 367, 390, 

400, 416, 417, 435, 477

user capacity, xi-xiv, 3, 41, 52, 53, 61, 65, 73, 

81, 83, 86, 88, 89, 99, 105, 115, 124, 126, 

129, 132, 144, 151, 161, 170, 172, 181, 183, 

189, 217, 298, 357, 368, 372, 391, 402, 406

vegetation, vii-ix, 7, 27, 38, 51, 81, 87, 101, 

102, 106, 123, 130, 147, 148, 152, 169, 174-

176, 182, 183, 186, 202, 207, 214, 215, 220, 

223, 229-234, 236-248, 250, 251, 253-255, 

260, 261, 264, 266-268, 270, 277, 290, 293, 

295, 296, 308, 310, 318, 320, 323-331, 335, 

340, 341, 347-353, 355, 357, 358, 360, 365, 

374, 381-387, 389, 391, 392, 394, 398, 408, 

415, 416, 429, 430, 433, 444, 471, 480, 481, 

489

visitor experience, v, vii-ix, xvi, 3, 11, 16-18, 

26-28, 35-37, 41-45, 59, 88, 105, 115, 128, 

131, 151, 161, 185, 190, 206, 208, 215, 216, 

227, 305, 315, 316, 336, 337, 341, 363, 366-

369, 374, 395-397, 399-403, 408, 434, 437, 

442, 443, 449

water quality, vii-ix, xv, 21, 174, 200, 214, 

220, 222, 223, 233-235, 246, 307-309, 321, 

322, 326, 340, 345-348, 354, 379-382, 388, 

413, 415, 427, 433, 434, 447, 483

water quantity, 218

wetlands, viii, 101, 147, 175, 201, 202, 214, 

219, 236, 237, 242, 245, 310, 323, 347-349, 

351-353, 359, 381, 382, 387, 393, 408, 436, 

449

wilderness, i, iii, v-ix, xi-xviii, 3, 12, 14, 23, 

25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 35-37, 46-48, 50, 52, 57, 

64, 73, 85-87, 98, 103, 113, 123, 126, 128-

131, 143, 149, 159, 169, 172, 183, 190-192, 

194, 196-198, 206, 209, 227, 295-297, 299, 

300, 305, 306, 316, 317, 338, 339, 343, 345, 

346, 348, 351, 354, 357, 360-363, 367, 370-

373, 377, 379, 380, 382, 385, 388, 391, 394-

396, 400, 403-406, 419, 425, 442, 446, 447, 

482, 487

wildlife, vii-ix, xv, xvii, xx, 6, 7, 15-17, 19-21, 

27-30, 32, 48, 52, 58, 61, 64, 83, 88, 98, 103, 

113, 126, 132, 144, 149, 159, 172, 174, 176, 

177, 183, 190, 197, 203, 213-216, 220, 227, 

234, 249, 250-253, 257-259, 261-264, 266-

270, 293-296, 298, 301, 308, 310, 311, 325-

328, 338, 340, 352-357, 361, 369, 374, 386-

390, 395, 403, 408, 413-415, 418, 419, 427, 

429, 430, 434, 436, 437, 444, 449, 452, 453, 

462, 464, 478, 479, 481-486, 488, 489, 493

As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use 

of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving 

the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historic places; and providing for 

the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral 

resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by 

encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island 

territories under U.S. administration.

NPS/CHIS/159/122461 

Printed on recycled paper
Channel Islands National Park

1901 Spinnaker Dr.

Ventura, CA 93001

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior