DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Introduction 7

Introduction 

Sea otters once ranged along the North 

Pacific rim from the northern Japanese 

islands to mid-Baja California, Mexico. 

Shortly after the discovery of sea otters by 

European explorers, a lucrative fur trade 

began. Traders from China, Russia, 

England, the United States, Mexico, and 

Native American nations expanded trade 

routes to exploit sea otters as a resource and 

to claim new territories for their respective 

countries. In little more than a century, the 

fur trade brought sea otters to the brink of 

extinction. With sea otters extirpated from 

most of their historic range, the fur trade 

collapsed. 

A remnant colony of about 50 sea otters 

survived in California. Taxonomists 

identified this population as the southern sea 

otter, Enhydra lutris nereis, distinguishing it 

from other remnant populations remaining 

in Russia and Alaska. On January 14, 1977, 

we, the Fish and Wildlife Service, listed the 

southern sea otter as a threatened species 

under the Endangered Species Act [16 

U.S.C 1531 et seq.] on the basis of its small 

population size, its greatly reduced range, 

and the potential risk of oil spills [42 FR 

2968]. We established a recovery team for 

the species in 1980, and we approved a 

recovery plan for the species on February 3, 

1982 (USFWS 1982). In the recovery plan, 

we identified the translocation of southern 

sea otters as an effective and reasonable 

recovery action, acknowledging that a 

translocated southern sea otter population 

could impact shellfish fisheries that had 

developed in areas formally occupied by 

southern sea otters. 

The intent behind translocation was to 

reintroduce sea otters to historic habitat and 

thereby to reduce the possibility that sea 

otters would become extinct in California. 

Several translocations of sea otters from 

Alaska to the Pacific northwest had 

demonstrated that new populations could be 

established by moving sea otters to a new 

area. Although success was not guaranteed, 

we believed that a well-organized and 

executed southern sea otter translocation 

plan would benefit the species and 

ultimately contribute to its recovery. 

In the course of planning for the 

translocation of southern sea otters, we 

identified a conflict between the Endangered 

Species Act and the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. Both acts provided 

protection for the southern sea otter, but at 

the time the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

did not allow for the establishment of 

experimental populations. The matter was 

brought before the U.S. Congress and 

resulted in the passage of Public Law 99-

625. Public Law 99-625 allowed us to 

develop and implement a southern sea otter 

translocation plan that included provisions 

to minimize conflict between sea otters and 

shellfish fisheries. 

We completed a final environmental impact 

statement for southern sea otter translocation 

in May 1987 and published a final rule and 

record of decision in August of the same 

year (Appendix D). Our 1987 

environmental impact statement evaluated 

the environmental impacts of several 

potential translocation sites. We selected 

San Nicolas Island, a small island off the 

southern California coast, as the preferred 

site and began to capture and move sea 

otters to the island in August of the same 

year. 

Eighteen years have passed since the first 

translocations of sea otters to San Nicolas 

Island were undertaken, during which time 

we have gained considerable information. 

However, contrary to initial expectations, 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Introduction 8

we have failed to achieve the recovery 

objectives of the program. We concluded in 

a biological opinion in 2000 that 

implementation of the containment 

component of the program would likely 

jeopardize the continued existence of the 

species (Appendix B). In this supplement to 

our 1987 final environmental impact 

statement, we summarize what we have 

learned regarding sea otter translocation and 

evaluate the biological and socioeconomic 

effects of several alternatives, including the 

program’s termination. 

Comments expressed during the scoping 

process indicate that there are widely 

divergent views on whether sea otters should 

be allowed to recolonize their historic range. 

Our translocation plan attempted to balance 

multiple needs while implementing a 

recovery action for sea otters. Our 

experience in implementing the 

translocation plan over the past 18 years, 

which has differed significantly from what 

we anticipated under the 1987 plan, has 

prompted our reevaluation of the plan and 

consideration of alternatives to it, including 

termination. Success or failure of our next 

course of action will depend on our ability to 

effect change in the context of sea otters’ 

natural behaviors. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need 9

Chapter 1. Purpose and 

Need 

1.1 Purpose for Action 

The purpose of this supplement is to assess 

options for the future of the southern sea 

otter translocation program that will 

ultimately result in recovery of the species, 

including revisions to the program or 

termination of it. This assessment includes a 

reevaluation of impacts of the southern sea 

otter translocation plan, as described in our 

1987 environmental impact statement, based 

on current information obtained over the 18 

years since the plan’s inception. It also 

includes an evaluation of impacts of 

alternatives for the future of the 

translocation program. 

1.2 Need for Action 

The need for action stems specifically from 

our lack of progress and inability to meet the 

goals of the southern sea otter translocation 

program initiated in 1987. The purpose of 

the translocation program was to establish a 

colony of sea otters at a location outside the 

parent range to enhance recovery of the 

species. A secondary purpose was to 

acquire information on transportation and 

containment techniques, population 

dynamics, ecological relationships, and 

effects on the donor population. We have 

gained new information as a result of the 

translocation program, but contrary to the 

primary recovery objective of the program, 

the translocation of sea otters to San Nicolas 

Island has not resulted in the establishment 

of a viable, independent colony of sea otters 

sufficiently removed from the parent 

population to serve as a safeguard for the 

population as a whole in the event of a 

natural or human-caused event, such as an 

oil spill. In our draft translocation 

evaluation (Appendix C) we determine that 

the translocation program has failed to fulfill 

its primary purpose as a recovery action and 

that our recovery and management goals for 

the species cannot be met by continuing the 

program. 

Since completion of the final environmental 

impact statement and the signing of the 

record of decision for the translocation of 

southern sea otters in 1987, changed 

circumstances and new information have 

come to light. The translocation of sea 

otters to San Nicolas Island has been much 

less successful than expected; large groups 

of sea otters are periodically moving into the 

designated management zone; capturing and 

moving sea otters out of the management 

zone (containment) has proven to be more 

difficult than anticipated; we determined in a 

biological opinion issued in July 2000 

(Appendix B) that containment of sea otters 

would likely jeopardize the species’ 

continued existence; and the southern sea 

otter recovery team recommended against 

additional translocations of sea otters in the 

revised southern sea otter recovery plan and 

has called instead for a fundamentally 

different strategy for recovery of the species 

(USFWS 2003). The revised recovery plan 

recommends allowing southern sea otters to 

expand naturally in number and distribution 

to levels that will secure the persistence of 

the species in the event of a major oil spill or 

series of smaller spills. 

Several overarching needs also help to 

define the alternatives considered here. 

These include the need to meet our mandate 

under the Endangered Species Act to bring 

the southern sea otter to recovery; the need 

to implement recovery actions as specified 

in the southern sea otter recovery plan 

(USFWS 2003); the need to comply with 

Public Law 99-625; and the need to bring 

the southern sea otter population to its 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need 10

optimum sustainable population (OSP) level 

by the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 2. Background 11

Chapter 2. Background 

2.1 History of the Translocation 

Program 

On January 14, 1977, we, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, listed the southern sea 

otter as a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C 1531 et 

seq.] on the basis of its small population 

size, its greatly reduced range, and the 

potential risk of oil spills [42 FR 2968]. We 

established a recovery team for the species 

in 1980, and we approved a recovery plan 

for the species on February 3, 1982 

(USFWS 1982). In the recovery plan, we 

identified the translocation of southern sea 

otters as an effective and reasonable 

recovery action, acknowledging that a 

translocated southern sea otter population 

could affect shellfish fisheries that had 

developed in areas formerly occupied by 

southern sea otters. The objectives of 

southern sea otter translocation, as stated in 

the 1982 recovery plan, included: (1) 

establishing a second colony (or colonies) 

sufficiently distant from the parent 

population such that a smaller portion of the 

southern sea otter population would be 

jeopardized in the event of a large-scale oil 

spill; and (2) establishing a database for 

identifying the optimal sustainable 

population level for the southern sea otter. 

We anticipated that translocation would 

ultimately result in a larger population size 

and a more continuous distribution of 

animals throughout the southern sea otter=s 

historic range. 

Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act 

specifically authorizes translocation of a 

listed species to establish experimental 

populations. However, the southern sea 

otter is protected under both the Endangered 

Species Act and the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, and at the time the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act did not contain 

similar translocation provisions. This 

inconsistency was resolved in the case of the 

southern sea otter by the passage of P.L. 99-

625 (Fish and Wildlife Programs: 

Improvement; Section 1. Translocation of 

California Sea Otters) on November 7, 1986, 

which specifically authorized development 

of a translocation plan for southern sea 

otters, to be administered in cooperation 

with the affected State. 

The Congressional Record for P.L. 99-625 

provides insight into the purpose of this 

legislation [H.R.4531]. Authorization for 

the translocation of southern sea otters was 

clearly prompted by a desire to protect the 

species and to promote its recovery. 

However, Congress also recognized the 

potential for conflict between a translocated 

sea otter population and fisheries and other 

resource uses. To address this concern, 

Congress included in P.L. 99-625 a 

requirement that any southern sea otter 

translocation plan authorized under this 

legislation must include the designation of a 

management zone that would surround the 

translocation zone. Sea otters entering the 

management zone were to be captured using 

non-lethal means and moved outside the 

management zone. 

If the Secretary of the Interior chose to 

develop a translocation plan under P.L. 99-

625, the plan was to include: (1) the number, 

age, and sex of southern sea otters proposed 

to be relocated; (2) the manner in which 

southern sea otters were to be captured, 

translocated, released, monitored, and 

protected; (3) specification of a zone into 

which the experimental population would be 

introduced (translocation zone); (4) 

specification of a zone surrounding the 

translocation zone that did not include range 

of the parent population or adjacent range 

necessary for the recovery of the species 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 2. Background 12

(management zone); (5) measures, including 

an adequate funding mechanism, to isolate 

and contain the experimental population; 

and (6) a description of the relationship of 

the implementation of the plan to the status 

of the species under the Endangered Species 

Act and determinations under section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act. The purposes 

of the management zone were to: (1) 

facilitate the management of southern sea 

otters and the containment of the 

experimental population within the 

translocation zone; and (2) prevent, to the 

maximum extent feasible, conflicts between 

the experimental population and shellfish 

fisheries within the management zone. Any 

sea otter found within the management zone 

was to be treated as a member of the 

experimental population. We were required 

to use all feasible non-lethal means to 

capture sea otters in the management zone 

and to return them to the translocation zone 

or the range of the parent population. 

In May 1987, we published a final 

environmental impact statement that 

analyzed the impacts of establishing a 

program to translocate southern sea otters 

from their then-current range along the 

central coast of California to the northern 

coast of California, southern coast of 

Oregon, or San Nicolas Island off the coast 

of southern California. We identified 

translocation to San Nicolas Island as our 

preferred alternative. A detailed 

translocation plan meeting the requirements 

of P.L. 99-625 was included as an appendix 

to our 1987 environmental impact statement. 

Also in August of 1987, we published 

implementing regulations for the 

translocation program [52 FR 29754; 50 

CFR 17.84(d)]. These regulations define the 

translocation and management zones, 

provide the framework for the program, and 

include a set of criteria for determining if the 

translocation should be considered a failure. 

Groups of southern sea otters were moved 

from the coast of central California to San 

Nicolas Island starting on August 24, 1987. 

In December 1987, in coordination with the 

California Department of Fish and Game, 

we began capturing and moving sea otters 

that entered the designated management 

zone. 

Between August 1987 and March 1990, we 

released 140 southern sea otters at San 

Nicolas Island. As of March 1991, 

approximately 14 sea otters (10 percent) 

were thought to remain at the island. Some 

sea otters died as a result of translocation; 

many swam back to the parent population; 

and some moved into the management zone. 

The fate of more than half the sea otters 

taken to San Nicolas Island was never 

determined. In 1991, we stopped 

translocating sea otters to San Nicolas Island 

due to high rates of dispersal and poor 

survival. However, we continued 

monitoring the sea otters remaining in the 

translocation zone. 

From December 1987 to February 1993, 24 

sea otters were captured and removed from 

the management zone and returned to the 

parent range. Eleven of these animals had 

been translocated to San Nicolas Island, four 

were offspring of sea otters translocated to 

San Nicolas Island, and at least three swam 

into the management zone from the parent 

range. The origins of the remaining six 

animals were uncertain; they had either 

moved down from the parent range or were 

offspring of sea otters translocated to San 

Nicolas Island. Two of the sea otters 

captured and removed from the management 

zone returned to it after traveling hundreds 

of kilometers, only to be recaptured and 

moved again. 

In February 1993, two sea otters that had 

been recently captured in the management 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 2. Background 13

zone were found dead shortly after their 

release in the range of the parent population. 

In total, four southern sea otters were known 

or suspected to have died within two weeks 

of being moved from the management zone. 

We were concerned that sea otters were 

dying as a result of our containment efforts; 

therefore, in 1993 we suspended all sea otter 

capture activities in the management zone to 

evaluate sea otter capture and transport 

methods. We recognized that available 

capture techniques, which proved to be less 

effective and more labor-intensive than 

originally predicted, were not an efficient 

means of containing southern sea otters. 

From 1993 to 1997, few sea otters were 

reported in the management zone, and there 

appeared to be no immediate need to address 

sea otter containment. In 1997, the 

California Department of Fish and Game 

notified us that it intended to end its 

southern sea otter research project and 

would no longer be able to assist if we 

resumed capturing sea otters in the 

management zone. 

In 1998, a group of approximately 100 

southern sea otters moved from the parent 

range into the northern end of the 

management zone. At the same time, rangewide counts of the southern sea otter 

population indicated a decline of 

approximately 10 percent between 1995 and 

1998. In light of the decline in the southern 

sea otter population, we were concerned 

about the potential effects on the parent 

population of moving the large number of 

southern sea otters that had moved into the 

management zone. We asked the southern 

sea otter recovery team, a team of biologists 

with expertise pertinent to southern sea otter 

recovery, for their recommendation 

regarding the capture and removal of sea 

otters in the management zone. The 

recovery team recommended that we not 

move sea otters from the management zone 

to the parent population because moving 

large groups of sea otters and releasing them 

within the parent range would be disruptive 

to the social structure of the parent 

population (DeMaster 1998). We agreed 

with their recommendation. 

In order to notify stakeholders of our 

intended course of action, we held two 

public meetings in August 1998. At these 

meetings, we provided information on the 

status of the translocation program, solicited 

general comments and recommendations, 

and announced that we intended to reinitiate 

consultation under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act for the southern sea 

otter containment program and to begin the 

process of evaluating the failure criteria 

established for the translocation program. 

We distributed a draft section 7 consultation 

on the southern sea otter containment 

program to interested parties for comment 

on March 19, 1999, and issued a final 

biological opinion on July 19, 2000. Our 

reinitiation of consultation was prompted by 

the receipt of substantial new information on 

the population status, behavior, and ecology 

of the southern sea otter that revealed 

adverse effects of containment that were not 

previously considered. In the biological 

opinion, we cited the following information 

and circumstances as prompting reinitiation: 

(1) in 1998 and 1999, southern sea otters 

moved into the management zone in much 

greater numbers than in previous years; (2) 

analysis of carcasses indicated that southern 

sea otters were being exposed to 

environmental contaminants and diseases 

that could be affecting the health of the 

population throughout California; (3) rangewide counts of southern sea otters indicated 

that numbers were declining; (4) recent 

information, in particular the observed 

effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, 

indicated that southern sea otters at San 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 2. Background 14

Nicolas Island would not be isolated from 

the potential effects of a single large oil 

spill; and (5) the capture and release of large 

groups of southern sea otters could result in 

substantial adverse effects on the parent 

population. The biological opinion 

concluded with our assessment that 

continuation of the containment program 

would likely jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species on the grounds that: 

(1) reversal of the southern sea otter=s 

population decline was essential to the 

survival and recovery of the species, 

whereas continuation of containment could 

cause the direct deaths of individuals and 

disrupt social behavior in the parent range, 

thereby exacerbating population declines; 

and (2) expansion of the southern sea otter=s 

distribution was essential to the survival and 

recovery of the species, whereas 

continuation of the containment program 

would artificially restrict the range to the 

area north of Point Conception, thereby 

increasing the vulnerability of the species to 

oil spills, disease, and stochastic events. 

On January 22, 2001, we issued a policy 

statement regarding the capture and removal 

of southern sea otters in the designated 

management zone [66 FR 6649]. Based on 

our July 2000 biological opinion, we 

determined that the containment of southern 

sea otters was not consistent with the 

requirement of the Endangered Species Act 

to avoid jeopardy to the species. The notice 

advised the public that we would not capture 

and remove southern sea otters from the 

management zone pending completion of 

our reevaluation of the southern sea otter 

translocation program, which would include 

the preparation of a supplement to our 1987 

environmental impact statement and release 

of a final evaluation of the translocation 

program that contains an analysis of failure 

criteria. 

2.2 Scoping and Issues 

On July 27, 2000, we published in the 

Federal Register a notice of intent to 

prepare a supplement to our 1987 

environmental impact statement on the 

southern sea otter translocation program [65 

FR 46172]. The notice of intent announced 

that public scoping meetings would be held 

on August 15, 2000 in Santa Barbara, 

California and on August 17, 2000 in 

Monterey, California. On July 27, 2000, we 

distributed a press release that identified the 

scoping meeting dates, times, and locations 

to wire services at Associated Press (San 

Francisco) and Bay City News, reporters in 

coastal counties of California, local radio 

and television stations, and other interested 

parties. We posted formal notices of the 

meetings in the Santa Barbara News Press, 

The Independent (Santa Barbara), The Coast 

Weekly (Monterey) and the Monterey 

Herald. 

The purpose of the scoping meetings was to 

solicit information to be used to define the 

overall scope of the supplement, to identify 

significant issues to be addressed, and to 

identify alternatives to be considered. We 

provided a brief presentation on the National 

Environmental Policy Act process and 

information related to the southern sea otter 

translocation program at each session, 

reserving the remainder of the time for 

public statements. We also solicited written 

comments and requested that these be sent 

to us by electronic or regular mail by 

September 30, 2000. A total of 61 

individuals attended scoping sessions held in 

Santa Barbara, and 43 individuals attended 

scoping sessions in Monterey. 

We met with the technical consultants to the 

southern sea otter recovery team to discuss 

scoping of the supplement on September 26, 

2000. We reviewed comments received 

during the scoping meetings and solicited 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 2. Background 15

additional information from the group. In 

April 2001, we published a scoping report 

and distributed it to scoping meeting 

participants and other interested parties 

(Appendix E). 

Copies of all written comments received 

during the scoping period are available upon 

request of the Service. Generally, issues and 

concerns fell into four primary categories: 

(1) economic impacts to fisheries and 

tourism, (2) impacts to the nearshore marine 

ecosystem, (3) impacts to the southern sea 

otter population, and (4) impacts to other 

agency activities. All of these areas are 

evaluated further in this supplement. 

Worldwide temperature change, water 

quality, oil spill risk and mitigation 

measures, and impacts to wetlands were also 

identified during scoping. Although we 

agree that these are important areas of 

concern, we do not analyze them further in 

this supplement because they are beyond the 

scope of the document or our ability to 

effect change. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 2. Background 16

This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 3. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 17

Chapter 3. Alternatives 

Including the Proposed 

Action 

3.1 Introduction 

The final environmental impact statement on 

the translocation of southern sea otters 

(USFWS 1987) considered six alternatives: 

1) translocation of southern sea otters to San 

Nicolas Island, California; 2) translocation 

to northern California; 3) translocation to 

southern Oregon; 4) translocation in 

conjunction with restriction and 

management of sea otters between Point Sal 

and Point Conception, California; 5) 

increased protection of the sea otter 

population to reduce the threat of oil spills; 

and 6) no action. We designated Alternative 

1, the translocation of southern sea otters to 

San Nicolas Island, as the preferred 

alternative in the draft and final versions of 

the environmental impact statement and 

subsequently selected it as the best 

alternative for implementation in the record 

of decision [52 FR 29784]. We began 

implementing the translocation program in 

August 1987, when the first sea otters were 

captured for translocation. 

In this supplement, we do not consider 

alternative sites for translocation but instead 

evaluate options for the future of the 

existing translocation program. We address 

the following alternatives in this 

supplement: 

• No Action Alternative: Maintain the 

status quo 

• Alternative 1: Resume 

implementation of 1987 southern sea 

otter translocation plan 

• Alternative 2: Implement modified 

southern sea otter translocation 

program with smaller management 

zone 

• Alternative 3A: Terminate the 

southern sea otter translocation 

program based on a failure 

determination pursuant to 50 CFR 

§17.84(d) and remove all sea otters 

residing within the translocation and 

management zones at the time the 

decision to terminate is made 

• Alternative 3B: Terminate the 

southern sea otter translocation 

program based on a failure 

determination pursuant to 50 CFR 

§17.84(d) and remove only sea otters 

residing within the translocation zone 

at the time the decision to terminate is 

made; 

• Alternative 3C (Proposed Action): 

Terminate the southern sea otter 

translocation program based on a 

failure determination pursuant to 50 

CFR §17.84(d) and do not remove 

sea otters residing within the 

translocation or management zones at 

the time the decision to terminate is 

made. 

Several alternatives were proposed during 

scoping but are not evaluated in this 

supplement because they do not meet our 

purpose and need for action. They include 

the following: place a moratorium on 

shellfisheries; establish no-take zones for 

fisheries; develop educational programs to 

encourage people to use alternative food 

sources and reduce seafood consumption; 

petition the U.S. Navy to include San 

Nicolas Island within the Channel Islands 

National Park; establish a captive breeding 

program and reintroduce sea otters to other 

sites in California and Mexico; and move 

sea otters north or translocate sea otters to a 

location closer to the parent population. At 

the end of this chapter, we explain why we 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 3. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 18

do not perform a detailed analysis of these 

alternatives. 

3.2 Description and Comparison 

of Alternatives 

The alternatives described in this section are 

represented in a detailed table included at 

the end of this chapter, Table 3-1, which 

gives a summary of actions by alternative. 

The discussion that follows is intended to 

give a general sense of the relationship of 

the alternatives with each other. For a 

detailed analysis of effects, see Chapter 6, 

“Environmental Consequences.” 

3.2.1 BASELINE (STATUS QUO)—THE NO 

ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The baseline reflects the translocation 

program as it exists today. Currently, 

maintenance of the management zone is 

suspended [66 FR 6649], and we are not 

moving sea otters to San Nicolas Island. 

We discontinued maintenance of the 

management zone in 1993, in part because 

of concerns that containment was resulting 

in the deaths of moved animals. For several 

years, few sea otters moved into the 

management zone, and containment was not 

an issue. However, the seasonal movement 

of large numbers of sea otters into and out of 

the management zone beginning in 1998 

prompted us to reinitiate consultation under 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act on 

the containment portion of the translocation 

program. Our subsequent evaluation of sea 

otter containment pursuant to section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act found that 

continuing containment would likely 

jeopardize the continued existence of the 

species (Appendix B). We have determined 

that we will not remove sea otters from the 

designated management zone pending 

reevaluation of the translocation program, 

including completion of this supplement [66 

FR 6649]. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the 

translocation program would continue to 

exist as currently implemented (i.e., we 

would take no action to supplement the 

colony at San Nicolas Island or to resume 

maintenance of the management zone). 

Public Law 99-625 provides statutory 

exemptions from prohibitions against the 

incidental take of sea otters in the 

management zone (in the case of otherwise 

lawful activities) or translocation zone (in 

the case of defense-related activities). These 

exemptions would continue to exist. 

3.2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1—RESUME 

IMPLEMENTATION OF 1987 TRANSLOCATION 

PLAN

Alternative 1 would entail resuming 

implementation of the southern sea otter 

translocation program as originally 

designed. The final rule for the 

establishment of an experimental population 

of southern sea otters [52 FR 29754] and 

corresponding regulations [50 CFR 

§17.84(d)] include a detailed description of 

the southern sea otter translocation plan. 

The translocation plan describes the 

establishment of a population at San Nicolas 

Island in terms of four stages: a transplant 

stage, an initial growth and reestablishment 

stage, a post-establishment and growth 

stage, and a final stage, the point at which 

the translocated sea otter population would 

reach carrying capacity (an ecological state 

in which the numbers of sea otters remain 

relatively constant and in balance with the 

available food supply). 

Movement of the first groups of sea otters 

from central California to San Nicolas Island 

in 1987 marked the initiation of the southern 

sea otter translocation program. Although 

we never completed the transplant phase 

because the colony never attained the 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 3. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 19

requisite core population size of 70 sea 

otters (due to high rates of dispersal), we 

discontinued efforts to move sea otters to 

San Nicolas Island in 1991, effectively 

ending the transplant phase at that time. The 

colony is currently in the growth and 

reestablishment stage as defined in the plan. 

While monitoring of the experimental 

colony at San Nicolas Island and conducting 

research on related ecosystem changes on 

the island have continued to the present as 

envisioned under the 1987 plan (with the 

exception that far fewer sea otters than 

expected are present at the island to cause 

such changes), full implementation of the 

southern sea otter translocation program 

would also require containing the colony 

within the translocation zone and 

maintaining the designated management 

zone from Point Conception to the Mexican 

border (Figure 3-1) free of sea otters. Given 

the small founding size of the colony and the 

fact that renewed maintenance of the 

management zone would preclude the 

possibility of genetic exchange with the 

parent population in perpetuity, we would 

likely need to consider additional 

translocations of sea otters to ensure 

adequate genetic diversity within the island 

colony. 

Selection of Alternative 1 would require that 

we resume capturing and removing sea 

otters found in the management zone. The 

management zone includes about 96 percent 

of the nearshore area of the Southern 

California Bight. Before this alternative 

could be implemented, we would need to 

reinitiate consultation under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act to assess the effects 

of containment on southern sea otters. For a 

summary of specific actions to be taken 

under this alternative, see Table 3-1. 

3.2.3 ALTERNATIVE 2—IMPLEMENT MODIFIED 

TRANSLOCATION PROGRAM WITH SMALLER 

MANAGEMENT ZONE

Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1, but 

with an important difference. Under 

Alternative 2, the southern sea otter 

translocation plan would be implemented as 

FIGURE 3-1. MANAGEMENT ZONE (ALTERNATIVE 1). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 3. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 20

originally written, but the designated 

management zone would be reduced in size. 

The management zone would be reduced in 

size from its current designation, which 

extends from Point Conception to the 

Mexican border but excludes San Nicolas 

Island. The modified management zone 

would include the coastline from the city of 

Santa Barbara south to the Mexican border 

and include all islands except San Miguel, 

Santa Rosa and San Nicolas (Figure 3-2). 

The new designation would reflect 

recognized biogeographic boundaries and 

allow for limited sea otter range expansion. 

The reduction in size of the management 

zone would provide additional habitat for 

the recovery of the species (relative to 

Alternative 1) while retaining a modified 

management zone to minimize conflicts 

with existing fisheries. The modified 

management zone includes about 78 percent 

of the nearshore area of the Southern 

California Bight. Sea otter containment 

would resume in the newly designated 

management zone. 

Alternative 2 would require a proposed 

rulemaking to change the existing 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.84(d) in order to 

re-delineate the boundaries of the 

management zone. Before this alternative 

could be implemented, we would need to 

reinitiate consultation under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act to assess the effects 

of containment on southern sea otters. For a 

summary of specific actions to be taken 

under this alternative, see Table 3-1. 

3.2.4 ALTERNATIVES 3A-3C—TERMINATE 

TRANSLOCATION PROGRAM 

Specific failure criteria are defined in the 

southern sea otter translocation plan and 

may be found at 50 CFR §17.84(d)(8). 

Alternatives 3A-3C would require 

finalization of the draft evaluation of the 

translocation program (addressing 

established failure criteria) in consultation 

with the California Department of Fish and 

FIGURE 3-2. MODIFIED MANAGEMENT ZONE (ALTERNATIVE 2). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 3. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 21

Game and the Marine Mammal Commission 

and a rulemaking to delete the regulations at 

50 CFR 17.84(d). A draft evaluation, in 

which we conclude that the translocation 

plan has failed, is included as Appendix C. 

We are seeking comments on the draft 

evaluation as well as on this draft 

supplement. If the program were 

terminated, all southern sea otters, 

regardless of their physical location, would 

be treated as members of the same 

population for the purposes of the 

Endangered Species Act and the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. The standard 

prohibitions and authorizations under the 

Endangered Species Act and the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act would once again 

apply, and the special rule governing the 

translocation plan [50 CFR §17.84(d)] 

would no longer apply. 

To mitigate conflicts with commercial 

fisheries, we would propose to work with 

the California Department of Fish and Game 

and affected fishers to develop fishery 

management strategies that will minimize 

the effects of sea otter range expansion on 

individuals in the affected fisheries. One 

possibility could be to retire (rather than 

reissue) permits for fisheries affected by sea 

otters when current permit-holders 

voluntarily relinquish them, thereby 

reducing competition between permitholders remaining in those fisheries. 

To mitigate effects of the change in 

consultation requirements at San Nicolas 

Island on the U.S. Navy, we would propose 

to develop a programmatic Biological 

Opinion for activities that may affect sea 

otters there. 

3.2.5 ALTERNATIVE 3A—TERMINATE 

TRANSLOCATION PROGRAM; REMOVE ALL SEA 

OTTERS RESIDING WITHIN THE TRANSLOCATION 

AND MANAGEMENT ZONES AT THE TIME THE 

DECISION TO TERMINATE IS MADE 

The southern sea otter translocation plan as 

implemented by the special rule at 50 CFR 

§17.84(d) specifically outlines actions to be 

taken should the translocation program be 

declared a failure [50 CFR 

§17.84(d)(8)(vi)]. Subject to the outcome of 

a future section 7 consultation, Alternative 

3A would implement these actions as 

described in the plan and rule. All sea otters 

within the translocation zone would be 

captured and placed in the range of the 

parent population. Efforts to maintain the 

management zone free of sea otters would 

be temporarily reinitiated and then curtailed 

after all reasonable efforts were made to 

remove sea otters residing in the 

management zone at the time of the decision 

to terminate the program. A joint 

consultation between the California 

Department of Fish and Game and the 

Service would determine when all 

reasonable efforts had been made and 

additional efforts would be futile [50 CFR 

§17.84(d)(8)(vi)]. For a summary of 

specific actions to be taken under this 

alternative, see Table 3-1. 

3.2.6 ALTERNATIVE 3B—TERMINATE 

TRANSLOCATION PROGRAM; REMOVE ONLY 

SEA OTTERS RESIDING WITHIN THE 

TRANSLOCATION ZONE AT THE TIME THE 

DECISION TO TERMINATE IS MADE 

Under Alternative 3B, subject to the 

outcome of a future section 7 consultation, 

all sea otters remaining within the 

translocation zone at San Nicolas Island 

would be captured and placed in the range of 

the parent population. Efforts to maintain 

the management zone free of sea otters 

would not be reinitiated. For a summary of 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 3. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 22

specific actions to be taken under this 

alternative, see Table 3-1. 

3.2.7 ALTERNATIVE 3C (PROPOSED 

ACTION)—TERMINATE TRANSLOCATION 

PROGRAM; DO NOT REMOVE SEA OTTERS 

RESIDING WITHIN THE TRANSLOCATION OR 

MANAGEMENT ZONES AT THE TIME THE 

DECISION TO TERMINATE IS MADE 

No sea otters within the translocation zone 

or management zone would be removed 

following the decision to declare the 

translocation program a failure. Efforts to 

maintain the management zone free of sea 

otters would not be reinitiated. For a 

summary of specific actions to be taken 

under this alternative, see Table 3-1. 

3.3 Alternatives Identified During 

Scoping but Not Analyzed Further 

in This Supplement 

The following alternatives were proposed 

during the scoping period but will not be 

considered further in this supplement 

because they are beyond the scope of this 

supplement or do not meet the purpose and 

need of the proposed project, which is to 

evaluate the existing southern sea otter 

translocation program and proposed 

modifications to it: 

1. Place a moratorium on 

shellfisheries. Placing a moratorium 

on shellfisheries would not meet the 

intended purpose of this supplement. 

We believe that the intent of this 

suggested alternative is to address 

concerns that shellfish fisheries are 

potentially depleting food resources 

available for sea otters. We have no 

evidence that competition with 

fisheries is limiting growth of the sea 

otter population at San Nicolas 

Island or limiting potential range 

expansion into southern California. 

2. Establish no-take zones for fisheries. 

Twelve new Marine Protected Areas 

at the Channel Islands went into 

effect on April 9, 2003. Maps and 

descriptions of the 10 State Marine 

Reserves and 2 State Marine 

Conservation Areas and their 

associated regulations are available 

at the California Department of Fish 

and Game, Marine Resources 

Division website: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/channel_

islands/index.html. We address the 

Channel Islands Marine Protected 

Areas in our effects analysis; 

however, we do not have the legal 

authority to propose no-take zones 

for fisheries. Additionally, as noted 

above, we have no evidence that 

competition with fisheries is limiting 

growth of the sea otter population at 

San Nicolas Island or limiting 

potential range expansion into 

southern California. 

3. Develop educational programs to 

encourage people to use alternative 

food sources and reduce seafood 

consumption. We believe that the 

intent of this suggested alternative is 

to address the global issue of marine 

resource allocation. As such, this 

alternative is beyond the scope of 

this supplement and does not meet 

the purpose and need for action we 

have identified. The purpose of this 

supplement is to assess options for 

the future of the southern sea otter 

program based on new information 

gained over the past 18 years, not to 

address marine resources per se. 

4. Petition the U.S. Navy to allow 

inclusion of San Nicolas Island 

within the Channel Islands National 

Park. We believe that the intent of 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 3. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 23

this suggested alternative is to 

provide additional protection to the 

translocated population of southern 

sea otters. Under the existing 

translocation program, sea otters 

within the boundaries of the Channel 

Islands National Park receive less 

protection than do those found in the 

translocation zone at San Nicolas 

Island. This alternative would not 

result in a significant modification to 

the translocation program. 

5. Establish a captive breeding 

program and reintroduce sea otters 

to other sites in California and 

Mexico. We are not considering the 

reintroduction of sea otters to other 

sites in California and Mexico. The 

southern sea otter recovery team has 

recommended that we not consider 

additional translocations at this time 

because it is expected that the 

expansion of sea otters in California 

will occur more rapidly if the 

population is allowed to expand of 

its own accord than it would under a 

recovery program that includes 

translocating sea otters (USFWS 

2003). This alternative is therefore 

beyond the scope of this supplement 

and does not meet our purpose and 

need for action. 

6. Move sea otters north or translocate 

sea otters to a location closer to the 

parent population. The purpose of 

this supplement is to assess options 

for the future of the southern sea 

otter program based on new 

information gained over the past 18 

years. We are not considering 

alternate translocation sites. 

Therefore, this alternative is beyond 

the scope of this supplement and 

does not meet our purpose and need 

for action. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 3. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 24

TABLE 3-1. SUMMARY OF ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE 

 No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 

3A 

Alternative 

3B 

Alternative 

3C 

(Proposed 

Action) 

Decision on 

translocation 

program 

None Resume 

implementation as 

described in 

original plan 

Resume 

implementation with 

modification 

Declare failure 

Translocation 

zone and 

associated 

regulations 

Translocation zone exists; no prohibition of incidental take of 

sea otters for defense-related activities in translocation zone; 

standard prohibitions and authorizations under ESA and 

MMPA, including those applicable to incidental take of sea 

otters, apply to other activities 

No translocation zone; standard prohibitions and 

authorizations under ESA and MMPA, including those 

applicable to incidental take of sea otters, apply to all 

activities 

Management 

zone and 

associated 

regulations 

Management zone exists; standard 

prohibitions and authorizations under 

ESA and MMPA apply to all 

activities, except no prohibition 

against incidental take of sea otters in 

management zone 

Modified management 

zone exists; standard 

prohibitions and 

authorizations under 

ESA and MMPA 

apply to all activities, 

except no prohibition 

against incidental take 

of sea otters in 

modified management 

zone 

No management zone; standard prohibitions and 

authorizations under ESA and MMPA, including those 

applicable to incidental take of sea otters, apply to all 

activities 

Management 

of sea otters at 

San Nicolas 

Island 

Continue 

monitoring 

Continue monitoring; if needed, supplement 

colony to ensure genetic diversity 

Remove sea otters from SNI (shortterm) Do not remove 

sea otters from 

SNI; continue 

monitoring 

Management 

of sea otters in 

management 

zone 

None 

(maintenance 

remains 

suspended) 

Remove all sea 

otters in 

management zone 

in perpetuity 

Redefine management 

zone; remove all sea 

otters from modified 

management zone in 

perpetuity 

Remove sea 

otters in 

management 

zone at time of 

decision (shortterm) 

Do not remove sea otters in 

management zone 

Work with CDFG to develop fishery management plan 

for affected fisheries to minimize effects of sea otter 

range expansion on individual fishers 

Mitigation 

measures 

None No additional measures proposed 

 Develop 

programmatic 

BO with U.S. 

Navy for 

activities that 

may affect sea 

otters at SNI 

Consult under section 7 of ESA for sea otters No consultation 

required for sea 

otters because no 

sea otters moved 

Consult under section 7 of ESA for white abalone and confer on black abalone 

Regulatory 

actions needed 

to implement 

N/A 

No change to 

regulations at 50 

CFR 17.84(d) 

Amend regulations at 

50 CFR 17.84(d)4 to 

re-delineate 

management zone 

Amend regulations at 50 CFR 17.84(d) 

SNI=San Nicolas Island 

SCB=Southern California Bight 

CDFG=California Department of Fish and Game 

BO=biological opinion 

ESA=Endangered Species Act 

MMPA=Marine Mammal Protection Act 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 25

Chapter 4. Description of 

the Affected Environment 

4.1 Introduction 

Implementation of alternatives identified in 

Chapter 3 may affect marine ecosystems in 

the Southern California Bight, human 

activities that depend on the marine 

environment, and the southern sea otter 

population throughout California. Our final 

environmental impact statement for the 

translocation of southern sea otters (USFWS 

1987) and subsequent record of decision 

addressed the biological and socioeconomic 

environment of several translocation sites, 

including San Nicolas Island. This 

supplement updates information contained 

in our 1987 environmental impact statement 

and evaluates several alternatives not 

considered in the original document. Many 

key documents are incorporated by 

reference. 

Measurements here and elsewhere in this 

supplement are given in metric units, with 

the exception of fishery information, which 

is given in U.S. customary measurements in 

accordance with convention. 

4.2 Physical Environment 

The Southern California Bight is formed by 

a bend in the coastline between Point 

Conception, California and a point just south 

of the Mexican border (Figure 4-1). The 

sharp curve creates a large surface eddy, 

with the subarctic waters of the California 

Current flowing southward offshore and the 

FIGURE 4-1. MAIN SURFACE CURRENTS OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 26

Southern California Countercurrent flowing 

northward near the shore. Beneath the 

surface circulation in the Southern 

California Bight, the California 

Undercurrent carries equatorial waters 

poleward (Hickey 1993). Upwellings of 

cool, nutrient-rich water occur seasonally, 

when warmer surface waters are driven 

offshore by winds (Hickey 1993). The 

combination of currents in the Southern 

California Bight produces a rich transition 

zone, or ecotone, that supports 74% (492) of 

the algal species (Murray and Bray 1993) 

and 87% (481) of the fish species (Horn 

1974 in Cross and Allen 1993) known from 

California. The Southern California Bight 

also supports more than 5000 bottomdwelling invertebrate species (Dailey et al.

1993a). 

The Southern California Bight includes 

eight islands: San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa 

Cruz, Anacapa, San Nicolas, Santa Barbara, 

Santa Catalina, and San Clemente. Complex 

patterns of water mixing generate unique 

conditions at each of the islands, but they 

can be divided into three relatively distinct 

biogeographic zones. Using sea surface 

temperatures derived from satellite infrared 

photographs taken from 1982 to 1992, Engle 

(1994) placed San Miguel and Santa Rosa 

Islands in the coldest group; Santa Cruz, 

Anacapa, and San Nicolas Islands in the 

intermediate group; and Santa Barbara, 

Santa Catalina, and San Clemente Islands in 

the warmest group. Analyses of algal 

(Murray et al. 1980) and macroinvertebrate 

(Seapy and Littler 1980) assemblages at the 

islands have revealed similar patterns, 

although both of these authors placed San 

Nicolas Island in the cold-water group. A 

detailed description of the oceanographic 

conditions in the Southern California Bight 

can be found in Hickey (1993). Further 

information on the biogeography of the 

Southern California Bight can be found in 

Seapy and Littler (1980), Murray et al. 

(1980), and Kanter (1980). 

4.3 Biological Environment 

4.3.1 OVERVIEW 

The waters of the Southern California Bight 

are inhabited by a rich diversity of 

organisms. A comprehensive discussion of 

these is available in Dailey et al. (1993b). 

In this section (4.3) we give a brief overview 

of shallow water marine communities but 

give detailed information only for species 

that may be affected by the alternatives 

under consideration. Possible effects stem 

largely from sea otter predation, which may 

cause changes in invertebrate populations 

and associated changes in interspecific 

competition or kelp distribution. 

4.3.1.1 Shallow Water Marine 

Communities 

The nearshore areas of the Southern 

California Bight can generally be classified 

as either rocky or sandy, based on the 

dominant substrate in an area. The offshore 

islands are dominated by rocky habitat, 

whereas the nearshore areas of the mainland 

are dominated by sandy habitat (Thompson 

et al. 1993). Rocky and sandy habitat types 

are associated with distinct assemblages, or 

communities of organisms. Habitats 

composed of mixed substrate have elements 

of both of these groups. 

A vertical zonation cuts across all substrate 

types but is most obvious in areas of 

continuous rocky habitat (Thompson et al.

1993). Nearshore depth zones are 

characterized as either intertidal or subtidal, 

depending on whether they are exposed to 

air during low tides or occur below the lowtide line, respectively. Just as different 

substrate types are associated with different 

assemblages, intertidal and subtidal zones 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 27

are associated with characteristic 

communities of organisms. 

Common organisms in rocky intertidal areas 

include various species of algae (e.g.,

Enteromorpha spp., Egregia menziesii, 

Eisenia arborea), surfgrass (Phyllospadix

spp.), barnacles (e.g., Chthamalus spp., 

Balanus glandula, Tetraclita rubescens), 

littorines and limpets (e.g., Littorina 

planaxis, Collisella digitalis), mussels (e.g., 

Mytilus californianus), anemones (e.g., 

Anthopleura elegantissima), snails (e.g., 

Nucella emarginata, Acanthina spirata), sea 

stars (e.g., Pisaster ochraceous), and purple 

sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) 

(Thompson et al. 1993). Black abalone 

(Haliotis cracherodii), formerly a spatial 

dominant in lower rocky intertidal areas, 

have been devastated by withering 

syndrome (a disease that causes atrophy of 

the foot muscle and other symptoms) and 

have now become rare throughout much of 

their former range in southern California 

(e.g., Richards 2000). 

Rocky subtidal areas provide anchorage for 

kelp species (Murray and Bray 1993) and 

habitat for sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus

spp., Centrostephanus coronatus, Lytechinus 

anamesus), sea stars (e.g., Pisaster 

giganteus), crabs (e.g., Cancer spp.), spiny 

lobsters (Panulirus interruptus), several 

species of abalone (Haliotis spp.), and 

octopus (Octopus spp.) (Thompson et al.

1993, CINMS 2002c). 

Kelp forest fishes are numerous but include 

blacksmith (Chromis punctipinnis), garibaldi 

(Hypsypops rubicunda), opaleye (Girella 

nigricans), kelp bass (Paralabrax 

clathratus), California sheephead 

(Semicossyphus pulcher), kelp surfperch 

(Brachyistius frenatus), and rockfish 

(Sebastes spp.) (Foster and Schiel 1985, 

CINMS 2002c). 

Species associated with sandy intertidal 

habitat include amphipod beach hoppers 

(Orchestoidea spp.), isopods (e.g.,

Excirolana chiltoni), beetles (Thinopinus 

pictus), polychaetes (marine annelid worms, 

e.g., Nephtys californica), sand crabs 

(Emerita analoga, Lepidopa californica), 

clams (e.g., Donax gouldi, Tivela stultorum), 

snails (e.g., Olivella biplicata), and 

nemerteans (ribbon worms) (Thompson et 

al. 1993). Amphipods (e.g., Paraphoxus

spp.), polychaetes, sea stars (Astropecten 

spp., Pisaster spp.), sand dollars 

(Dendraster excentricus), sea pens (e.g., 

Stylatula elongata), snails (e.g., Nassarius 

fossatus, Polinices altus), and a variety of 

crabs occur in sandy subtidal areas 

(Thompson et al. 1993). A great variety of 

fishes is found in sandy-bottom habitat, 

including rays, sand dabs, and turbot 

(CINMS 2002c). 

A review of benthic invertebrates and their 

general distribution in the Southern 

California Bight can be found in Thompson 

et al. (1993). Murray and Bray (1993) 

review benthic macrophytes (macroalgae, 

seagrasses, and halophytes) of the Southern 

California Bight. Cross and Allen (1993) 

provide an overview of fishes in the 

Southern California Bight. 

4.3.1.2 Southern Sea Otter Prey 

Consumption 

Southern sea otters forage in shallow waters, 

usually in depths of 25 meters or less, and 

only rarely in depths exceeding 40 meters 

(Riedman and Estes 1990). As a group they 

consume a wide variety of prey, but the 

majority of their diet is composed of sessile 

macroinvertebrates. A list of potential sea 

otter prey species known to be present at 

San Nicolas Island is given in our final 

environmental impact statement (USFWS 

1987), and a list of observed prey items for 

southern sea otters statewide is given in 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 28

Riedman and Estes (1990). In newly 

reoccupied areas in central California, 

southern sea otters are known to have 

consumed primarily abalone (Haliotis spp.), 

rock crabs (Cancer spp.), and large red sea 

urchins (S. franciscanus) (reviewed in 

Riedman and Estes 1990). Diversity in prey 

selection increases as populations of 

preferred prey items decline (Riedman and 

Estes 1990, Bodkin and Ballachey 1996). 

Prey selection depends also on the 

individual sea otter (dietary 

preferences are highly 

individualized) and on the habitat 

(Riedman and Estes 1990). In 

sandy habitats, for instance, sea 

otters prey substantially on 

bivalve mollusks (Riedman and 

Estes 1990). 

Data on prey consumption by 

southern sea otters in southern 

California waters are limited. 

We are aware of no information 

on the prey composition of 

southern sea otters before their 

extirpation from the Southern 

California Bight. Observations 

made during the early years of 

the translocation program at San Nicolas 

Island may provide the best available 

predictor of sea otter prey preferences if 

they recolonize their former southern 

California range (Figure 4-2). These 

observations revealed that sea otters 

consumed sea urchins (39.8%), mole (sand) 

crabs (14.4%), other crabs (8.8%), abalones 

(3.8%), snails (3.3%), and spiny lobsters 

(1.2%) (USFWS 1990).2

 Some prey items 

(28.0%) were unidentified (USFWS 1990). 

4.3.2 NEARSHORE MARINE ECOSYSTEM

4.3.2.1 Giant Kelp 

Giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera), in its 

large sporophyte phase, is a fleshy brown 

macroalgae that plays a major role in the 

nearshore marine ecosystems of southern 

California (Foster and Schiel 1985). Forests 

of giant kelp are composed of numerous 

individual kelp plants, each with a welldeveloped holdfast that serves as an anchor 

and up to 100 fronds. Fronds consist of a 

stem-like stipe and multiple leaf-like blades. 

The blades have gas-filled pneumatocysts at 

their base, which buoy the fronds to the 

water’s surface (Figure 4-3). Under ideal 

 

2 Data are based on shore observations of 586 dives 

(58% of which were successful) at San Nicolas Island 

between Fall 1987 and Spring 1989 (USFWS 1990). 

FIGURE 4-2. SPECIES CONSUMED BY SEA 

OTTERS AT SAN NICOLAS ISLAND, 1987-1989. 

FIGURE 4-3. DEVELOPING PNEUMATOCYSTS ON KELP 

FROND. Photo © Garry McCarthy. www.underwater-photos.com 

Used by permission.

Sea Otter Prey Species Consumed at San Nicolas 

Island, Fall 1987-Spring 1989

sea urchins

sand crabs

other crabs

abalones

spiny lobsters

unidentified
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 29

growing conditions (high nutrient levels and 

temperatures between 50 and 60 degrees 

Fahrenheit), giant kelp can elongate up to 

two feet per day, reaching more than 150 

feet in length (Bedford 2001). The fronds 

from multiple plants can combine to form 

extensive floating surface canopies. 

Giant kelp forests support complex 

communities of organisms (Figure 4-4). 

Invertebrates, fishes, and many species of 

birds and marine mammals, both resident 

and migratory, use kelp forests in a variety 

of ways: as feeding grounds, nurseries, or 

cover from predators. Non-resident 

communities of organisms make use of the 

kelp detritus that results when pieces detach 

during storms (Foster and Schiel 1985). 

Individual kelp plants may shelter hundreds 

of invertebrate species, with numbers of 

FIGURE 4-4. GENERALIZED KELP FOREST COMMUNITY. 

Z1, Z2, and Z3 represent general zonal associations along a depth gradient (inshore, within, and offshore of the kelp 

forest, respectively). Circular diagrams represent the following associations: 

A: Animals associated with the surface of Macrocystis and other seaweeds 

B: Planktonic animals (phytoplankton, zooplankton, larval fish) 

C: Animals found in Macrocystis holdfasts (small sea urchins, brittle stars, crustaceans, polychaetes) 

D: Animals found typically on horizontal surfaces (sea stars, urchins, benthic fishes, understory algae) 

E: Animals found typically on horizontal surfaces (sponges, tunicates, bryozoans, sea anemones) 

Some organisms in the diagram do not co-occur at any one site. Adapted from Foster and Schiel (1985). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 30

individuals reaching tens of thousands 

(Duggins 1988). Giant kelp provides an 

important food source for many 

invertebrates (such as sea urchins and 

abalone) and fishes (such as opaleye and 

halfmoon [Medialuna californiensis]), 

which may consume live plants or detritus 

(Foster and Schiel 1985, Bedford 2001). 

Giant kelp occurs in relatively shallow areas 

from 6 to 37 meters deep that are protected 

from excessive water motion (Bedford 

2001) (Figure 4-5). Since the plants require 

a solid substrate for 

the attachment of 

holdfasts, they are 

usually found only 

in rocky areas. 

However, some 

kelp (considered by 

some to be a 

distinct species, M. 

angustifolia) along 

the coastline of 

Santa Barbara and 

Ventura counties 

has been able to 

establish on worm 

tubes in soft 

sediment and on 

low-relief rock 

(Foster and Schiel 

1985, Murray and 

Bray 1993). 

Even in areas with 

suitable substrate, the distribution of giant 

kelp can fluctuate dramatically as a result of 

wave motion, silting, turbidity and light 

availability, high temperature/low nutrient 

conditions, and grazing by herbivores 

(Foster and Schiel 1985). El Niño events, 

which bring warm water conditions 

northward along the coast, can dramatically 

affect kelp distribution through damage to 

plants from the increased wave action 

associated with storms and through 

increases in warm, nutrient-poor water 

(Bedford 2001). Sedimentation, pollution, 

and disease can also affect the survival of 

kelp forests (Bedford 2001). 

Engle (1994) documents the relative 

distribution of kelp canopy among the eight 

Channel Islands based on aerial surveys 

conducted in 1978. San Nicolas Island had 

the greatest area of kelp beds (30%), while 

Santa Catalina Island had the least (about 

2%) (Engle 1994). A statewide aerial kelp 

survey, conducted 

in 1999, recorded 

11.4 square miles 

of kelp off 

southern 

California, with 3.7 

square miles along 

the mainland and 

7.7 square miles 

along the Channel 

Islands (Bedford 

2001). Although 

aerial assessments 

of kelp coverage 

are not definitive 

because the 

method (infrared 

photography) used 

to quantify kelp is 

subject to error in 

strong wave and 

current conditions, 

the amount of 

canopy coverage recorded in 1999 reflects a 

notable decline in kelp abundance since the 

late 1960s (Bedford 2001). The Kelp Forest 

Monitoring Program of the Channel Islands 

National Park has collected detailed annual 

data on kelp forests around Santa Barbara, 

Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San 

Miguel Islands since 1982. These data are 

available online at 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/units/chis. 

FIGURE 4-5. GIANT KELP FOREST 

Photo © Kip F. Evans. Used by permission. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 31

4.3.2.2 Sea Urchins 

Sea urchins are marine invertebrates 

belonging to the phylum Echinodermata.3

 

Largely herbivorous, they occupy lowintertidal or subtidal depths and play a key 

role in southern California kelp 

communities. 

Sea urchins are characterized by a hard test, 

or shell, with radiating spines that are used 

for locomotion, burrowing, or defense 

(Figure 4-6). Interspersed with the spines 

are pedicellariae (small pinchers) and tube 

feet, which are used for respiration, 

locomotion, and grasping. The mouth, 

located on the lower surface of the body, is 

equipped with a complex jaw apparatus 

called “Aristotle’s lantern,” which is used 

 

3 Echinoderms (spiny-skinned animals) are 

characterized by the presence of a water-vascular 

system and a spiny calcareous endoskeleton. Most of 

the animals in this phylum exhibit bilateral symmetry 

as juveniles but develop five-part radial symmetry as 

they mature. The phylum Echinodermata includes 

five classes: sea stars, sea cucumbers, brittle stars, 

and sea urchins (all of which occur intertidally or 

subtidally) and sea lilies (which occur in deep water) 

(Abbott and Haderlie 1980a). 

for grazing or scraping food and (in purple 

urchins) for excavating burrows (Durham et 

al. 1980). Urchins may be rare in one area 

and abundant in another, but overall, red 

(Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) and 

purple (S. purpuratus) urchins are common 

in the Southern California Bight. White 

(Lytechinus anamesus) urchins are also 

common in the Southern California Bight, 

though they have a patchy distribution. The 

warm-water diadematid urchin 

Centrostephanus coronatus has increased 

dramatically in abundance in southern 

California waters in the last 15 years and is 

now common in the southern portions of the 

Southern California Bight to about midSanta Cruz Island (Kushner pers. comm. 

2002). 

The spawning of sea urchins is 

variable but generally occurs during 

winter in southern California, when 

large numbers of gametes are 

released into the sea. Success of 

fertilization is highly dependent on 

population density (Kalvass and 

Rogers-Bennett 2001). Fertilized 

eggs develop into pelagic larvae, 

which spend an estimated six to 

eight weeks in a planktonic phase. 

During this phase, the minute larvae 

are carried by ocean currents and 

may disperse long distances from 

their parent population before 

settling and metamorphosing into 

bottom-dwelling juveniles (Kalvass 

and Rogers-Bennett 2001). Having 

survived the high-mortality pelagic phase 

and early settlement period, sea urchins 

encounter new predators and other dangers 

but are potentially long-lived. A recent 

study using tetracycline tagging and 

14carbon analysis has shown that red sea 

urchins may live for 100 or even 200 years, 

although in southern California few red sea 

FIGURE 4-6. RED SEA URCHIN SURROUNDED BY PURPLE 

SEA URCHINS. 

Photo by Sherry Ballard, © California Academy of Sciences. Used by 

permission. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 32

urchins reach the age of 50 (Ebert and 

Southon 2003). 

Sea urchins are generally viewed as the 

subtidal grazers having the greatest impact 

on macrophytes in the Southern California 

Bight (Murray and Bray 1993). In food-rich 

conditions, when there is an abundance of 

drift kelp (in southern California, primarily 

pieces of Macrocystis pyrifera that break off 

live plants and drift down to the bottom), sea 

urchins tend to remain stationary. However, 

when food is scarce, hungry sea urchins may 

aggregate and go in search of food, feeding 

on the holdfasts and other parts of live kelp 

plants, thereby denuding areas of kelp and 

ultimately replacing them with urchin 

“barrens” (reviewed in Thompson et al.

1993). The ecological relationship between 

sea urchins and kelp abundance is addressed 

in greater detail in section 6.2.2. 

Sea urchins are limited by predation, 

disease, and human harvest. Known 

predators include sea otters, spiny lobsters 

(Panulirus interruptus), sea stars, crabs, and 

fishes such as sheephead (Kalvass and 

Rogers-Bennet 2001). Sunflower stars 

(Pycnopodia helianthoides) and spiny 

lobsters (where not fished to low levels) 

have been shown to be important predators 

of sea urchins in the Channel Islands, and in 

turn predation has been correlated with 

lower rates of density-dependent bacterial 

disease in sea urchins (Lafferty and Kushner 

2000). Red urchin populations in the 

Southern California Bight are additionally 

limited by human harvest, which has 

significantly reduced densities in many areas 

of the northern Channel Islands (Kalvass 

and Rogers-Bennett 2001). Purple urchins 

have been subject to only limited harvest, 

and other urchin species in California have 

not been commercially exploited (Kalvass 

and Rogers-Bennett 2001). Human harvest 

of sea urchins is addressed further in section 

4.4.2.2. 

The distribution of sea urchins in southern 

California falls roughly along a depth 

gradient, with purple urchins occurring 

shallowest (in the low intertidal and upper 

subtidal zones); red urchins predominating 

at intermediate depths; and C. coronatus 

occurring in subtidal waters deeper than 10 

meters (Thompson et al. 1993). White 

urchins often occur on sandy or muddy 

bottoms and at depths of 2 to 300 meters 

(Durham et al. 1980). No estimate of 

absolute sea urchin abundance is available 

for the Southern California Bight, but the 

Kelp Forest Monitoring Program of the 

Channel Islands National Park gives a yearto-year picture of the relative abundance of 

these species at sixteen sites throughout five 

of the Channel Islands (San Miguel, Santa 

Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, and Santa 

Barbara). In the latest available results (for 

2001), 4 of the 16 sites were dominated by 

kelp, and the remainder were dominated by 

echinoderms: 2 by purple sea urchins; 1 by 

red sea urchins; 5 by purple and red sea 

urchins; 1 by purple and white sea urchins; 1 

by purple and red sea urchins and brittle 

stars (Ophiothrix spiculata); and 1 by purple 

sea urchins, aggregated red sea cucumbers 

(Pachythyone rubra), and cup coral 

(Astrangia lajollaensis) (Kushner et al.

2004). The 2001 results reflected a decline 

in sea urchin abundance overall when 

compared to recent years, although it 

remains extremely high (Kushner et al.

2004). This pattern of sea urchin population 

growth and decline is believed to reflect the 

“aftereffects” of the strong 1997-8 El Niño 

event because of similarities with trends in 

the late 1980s following the strong 1982-3 

El Niño event (Kushner et al. 2004). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 33

4.3.2.3 California Spiny Lobsters 

California spiny lobsters (Panulirus 

interruptus) (Figure 4-7) are marine 

invertebrates belonging to the phylum 

Arthropoda.4

 They are warm-water 

crustaceans that function as predators and 

scavengers. California spiny lobsters live in 

subtidal areas of the Southern California 

Bight. Unless otherwise noted, the 

following information is derived from 

Barsky (2001). 

California spiny lobsters have long antennae 

and, like other crustaceans, a hard 

exoskeleton. Growth requires regular 

molting, during 

which spiny 

lobsters are 

particularly 

vulnerable to 

predators. 

Growth rates of 

California spiny 

lobsters are 

variable and 

depend on size 

and sex of the 

lobster as well 

as on food 

availability. 

Larger animals 

grow more 

slowly, and sick 

or injured animals can stop growing entirely 

until they have recovered. California spiny 

lobsters generally reach maturity at five or 

six years of age and may live to age 20 

 

4 The phylum Arthropoda includes a great variety of 

organisms that abound in the sea as well as in fresh 

water and on land. Arthropods are characterized by 

the possession of a supporting exoskeleton, jointed 

appendages, and a segmented body. The majority of 

arthropods in the sea today belong to the Subphylum 

Crustacea. Crustaceans include shrimps, prawns, 

lobsters, hermit crabs, and true crabs, among others 

(Abbott and Haderlie 1980b). 

(females) or 30 (males). During mating, 

which occurs between November and May, 

the male attaches a sperm packet to the 

underside of the female’s carapace, which 

she uses to fertilize eggs that are attached to 

the underside of her tail (generally in May 

and June). Tiny pelagic larvae hatch from 

the eggs and are carried in ocean currents to 

distances of 560 kilometers offshore and to 

depths of more than 120 meters. After five 

to nine months, the larvae become juveniles 

that resemble tiny adults. Assisted by 

eddies, juveniles swim inshore and settle in 

shallow vegetated reefs, especially subtidal 

surfgrass beds (Engle 1979). Mature 

lobsters move to 

rocky habitat. 

California spiny 

lobsters play an 

important role 

in subtidal 

ecosystem 

dynamics. 

Hiding by day 

in rocky 

crevices, usually 

in groups, these 

predators and 

scavengers 

emerge at night 

to feed on a 

variety of 

marine organisms, including algae, snails, 

mussels, clams, sea urchins, fish, and injured 

or vulnerable (newly molted) lobsters. At a 

marine reserve at Anacapa Island (closed to 

lobster fishing) lobsters substantially 

reduced sea urchin densities (Lafferty and 

Kushner 2000). Predators of California 

spiny lobsters include octopuses (Octopus

spp.), several species of large fishes 

(including sheephead, cabezon 

[Scorpaenichthys marmoratus], kelp bass, 

rockfishes, and giant sea bass [Stereolepis 

gigas]), California moray eels 

FIGURE 4-7. CALIFORNIA SPINY LOBSTER. 

Photo by Shane Anderson. Used by permission. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 34

(Gymnothorax mordax), horn sharks 

(Heterodontus francisci), leopard sharks 

(Triakis semifasciata), and sea otters. 

Commercial fishing and sport fishing 

represent an additional source of mortality 

for California spiny lobsters, with 

commercial landings for California ranging 

from 400,000 to 950,000 pounds annually 

during the 1980s and 1990s. Human harvest 

is addressed further in section 4.4.2.3 

California spiny lobsters occupy rocky areas 

from the intertidal zone down to below 70 

meters and range from Monterey Bay, 

California to Mexico. The majority of the 

population occurs south of Point 

Conception. Most of the spiny lobster 

population migrates annually, moving to 

offshore waters deeper than 15 meters 

beginning in late October and November but 

returning to shallower, warmer waters less 

than 9 meters in depth, where lobster eggs 

develop more rapidly, during March, April, 

and May. The population size of California 

spiny lobsters is unknown. 

4.3.2.4 Sand Crabs 

Like California spiny lobsters, sand (or 

mole) crabs (Emerita analoga) are 

arthropods of the Subphylum Crustacea. 

Sand crabs can be extremely numerous in 

sandy intertidal areas of the Southern 

California Bight and are the foundation for 

much of the sandy intertidal food web. 

Sand crabs are beige or grayish crustaceans 

with a domed, oval carapace and two pairs 

of antennae. Reaching about 3.5 centimeters 

in carapace length, mature females are larger 

and grow faster than males. Sand crabs are 

believed to reach sexual maturity at about 

one year of age and to live for 2-3 years. 

Breeding occurs mainly from March to 

November. After hatching from bright 

orange eggs, the pelagic larvae molt several 

times and drift widely on ocean currents 

before coming ashore. Most sand crab 

larvae arrive on southern California beaches 

from April to July (Herbinson and Larson 

2001). 

Sand crabs aggregate in large groups in 

sandy, wave-exposed areas. They move 

along the length of the beach with the 

motion of sand, some also migrating up and 

down the beach with the tide. While 

feeding, sand crabs lie buried in sand with 

only their eyes and first antennae exposed as 

waves wash over them; as waves retreat they 

extend their long, feathery second antennae 

to strain food particles from the backwash. 

They consume the particles by wiping their 

antennae through their mouthparts 

(Herbinson and Larson 2001). Dead sand 

crabs are an important food for spiny mole 

crabs (Blepharipoda occidentalis) and the 

beach isopod Cirolana linguifrons. Live 

sand crabs are important prey for shorebirds 

(including the western snowy plover 

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), fishes, 

swimming crabs (Portunus xantusii 

xantusii), and sea otters. Sand crabs have 

been used by humans for bait, but the 

harvest in California has fluctuated 

significantly, averaging only about 10 

kilograms (22 pounds) annually since 1977 

(Herbinson and Larson 2001). 

Sand crabs occur intertidally along sandy 

beaches exposed to surf from Alaska to Baja 

California, Mexico, as well as in Peru and 

Chile. Isolated populations occur at the tip 

of the Gulf of California and in Argentina. 

The southern California population is 

believed to be extensive, with large 

congregations occurring near jetties and 

piers, though its size has not been 

determined (Herbinson and Larson 2001). 

4.3.2.5 Rock and Sheep Crabs 

Rock and sheep crabs are marine arthropods 

of the Subphylum Crustacea. Unless 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 35

otherwise noted, the following 

information is derived from Morris 

et al. (1980). 

Many brachyurans, or “true” crabs, 

occur in the nearshore waters of 

southern California, including rock 

crabs (Cancer spp.) and sheep crabs 

(Loxorhynchus grandis) (Figure 4-8). 

Rock crabs belong to the family 

Cancridae, whereas sheep crabs are 

the largest member of the spider crab 

family, the Majidae. Rock and sheep 

crabs generally occur in rocky areas, 

but some occur in sandy areas. 

Dungeness crabs (Cancer magister) 

are considered rare south of Point 

Conception (Hankin and Warner 2001) and 

will not be considered here. 

“True” crabs are generally characterized by 

a short, broad cephalothorax (fused head and 

thorax) covered by a carapace, although the 

cephalothorax of species in the spider crab 

family tends to be longer than wide. Like 

other crustaceans, crabs must molt to grow, 

and they are able to regenerate lost limbs in 

the process. Molting slows as crabs increase 

in size and age, and some species (such as 

sheep crabs and other members of the family 

Majidae) are believed to stop molting 

entirely upon reaching maturity (Culver and 

Kuris 2001). Fertilized crab eggs hatch into 

tiny pelagic larvae, which swim actively and 

live as part of the plankton. After several 

molts, the larvae become juveniles that settle 

to the bottom. 

Rock crabs are predators and scavengers, 

preying on snails, clams, abalone, barnacles, 

and oysters (Parker 2001). In turn, they 

serve as food for such fishes as cabezon, 

barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer), a 

number of species of rockfish, octopus, sea 

stars, and sea otters (Parker 2001). Humans 

are also a significant predator on rock crabs. 

The commercial rock crab fishery has had 

localized effects on rock crab size and 

abundance (Parker 2001). 

Sheep crabs consume mollusks and 

echinoderms (Foster and Schiel 1985). 

Predators of small sheep crabs are thought to 

include cabezon, sheephead, octopus, 

sharks, and rays, with large sheep crabs 

presumed safe from most predators, but 

these assumptions have not been confirmed 

by observations in the wild (Culver and 

Kuris 2001). Sheep crabs are subject to 

human-caused mortality as bycatch and as 

the target of crab fisheries (Culver and Kuris 

2001). 

Rock crabs inhabit the low intertidal zone to 

depths of more than 90 meters and range 

from Alaska to Baja California, Mexico, 

with yellow rock crabs (C. anthonyi) 

preferring sandy areas and brown (C. 

antennarius) and red (C. productus) rock 

crabs preferring rocky habitat (Parker 2001). 

Yellow rock crabs are most abundant off 

southern California; brown and red rock 

crabs are more abundant in central and 

northern California, respectively (Parker 

2001). Rock crab stock sizes are unknown 

(Parker 2001). Sheep crabs occur in waters 

from 6 to 122 meters deep between Marin 

FIGURE 4-8. SHEEP CRAB 

Photo by Shane Anderson. Used by permission. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 36

County, California and Baja California, 

Mexico, but their greatest numbers occur off 

southern California (Culver and Kuris 

2001). Large populations occur off Los 

Angeles and San Diego (Culver and Kuris 

2001). 

4.3.2.6 Abalone 

Abalone are marine 

invertebrates of the 

Phylum Mollusca.5

 

Unless otherwise 

noted, the following 

information is derived 

from Haaker et al.

2001. 

Abalone are typically 

sedentary herbivorous 

marine snails of the 

genus Haliotis

(Morris et al. 1980). 

These gastropods are 

characterized by the 

possession of an 

enlarged, muscular 

foot and a flattened 

spiral shell with a row 

of holes over the 

mantle cavity that 

 

5 Mollusks as a group are named for their soft bodies 

and are characterized by extreme diversity of form. 

Mollusks generally have a three-part body structure 

consisting of a head, a foot, and a visceral mass 

(although one or more of these elements may be 

scarcely identifiable as such in some organisms). 

Additionally, many have a shell, and most have hard 

mouthparts. The phylum consists of seven classes, 

including the gastropods (snails, slugs, and allies), 

bivalves (clams, mussels, oysters), cephalopods 

(octopus, squid), and others. Gastropods are by far 

the most numerous representatives of the phylum, 

accounting for over 80 percent of living molluscan 

species, and are further divided into three subclasses. 

The subclass Prosobranchia of the Gastropoda 

consists of the marine snails, such as abalone, 

limpets, turban snails, and top snails (Abbott and 

Haderlie 1980c; Abbott and Haderlie 1980d). 

allows for the expulsion of waste materials 

and water from the gills (Morris et al. 1980). 

Seven species of abalone occur in 

California: black (Haliotis cracherodii), red 

(H. rufescens), pink (H. corrugata), green 

(H. fulgens), white (H. sorenseni), flat (H. 

walallensis), and pinto (H. 

kamtschatkana. Threaded abalone 

(H. assimilis) were formerly 

considered to be a distinct species 

but are now considered to be a 

southern subspecies of pinto 

abalone. Flat and pinto abalone 

are generally restricted to the 

cooler waters north of Point 

Conception and will not be 

considered further here. Black 

abalone were designated a 

candidate species under the 

Endangered Species Act in 1999 

[64 FR 33466], and white abalone 

were listed as endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act in 

2001 [66 FR 29046] due to human 

over-exploitation. Black abalone 

and white abalone are addressed 

further under “Candidate, 

Threatened, and Endangered 

Species.” 

Abalone are relatively long-lived; 

some may survive for two to four decades. 

Their growth is variable, but laboratory 

observations have revealed a general growth 

rate of approximately 2.5 centimeters per 

year for the first five years, with growth 

slowing thereafter. Red abalone (Figure 4-

9), the largest species of abalone in the 

world, have been known to reach a shell 

length of more than 30 centimeters. Other 

abalone species in southern California 

generally reach sizes of less than 20 

centimeters (Morris et al. 1980). Size at 

sexual maturity is also variable. Red 

abalone typically reach sexual maturity at 

about 13 centimeters; green at about 9 

FIGURE 4-9. RED ABALONE 

(PICTURED WITH SEA ANEMONE). 

Photo by Gerald and Buff Corsi, 

© California Academy of Sciences. 

Used by permission. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 37

centimeters; and black at about 5 

centimeters. 

Abalone are broadcast spawners, with both 

sexes releasing gametes into seawater at the 

same time. For reproduction to succeed, 

adults must be numerous and close enough 

to each other to compensate for dilution, 

which can reduce the chances for 

fertilization. Although abalone can move, 

low population numbers or physical barriers 

can prevent aggregation and hence 

successful reproduction. The settlement of 

larvae occurs several days to a week after 

fertilized eggs hatch, and, to be successful, 

requires that the larvae encounter suitable 

substrate. 

Juvenile abalone feed on the films of 

bacteria or microscopic plants, whereas 

adults subsist mainly on live and drift algae, 

for which they sometimes compete with sea 

urchins. Sea urchin grazing has been 

reported to limit abalone distribution. 

Predators of abalone include octopuses, sea 

stars, crabs, lobsters, fishes (such as 

sheephead and cabezon), sea otters, and 

other species. Human exploitation has 

significantly affected the five abalone 

species that have been subject to commercial 

and recreational harvest in southern 

California: white, black, green, pink, and 

red. With the exception of a limited sport 

fishery for red abalone north of San 

Francisco County, the California abalone 

fishery was closed in 1997 after the serial 

depletion of abalone populations. 

The distribution of abalone is determined 

largely by temperature. Of the abalone that 

occur in the Southern California Bight, 

black abalone occur shallowest, in the mid 

to low intertidal zone. Pink, green, and red 

abalone inhabit progressively deeper areas 

of rocky intertidal to subtidal habitat 

(Thompson et al. 1993). White abalone 

occur deepest, in substrata between 60 and 

200 feet (18 to 61 meters) below the surface 

(Thompson et al. 1993). Red abalone are 

generally found in the cooler waters of the 

northwestern Channel Islands and near 

upwellings along the mainland. Withering 

syndrome, a disease caused by bacteria, is 

believed to affect all the species of 

California abalone to some extent, but its 

incidence and effects have been most 

devastating in black abalone. Warmer-thanaverage water temperatures appear to 

intensify the spread and symptoms of the 

disease. All five species of abalone 

formerly exploited by humans are currently 

at low levels in the Southern California 

Bight, and threaded abalone, though never 

commercially exploited, have always been 

rare. White, black, and green abalone have 

nearly been extirpated in southern California 

waters. Red and pink abalone have been 

reduced to remnant populations at the 

Channel Islands. 

4.3.2.7 Clams and Mussels 

Like abalone, clams and mussels are marine 

invertebrates of the Phylum Mollusca 

Unless otherwise noted, the following 

information is derived from Morris et al.

(1980). 

Clams and mussels are bilaterally 

symmetrical mollusks of the class Bivalvia. 

Numerous species of clams and mussels 

occur in southern California waters. Sandy 

or muddy substrates in the low intertidal and 

subtidal zones are habitat for littleneck 

(Prothothaca staminea), Washington 

(Saxidomus nuttallii), jackknife (Tagelus 

californianus), Pacific gaper (Tresus 

nuttallii) and Pismo (Tivela stultorum) 

clams, among others. California mussels 

(Mytilus californianus) are some of the most 

common invertebrates on rocky shores and 

sometimes occur in mixed beds with 

Mediterranean mussels 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 38

(M. galloprovincialis, formerly thought to 

be M. edulis) in more protected areas 

(Richards and Trevelyan 2001) (Figure 4-

10). Clams and mussels are generally 

sedentary, but some species can use their 

muscular foot to burrow into soft sediment, 

bore into hard substances, or glide along 

substrates much like snails. Many bivalves 

attach to solid substrates by means of byssal 

threads, organic threads secreted by glands 

near the base of the foot. Siphons in some 

bivalves facilitate the circulation of water, 

which is crucial to respiration and feeding. 

Littleneck, Washington, jackknife, Pacific 

gaper, and Pismo clams have a planktonic 

larval period, after which they settle to the 

substrata and lead a relatively sedentary 

existence. Littleneck clams usually spawn 

in southern California between March and 

July and can reach a maximum shell length 

of 7 to 8 centimeters (Reilly 2001). 

Washington clams spawn between spring 

and fall and grow to a length of almost 18 

centimeters (Moore 2001a). Jackknife 

clams spawn year round, with an apparent 

peak in early spring, and reach maturity at a 

shell length of 6 to 12 centimeters (Emmett 

et al. 1991). Gaper clams spawn beginning 

in spring at 2-3 years of age and may attain a 

length of 25 centimeters (Moore 2001b). 

Pismo clams spawn generally from June to 

September and grow continuously 

throughout their lives, reaching a shell 

length of about 11 centimeters in five to nine 

years (Pattison 2001). California and 

Mediterranean mussels spawn year round, 

producing free-swimming larvae that 

metamorphose and settle onto substrates 

within a few weeks (Richards and Trevelyan 

2001). The growth rate of mussels depends 

primarily on food availability rather than 

temperature, and they can reach a shell 

length of about five centimeters in six to 

eight months (Richards and Trevelyan 

2001). 

Clams and mussels feed by filtering organic 

and inorganic particles from the water by 

means of an enlarged pair of gills (ctenidia). 

Clams may burrow deeply in sandy or 

muddy substrates but are limited by the 

length of their siphons, which need to be 

long enough to reach the water above. 

Competition for space influences the growth 

and survival of mussels (Richards and 

Trevelyan 2001). Predators of clams and 

mussels include sea stars, snails, crabs, 

shorebirds, sea otters, and humans. 

Littleneck clams inhabit bays, coves, 

and cobble areas in the mid- to lowintertidal zones of the outer coast and 

generally occur within about 15 

centimeters of the surface (Reilly 2001). 

They are abundant along the West 

Coast, with the cobble beach at San 

Onofre supporting one of the most 

productive populations in the state 

(Reilly 2001). Washington clams range 

from Humboldt Bay, California to Baja 

California, Mexico and prefer mud or 

sandy mud bottoms in protected areas 

such as bays and estuaries (Moore 

2001a). No total population estimate 

exists for Washington clams in 

FIGURE 4-10. MUSSELS (PICTURED WITH 

GOOSENECK BARNACLES). 

Photo by Sherry Ballard, © California Academy of Sciences. 

Used by permission. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 39

California (Moore 2001a). Jackknife clams 

inhabit bays, estuaries, and lagoons near the 

mean low tide level in mud or muddy sand 

flats and are numerically important in these 

areas (Emmett et al. 1991). Gaper clams 

live in fine sand or sandy-mud bottoms in 

intertidal and subtidal bay, estuary, and 

sheltered outer coastal areas (Moore 2001b). 

Local densities of gaper clams have been 

determined, but no statewide population 

estimate exists (Moore 2001b). Pismo 

clams range from Monterey Bay to Baja 

California, Mexico (including Santa Cruz 

and Santa Rosa Islands) and generally 

inhabit intertidal and offshore sandy 

substrates to water depths of 25 meters 

(Pattison 2001). California and 

Mediterranean mussels are common in 

intertidal and subtidal areas and attach to 

solid substrates, such as rocks or pilings; 

they can reestablish a climax community in 

areas completely cleared of mussels in about 

2.5 years (Morris et al. 1980; Richards and 

Trevelyan 2001). 

4.3.2.8 Fishes

Unless otherwise noted, the following 

information is derived 

from Cross and Allen 

(1993). 

A great diversity of 

marine fishes occurs in 

the Southern California 

Bight, with 481 species 

known to occur in the 

area. Their distribution 

is determined largely by 

water temperature, with 

some species generally 

limited to areas either 

north or south of Point 

Conception because of 

prevailing temperature 

regimes. The boundary 

applies more strongly to 

southern species than to northern species, 

however, because northern species can 

compensate for the higher water 

temperatures further south by moving to 

deeper waters and utilizing areas of 

upwelling. Nevertheless, fish distributions 

can shift with changes in water temperature 

that occur on seasonal, annual, or multipleyear (El Niño) cycles (Schultze 2001). 

Fishes commonly associated with the 

warmer waters of southern California 

include California sheephead, California 

scorpionfish (Scorpaena guttata), calico 

rockfish (Sebastes dallii), and treefish 

(Sebastes serriceps) (Schultze 2001). 

More than 125 fish species utilize rocky 

reefs and associated kelp forest habitat in the 

Southern California Bight (Figure 4-11). 

The abundance of some fishes, such as kelp 

surfperch (Brachyistius frenatus), kelp bass 

(Paralabrax clathratus), giant kelpfish 

(Heterostichus rostratus), and kelp rockfish 

(Sebastes atrovirens), is directly related to 

kelp density. Kelp forests provide important 

habitat for some juvenile fishes, including 

kelp bass, giant kelpfish, and kelp surfperch. 

FIGURE 4-11. COMMON KELP FOREST FISHES. Source: Foster and 

Schiel 1985 (redrawn from Miller and Lea 1972). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 40

Other common kelp forest fishes include 

blacksmith (Chromis punctipinnis), garibaldi 

(Hypsypops rubicundus), senorita (Oxyjulis 

californica), halfmoon, opaleye, blue 

rockfish (Sebastes mystinus), California 

sheephead, and the surfperches (Family 

Embiotocidae) (Foster and Schiel 1985). 

For additional information on the life history 

and population status of kelp forest fishes in 

the Southern California Bight, see Cross and 

Allen (1993), Leet et al. (2001), and 

“Nearshore Finfish Profiles” at the 

California Department of Fish and Game 

Marine Region homepage 

(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/rockfish/index.

html). 

4.3.3 CANDIDATE, THREATENED, AND 

ENDANGERED SPECIES

The candidate, threatened, and endangered 

species that occur in the Southern California 

Bight are listed in Table 4-1. With the 

exception of white and black abalone, there 

are no known significant interactions 

between sea otters and the other species 

listed here. 

4.3.3.1 White Abalone 

Unless otherwise noted, the following 

information is derived from Haaker et al.

(2001). 

White abalone (Figure 4-12) are the deepest 

living of Haliotis species that occur along 

the west coast of North America (Hobday 

and Tegner 2000). They have a high, oval 

shell with a row of pores (the largest three to 

five of which are open) spiraling to the 

highest part of the shell. They may live 35 

or 40 years, with a growth rate (based on 

observations of a few individuals in the 

laboratory) of about 2.5 centimeters per year 

for the first five years of life and slower 

growth thereafter. White abalone shell 

lengths of almost 25 centimeters have been 

reported in California (Hobday and Tegner 

2000). Spawning occurs in winter with the 

simultaneous release of gametes by male 

and female individuals, although the trigger 

remains unknown. As with other abalone, 

reproductive success depends on the density 

of individuals, the period of spawning, the 

quantity of gametes produced, and good 

settlement conditions for the larvae. 

White abalone are herbivorous, feeding on 

bacterial and diatom films as juveniles and 

deep-water kelp (both attached and drift) as 

adults. They have been observed at the 

borders between rocky and sandy substrate, 

where drift kelp is easier to capture. 

TABLE 4-1. CANDIDATE, THREATENED, 

AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THE 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT. 

Species 

Status Year 

Listed

White abalone 

(Haliotis sorenseni) 

Endangered 2001 

Invertebrate 

Black abalone 

(Haliotis 

cracherodii) 

Candidate 1999 

Western 

snowy plover 

(Charadrius 

alexandrinus 

nivosus) 

Threatened 1993 

California least tern 

(Sterna antillarum 

browni) 

Endangered 1970 

Bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus 

luecocephalus) 

Threatened 1966 

Bird 

Brown pelican 

(Pelecanus 

occidentalis) 

Endangered 1970 

Steller sea lion 

(Eumetopias 

jubatus) 

Threatened 1990 

Guadalupe 

fur seal 

(Arctocephalus 

townsendi) 

Threatened 1985 

Mammal 

Southern sea otter 

(Enhydra lutris 

nereis) 

Threatened 1977 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 41

Predators of white abalone include sea stars, 

octopus, crabs, lobsters, and fishes such as 

sheephead, cabezon, and bat rays. Sea otters 

are not believed to be an important predator 

of white abalone because of the depths at 

which white abalone typically occur. 

Human harvest, which began commercially 

in the late 1960s after the serial depletion of 

red, pink, and green abalone populations, 

has affected white abalone significantly and 

is believed to be the primary cause of 

dramatic declines in white abalone 

abundance. Annual white abalone landings 

totaled 144,000 pounds in 1972 but 

subsequently declined, reaching very low 

levels by the early 1980s. 

White abalone occupy rocky substrata at 

depths of 18 to 60 meters from Point 

Conception to mid-Baja California, Mexico. 

Although individuals may occasionally be 

found in shallower waters, they are typically 

found at depths greater than about 25 

meters. Currently, white abalone have been 

reduced to remnant populations in the 

deepest areas (below 33 meters) of their 

range (CDFG 2002c). Abundance is 

believed to have declined by 99 percent 

from numbers existing 25 years ago 

(Hobday and Tegner 2000). Total 

abundance throughout the range of the 

species is estimated at about 1,600 

animals (based on survey data from 

1997) (Hobday and Tegner 2000). In 

contrast, the estimated baseline 

abundance (based on commercial 

landings data from 1969-1978) was 

363,000 animals (Hobday and Tegner 

2000). 

White abalone were federally listed as 

endangered in May 2001 because of 

dramatic declines in abundance due 

primarily to overharvesting for human 

consumption [66 FR 29046]. 

Currently, white abalone are nearly 

extirpated, with no appreciable 

recruitment having occurred since the late 

1960s or early 1970s and most individuals 

likely reaching the end of their life spans. 

Even in the absence of human harvest, 

which has been illegal since the closure of 

the abalone fishery in 1996, remaining white 

abalone are at risk because of severe Allee 

effects (animals may be too far apart for 

successful fertilization to occur) due to 

reduced concentrations of individuals and 

because of natural mortality (from old age 

and predators such as fishes, octopuses, and 

sea stars) (CDFG 2002c). 

4.3.3.2 Black Abalone 

Unless otherwise noted, the following 

information is derived from Haaker et al.

(2001). 

Black abalone (Figure 4-13) have a smooth 

bluish-black or gray shell, generally with 5 

to 9 (but sometimes as many as 14) open 

pores flush with the shell surface. They are 

relatively long-lived and can reach an age of 

25 years or more. Growth is believed to 

vary with stress, food availability, and 

climate but is most rapid during the first 5 to 

FIGURE 4-12. WHITE ABALONE 

Photo courtesy of Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. 

Used by permission. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 42

10 years of life. Although maximum shell 

lengths can exceed 20 cm (Morris et al.

1980), most individuals are sexually mature 

at less than 5 cm. Black abalone spawn in 

spring and early summer and may spawn 

again in the fall. Newly settled larvae, 

juveniles, and abalone up to 10 cm in length 

usually remain cryptic, inhabiting deep 

fissures or areas beneath rocks. When not 

subject to harvesting or predation pressure, 

larger abalone can aggregate in large 

numbers on rocks or in tidepools. 

The primary food of adult black abalone is 

drift algae, whereas juveniles consume 

bacterial films. Predators of black abalone 

include sea stars, 

octopus, crabs, 

and sea otters. 

Because sea 

otters effectively 

restrict abalone to 

cryptic habitat by 

preying on 

emergent 

animals, the 

extirpation of sea 

otters from their 

former range in 

southern 

California is 

believed to be 

responsible for 

the large 

aggregations of 

black abalone (as well as other abalone) that 

were evident in California and Mexico 

during the nineteenth and twentieth 

centuries. Black abalone were fished during 

the second half of the nineteenth century 

until the fishery was closed in 1900. 

Twentieth-century commercial harvests 

began in the late 1960s at the Channel 

Islands and reached a zenith of almost 2 

million pounds statewide in 1973. By 1990, 

however, landings had declined to 13 

percent of the average annual catch of the 

1970s and early 1980s (687,000 pounds). 

The collapse of black abalone stocks was the 

most recent in the series of serial depletions 

that characterized the California abalone 

fishery before its closure in 1996. 

Black abalone generally occur in rocky 

intertidal habitat to depths of approximately 

6 meters, often in areas heavily pounded by 

surf. Their range extends as far north as 

Oregon, but most occur between the San 

Francisco Bay and southern Baja California, 

Mexico, including the offshore islands. 

Once abundant, black abalone are now rare, 

due in part to the catastrophic effects of 

withering 

syndrome. Near 

Point Conception, 

mortalities of 39 

to 97 percent 

have been 

observed (CDFG 

2002c). Near 

Point Arguello 

(in Santa Barbara 

County), 

densities declined 

after withering 

syndrome was 

first detected and 

remained at low 

levels (0.1/m2

) 

through 2000, 

increasing slightly 

thereafter but remaining far below historic 

densities of up to 100/m2

 (Davis 1993, 

CDFG 2002c). 

Black abalone were listed as a candidate 

species under the Endangered Species Act in 

June 1999 [64 FR 33466]. Withering 

syndrome was first observed in individuals 

at the Channel Islands in 1985, and the 

disease has eliminated black abalone from 

large areas of their former range, including 

FIGURE 4-13. BLACK ABALONE. 

Black abalone, which once occurred in abundance in intertidal 

areas, are now rare in the Southern California Bight. Photo by 

Glenn Allen. Used by permission. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 43

the mainland coast of southern California. 

By the mid-1990s, only remnant populations 

persisted at the Farallon Islands and the 

Channel Islands and at locations along the 

mainland of northern and central California. 

Infected individuals manifest such 

symptoms as weight loss, atrophy of the 

foot, weakness, and lethargy. 

4.3.3.3 Southern Sea Otters 

INTRODUCTION

Southern sea otters (Figure 4-14) presently 

occupy the Southern California Bight only 

in relatively small numbers. About 30 

animals reside year-round at San Nicolas 

Island, and seasonal movements bring 

groups of sea otters from the parent range 

into and out of areas to the southeast of 

Point Conception. In this section, we 

address sea otters in the parent range as well 

as those at San Nicolas Island because both 

the parent population and the island colony 

will be affected by the alternatives under 

consideration. 

LISTING HISTORY

The southern sea 

otter was listed as 

threatened in 1977 

[42 FR 2965]. 

Critical habitat 

was not 

designated. The 

factors leading to 

the listing 

included the 

southern sea 

otter’s reduced 

population size 

and range and 

increased tanker 

traffic and the 

corresponding 

potential for oil 

spills. The 

rulemaking also acknowledged the potential 

degradation of habitat caused by pollution or 

competition with humans. The southern sea 

otter is also designated as a Fully Protected 

species under California state law 

(California Fish and Game Code §4700). 

Fully protected species may not be taken or 

possessed, except under a few narrow 

circumstances.

GENERAL ECOLOGY

Unless otherwise noted, the following 

information on the ecology of the southern 

sea otter is from Riedman and Estes (1990). 

The sea otter is the second largest member 

of the family Mustelidae and the second 

smallest marine mammal. The only marine 

mammal that is smaller is the South 

American marine sea otter (Lutra felina). 

Southern sea otters can weigh up to 40 

kilograms and attain lengths of 140 

centimeters. Males are larger than females. 

Southern sea otters have a typical life span 

of 11-15 years. 

FIGURE 4-14. SOUTHERN SEA OTTERS. 

Credit: Jeff Foott. Used by permission.
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 44

Unlike most other marine mammals, sea 

otters have little subcutaneous fat. They 

depend on their clean, dense, water-resistant 

fur for insulation against the cold. Sea otters 

also maintain a high level of internal heat 

production to compensate for their lack of 

blubber. Consequently, their energetic 

requirements are high, and they are 

estimated to consume an amount of food 

equivalent to 23 to 33 percent of their body 

weight per day. 

Contamination of the fur by oily 

substances can destroy its insulating 

properties and lead to hypothermia and 

death. The loss of the insulating 

properties of the fur greatly heightens 

the adverse effects of oil spills on 

southern sea otters and is one of the 

reasons that increased tanker traffic 

and the potential for oil spills was 

considered in the listing of the species. 

Most southern sea otters reside within 

two kilometers of shore. The density 

of southern sea otters within most of 

the population’s range is most likely 

related to substrate type. Rocky 

bottom habitats support an average 

density of five individuals per square 

kilometer, whereas areas with sandy 

bottoms support an average of 0.8 

individuals per square kilometer. 

Southern sea otters generally forage in 

both rocky and soft-sediment 

communities in water depths of 25 

meters or less, although individuals 

occasionally move into deeper water. 

Rocky habitats that are topographically 

heterogeneous and support kelp forests 

are likely to support the greatest 

diversity and abundance of sea otter 

food resources, which include abalone, 

rock crabs, sea urchins, kelp crabs, 

clams, turban snails, mussels, octopus, 

barnacles, scallops, sea stars, and chitons. 

Because of their ability to eat large 

quantities of marine invertebrates, sea otters 

play an extremely important role in the 

nearshore marine community. Their 

mobility, forelimb dexterity, and ability to 

crush large invertebrates, either with their 

teeth or rocks, enable sea otters to prey on 

most invertebrates (Figures 4-15 and 4-16). 

The best refuges for invertebrates from 

predation by sea otters appear to be in deep 

holes and crevices in rocky areas or deep 

FIGURE 4-15. SOUTHERN SEA OTTER EATING CRAB. 

Credit: Jeff Foott. Used by permission. 

FIGURE 4-16. SOUTHERN SEA OTTER SURFACING 

WITH RED SEA URCHIN AND ROCK TOOL. 

Credit: Jeff Foott. Used by permission. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 45

water. The energetic inefficiency of 

consuming small prey items may also 

protect invertebrates of small size. Shallow 

water may also provide refuge for 

invertebrates; southern sea otters failed to 

find an “unusually dense concentration of 

Pismo clams [that occupied a very narrow 

band of habitat in the high intertidal (zone)] 

... for several years” (CDFG 1999a). 

Numerous reports exist of sea urchin, crab, 

and clam populations declining after sea 

otters inhabit an area. Generally, only more 

widely scattered, well-hidden, and smaller 

individuals remain after sea otters become 

established. Other studies have shown that 

populations of invertebrates begin to 

rebound once sea otters have left a site. 

Although other factors are also likely to be 

involved, kelp forests appear to grow 

profusely in suitable areas where sea otters 

reduce the number and size of sea urchins. 

In turn, kelp forests provide shelter and food 

for various species of fish, which become 

established in areas where kelp forests 

regenerate. 

The annual patterns in which southern sea 

otters move along the coast are complicated 

and vary between males and females. 

Generally, the home ranges of southern sea 

otters consist of several heavily used areas 

with travel corridors between them. 

Animals often remain in an area for a long 

period of time and then suddenly move long 

distances; these movements can occur at any 

time of the year. 

Male southern sea otters have larger home 

ranges than females. Compared to males, 

most female southern sea otters are more 

sedentary. Occasionally, females travel long 

distances; 3 tagged adult females routinely 

moved between Monterey and Santa Cruz, a 

distance of 40 to 50 kilometers, for over 4 

years. Juvenile males move further from 

natal groups than do juvenile females. 

Aggressive behavior exhibited towards the 

juvenile males by older males may be 

partially responsible for their more extensive 

travels. Most male southern sea otters leave 

the central portion of the range and travel to 

its ends during the pupping season, which 

occurs in the winter and spring (Riedman 

and Estes 1990). 

Several theories have been presented for the 

differences in movements between the 

sexes. Males may accrue some social 

benefit from gathering in male social 

groups. Widely traveling males may have 

greater opportunity to find females. On the 

other hand, more sedentary females may 

derive some benefit from expending less 

energy traveling and being more intimately 

familiar with localized food resources. 

Males that move to the periphery of their 

range may benefit from abundant food 

resources in areas where southern sea otters 

do not occur year-round. These seasonal 

trips to the edges of the range may also be 

attempts to establish new home ranges. 

Also, increased competition for suitable 

territories and the reduced number of estrous 

females may be responsible, at least in part, 

for the migration of males to the end of the 

range (Riedman and Estes 1990). 

Jameson (1998) notes that adult male sea 

otters are territorial and exclude juvenile and 

subordinate males from their territories. 

However, females move freely across these 

territories. Generally, southern sea otters 

occupy territories on a seasonal basis. 

During the winter and spring, males leave 

their territories and join male groups that 

also include juvenile and subordinate males. 

Maintaining territories during the winter and 

spring may not be profitable for male 

southern sea otters because of the reduced 

chance of encountering estrous females. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 46

Additionally, winter storms may reduce the 

availability of resting sites in kelp. Males 

that are not defending territories are able to 

seek shelter in other areas with females or to 

move to new areas, such as at the edges of 

the range, where food resources may not be 

as limiting. The early results of research 

with sea otters in Washington show that 

testosterone levels in territorial males are 

three to four times higher than in nonterritorial males. Consequently, the absence 

of females and the presence of greater food 

resources at the southern edge of the range 

may seasonally reduce stress between 

members of the species. This pattern of 

movement may not be universal throughout 

the southern sea otter’s range. Some 

territorial males near Monterey appear to 

maintain their territories year-round 

(Riedman and Estes 1990). This disparity 

may be due to environmental differences 

between the study areas. 

REPRODUCTION

Southern sea otters mate and pup throughout 

the year. The northern and southern 

portions of the population seem to exhibit 

different mating peaks. A peak period of 

pupping occurs from January to March, and 

a secondary pupping season occurs in late 

summer and early fall. Pupping is 

seasonally uniform in the Monterey Bay 

area (Riedman et al. 1994). Parental care is 

provided solely by the female. 

DISTRIBUTION AND POPULATION TRENDS

Unless otherwise noted, the following 

information on distribution and population 

trends is summarized from USFWS (2003). 

Sea otters once ranged along the North 

Pacific rim from the northern Japanese 

islands to mid-Baja California, Mexico. 

Southern sea otters occupied the southern 

portion of this range, but the historical 

northern range limit of the subspecies is 

somewhat in question. Authors have placed 

it in northern California or Oregon or as far 

north as Prince William Sound in Alaska 

(Riedman and Estes 1990, Wilson et al.

1991). The California population prior to 

exploitation is thought to have numbered 

about 16,000 animals (CDFG 1976). 

Following near-extinction because of 

exploitation during the 18th and 19th 

centuries, sea otters were legally protected 

from take in 1911 through the International 

Fur Seal Treaty. Subsequently, northern sea 

otters (E. l. kenyoni) recolonized most of the 

available habitat through the Kuril Islands, 

Kamchatka Peninsula, and across the North 

Pacific rim to about Prince William Sound. 

Populations had recovered to levels at or 

near carrying capacity throughout much of 

this region by the late 1980s but declined 

precipitously over large areas of western 

Alaska during the 1990s (Estes et al. 1998). 

The average rate of decline in this region has 

been about 17 percent per year, for a total 

population reduction of perhaps 80 to 90 

percent in many areas (Doroff et al. 2003). 

The likely cause of these declines is 

predation by killer whales. Whereas the 

world population of sea otters was thought 

until recently to be well in excess of 100,000 

individuals, the current total is probably 

much less. The most recent information 

indicates that the population has declined to 

a low density throughout its range, at least 

through the Aleutian archipelago (Doroff et 

al. 2003). 

Figure 4-17 shows the historic and current 

distribution of sea otters throughout the 

species’ range. The historic range of the 

species southeastward from Prince William 

Sound to central Baja California, Mexico 

remains uninhabited except for translocated 

colonies in southeast Alaska, British 

Columbia, and Washington (which grew at 

rates of 17 to 20 percent annually through 

the 1990s [Estes 1990]); the remnant 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 47

population of southern sea otters in central 

California; and the translocated colony at 

San Nicolas Island (which has grown at an 

average annual rate of about 9 percent since 

declining to its minimum size in 1992 and 

1993). 

 

Information on the distribution and 

abundance of sea otters in California prior to 

1990 is summarized by Riedman and Estes 

(1990). Although both range and numbers 

have increased during the 20th century, 

these variables are not well correlated. In 

particular, whereas population abundance 

has declined during several periods, 

distribution evidently has not retracted 

during these periods. 

Range delineation is somewhat arbitrary 

because individuals frequently wander well 

beyond the distributional limits of most of 

the rest of the population. Still, it is clear 

that the geographic range of the southern sea 

otter has expanded considerably since 1938, 

at which time most individuals occurred 

from about Bixby Creek in the north to 

Pfeiffer Point in the south. As the southern 

sea otter population increased during the 

following decades, range expansion to the 

south was always more rapid than it was to 

the north. By 1995, sea otters were 

commonly seen as far south as Point 

Arguello, and in 1998 a substantial number 

of sea otters dispersed southward beyond 

Point Conception. 

Standardized range-wide counts of southern 

sea otters were initiated in 1982. Until 

1995, when 2,377 otters were counted, the 

annual growth rate averaged about five 

percent. However, in each of four 

successive years (1996, 1997, 1998, and 

1999), the total number of animals counted 

progressively declined, to a low of 2090 in 

FIGURE 4-17. HISTORIC AND CURRENT RANGE OF THE SEA OTTER. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 48

1999. This declining trend was evident in 

both the yearly counts and in the same data 

plotted as 3-year running averages, which 

are generally used for trend analysis to 

reduce the influence of anomalously high or 

low counts (USFWS 2003). Recent spring 

surveys (conducted in 2000, 2001, 2002, 

2003, and 2004) counted 2,317, 2,161, 

2,139, 2,505, and 2,825 sea otters, 

respectively. The 2004 count represents an 

increase of about 13 percent over the 2003 

count, and the 3-year running average for 

2003 represents an increase of about 9.8 

percent over the 3-year running average for 

2002 (Figure 4-18). 

MORTALITY

Unless otherwise noted, the following 

information on mortality is summarized 

from USFWS (2003). 

An effort to document all southern sea otter 

strandings (live and dead sea otters that 

wash ashore) has been underway since 1968. 

While most stranded sea otters are found 

dead, some live sea otters are also retrieved 

and are included in the stranding database. 

Assessment of sea otter mortality in recent 

years is based almost exclusively on 

information obtained from beach-cast 

carcasses (Estes et al. 2003). Two measures 

are available: 1) the number of carcasses 

retrieved, and 2) the cause of death in fresh 

carcasses. The number of carcasses 

recovered through time shows an overall 

pattern that is roughly consistent with 

population growth (Figure 4-19). However, 

the relative mortality (measured by dividing 

the number of carcasses retrieved in a given 

year by the number of otters counted in the 

spring survey of 

that same year) 

suggests several 

departures from a 

time-constant 

relationship (Figure 

4-20). These data 

suggest that 

mortality was 

roughly constant at 

about 5 percent 

during the period 

when the population 

was growing (from 

about 1985 through 

1995) but was 

somewhat higher 

during periods of 

apparent decline 

(i.e., the early 1980s 

and from 1996 

through 1999). 

Net entanglement is estimated to have 

caused an average of 80 deaths per year 

(Wendell et al. 1985) from at least the 

mid-1970s to the early 1980s. Entanglement 

mortality appears to have caused the 

population to decline during that period 

because restrictions on the use of gill and 

trammel nets were followed by a resumption 

FIGURE 4-18. TOTAL NUMBER OF SOUTHERN SEA OTTERS COUNTED 

DURING SPRING SURVEYS (1983-2004) PLOTTED AS 3-YEAR RUNNING 

AVERAGES. 

Source: U.S. Geological Survey (2005). http://www.werc.usgs.gov/otters/ 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 49

of population growth (Estes 

1990). There is also 

evidence that the rate of 

pre-weaning mortality in 

central California is higher 

than it is in growing 

populations in Alaska 

(Siniff and Ralls 1991, 

Riedman et al. 1994, 

Monson et al. 2000), 

perhaps explaining, in part, 

the comparatively low 

growth rate in the southern 

sea otter population. 

However, the age 

composition of beach-cast 

sea otters in California 

demonstrates that prime-age 

adults also have 

experienced elevated 

mortality rates. 

Three possible explanations 

for the recently increased 

mortality and reduced 

population abundance of 

the southern sea otter have 

been suggested: increases 

in the rate of infectious 

disease; incidental losses in 

coastal fishing gear; and 

decreases in food 

abundance. It should be 

recognized that two or more 

of these factors may affect 

the dynamics of the southern 

sea otter at a given time. Disease is 

responsible for roughly 40 percent of the 

deaths in animals obtained from the salvage 

program. Infectious diseases in the southern 

sea otter are almost entirely the consequence 

of parasites and microbes for which the sea 

otter is not a natural host (USFWS 2003). 

While coastal live trap fisheries are known 

to have intensified in recent years, and there 

are unconfirmed reports of otters having 

been incidentally drowned, sufficient 

information to evaluate this potential source 

of mortality is not presently available. 

Research on sea otter foraging behavior and 

movements is ongoing. The data being 

collected will be useful in determining what 

role food availability plays in the recovery 

of the southern sea otter.

FIGURE 4-19. NUMBER OF SOUTHERN SEA OTTER STRANDINGS, 

1983-2004. 

Source: U.S. Geological Survey (2005). http://www.werc.usgs.gov/otters/ 

FIGURE 4-20. RELATIVE NUMBER OF SOUTHERN SEA OTTER 

STRANDINGS, 1983-2004. 

Source: U.S. Geological Survey (2005). http://www.werc.usgs.gov/otters/ 

No. of Sea Otter Strandings

 1983 - 2004

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003

No. of Sea Otters

Relative No. of Sea Otter Strandings

1983 - 2004

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

Strandings/Spring

g

 Count X 100
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 50

4.4 Socioeconomic Environment 

4.4.1 OVERVIEW: USE VALUE, NON-USE 

VALUE, AND REGIONAL ECONOMIC CONTEXT

The socioeconomic environment of the 

Southern California Bight may be viewed in 

terms of its use value and its non-use value. 

The two types of value are not always easily 

distinguished, and many activities combine 

elements of both. Nevertheless, it is a useful 

exercise to categorize the types of value and 

benefit that exist because the less tangible 

benefits are often overlooked. Examples of 

different types of value and benefit are 

summarized in Table 4-2. The following 

discussion of use and non-use values is 

based largely on the discussion of these 

values in Boardman et al. (1996). 

Type 

of 

Value

Benefit Category Example

Use Rivalrous 

consumption 

Commercial 

fishing 

 Non-rivalrous 

consumption (direct) 

Whale-watching 

 Non-rivalrous 

consumption 

(indirect) 

Viewing a film on 

kelp forest 

communities 

Nonuse 

Altruistic existence 

value: gift to current 

generation 

Others able to 

watch whales 

 Altruistic existence 

value: gift to future 

generation 

Future others able 

to watch whales 

 Pure existence value: 

good has intrinsic 

worth 

An intact marine 

ecosystem is 

important 

regardless of the 

benefits humans 

may derive from it 

Source: Adapted from Boardman et al. (1996). 

SCB=Southern California Bight 

Use value derives from human use of the 

physical and biological environment and 

includes both rivalrous and non-rivalrous 

consumption. Rivalrous consumption (also 

known as destructive consumption) is the 

most obvious source of use value and 

pertains to the extraction of goods from the 

environment. Examples of rivalrous 

consumption in the biological environment 

of the Southern California Bight include 

commercial fishing and kelp harvesting. 

This type of consumption permanently 

removes individual organisms or parts of 

organisms from the environment. The value 

derived from this type of consumption can 

generally be estimated with high reliability 

because the goods obtained are traded on 

markets. 

Non-rivalrous consumption refers to 

activities that do not remove or destroy 

organisms. These activities are “nonrivalrous” because the value that one person 

derives from a good does not diminish 

another person’s ability to derive benefit 

from the same good. The distinction 

between rivalrous and non-rivalrous 

consumption is sometimes made in terms of 

consumptive versus non-consumptive uses. 

These uses can occur onsite or offsite. 

Non-rivalrous uses of the Southern 

California Bight that occur onsite include 

marine mammal and bird watching, 

tidepooling, kayaking, observational diving, 

and photography. Although these activities 

are not intended to cause harm to the 

organisms being observed, they may 

sometimes have such effects, and in these 

cases they cannot be considered to be 

strictly non-rivalrous. The value derived 

from non-rivalrous onsite activities is 

somewhat difficult to estimate because the 

goods derived are not generally traded on 

markets, but it can be quantified (with 

varying degrees of reliability) in terms of the 

time and travel costs people are willing to 

pay to perform these activities. 

TABLE 4-2. TYPES OF SOCIOECONOMIC 

BENEFIT IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

BIGHT 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 51

Non-rivalrous consumption that occurs 

offsite includes watching films, viewing 

photographs, or reading accounts of a 

particular organism or environment 

(although the extent to which offsite nonrivalrous consumption constitutes “use” or 

“non-use” may be debatable). The value of 

the benefits derived from this kind of 

consumption is much more difficult to 

quantify. 

Non-use value refers to the benefits derived 

from simply knowing that a particular 

environment or organism exists. For 

example, people may want to preserve 

wilderness areas or to restore ecosystems so 

that they can be appreciated by other people 

now living (altruistic existence value) or by 

future generations (bequest value). 

A third kind of non-use value is pure 

existence value: the belief that animals, 

plants, and environments have intrinsic 

worth regardless of their utility for humans. 

Pure existence value is “biocentric” rather 

than “anthropocentric,” in that living 

organisms and their habitats are valued for 

their own sake. Biocentric values are 

becoming increasingly important to many 

people’s views about how humans should 

interact with nature. Non-use values are 

notoriously difficult to quantify, but they are 

an important part of the social environment 

of the Southern California Bight. 

Because of the difficulty and speculative 

nature of attempts to quantify offsite nonrivalrous consumption and all types of nonuse value (including existence value), we do 

not explicitly address these values as 

socioeconomic impact topics. However, we 

implicitly address some of these values in 

our discussion of agency activities, some of 

which are focused on preserving and 

enhancing ecosystems and environments for 

their intrinsic value. 

For those activities that can be quantified 

monetarily, the regional economy provides a 

context that allows for the assessment of the 

relative economic contribution of these 

activities. Table 4-3 summarizes total 

personal income and per capita personal 

income for the coastal counties of the 

Southern California Bight. 

TABLE 4-3. TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME 

AND PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME, 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL 

COUNTIES 

County Total Personal 

Income for 2003 

(thousands of 

2004$) 

Per Capita 

Income 

Santa 

Barbara 

County 

$13,904,248 $34,519 

Ventura 

County 

$28,602,282 $36,179 

Los Angeles 

County 

$319,574,990 $32,410 

Orange 

County 

$119,333,549 $40,314 

San Diego 

County 

$107,400,198 $36,795 

Total $588,815,266

Data source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov) 

 

The following discussion of the 

socioeconomic environment of the Southern 

California Bight focuses on commercial 

fisheries, aquaculture, seafood processing, 

kelp harvest, recreational fishing and diving, 

abalone fishery restoration, ecotourism, and 

federal and state agency programs (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Channel Islands 

National Park, Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary, California Department of 

Fish and Game, U.S. Navy, and U.S. 

Minerals Management Service). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 52

4.4.2 COMMERCIAL FISHERIES

4.4.2.1 Overview 

Commercial fishing occurs at various 

locations throughout the Southern California 

Bight. Numerous species of fish and 

shellfish are commercially taken in 

nearshore waters using a variety of gear 

types. The best information on commercial 

catch comes from the California Department 

of Fish and Game, which establishes and 

regulates fishery seasons and collects 

information on the amounts, types, 

locations, and ex-vessel values of fish 

caught each year. These data are organized 

by numbered statistical blocks (Figure 4-21). 

Landings (the number of pounds of fish 

caught and delivered to shore) are recorded 

by statistical block in pounds and dollar 

amount received. 

Ex-vessel values represent the best available 

measure of the value of commercial 

fisheries, but certain deficiencies of this 

measure should be borne in mind. Ex-vessel 

value is a measure of the gross revenues 

taken in by commercial anglers and does not 

account for operating costs. Because 

operating costs vary among fisheries, exvessel values for different fisheries are not 

strictly comparable. Additionally, operating 

costs are often not available for the 

calculation of net revenues. Because exvessel values reflect gross rather than net 

revenues, they overestimate the gain to 

commercial fishers (Thomson 2001). 

FIGURE 4-21. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME STATISTICAL BLOCK MAP, 

WITH NEARSHORE BLOCKS HIGHLIGHTED. Source: CDFG (2001).
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 53

Landings and ex-vessel values given in this 

chapter come from two different sources. 

Those for 1995-1999, which compare the 

proportional contributions of different 

fisheries, are from the latest available status 

report on the marine ecosystems and 

fisheries of California, California’s Living 

Marine Resources, issued by the California 

Department of Fish and Game (Leet et al.

2001).6

 Other data presented in this 

 

6

Landings data and ex-vessel values presented in Leet 

et al. (2001) are generally grouped into three regions: 

northern, central, and southern California. Southern 

California in this context includes not only the 

overview section are from landings data 

provided by the California Department 

of Fish and Game for the blocks 

highlighted in Figure 4-21. These data 

are used for the analysis in Chapter 6 

and are cited throughout this 

supplement as CDFG 2002a and 2005a. 

 

A review of the top commercial 

landings in recent years provides a 

picture of the proportional significance 

of the fisheries that will likely be 

affected by the alternatives under 

consideration: sea urchin, lobster, crab, 

and (if attempts are made to reopen the 

fishery in the future) abalone. The 

proportional annual contribution of 

each fishery by pounds landed and exvessel revenue is shown in Figures 4-22 

and 4-23, respectively. 

From 1995-1999, southern California 

landings were dominated by market 

squid (45%), coastal pelagic fish (36%), 

and to a much lesser extent albacore 

and other tuna (11%), which together 

accounted for more than 90 percent of 

total landings. Ex-vessel values for 

these years were proportionally highest 

for market squid (26%), albacore and 

other tuna (21%), and sea urchins 

(18%). When combined, squid, tuna, 

and sea urchins accounted for 65 percent of 

the average annual ex-vessel receipts in 

these years. Revenues from lobster (7%) 

and crab (1%) were less significant. 

 

Southern California Bight but a portion of mainland 

coastline north of the Southern California Bight to 

just past Point Sal. Because this area is slightly 

larger than our area of consideration, landings and 

ex-vessel value totals taken from this source likely 

overestimate landings and ex-vessel values for the 

Southern California Bight. However, these data 

provide a good picture of the proportional 

contribution of each fishery to the southern California 

fishery as a whole. 

FIGURE 4-22. AVERAGE ANNUAL LANDINGS FOR 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 1995-1999. Source: Thomson 

(2001). 

FIGURE 4-23. AVERAGE ANNUAL EX-VESSEL 

VALUES FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1995-1999. 

Source: Thomson (2001). 

Average Annual Landings for 

Southern California Fisheries 1995-1999 

Market squid

Albacore/other tuna

Sea urchin

Coastal pelagics

Shark/swordfish

Lobster

Groundfish

Prawn

Crab

All else

Average Annual Ex-Vessel Values for 

Southern California Fisheries 1995-1999

Market squid

Albacore/other tuna

Sea urchin

Coastal pelagics

Shark/swordfish

Lobster

Groundfish

Prawn

Crab

All else
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 54

Revenues from 

all other species 

combined 

amounted to 4 

percent of the 

total ex-vessel 

value for these 

years. 

Table 4-4 gives 

the average 

annual landings, 

ex-vessel value, 

and number of 

vessels 

participating in 

the major 

fisheries of 

southern 

California for 

1995-1999, with 

fisheries of 

particular interest 

(sea urchin, 

lobster, and crab) 

highlighted. 

Table 4-5 gives 

landings and exvessel revenues 

per boat for 

vessels having a 

southern 

California 

fishery as a 

principal fishery. 

Fisheries of 

particular interest 

(sea urchin, 

lobster, and crab) 

are again 

highlighted. 

TABLE 4-4. AVERAGE ANNUAL LANDINGS, EX-VESSEL VALUE, AND 

VESSEL PARTICIPATION IN MAJOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FISHERIES 

1995-1999 

Major Southern 

California Fishery 

Landings Value 

(Base 

Year=1999) 

Number of 

Participating 

Vessels 

Number 

Participating 

as Principal 

Fishery 

Squid seine/other net 129,556,200 $19,150,200 87 70 

Urchin dive 13,007,900 $12,835,500 223 207 

Tuna seine 23,001,500 $9,644,100 21 10 

Tuna H&L 7,473,200 $5,736,900 115 65 

Coastal pelagics seine 115,869,400 $5,671,800 46 23 

Lobster trap 680,700 $5,157,500 202 168 

Shark/swordfish gillnet 1,053,900 $2,548,200 80 50 

Groundfish H&L 1,588,500 $2,193,800 205 157 

Shark/swordfish H&L 795,600 $1,875,900 42 27 

Prawn trawl 745,300 $1,679,900 27 19 

Groundfish/misc. net 810,800 $1,232,300 58 31 

Crab trap 900,400 $1,097,200 76 25 

Prawn trap 135,100 $1,011,900 28 18 

Abalone dive 87,600 $877,000 33 13 

Groundfish/misc. trap 219,100 $663,200 66 19 

Shark/swordfish dive 119,300 $632,000 24 20 

Groundfish trawl 255,000 $525,300 32 20 

Cucumber dive 398,600 $244,300 22 21 

Source: Thomson (2001) 

TABLE 4-5. AVERAGE ANNUAL LANDINGS AND EX-VESSEL VALUE PER 

BOAT FROM THE PRINCIPAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FISHERY, 1995-1999 

Major Southern 

California Fishery 

Landings/boat/year from 

Principal fishery 

Ex-Vessel Revenue/Boat/Year 

from 

Principal fishery 

(Base Year=1999) 

Pounds % $ % 

Squid seine/other net 1,516,900 69 226,000 82 

Urchin dive 60,200 88 58,800 92 

Tuna seine 1,882,100 59 806,400 88 

Tuna H&L 105,000 67 70,500 63 

Coastal pelagics seine 2,475,800 84 132,000 60 

Lobster trap 3,700 49 28,200 81 

Shark/swordfish gillnet 16,400 34 42,900 62 

Groundfish H&L 8,900 82 12,200 88 

Shark/swordfish H&L 26,800 73 62,800 78 

Prawn trawl 32,500 33 79,400 77 

Groundfish/misc. net 17,500 58 28,100 72 

Crab trap 15,100 92 18,300 80 

Prawn trap 6,100 66 47,400 83 

Abalone dive 2,100 18 21,400 68 

Groundfish/misc. trap 4,600 61 14,000 66 

Shark/swordfish dive 5,200 81 27,300 94 

Groundfish trawl 9,000 36 20,900 71 

Cucumber dive 2,600 37 15,100 61 

Source: Thomson (2001)
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 55

Table 4-6 compares ex-vessel revenues for 

the commercial sea urchin, lobster, and crab 

fisheries in southern California to the total 

personal income for the coastal counties 

bordering the Southern California Bight. To 

be properly compared to total personal 

income, ex-vessel values should be adjusted 

upwards with a multiplier (appropriate to the 

county where the catch was landed) that 

translates ex-vessel value into income. 

Leeworthy and Wiley (2002) give 

multipliers of 2.1 for sea urchins, 2.0 for 

spiny lobsters, and 2.8 for crab landed and 

processed in Ventura County, but multipliers 

are different for each fishery and county 

where catch is landed. While multipliers 

differ somewhat for each fishery and county, 

it is clear that each of these fisheries 

accounts for only a small proportion of the 

regional economy, on the order of 

thousandths of one percent. 

The following sections describe the 

commercial fisheries for sea urchin, lobster, 

crab, and abalone. Although the abalone 

fishery was closed entirely in southern 

California in 1997, we address it because 

efforts to reestablish abalone populations 

(and eventually the abalone fishery) are 

underway (CDFG 2002c). 

4.4.2.2 Sea Urchin Fishery 

Unless otherwise noted, the following 

information is derived from Kalvass and 

Rogers-Bennett (2001). 

Sea urchins have been harvested since the 

early 1970s in northern and southern 

California, where in the absence of sea otter 

predation sea urchin populations reached 

commercially exploitable levels. The 

commercial sea urchin fishery in southern 

California was initiated in 1971, when 

harvesting began as part of a National 

Marine Fisheries Service program to 

develop fisheries for species identified as 

“underutilized.” The fishery was viewed, in 

part, as a way to reduce destructive grazing 

on kelp by sea urchins, which were formerly 

killed by applications of quicklime, by 

divers with hammers, and by removal with 

suction dredges after baiting with kelp 

(Foster and Schiel 1985). The sea urchin 

fishery is based primarily on harvests of red 

sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus 

franciscanus), but purple urchins (S. 

purpuratus) have also been taken since the 

mid-1980s in very low numbers (averaging 

about 140,000 pounds annually for all of 

California). Red urchins are preferred to 

purple urchins because of the size and 

quality of their gonads (also known as roe or 

uni). Most of the sea urchin catch is 

exported to the Japanese market, where 

urchin gonads are sold as a delicacy. 

However, some roe is used in the growing 

domestic sushi market. 

Landings are dependent on a variety of 

factors, especially because the urchin’s 

market value is in the gonads, not the body. 

Roe quality is primarily dependent on an 

urchin’s access to kelp, which is its primary 

TABLE 4-6. REVENUES OF POTENTIALLY 

AFFECTED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

FISHERIES AND TOTAL PERSONAL 

INCOME, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

COASTAL COUNTIES (THOUSANDS OF 

2004$) 

Fishery Average Annual 

Ex-Vessel Fishery 

Revenue for SCB 

1994-2003 

Total 

Personal 

Income for 

2003 

Southern 

California 

Coastal 

Counties 

Sea Urchin $12,148 $588,815,266 

Lobster $5,023 $588,815,266 

Crab $1,136 $588,815,266 

Data source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov), California Department 

of Fish and Game (2002a, 2005a). See Tables 6-2, 6-5, 6-8 

of this supplement for annual ex-vessel revenues by fishery 

for 1994-2003. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 56

food source. If there is a food shortage 

(usually due to an El Niño event), urchins go 

into a “starvation mode,” where nutrients are 

allocated for survival, thereby causing 

atrophy and discoloration of the gonads. 

While urchin populations may persist at high 

densities, fishers will not expend fishing 

effort if the quality of the roe is low. Roe is 

extremely perishable, and short transport 

times are essential to the maintenance of 

quality (Kato and Schroeter 1985 in Price 

and Tom 1995). 

The southern California sea urchin fishery 

expanded rapidly after its inception. 

Supplemented with fishers displaced from 

the declining abalone dive fishery, it reached 

its first peak in 1981 with landings of 25 

million pounds. The 1982-1983 El Niño, 

which brought warm waters detrimental to 

kelp, the primary food of sea urchins, 

contributed to decreases in urchin landings 

until 1985-1986, when landings increased 

again. In 1990, landings reached a second 

peak of more than 27 million pounds. 

However, during the 1990s, the sea urchin 

catch for southern California suffered 

declines, averaging about 10 million pounds 

per year. Urchin harvests were affected 

during this period by two El Niño events and 

a weakening yen. Effort and harvests have 

shifted in recent years from the northern 

Channel Islands (which supplied 80-90 

percent of the landings from 1973-1977) to 

the southern islands of San Nicolas and San 

Clemente and the area off San Diego. 

However, region-wide declines have 

occurred. Fishing has significantly reduced 

densities of red sea urchins in many areas, 

and catch-per-unit of effort has increased. 

In the northern Channel Islands, the 

percentage of legal-sized red urchins in 

areas surveyed decreased from 15 to 7.2 

percent between 1985 and 1995. According 

to Kalvass and Rogers-Bennet (2001), 

harvests of sea urchins have “exhibited a 

pattern resembling the serial depletion that 

characterized the decline and collapse of the 

abalone fisheries in the mid-1990s.” 

The average annual sea urchin harvest in 

southern California between 1995 and 1999 

was just over 13 million pounds, which 

resulted in an ex-vessel value of almost 13 

million (1999) dollars (see Table 4-4). An 

average of 223 vessels participated in the 

fishery during these years. For 207 of these 

vessels, the sea urchin fishery in southern 

California was the principal fishery (see 

Table 4-4). These vessels derived 88 

percent of their landings and 92 percent of 

their ex-vessel revenue from the southern 

California sea urchin fishery and the 

remainder from fisheries elsewhere (see 

Table 4-5). 

4.4.2.3 Spiny Lobster Fishery 

Unless otherwise noted, the following 

information is derived from Barsky (2001), 

hereby incorporated by reference. 

Spiny lobsters have been commercially 

fished in southern California waters since 

the late nineteenth century. Currently, they 

are caught in traps constructed of wire mesh, 

which are baited with fish and weighted 

with cement, steel, or bricks. Lobster traps 

are required to have an approved destructdevice to ensure that they do not continue to 

capture marine organisms if lost or 

abandoned, and they must also have escape 

ports to facilitate the escape of undersize 

lobsters (those with a carapace length of less 

than 3 1/4 inches). Buoys bearing the 

trapper’s license number followed by the 

letter P mark trap locations. Lobster traps 

are placed in relatively shallow, rocky areas 

from Point Conception south to Mexico and 

off the islands and banks of southern 

California. Some areas at Santa Catalina 

Island and in Santa Monica and Newport 

bays are closed to lobster fishing, as are 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 57

some marine life refuges and reserves. The 

largest numbers of lobsters are taken at the 

beginning of the season, which starts in 

early October; effort and catch decline 

sharply in January through mid-March, 

when the season ends. Landings are usually 

highest in San Diego County, followed by 

Los Angeles/Orange and Ventura/Santa 

Barbara counties. Since 1997, a formal 

restricted access program has been in place 

for the commercial fishery. All lobster 

fishers must have an operator permit ($285), 

and all deckhands must have a lobster 

crewmember permit ($125). Most of the 

lobster catch has been destined for Asian 

and French markets in recent years, although 

efforts to reestablish domestic markets have 

been undertaken because of depressed 

economies overseas. 

Commercial landings of spiny lobsters for 

the state of California have been marked by 

fluctuations that reflect a number of factors, 

including market influences, weather 

patterns, the health of the population, and 

harvest regulations. Landings reached a 

high of 1.05 million pounds in the 1949-50 

season. This record catch was followed by a 

quarter century of general decline. Landings 

remained between 400,000 and 500,000 

pounds during much of the 1980s and 

between 600,000 and 800,000 pounds 

through much of the 1990s. Landings for 

the state of California reached a peak of 

950,000 pounds in 1997-1998 but dropped 

thereafter. 

The average annual lobster harvest in 

southern California between 1995 and 1999 

was almost 700,000 pounds, which resulted 

in an ex-vessel value of just over 5 million 

(1999) dollars (Table 4-4). An average of 

202 vessels participated in the fishery during 

these years. For 168 of these vessels, the 

lobster fishery in southern California was 

the principal fishery (Table 4-4). These 

vessels derived 49 percent of their landings 

and 81 percent of their ex-vessel revenue 

from the southern California lobster fishery 

and the remainder from fisheries elsewhere 

(Table 4-5). 

4.4.2.4 Crab Fishery 

Commercial crab landings in the nearshore 

areas of the Southern California Bight are 

based largely on catches of rock crabs 

(Cancer spp.) and, to a much lesser extent, 

spider crabs (Loxorhynchus grandis). Sand 

crabs (Emerita analoga) are caught for bait 

but the annual catch is negligible, averaging 

only 22 pounds per year since 1977 

(Herbinson and Larson 2001). Dungeness 

crabs (Cancer magister) are fished only in 

central and northern California (Hankin and 

Warner 2001) and will not be discussed 

further here. 

Unless otherwise noted, the following 

information on rock crabs is derived from 

Parker (2001). 

Rock crabs of three species are fished along 

the coast of California: yellow rock crab 

(Cancer anthonyi), brown rock crab (C. 

antennarius), and red rock crab (C. 

productus). Yellow rock crabs, which prefer 

soft-bottom habitat, are most abundant in 

southern California, whereas brown and red 

rock crabs are most abundant in central and 

northern California, respectively. More than 

85 percent of the rock crab landings in 

California come from Morro Bay and south. 

Rock crabs are caught in traps made from 

either wire mesh or molded plastic. Most 

traps are set at depths of 90 to 240 feet in 

open sandy areas or near rocky substrate and 

are left submerged for 48 to 96 hours. 

Vessels are generally small, and 200 or more 

traps may be fished by a single boat. 

Current regulations require traps to have 

escape rings of 3.5 inches in diameter and 

require crabs kept to have a minimum 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 58

carapace length of 4.25 inches. Rock crab 

landings for the entire state of California 

steadily increased from 1950 to 1986, when 

they totaled over 2 million pounds. 

Statewide landings for 1999 were 790,000 

pounds and have averaged 1.2 million 

pounds annually since 1991. 

Unless otherwise noted, the following 

information on sheep crabs is derived from 

Culver and Kuris (2001). 

Sheep crabs (Loxorhynchus grandis) are 

fished primarily over sandy bottoms, with 

effort concentrated in the Santa Barbara 

Channel and off the northern Channel 

Islands. Crabs are caught for the live whole 

crab market using traps. Traps are set in 

waters 30 to 70 feet deep in spring and 

summer and in depths of 120 to 240 feet in 

the fall and winter. Claws for the claw 

fishery come from set gill-nets, where the 

crab is usually killed in the claw removal 

process. Sheep crabs were not a significant 

fishery before 1984, when they were landed 

primarily as by-catch. Landings peaked in 

1988 at over 100,000 pounds of live crabs 

and an additional nearly 400,000 pounds of 

claws (combined with rock crab claws). 

Claw landings decreased dramatically to 

5,000 pounds annually after a ban on gill 

nets in shallow waters was phased in 

between 1990 and 1994. Whole crab 

landings remained at about 75,000 pounds 

annually during this period. In 1999, the 

retail value of the sheep crab fishery for the 

state of California was approximately 

$310,000. 

Total crab landings in southern California 

waters averaged almost 900,000 pounds 

annually between 1995 and 1999, resulting 

in an ex-vessel value of over 1 million 

(1999) dollars (Table 4-4). An average of 

76 vessels participated in the fishery during 

these years. For 25 of these vessels, the crab 

fishery in southern California was the 

principal fishery (Table 4-4). These vessels 

derived 92 percent of their landings and 80 

percent of their ex-vessel revenue from the 

southern California crab fishery and the 

remainder from fisheries elsewhere (Table 

4-5). 

4.4.2.5 Gill and Trammel Net Fishery

Gill and trammel nets were used 

increasingly from the 1960s to the mid1980s to catch rockfish, California halibut, 

white seabass, California barracuda, soupfin 

shark, angel shark, white croaker, and other 

nearshore species. At the peak of gill and 

trammel net use in 1985, 1,122 permits were 

issued (Schultze 2001). Because of conflicts 

with sport fisheries and mortality to seabirds 

and marine mammals due to entanglement in 

the nets, California citizens voted in a 1990 

initiative to ban gill-net fishing in shallow 

waters, resulting in the Marine Resources 

Protection Act of 1990 (California 

Constitution Article 10B). This ban took 

full effect in 1994. With respect to southern 

California, it prohibits the use of gill and 

trammel nets in waters less than 70 fathoms 

or within one mile of the Channel Islands, 

whichever is less, and generally prohibits 

the use of gill and trammel nets within three 

nautical miles offshore of the mainland coast 

from Point Arguello to the Mexican border 

(Marine Resources Protection Act 1990). 

Because the use of gill and trammel nets is 

prohibited in the nearshore waters of the 

Southern California Bight, we do not 

consider gill and trammel net fishing further 

in this supplement. 

4.4.2.6 Live-Fish Trap Fishery 

The live-fish trap fishery emerged during the 

late 1980s in southern California waters, 

targeting shallow-water species, including 

California sheephead, cabezon, kelp 

greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus), 

rock greenling (Hexagrammos 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 59

lagocephalus), California scorpionfish, a 

number of species of nearshore rockfish, and 

moray eels. Since then, the trap fishery has 

expanded northward and has targeted greater 

numbers of fish species. Numbers of trap 

fishery participants have also increased. In 

1999, live-fish trap landings accounted for 7 

percent of live/premium fish landings 

statewide. Since 1996, the southern 

California trap fishery has operated on a 

limited entry basis (Schultze 2001). A 

regulation requiring the use of 5-inch sea 

otter-exclusion rings in live fish traps went 

into effect for waters north of Point 

Conception in January 2002, but no 

regulations requiring such rings are in effect 

for southern California waters (Pattison pers. 

comm. 2002). The effectiveness of 

exclusion rings has not been documented. 

Despite continuing concerns about possible 

interactions between sea otters and trap 

fisheries, there are insufficient data to 

determine the effects that these traps could 

have on sea otters in the context of the 

alternatives under consideration. Therefore, 

we do not address the live-fish trap fishery 

further in this supplement. 

4.4.3 AQUACULTURE 

Aquaculture is the process of culturing, 

growing, and harvesting marine species in a 

controlled setting. Commercial aquaculture 

facilities in California are primarily focused 

on the production of shellfish such as 

abalone, oysters, and mussels (Wendell 

2001). Abalone are grown in tanks on land 

or in cages suspended in the water column 

(Ebert 2001). Oysters are grown out in bays 

at privately owned or leased sites, with most 

oyster production occurring in areas north of 

Point Conception (Conte and Moore 2001). 

Much of the statewide mussel harvest comes 

from offshore platforms in the Santa Barbara 

Channel, with cultured mussels coming 

primarily from Tomales Bay and Agua 

Hediona Lagoon near Carlsbad (Richards 

and Trevelyan 2001). In April, 2002, 11 

marine aquaculture facilities were registered 

with the state in southern California (in 

Santa Barbara, Ventura, Orange, and San 

Diego counties) (Moore pers. comm. 2002). 

Of these, five were growing abalone 

exclusively; two were growing abalone and 

other species of shellfish, finfish, or algae; 

three were growing mussels, rock scallops, 

and other shellfish species; and one was 

growing shrimp and prawns (Moore pers. 

comm. 2002). 

Most commercial shellfish production in 

aquaculture operations has recently 

declined. Production of oysters, abalones, 

and mussels in California declined after 

peaking in 1994, 1996, and 1997, 

respectively (Wendell 2001). From 1992-

1997, statewide mussel production grew 

from 187,000 pounds to 471,000 pounds but 

then dropped by almost 50 percent in 1998 

due to El Niño conditions (Richards and 

Trevelyan 2001). Statewide mussel 

production returned about $500,000 

annually in 1996 and 1997 but dropped to 

$280,000 in 1998 (Richards and Trevelyan 

2001). Recent colder water regimes have 

improved mussel recruitment (Richards and 

Trevelyan 2001). 

4.4.4 SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY (SEA 

URCHINS) 

Information on the income earned from 

processing or marketing commercial fish 

and shellfish landings is usually not 

available, but ex-vessel value is equal to the 

cost to dealers of procuring fish and 

provides the best available measure of value 

(Thomson 2001). 

Sea urchins require fairly intensive 

processing and packaging before their roe 

reaches Japanese markets (Price and Tom 

1995). Fourteen sea urchin processing 

facilities are located in California, 12 of 

which are in southern California (Sea Urchin 

Harvesters Association-California 2003). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 60

For the 10 southern California sea urchin 

processing facilities for which information 

could be found, 9 qualified as “small” 

processing groups (producing estimated 

group annual sales of $1 million to $5 

million), and 1 qualified as “very small” 

(producing estimated group annual sales of 

$100,000 to $1 million) (Radtke and Davis 

2000). The estimated value of finished 

pounds of sea urchin roe sold by primary 

processors throughout the entire state of 

California in 1996 was about $23 million 

(Radtke and Davis 2000). 

4.4.5 KELP HARVEST

Giant kelp is harvested commercially for the 

production of algin, which is used as an 

additive in food, plaster and cement, textiles, 

paper, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals. It is 

also used in aquaculture operations as food 

for abalone and for the production of 

herring-roe-on-kelp in the San Francisco 

Bay. Giant kelp supports a major industry 

in California. During the mid-1980s, the 

kelp industry was valued at more than $40 

million per year (Bedford 2001). 

Kelp harvest occurs along the coast from 

San Diego to Monterey Bay, but the vast 

majority of kelp is harvested from southern 

California waters by the San Diego based 

company ISP Alginates, Inc. (formerly 

Kelco). Figure 4-24 shows administrative 

kelp beds in the Southern California Bight. 

FIGURE 4-24. KELP LEASES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT. Currently leased beds are circled. 

Source: CDFG.
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 61

Annual kelp harvests fluctuate because of 

climate and growth cycles as well as market 

conditions of supply and demand. During 

the 1970s, the California harvest averaged 

almost 157,000 tons annually, whereas 

during the 1980s, the average annual harvest 

amounted to only about half that because of 

damage to kelp beds resulting from El Niño 

conditions and storm activity. By 1989 and 

1990, statewide harvests had climbed again 

to more than 130 thousand tons and 150 

thousand tons, respectively. International 

competition brought harvest levels down 

again during the 1990s to about 70 thousand 

tons annually. An annual California harvest 

of 80 thousand tons is expected during the 

coming decade (Bedford 2001). 

The Southern California Bight has 

historically had the highest levels of giant 

kelp canopy when compared to the central 

and northern regions of the state because of 

favorable environmental conditions 

(periodic upwelling, the broad, shallow 

continental shelf, good bottom substrate, and 

the protection from storms afforded by Point 

Conception and the Channel Islands) 

(CDFG 2000a). From 1989-1999, the area 

near Cojo Anchorage (bed 32) was the 

second-highest-producing kelp bed in the 

state, with more than 100 thousand tons 

harvested (CDFG 2000a). The beds 

surrounding San Nicolas Island (107 and 

108) are also important kelp harvesting 

areas, yielding between 10 and 80 thousand 

tons from 1989-1999 (CDFG 2000a). As of 

May 2005, 6 of the 12 kelp beds along the 

coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara and at San Nicolas Island were 

leased (kelp beds 27, 30, 31, 32, 107, 108) 

(Bedford pers. comm. 2005). 

4.4.6. RECREATIONAL FISHING AND DIVING 

Southern California is a leading recreational 

fishing area along the west coast. 

Recreational fishing refers to both sport and 

subsistence fishing and includes hook-andline as well as dive, spear, and net fishing. 

Recreational fisheries in the Southern 

California Bight access nearshore and 

offshore areas, targeting both bottom fish 

and mid-water species. Recreational fishing 

may occur from man made structures, such 

as jetties and piers; from beaches; from 

commercial passenger fishing vessels 

(CPFVs); or from private boats. Common 

landings in southern California include sea 

basses (Family Serranidae) and 

tuna/mackerel (Family Scombridae), Pacific 

barracuda (Sphyraena argentea), California 

scorpionfish and jacks (Family Carangidae), 

and rockfishes (Thomson 2001). 

Although there is no sport fishery for sea 

urchins, there is an economically significant 

sport fishery for lobsters. As with 

commercial lobster trapping, recreational 

diving for lobsters is most intensive and 

most successful during October (Barsky 

2001). During 1995-1998, an average of 

470,506 trips were taken on CPFVs in 

southern California waters each year, of 

which 39,542 (8.4 percent) were dive trips 

(Thomson 2001). From 1995 to 2001, an 

average of 9,625 recreational lobster dive 

trips were taken annually in southern 

California, including an average of 594 to 

San Nicolas Island and 11 to the coastline 

area between Point Conception and Santa 

Barbara (CDFG 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 

1999b, 2000b, 2001). 

4.4.7 ABALONE FISHERY RESTORATION 

Unless otherwise noted, the information 

presented here is derived from Haaker et al.

(2001), hereby incorporated by reference. 

Abalone have been exploited in southern 

California since pre-colonial times. 

Archaeological evidence indicates 

significant use of abalone by California 

Indians along the mainland and at the 

Channel Islands before the arrival of 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 62

European settlers. During the 1850s, 

Chinese immigrants developed an intertidal 

abalone fishery that targeted black (Haliotis 

cracherodii) and green (H. fulgens) abalone. 

In 1900, shallow waters were closed to 

commercial harvest, and the intertidal 

fishery ended. Japanese free-divers and 

hard-hat divers began exploitation of deeper 

water abalone in the first few decades of the 

twentieth century. This fishery reached a 

peak in landings in 1935. By 1942, the 

fishery had declined significantly with the 

wartime relocation of Japanese-Americans 

to camps. In southern California, 

commercial abalone fishing was prohibited 

between 1913 and 1943, but the fishery was 

opened thereafter to increase food 

production during the war. In the post-war 

years, the abalone fishery was managed as a 

single entity, which had the effect of 

obscuring the serial depletion of individual 

abalone species. 

Five of the seven species of abalone that 

occur in California have been commercially 

fished during the twentieth century: black, 

red (H. rufescens), pink (H. corrugata), 

green, and white (H. sorenseni). Since the 

mid-twentieth century, commercial landings 

data for abalone species in California have 

demonstrated a pattern of intensive 

exploitation followed by collapse. Pink 

abalone (H. corrugata) landings reached a 

peak in 1952 of almost 4 million pounds but 

declined by 1990 to one percent of their 

previous average annual landings (over 2 

million pounds between 1950 and 1970). 

Green abalone landings reached their 

maximum in 1971 at over 1 million pounds 

but declined rapidly thereafter to only 6 

percent of their previous average annual 

landings (almost 500,000 pounds from 1968 

to 1972). White abalone landings peaked in 

1972 at 144,000 pounds but declined rapidly 

thereafter. Black abalone landings reached a 

maximum in 1973 of almost 2 million 

pounds but declined by 1990 to 13 percent 

of their previous average annual landings 

(almost 700,000 pounds between 1972 and 

1984). Red abalone have been the most 

resilient species in the face of sustained 

commercial exploitation, although matters 

are somewhat obscured by the fact that red 

abalone was the only species recorded in 

landings data between 1916 and 1943. Red 

abalone landings declined by 1990, at which 

point they were only 17 percent of their 

previous average annual levels (over 2 

million pounds between 1931 and 1967). 

Advances in diving equipment and boats 

increased the efficiency of commercial 

abalone exploitation and contributed to the 

depletion of stocks and the continual 

expansion of fishing grounds. During this 

same period, sea otter reoccupation of 

historic range along the central coast of 

California resulted in the displacement and 

concentration of fishing pressure to other 

areas of California. 

 

The abalone fishery was closed in 1997, 

with the exception of a sport-only fishery for 

red abalone that continues north of San 

Francisco County. According to Thomson 

(2001), who gives abalone landings as a 

five-year average for purposes of 

comparison, Southern California abalone 

landings averaged 87,000 pounds annually 

between 1995 and 1999, resulting in an exvessel value of 877,000 (1999) dollars. An 

average of 33 vessels participated in the 

abalone dive fishery during these years. For 

13 of these vessels, the abalone fishery in 

southern California was the principal fishery 

(Thomson 2001). These vessels derived 18 

percent of their landings but 68 percent of 

their ex-vessel revenue from the southern 

California abalone dive fishery and the 

remainder from fisheries elsewhere 

(Thomson 2001). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 63

4.4.8 ECOTOURISM

Tourism is the 3rd largest employer in the 

state of California and the 5th largest 

contributor to the gross state product 

(California Tourism 2003). Among oceandependent industries in California, coastal 

tourism is the most economically significant. 

Coastal tourism spending was the largest 

economic component among seven oceandependent industries studied by the 

Resources Agency of California, 

contributing $9.9 billion to the California 

economy in 1992 (Burroughs et al. 1997).7

 

Expenditures for wildlife-watching activities 

in the state of California are the highest of 

any state and totaled about 2.6 billion dollars 

in 2001 (USFWS 2001). For comparison, 

expenditures for recreational fishing in 

California totaled about 2.0 billion dollars in 

2001 (USFWS 2001). 

Ecotourism in the nearshore waters of the 

Southern California Bight is based primarily 

on the gray whale migration and on tours of 

ecologically significant areas. Some 

operators also conduct trips during the blue 

whale and humpback whale season in the 

summer and early fall (Hoyt 2001). Whale 

watching in the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary accounted for 25,984 

person days of recreation activity in 1999 

and generated more than $1.5 million in 

total revenue (Leeworthy and Wiley 2002). 

More generally, non-consumptive recreation 

in the Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary (which includes whale watching, 

non-consumptive diving, sailing, and 

kayaking/island sightseeing) yielded a total 

revenue of about $2.6 million in 1999 

(Leeworthy and Wiley 2002). 

 

7

 Seaports and shipbuilding contributed about $6.0 

billion; offshore oil, gas, and mineral production 

contributed $852 million; and commercial fishing, 

aquaculture, and kelp harvesting contributed $554 

million (Burroughs et al. 1997). 

4.4.9 FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY 

PROGRAMS

The following sections describe relevant 

aspects of federal and state agency programs 

that may be affected by the alternatives 

under consideration. 

4.4.9.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is “to work with others to conserve, 

protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of the American people.” In the case 

of endangered or threatened species like the 

southern sea otter, we are required to 

promote the recovery of the species as 

defined by the Endangered Species Act and 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

Generally, the goal of the Endangered 

Species Act is to ensure the recovery of 

listed species so that they are no longer in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

extinct in the foreseeable future. Under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, federal 

agencies are charged with managing marine 

mammals to their optimum sustainable 

population (OSP) level (or maximum net 

productivity level). For the sea otter, OSP is 

believed to be greater than the population 

level needed to achieve recovery under the 

Endangered Species Act. Our final revised 

recovery plan for the southern sea otter 

identifies a population size of 3,090 as 

necessary to ensure the survival of the 

species and gives the lower bound of the 

OSP as approximately 8,400 animals for the 

California coast (USFWS 2003). 

4.4.9.2 Channel Islands National Park 

The Channel Islands National Park includes 

five of the eight Channel Islands and spans 

249,353 acres, half of which are underwater. 

The park is home to more than 2,000 species 

of terrestrial plants and animals, a wide 

range of marine life, and archaeological and 

cultural resources dating back 10,000 years. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 64

According to the Strategic Plan for Channel 

Islands National Park, the park’s mission is 

to “protect and interpret the natural 

ecosystems and cultural values of the 

Channel Islands and adjacent marine waters 

[...].” The park lies within a United Nations 

Biosphere Reserve, designated in 1976, 

which includes all eight Channel Islands 

(www.unesco.org/mab). The “Park Mission 

Goals” specify that natural, scenic, and 

cultural resources should be “protected, 

restored, understood, and maintained and 

managed within their broader ecosystem and 

cultural context” (CINP n.d.). 

4.4.9.3 Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary 

The Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary is one of 12 National Marine 

Sanctuaries in the United States. 

Completely surrounding Channel Islands 

National Park, the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary extends from mean high 

tide to six nautical miles offshore San 

Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, 

and Santa Barbara Islands (Figure 4-25). 

The sanctuary lies within a United Nations 

Biosphere Reserve, designated in 1976, 

which includes all eight Channel Islands 

(www.unesco.org/mab). Sanctuary waters 

host more than 27 species of cetaceans 

(dolphins and whales), 5 species of 

pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), 60 species of 

birds, and 23 species of sharks (CINMS 

2002b). The mission of the National Marine 

Sanctuary Program is “to conserve and 

enhance biodiversity, ecological integrity 

and cultural legacy of areas of special 

national significance through comprehensive 

long term management and outreach” 

(CINMS 2002a). 

4.4.9.4 California Department of Fish 

and Game 

California Department of Fish and Game 

activities that may be affected by sea otters 

are diverse. These activities include general 

fisheries management or restoration, efforts 

to protect rare species (such as white and 

black abalone and southern sea otters), and 

the implementation of Marine Protected 

Areas. Background on white and black 

abalone and sea otters is 

given under “Candidate, 

Threatened, and 

Endangered Species.” 

Commercial fisheries 

and the now-closed 

abalone fishery are 

discussed under 

“Commercial 

Fisheries.” Marine 

Protected Areas are 

discussed here. 

Marine Protected Areas 

(MPAs) are areas of the 

ocean that are reserved 

for the protection and 

restoration of habitats 

and ecosystems, the 

FIGURE 4-25. CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY conservation of 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 65

biological diversity, the protection of ocean 

life, the enhancement of recreational and 

educational opportunities, the establishment 

of a reference point against which changes 

in the environment elsewhere can be 

measured, and the rebuilding of depleted 

fisheries (McArdle et al. 2003). Twelve 

new MPAs at the Channel Islands were 

designated by the California Fish and Game 

Commission in October of 2002 (Figure 4-

26). These new MPAs are all located in 

state waters within the boundaries of 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. 

Ten of these are “marine reserves,” where 

no fishing or kelp harvesting is allowed. 

Two of these are “conservation areas,” in 

which limited recreational fishing and 

lobster trapping are allowed. As described 

in the Final Environmental Document for 

Marine Protected Areas in NOAA’s Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary (Ugoretz 

2002), the Channel Islands MPAs are 

intended to meet multiple objectives. These 

objectives include an ecosystem biodiversity 

goal, a socio-economic goal, a sustainable 

fisheries goal, a natural and cultural heritage 

goal, and an education goal (Ugoretz 2002). 

The Channel Islands MPAs are also 

intended to meet the requirements of recent 

state legislation emphasizing ecosystem 

management, such as the Marine Life 

Management Act (Chap. 1052, Stats. 1998) 

and the Marine Life Protection Act (Chap. 

1015, Stats. 1999) (Ugoretz 2002). 

4.4.9.5 U.S. Navy 

The waters and airspace of the Southern 

California Bight are used intensively for 

military-related operations. The U.S. Navy 

and U.S. Air Force conduct military 

operations throughout the Pt. Mugu Sea 

Range (Figure 4-27), which extends over 

36,000 square miles (93,240 sq. km), 

including San Nicolas Island and portions of 

FIGURE 4-26. CHANNEL ISLANDS MARINE PROTECTED AREAS.
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 66

the northern Channel Islands but excluding 

most of the Santa Barbara Channel. The 

Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons 

Division at Pt. Mugu carries out extensive 

operations in the sea range, as does 

Vandenberg Air Force Base. 

The Navy uses the Pt. Mugu Sea Range to 

test guided missiles and other weapons 

systems as well as the ships and aircraft that 

serve as platforms to launch them. The sea 

range supports fleet training exercises, 

small-scale amphibious warfare training, 

and special warfare training. In addition to 

the current test and training operations 

conducted on the sea range, the Naval Air 

Warfare Center Weapons Division at Pt. 

Mugu proposes to accommodate Theater 

Missile Defense test and training activities 

and an increase in the current level of fleet 

training exercises and special warfare 

training. The Navy intends to modernize 

facilities at Pt. Mugu and San Nicolas Island 

to increase the capacity of the sea range to 

support existing and future operations. The 

Navy submitted a final environmental 

impact statement/overseas environmental 

impact statement to this effect in 2002 (U.S. 

Department of Defense 2002). 

4.4.9.6 U.S. Minerals Management 

Service 

The Pacific Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 

extends offshore from the California-Mexico 

border to the Washington-Canada border. In 

the past, the Minerals Management Service 

issued Federal leases for oil and natural gas 

exploration and development off 

Washington, Oregon, and California. 

However, only 79 leases remain, plus 4 

leases that are under appeal,8

 and all are 

located off southern California. Seventyfive of the leases (plus the 4 leases under 

appeal) are located off San Luis Obispo, 

Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties, while 

4 leases lie off Los Angeles and Orange 

Counties. Currently, 43 of these leases are 

developed and producing about 80,000 

barrels of oil and 154 million cubic feet of 

natural gas per day from 23 OCS platforms. 

Four of the platforms are located in the 

Santa Maria Basin north of Point 

Conception, 15 are located in the Santa 

Barbara Channel, and 4 are located in San 

Pedro Bay off Long Beach (Figures 4-28 

and 4-29) (MMS pers. comm. 2005). 

Thirty-six of the 79 Federal leases off 

southern California are undeveloped, as are 

the 4 leases under appeal. The undeveloped 

leases, for which unproven reserves are 

estimated to be over 1 billion barrels of oil 

and over 500 billion cubic feet of natural 

gas, are organized into nine units and one 

non-unitized lease. These leases are 

 

8

 On August 16, 1999, four leases expired after the 

Minerals Management Service determined that the 

geological/geophysical/petroleum engineering 

interpretations of the leases no longer supported their 

inclusion within their respective units. The lessees 

have appealed this decision to the Interior Board of 

Land Appeals. 

FIGURE 4-27. PT. MUGU SEA RANGE. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 67

generally dispersed through an area in which 

production has been occurring for over 30 

years and development of the producing 

leases is continuing. In 1999, the Minerals 

Management Service granted the operators 

suspensions on the units/lease. A

suspension is defined in 30 CFR §250.105 

as “a granted or directed deferral of the 

requirement to produce [Suspension of 

Production (SOP)] or to conduct 

leaseholding operations [Suspension of 

Operations (SOO)].” Consequently, two 

lawsuits were filed: California v. Norton, in 

the Northern District of California, and 

Amber Resources et al. v. United States

(Amber), in the Court of Federal Claims 

(MMS pers. comm. 2005). 

As a result of the ruling against the 

Department of the Interior in California v. 

Norton, the Minerals Management Service 

produced documents under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that 

reviewed the decisions proposed by the 

Minerals Management Service on the 

suspensions and developed documents under 

the Coastal Zone Management Act 

determining if the Minerals Management 

Service's granting of the suspensions was 

consistent with the California Coastal 

Management Plan. The Minerals 

Management Service released Draft 

Environmental Assessments (EAs) for 

public comment in November 2004 and 

finalized the EAs and their associated 

Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs) 

in February 2005. Subsequent to the release 

of the EAs, in March 2005, a third lawsuit 

concerning the undeveloped leases was 

filed, League for Coastal Protection, et al. v. 

Norton in the Northern District of 

California, asserting, in part, that the 

FIGURE 4-28. OIL LEASES OFF SANTA BARBARA AND VENTURA COUNTIES. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 68

Minerals Management Service should have 

produced an Environmental Impact 

Statement rather than FONSIs on the 

suspensions. The Minerals Management 

Service prepared 10 separate consistency 

determinations (one for each unit and one 

for the non-unitized lease) and a supporting 

Environmental Information Document and 

filed them with the California Coastal 

Commission in April 2005. The Coastal 

Commission is scheduled to vote on the 

consistency determinations in August 2005 

(MMS pers. comm. 2005). 

In Amber Resources et al. v. United States, 

lessees of the undeveloped Federal leases 

sued the U.S. Government for breach of 

contract, stating that 

they have not been 

permitted to proceed 

with development of 

their leases. 

Resolution or 

settlement has not 

yet been achieved, 

despite mediated 

discussions in May 

2004 in San 

Francisco, CA 

(MMS pers. comm. 

2005). 

The physical 

presence of the oil 

industry offshore 

California will 

diminish over the 

next several 

decades. Some of 

the OCS platforms 

are approaching the 

end of their 

productive life, and 

the lengthy permit 

application process 

for 

decommissioning 

could begin within the next 5 to 10 years. 

Any proposed actions (development or 

decommissioning) will undergo rigorous 

environmental review by the Minerals 

Management Service under NEPA and, for 

those actions that may affect threatened or 

endangered species, consultation under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

(MMS pers. comm. 2005). 

4.4.10 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

The southern sea otter is listed as a 

threatened species under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended, and is 

therefore considered a depleted species 

under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 

FIGURE 4-29. OIL LEASES OFF LOS ANGELES AND ORANGE COUNTIES. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 69

1972, as amended. The state of California 

also recognizes the southern sea otter as a 

fully protected mammal in Fish and Game 

Code section 4700 and as a protected marine 

mammal under Fish and Game Code section 

4500. Under all of these laws, intentional 

take of southern sea otters is prohibited. 

There are provisions under the Endangered 

Species Act and the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act for permitting certain types 

of incidental take upon consultation with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service; however, 

California’s designation of southern sea 

otters as a fully protected species prohibits 

any form of take with narrow exceptions for 

scientific research. 

As a free-standing act of Congress, Public 

Law 99-625 changed the status of sea otters 

residing in certain areas with respect to the 

Endangered Species Act and the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. Intentional take of 

sea otters residing in the designated 

translocation zone (San Nicolas Island) and 

management zone (the Southern California 

Bight) is prohibited. With the exception of 

defense-related activities, incidental take 

within the translocation zone is subject to 

consultation requirements under the 

Endangered Species Act and the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. In the designated 

management zone, take incidental to 

otherwise legal activities, including 

commercial fisheries, is not subject to 

consultation requirements and is not 

considered a violation of either the 

Endangered Species Act or the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. 

To accommodate Public Law 99-625 and to 

support the southern sea otter translocation 

program, the state of California added 

Section 8664.2 to the Fish and Game Code. 

This section provides additional protection 

for translocated sea otters in the form of 

gill/trammel net restrictions and prohibitions 

on the discharge of firearms at San Nicolas 

Island. This section also allows for 

incidental take of sea otters found in the 

management zone by means of specific 

exemptions from Fish and Game Code 

section 4700. Unlike Public Law 99-625, 

Section 8664.2 does not provide an 

exemption from section 4700 for defenserelated activities within the translocation 

zone. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 4. Description of the Affected Environment 70

This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 5. Significance Criteria and Definitions of Levels of Impact 71

Chapter 5. Significance 

Criteria and Definitions of 

Levels of Impact 

This supplement determines, where possible, 

whether biological entities or socioeconomic 

activities would be subject to significant or 

insignificant impacts from the alternatives 

under consideration. The determination of 

significance takes into consideration both 

the context and intensity of the potential 

impact [40 CFR 1508.27]. 

Significance criteria and definitions of levels 

of impact are given only for those impact 

topics where the effects can be predicted 

with some reasonable certainty. Levels of 

significance are not defined for aquaculture 

because the effects of sea otter foraging on 

offshore oil platform mussel production (the 

primary form of aquaculture in the Santa 

Barbara Channel that may potentially be 

affected by sea otters within the next 10 

years) are likely to be localized and sporadic 

(see section 6.2.5). Levels of significance 

are not defined for kelp harvest and 

finfishing because: 1) the abundance of kelp 

and finfish is influenced by a number of 

biotic and abiotic factors in the ocean 

environment, some of which cannot be 

predicted with any reasonable accuracy; 2) 

the development of kelp in areas recolonized 

by sea otters would likely take 10 or more 

years (see section 6.2.7), whereas 

significance criteria are defined only for 

effects occurring within 10 years; and 3) the 

expected enhancement of finfish abundance 

is dependent on the change in abundance of 

kelp. Levels of significance are not defined 

for abalone fishery restoration because of 

the uncertain baseline for abalone fishery 

restoration; the Abalone Recovery and 

Management Plan (CDFG 2002c) does not 

provide projections of when the abalone 

fishery might be reopened (beyond the 

suggestion that it might take decades), citing 

any such projections as “speculative” (see 

section 6.2.9). Levels of significance are not 

defined for ecotourism because we have 

insufficient information to predict the 

correlation between numbers and location of 

sea otters and the additional revenue that 

would potentially accrue to ecotourism 

operations. Finally, effects on agency 

programs are not defined because these 

effects and programs are various and cannot 

be meaningfully compared with a single set 

of criteria. While we have not assigned 

levels of significance to these topics, we do 

address each of them qualitatively under 

each alternative discussed in Chapter 6. 

Where significance criteria have been 

defined, a term is included in text and tables 

to describe the severity of the impact. This 

impact may be either adverse or beneficial 

and is identified as such when the term is 

used. Definitions of these terms are 

provided in Table 5-1. Generally, the term 

Very Low is used to describe the level to 

which an impact would need to be reduced 

by mitigation to be considered insignificant. 

Other terms (Low to Very High) indicate the 

severity of impacts that are determined to be 

significant. 

The percentages associated with each term 

describing a level of significance (e.g., a 

change of less than 1% = Very Low; a 

change of between 1% and 10% = Low, 

etc.) are generally based on those used in 

reference to effects on commercial fishing in 

our 1987 final environmental impact 

statement. However, that document defined 

the regional context as San Luis Obispo, 

Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties, while 

acknowledging that effects were probably 

distributed over a larger southern California 

area. Because the alternatives under 

consideration directly concern the nearshore 

waters of the Southern California Bight, we 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 5. Significance Criteria and Definitions of Levels of Impact 72

define the regional context as the Southern 

California Bight. 

The significance criteria and definitions of 

levels of impact given in Table 5-1 are used 

only in reference to effects projected to 

occur within 10 years. Because of the 

number of independent factors and 

uncertainty involved in predictions beyond 

10 years, possible long-term effects are 

described in qualitative terms only and are 

not described in terms of levels of impact. 

Effects of the alternatives under 

consideration are described in detail in 

Chapter 6 and are summarized at the end of 

that chapter in Tables 6-43 and 6-44. 

TABLE 5-1. DEFINITIONS OF LEVELS OF IMPACT REPRESENTED BY TERMS USED IN THIS 

DOCUMENT 

Significant Not significant 

Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 

Nearshore 

Marine 

Ecosystem 

Uncertain; magnitude not defined* 

Candidate, 

Threatened, 

and 

Endangered 

Species 

Long-term, large 

scale adverse 

effects to the 

species 

Key segments of 

the population or 

key behaviors 

affected; would 

likely change the 

prospects of 

recovery of the 

species 

Local population 

effects that would 

not likely change 

the prospects of 

recovery of the 

species 

Some individuals 

may be affected 

but no effect at 

local population 

level 

Change in 

abundance that 

cannot be 

measured against 

natural variation in 

population size 

Commercial 

Fisheries 

Change in ex-vessel 

revenues for the 

SCB commercial 

fishery greater than 

30% 

Change in exvessel revenues for 

the SCB 

commercial 

fishery of 21-30% 

Change in exvessel revenues for 

the SCB 

commercial 

fishery of 11-20% 

Change in exvessel revenues for 

the SCB 

commercial 

fishery of 1-10% 

Change in exvessel revenues for 

the SCB 

commercial fishery 

of less than 1% 

Aquaculture Uncertain; magnitude not defined* 

Seafood 

Processing 

Industry (Sea 

Urchins) 

Change in sea 

urchin inputs to the 

processing industry 

greater than 30% 

Change in sea 

urchin inputs to 

the processing 

industry of 21-

30% 

Change in sea 

urchin inputs to 

the processing 

industry of 11-

20% 

Change in sea 

urchin inputs to 

the processing 

industry of 1-10% 

Change in sea 

urchin inputs to the 

processing industry 

of less than 1% 

Kelp Harvest Uncertain; magnitude not defined* 

Lobster 

Diving 

Change in number 

of dive trips for the 

SCB recreational 

lobster fishery 

greater than 30% 

Change in number 

of dive trips for 

the SCB 

recreational 

lobster fishery of 

21-30% 

Change in number 

of dive trips for 

the SCB 

recreational 

lobster fishery of 

11-20% 

Change in number 

of dive trips for 

the SCB 

recreational 

lobster fishery of 

1-10% 

Change in number 

of dive trips for the 

SCB recreational 

lobster fishery of 

less than 1% 

Recreational Fishing 

and Diving 

Finfish 

Fishing 

Uncertain; magnitude not defined* 

Abalone 

Fishery 

Restoration 

 Uncertain; magnitude not defined* 

Ecotourism Uncertain; magnitude not defined* 

Agency 

Programs 

Not defined** 

*Definitions of levels of impact are provided for all biological entities and socioeconomic activities expected to be affected by the alternatives 

under consideration except those entities or activities where impacts are too uncertain to describe in these terms. 

**Significance criteria are not defined for effects on agency programs because these effects and programs are various and cannot be meaningfully 

compared with a single set of criteria. 

SCB=Southern California Bight 

Local population level=Change in population densities of all age- or size-classes in a limited area of the affected species’ range 

Species level=Change in population densities in a substantial portion of the affected species’ range that would likely affect its long-term survival 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Overview 73

Chapter 6. Environmental 

Consequences 

6.1 Overview 

Effects of the alternatives under 

consideration are described in detail in this 

chapter and are summarized in Tables 6-43 

and 6-44. Table 6-43 gives a summary of 

biological impacts by alternative. Table 6-

44 gives a summary of socioeconomic 

impacts by alternative. For impact topics for 

which significance criteria have been 

defined (see Chapter 5 for definitions of 

significance), Tables 6-43 and 6-44 also 

give the level of significance of each of the 

anticipated effects. 

6.1.1 DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND CUMULATIVE 

EFFECTS

Effects resulting from the alternatives 

presented in Chapter 3 may be classified as 

direct or indirect. Either of these, in 

combination with the effects of past or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, may 

result in cumulative effects. 

Direct effects are caused by an action and 

occur at the same time and place (40 CFR 

§1508.8). For the alternatives analyzed in 

this supplement, direct effects are limited to 

the potential for injury or death of individual 

sea otters moved out of the management or 

translocation zones and effects on agencies 

where regulatory changes would result from 

implementation of a specific alternative. 

Most effects associated with the alternatives 

analyzed here are indirect. Indirect effects 

are reasonably foreseeable effects caused by 

an action, but they occur later in time or are 

farther removed in distance than direct 

effects (40 CFR §1508.8). Indirect effects 

considered in this supplement are associated 

with the distribution of sea otters in the 

Southern California Bight. Predation on 

shellfish by sea otters reoccupying historic 

habitat can cause considerable changes in 

the demographics of shellfish populations 

and lead to broader ecological and 

socioeconomic changes. In the case of 

ecotourism, indirect effects may result from 

the mere presence of sea otters in the 

Southern California Bight. Ultimately, the 

health and recovery potential of the entire 

southern sea otter population will be 

indirectly affected by the alternative that is 

selected. 

Cumulative effects are those resulting from 

the incremental effects of an action when 

added to the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other 

actions (40 CFR §1508.7). The effect of sea 

otter predation on abalone populations in the 

Southern California Bight, when combined 

with the effects of past actions that have 

already driven these populations to low 

levels, is one example of a cumulative effect 

considered in this supplement. Throughout 

this document, we do not discuss cumulative 

effects separately but rather address them in 

the contexts in which they arise. 

6.1.2 BACKGROUND

As described in Chapter 2 (Background), the 

Service discontinued translocating sea otters 

to San Nicolas Island in 1990 and suspended 

capture efforts in the management zone in 

1993. In 1998, about 100 sea otters moved 

into the Cojo Anchorage area near Point 

Conception at the northern border of the 

management zone. Although these sea 

otters left the management zone by midsummer, about 150 sea otters again moved 

into the Cojo Anchorage area in January 

1999. Smaller groups of sea otters have 

seasonally moved into and out of the 

management zone in subsequent years. 

 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Overview 74

To establish a baseline for our analysis, we 

assume that, absent efforts to remove them 

from the management zone, southern sea 

otters will continue to expand their range 

into southern California. At San Nicolas 

Island, a small colony of sea otters (32 

independent animals as of the end of 2004) 

persists. To establish a baseline for our 

analysis with respect to sea otters at the 

island, we assume that this colony will 

survive and grow at a rate comparable to 

what has been observed since 1993. 

6.1.3 TIMELINE FOR ANALYSIS

In this supplement, we use a 10-year time 

horizon for the quantitative analysis of 

effects. The rationale for using 10 years is 

based in part on the uncertainty of economic 

projections beyond 10 years and in part on 

the extent of uncertainty involved in 

predicting sea otter range expansion. 

However, not all effects that are expected to 

occur within 10 years are quantified. Some 

effects are speculative in nature, depend on 

numerous independent factors, or will occur 

at unknown magnitudes; these effects are 

described in qualitative terms only. 

We describe all effects that may occur 

beyond the 10-year time horizon in 

qualitative terms. For the purposes of our 

analysis, we assume that sea otters will 

gradually (over the course of many decades) 

reoccupy the portions of the Southern 

California Bight open to them under each 

alternative. This assumption, though 

reasonable, may be incorrect. Continuous 

range expansion and growth of the sea otter 

population are not certain. 

6.1.4 PREDICTING MAINLAND RANGE 

EXPANSION AND COLONY GROWTH AT SAN 

NICOLAS ISLAND 

The mainland southern sea otter population 

is currently distributed over roughly 500 

kilometers of coastline from Half Moon Bay 

to just south of Point Conception. Over the 

past several decades, sea otter range 

expansion along the mainland coastline has 

been monitored. These historical data, in 

combination with spatially-explicit 

demographic and movement information, 

serve as the basis for projections of future 

range expansion into the Southern California 

Bight. Because extension of the southern 

sea otter’s range along the mainland 

coastline is essentially linear, this range 

expansion is expressed in terms of linear 

sections of coastline. In contrast, at San 

Nicolas Island, sea otter foraging is limited 

to a relatively small area surrounding the 

island, which sea otters are easily capable of 

circumnavigating. Because of these 

differences, predictions of the effects of sea 

otter range expansion and population growth 

require different strategies for the two 

different areas. Projections of the likely 

speed and extent of range expansion along 

the mainland and colony growth at San 

Nicolas Island follow. 

6.1.4.1 Sea Otter Range Expansion 

into Southern California 

The results of a simulation model (Tinker et 

al. 2004, included as Appendix F) afford the 

best available projection of sea otter range 

expansion into the Southern California 

Bight. In a 10-year scenario, this simulation 

model predicts that approximately 117 

(median number) independent sea otters will 

reside year-round along a stretch of the 

mainland coastline between Point 

Conception and the Santa Barbara harbor 

mouth (Figure 6-1). While the model 

provides a mathematical basis for the 

estimation of future impacts associated with 

sea otter range expansion, it should be noted 

that the range end predicted by the model 

under this scenario is a median value and 

that there is considerable unavoidable 

uncertainty surrounding the estimate. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Overview 75

Moreover, individual sea otters could and 

likely would travel further into the Southern 

California Bight during this 10-year period. 

Sporadic movements of individual sea otters 

are impossible to predict, however, and the 

effects of their foraging activities would not 

likely be measurable in an environmental or 

fishery context. Therefore, we do not 

attempt to quantify the effects of individual 

far-ranging sea otters.

6.1.4.2 San Nicolas Island Colony 

Growth 

Our 1987 environmental impact statement 

evaluated the effects of a sea otter colony at 

San Nicolas Island by projecting population 

growth (at a rate of 5 percent) and 

estimating the length of coastline that would 

be occupied by the number of sea otters 

inhabiting the island each year after 

translocation (Appendix A in USFWS 

1987). The relationship between population 

size and length of occupied shoreline was 

based on data from the 1984 spring census 

of the sea otter population conducted along 

the central coast of California. We assumed 

that the percentage of habitat occupied by 

sea otters corresponded directly to the 

percentage of shellfish fishery impacts 

caused by sea otters. For example, we 

assumed that when 50 percent of the 

available habitat was occupied by sea otters, 

shellfish harvests would be reduced by 50 

percent. 

The impacts to fisheries at San Nicolas 

Island projected in our 1987 environmental 

impact statement have not been realized. 

Even with the translocation of 140 animals 

to San Nicolas Island, we were unable to 

achieve and maintain the core population 

size of 70 sea otters that was to have been 

the seed of subsequent sea otter population 

growth. Instead, the colony of sea otters has 

remained small (13-32 independent animals) 

for many years. Nevertheless, we assume 

that if the colony persisted at San Nicolas 

FIGURE 6-1. COASTAL AREA PROJECTED TO BE AFFECTED BY SEA OTTER PREDATION 

WITHIN 10 YEARS. *The southern range boundary is defined as in Tinker et al. (2004). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Overview 76

Island, fishery impacts would likely occur at 

some time in the future. 

Despite the uncertainty involved in 

predicting population growth, particularly of 

a small colony (which may not follow 

expected general growth trends because of 

the effects of demographic and 

environmental stochasticity9

), it is necessary 

for the purposes of our analysis to estimate 

the potential effects of the existing colony of 

sea otters on the island’s nearshore 

environment. The determination of impacts 

at San Nicolas Island used in this 

supplement is a modification of the 

approach used in the 1987 final 

environmental impact statement. While we 

assume the same direct relationship between 

percent occupation of habitat and percent 

loss of shellfish fisheries, we use a spatial 

rather than linear approach to quantifying 

the available habitat at San Nicolas Island. 

We use a geographic information system 

(GIS)-based estimation of the area of 

nearshore habitat surrounding San Nicolas 

Island and a more-recently-derived estimate 

of equilibrium density for sea otters in rocky 

habitat than the one used in the 1987 

environmental impact statement. 

Additionally, we recalculate the population 

projection using the highest number of 

independent sea otters counted at San 

Nicolas Island during 2004 (32) and the 

observed average annual growth rate of the 

 

9

 Demographic stochasticity refers to the effect of 

chance on whether a small population will increase or 

decrease from one year to the next. When a 

population is small, the chance fate of individual 

animals (such as the death of several females, or the 

chance birth of only males in a single year) can 

overwhelm the probabilities used to predict the 

growth rate of a large population. Environmental 

stochasticity refers to annual variation in 

environmental conditions (such as weather) and more 

infrequent catastrophic events, both of which can 

reduce or even eliminate a population. In small 

populations, the lack of sufficient numbers to buffer 

these erratic swings may result in their extinction. 

sea otter colony over an 11-year period 

(1993-2004), approximately 9 percent. 

Laidre et al. (2001) derive carrying capacity 

as the product of equilibrium density for a 

type of habitat (rocky, sandy, or mixed) and 

the amount of that habitat available. 

Although they give an estimated carrying 

capacity for the Channel Islands as a whole 

(approximately 3,300 animals), they do not 

estimate carrying capacities for the 

individual islands. To derive the carrying 

capacity for San Nicolas Island, we use an 

equilibrium density of 5.12 sea otters per 

square kilometer(the mean of three 

equilibrium densities developed by Laidre et 

al. 2001 for rocky habitat) and a GISderived habitat area at San Nicolas Island 

(nearshore waters between the coastline and 

the 40 meter isobath) of 97 square 

kilometers. Calculated in this way, the 

carrying capacity for San Nicolas Island is 

497 sea otters. 

In the absence of detailed demographic data 

for the colony at San Nicolas Island, we use 

a simple exponential model of population 

growth: Nt = N0e

rt, where Nt is the numbers 

of sea otters at time t, N0 is the initial 

number of sea otters, e is the base of the 

natural logarithm (a constant, 2.718...), r is 

the per capita growth rate, and t is the 

amount of time that has elapsed. For N0, we 

use 32, the highest count of independent 

animals at San Nicolas Island in 2004. For 

r, we use the observed average annual rate 

of increase of the colony during the period 

1993-2004 (the time between the smallest 

observed population size of the colony and 

the present), or about 9 percent. Table 6-1 

shows the observed number of sea otters in 

2004 and the number of sea otters expected 

each year for ten years (2005-2014); it also 

gives an estimate of the percentage of 

carrying capacity that each number 

represents. Although fishery impacts may 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Overview 77

not be detectable until some unknown 

population threshold is reached, we assume, 

in the absence of more complete 

information, that these impacts correspond 

directly to the percent occupation of 

available habitat. 

6.1.5 BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC 

IMPACT TOPICS

The biological and socioeconomic effects 

analyzed for each alternative are grouped 

into the following topics: 

• Nearshore Marine Ecosystem 

• Candidate, Threatened, and 

Endangered Species 

• Commercial fisheries 

• Aquaculture 

• Seafood Processing Industry (Sea 

Urchins) 

• Kelp Harvest 

• Recreational Fishing and Diving 

• Abalone Fishery Restoration 

• Ecotourism 

• Federal and State Agency Programs 

• Regulatory Environment

TABLE 6-1. PROJECTED NUMBER OF SEA 

OTTERS AND PERCENT OF CARRYING 

CAPACITY AT SAN NICOLAS ISLAND 

Year Projected 

Number of 

Sea Otters 

(9% growth rate) 

Estimated Percent 

of Carrying 

Capacity 

2004 32* 6 

2005 35 7 

2006 38 8 

2007 42 8 

2008 46 9 

2009 50 10 

2010 55 11 

2011 60 12 

2012 66 13 

2013 72 14 

2014 79 16 

*Actual high count of independent sea otters for 

2004; all other numbers are projections. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 78

6.2 Baseline (Status Quo)—The 

No Action Alternative 

6.2.1 INTRODUCTION

As described in Chapter 2, on January 22, 

2001, we issued a policy statement 

regarding capture and removal of southern 

sea otters in the designated management 

zone [66 FR 6649]. The notice advised the 

public that we would not capture and 

remove southern sea otters from the 

management zone pending completion of a 

reevaluation of the southern sea otter 

translocation program, including the 

preparation of a supplemental environmental 

impact statement and release of a final 

evaluation of the translocation program, 

including an analysis of failure criteria. 

Based on our July 2000 biological opinion, 

we determined that containment of sea otters 

was not consistent with our legal duty under 

the Endangered Species Act to avoid 

jeopardy to the species. 

Analysis of the No Action Alternative 

(hereafter referred to as the baseline) 

provides the benchmark against which we 

evaluate the effects of the other alternatives 

considered in this supplement. Currently, 

maintenance of the management zone 

remains suspended, and sea otters may move 

freely throughout the Southern California 

Bight. With no action taken to remove 

them, over the next 10 years sea otters are 

predicted to expand their range gradually 

along the mainland coastline to Santa 

Barbara and to increase in number at San 

Nicolas Island. In the long-term, over the 

course of several decades, sea otters may 

progressively occupy other areas of the 

Southern California Bight. The following 

analysis describes the changes that would be 

expected over time if the present course of 

action were maintained and serves as a 

baseline for comparison with the other 

alternatives under consideration in this 

supplement. 

6.2.2 NEARSHORE MARINE ECOSYSTEM

6.2.2.1 Overview 

The effects of sea otter predation on the 

nearshore marine ecosystem are described in 

Chapter VI of our 1987 environmental 

impact statement. Although the reduction of 

invertebrate prey populations would begin 

immediately upon the arrival of sea otters in 

an area, subsequent environmental effects 

would occur gradually as sea otter densities 

increased. The environmental changes 

caused by sea otter predation may be 

broadly summarized as follows: 

1) A considerable reduction in the 

abundance of invertebrate prey 

species to depths of 25 meters (with 

effects decreasing at depths greater 

than 25 meters and approaching zero 

at depths greater than 40 meters); 

2) A probable increase in the 

abundance of kelp in areas where 

grazing pressure by sea urchins is 

limiting kelp growth or 

establishment; and 

3) A possible increase in abundance of 

kelp-canopy-dependent species. 

Sea otters reoccupying the nearshore marine 

environment are expected to enhance 

biodiversity and the stability and persistence 

of kelp forest habitat. The marine 

environment of southern California has been 

dramatically affected by human activities, 

such as the direct removal of many of the 

animal components of the community and 

the input of pollution, making it difficult to 

determine the “natural” functioning of the 

community (Dayton et al. 1998). The return 

of sea otters, top carnivores that were 

historically present in the ecosystem, is 

expected to enhance ecosystem functioning 

and to bring the nearshore marine ecosystem 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 79

to a state more closely resembling its 

historic (pre-fur-trade), or “natural,” 

condition. Over the next 10 years, if sea 

otters recolonized the coastline to Santa 

Barbara and the San Nicolas Island colony 

expanded in size as projected, sea otters 

would occupy a total of about 1.7 percent of 

the nearshore habitat area within the 40 

meter isobath in the Southern California 

Bight. The following discussion provides a 

more detailed description of the role that sea 

otters play in the nearshore marine 

environment and the changes expected to 

occur in areas of the Southern California 

Bight reoccupied by sea otters. 

6.2.2.2 Sea Otters and the Nearshore 

Marine Ecosystem 

Sea otters are important predators in the 

nearshore marine ecosystems of the North 

Pacific Ocean and are generally considered 

to be a keystone species in these 

communities (Estes and Palmisano 1974, 

Palmisano and Estes 1977, Estes et al. 1978, 

Duggins 1980, Palmisano 1983, Estes and 

Harrold 1988). Keystone species are 

organisms that have large-scale community 

effects disproportionate to their abundance 

(Meffe and Carroll 1997). 

The effects that sea otters have on their 

environment arise largely from predation. 

Sea otters consume a wide variety of 

nearshore marine invertebrates (including 

sea urchins, abalone, crabs, lobsters, clams, 

and mussels) and exert a strong limiting 

influence on their prey populations (see 

section 4.3.1.2, this supplement; Riedman 

and Estes 1990). Sea otters tend to restrict 

prey populations to cryptic and inaccessible 

habitats, such as deep cracks and crevices in 

rocky areas, or to deep waters (sea otters 

usually forage in waters of 25 meters or less 

and only rarely in depths exceeding 40 

meters) (Riedman and Estes 1990). In sandy 

areas, bivalves may escape predation by 

burrowing deeply. Sea otters also tend to 

select larger prey, which minimizes 

predation on smaller individuals (Riedman 

and Estes 1990). 

SEA URCHINS AND KELP ABUNDANCE

Sea urchins are favored prey for sea otters 

and have a prominent effect on the 

nearshore marine environment. They are 

commonly viewed as the most important 

subtidal grazers of macrophytes (large algae, 

including kelp) in the Southern California 

Bight (Murray and Bray 1993). Most 

overgrazing is ascribed to red and purple sea 

urchins (Ebeling et al. 1985) or to red, 

purple, and white sea urchins (Engle 1994). 

While white sea urchins generally consume 

smaller algae, at sufficient densities (greater 

than 10 per square meter) they can 

effectively prevent the reestablishment of 

kelp once it has disappeared from an area 

(Durham et al. 1980). 

In southern California, overgrazing by sea 

urchins tends to occur when giant kelp 

(Macrocystis pyrifera) becomes scarce. 

When giant kelp is abundant, sea urchins 

typically feed on drift kelp, pieces of algae 

that break off and drift down from the 

canopy above (Duggins 1980, Harrold and 

Reed 1985). Under these conditions, sea 

urchins remain fairly stationary and feed 

opportunistically, and large numbers of sea 

urchins may have little effect on attached 

plants (Lowry and Pearse 1973, Foster 1975, 

Cowen et al. 1982). However, shortages of 

drift kelp can cause starving sea urchins to 

gather together in moving “fronts,” which 

can clear all attached macroalgae in their 

path (Dean et al. 1984, Harrold and Reed 

1985, Engle 1994). Intense grazing in areas 

densely populated by sea urchins can lead to 

the formation of sea urchin “barrens,” areas 

that are devoid of kelp and are characterized 

instead by crustose coralline algal 

assemblages (Dayton 1985, Foster and 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 80

Schiel 1985, Engle 1994). Monitoring at 

sixteen sites throughout the Channel Islands 

National Park from 1992-8 revealed that 

percent cover of algae declined with purple 

sea urchin density, suggesting that purple 

sea urchins can structure kelp forest 

communities (Lafferty and Kushner 2000). 

According to a generally accepted sea ottersea urchin-kelp community ecological 

paradigm, sea otters function as top 

predators in a three-level trophic cascade, in 

which sea otter predation limits populations 

of herbivorous invertebrates that would 

otherwise limit kelp and other macroalgae 

(Van Blaricom and Estes 1988, Estes and 

Duggins 1995). A number of studies have 

established a link between sea otter 

predation on invertebrate herbivores and 

increased algal abundance at specific sites 

(McLean 1962, Estes and Palmisano 1974, 

Estes et al. 1978, Simenstad et al. 1978, 

Duggins 1980, Breen et al. 1982, Laur et al.

1988, Oshurkov et al. 1988, Duggins et al.

1989, Watson 1993). Recently, Estes and 

Duggins (1995) have shown that sea otter 

predation has a broadly generalizable 

influence on the structure of kelp forests in 

Alaska. 

However, the general applicability of the sea 

otter-sea urchin-kelp paradigm to 

ecosystems in California has been 

questioned (Foster and Schiel 1988, Foster 

1990). Foster and Schiel (1988) contend 

that while sea otters can have a great impact 

on the abundances of large sea urchins, 

which can in turn cause great changes in 

algal assemblages at particular sites, these 

effects are overshadowed at larger scales by 

a complex of other factors that can influence 

kelp distribution, such as water motion, 

light, nutrient levels, substratum type and 

availability, and the presence of other sea 

urchin predators. They point out that the 

effects of sea urchin grazing are highly 

variable in the absence of sea otters, and that 

deforestation by sea urchins in California is 

the exception rather than the rule (10 to 20 

percent of sites surveyed) (Foster and Schiel 

1988, Foster 1990). 

One complicating factor arises from the fact 

that several predators besides sea otters can 

affect sea urchin abundance in southern 

California. Known predators of sea urchins 

in the Southern California Bight also include 

spiny lobsters, sea stars, crabs, and fishes 

(such as sheephead) (Kalvass and RogersBennet 2001). Sunflower sea stars and 

spiny lobsters, where not fished to low 

levels, have been shown to be important 

predators of sea urchins at the Channel 

Islands, and in turn predation has been 

positively correlated with lower rates of 

density-dependent bacterial disease in sea 

urchins (Lafferty and Kushner 2000). 

Additionally, human harvest has 

considerably reduced densities of red sea 

urchins in many areas of the northern 

Channel Islands (Kalvass and RogersBennet 2001), and it has been suggested by 

some that human harvest has filled the niche 

historically occupied by the sea otter. 

However, commercial fisheries focus 

harvest effort on commercially valuable 

species (i.e., red sea urchins) (Kalvass and 

Rogers-Bennett 2001), whereas sea otters 

are less selective and prey on a variety of 

sea urchin species (Riedman and Estes 

1990). The selective harvest of red sea 

urchins may in turn encourage the growth of 

white and purple sea urchin populations by 

releasing them from competition (reviewed 

in Foster and Schiel 1985), allowing them to 

reach high densities and to maintain some 

areas as sea urchin barrens. Sea urchins, 

when starving (as is often the case in the 

wake of warm-water El Niño episodes, 

which adversely affect giant kelp) are of 

little value to the commercial fishery due to 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 81

the atrophy of their gonads (the consumable 

portion of the sea urchin). Due to the 

resulting fluctuations in harvest effort, these 

sea urchins tend to remain in their 

established barrens unless removed by some 

other form of predation, eliminated by 

disease (Ebeling and Laur 1988), or 

removed abiotically, such as by a severe 

storm (Ebeling et al. 1985). 

Densities of sea urchins are currently high in 

the Southern California Bight. In 2001, 12 

of the 16 sites monitored by the Channel 

Islands National Park were dominated by 

echinoderms rather than by kelp: 2 by purple 

sea urchins; 1 by red sea urchins; 5 by 

purple and red sea urchins; 1 by purple and 

white sea urchins; 1 by purple and red sea 

urchins and brittle stars (Ophiothrix 

spiculata); and 1 by purple sea urchins, 

aggregated red sea cucumbers (Pachythyone 

rubra), and cup coral (Astrangia 

lajollaensis) (Kushner et al. 2004). 

 

The effectiveness with which sea otters limit 

invertebrate herbivore populations is not in 

question and is well-established (McLean 

1962, Ebert 1968a and 1968b, Lowry and 

Pearse 1973, Wild and Ames 1974, Gotshall 

et al. 1976, Benech 1977, Laurent and 

Benech 1977, Pearse and Hines 1979, 

Ostfeld 1982, Laur et al. 1988). Rather, 

disagreement among scientists focuses on 

the relative importance of the role of sea 

urchin herbivory in influencing kelp 

abundance. Rocky habitats in the Southern 

California Bight may periodically alternate 

between sea urchin-dominated and kelpdominated states for reasons unrelated to 

overgrazing, such as the action of severe 

storms (Ebeling et al. 1985). However, sea 

otters may strengthen the resilience of kelp 

forest communities in the face of major 

perturbations by preventing overgrazing by 

sea urchins (which can follow the loss of 

drift kelp due to severe storms or periods of 

unusually strong sea urchin recruitment) 

(Van Blaricom 1984). In areas where sea 

urchin grazing is limiting kelp establishment 

or growth, the presence of sea otters can 

generally be expected to result in an 

increased abundance of kelp. 

RATE OF CHANGE IN KELP ABUNDANCE

The rate at which community-level changes 

would occur if sea otters became 

reestablished in southern California waters 

cannot be predicted with precision, but the 

development of giant kelp canopies (in areas 

where sea urchins are limiting kelp 

abundance) would likely require a minimum 

of a decade after the restriction of sea 

urchins to cryptic and inaccessible habitat by 

sea otter predation. Van Blaricom (1984) 

proposed that 10 or more years were 

required for algal communities in central 

California to reach a seral stage dominated 

by giant kelp. Dayton and Tegner (1984) 

concluded that a minimum of 10 years was 

required for seral replacement in understory 

patches in the Point Loma kelp forest near 

San Diego, and that changes in giant kelp 

abundance occur over longer time scales. 

On a much smaller scale, Laur et al. (1988) 

experimentally excluded sea urchins from 

plots in a sea urchin-dominated barren 

ground at Naples Reef (to the west of Santa 

Barbara) and found that algal turfs and small 

kelp plants (Macrocystis pyrifera and 

Pterygophora californica) soon overgrew 

the coralline algal pavements. However, 

kelp forests differ in structure and species 

composition both within and between beds 

in the Southern California Bight (Murray 

and Bray 1993), and different abiotic and 

biotic factors can strongly affect rates of 

kelp growth or reestablishment in specific 

areas (Dayton et al. 1998). 

One such biotic factor, which may affect the 

rate of macroalgal establishment even in the 

presence of sea otters, is the regularity of sea 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 82

urchin recruitment. Because of the sizeselection of prey by sea otters, regular sea 

urchin recruitment may dampen the effects 

of sea otter predation on kelp abundance, at 

least initially. Estes and Duggins (1995) 

found that in the Aleutian Islands, the 

smallest sea urchins (those less than 15 to 20 

millimeters in test diameter) were avoided 

by sea otters, resulting in a sufficient 

abundance of immature and small mature 

sea urchins to slow the reestablishment of 

kelp. However, they found that in southeast 

Alaska, because of irregular recruitment, 

few sea urchins were small enough to escape 

predation, and thus kelp growth was 

strongly enhanced. If sea urchin recruitment 

in California is less episodic than in 

Washington, British Columbia, and 

southeast Alaska, then sea otter predation 

should be expected to have a more gradual 

effect on kelp abundance in California than 

it does in these other areas (Estes and 

Duggins 1995). However, the ultimate 

outcome would likely be similar: a 

considerable increase in the abundance, 

biomass, and distribution of macroalgae in 

areas where sea urchins limit kelp. 

KELP FORESTS AND BIODIVERSITY

The importance of macroalgae to nearshore 

communities is described by Mann (1982), 

Foster and Schiel (1985), and Duggins 

(1988). Giant kelp forests are highly 

productive and can be compared to the most 

productive of terrestrial systems (Tegner and 

Dayton 2000). They provide a complex 

biological structure that supports an 

extremely rich variety of species (Foster and 

Schiel 1985). More than 125 species of fish 

live in and near shallow rock reefs and kelp 

beds of the Southern California Bight (Cross 

and Allen 1993). The abundance of fishes 

on reefs is positively correlated with the 

presence of kelp and substrate relief. Fishes 

are more abundant on cobble reefs with 

higher densities of kelp (23-30 plants per 

100 square meters) than on those with lower 

densities (8 plants per 100 square meters) 

(Larson and DeMartini 1984), and the 

abundances of fishes such as kelp surfperch, 

kelp bass, giant kelpfish, and kelp rockfish 

are directly correlated with kelp density 

(Cross and Allen 1993). 

SEA URCHIN–ABALONE INTERACTIONS 

Because there are complex interactions 

between the species preyed on by sea otters, 

the effects of sea otter predation on these 

species are not necessarily unidirectional. 

Sea urchins have a dual relationship of 

competition and dependence with abalone, 

all species of which are currently at low 

levels in the Southern California Bight due 

to human overexploitation, disease, and 

other factors (Haaker et al. 2001). Sea 

urchins and abalone have similar food and 

habitat preferences and thus compete for 

these resources. Because adult abalone 

subsist mainly on live and drift algae, sea 

urchins have a detrimental effect on abalone 

when drift kelp is limited because of the 

tendency of sea urchins to overgraze (Lowry 

and Pearse 1973). However, abalone may 

out-compete sea urchins for space when 

food is plentiful (Lowry and Pearse 1973). 

On the other hand, several instances have 

been identified where abalone benefit from 

the presence of sea urchins. Juvenile 

abalone may depend on the spine canopy of 

adult sea urchins for protection from 

predation where other cover is limited 

(Tegner and Dayton 1981, Day 1998). Sea 

urchins also maintain densities of coralline 

algal turf on kelp forest substrates that are 

appropriate for the post-larval settlement of 

abalone (CDFG 2002c). 

Abalone and sea urchins share several 

predators and may indirectly derive benefits 

from them if predation reduces competition 

or other forms of predation. Like sea 

urchins, abalone are preyed on by spiny 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 83

lobsters, sea stars, crabs, and fishes (such as 

sheephead), as well as by humans and sea 

otters (Haaker et al. 2001). Although sea 

otters consume abalone, they also consume 

large numbers of sea urchins, thereby 

enhancing kelp forest habitat and reducing 

sea urchin competition with abalone for 

food. Sea otter predation on crabs, sea stars, 

octopuses, and spiny lobsters reduces 

predation by these organisms on both 

abalone and sea urchins. In terms of 

maintaining a healthy population, sea 

urchins themselves may benefit from sea 

otter predation through increases in the 

availability of food (drift kelp) and 

decreases in disease that tend to follow 

reductions in sea urchin densities. 

The low population levels that currently 

characterize all species of abalone in 

southern California (Haaker et al. 2001) 

raise the question of whether the effects of 

sea otter predation, when added to the past 

influences that have driven abalone 

populations to low levels, would preclude 

the survival and recovery of abalone species. 

Because sea otters and abalone have 

coexisted for thousands of years, and 

because healthy abalone populations are 

currently found within the range of sea 

otters along the central coast (Bergen and 

Raimondi 2001), it is unlikely that sea otter 

predation poses an extinction threat to 

abalone species in the Southern California 

Bight. Currently, white abalone are listed as 

endangered, and black abalone are listed as a 

candidate species. The potential effects of 

sea otters on white and black abalone 

recovery efforts are discussed in greater 

detail in section 6.2.3, “Candidate, 

Threatened, and Endangered Species.” 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR THE 

NEARSHORE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

If sea otters reoccupied areas of the 

Southern California Bight as predicted, 

community level changes in the nearshore 

marine ecosystem would take place 

gradually. Over the next 10 years, an 

expanding mainland sea otter population 

would affect invertebrate populations from 

Point Conception to Santa Barbara, 

considerably reducing their densities and 

restricting individuals to cryptic and 

inaccessible habitat. Changes in giant kelp 

abundance in this area of the coast would 

likely take a decade or more to become 

noticeable and would occur only in areas 

where invertebrate herbivory is limiting kelp 

recruitment and survival. Species dependent 

on kelp canopy would likely benefit from 

any increases in kelp abundance. 

Based on predictions of San Nicolas Island 

sea otter colony growth and assumptions 

relating the number of sea otters to effects 

on invertebrate populations, sea otter 

predation at San Nicolas Island is expected 

to increase by 10 percent over the next 10 

years. This level of predation may not result 

in measurable changes in the nearshore 

marine ecosystem over this period. 

Whether sea otters would reoccupy other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates (age-specific rates 

of fecundity and mortality and the age 

distribution of the population), food supply, 

and other variables. Those areas reoccupied 

by sea otters would eventually exhibit the 

kinds of changes described earlier in this 

section (6.2.2). 

6.2.3 CANDIDATE, THREATENED, AND 

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Table 4-1 in Section 4.3.3 includes a list of 

candidate, threatened, and endangered 

species found in the Southern California 

Bight. White abalone (Haliotis sorenseni), 

black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii), and the 

southern sea otter are the only candidate, 

threatened, or endangered species that are 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 84

likely to be affected by the alternatives 

under consideration in this supplement. 

These species are discussed below. 

6.2.3.1 White Abalone 

White abalone are now rare in California. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service listed 

this species as endangered in 2001 [66 FR 

29046], citing overharvesting for human 

consumption as the primary factor in its 

dramatic decline in abundance. Recovery 

efforts for white abalone have recently been 

initiated. The California Department of Fish 

and Game has identified key locations for 

white abalone recovery, which include 

portions of the southern Channel Islands 

(Santa Barbara, Santa Catalina, and San 

Clemente) and offshore banks (Tanner and 

Cortez). The National Marine Fisheries 

Service has convened a recovery team to 

identify recovery criteria and tasks for the 

recovery of white abalone and is now 

considering the outplanting of captive-reared 

individuals. 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR WHITE 

ABALONE

Because abalone are a common prey item 

for sea otters, the degree to which sea otter 

predation poses an increased risk of 

extinction for white abalone must be 

assessed. In light of the evolutionary history 

shared by the two species, it is clear that sea 

otters and white abalone are able to coexist. 

The question raised by the endangered status 

of white abalone is whether the effects of 

sea otter predation, when added to the 

factors that have already adversely affected 

white abalone in southern California, would 

preclude the survival and recovery of the 

species. 

The primary problems facing white abalone 

are low density, lack of recruitment, and the 

advanced age of remaining animals (Hobday 

et al. 2001). As broadcast spawners, 

abalone (including white abalone) must 

maintain sufficiently high densities for 

successful fertilization to occur (Hobday et 

al. 2001). Although sea otter range 

expansion along the central California coast 

is known to have reduced abalone 

population levels and size distributions 

(Wendell 1994), there are several reasons 

why it is unlikely that the gradual expansion 

of sea otters into the Southern California 

Bight would pose a substantial additional 

extinction risk to white abalone: 

1) The depths at which white 

abalone occur and the typical 

foraging depths of southern sea 

otters overlap only marginally. 

Historically, white abalone were 

reported to occur at depths from 20 

to 60 meters, and were most 

abundant at depths of 25 to 30 

meters. Recent surveys indicate that 

most white abalone are now found at 

depths from 30 to 65 meters, with a 

median depth of 48 meters (reviewed 

in Hobday et al. 2001). Southern sea 

otters usually forage in waters 

shallower than 25 meters (Riedman 

and Estes 1990); 

2) The stretch of coastline that sea 

otters are expected to reoccupy 

within the next 10 years is at the 

northernmost end of the white 

abalone’s historic range (the historic 

range extends from Point Conception 

in the north to Punta Abreojos, Baja 

California, Mexico in the south). 

White abalone population centers 

and key recovery areas are in the 

southern half of the Southern 

California Bight (CDFG 2002c), 

more than 200 kilometers from areas 

of the coast where sea otter range 

expansion is likely to occur within 

the next 10 years. If the sea otter 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 85

colony at San Nicolas Island persists, 

it is predicted to grow by about 9 

percent annually. Because the 

colony appears stable and the 

number of sea otters at San Nicolas 

Island would remain well below the 

estimated carrying capacity of the 

island over the next 10 years, 

substantial dispersal of sea otters 

from the island is unlikely; 

3) Offshore banks likely provide 

refuge for white abalone from sea 

otter predation. Cortez Bank and 

Tanner Bank have the highest 

population densities of white abalone 

among areas surveyed (Hobday et al.

2001) and have been identified as 

key recovery areas (CDFG 2002c). 

We are aware of no evidence of the 

historical occupation of these banks 

by sea otters, and telemetry studies 

indicate that even the furthestforaging of southern sea otters 

(juvenile males) tend to remain 

within 1-2 kilometers of shore (Ralls 

et al. 1988a, 1988b); 

4) White abalone are capable of 

reproducing at sizes small enough to 

allow them to take advantage of 

cryptic and inaccessible habitat. If 

white abalone make use of cryptic 

and inaccessible habitat as do other 

species of abalone, reproductively 

mature white abalone can 

successfully evade sea otter 

predation even in the areas and depth 

ranges where the two species may 

overlap as long as a sufficient 

amount of this habitat is available. 

Tutschulte and Connell (1981) 

reported that white abalone become 

sexually mature at 4 to 6 years of age 

at a typical size of 88-134 

millimeters. Although the age and 

size at which white abalone become 

reproductively mature depend on a 

range of environmental conditions, 

including food availability, recent 

evidence suggests that white abalone 

are capable of reproducing at a 

younger age and much smaller size 

than previously thought, about 22 

millimeters (in captivity) 

(McCormick and Brogan 2003). 

Under the baseline, sea otters are expected 

to expand their range gradually along the 

coastline between Point Conception and 

Santa Barbara and to increase in number at 

San Nicolas Island. We know that the 

abalone fishery was active in these areas, 

and fishery data collected from 1955-1997 

indicate that less than one half of one 

percent of all white abalone landings came 

from these areas (Hobday et al. 2001). 

Because relatively low numbers of white 

abalone occur (both presently and 

historically) in areas expected to be 

reoccupied by sea otters over the next 10 

years, we do not expect sea otters to affect 

the white abalone population, as a whole, 

substantially during this period. 

The rate at which sea otters would 

recolonize other nearshore areas of the 

Southern California Bight after 10 years 

would be a function of their demographic 

rates, food supply, and other variables. 

Under the baseline, we would not expect sea 

otters to expand their range into key white 

abalone recovery areas for many decades. 

During this time, a continued ban on the 

harvest of white abalone, combined with 

white abalone recovery efforts, may be 

sufficient to ameliorate conditions brought 

about by human overexploitation of the 

species and to dampen concern that the 

added cumulative effect of sea otter 

predation would cause the extinction of the 

species. Given the relative scarcity of white 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 86

abalone and their preference for deep water 

habitats, opportunities for sea otter and 

white abalone interaction would be limited 

and likely minor in the context of white 

abalone recovery. 

6.2.3.2 Black Abalone 

The extirpation of sea otters from their 

former range in southern California is 

believed to have been responsible for 

aggregations of large black abalone evident 

in California and Mexico during the 

nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Haaker 

et al. 2001). In 1999, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service added black abalone to its 

list of candidate species [64 FR 33466]. 

Although this species was formerly 

harvested for human consumption, its value 

compared to other abalone species was 

relatively low. As a consequence, the 

collapse of black abalone stocks occurred 

late in the serial depletion that characterized 

the abalone fishery before its closure in 

1997 (Haaker et al. 2001). Annual landings 

of black abalone peaked in 1973 at almost 2 

million pounds but 

declined by 1990 to only 

13 percent of previous 

levels (which averaged 

about 700,000 pounds 

annually between 1972 

and 1984) (Haaker et al.

2001). 

The dramatic decline in 

abundance of black 

abalone has been 

exacerbated by a disease 

called withering 

syndrome. Withering 

syndrome began affecting 

black abalone 

populations in southern 

California in the mid1980s, and the disease 

has spread northward in 

recent years to areas of the coast north of 

Point Conception (Figure 6-2). The disease 

has eliminated black abalone from large 

areas of their former range, including the 

mainland coast of southern California 

(Haaker et al. 2001). Elevated seawater 

temperature, while not believed to be 

necessary for the occurrence of withering 

syndrome and the onset of mass mortality, is 

thought to promote these conditions (Bergen 

and Raimondi 2001). 

Like other abalone species, black abalone 

may be preyed upon by sea otters. Black 

abalone inhabit water depths well within the 

range of sea otter predation (generally rocky 

intertidal areas), although cryptic and 

inaccessible habitats provide refuge for the 

species. Newly settled larvae, juveniles, and 

sexually mature individuals up to 100 

millimeters in length usually remain cryptic, 

inhabiting deep fissures or areas beneath 

rocks (Haaker et al. 2001). Because black 

abalone generally become sexually mature 

at about 50 millimeters in length (Haaker et 

FIGURE 6-2. INCIDENCE OF WITHERING SYNDROME, 1992-2001. 

Source: Bergen and Raimondi (2001). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 87

al. 2001), they are capable of sustaining 

reproductively viable populations in the 

presence of sea otters. 

A considerable portion of the black 

abalone’s range overlaps the current range 

of the southern sea otter. The fact that 

southern California stocks have been 

severely reduced by disease (in the general 

absence of sea otter predation), whereas the 

healthiest populations of black abalone are 

currently found within the sea otter’s 

established range along the central 

California coast, suggests that disease is far 

more detrimental to black abalone 

populations than sea otter predation (Figure 

6-3). Although black abalone populations 

along the central California coast are 

considered healthy (in terms of numbers of 

individuals and low prevalence of disease), 

these populations cannot support a 

sustainable fishery because the large 

individual abalone on which fisheries 

depend represent a relatively small portion 

of the overall population. Where sea otters 

and black abalone coexist, abalone are 

restricted to cryptic and inaccessible habitats 

that afford protection from sea otter 

predation, and abalone of the size 

historically harvested for human 

consumption (greater than 150 millimeters) 

are reduced in numbers. 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR BLACK 

ABALONE

Under the baseline, sea otters are expected 

to expand their range gradually along the 

coastline between Point Conception and 

Santa Barbara and to increase in number at 

San Nicolas Island. The coastline between 

Point Conception and Santa Barbara, which 

sea otters are expected to affect through 

predation within the next 10 years, has not 

been identified as an important area for 

black abalone recovery because intertidal 

habitat along much of this section of 

coastline does not support black abalone. 

However, San Nicolas Island has been 

identified by the California Department of 

Fish and Game as 1 of 10 key locations for 

the recovery of black abalone (CDFG 

2002c). 

The effect that a persistent colony of sea 

otters would have on black abalone at the 

island is uncertain, but the fact sea otters and 

black abalone historically co-occurred at the 

island suggests that black abalone 

populations would have sufficient refuge 

from sea otter predation to maintain viable 

populations there. 

FIGURE 6-3. ABUNDANCE OF BLACK 

ABALONE, 1992-2001. Source: Bergen and Raimondi 

(2001). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 88

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. The effect that sea otters 

may have on severely depleted black 

abalone stocks throughout the area is 

uncertain, but if sea otters do recolonize the 

Southern California Bight, the process 

would likely occur gradually over the course 

of several decades, allowing time for black 

abalone populations to recover from the 

effects of human harvest and disease in the 

absence of predation pressure from sea 

otters. Ultimately, in areas of the Southern 

California Bight with sufficient cryptic and 

inaccessible habitat, black abalone 

populations would likely persist and have 

the opportunity to recover in the presence of 

sea otters. However, in areas with 

insufficient cryptic and inaccessible habitat, 

into which black abalone populations may 

have expanded in the absence of sea otters, 

abalone would be more vulnerable to 

predation resulting from sea otter range 

expansion. 

6.2.3.3 Southern Sea Otter 

In 1977, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

listed the southern sea otter as a threatened 

species under the Endangered Species Act. 

This listing was based on the southern sea 

otter’s small population size, its greatly 

reduced range, its vulnerability to oil spills, 

and the potential risk of oil spills [42 FR 

2965]. Our original recovery plan (USFWS 

1982) for the species sought to encourage 

range expansion, and the translocation 

program, which is under reevaluation in this 

supplement, was an integral part of that 

plan. Unfortunately, the translocation 

program appears to have failed to meet its 

objectives (Appendix C). Our revised 

recovery plan for the southern sea otter 

(USFWS 2003) continues to focus on efforts 

to increase the size of the southern sea 

otter’s population; however, it no longer 

recommends the translocation of sea otters 

as a means to achieve this goal. 

Furthermore, the recovery plan 

acknowledges the recovery team’s 

recommendations to declare the 

translocation program a failure, to allow 

natural range expansion to occur, and to 

allow the colony at San Nicolas Island to 

remain at the island rather than capturing 

these sea otters and releasing them in the 

mainland range (USFWS 2003). 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR THE SOUTHERN 

SEA OTTER

Under baseline conditions, sea otters would 

likely continue to expand their range into the 

Southern California Bight. Over the next 10 

years, the southern sea otter’s range is 

predicted to expand gradually along the 

coastline to Santa Barbara (Appendix F). 

Although there is much uncertainty 

surrounding the estimates, range expansion 

of the mainland population is expected to 

result in a median number of 117 

independent sea otters (95% confidence 

interval range of 57-207) permanently 

residing south of Point Conception in 10 

years. If the colony at San Nicolas Island 

persists, it is predicted to grow at a rate 

similar to that observed at the island over the 

past 11 years, about 9 percent annually 

(from 32 independent animals in 2004 to 79 

in 2014). Whether sea otters would 

recolonize other nearshore areas of the 

Southern California Bight after 10 years 

would be a function of their demographic 

rates, food supply, and other variables. If 

recolonization occurs, it is expected to occur 

gradually. 

The marine habitat in the Southern 

California Bight has been degraded by a 

multitude of human activities. In spite of 

this degradation, the southern sea otter range 

is naturally expanding into this area. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 89

Allowing natural range expansion to occur 

maximizes habitat available for southern sea 

otter recovery and would reduce the species’ 

vulnerability to widespread catastrophic 

events. 

Under the baseline, the management zone 

and translocation zone continue to exist, 

even if maintenance remains suspended. 

Different regulatory provisions apply to sea 

otters found in the management zone or 

translocation zone than apply to sea otters 

existing outside these zones. For a 

discussion of the regulatory provisions that 

apply to sea otters under the baseline, see 

section 6.2.12. For a discussion of our 

ability to meet our mandates under the 

Endangered Species Act and Marine 

Mammal Protection Act under baseline 

conditions, see section 6.2.11.1. 

6.2.4 COMMERCIAL FISHERIES

For a discussion of the regulatory 

environment (including as it pertains to 

commercial fisheries) see section 6.2.12. 

Our analysis of commercial fisheries in this 

document is based largely on commercial 

fisheries data organized by species, year, 

and statistical block (Figure 6-4), which is 

reported by participants in the commercial 

fishery and collected by the California 

Department of Fish and Game. Other data 

used in our analysis are derived from the 

FIGURE 6-4. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME STATISTICAL BLOCK MAP, WITH 

NEARSHORE BLOCKS HIGHLIGHTED. Source: CDFG (2001).
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 90

2001 status report produced by the 

California Department of Fish and Game, 

California’s Living Marine Resources (Leet 

et al. 2001). The analysis that follows 

focuses on species that are important 

commercially and that coincide with the sea 

otter’s primary diet, namely sea urchins 

(Strongylocentrotus franciscanus), spiny 

lobsters (Panulirus interruptus), and crabs 

(Cancer spp.). The southern California 

fishery for abalone (Haliotis spp.) is 

currently under a moratorium and is 

discussed in a separate section entitled 

“Abalone Fishery Restoration.” For 

additional background information on 

California fisheries, please refer to section 

4.4.2 

6.2.4.1 Baseline Assumptions for 

Impacts to Fisheries 

The following assumptions apply to the 

analysis of fishery impacts associated with 

alternatives considered in this supplement: 

 

1. Over the next 10 years, southern sea 

otters are expected to extend their 

range and approach equilibrium 

densities along the coastline from 

Point Conception to Santa Barbara 

(Appendix F). We assume that 

shellfish fisheries will be eliminated 

from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara during this period. The 

affected area corresponds to CDFG 

statistical blocks 654, 655, 656, and 

657 (see Figure 6-4). 

2. We assume that shellfish resources 

are fully exploited by 

commercial/recreational fisheries 

and, where applicable, sea otter 

predation. We further assume a 

perfect inverse relationship between 

sea otters and shellfish fisheries, so 

that any increase (decrease) in sea 

otter predation would lead to a 

proportional decrease (increase) in 

fishery harvests. This assumption 

may lead to an overestimation of 

impacts, especially during the early 

phases of sea otter reoccupation of 

an area (i.e., measurable impacts 

may occur later in time than 

projected here). 

3. Effects of sea otter habitation along 

the coastline are assumed to be 

equally distributed across time and 

space. For example, we assume that 

a 50 percent occupation of an area, 

consisting of X blocks, would result 

in a 50 percent decrease in shellfish 

harvest across all X blocks. 

4. We assume that when sea otters 

permanently reside in a given area, 

the commercial fisheries for lobster, 

crab, and sea urchin will no longer 

be viable in that area.10 Although it is 

unknown whether the presence of 

sea otters would eliminate the lobster 

sport fishery entirely, we make the 

conservative assumption that the 

sport fishery would also be adversely 

 

10 Interactions between sea otters and shellfish 

fisheries are described in Estes and Van Blaricom 

(1985). They conclude that some shellfish fisheries 

(e.g., rock crabs, northern razor clams, butter clams, 

littleneck clams, and mussels) can persist in the 

presence of sea otters, whereas others (commercial 

sea urchin and abalone fisheries) cannot. Because 

there has not been a considerable overlap in the range 

of southern sea otters and spiny lobsters in the recent 

past, Estes and Van Blaricom do not draw a 

conclusion regarding the effects of sea otters on 

lobster fishing. We conservatively assume that sea 

otters will eliminate crab and lobster fisheries (in 

addition to precluding sea urchin and abalone 

fisheries) in the areas they reoccupy. However, we 

do not know the level of harvest at which a 

commercial fishery would become non-viable. In our 

analysis, we employ zero landings as a non-viable 

fishery, with the understanding that in reality the 

commercial fishery could collapse earlier. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 91

affected at the same rate as the 

commercial fishery in areas where 

sea otters become established. Thus, 

commercial and recreational 

fisheries are assumed to be mutually 

exclusive with, and equally affected 

by, sea otter predation. 

5. To simplify calculations, effects of 

sea otter reoccupation are assumed to 

be equally distributed across time. 

For example, we assume that 10 

percent of impacts would accumulate 

each year, summing to 100 percent 

in year 10. 

6. We assume that once commercial 

catch is eliminated from a statistical 

block, any effort expended in another 

block would not increase total 

landings for southern California. 

Thus, the resulting change in 

landings and ex-vessel revenue may 

be overestimated. 

7. We assume that the sea otter 

population at San Nicolas Island will 

increase at a 9 percent annual growth 

rate over the next 10 years. 

8. At San Nicolas Island, we assume 

that changes in shellfish fisheries are 

inversely proportional to changes in 

the percentage of carrying capacity 

occupied by the colony. If the 

colony increased by 9 percent 

annually, it would grow from 32 

animals in 2004 to 79 animals in 

2014. With an estimated carrying 

capacity of about 500 animals, the 

sea otter population at San Nicolas 

Island would increase from 6 percent 

of carrying capacity in 2004 to 16 

percent of carrying capacity in 2014, 

resulting in a 10 percent decrease in 

commercial shellfish harvests over 

10 years. 

6.2.4.2 Sea Urchin Fishery 

For a description of the commercial sea 

urchin fishery, see section 4.4.2.2. 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SEA URCHIN FISHING 

EFFORT

From 1995 to 1999, an annual average of 

223 vessels participated in the sea urchin 

fishery. Two hundred and seven (207) of 

these vessels identified southern California 

as their principal fishing area. These vessels 

derived 88 percent of their landings and 92 

percent of their ex-vessel revenue from the 

southern California sea urchin fishery. 

During this period, sea urchin diving permits 

averaged approximately 490 annually, and 

sea urchin crewmember permits averaged 

324 annually (Thomson 2001). 

Fishing effort and harvest of sea urchins in 

the southern California commercial fishery 

have shifted in recent years from the 

northern Channel Islands (which supplied 

80-90 percent of the landings from 1973-

1977) to the southern islands of San Nicolas 

and San Clemente and the coastline near San 

Diego. Commercial harvest has 

considerably reduced densities of red sea 

urchins in many areas, and catch-per-unit of 

effort has decreased (Kalvass and RogersBennett 2001). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 92

PAST LANDINGS AND EXVESSEL REVENUES

Table 6-2 summarizes 

landings and ex-vessel 

revenues for the 

southern California sea 

urchin fishery from 

1986-2003.11 This 

table also includes 

specific information for 

the two areas that 

would likely be 

affected by sea otter 

predation over the next 

10 years: 1) the 

coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa 

Barbara, and 2) San 

Nicolas Island. These 

areas are discussed in 

greater detail below. 

Southern California 

Bight 

Figure 6-5 shows 

commercial sea urchin 

landings and numbers 

of sea urchin diving 

permits for the southern 

California fishery. The 

annual sea urchin 

harvest in southern 

California peaked at 16.7 million pounds in 

1995 but declined to a low of about 7 

million pounds in 1998. In the late 1990s, a 

strong El Niño event (1997/1998) affected 

the quality of sea urchins available for 

harvest, and a weak Japanese economy (the 

primary market for harvested sea urchins) 

reduced demand and forced downward 

pressure on prices (Kalvass and RogersBennett 2001). 

 

11 All references to the southern California fishery 

cited as CDFG (2002a) and CDFG (2005a) in this 

document include landings for coastal areas and 

islands but exclude landings for offshore banks. 

Coastline, Point Conception to Santa Barbara 

Sea urchin landings along the coastline from 

Point Conception to Santa Barbara are 

depicted in Figure 6-6. Sea urchin landings 

in this area peaked at 634,000 pounds in 

1992 but have since declined by 95 percent. 

During the 1997-1998 El Niño event, 

landings dropped from 415,000 pounds in 

1997 to 183 thousand pounds in 1998. 

Landings along this stretch of coastline 

continued to decline after the 1997-1998 El 

Niño event and averaged 24,000 pounds 

annually from 1999 through 2002. 

TABLE 6-2. COMMERCIAL SEA URCHIN HARVEST: LANDINGS AND 

EX-VESSEL REVENUE BY AREA. 

Commercial Landings 

(pounds) 

Ex-Vessel Revenue 

(thousands of 2004 dollars) 

Year 

SCB Point 

Conception 

to Santa 

Barbara 

San 

Nicolas 

Island 

SCB Point 

Conception 

to Santa 

Barbara 

San 

Nicolas 

Island 

1986 12,155,209 355,480 2,649,764 $4,364 $93 $992 

1987 7,193,837 398,639 3,395,431 $2,256 $169 $1,088 

1988 6,006,438 283,237 2,335,082 $2,250 $190 $577 

1989 5,309,415 535,282 356,974 $2,513 $395 $234 

1990 10,402,343 587,996 2,184,513 $6,967 $381 $1,271 

1991 16,340,679 388,237 2,323,093 $8,475 $54 $1,053 

1992 13,628,097 634,107 1,504,035 $10,251 $370 $1,083 

1993 14,897,618 382,220 1,372,737 $11,799 $225 $842 

1994 16,196,547 391,110 1,715,937 $21,647 $576 $2,057 

1995 16,714,982 450,369 2,971,561 $19,888 $564 $3,182 

1996 15,776,375 354,662 1,291,148 $17,247 $435 $1,291 

1997 13,199,317 415,713 1,359,738 $12,435 $421 $1,227 

1998 7,001,081 183,186 942,818 $6,167 $160 $751 

1999 10,378,689 44,211 1,675,293 $11,127 $44 $1,737 

2000 9,947,301 19,290 546,048 $10,628 $20 $516 

2001 8,271,694 22,812 293,539 $8,266 $22 $266 

2002 8,286,564 8,504 337,618 $7,123 $7 $257 

2003 8,660,645 54,770 389,698 $6,954 $41 $311 

Data source: California Department of Fish and Game (2002a, 2005a). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 93

However, landings increased 

in 2003 to about 55,000 

pounds. 

San Nicolas Island 

Sea urchin landings at San 

Nicolas Island peaked at over 

3 million pounds in 1987 but 

have since declined by 90 

percent. During the 1997-

1998 El Niño event, landings 

dropped from over 1 million 

pounds in 1997 to about 

943,000 pounds in 1998. In 

1999, landings at the island 

increased to pre-El Niño 

levels, but subsequently (in 

2001) they dropped again to 

294,000 pounds. Landings 

increased to 390,000 pounds 

in 2003. 

Percentages of Fishery

From 1994 to 2003, annual 

commercial sea urchin 

landings along the coastline 

from Point Conception to 

Santa Barbara accounted for 

two percent of southern 

California sea urchin 

landings (CDFG 2002a). 

During the same period, 

annual commercial sea 

urchin landings at San 

Nicolas Island accounted for 

10 percent of southern 

California sea urchin landings 

(Table 6-3). 

SEA OTTER RANGE EXPANSION 

AND EFFECT ON THE SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA SEA URCHIN FISHERY

Under the baseline (no attempt to remove 

sea otters), changes in the southern 

California sea urchin fishery would likely 

occur over time. Based on simulations by 

Tinker et al. (2004) (Appendix F), the 

southern sea otter’s range is expected to 

expand along the mainland coastline 

towards the city of Santa Barbara over the 

next 10 years. For the purposes of analysis, 

we assume that sea otter predation would 

eliminate all commercial sea urchin harvest 

from Point Conception to Santa Barbara 

FIGURE 6-5. COMMERCIAL SEA URCHIN LANDINGS AND SEA 

URCHIN DIVING PERMITS FOR THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

BIGHT, 1986-2003. Shaded areas indicate El Niño events. Data source: 

California Department of Fish and Game (2002a, 2005b). 

FIGURE 6-6. ANNUAL SEA URCHIN LANDINGS: POINT 

CONCEPTION TO SANTA BARBARA, 1986-2003. Shaded areas 

indicate El Niño events. Data source: California Department of Fish and 

Game (2002a, 2005a)

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

Year

Commercial Urchin Landings (Pounds)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Number of Urchin Diving Permits

Southern California Diving Permits

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

Year

Commercial Urchin Landings (Pounds)

Point Conception to Santa Barbara
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 94

(CDFG statistical blocks 654, 655, 656, and 

657) by the year 2014. 

Whether sea otters would reoccupy other 

areas of the Southern California Bight in 

subsequent years would be a function of sea 

otter demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. Those areas reoccupied by 

sea otters would likely cease to support 

commercial sea urchin diving, but the 

magnitude and timing of this potential 

change is unknown. 

The colony of sea otters at San Nicolas 

Island (CDFG statistical blocks 813 and 

814) is predicted to increase from 6 percent 

of carrying capacity at present (2004) to 16 

percent of carrying capacity in 10 years. 

Assuming a perfect inverse relationship 

between the percentage of carrying capacity 

attained by sea otters and the commercial 

sea urchin catch (more sea otters = fewer sea 

urchins), sea urchin landings would decrease 

approximately 10 percent by the year 2014. 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR THE SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA SEA URCHIN FISHERY 

To establish a landings baseline, we employ 

a 10-year average (1994-2003) for each area 

to mitigate the effects of cyclic variations in 

populations, adverse weather, market 

demand, and other factors that influence 

catch from one year to the next. From the 

10-year average, we project sea urchin 

harvest impacts as a direct function of sea 

otter occupation in each area. Along the 

affected coastline (Point Conception to 

Santa Barbara), the 10-year landings average 

is 194,463 pounds. We assume that once an 

area is permanently occupied by sea otters, 

the commercial sea urchin fishery would no 

longer be viable in that area. Thus, we 

assume that sea urchin landings along the 

affected coastline would decrease 10 percent 

(19,446 pounds) each year, from 194,463

pounds to 175,016 pounds in 2005 to 

155,170 pounds in 2006, and so forth to zero 

landings in 2014. Around San Nicolas 

Island, the 10-year landings average is 

1,152,340 pounds. We assume that the 

commercial sea urchin fishery in this area 

would decrease by approximately 10 percent 

over 10 years. Thus, we assume that sea 

urchin landings from San Nicolas Island 

would decrease by approximately 1 percent 

(11,523 pounds) each year, from 1,152,340 

pounds to 1,140,816 pounds in 2005 to 

1,129,293 pounds in 2006, and so forth to 

1,037,106 pounds in 2014. 

Table 6-4 depicts the baseline for sea urchin 

landings that will be employed in this 

analysis. Note that commercial landings 

across areas are not additive. Rather, the 

Point Conception to Santa Barbara coastline 

and San Nicolas Island represent a portion 

of the entire southern California sea urchin 

fishery. 

While this baseline represents a reasonable 

estimation of potential trends over time, 

TABLE 6-3. AVERAGE ANNUAL SEA 

URCHIN LANDINGS, 1994-2003. 

Average 

Annual 

Landings 

(pounds) 

Percentage of 

Southern 

California 

Bight Landings 

Point 

Conception to 

Santa Barbara 

(coastline) 

194,463 2% 

San Nicolas 

Island 

1,152,340 10% 

SCB 

(excluding 

landings from 

the above two 

areas) 

10,096,517 88% 

Total Annual 

Landings 

11,443,319 100% 

Data source: California Department of Fish and 

Game (2002a, 2005a). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 95

there are several problems inherent in the 

approach used here. Because we employ a 

10-year average as our starting point, the 

projected landings for almost all years of the 

series are extremely high compared to 

current actual landings (in 2003, sea urchin 

harvest along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara was less than 

55,000 pounds, and sea urchin harvest at 

San Nicolas Island was less than 390,000 

pounds). When compared to current 

landings, the baseline appears to predict an 

immediate recovery of sea urchin landings 

to a level equivalent to the ten-year average. 

Because of our use of the 10-year average, 

our projected decreases in landings due to 

anticipated sea otter predation are 

correspondingly high. Therefore, our 

analysis likely overestimates the baseline 

effects of sea otters on the sea urchin 

fishery. 

6.2.4.3 Spiny Lobster Fishery 

For a description of the commercial lobster 

fishery, see section 4.4.2.3. Unlike sea 

urchin and crab fisheries, the California 

lobster fishery is confined to the waters of 

southern California because the range of the 

spiny lobster does not normally extend north 

of Point Conception. Lobsters are an 

important component of the recreational 

fishery as well as the commercial fishery 

and are discussed further under 

“Recreational Fishery” below. 

CALIFORNIA LOBSTER FISHING EFFORT 

(COMMERCIAL) 

From 1995 to 1999, an annual average of 

202 vessels participated in California’s 

commercial lobster fishery. One hundred 

sixty eight (168) of these vessels identified 

the lobster fishery as their principal fishery. 

These vessels derived 49 percent of their 

landings and 81 percent of their ex-vessel 

revenue from this fishery (Thomson 2001). 

Since 1997, the California Department of 

Fish and Game has restricted access to the 

fishery by limiting the number of permits 

issued. All lobster fishers must have an 

operator permit, and all deckhands must 

have a lobster crewmember permit. From 

1996 to 1999, the number of lobster operator 

permits averaged 300 annually, and the 

number of lobster crewmember permits 

averaged about 135 annually (CDFG 

2002b). 

PAST LANDINGS AND EX-VESSEL REVENUES 

Table 6-5 summarizes landings and exvessel revenues for the southern California 

lobster fishery from 1986-2003. This table 

also includes specific information for the 

two areas that would likely be affected by 

TABLE 6-4. PROJECTED BASELINE FOR 

COMMERCIAL SEA URCHIN LANDINGS 

Year Commercial Landings (pounds)* 

Southern 

California 

Bight** 

Point 

Conception 

to Santa 

Barbara 

Coastline 

San 

Nicolas 

Island 

10-year 

average 

(1994-

2003) 

11,443,319 194,463 1,152,340 

2005 11,412,350 175,016 1,140,816 

2006 11,381,380 155,570 1,129,293 

2007 11,350,410 136,124 1,117,770 

2008 11,319,441 116,678 1,106,246 

2009 11,288,471 97,231 1,094,723 

2010 11,257,501 77,785 1,083,199 

2011 11,226,532 58,339 1,071,676 

2012 11,195,562 38,892 1,060,153 

2013 11,164,592 19,446 1,048,629 

2014 11,133,622 0 1,037,106 

*Landings are rounded to the nearest pound. 

** Note that commercial landings across areas are 

not additive. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 96

sea otter predation over the 

next 10 years: 1) the coastline 

from Point Conception to 

Santa Barbara, and 2) San 

Nicolas Island. These areas 

are discussed in greater detail 

below. 

Southern California Bight 

Commercial landings of spiny 

lobsters in the state of 

California have been marked 

by fluctuations that reflect a 

number of factors, 

including market influences, 

weather patterns, population 

health, and harvest 

regulations (Barsky 2001). 

Figure 6-7 shows commercial 

lobster landings and the 

annual number of operator 

permits for the southern 

California fishery. Lobster 

landings for southern 

California steadily increased 

from 250,000 pounds in 1986 

to 860,000 pounds in 1997. 

Landings decreased by almost 

50 percent from 1997 to 1999 

but have since increased to 

about 670,000 pounds in 2002 

and 2003. 

Coastline, Point Conception to Santa Barbara 

Lobster landings along the coastline from 

Point Conception to Santa Barbara are 

depicted in Figure 6-8. From 1986 to 1997, 

lobster landings along this stretch of 

coastline increased four-fold, from 10,751 

pounds to 58,810 pounds. Landings sharply 

decreased after 1997, steadying at 18,621 

pounds in 2000, but they have since 

increased to about 29,000 pounds in 2003. 

San Nicolas Island 

Lobster landings at San Nicolas Island 

varied from 1994 to 2003, ranging from 

approximately 27,000 pounds to 

approximately 50,000 pounds. 

Percentages of Fishery 

The lobster fishery is clearly a high-value 

industry, with an average price per pound of 

$7.98 (1994-2003). This price is over five 

times greater than that of crab and over 

seven times greater than that of sea urchin. 

Although the lobster fishery is of highvalue, it contributed less than one percent of 

southern California’s total fishery landings 

and represented about seven percent of 

southern California’s ex-vessel fishery 

revenue between 1995 and 1999 (Thomson 

TABLE 6-5. COMMERCIAL LOBSTER HARVEST: LANDINGS 

AND EX-VESSEL REVENUE BY AREA. 

Commercial Landings 

(pounds) 

Ex-Vessel Revenue 

(thousands of 2004 dollars) 

Year 

SCB Point 

Conception 

to Santa 

Barbara 

San 

Nicolas 

Island 

SCB Point 

Conception 

to Santa 

Barbara 

San 

Nicolas 

Island 

1986 250,553 10,751 16,113 $1,817 $79 $116 

1987 199,852 7,526 19,783 $1,344 $52 $136 

1988 193,813 3,015 22,076 $1,297 $17 $159 

1989 256,900 7,533 26,369 $1,924 $63 $209 

1990 226,089 18,336 25,166 $1,715 $143 $201 

1991 324,244 25,340 36,393 $2,792 $228 $317 

1992 329,660 29,831 31,640 $2,736 $275 $280 

1993 350,318 20,045 24,350 $2,929 $175 $235 

1994 416,533 24,528 27,317 $3,894 $239 $289 

1995 567,727 28,901 30,276 $5,346 $283 $317 

1996 631,728 27,999 29,934 $6,073 $276 $314 

1997 859,118 58,810 44,143 $7,342 $519 $445 

1998 665,966 38,730 56,411 $4,699 $284 $416 

1999 452,651 18,659 33,129 $3,532 $153 $268 

2000 679,440 18,621 36,524 $4,682 $133 $275 

2001 681,767 23,853 29,506 $4,697 $164 $209 

2002 669,486 23,813 39,577 $4,888 $169 $292 

2003 672,210 29,170 50,408 $5,072 $208 $381 

Data source: California Department of Fish and Game (2002a, 2005a). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 97

2001). For comparison, the 

sea urchin fishery contributed 

18 percent of southern 

California’s ex-vessel fishery 

revenue (Thomson 2001). 

From 1994 to 2003, annual 

commercial lobster landings 

on the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara 

represented 5 percent of 

southern California lobster 

landings, while annual 

commercial lobster landings 

at San Nicolas Island 

accounted for 6 percent of 

southern California lobster 

landings (Table 6-6). 

SEA OTTER RANGE EXPANSION 

AND EFFECT ON THE CALIFORNIA 

LOBSTER FISHERY

Under the baseline (no 

attempt to remove sea otters), 

changes in the California 

lobster fishery would likely 

occur over time. Based on 

simulations by Tinker et al.

(2004) (Appendix F), the 

southern sea otter’s range is 

expected to expand along the 

mainland coastline towards 

the city of Santa Barbara 

over the next 10 years. 

Although there is little or no 

evidence of sea otters 

adversely affecting lobster 

fisheries (sea otters have only 

recently recolonized range 

inhabited by California spiny 

lobsters), sea otters have been 

observed consuming lobsters in 

captivity and in the wild. To 

be conservative (i.e., to make 

sure we fully capture potential 

effects on the lobster fishery), 

FIGURE 6-7. COMMERCIAL LOBSTER LANDINGS AND 

NUMBER OF OPERATOR PERMITS FOR SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA, 1986-2003. Shaded areas indicate El Niño events. Data 

source: California Department of Fish and Game (2002a, 2005a, 2005b). 

FIGURE 6-8. ANNUAL LOBSTER LANDINGS: POINT 

CONCEPTION TO SANTA BARBARA. Shaded areas indicate El Niño 

events. Data source: California Department of Fish and Game (2002a, 

2005a).

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

Year

Commercial Lobster Landings (Pounds)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Number of Operator Permits

Southern California Operator Permits

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

Year

Commercial Lobster Landings (Pounds)

Point Conception to Santa Barbara
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 98

we assume that sea otter predation would 

eliminate all commercial lobster harvest 

from Point Conception to Santa Barbara 

(CDFG statistical blocks 654, 655, 656, and 

657) by the year 2014. 

Whether sea otters would reoccupy other 

areas of the Southern California Bight in 

subsequent years would be a function of sea 

otter demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. Those areas reoccupied by 

sea otters would likely cease to support 

commercial lobster fishing, but the 

magnitude and timing of this potential 

change is unknown. 

 

The colony of sea otters at San Nicolas 

Island (CDFG statistical blocks 813 and 

814) is predicted to increase from 6 percent 

of carrying capacity at present (2004) to 16 

percent of carrying capacity in 10 years. 

Assuming a perfect inverse relationship 

between the percentage of carrying capacity 

attained by sea otters and the commercial 

lobster catch (more sea otters = fewer 

lobsters), lobster landings would decrease 

approximately 10 percent by the year 2014. 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR THE 

CALIFORNIA LOBSTER FISHERY

To establish a landings baseline, we employ 

a 10-year average (1994-2003) for each area 

to mitigate the effects of cyclic variations in 

populations, adverse weather, market 

demand, and other factors that influence 

catch from one year to the next. 

From the 10-year average, we project lobster 

harvest impacts as a direct function of sea 

otter occupation in each area. Along the 

affected coastline (Point Conception to 

Santa Barbara), the 10-year landings average 

is 29,308 pounds. We assume that once an 

area is permanently occupied by sea otters, 

the commercial lobster fishery would no 

longer be viable in that area. Thus, we 

assume that lobster landings along the 

affected coastline would decrease 10 percent 

(2,931 pounds) each year, from 29,308

pounds to 26,378 pounds in 2005 to 23,447

pounds in 2006, and so forth to zero 

landings in 2014. 

Around San Nicolas Island, the 10-year 

landings average is 37,722 pounds. We 

assume that the commercial lobster fishery 

in this area would decrease by 

approximately 10 percent over 10 years. 

Thus, we assume that lobster landings from 

San Nicolas Island would decrease by 1 

percent (377 pounds) each year, from 37,722

pounds to 37,345 pounds in 2005 to 36,968

pounds in 2006, and so forth to 33,950 

pounds in 2014. 

Table 6-7 depicts the baseline for lobster 

landings that will be employed in this 

analysis. Note that commercial landings 

across areas are not additive. Rather, the 

Point Conception to Santa Barbara coastline 

and San Nicolas Island represent a portion 

of the entire southern California lobster 

fishery. 

TABLE 6-6. AVERAGE ANNUAL LOBSTER 

LANDINGS, 1994-2003. 

Average 

Annual 

Landings 

(pounds) 

Percentage 

of Southern 

California 

Bight 

Landings 

Point Conception to 

Santa Barbara 

(coastline) 

29,308 5% 

San Nicolas Island 37,722 6% 

SCB (excluding 

landings from the 

above two areas) 

562,632 89% 

Total Average 

Annual Landings 

629,662 100% 

Data source: California Department of Fish and 

Game (2002a, 2005a). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 99

6.2.4.4 Crab Fishery 

For a description of the commercial crab 

fishery, see section 4.4.2.4. 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CRAB FISHING EFFORT

From 1995 to 1999, an annual average of 76 

vessels participated in the southern 

California crab fishery. Twenty five (25) of 

these vessels identified the crab fishery as 

their principal fishery. These vessels 

derived 92 percent of their landings and 80 

percent of their ex-vessel revenue from 

southern California (Thomson 2001). 

PAST LANDINGS AND EX-VESSEL REVENUES

Table 6-8 summarizes landings and exvessel revenues for the southern California 

crab fishery from 1986-2003. This table also 

includes specific information for the two 

areas that would likely be affected by sea 

otter predation over the next 10 years: 1) the 

coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara, and 2) San Nicolas Island. These 

areas are discussed in greater detail below. 

Southern California Bight 

Figure 6-9 shows commercial crab landings 

for the entire southern California fishery. 

Crab harvests in southern California have 

more than doubled in the last 15 years, from 

400,000 pounds in 1986 to more than 1 

million pounds in 2001. Harvests tend to 

decline slightly after each El Niño event but 

recover quickly. 

Coastline, Point Conception to Santa Barbara 

Crab landings along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara are depicted in 

Figure 6-10. Over the last 15 years, 

commercial annual crab landings along this 

stretch of coastline have fluctuated greatly, 

decreasing by 36 percent between 1988 and 

1989 and increasing by 200 percent between 

1989 and 1990. From 1997 to 2000, crab 

landings decreased by 47 percent before 

steadying at 135 thousand pounds in 2001. 

In 2003, landings decreased by 50 percent to 

about 99,000 pounds. 

San Nicolas Island 

Commercial crab harvest levels at San 

Nicolas Island have been relatively low, 

ranging from 0 to 22,851 pounds. From 

1993 to 2002, the average annual crab 

harvest at San Nicolas Island was 4,609 

pounds. The crab harvest doubled in 2003 

to 18,468 pounds. 

Percentages of Fishery 

From 1994 to 2003, commercial crab 

landings along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara accounted for 

18 percent of southern California crab 

landings. During the same period, annual 

crab landings at San Nicolas Island 

accounted for one percent of southern 

California’s annual crab landings (Table 6-

9). 

TABLE 6-7. PROJECTED BASELINE FOR 

COMMERCIAL SPINY LOBSTER LANDINGS 

Year Commercial Landings (pounds)* 

Southern 

California 

Bight** 

Point Conception 

to Santa Barbara 

Coastline 

San 

Nicolas 

Island 

10-year 

average 

(1994-

2003) 629,662 29,308 37,722 

2005 626,354 26,378 37,345 

2006 623,046 23,447 36,968 

2007 619,738 20,516 36,591 

2008 616,430 17,585 36,213 

2009 613,122 14,654 35,836 

2010 609,814 11,724 35,459 

2011 606,506 8,793 35,082 

2012 603,198 5,862 34,705 

2013 599,890 2,931 34,327 

2014 596,582 0 33,950 

*Landings are rounded to the nearest pound. 

**Note that commercial landings across areas are not 

additive 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 100

SEA OTTER RANGE EXPANSION 

AND EFFECT ON THE SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA CRAB FISHERY

Under the baseline (no 

attempt to move sea otters), 

changes in the southern 

California crab fishery may 

occur over time. Based on 

simulations by Tinker et al.

(2004) (Appendix F), the 

southern sea otter’s range is 

expected to expand along 

the mainland coastline 

towards the city of Santa 

Barbara over the next 10 

years. For the purposes of 

our analysis, we assume that 

sea otter predation would 

eliminate all commercial 

crab harvest from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara 

(CDFG statistical blocks 

654, 655, 656, and 657) by 

the year 2014. Whether sea 

otters would reoccupy other 

areas of the Southern 

California Bight in 

subsequent years would be a 

function of sea otter 

demographic rates, food 

supply, and other variables. 

Those areas reoccupied by 

sea otters would likely cease 

to support commercial crab 

fishing, but the magnitude and timing of this 

potential change is unknown. 

The colony of sea otters at San Nicolas 

Island (CDFG statistical blocks 813 and 

814) is predicted to increase from 6 percent 

of carrying capacity at present (2004) to 16 

percent of carrying capacity in 10 years. 

Assuming a perfect inverse relationship 

between the percentage of carrying capacity 

attained by sea otters and the commercial 

crab catch (more sea otters = fewer crabs), 

crab landings would decrease by 

approximately 10 percent by the year 2014. 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR THE SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA CRAB FISHERY

To establish a landings baseline, we employ 

a 10-year average (1994-2003) for each area 

to mitigate the effects of cyclic variations in 

populations, adverse weather, market 

demand, and other factors that influence 

catch from one year to the next. From the 

10-year average, we project crab harvest 

TABLE 6-8. COMMERCIAL CRAB HARVEST: LANDINGS AND 

EX-VESSEL REVENUE 

Commercial Landings (Pounds) Ex-Vessel Revenue 

(thousands of 2004 dollars) 

Year 

SCB Point 

Conception 

to Santa 

Barbara 

Coastline 

San 

Nicolas 

Island 

SCB Point 

Conception 

to Santa 

Barbara 

Coastline 

San 

Nicolas 

Island 

1986 398,933 147,768 1,526 $586 $221 $2 

1987 366,168 114,750 16,550 $459 $154 $22 

1988 246,334 117,595 2,876 $312 $162 $4 

1989 161,344 75,310 0 $226 $114 $0 

1990 361,468 230,418 672 $513 $345 $1 

1991 600,046 161,681 7,507 $802 $235 $10 

1992 503,753 134,369 0 $651 $181 $0 

1993 488,108 110,312 1,053 $627 $141 $1 

1994 484,180 79,093 737 $623 $106 $1 

1995 621,210 98,467 619 $870 $145 $1 

1996 802,058 185,984 1,253 $1,136 $254 $8 

1997 958,960 249,106 1,675 $1,265 $330 $2 

1998 990,563 232,035 22,851 $1,273 $286 $31 

1999 651,729 175,589 4,545 $870 $238 $6 

2000 931,467 133,092 1,453 $1,222 $181 $2 

2001 1,042,774 134,615 4,852 $1,432 $185 $10 

2002 1,082,491 148,289 7,047 $1,451 $194 $8 

2003 954,515 99,183 18,468 $1,221 $118 $25 

Data source: California Department of Fish and Game (2002a, 2005a). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 101

impacts as a direct function 

of sea otter occupation in 

each area. Along the affected 

coastline (Point Conception 

to Santa Barbara), the 10-

year landings average is 

153,545 pounds. We assume 

that once an area is 

permanently occupied by sea 

otters, the commercial crab 

fishery would no longer be 

viable in that area. Thus, we 

assume that crab landings 

along the coastline would 

decrease 10 percent (15,355 

pounds) each year, from 

153,545 pounds to 138,191

pounds in 2005 to 122,836

pounds in 2006, and so forth 

to zero landings in 2014. 

Around San Nicolas Island, 

the 10-year landings average 

is 6,350 pounds. We assume 

that the commercial crab 

fishery in this area would 

decrease by approximately 

10 percent over 10 years. 

Thus, we assume that crab 

landings from San Nicolas 

Island would decrease by 1 

percent (64 pounds) 

each year, from 6,350 pounds 

to 6,287 pounds in 2005 to 

6,223 pounds in 2006, and so 

forth to 5,715 pounds in 

2014. 

Table 6-10 depicts the 

baseline for crab landings 

that will be employed in this 

analysis. Note that 

commercial landings across 

areas are not additive. 

Rather, the Point Conception 

to Santa Barbara coastline 

and San Nicolas Island 

FIGURE 6-9. COMMERCIAL CRAB LANDINGS FOR SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA, 1986-2003. Shaded areas indicate El Niño events. Data 

source: California Department of Fish and Game (2002a, 2005a).

FIGURE 6-10. ANNUAL CRAB LANDINGS: POINT CONCEPTION 

TO SANTA BARBARA. Shaded areas indicate El Niño events. Data 

source: California Department of Fish and Game (2002a, 2005a).

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

Year

Commercial Crab Landings (Pounds)

Southern California

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

Year

Commercial Crab Landings (Pounds)

Point Conception to Santa Barbara
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 102

represent a portion of the entire southern 

California crab fishery. 

6.2.5 AQUACULTURE

Most commercial shellfish production in 

aquaculture operations has recently 

declined. Production of oysters, abalones, 

and mussels in California declined after 

peaking in 1994, 1996, and 1997, 

respectively (Wendell 2001). From 1992-

1997, statewide mussel production grew 

from 187,000 pounds to 471,000 pounds but 

then dropped by almost 50 percent in 1998 

due to El Niño conditions (Richards and 

Trevelyan 2001). Statewide mussel 

production returned about $500,000 

annually in 1996 and 1997 but dropped to 

$280,000 in 1998 (Richards and Trevelyan 

2001). Recent colder water regimes have 

improved mussel recruitment (Richards and 

Trevelyan 2001). 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR AQUACULTURE

In April 2002, nine registered aquaculture 

facilities were in operation in the Southern 

California Bight (Moore pers. comm. 2002). 

Five of these leases are located in the Santa 

Barbara Channel between Point Conception 

and Santa Barbara, with most production 

deriving from the harvest of mussels from 

offshore oil platforms. There are currently 

no active aquaculture operations at San 

Nicolas Island. Several aquaculture 

facilities grow abalone in land-based tanks 

or in cages suspended in the water column 

(Ebert 2001). These abalone are 

inaccessible to sea otters and are therefore 

not expected to be affected by sea otter 

range expansion. 

Over the next 10 years, sea otters are 

expected to extend their range along the 

coastline between Point Conception and 

TABLE 6-9. AVERAGE ANNUAL CRAB 

LANDINGS, 1994-2003. 

Average 

Annual 

Landings 

(pounds) 

Percentage of 

Southern 

California Bight 

Landings 

Point 

Conception to 

Santa Barbara 

(coastline) 

153,545 18% 

San Nicolas 

Island 

6,350 1% 

SCB (excluding 

landings from 

the above two 

areas) 

692,099 81% 

Total Average 

Annual 

Landings 

851,995 100% 

Data source: California Department of Fish and 

Game (2002a, 2005a). 

TABLE 6-10. PROJECTED BASELINE FOR 

COMMERCIAL CRAB LANDINGS 

Year Commercial Landings (pounds)* 

Southern 

California 

Bight** 

Point 

Conception to 

Santa Barbara 

Coastline 

San 

Nicolas 

Island 

10-year 

average 

(1994-

2003) 

851,995 153,545 6,350 

2005 836,577 138,191 6,287 

2006 821,159 122,836 6,223 

2007 805,741 107,482 6,160 

2008 790,323 92,127 6,096 

2009 774,905 76,773 6,033 

2010 759,487 61,418 5,969 

2011 744,069 46,064 5,906 

2012 728,651 30,709 5,842 

2013 713,233 15,355 5,779 

2014 697,815 0 5,715 

*Landings are rounded to the nearest pound. 

**Note that commercial landings across areas are not 

additive 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 103

Santa Barbara and to increase in number by 

about nine percent annually at San Nicolas 

Island. Sea otters reoccupying the mainland 

coastline could travel to offshore oil 

platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel and 

consume mussels. The potential effect of 

sea otters on mussel aquaculture operations 

is unclear. Sea otters are capable of locally 

reducing mussel densities, but regional 

depletion of harvestable mussel stocks may 

not occur (Estes and Van Blaricom 1985). 

Because the local clearing of patches in 

mussel beds by sea otter predation is 

episodic, it is not possible to predict or 

quantify impacts. At the regional level, it is 

probable that mussel aquaculture operations 

can persist within the range of sea otters 

because the consumption of mussels in 

California is patchy and sporadic (Estes and 

Van Blaricom 1985); however, the 

combination of sea otter predation and other 

factors that may adversely affect these 

operations could result in cumulative effects 

on mussel aquaculture. 

Beyond 10 years, aquaculture operations 

located in other portions of the Southern 

California Bight may be affected by sea 

otters. In April 2002, there were two 

registered aquaculture leases in Ventura 

County (producing a variety of shellfish and 

finfish) and two in San Diego County 

(producing exclusively abalone). Effects on 

aquaculture operations overall would likely 

be limited to sporadic losses at open water 

aquaculture leases where the harvested 

species is unprotected from sea otter 

foraging. 

6.2.6 SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY (SEA 

URCHINS) 

For a description of the seafood processing 

industry (sea urchins), see section 4.4.4. 

Lobster and crabs captured in southern 

California are usually marketed with little or 

no processing. Sea urchin processing, 

however, is highly labor-intensive and 

mostly accomplished by hand. After the 

hard shell (test) of the sea urchin is cracked, 

five pieces of roe are gently extracted and 

are then cleaned with salt water. The size, 

style, grade, and color of the roe are 

important attributes that are directly related 

to the price of the roe. Therefore, expert 

care is taken to arrange the roe carefully on 

trays for optimal presentation. Although 

some roe is steamed, baked, frozen, or 

salted, the market caters largely to fresh roe 

(Price and Tom 1995). Because fresh roe is 

highly perishable, harvesting and processing 

of the product is especially dependent upon 

market demand. 

Approximately 12 sea urchin processing 

facilities are located in southern California 

(Sea Urchin Harvester’s AssociationCalifornia 2003). These facilities process 

between 7 and 10 million pounds of sea 

urchin annually. While some of these 

facilities process only sea urchins, others 

process other shellfish and fish. 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR THE SEA 

URCHIN PROCESSING INDUSTRY

Under the baseline (no attempt to manage 

sea otters), changes in the southern 

California sea urchin processing industry 

may occur. Based on simulations by Tinker 

et al. (2004) (Appendix F), the southern sea 

otter’s range is expected to expand along the 

coastline towards the city of Santa Barbara 

over the next 10 years. Sea otter predation 

is projected to reduce the total commercial 

sea urchin harvest in the Southern California 

Bight, and thus inputs to southern California 

sea urchin processing facilities, by 3 percent 

over the next 10 years due to (1) the 

elimination of the commercial sea urchin 

fishery along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara, and (2) the 10 

percent decline of the commercial sea urchin 

harvest at San Nicolas Island. Whether sea 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 104

otters would reoccupy other areas of the 

Southern California Bight in subsequent 

years would be a function of sea otter 

demographic rates, food supply, and other 

variables. Those areas reoccupied by sea 

otters would cease to be a source of sea 

urchin inputs to the seafood processing 

industry, but the magnitude and timing of 

this potential future change is unknown. 

6.2.7 KELP HARVEST

For background on kelp harvesting in the 

Southern California Bight, see section 4.4.5. 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR KELP HARVEST

Harvesting of giant kelp (Macrocystis 

pyrifera), the algal species most important to 

the kelp industry, occurs throughout much 

of the section of coastline that sea otters are 

expected to recolonize over the next 10 

years. The area from Point Conception to 

Santa Barbara corresponds to CDFG 

administrative kelp beds 23-32 (see figure 4-

24), of which bed 32, near Cojo Anchorage, 

produced the second-highest kelp yields in 

the state from 1989-1999 (more than 

100,000 tons) (CDFG 2000a). Beds are also 

currently leased at San Nicolas Island, 

which is another important area for kelp 

harvest. Bed 108, along the northern side of 

San Nicolas Island, produced the eighthhighest kelp yields in the state from 1989-

1999 (almost 50,000 tons) (CDFG 2000a). 

Sea otter predation on herbivores is 

generally expected to promote the growth of 

dense beds of giant kelp (for a more detailed 

discussion of the relationship between sea 

otters, sea urchins, and kelp, see section 

6.2.2). However, because kelp distribution 

in areas of suitable substrate is not strictly 

correlated with grazing pressure (storms, 

pollution, water temperature, and other 

factors can also limit kelp), the magnitude of 

impact to this industry cannot be reasonably 

predicted. 

Within 10 years, sea otters are expected to 

reduce invertebrate prey populations only 

along the coastline from Point Conception to 

Santa Barbara and at San Nicolas Island. 

Sea otters would likely have a greater effect 

along the coastline, where they are expected 

to reach the densities required to reduce 

populations of invertebrate herbivores 

considerably. However, the reestablishment 

of kelp canopy in areas where it is limited 

by grazing pressure may require a decade or 

more to occur after the reduction of 

herbivore populations (Dayton and Tegner 

1984), and thus no changes in kelp may be 

noticeable immediately. 

The impact around San Nicolas Island is 

likely to be minimal over the next 10 years 

because the sea otter population is expected 

to reach only 16 percent of the estimated 

carrying capacity for the island. Although 

some increased predation on invertebrate 

herbivore populations at the island is 

expected, San Nicolas Island presently has 

extensive kelp forests. The predicted 

increase in sea otter numbers would not 

likely result in noticeable effects, but the 

persistence and density of these kelp beds 

may be enhanced. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. Those areas reoccupied by 

sea otters would likely exhibit a general 

increase in the distribution and abundance of 

kelp where it is limited by invertebrate 

herbivores. 

6.2.8 RECREATIONAL FISHING AND DIVING 

For a description of recreational fishing and 

diving, see section 4.4.6. Recreational 

fishing and diving activities that may be 

affected by sea otters include lobster diving, 

abalone diving, and finfish fishing. Lobster 

diving and finfish fishing are addressed 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 105

below. Abalone diving is included under 

“Abalone Fishery Restoration” (section 

6.2.9). 

Southern California is a leading recreational 

fishing area along the west coast. 

Recreational fisheries in the Southern 

California Bight access nearshore and 

offshore areas, targeting both finfish and 

shellfish. Recreational fishing may occur 

from human-made structures, such as jetties 

and piers; from beaches; from commercial 

passenger fishing vessels; or from private 

boats. The top recreational landings for 

California during 1998-1999 were rockfish, 

sea basses/tuna/mackerel, smelt, surfperch, 

croakers, and Pacific barracuda. Based on 

1998-99 data, annual expenditures related to 

all marine recreational fishing trips in 

southern California are estimated to total 

$202 million. This estimate, combined with 

an additional $128.4 million in expenditures 

for license, fishing gear, and boat-related 

items, results in a total annual expenditure of 

$330.4 million for recreational fishing in 

southern California (Thomson 2001). 

Recreational fishing may be affected by the 

presence of sea otters in two ways: 1) direct 

competition between recreational divers and 

sea otters for recreationally targeted species 

consumed by sea otters, or 2) indirect habitat 

enhancement that could benefit recreational 

fishing through increased production of 

targeted finfish species. Because southern 

sea otters predominantly consume shellfish, 

the only potential for direct competition with 

a current southern California recreational 

fishery is recreational lobster diving (and the 

potential for future abalone diving). Sea 

otter predation would also reduce the 

abundance of herbivorous invertebrates, 

which would in turn promote the 

development, stability, and persistence of 

the nearshore kelp forest ecosystem in areas 

where herbivores are limiting kelp 

production. A healthy kelp forest ecosystem 

is important for a wide range of finfish 

species harvested by the recreational fishery. 

See section 6.2.2. 

The California Department of Fish and 

Game has collected data on commercial 

passenger fishing vessels (recreational) since 

1995. From 1997 to 2001, the number of 

commercial passenger fishing vessels 

submitting data averaged about 22 boats per 

year in southern California (Thomson 2001). 

6.2.8.1 Lobster Diving 

From 1995 to 2003, recreational lobster dive 

trips in southern California averaged 8,983 

trips annually, ranging from about 11,700 

trips in 1996 to about 7,300 trips in 2003 

(Table 6-11). The ratio of person-trips to 

lobster catch in southern California averaged 

1.3:1 from 1995 to 2003. This ratio was 

slightly lower (0.9) for San Nicolas Island. 

There are too few data points for the stretch 

of coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara to estimate a similar ratio. 

Between 1995 and 2003, the majority of 

lobster fishing trips was concentrated around 

the Northern Channel Islands, where 6 

percent of trips occurred (Figure 6-11). 

Although the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara is located near 

the Northern Channel Islands, virtually no 

dive trips were reported in this region, and it 

is therefore not included in Figure 6-11. 

Approximately 5 percent of the dive trips 

occurred in the nearshore waters around San 

Nicolas Island. The coastline from Santa 

Barbara to the Mexican border also had very 

few dive trips. 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR LOBSTER 

DIVING

Under the baseline (no attempt to manage 

sea otters), changes in recreational lobster 

diving may occur. Based on simulations by 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 106

Tinker et al. (2004) (Appendix F), the 

southern sea otter’s range is expected to 

expand along the coastline towards the city 

of Santa Barbara over the next 10 years. For 

the purposes of our analysis, we assume that 

sea otter predation would eliminate lobster 

dive trips along the coast from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara 

(CDFG statistical blocks 654, 

655, 656, and 657) during this 

period. Recreational lobster 

fishing trips around San 

Nicolas Island could also be 

affected. Over the next 10 

years, sea otters at San Nicolas 

Island (CDFG statistical 

blocks 813 and 814) are 

expected to increase from 6 

percent of carrying capacity in 

2004 to 16 percent of carrying 

capacity in 2014. We assume 

that lobster dive trips would 

decrease accordingly, by 10 

percent over 10 years at the 

island. Whether sea otters 

would reoccupy other areas of 

the Southern California Bight 

in subsequent years would be a 

function of sea otter demographic rates, food 

supply, and other variables. Those areas 

reoccupied by sea otters would likely exhibit 

declines in the number of lobsters available 

to recreational lobster divers, but the 

magnitude and timing of this potential future 

change is unknown. 

TABLE 6-11. NUMBER OF RECREATIONAL LOBSTER FISHING TRIPS AND CATCH VIA 

COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FISHING VESSELS DISTRIBUTED BY AREA 

Recreational Lobster Dive Trips Number of Lobsters 

Caught 

Year Ratio of Trips to Catch 

Southern 

California 

Bight 

Point 

Conception to 

Santa Barbara 

San 

Nicolas 

Island 

Southern 

California 

Bight 

San 

Nicolas 

Island 

Southern 

California 

Bight 

San 

Nicolas 

Island 

1995 10,094 33 742 5,633 783 1.8 0.9 

1996 11,698 0 1,398 6,143 1,583 1.9 0.9 

1997 11,514 45 933 7,148 925 1.6 1.0 

1998 7,910 0 274 5,446 182 1.5 1.5 

1999 9,164 1 342 5,782 373 1.6 0.9 

2000 9,880 0 352 9,098 624 1.1 0.6 

2001 7,118 0 120 6,830 243 1.0 0.5 

2002 6,163 0 346 7,270 441 0.8 0.8 

2003 7,309 0 183 9,032 177 0.8 1.0 

9-year 

average 8,983 9 521 6,931 592 1.3 0.9 

Data source: California Department of Fish and Game (1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999b, 2000b, 2001, 2002b, 

2003) 

FIGURE 6-11. ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION OF RECREATIONAL 

LOBSTER FISHING TRIPS VIA COMMERCIAL PASSENGER 

FISHING VESSELS BY AREA IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. 

Shaded area indicates El Niño event. Data source: California Department of 

Fish and Game (2002a, 2005a). 

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

199519961997199819992000200120022003

Year

Recreational Lobster Dive Trips

San Nicolas Island Coastline, Santa Barbara to Mexican Border

Northern Channel Islands Southern Channel Islands (excl. San Nicolas)
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 107

Changes in the southern California 

recreational lobster fishery would take place 

gradually, with some localized areas (the 

coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara and San Nicolas Island) being 

affected over the next decade. We assume 

that the number of trips taken is proportional 

to the potential catch on a recreational 

lobster dive trip, and that the potential catch 

on a recreational dive trip is a perfect 

inverse function of the area occupied by sea 

otters. Using this approach, we likely 

overestimate impacts of sea otters because 

we do not account for commercial passenger 

fishing vessels that choose to fish in other 

areas or shift emphasis to carrying 

passengers involved in non-consumptive 

activities. 

To establish the recreational lobster fishing 

baseline, we project that the elimination of 

lobster fishing trips along the coastline from 

Point Conception to Santa Barbara would be 

distributed evenly across 10 years so that 

lobster dive trips would decrease 10 percent 

(about 1 trip) each year from 9 trips (9-year 

average) to 8 trips in 2005, and so forth to 

zero trips in 2014. 

Around San Nicolas Island, the average 

number of annual trips is 521. Using this 

approach, trips around San Nicolas Island 

are predicted to decrease 1 percent per year 

over 10 years from 521 trips (9-year 

average) to 516 trips in 2005 to 511 trips in 

2006, and so forth to 469 trips in 2014 

(Table 6-12). Because the data represent 

only commercial passenger fishing vessels 

(no private dive trips are included), the 

number of dive trips may be underestimated. 

6.2.8.2 Finfish Fishing 

The presence of sea otters may improve 

habitat for recreationally important finfish 

and thus have a positive effect on the 

abundance of finfish available for harvest. 

Such changes would likely require more 

than 10 years to become noticeable (because 

the reestablishment of giant kelp canopies in 

areas where sea urchin grazing is limiting 

kelp is expected to take at least 10 years) 

and could occur gradually over several 

decades. A discussion of the long-term 

effects of sea otter predation on the kelp 

forest community, including finfish 

production, is given in section 6.2.2. A 

healthy kelp forest ecosystem is important 

for a wide range of finfish species harvested 

by the recreational fishery; however, it is not 

possible to reasonably quantify positive 

short-term effects sea otters may have on 

recreational finfish fishing because of the 

number of factors involved. 

6.2.9 ABALONE FISHERY RESTORATION

For additional background on the 

commercial and recreational abalone 

fishery, see section 4.4.7. From 1995 to 

1997, recreational abalone trips in southern 

California decreased by 83 percent, while 

TABLE 6-12. PROJECTED BASELINE FOR 

RECREATIONAL LOBSTER FISHING TRIPS 

Year Recreational Lobster Fishing Trips* 

Southern 

California 

Bight 

San 

Nicolas 

Island 

Point 

Conception 

to Santa 

Barbara 

Coastline 

9-year 

average 

(1995-

2003) 

8,983 521 9 

2005 8,977 516 8 

2006 8,971 511 7 

2007 8,965 506 6 

2008 8,959 500 5 

2009 8,953 495 4 

2010 8,947 490 3 

2011 8,941 485 2 

2012 8,935 480 2 

2013 8,928 474 1 

2014 8,922 469 0 

*Rounded to the nearest trip. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 108

trips at San Nicolas Island decreased by 50 

percent (Table 6-13). The California 

abalone fishery was closed in 1997 (with the 

exception of a sport-only fishery for red 

abalone north of San Francisco County) due 

to the depletion of multiple species of 

abalone caused by commercial and 

recreational harvest. Advances in diving 

equipment and boats increased the 

efficiency of commercial abalone 

exploitation, contributing to the depletion of 

stocks and the continual expansion of 

fishing grounds. During this same period, 

sea otter reoccupation of historic range 

along the central coast of California resulted 

in the displacement and concentration of 

fishing pressure to other areas of California 

(CDFG 2002c). 

In December 2002, the California 

Department of Fish and Game published a 

draft Abalone Recovery and Management 

Plan (ARMP) for five species of abalone 

(red, black, green, pink, and white) in 

southern California. If abalone populations 

recover to sufficient levels, the ARMP 

proposes various management alternatives 

that will “...initially apply to the northern 

California red abalone fishery, but 

ultimately will apply to any fully recovered 

species in central and southern California, 

outside of the sea otter range” (CDFG 

2002c, emphasis added). As indicated here 

and elsewhere in the ARMP, areas of 

southern California that are reoccupied by 

sea otters would not be considered for the 

development of commercial or recreational 

abalone fisheries. 

The ARMP projects recovery times and key 

recovery areas for each species of abalone 

considered in the plan (Table 6-14). 

According to these projections, abalone 

populations will require 6 to 20 (or more) 

years to meet Criterion 1, which will be 

achieved when abalone reach a broad size 

distribution over their former range. Only 

when abalone have met Criterion 3 (an 

average density of 6,600 abalone per 

hectare) would they be considered for 

recreational or commercial harvest. The 

ARMP does not estimate the time required 

to meet Criteria 2 or 3 because such 

estimates would be purely “speculative,” but 

the plan does state that achievement of these 

criteria may take decades. 

TABLE 6-13. NUMBER OF RECREATIONAL ABALONE FISHING TRIPS AND CATCH VIA 

COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FISHING VESSELS DISTRIBUTED BY AREA 

Recreational Abalone Dive Trips Number of Abalone 

Harvested 

Ratio of Trips to 

Catch 

Year 

Southern 

CA 

Point 

Conception 

to Santa 

Barbara 

San 

Nicolas 

Island 

Southern 

CA 

San 

Nicolas 

Island 

Southern 

CA 

San 

Nicolas 

Island 

1995 8,972 0 207 4,135 171 2.2 1.2 

1996 4,934 0 507 3,746 271 1.3 1.9 

1997 1,592 0 110 1,111 50 1.4 2.2 

1998 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

1999 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

2000 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

2001 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

2002 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

2003 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

9-year average -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Data source: California Department of Fish and Game (1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999b, 2000b, 2001, 2002, 2003). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 109

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR ABALONE 

FISHERY RESTORATION

The southern sea otter’s range is expected to 

expand along the coastline towards the city 

of Santa Barbara over the next 10 years 

(Appendix F). It does not appear that there 

is any potential for reopening the abalone 

fishery for any species during this 10-year 

time frame, regardless of the presence or 

absence of sea otters. We assume that 

extension of the southern sea otter’s range 

from Point Conception to Santa Barbara 

would preclude reestablishment of abalone 

fishing along this stretch of coastline. 

Over the next 10 years, sea otters at San 

Nicolas Island (CDFG statistical blocks 813 

and 814) are expected to increase from 6 

percent of carrying capacity in 2004 to 16 

percent of carrying capacity in 2014. 

Abalone populations at San Nicolas Island 

are expected to persist as sea otter predation 

increases. However, densities of large 

individual abalone would likely eventually 

be reduced to a point that would preclude 

reestablishment of an abalone fishery at the 

island. If the colony at San Nicolas Island 

persisted as projected, the area surrounding 

the island would likely be disqualified from 

abalone fishery consideration on the grounds 

that it is not “outside of the sea otter range” 

(CDFG 2002c). 

 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. Whether or when an 

abalone fishery could be reestablished in the 

absence of sea otters is also uncertain, but it 

is clear that sea otter range expansion would 

preclude the possibility of recreational or 

commercial abalone fishing in reoccupied 

areas. 

TABLE 6-14. PROJECTED ABALONE 

RECOVERY TIMES AND KEY RECOVERY 

AREAS. 

Species 

Minimum 

Recovery 

Time* 

Key Areas 

Red 6-11 years 

San Miguel Island 

Santa Rosa Island 

Santa Cruz Island 

San Diego area 

Pink 14-16 years 

Anacapa Island 

Santa Cruz Island 

Santa Barbara Island 

Santa Catalina Island 

San Clemente Island 

Cortez Bank 

Palos Verdes Peninsula 

Dana Point 

San Diego area 

Green 14-20 years 

Anacapa Island 

Santa Cruz Island 

Santa Barbara Island 

Santa Catalina Island 

San Clemente Island 

Palos Verdes Peninsula 

Dana Point 

San Diego area 

Black 20+ years 

San Miguel Island 

Santa Rosa Island 

Anacapa Island 

Santa Barbara Island 

San Nicolas Island 

Santa Catalina Island 

San Clemente Island 

Palos Verdes Peninsula 

Dana Point 

San Diego area 

White 9+ years 

Santa Barbara Island 

Santa Catalina Island 

San Clemente Island 

Tanner Bank 

Cortez Bank 

Source: Draft Abalone Recovery and Management 

Plan (CDFG 2002c).

*Recovery times are minimum times for the achievement 

of Criterion 1, which requires a broad size distribution of 

abalone over their former range. Achievement of 

Criterion 2 requires that minimum viable population 

(MVP) levels be reached at all key locations in all 

recovery areas. Achievement of Criterion 3 requires an 

average density of 6,600 abalone per hectare, at which 

point a population would enter the “fishery consideration” 

phase. Expected times for the attainment of Criteria 2 

and 3 are not given. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 110

6.2.10 ECOTOURISM 

HISTORY AND PAST TRENDS

Tourism is the 3rd largest employer in the 

state of California and the 5th largest 

contributor to the gross state product 

(California Tourism 2003). Among oceandependent industries in California, coastal 

tourism is the most economically 

considerable. Coastal tourism spending was 

the largest economic component among 

seven ocean-dependent industries studied by 

the Resources Agency of California, 

contributing $9.9 billion to the California 

economy in 1992 (Burroughs et al. 1997).12 

Expenditures for wildlife-watching activities 

in the state of California are the highest of 

any state and totaled about 2.6 billion dollars 

in 2001. For comparison, expenditures for 

recreational fishing for all of California 

totaled about 2.0 billion dollars in 2001 

(USFWS 2001). 

Ecotourism in the nearshore waters of the 

Southern California Bight is based primarily 

on the gray whale migration and on tours of 

ecologically significant areas. Some 

operators also conduct trips during the blue 

whale and humpback whale season in the 

summer and early fall (Hoyt 2001). Whale 

watching in the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) accounted for 

25,984 person days of recreation activity in 

1999 and generated more than $1.5 million 

in total revenue (Leeworthy and Wiley 

2002). More generally, non-consumptive 

recreation in the CINMS (which includes 

whale watching, non-consumptive diving, 

sailing, and kayaking/island sightseeing) 

yielded a total revenue of about $2.6 million 

in 1999 (Leeworthy and Wiley 2002). 

 

12 Seaports and shipbuilding contributed about $6.0 

billion; offshore oil, gas, and mineral production 

contributed $852 million; and commercial fishing, 

aquaculture, and kelp harvesting contributed $554 

million (Burroughs et al. 1997). 

Like whales, sea otters can be a considerable 

draw for tourists. Sea otters in Monterey 

Bay and Morro Bay attract visitors who 

contribute to the local economies through 

spending on accommodations, meals at 

restaurants, recreation, and retail purchases. 

However, it is difficult to estimate the 

economic importance of sea otters relative to 

other tourist attractions.13 Sea otters have 

occurred only in very low numbers in the 

Southern California Bight in the recent past. 

At San Nicolas Island, the only area of the 

Southern California Bight where sea otters 

have been consistently present, the numbers 

of sea otters have also remained low. Trips 

directed toward ecotourism in the Southern 

California Bight would increase in quality if 

sea otters were observed. 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR ECOTOURISM

Over the next 10 years, southern sea otters 

are expected to recolonize the stretch of 

coastline from Point Conception to the Santa 

Barbara harbor mouth, with a median 

number of 117 sea otters residing year-round 

south of Point Conception by the end of the 

10-year period. Tourism, based on sea otter 

watching, would be enhanced with sea otters 

residing along a coastline accessible by a 

well-traveled highway and near busy areas 

like the Santa Barbara harbor. Overall 

economic value of this tourism is difficult to 

quantify and would not necessarily result in 

increased economic activity. Rather, it 

would likely manifest itself as an added 

value to other tourist draws in the area. 

The sea otter colony at San Nicolas Island is 

expected to increase by 9 percent annually, 

 

13 Only one study of which we are aware attempts to 

quantify the impact of sea otters on tourism. Aldrich 

et al. (2001) performed a regression analysis to 

calculate a yearly added-value destination spending 

(in California) per sea otter of $69,700 +/- 39,300, 

which includes accommodation, eating-drinking, 

recreation, and retail spending. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 111

resulting in an estimated population size of 

79 in 2014. San Nicolas Island is not 

currently an important destination for 

ecotourism (U.S. Department of Defense 

2002) relative to the other Channel Islands 

because of its isolation from other islands, 

its distance from the mainland, and the 

periodic closure of its surrounding waters 

for military operations. We do not expect 

ecotourism in this area to grow considerably 

(in terms of number of trips) due to the 

increased abundance of sea otters. Rather, 

the quality of recreational trips that do occur 

at San Nicolas Island would likely be 

enhanced due to increased opportunities to 

see sea otters. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

other areas of the Southern California Bight, 

ecotourism would likely be enhanced in 

those areas. 

6.2.11 FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY 

PROGRAMS

For additional background on the activities 

of the Channel Islands National Park 

(CINP), the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary (CINMS), the California 

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the 

U.S. Minerals Management Service 

(Minerals Management Service) and the 

U.S. Navy, see section 4.4.9. For a 

discussion of the regulatory environment, 

see section 6.2.12. 

6.2.11.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

Baseline effects on southern sea otter 

recovery are also addressed in section 

6.2.3.3 (“Southern Sea Otter”). Here we 

address our ability to meet our mandates 

under the Endangered Species Act and the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act and give the 

implementation costs associated with the 

baseline. 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is “to work with others to conserve, 

protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of the American people.” In the case 

of endangered or threatened species like the 

southern sea otter, we are required to 

promote the recovery of the species as 

defined by the Endangered Species Act. 

Generally, the goal of the Endangered 

Species Act is to ensure the recovery of 

listed species so that they are no longer in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

extinct in the foreseeable future. In 

addition, under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, federal agencies are charged 

with managing marine mammals to their 

optimum sustainable population (OSP) 

level. OSP is defined by the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act as the number of 

animals, with respect to any population 

stock, that “will result in the maximum 

productivity of the population or the species, 

keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the 

habitat and the health of the ecosystem of 

which they form a constituent element” (16 

U.S.C. 1362). For the sea otter, OSP is 

believed to be greater than the population 

level needed to achieve recovery under the 

Endangered Species Act. The final revised 

recovery plan for the southern sea otter 

identifies a population size of 3,090 as 

necessary to ensure the survival of the 

species and gives the lower bound of OSP as 

approximately 8,400 animals for the 

California coast (USFWS 2003). 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE PROGRAMS

Under baseline conditions, sea otters may 

expand their range naturally into the 

Southern California Bight, maximizing the 

area available at the southern end of the 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 112

range for southern sea otter recovery and the 

potential for the eventual increase of 

southern sea otters to OSP. The carrying 

capacity of the Southern California Bight 

has been estimated as 6,441 sea otters, 

which accounts for about 40 percent of the 

carrying capacity of California as a whole 

(Laidre et al. 2001). 

For a discussion of the regulatory provisions 

that apply to sea otters under the baseline, 

see section 6.2.12. 

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS (10-YEAR PERIOD) 

Currently, no sea otters are being moved to 

San Nicolas Island or out of the designated 

management zone. Monitoring of the 

colony and ecological changes at the island 

are conducted by the U.S. Geological 

Survey and are not included here as costs to 

the Service. Without the movement of sea 

otters, no other implementation costs are 

associated with the program. Under the 

baseline, the absence of implementation 

costs would remain constant over the next 

10 years. 

6.2.11.2 Channel Islands National 

Park 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR CHANNEL 

ISLAND NATIONAL PARK PROGRAMS

Based on simulations by Tinker et al. (2004) 

(Appendix F), the southern sea otter’s range 

is expected to expand along the mainland 

coastline towards the city of Santa Barbara 

over the next 10 years. At San Nicolas 

Island, the sea otter population is expected 

to grow by about nine percent annually. 

Because both of these areas are outside the 

boundaries of the Channel Islands National 

Park, sea otters are not expected to have any 

effect on this agency within ten years. 

However, at some point in the future, it is 

possible that sea otters would recolonize 

other areas of the Southern California Bight, 

which would likely include areas within the 

Channel Islands National Park. If sea otters 

recolonized areas within Park boundaries, 

the National Park Service would be required 

to conference under the Endangered Species 

Act for actions that would be likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the 

species. For further discussion of the 

regulatory environment, see section 6.2.12. 

According to the Strategic Plan for Channel 

Islands National Park, the Park’s mission is 

to “protect and interpret the natural 

ecosystems and cultural values of the 

Channel Islands and adjacent marine waters 

[...].” The “Park Mission Goals” specify 

that natural, scenic, and cultural resources 

should be “protected, restored, understood, 

and maintained and managed within their 

broader ecosystem and cultural context” 

(CINP n.d.). Because of the important role 

of sea otters as keystone predators in 

nearshore marine ecosystems of the North 

Pacific (see section 6.2.2) and the historic 

presence of sea otters in the Southern 

California Bight, it appears that the renewed 

presence of sea otters would be consistent 

with efforts of the Channel Islands National 

Park to fulfill its mission and related goals. 

6.2.11.3 Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR CHANNEL 

ISLANDS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY 

PROGRAMS

Based on simulations by Tinker et al. (2004) 

(Appendix F), the southern sea otter’s range 

is expected to expand along the mainland 

coastline towards the city of Santa Barbara 

over the next 10 years. At San Nicolas 

Island, the sea otter population is expected 

to grow by about nine percent annually. 

Because both of these areas are outside the 

boundaries of the Channel Islands National 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 113

Marine Sanctuary, sea otters are not 

expected to have any effect on this agency 

within ten years. 

However, at some point in the future, it is 

possible that sea otters would recolonize 

other areas of the Southern California Bight, 

which would likely include nearshore waters 

within the Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary. If sea otters recolonized areas 

within the Sanctuary, the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration would be 

required to conference under the 

Endangered Species Act for actions that 

would be likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species. For further 

discussion of the regulatory environment, 

see section 6.2.12. 

 

The mission of the National Marine 

Sanctuary Program is “to conserve and 

enhance biodiversity, ecological integrity 

and cultural legacy of areas of special 

national significance through comprehensive 

long term management and outreach” 

(CINMS 2002a). Because of the important 

role of sea otters as keystone predators in 

nearshore marine ecosystems of the North 

Pacific (see section 6.2.2) and the historic 

presence of sea otters in the Southern 

California Bight, it appears that the renewed 

presence of sea otters would be consistent 

with efforts of the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary to fulfill its mission. 

Possible effects on the recently designated 

Channel Islands Marine Protected Areas are 

discussed in section 6.2.11.4 (“California 

Department of Fish and Game”). 

6.2.11.4 California Department of 

Fish and Game 

Note: California Department of Fish and 

Game activities that may be affected by sea 

otters are diverse, and baseline effects on 

these activities are discussed separately. 

California Department of Fish and Game 

activities include general fisheries 

management or restoration, efforts to protect 

rare species (such as white and black 

abalone and southern sea otters), and the 

implementation of Marine Protected Areas. 

Effects on the recovery of white and black 

abalone and sea otters are discussed under 

“Candidate, Threatened, and Endangered 

Species” (section 6.2.3). Effects on existing 

commercial fisheries are discussed under 

“Commercial Fisheries” (section 6.2.4). 

Effects on attempts to restore an abalone 

fishery are discussed under “Abalone 

Fishery Restoration” (section 6.2.9). Effects 

on Marine Protected Areas are discussed 

here. 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME PROGRAMS

Twelve new Marine Protected Areas at the 

Channel Islands were designated by the 

California Fish and Game Commission in 

October of 2002. These special status areas 

are all located in state waters within the 

boundaries of Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary. Under baseline 

conditions, sea otters are not expected to 

recolonize any currently designated Marine 

Protected Areas within 10 years. Therefore, 

there would be no effect within this period 

of time on the efforts of CDFG to implement 

and manage these areas. 

At some point in the future, however, it is 

possible that sea otters would recolonize 

other areas of the Southern California Bight, 

which would likely include the Channel 

Islands. As described in the Final 

Environmental Document for Marine 

Protected Areas in NOAA’s Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary (Ugoretz 2002), 

the Channel Islands Marine Protected Areas 

are intended to meet multiple objectives. 

These objectives include an ecosystem 

biodiversity goal, a socio-economic goal, a 

sustainable fisheries goal, a natural and 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 114

cultural heritage goal, and an education goal 

(Ugoretz 2002). The Channel Islands 

Marine Protected Areas are also intended to 

meet the requirements of recent state 

legislation emphasizing ecosystem 

management, such as the Marine Life 

Management Act (Chap. 1052, Stats. 1998) 

and the Marine Life Protection Act (Chap. 

1015, Stats. 1999) (Ugoretz 2002). 

Specifically, the Channel Islands Marine 

Protected Areas are intended to meet the 

following goals identified in the Marine Life 

Protection Act [Fish and Game Code 

Section 2853(b)]: 

1) To protect the natural diversity 

and abundance of marine life, and 

the structure, function, and integrity 

of marine ecosystems; 

2) To help sustain, conserve, and 

protect marine life populations, 

including those of economic value, 

and rebuild those that are depleted; 

 

3) To improve recreational, 

educational, and study opportunities 

provided by marine ecosystems that 

are subject to minimal human 

disturbance, and to manage these 

uses in a manner consistent with 

protecting biodiversity; 

4) To protect marine natural 

heritage, including protection of 

representative and unique marine life 

habitats in California waters for their 

intrinsic value; 

5) To ensure that California’s 

Marine Protected Areas have clearly 

defined objectives, effective 

management measures, and adequate 

enforcement, and are based on sound 

scientific guidelines; and 

 

6) To ensure that California’s 

Marine Protected Areas are designed 

and managed, to the extent possible, 

as a network. (Ugoretz 2002) 

The gradual reoccupation of historic range 

by sea otters would be consistent with the 

goals set out for the Marine Protected Areas 

relating to: the maintenance of ecosystem 

biodiversity; the protection of the structure, 

function, and integrity of marine 

ecosystems; the protection of marine natural 

heritage; and the provision of recreational, 

scientific, and educational opportunities. 

With respect to the socio-economic goals set 

for the Marine Protected Areas, the presence 

of sea otters would likely enhance socioeconomic activities related to all forms of 

non-consumptive recreation. 

The presence of sea otters would also be 

compatible with state legislative mandates to 

practice ecosystem management. 

Specifically, the presence of sea otters is 

compatible with the objectives of state 

policy to conserve entire systems, to allow 

only sustainable uses of the marine 

environment, to recognize the importance of 

non-consumptive uses, and to encourage 

commercial fishing and aquaculture where it 

is consistent with marine living resource 

conservation policies. These objectives are 

expressed in Division 6, Part 1.7 of the 

Marine Life Management Act [7050(b)]: 

1) Conserve the health and diversity 

of marine ecosystems and marine 

living resources.14

 

14 The Marine Life Management Act defines “Marine 

Living Resources” as including “all wild mammals, 

birds, reptiles, fish, and plants that normally occur in 

or are associated with salt water, and the marine 

habitats on which these animals and plants depend 

for their continued viability.” 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 115

2) Allow and encourage only those 

activities and uses of marine living 

resources that are sustainable. 

3) Recognize the importance of the 

aesthetic, educational, scientific, and 

recreational uses that do not involve 

the taking of California’s marine 

living resources. 

4) Recognize the importance to the 

economy and the culture of 

California of sustainable sport and 

commercial fisheries and the 

development of commercial 

aquaculture consistent with the 

marine living resource conservation 

policies of this part. 

An assessment of the possible effects of sea 

otters on sustainable fisheries goals for the 

Marine Protected Areas is somewhat more 

complicated. Generally, sea otters can be 

expected to have a beneficial effect on the 

nearshore marine ecosystem, and thus to 

enhance the potential productivity of Marine 

Protected Areas overall (see section 6.2.2). 

Because 10 of the 12 Marine Protected 

Areas are closed to all fishing and kelp 

harvesting (designated “marine reserves”), 

there would be no direct effects on fishing or 

kelp harvesting activities within the 

boundaries of these 10 Marine Protected 

Areas. The two remaining areas are 

designated “conservation areas,” which 

allow limited recreational fishing and lobster 

trapping. If sea otters occupied areas in and 

around these two “conservation areas,” in 

numbers sufficient to cause a reduction in 

the densities of their invertebrate prey 

species, lobster trapping would likely be 

reduced or eliminated, but recreational 

finfish fishing could be enhanced as a result 

of increases in kelp, associated finfish, and 

other species (see section 6.2.2). 

Most of the fishery benefits of Marine 

Protected Areas are expected to accrue 

outside of their boundaries. These benefits 

may occur as a result of the increased 

reproductive output and recruitment of 

fished species or as a result of the migration 

of legal-sized individuals out of Marine 

Protected Area boundaries (Ugoretz 2002). 

If sea otters reoccupied areas designated as 

Marine Protected Areas, the reproductive 

output of lobster, crab, and sea urchin 

populations in these areas would likely 

diminish as a result of sea otter predation. 

Dispersal of the highly mobile pelagic larvae 

produced by the remaining mature 

individuals in Marine Protected Areas could 

still occur, however. The potential for 

dispersal of larger individuals outside the 

boundaries of reserves depends on the 

mobility of the species in question (Ugoretz 

2002). Whereas sea otter predation would 

have no impact on this form of “spillover 

effect” for sea urchins and abalone because 

mature individuals of these species are not 

highly mobile, sea otters would be expected 

to reduce the densities of lobsters and crabs 

and thus to reduce the number of legal-sized 

individuals that could potentially move out 

of Marine Protected Areas. 

To the extent that the Channel Islands 

Marine Protected Areas are intended to 

enhance the prospect of a possible eventual 

reopening of the abalone fishery in southern 

California, the presence of sea otters in these 

areas would adversely affect such efforts. 

Sea otter predation can be expected to 

remove the larger, exposed individuals 

(which are more vulnerable to predation) 

from the abalone population and to restrict 

the remaining individuals to cryptic and 

inaccessible habitat. Abalone populations 

would likely be maintained at the densities 

typical for the area prior to the extirpation of 

sea otters, in whose absence the commercial 

abalone and sea urchin fisheries developed 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 116

(Estes and Van Blaricom 1985). The 

presence of sea otters in Marine Protected 

Areas would not eliminate the potential for 

persistent (cryptic) abalone populations but 

would rather diminish the fishery benefit 

anticipated from the exported reproductive 

output of protected large adults. Fanshawe 

et al. (2003) conclude from a study of red 

abalone in California “no take” areas with 

and without sea otters that sea otters restrict 

abalone to a subset of microhabitats 

adequate for population persistence but 

likely insufficient to contribute to regional 

fishery sustainability. 

The Final Environmental Document for 

Marine Protected Areas states that the 

potential reduction of prey species by top 

predators (such as sea otters) is not to be 

regarded as a negative effect from the 

perspective of ecosystem management: 

Empirical studies suggest that 

trophic cascades may occur when 

areas are protected from fishing, 

particularly when top predators have 

been reduced in numbers (e.g. sea 

otters and California sheephead), 

allowing the exceptional growth of 

prey populations (e.g., sea urchins). 

One consequence of reserve 

establishment may be to offset the 

exceptional growth of prey 

populations with increased numbers 

of top predators. In this 

circumstance, declines are expected 

and desired from the perspective of 

ecosystem management. (Ugoretz 

2002) 

6.2.11.5 U.S. Navy 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR U.S. NAVY 

PROGRAMS

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

directs all federal agencies to consult with 

the Service when their actions may affect 

listed species or adversely modify critical 

habitats. However, Public Law 99-625 and 

federal implementing regulations modified 

the regulatory provisions that apply to sea 

otters in the translocation zone and 

management zone. For a discussion of the 

regulatory environment, see section 6.2.12. 

6.2.11.6 U.S. Minerals Management 

Service 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR U.S. MINERAL 

MANAGEMENT SERVICE PROGRAMS

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

directs all federal agencies to consult with 

the Service when their actions may affect 

listed species or adversely modify critical 

habitats. However, Public Law 99-625 and 

federal implementing regulations modified 

the regulatory provisions that apply to sea 

otters in the translocation zone and 

management zone. For a discussion of the 

regulatory environment, see section 6.2.12. 

6.2.12 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

The southern sea otter is federally listed as a 

threatened species under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended, and is 

therefore a depleted species under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as 

amended. The state of California 

additionally recognizes the southern sea 

otter as a fully protected mammal in Fish 

and Game Code section 4700 and as a 

protected marine mammal in Fish and Game 

Code section 4500. Among other 

restrictions, “take” of southern sea otters is 

prohibited under each of these laws. 

Under the Endangered Species Act and the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, there are 

provisions that allow certain types of take 

(e.g., for scientific research or enhancement 

purposes, or incidental to specific legal 

activities) upon authorization of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. However, state law 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 117

appears to be more restrictive. While 

California Fish and Game Code Section 

4500 makes it unlawful to take a sea otter 

except in accordance with the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Fish and 

Game Code Section 4700 goes further and 

provides that “no provision of this code or 

any other law shall be construed to authorize 

the issuance of permits or licenses to take a 

fully protected mammal.” Section 4700 

contains a limited exception for scientific 

research and recovery efforts. 

ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE FOR THE 

REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

As a free-standing act of Congress, Public 

Law 99-625 changed the protections under 

the Endangered Species Act and the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act for sea otters 

residing in the translocation zone and 

management zone. 

Under Public Law 99-625, sea otters within 

the translocation zone receive the standard 

protections of the Endangered Species Act 

for threatened species, except with respect to 

defense-related activities. Proposed actions 

other than defense-related activities that are 

carried out, authorized, or funded by a 

federal agency within the translocation zone 

and that may affect the southern sea otter are 

subject to the consultation requirements of 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Under section 7 and its implementing 

regulations, a federal agency must consult 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service if a 

proposed action may affect the southern sea 

otter, and the agency may not proceed with 

the action if it is likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the southern sea 

otter. The standard prohibitions and 

authorizations (exceptions to the 

prohibitions) of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act and state law also apply to 

southern sea otters within the translocation 

zone, with specific exemptions for incidental 

take of southern sea otters by defenserelated agency actions. 

With respect to defense-related activities, 

sea otters within the translocation zone are 

treated as a species that is proposed to be 

listed [50 CFR §17.84(d)(4)(iv)]. 

Consultation requirements under section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act do not apply 

to proposed species, and therefore a federal 

agency carrying out a defense-related 

activity is not required to avoid jeopardy to, 

or incidental take of, southern sea otters 

within the translocation zone. However, 

pursuant to section 7(a)(4) of the 

Endangered Species Act and Public Law 99-

625, when a federal agency in a military 

department proposes to carry out a defenserelated activity in the translocation zone that 

is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the southern sea otter, a 

conference between the federal agency and 

the Fish and Wildlife Service, resulting in 

the issuance by the Service of a non-binding 

conference opinion, is required. 

Under Public Law 99-625, sea otters within 

the management zone are treated as 

members of a species that is proposed to be 

listed for the purposes of section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. Accordingly, 

federal agencies are not required to consult 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service under 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act but 

only to conference with the Service if a 

proposed action is likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. In 

addition, any taking of sea otters within the 

management zone that is incidental to an 

otherwise legal activity (including 

commercial fishing) is not subject to the 

take authorization procedures of, and may 

not be considered a violation of, either the 

Endangered Species Act or the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. To accommodate 

Public Law 99-625 and to support the 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Baseline (No Action Alternative) 118

southern sea otter translocation program, the 

State of California enacted section 8664.2 of 

the California Fish and Game Code. Among 

other provisions, section 8664.2 allows for 

incidental take of sea otters in the 

management zone by means of specific 

exemptions from section 4700 of the Fish 

and Game Code. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 119

6.3 Alternative 1—Resume 

Implementation of 1987 

Translocation Plan 

6.3.1 INTRODUCTION

Under Alternative 1, the Service would 

continue monitoring the sea otter colony at 

San Nicolas Island and the local marine 

environment and resume containment 

activities associated with the southern sea 

otter translocation program, as defined by 

Public Law 99-625 and 50 CFR §17.84(d). 

The primary activities would include (1) 

observing and protecting sea otters around 

San Nicolas Island, (2) conducting sea-otterrelated research (3) maintaining a 

management (or no-sea-otter) zone from 

Point Conception to the Mexican border, 

and (4) moving small numbers of sea otters 

to San Nicolas Island, as necessary, to 

improve genetic diversity in the colony. 

Alternative 1 entails resumption of sea otter 

translocation and relocation activities and 

hence differs considerably from the baseline 

in this respect. 

Alternative 1 would require removing all sea 

otters that enter the management zone. In 

light of the past seasonal movement of large 

numbers of sea otters into and out of the 

management zone, the substantial difficulty 

in capturing such numbers of sea otters, and 

the tendency of moved sea otters to return, it 

is unlikely that maintenance of the 

management zone can be performed with 

absolute or even a reasonably high rate of 

success. The degree of success depends 

largely on the movements of sea otters 

themselves. In light of this uncertainty, we 

evaluate the effects of Alternative 1 as if the 

management zone could be maintained 

absolutely, with the understanding that the 

effects projected for this alternative (both 

positive and negative) would be diminished 

to some unknown extent relative to the 

baseline if sea otters cannot be captured and 

removed effectively. 

The assumptions that apply to the analysis 

for Alternative 1 are the same as those 

described for the baseline. For a more 

detailed description of the baseline, to which 

each activity is compared, refer to section 

6.2, “Baseline (Status Quo)—The No Action 

Alternative.”

6.3.2 NEARSHORE MARINE ECOSYSTEM

Alternative 1 would require the exclusion of 

sea otters from all areas of the Southern 

California Bight except the translocation 

zone surrounding San Nicolas Island. Any 

community changes that have occurred as a 

result of seasonal sea otter predation in the 

management zone during the last several 

years would likely be reversed, and none of 

the ecosystem changes predicted under 

baseline conditions would occur (see section 

6.2.2). Conditions at San Nicolas Island 

would be the same as those projected for the 

baseline. 

In the long term, Alternative 1 would 

prevent any of the changes described in 

section 6.2.2 from occurring in all areas of 

the Southern California Bight except the 

immediate area surrounding San Nicolas 

Island. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

effects on the nearshore marine ecosystem 

because of the extent of uncertainty 

involved. 

6.3.3 CANDIDATE, THREATENED, AND 

ENDANGERED SPECIES

To some extent, implementation of 

Alternative 1 may benefit existing white 

abalone and black abalone populations in the 

Southern California, unless sea otter 

containment efforts fail. Effects of 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 120

Alternative 1 on southern sea otters are 

considerable and strongly negative. 

6.3.3.1 White Abalone 

Resuming maintenance of the currently 

designated management zone, as required 

under Alternative 1, would minimize sea 

otter predation on white abalone populations 

in the Southern California Bight except in 

the translocation zone surrounding San 

Nicolas Island. However, this alternative 

differs little from the baseline condition with 

respect to white abalone because an 

expanding sea otter population is likely to 

have effects only on shallow-living 

individuals and is not expected to have 

effects at the local population or species 

level (see section 6.2.3.1). 

Because Alternative 1 calls for only minor 

changes to the colony at San Nicolas Island 

relative to the baseline (including the 

possibility of continued translocation of 

small numbers of sea otters for the purposes 

of genetic enhancement), effects on white 

abalone in the vicinity of San Nicolas Island 

are essentially the same as for the baseline. 

Within 10 years, Alternative 1 is expected to 

have a beneficial effect of low significance. 

In the long term, Alternative 1 would 

provide a probable benefit to shallow-living 

individuals in the management zone but 

would have no expected benefit at the 

species level. 

6.3.3.2 Black Abalone 

Maintenance of the currently designated 

management zone, as required under 

Alternative 1, would minimize sea otter 

predation on black abalone populations in 

the Southern California Bight except in the 

translocation zone surrounding San Nicolas 

Island. The area sea otters would likely 

reoccupy in the absence of zonal 

management (Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara) is not listed as a key recovery area 

for black abalone (CDFG 2002c), but 

because sea otters could have local 

population effects, over the next 10 years the 

exclusion of sea otters from the Southern 

California Bight is expected to have a 

beneficial effect of moderate significance. 

Over the longer term, the exclusion of sea 

otters from the currently designated 

management zone could enhance black 

abalone recovery, but the magnitude of this 

potential benefit is unknown. 

Despite the current presence of a sea otter 

colony at San Nicolas Island, the California 

Department of Fish and Game has identified 

San Nicolas Island as 1 of 10 key recovery 

areas for black abalone. Because 

Alternative 1 calls for only minor changes to 

the colony at San Nicolas Island relative to 

the baseline (including the possibility of 

continued translocation of small numbers of 

sea otters for the purposes of genetic 

enhancement), effects on black abalone in 

the vicinity of San Nicolas Island are the 

same as for the baseline. 

6.3.3.3 Southern Sea Otter 

EFFECTS ON PARENT POPULATION

Alternative 1 would require the resumption 

of zonal management (containment) of sea 

otters and the maintenance of the currently 

designated management zone in perpetuity. 

Under this alternative, sea otters found in the 

management zone (Point Conception to the 

Mexican border) would be captured and 

moved to other portions of the southern sea 

otter’s range. 

In 2000, the Service completed a biological 

opinion (USFWS 2000, included as 

Appendix B) on the southern sea otter 

containment program as described in our 

original southern sea otter translocation plan 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 121

(USFWS 1987). In this opinion, we 

concluded that continuing the containment 

program and restricting the southern sea 

otter to the area north of Point Conception 

(with the exception of the translocation zone 

at San Nicolas Island) would likely 

jeopardize the continued existence of the 

species. We based this conclusion on the 

assumption that reversal of southern sea 

otter population declines and expansion of 

the southern sea otter’s range is essential to 

the survival and recovery of the species. 

Continuation of sea otter containment under 

Alternative 1 could result in increased 

mortality of sea otters and disrupt behavior 

throughout the range of the species. To 

implement Alternative 1, consultation under 

the Endangered Species Act would be 

reinitiated to consider any new information 

that is available. If the resulting opinion 

concludes that continuation of the program 

would not jeopardize the southern sea otter, 

Alternative 1 may be considered a viable 

option. 

Continuation of zonal management of sea 

otters would limit natural range expansion 

and would eliminate about 37 percent of the 

carrying capacity (for sea otters) of 

California (see section 6.3.11.1, “U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service”). 

Moving sea otters from the management 

zone to the northern or central portion of the 

existing range would likely increase 

competition among sea otters, change 

natural behaviors, and may result in the 

deaths of otherwise healthy animals. 

Additionally, the incidental injury or death 

of sea otters removed from the management 

zone is likely unavoidable. Restriction of 

the southern sea otter’s range may increase 

the vulnerability of the species to oil spills, 

disease, and stochastic events (relative to the 

baseline). In combination, these effects 

would slow the recovery of the species. In 

the revised southern sea otter recovery plan 

(USFWS 2003), the recovery team 

recommends that we discontinue zonal 

management and allow natural range 

expansion of sea otters to occur. 

EFFECTS ON SAN NICOLAS ISLAND COLONY

Alternative 1 would have little or no effect 

on the sea otter colony at San Nicolas Island 

compared to baseline conditions. 

Monitoring of the colony would continue, 

and protective measures in place would 

remain unchanged. Alternative 1 allows for 

the limited translocation of sea otters to San 

Nicolas Island for the purposes of 

maintaining genetic diversity; however, past 

experience indicates that dispersal of 

translocated sea otters would be high, 

possibly negating the intended effect of 

supplementing genetic diversity. 

Because of the effects on key segments and 

behaviors of the southern sea otter, within 

10 years Alternative 1 is expected to have an 

adverse effect of high significance on the 

southern sea otter and would likely change 

prospects for the recovery of the species. 

6.3.4 COMMERCIAL FISHERIES

For a discussion of the regulatory 

environment (including as it pertains to 

commercial fisheries) see section 6.3.12. 

6.3.4.1 Sea Urchin Fishery 

Under Alternative 1, impacts to the 

commercial sea urchin fishery are expected 

to be limited to the coastline from Point 

Conception to just southeast of Gaviota 

(CDFG statistical blocks 655, 656, and 657). 

This area is henceforth referred to as Cojo 

Anchorage. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 122

Maintenance of the management zone would 

theoretically eliminate sea otter predation on 

sea urchins that has been occurring in this 

area over the past several years, which could 

lead to a larger sea urchin population for 

commercial harvest. Benefits to the fishery 

accumulate for two reasons. First, newly 

settled or smaller sea urchins that escaped 

predation in the past would now potentially 

become available for future commercial 

harvest. Second, sea urchin landings would 

not be eliminated along the coastline from 

Point Conception to Santa Barbara, as 

projected under the baseline. Therefore, 

landings would not decrease the anticipated 

1.1 million pounds over 10 years from 2005 

to 2014. Thus, the analysis for the sea 

urchin fishery is divided into two sections: 

(1) increased harvests from the elimination 

of past predation, and (2) increased harvests 

due to elimination of the anticipated future 

decrease. Benefits are represented as 

increased landings and increased ex-vessel 

revenue. 

REMOVAL OF PAST SEA OTTER PREDATION

Sea urchin landings from the 

Cojo Anchorage area peaked 

in the early 1990s (540,000 

pounds in 1990), and steadied 

at about 300,000 pounds in 

the mid-1990s. Unlike other 

areas of southern California, 

Cojo Anchorage landings 

have not rebounded. In 1998, 

landings dropped to just over 

100,000 pounds, and declined 

further in subsequent years, 

averaging 7,139 pounds 

between 1999 and 2003. In 

2003, landings were about 

17,000 pounds. The drop in 

landings is more severe than 

the average decrease for 

southern California and 

coincides with the seasonal 

movement of sea otters into the management 

zone. 

To estimate the effects of sea otter predation 

in relation to other factors that have 

influenced sea urchin landings, we compare 

sea urchin landings from the Cojo 

Anchorage area with a similar (in terms of 

habitat and landings history) section of 

coast, Point Mugu to Point Dume (CDFG 

statistical blocks 680, 681, 682, and 703) 

(Figure 6-12). Prior to 1998, this section of 

the coastline exhibited peaks and troughs 

similar to those at Cojo Anchorage. 

However, beginning in 1998, Cojo 

Anchorage landings decreased, while 

landings along the coast from Point Mugu to 

Point Dume increased. 

Figure 6-13 shows annual sea urchin 

landings on a logarithmic scale for five 

areas: southern California, the Northern 

Channel Islands, San Nicolas Island, Cojo 

Anchorage, and the coastline from Point 

Mugu to Point Dume. As shown in the 

figure, southern California and the Northern 

FIGURE 6-12. COMMERCIAL SEA URCHIN LANDINGS FOR 

COJO ANCHORAGE AREA (STATISTICAL BLOCKS 655, 656, AND 

657) AND POINT MUGU-POINT DUME (STATISTICAL BLOCKS 

680, 681, 682, AND 703). Shaded areas indicate El Niño events. 

Data source: California Department of Fish and Game (2002a, 2005a).

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

Year

Commercial Urchin Landings (Pounds)

Cojo Anchorage

Point Mugu to Point Dume
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 123

Channel Islands follow 

similar trends over time. 

After the most recent El Niño 

event, southern California 

and northern Channel Islands 

landings dropped an average 

of 34 and 30 percent, 

respectively, compared to the 

peak year of harvest in 1997. 

Landings from Cojo 

Anchorage, however, 

exhibited a 90 percent decline 

after the 1997/98 El Niño 

event. Landings along the 

coastline from Point Mugu to 

Point Dume recovered to a 

pre- El Niño level (see Table 

6-15). 

Sea urchin landings in 

southern California are a 

function of a variety of factors, including 

(but not limited to) population variation, 

weather fluctuations, and market demand. 

Determining the exact composition of these 

factors for sea urchin landings is difficult. 

As a conservative approach, we assume that 

sea urchin landings are solely and equally 

dependent upon weather fluctuations (El 

Niño events) and sea otter predation. We 

further assume that southern California’s 

average annual sea urchin landings are not 

representative of landings along the northern 

coastline of the management zone because 

landings in these areas have not followed 

similar historical trends. Rather, we assert 

that landings throughout the coastline from 

Point Conception to Point Dume should 

respond similarly to weather fluctuations 

and sea otter predation. Thus, we establish 

sea urchin landings fluctuations along the 

coastline from Point Mugu to Point Dume as 

a baseline for Cojo Anchorage landings 

fluctuations. Because little or no sea otter 

predation occurred southeast of Gaviota, we 

attribute the total percentage decrease from 

Point Mugu to Point Dume to the El Niño 

event (Table 6-16). Any Cojo Anchorage 

decrease above the baseline is, thus, 

attributed to sea otter predation. Since the 

TABLE 6-15. CHANGE IN ANNUAL SEA URCHIN LANDINGS AFTER THE 1997/1998 EL NIÑO EVENT. 

 Southern 

California 

Northern 

Channel 

Islands 

San Nicolas 

Island 

Cojo 

Anchorage 

Point Mugu to 

Point Dume 

1997 Peak Landings 13,199,317 6,178,144 1,359,738 260,176 216,962 

Average Landings 

(1998-2003) 

8,757,662 4,304,917 697,502 25,194 246,551 

Percentage Decrease 

after El Niño 

-34% -30% -49% -90% +14% 

Data source: California Department of Fish and Game (2002a, 2005a). 

FIGURE 6-13. COMMERCIAL ANNUAL SEA URCHIN LANDINGS 

BY AREA, ON A LOGARITHMIC SCALE. Shaded areas indicate El 

Niño events. Data source: California Department of Fish and Game (2002a, 

2005a). 

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

100,000,000

198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

Year

Commercial Urchin Landings (Pounds)

Southern California Northern Channel Islands San Nicolas Island

Cojo Anchorage Point Mugu to Point Dume
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 124

El Niño event, landings have actually 

increased in the Point Mugu to Point Dume 

area. We therefore attribute a loss of 100 

percent (260,176 pounds) of the Cojo 

Anchorage landings to sea otter predation. 

If sea otters are removed from the 

management zone and the zone is 

successfully maintained, it is assumed that 

sea urchin populations would fully rebound 

from sea otter predation in five years.15 We 

further assume that the landings increase 

would be equally distributed across the five 

years. Thus, sea urchin landings would 

increase by 20 percent (46,996 pounds) each 

year to stable landings of 234,982 pounds in 

2009. 

AVOIDED FUTURE LOSS

Sea urchin landings would not be eliminated 

along the coastline from Point Conception to 

Santa Barbara, as in the baseline, because 

maintenance would remove the sea otter 

population from this section of the coastline. 

Therefore, landings would not decrease an 

anticipated 1.1 million pounds over 10 years 

from 2005 to 2014. 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 6-17 shows the expected change in 

commercial landings and ex-vessel revenue 

in the Cojo Anchorage area if sea otters are 

removed from CDFG statistical blocks 655, 

656, and 657. Over 10 years, landings 

would increase by 2.9 million pounds. Thus, 

the total non-discounted benefit to sea 

urchin fishing vessels for Alternative 1 

would total about $3.1 million, and the total 

 

15 Red sea urchins can reach a commercially 

harvestable size (3.5 inches) in 6 to 8 years (Kalvass 

and Rogers-Bennett, 2001). We assume that landings 

would rebound prior to six years because sea otters 

are unable to reach urchins located in sufficiently 

deep crevices. Therefore, some urchins will have 

survived and will reach a harvestable size in fewer 

than 6 years. 

discounted 10-year benefit for this 

Alternative would be about $2.6 million 

(discounted at 3 percent) or $2.0 million 

(discounted at 7 percent). For the regional 

economic context, which can help to put this 

number in perspective, see Tables 4-3 and 

4-6. 

The expected increase in sea urchin landings 

resulting from implementation of 

Alternative 1 would be approximately 3 

percent over 10 years (Table 6-18). On 

average in the southern California sea urchin 

fishery, 223 vessels participate and annually 

land 60,200 pounds each (Thomson 2001). 

We recognize that effects would not be 

distributed equally among vessels, and that 

those fishing in areas occupied by sea otters 

would be disproportionately affected. 

However, if the increased landings and exvessel revenue were distributed equally 

among these vessels and no new vessels 

entered the fishery, then each vessel would 

have increased landings of approximately 

13,200 pounds and increased revenue 

between $9,100 (PV at 7 percent) and 

$11,600 (PV at 3 percent) per vessel total 

over 10 years. 

TABLE 6-16. AVERAGE ANNUAL SEA 

URCHIN LANDINGS IN COJO ANCHORAGE 

AREA AND RELATIVE CHANGE 

ATTRIBUTABLE TO EL NIÑO AND SEA 

OTTER PREDATION. 

Year Average Annual 

Landings 

(pounds) 

1997 peak (pre-sea otter) 260,176 

1998-2003 25,194 

Decrease attributable to El Niño 0 

Decrease attributable to sea otter 

predation 

234,982 

Total decrease 234,982 

Data source: California Department of Fish and Game 

(2002a, 2005a). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 125

As described in Chapter 5, we 

define levels of significance in this 

supplement by viewing projected 

effects on an entity or activity 

within the regional context of that 

entity or activity. Because 

Alternative 1 is expected to result 

in a 3 percent increase in sea urchin 

ex-vessel revenues within the 

Southern California Bight over the 

next 10 years compared to the 

baseline, it qualifies as a beneficial 

effect of low significance (see 

Table 5-1 for definitions of levels 

of significance). 

Beyond 10 years, maintenance of 

the management zone would 

continue to prevent sea otters from 

expanding their range into southern 

California. As a result of this 

management, the long-term impacts 

that would have occurred under the 

baseline (the elimination of 

TABLE 6-17. SEA URCHIN LANDINGS: BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 

Year Commercial 

Landings 

(avoided 

future loss) 

Commercial 

Landings 

(increase 

from removal 

of past 

predation) 

Total 

Increase in 

Commercial 

Landings 

(pounds) 

Ex-Vessel 

Revenue* 

Ex-Vessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(3%)* 

Ex-Vessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(7%)* 

2005 19,447 46,996 66,443 $70,430 $68,378 $65,822 

2006 38,893 93,993 132,886 $140,859 $132,773 $123,032 

2007 58,339 140,989 199,328 $211,288 $193,359 $172,474 

2008 77,785 187,986 265,771 $281,717 $250,302 $214,921 

2009 97,232 234,982 332,214 $352,147 $303,765 $251,076 

2010 116,678 234,982 351,660 $372,760 $312,180 $248,386 

2011 136,124 234,982 371,106 $393,373 $319,848 $244,973 

2012 155,571 234,982 390,553 $413,986 $326,804 $240,944 

2013 175,017 234,982 409,999 $434,599 $333,084 $236,393 

2014 194,463 234,982 429,445 $455,212 $338,720 $231,407 

Total 

Benefits 1,069,549 1,879,856 2,949,405 $3,126,370 

$2,579,214 

(PV @ 3%) 

$2,029,426 

(PV @ 7%) 

Note: Benefits are rounded to the nearest dollar. 

*Ex-vessel revenue is based upon the average price divers received for sea 

urchins (in shell) from 1994 to 2003, which is $1.06 per pound in 2004 

dollars. 

TABLE 6-18. SEA URCHIN LANDINGS BENEFITS OF 

ALTERNATIVE 1 COMPARED TO THE SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA BASELINE 

Year Southern 

California 

Baseline 

Landings 

Southern 

California 

Baseline ExVessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(3%)** 

Southern 

California 

Baseline 

Ex-Vessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(7%)** 

Expected 

Percentage 

Increase 

from 

Alternative 

1 

2005 11,412,350 $11,744,748 $11,305,692 1% 

2006 11,381,380 $11,371,725 $10,537,394 1% 

2007 11,350,410 $11,010,467 $9,821,235 2% 

2008 11,319,441 $10,660,607 $9,153,680 2% 

2009 11,288,471 $10,321,786 $8,531,435 3% 

2010 11,257,501 $9,993,659 $7,951,429 3% 

2011 11,226,532 $9,675,889 $7,410,799 3% 

2012 11,195,562 $9,368,153 $6,906,874 3% 

2013 11,164,592 $9,070,134 $6,437,166 4% 

2014 11,133,622 $8,781,528 $5,999,355 4% 

TOTAL 112,729,861 $101,998,697 $84,055,061 3% 

**Ex-vessel revenue is based upon the average price divers received 

for sea urchins (in shell) from 1994 to 2003, which is $1.06 per 

pound in 2004 dollars. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 126

commercial sea urchin harvests via 

competition with sea otters in recolonized 

areas) would not occur. The timing and 

magnitude of this potential benefit is 

uncertain, but it would likely accrue 

gradually over the course of many decades, 

if not hundreds of years. 

6.3.4.2 Spiny Lobster Fishery 

Under Alternative 1, impacts to the 

commercial lobster fishery are expected to 

be limited to the coastline from Point 

Conception to just southeast of Gaviota 

(CDFG statistical blocks 655, 656, and 657). 

This area is henceforth referred to as Cojo 

Anchorage. Maintenance of the 

management zone would theoretically 

eliminate sea otter predation on lobsters in 

this area, which could lead to a larger lobster 

population for commercial harvest. 

The same assumptions applied to the 

commercial sea urchin fishery are also 

applied to the commercial spiny lobster 

fishery. Benefits to the fishery accumulate 

for two reasons. First, newly recruited 

lobsters or lobsters that escaped predation in 

the past would now 

potentially become available 

for future commercial 

harvest. Second, lobster 

landings would not be 

eliminated along the coastline 

from Point Conception to 

Santa Barbara, as projected 

by the baseline. Therefore, 

as an avoided future loss, 

landings would not decrease 

the anticipated 161,000 

pounds over 10 years from 

2005 to 2014. Thus, the 

analysis for the lobster 

fishery is divided into two 

sections: (1) increased 

harvests from the elimination 

of past predation, and (2) 

increased harvests due to elimination of the 

anticipated future decrease. Benefits are 

represented as increased landings and 

increased ex-vessel revenue. 

REMOVAL OF PAST SEA OTTER PREDATION

Lobster landings within the Cojo Anchorage 

area peaked in 1997 (about 37 thousand 

pounds). In 1999, landings dropped by twothirds to 11,826 pounds and have since 

averaged approximately 16,200 pounds 

between 2000 and 2003. This drop in 

landings is more severe than the decrease for 

southern California and coincides both with 

when sea otters were first sighted in the 

management zone and the most recent El 

Niño event. The decline in landings is 

similar to that along the coastline from Point 

Mugu to Point Dume, an area in which sea 

otters have not been sighted. Landings for 

these two sections of coastline are shown in 

Figure 6-14. Figure 6-15 shows annual 

lobster landings on a logarithmic scale for 

five areas: southern California, the Northern 

Channel Islands, San Nicolas Island, Cojo 

Anchorage, and the coastline from Point 

Mugu to Point Dume. As shown in the 

FIGURE 6-14. COMMERCIAL LOBSTER LANDINGS FOR THE 

COJO ANCHORAGE AREA (STATISTICAL BLOCKS 655, 656, AND 

657) AND POINT MUGU-POINT DUME (STATISTICAL BLOCKS 

680, 681, 682, AND 703). Shaded areas indicate El Niño events. Data 

source: California Department of Fish and Game (2002a, 2005a). 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

Year

Commercial Lobster Landings (Pounds)

Cojo Anchorage

Point Mugu to Point Dume
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 127

figure, southern California 

and the Northern Channel 

Islands follow similar trends 

over time. After the most 

recent El Niño event, 

southern California landings 

dropped 26 percent, while 

landings around Point Mugu 

to Point Dume and the 

Northern Channel Islands 

both increased. Landings at 

Cojo Anchorage declined by 

56 percent, and those at San 

Nicolas Island decreased by 7 

percent compared to landings 

made in 1997. Table 6-19 

depicts this difference in 

landings between the areas. 

Lobster landings in southern California are a 

function of a variety of factors, including 

(but not limited to) population variation, 

weather fluctuations, and market demand. 

Determining the exact composition of these 

factors for lobster landings is difficult. As a 

conservative approach, we assume that 

lobster landings are solely and equally 

dependent upon weather fluctuations (El 

Niño events) and sea otter predation. We 

further assume that southern California’s 

average annual lobster landings are not 

representative of landings along the northern 

coastline of the management zone because 

landings in these areas have not followed 

similar historical trends. Rather, we assert 

that landings throughout the coastline from 

Point Mugu to Point Dume should respond 

similarly to weather fluctuations and sea 

otter predation. Thus, we establish lobster 

landings fluctuations along the coastline 

from Point Mugu to Point Dume as a 

baseline for Cojo Anchorage landings 

fluctuations. Because little or no sea otter 

predation occurred southeast of Gaviota, we 

attribute the total percentage decrease from 

Point Mugu to Point Dume to the El Niño 

event. Any Cojo Anchorage decrease above 

the baseline is, therefore, attributed to sea 

otter predation. In Table 6-20, we attribute 

100 percent of the recent lobster landings 

decrease at Cojo Anchorage to sea otter 

predation (20,783 pounds). 

If sea otters are removed from the 

management zone and the zone is 

FIGURE 6-15. ANNUAL LOBSTER LANDINGS BY AREA, ON A 

LOGARITHMIC SCALE. Shaded areas indicate El Niño events. Data 

source: California Department of Fish and Game (2002a, 2005a). 

TABLE 6-19. CHANGE IN ANNUAL LOBSTER LANDINGS AFTER THE 1997/1998 EL NIÑO EVENT 

Southern 

California 

Northern 

Channel 

Islands

San Nicolas 

Island 

Cojo 

Anchorage 

Coastline 

Point Mugu to 

Point Dume 

1997 Peak Landings 859,118 130,321 44,143 37,316 13,378 

Average Landings 

(1998-2003) 636,920 133,307 40,926 16,533 15,123 

Percentage Change 

after El Niño -26% 2% -7% -56% 13% 

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

Year

Commercial Lobster Landings (Pounds)

Southern California Northern Channel Islands San Nicolas Island

Cojo Anchorage Point Mugu to Point Dume
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 128

successfully maintained, we assume that 

lobster populations would fully rebound 

from sea otter predation in seven years.16 

We further assume that the landings increase 

would be equally distributed across the 

seven years. Thus, lobster landings would 

increase by about 14 percent (2,969 pounds) 

each year from 2,969 pounds in 2005 to an 

annual increase of 20,783 pounds in 2011. 

AVOIDED FUTURE LOSS

Lobster landings would not be eliminated 

along the coastline from Point Conception to 

Santa Barbara, as in the baseline, because 

maintenance of the management zone would 

remove sea otters from this area. Therefore, 

landings would not decrease an anticipated 

161,000 pounds over 10 years from 2005 to 

2014. 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 6-21 shows the expected change in 

commercial landings and ex-vessel revenue 

in the Cojo Anchorage area if sea otters are 

removed from CDFG statistical blocks 655, 

656, and 657. Over 10 years, landings 

 

16 Spiny lobsters can reach a commercially 

harvestable size (3.5 inches carapace length) in 7 to 

11 years (Barsky 2001). We assume that landings 

would rebound prior to seven years because sea otters 

are unable to consume lobsters located in inaccessible 

habitat (deep crevices). Thus, the harvest may 

resume in a minimum time interval. 

would increase by 307,000 pounds. Thus, 

the maximum non-discounted benefit to 

lobster fishing vessels for Alternative 1 

would total about $2.5 million, and the 

maximum discounted 10-year benefit for 

this Alternative would be about $2.0 million 

(discounted at 3 percent) and $1.6 million 

(discounted at 7 percent). For the regional 

economic context, which can help to put this 

number in perspective, see Tables 4-3 and 4-

6. The expected increase in lobster landings 

resulting from implementation of 

Alternative 1 would be about 5 percent of 

southern California lobster landings over 10 

years (Table 6-22). 

On average in the southern California 

lobster fishery, 202 vessels participate 

annually landing 3,700 pounds each 

(Thomson 2001). We recognize that effects 

would not be distributed equally among 

vessels, and that those fishing in areas 

occupied by sea otters would be affected 

disproportionately. However, if the 

increased landings and ex-vessel revenue 

were distributed equally among these 

vessels and no additional vessels entered the 

fishery, then each vessel would have 

increased landings of about 1,500 pounds 

and increased revenue between $7,700 (PV 

at 7 percent) and $9,900 (PV at 3 percent) 

per vessel total over 10 years. 

 

As described in Chapter 5, we define levels 

of significance by viewing projected effects 

on an entity or activity within the regional 

context of that entity or activity. Because 

Alternative 1 is expected to result in an 

increase in lobster ex-vessel revenues within 

the Southern California Bight over the next 

10 years of 5 percent compared to the 

baseline, it qualifies as a beneficial effect of 

low significance (see Table 5-1 for 

definitions of levels of significance). 

TABLE 6-20. AVERAGE ANNUAL LOBSTER 

LANDINGS IN COJO ANCHORAGE AND THE 

CHANGE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EL NIÑO 

EVENT AND SEA OTTER PREDATION 

Year Average Annual 

Landings (pounds) 

1997 Peak (pre-sea otter) 37,316 

1998-2003 16,533 

Decrease Attributable to El 

Niño 0 

Decrease Attributable to 

Sea Otter Predation 20,783 

Total Decrease 20,783 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 129

Beyond 10 years, maintenance of the 

management zone would continue to 

prevent sea otters from expanding 

their range into southern California. 

As a result of this management, the 

long-term impacts that would have 

occurred under the baseline (the 

elimination of commercial lobster 

harvests via competition with sea 

otters in recolonized areas) would not 

occur. The timing and magnitude of 

this potential benefit is uncertain, but 

it would likely accrue gradually over 

the course of many decades, if not 

hundreds of years. 

6.3.4.3 Crab Fishery 

Under Alternative 1, impacts to the 

commercial crab fishery are expected 

to be limited to the coastline from 

Point Conception to just southeast of 

Gaviota (CDFG statistical blocks 655, 

656, and 657). This area is 

henceforth referred to as Cojo 

Anchorage. Maintenance of the 

management zone would theoretically 

TABLE 6-21. LOBSTER LANDINGS: BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 

Year Commercial 

Landings 

(avoided 

future loss) 

Commercial 

Landings 

(increase 

from removal 

of past 

predation) 

Total 

Increase in 

Commercial 

Landings 

(pounds) 

Ex-Vessel 

Revenue* 

Ex-Vessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(3%)* 

Ex-Vessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(7%)* 

2005 2,930 2,969 5,899 $47,078 $45,707 $43,998 

2006 5,861 5,938 11,799 $94,158 $88,753 $82,241 

2007 8,792 8,907 17,699 $141,239 $129,253 $115,293 

2008 11,723 11,876 23,599 $188,319 $167,319 $143,668 

2009 14,654 14,845 29,499 $235,399 $203,058 $167,837 

2010 17,584 17,814 35,398 $282,480 $236,572 $188,228 

2011 20,515 20,783 41,298 $329,560 $267,963 $205,234 

2012 23,446 20,783 44,229 $352,948 $278,620 $205,419 

2013 26,377 20,783 47,160 $376,336 $288,430 $204,702 

2014 29,308 20,783 50,091 $399,724 $297,432 $203,199 

Total 

Benefits 161,191 145,481 306,672 $2,447,241 

$2,003,107 

(PV @ 3%) 

$1,559,819 

(PV @ 7%) 

Note: Benefits are rounded to the nearest dollar. 

*Ex-vessel revenue is based upon the average price divers received for lobster from 1994 to 2003, which is 

$7.98 per pound in 2004 dollars. 

TABLE 6-22. LOBSTER LANDINGS BENEFITS OF 

ALTERNATIVE 1 COMPARED TO THE SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA BASELINE 

Year Southern 

California 

Baseline 

Landings 

Southern 

California 

Baseline 

Ex-Vessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(3%)** 

Southern 

California 

Baseline 

Ex-Vessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(7%)** 

Expected 

Percentage 

Increase 

from 

Alternative 

1 

2005 626,354 $4,852,726 $4,671,316 1% 

2006 623,046 $4,686,502 $4,342,659 2% 

2007 619,738 $4,525,844 $4,037,011 3% 

2008 616,430 $4,370,569 $3,752,769 4% 

2009 613,122 $4,220,500 $3,488,439 5% 

2010 609,814 $4,075,465 $3,242,633 6% 

2011 606,506 $3,935,298 $3,014,059 7% 

2012 603,198 $3,799,839 $2,801,514 7% 

2013 599,890 $3,668,932 $2,603,878 8% 

2014 596,582 $3,542,427 $2,420,112 8% 

TOTAL 6,114,683 $41,678,104 $34,374,390 5% 

**Ex-vessel revenue is based upon the average price received for 

lobster from 1994 to 2003, which is $7.98 per pound in 2004 

dollars. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 130

eliminate sea otter predation 

on crabs in this area, which 

could lead to a larger crab 

population for commercial 

harvest. Benefits to the 

fishery accumulate for two 

reasons. First, newly 

recruited crabs or crabs that 

escaped predation in the past 

would now potentially 

become available for future 

commercial harvest. Second, 

crab landings would not be 

eliminated along the coastline 

from Point Conception to 

Santa Barbara, as projected 

by the baseline. Therefore, 

as an avoided future loss, 

landings would not decrease 

an anticipated 844,000 

pounds over 10 years from 

2005 to 2014. Thus, the 

analysis for the crab fishery is 

divided into two sections: (1) 

increased harvests from the 

elimination of past predation, 

and (2) increased harvests 

due to elimination of the 

anticipated future decrease. 

Benefits are represented as 

increased landings and 

increased ex-vessel revenue. 

REMOVAL OF PAST SEA OTTER 

PREDATION

Crab landings within the 

Cojo Anchorage area are 

cyclical and peak and trough 

roughly coincident with El 

Niño events (Figures 6-16 

and 6-17). Crab landings peaked at about 

220 thousand pounds in both 1990 and 1998. 

However, after each peak, landings declined 

by about 50 percent. The drop in landings 

after 1998 is more severe than the average 

decrease for southern California and 

coincides with the movement of sea otters 

into the management zone. However, past 

landings trends are similar to the 

neighboring coastline southeast from Point 

Mugu to Point Dume, along which sea otters 

have not been sighted (Figure 6-16). 

FIGURE 6-16. COMMERCIAL CRAB LANDINGS FOR COJO 

ANCHORAGE AREA (STATISTICAL BLOCKS 655, 656, AND 657) 

AND POINT MUGU-POINT DUME (STATISTICAL BLOCKS 680, 

681, 682, AND 703). Shaded areas indicate El Niño events. Data source: 

California Department of Fish and Game (2002a, 2005a).

FIGURE 6-17. COMMERCIAL ANNUAL CRAB LANDINGS BY 

AREA, ON A LOGARITHMIC SCALE. Shaded areas indicate El Niño 

events. Data source: California Department of Fish and Game (2002a, 

2005a).

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

Year

Commercial Crab Landings (Pounds)

Cojo Anchorage

Point Mugu to Point Dume

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

Year

Commercial Crab Landings (Pounds)

Southern California Northern Channel Islands San Nicolas Island

Cojo Anchorage Point Mugu to Point Dume
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 131

Figure 6-17 shows annual crab landings on a 

logarithmic scale for five areas: southern 

California, the northern Channel Islands, 

San Nicolas Island, Cojo Anchorage, and the 

coastline from Point Mugu to Point Dume. 

As shown in the figure, southern California 

and the northern Channel Islands follow 

similar trends over time. After the most 

recent El Niño event, southern California 

landings declined by 2 percent. Cojo 

Anchorage and the Point Mugu to Point 

Dume area declined by 32 percent and 43 

percent, respectively (see Table 6-23). 

Crab landings in southern California are a 

function of a variety of factors, including 

(but not limited to) population variation, 

weather fluctuations, and market demand. 

Determining the composition of these 

factors for crab landings is difficult. As a 

conservative approach, we assume that crab 

landings are solely and equally dependent 

upon weather fluctuations (El Niño events) 

and sea otter predation. We further assume 

that southern California’s average annual 

crab landings are not representative of 

landings along the northern coastline of the 

management zone. Rather, we assert that 

landings throughout the coastline from Point 

Conception to Point Dume should respond 

similarly to weather fluctuations and sea 

otter predation. Thus, we establish crab 

landings fluctuations along the coastline 

from Point Mugu to Point Dume as a 

baseline for Cojo Anchorage landings 

fluctuations. Because little or no sea otter 

predation occurred southeast of Gaviota, we 

attribute the total percentage decrease from 

Point Mugu to Point Dume (see Figure 6-16) 

to the El Niño event. Any Cojo Anchorage 

decrease above the baseline is thus attributed 

to sea otter predation. In Table 6-24, we 

attribute 100 percent of the recent Cojo 

Anchorage landings decrease to El Niño 

(69,945 pounds). 

AVOIDED FUTURE LOSS

Crab landings would not be eliminated along 

the coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara, as under the baseline, because 

maintenance of a management zone would 

TABLE 6-23. CHANGE IN ANNUAL CRAB LANDINGS AFTER THE 1997/1998 EL NIÑO EVENT. 

Southern 

California 

Northern 

Channel 

Islands 

San Nicolas 

Island 

Cojo 

Anchorage 

Coastline 

Point Mugu to 

Point Dume 

Coastline 

1997 Peak Landings 958,960 248,117 1,675 219,333 60,442 

Average Landings 

(1998-2003) 

942,257 340,179 9,869 149,388 34,153 

Percentage 

Decrease after El 

Niño 

-2% +37% +489% -32% -43% 

Data source: California Department of Fish and Game (2002a, 2005a). 

TABLE 6-24. AVERAGE ANNUAL CRAB 

LANDINGS IN COJO ANCHORAGE AND 

CHANGE ATTRIBUTABLE TO EL NIÑO AND 

SEA OTTER PREDATION 

Year Average Annual 

Landings (pounds) 

1997 Peak (pre-sea otter) 219,333 

1998-2003 149,388 

Decrease Attributable to 

El Niño 

69,945 

Decrease Attributable to 

Sea Otter Predation 

0 

Total Decrease 69,945 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 132

remove sea otters from this section of the 

coastline. Therefore, landings would not 

decrease an anticipated 844,494 pounds over 

10 years from 2005 to 2014. 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 6-25 shows the expected change in 

commercial landings and ex-vessel revenue 

in the Cojo Anchorage area if sea otters are 

removed from CDFG statistical blocks 655, 

656, and 657. Over 10 years, landings 

would increase by about 844,000 pounds. 

Thus, the maximum non-discounted benefit 

to crabbing vessels for Alternative 1 would 

total about $1.1 million, and the maximum 

discounted 10-year benefit for this 

Alternative would be between $709,000 (PV 

at 7 percent) and $916,000 (PV at 3 

percent). For the regional economic context, 

which can help to put this number in 

perspective, see Tables 4-3 and 4-6. 

The expected increase in crab landings 

resulting from implementation of 

Alternative 1 would be approximately 11 

percent of southern California crab landings 

over 10 years (Table 6-26). On average in 

the southern California crab fishery, 76 

vessels participate annually landing 15,100 

pounds each (Thomson 2001). We recognize 

that effects would not be distributed equally 

among vessels, and that those fishing in 

areas occupied by sea otters would be 

disproportionately affected. However, if the 

increased landings and ex-vessel revenue 

were distributed equally among these 

vessels and no additional vessels entered the 

fishery, then each vessel would have 

increased landings of about 11,000 pounds 

and increased revenue between $9,300 (PV 

at 7 percent) and $12,000 (PV at 3 percent) 

total over 10 years. 

As described in Chapter 5, we define levels 

of significance in this supplement by 

viewing projected effects on an entity or 

activity within the regional context of that 

entity or activity. Because Alternative 1 is 

expected to result in an increase in crab exTABLE 6-25. CRAB LANDINGS: BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 

Year 

Commercial 

Landings 

(avoided 

future loss) 

Commercial 

Landings 

(increase 

from 

removal of 

past 

predation) 

Total 

Increase in 

Commercial 

Landings 

(Pounds) 

Ex-Vessel 

Revenue* 

Ex-Vessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(3%)* 

Ex-Vessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(7%)* 

2005 15,354 0 15,354 $20,421 $19,826 $19,085 

2006 30,709 0 30,709 $40,843 $38,498 $35,673 

2007 46,063 0 46,063 $61,264 $56,065 $50,010 

2008 61,418 0 61,418 $81,686 $72,577 $62,317 

2009 76,772 0 76,772 $102,107 $88,078 $72,801 

2010 92,127 0 92,127 $122,528 $102,616 $81,646 

2011 107,481 0 107,481 $142,950 $116,231 $89,022 

2012 122,836 0 122,836 $163,371 $128,967 $95,084 

2013 138,190 0 138,190 $183,793 $140,862 $99,971 

2014 153,545 0 153,545 $204,214 $151,955 $103,812 

Total 

Benefits 844,494 0 844,494 $1,123,177 

$915,675 

(PV @ 3%) 

$709,422 

(PV @ 7%) 

Note: Benefits are rounded to the nearest dollar. 

**Ex-vessel revenue is based upon the average price divers received for crabs from 1994 to 2003, which is $1.33 

per pound in 2004 dollars. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 133

vessel revenues within the Southern 

California Bight over the next 10 years of 11 

percent compared to the baseline, it qualifies 

as a beneficial effect of moderate 

significance (see Table 5-1 for definitions of 

levels of significance). 

Beyond 10 years, maintenance of the 

management zone would continue to prevent 

sea otters from expanding their range into 

southern California. As a result of this 

management, the long-term impacts that 

would have occurred under the baseline (the 

elimination of commercial crab harvests via 

competition with sea otters in recolonized 

areas) would not occur. The timing and 

magnitude of this potential benefit is 

uncertain, but it would likely accrue 

gradually over the course of many decades, 

if not hundreds of years. 

6.3.5 AQUACULTURE

Alternative 1 would require a resumption of 

zonal management (containment) of sea 

otters, which may result in the exclusion of 

sea otters from all areas of the Southern 

California Bight except the translocation 

zone surrounding San Nicolas Island. Over 

the next 10 years, aquaculture operations 

that grow mussels on oil platforms in the 

Santa Barbara Channel may benefit from 

zonal management of sea otters through a 

reduction in episodic predation on mussel 

beds. 

Beyond 10 years, aquaculture facilities 

located in other portions of the Southern 

California Bight may benefit from the 

exclusion of sea otters, but these benefits are 

expected to be relatively minor for the 

following reasons: 1) in April 2002, there 

were only four registered aquaculture 

operations in the remainder of the Southern 

California Bight (i.e., not in Santa Barbara 

Channel), two of which produce a variety of 

shellfish and finfish, and two of which 

produce exclusively abalone; 2) under 

baseline conditions, sea otter range 

expansion is predicted to occur gradually 

over the course of many decades; and 3) sea 

otters are not likely to affect abalone or 

finfish aquaculture operations and would 

likely affect mussel operations only locally 

and episodically. 

TABLE 6-26. CRAB LANDINGS BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 COMPARED TO THE 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BASELINE 

Year Southern California 

Baseline Landings 

Southern California 

Baseline Ex-Vessel 

Discounted Revenue 

(3%)** 

Southern California 

Baseline Ex-Vessel 

Discounted Revenue 

(7%)** 

Expected Percentage 

Increase from 

Alternative 1 

2005 836,577 $1,080,240 $1,039,857 2% 

2006 821,159 $1,029,448 $953,918 4% 

2007 805,741 $980,698 $874,774 6% 

2008 790,323 $933,915 $801,902 8% 

2009 774,905 $889,025 $734,820 10% 

2010 759,487 $845,957 $673,084 12% 

2011 744,069 $804,645 $616,280 14% 

2012 728,651 $765,021 $564,028 17% 

2013 713,233 $727,023 $515,975 19% 

2014 697,815 $690,589 $471,796 22% 

TOTAL 7,671,958 $8,746,560 $7,246,435 11% 

**Ex-vessel revenue is based upon the average price divers received for crabs from 1994 to 2003, which is $1.33 

per pound in 2004 dollars. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 134

There are no effects at San Nicolas Island 

because 1) there are currently no aquaculture 

operations at the island, and 2) there is no 

difference in management of the colony 

under Alternative 1 and the baseline. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

aquaculture because of the extent of 

uncertainty involved. 

6.3.6 SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY (SEA 

URCHINS) 

Under Alternative 1, impacts to the sea 

urchin processing industry would be a 

positive function of the change in sea urchin 

landings. If sea urchin landings increase 

according to the projections discussed 

above, then southern California landings 

would increase by approximately 1 percent 

in 2005 and increase by 4 percent in 2014 

(an average increase of 3 percent over 10 

years). Impacts to the sea urchin processing 

industry would be dependent upon whether 

individual companies are operating at 

capacity and whether they are capable of 

processing different seafood products. If 

companies are operating at capacity, then 

there may be room for growth in the 

industry for an additional company. If 

companies are not operating at capacity, 

then revenues may increase in relation to 

any increase in raw product. Companies 

receiving sea urchins harvested along the 

affected coastline would be 

disproportionately affected. 

Because of the expected 3 percent increase 

in sea urchin inputs from the Southern 

California Bight, Alternative 1 is expected 

to have a beneficial effect of low 

significance on the seafood processing 

industry (see Table 5-1 for definitions of 

levels of significance). 

6.3.7 KELP HARVEST

Alternative 1 would require the exclusion of 

sea otters from all areas of the Southern 

California Bight except the translocation 

zone surrounding San Nicolas Island. If 

kelp abundance or density has begun to be 

enhanced as a result of seasonal sea otter 

predation on invertebrate herbivores in the 

Cojo Anchorage area during the last several 

years, this effect would be eliminated (for a 

description of the relationship between sea 

otters and kelp abundance, see section 

6.2.2). As a result of maintenance of the 

currently designated management zone, the 

potential increases in kelp along the 

coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara and eventually in other areas of the 

Southern California Bight (if they are 

reoccupied by sea otters) predicted under 

baseline conditions would not occur, 

representing a possible loss to the kelp 

industry. However, conditions at San 

Nicolas Island would be the same as those 

projected for the baseline. 

Significance criteria are not defined for kelp 

harvesting because of the extent of 

uncertainty involved. 

6.3.8 RECREATIONAL FISHING AND DIVING 

Recreational fishing and diving activities 

that may be affected by sea otters include 

lobster diving, abalone diving, and finfish 

fishing. Lobster diving and finfish fishing 

are addressed below. Abalone diving is 

included under “Abalone Fishery 

Restoration” (section 6.3.9). 

6.3.8.1 Lobster Diving 

Under Alternative 1, impacts to recreational 

lobster diving are expected to be limited to 

the coastline from Point Conception to just 

southeast of Gaviota (CDFG statistical 

blocks 655, 656, and 657). From 1995 to 

2003, recreational lobster dives near the 

affected coastline were less than one percent 

of all trips taken annually in southern 

California. For the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara, there were 

only two observations to calculate an 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 135

average of nine trips. Because only 1 trip 

occurred in 1999 compared to 45 trips in 

1997, the average is most likely an 

overestimate. 

If Alternative 1 is selected, the removal of 

sea otters from the northern edge of the 

management zone may result in an increase 

in the lobster population. Benefits to the 

recreational sport fishery accumulate for two 

reasons. First, newly recruited lobsters or 

lobsters that escaped predation in the past 

would now potentially become available for 

future recreational harvest. Second, 

recreational lobster dives would not be 

eliminated along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara, as projected 

by the baseline. Thus, recreational dive trips 

in 10 years may increase along the coastline 

from Point Conception to Santa Barbara.

These benefits are minimal (nine trips) and 

represent less than one percent of the total 

number of lobster dive trips in the Southern 

California Bight. Effects at San Nicolas 

Island are the same as for the baseline. 

Therefore, overall, Alternative 1 is expected 

to have a beneficial effect of very low 

significance on recreational lobster diving 

(see Table 5-1 for definitions of levels of 

significance). 

Beyond 10 years, maintenance of the 

management zone would continue to prevent 

sea otters from expanding their range into 

southern California. As a result of this 

management, the long-term impacts that 

would have occurred under the baseline (the 

elimination of recreational lobster dive trips 

via competition with sea otters in 

recolonized areas) would not occur. The 

timing and magnitude of this potential 

benefit is uncertain, but it would likely 

accrue gradually over the course of many 

decades, if not hundreds of years. 

6.3.8.2 Finfish Fishing 

Alternative 1 would require the removal of 

any sea otters currently in the management 

zone and would prevent the expansion of the 

southern sea otter’s range (along the 

coastline towards the city of Santa Barbara) 

that is expected to occur under baseline 

conditions within 10 years. It would also 

preclude the possibility of any further sea 

otter range expansion into the Southern 

California Bight in the more distant future. 

As a consequence, Alternative 1 may have 

adverse effects, relative to the baseline, on 

the recreational finfish fishery in all 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight except in the translocation zone 

surrounding San Nicolas Island, where 

effects would be the same as for the 

baseline. A healthy kelp forest ecosystem is 

important for a wide range of finfish species 

harvested by the recreational fishery (a 

discussion of the long-term effects of sea 

otter predation on the kelp forest 

community, including finfish production, is 

given in section 6.2.2). However, any 

beneficial effects that would occur under the 

baseline (and would be prevented under 

Alternative 1) would likely require more 

than 10 years to become noticeable (because 

the reestablishment of giant kelp canopies in 

areas where sea urchin grazing is limiting 

kelp is expected to take at least 10 years) 

and could occur gradually over several 

decades. Therefore, it is not possible to 

reasonably quantify the effects of 

Alternative 1 on recreational finfish fishing. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

recreational finfish fishing because of the 

extent of uncertainty involved. 

6.3.9 ABALONE FISHERY RESTORATION

The commercial and recreational abalone 

fishery in southern California was placed 

under a fishing moratorium in 1997 due to 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 136

the depletion of stocks. The moratorium is 

expected to be removed once the population 

reaches a level where sustainable harvesting 

can occur. Because it does not appear that 

there is any potential for reopening the 

abalone fishery (for any species) during the 

next 10 years, regardless of the presence or 

absence of sea otters (see section 6.2.9), the 

benefit that Alternative 1 may contribute 

during this time frame to efforts to restore 

the abalone fishery is essentially speculative. 

It is conceivable, however, that an abalone 

fishery could be restored in the Southern 

California Bight at some point in the future. 

Abalone will be considered for recreational 

or commercial harvest when they have met 

Criterion 3 as defined in the draft Abalone 

Recovery and Management Plan (ARMP): 

an average density of 6,600 abalone per 

hectare (CDFG 2002c). The ARMP does 

not estimate the time needed to achieve 

Criterion 3, beyond stating that it would 

likely require several decades, because such 

an estimate would be “speculative.” As 

stated in the ARMP, areas within the range 

of southern sea otters would not be 

considered for restoration of an abalone 

fishery (CDFG 2002c). Therefore, sea otter 

range expansion would preclude the 

reestablishment of an abalone fishery in the 

areas that are reoccupied. 

Alternative 1 would require the removal of 

any sea otters currently in the management 

zone and would prevent the expansion of the 

southern sea otter’s range (along the 

coastline towards the city of Santa Barbara) 

that is expected to occur under baseline 

conditions within 10 years. It would also 

preclude the possibility of any further sea 

otter range expansion into the Southern 

California Bight in the more distant future. 

As a consequence, Alternative 1 may benefit 

abalone fishery restoration. Although the 

coastline area northwest of Santa Barbara is 

not identified as a key location for abalone 

recovery (CDFG 2002c), if sea otters are 

consuming abalone in the Cojo Anchorage 

area, then the removal of this source of 

predation would enhance efforts to foster 

increases in abalone densities there. 

Additionally, the long-term removal of sea 

otters from the management zone would 

prevent areas within the zone from being 

eliminated from abalone fishery 

consideration due to the extension of the 

southern sea otter’s range. 

Impacts at San Nicolas Island are the same 

as for the baseline. Over the next 10 years, 

sea otters at San Nicolas Island (CDFG 

statistical blocks 813 and 814) are expected 

to increase from 6 percent of carrying 

capacity to 16 percent of carrying capacity. 

Abalone populations at San Nicolas Island 

are expected to persist as sea otter predation 

increases. However, densities of large 

individual abalone would likely eventually 

be reduced to a point that would preclude 

reestablishment of an abalone fishery at the 

island. Because San Nicolas Island would 

continue to be occupied by sea otters, it 

would likely be disqualified from abalone 

fishery consideration on the grounds that it 

is not “outside of the sea otter range of sea 

otters” (CDFG 2002c). 

 

The magnitude of benefit provided by 

Alternative 1 to the restoration of an abalone 

fishery is difficult to determine for two 

reasons: 1) it is unknown whether or when 

an abalone fishery could be reopened even 

in the absence of sea otters; and 2) sea otter 

range expansion that would occur beyond 10 

years if not prevented under Alternative 1 is 

uncertain (it would be a function of 

demographic rates, food supply, and other 

variables). Still, it is clear that sea otter 

range expansion would preclude the 

possibility of recreational or commercial 

abalone fishing in reoccupied areas. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 137

Therefore, the prevention of range 

expansion under Alternative 1 can be 

expected to provide a benefit of unknown 

magnitude to efforts to restore an abalone 

fishery. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

abalone fishery restoration because of the 

extent of uncertainty involved. 

6.3.10 ECOTOURISM 

Under Alternative 1, ecotourism based on 

observing sea otters would decrease relative 

to the baseline because no sea otters would 

be allowed to remain in the management 

zone. Although ecotourism activity directed 

specifically at sea otter watching is now rare 

in the management zone, under the baseline, 

tourism is expected to be enhanced over the 

next 10 years as sea otters progressively 

reoccupy and begin to reside year-round 

along the stretch of mainland coastline 

between Point Conception and Santa 

Barbara. Alternative 1 would prevent this 

enhancement from occurring. Overall 

impacts are difficult to quantify, and 

implementation of Alternative 1 would not 

necessarily result in decreased economic 

activity. However, the quality of tourist 

trips may decrease relative to the baseline 

because sea otters would not be observed. 

Beyond 10 years, Alternative 1 would 

prevent, in perpetuity, the development of 

any tourism based on sea otter watching in 

the area currently designated as the 

management zone. Effects on ecotourism at 

San Nicolas Island are the same as for the 

baseline. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

ecotourism because of the extent of 

uncertainty involved. 

6.3.11 FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY 

PROGRAMS

Significance criteria are not defined for 

effects on agency programs because these 

effects and programs are various and cannot 

be meaningfully compared with a single set 

of criteria. For a discussion of the 

regulatory environment, see section 6.3.12. 

6.3.11.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

The effects of Alternative 1 on southern sea 

otter recovery are also addressed in section 

6.3.3.3 (“Southern Sea Otter”). Here we 

address our ability to meet our mandates 

under the Endangered Species Act and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act and give the 

implementation costs of Alternative 1. 

ABILITY TO MEET MANDATE

Alternative 1 would require the exclusion of 

sea otters from all areas of the Southern 

California Bight except the translocation 

zone surrounding San Nicolas Island. If the 

colony at San Nicolas Island persists, it 

could conceivably reach the estimated 

carrying capacity of the island, which is 

about 500 animals (see section 6.1.4.2). 

Measured against the estimated carrying 

capacities given in Laidre et al. (2001) for 

areas of southern California and for 

California overall, San Nicolas Island 

accounts for about eight percent of the 

carrying capacity of the Southern California 

Bight and about three percent of the carrying 

capacity of California as a whole. The 

carrying capacity of the currently designated 

management zone (i.e., the Southern 

California Bight minus San Nicolas Island) 

represents about 37 percent of the carrying 

capacity of California as a whole and about 

92 percent of the carrying capacity of the 

Southern California Bight.

An OSP estimate has not been formally 

determined for sea otters, but if it were 

based on the 50-80 percent range of values 

proposed by Taylor and DeMaster (1993), 

and on the most recent estimate of carrying 

capacity for California of 15,941 sea otters 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 138

(Laidre et al. 2001), OSP for California 

would be between 7,971 and 12,753 sea 

otters. The final revised recovery plan for 

the southern sea otter estimates the lower 

bound of OSP as approximately 8,400 

animals for the California coast (USFWS 

2003). Alternative 1 would make it 

difficult, if not impossible, to reach OSP for 

sea otters in California, even under the most 

optimistic scenario (assuming that all 

remaining habitat could be successfully 

reoccupied).17 

If sea otters were prevented from 

recolonizing the management zone as 

specified under Alternative 1, the remaining 

sea otter habitat in California would need to 

be sufficient to achieve OSP. Excluding the 

management zone, California could 

theoretically support about 10,000 sea otters 

(this number includes about 500 at San 

Nicolas Island). Therefore, Alternative 1 

may or may not allow for the achievement 

of OSP. Failure to achieve OSP would 

ensure that southern sea otters remained 

“depleted” and would effectively prevent the 

Service from fulfilling our mandate under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act to 

manage sea otters to their OSP. 

Maintenance of the existing management 

zone, as required by Alternative 1, restricts 

the habitat available to the subspecies and 

subjects the entire population to a risky 

management scenario (see additional 

discussion in section 6.3.3.3, “Southern Sea 

Otter”). Alternative 1 would require the 

removal, in perpetuity, of all sea otters that 

enter the management zone. The potential 

effects of the continual introduction of sea 

 

17 For example, the remaining habitat includes the 

San Francisco Bay, which could theoretically sustain 

1098 sea otters. However, given the intensity of the 

Bay’s surrounding urbanization, its heavy human use, 

and its correspondingly poor water quality, it seems 

highly unlikely that the bay in its current condition 

could support such numbers of sea otters. 

otters into the mainland population on the 

subspecies as a whole have been previously 

evaluated by the Service in a biological 

opinion pursuant to section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2000, 

included as Appendix B). At that time we 

determined that the continuation of the 

program would likely jeopardize the 

survival and recovery of the southern sea 

otter. If Alternative 1 were chosen, its 

effects on sea otter recovery would have to 

be reevaluated through a reinitiation of 

consultation using the most current 

information available before it could be 

implemented. Because the management 

scenario under Alternative 1 is the same as 

that evaluated in the 2000 biological 

opinion, it is possible that Alternative 1 

would preclude the survival and recovery of 

the species. Alternative 1 would not result 

in any changes in the regulatory provisions 

that apply to sea otters. For a discussion of 

these provisions, see section 6.3.12. 

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS (10-YEAR PERIOD) 

Under Alternative 1, funding would be 

necessary to resume maintenance of the 

management zone. Associated costs result 

from expenditures for personnel, 

transportation, and equipment (Table 6-27). 

 

TABLE 6-27. PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT 

NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE 1 

Personnel Transportation Equipment 

Program 

Manager 

2 Vans Boat 

Maintenance 

Capture 

Teams 

1 Tow Vehicle Dive Gear and 

Maintenance 

Transport 

Team 

2 Monitor 

Vehicles 

Tracking 

Equipment 

Monitoring 

Team 

Air Charters Training 

Veterinary 

Services 

Boat Charters 

 Travel Costs 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 139

Table 6-28 represents the estimated 

expenditures for the entire program over 10 

years. Personnel costs to maintain the 

management zone comprise approximately 

75 percent of the annual implementation 

costs listed here. Within the personnel 

costs, the capture teams represent the largest 

expense, at $300 thousand per year. The 

capture teams would patrol the management 

zone to ensure that no sea otters become 

established in the area. Most likely, effort 

would be concentrated at the northern border 

of the management zone boundary near 

Point Conception. 

Based upon past and projected efforts, the 

annual implementation costs would stabilize 

at $709 thousand and would sum to about 

$7.0 million over 10 years. The 10-year 

discounted implementation costs would sum 

to about $6.0 million (discounted at 3 

percent) or $5.0 million (discounted at 7 

percent). Annual expenditures would 

continue in perpetuity. 

6.3.11.2 Channel Islands National 

Park 

Under Alternative 1, sea otters would be 

removed from the existing management 

zone in perpetuity. Therefore, they would 

be permanently prevented from establishing 

range within the boundaries of the Channel 

Islands National Park. Because sea otters 

are expected to recolonize only the mainland 

coastline to Santa Barbara within the next 10 

years (and therefore would not be expected 

within Park boundaries during this period), 

the effects of Alternative 1 are effectively 

the same as under the baseline scenario 

within this 10-year period. However, in the 

long term, it is possible that sea otters would 

attempt to recolonize nearshore areas within 

the Channel Islands National Park. 

Alternative 1 would prevent this 

recolonization, which appears to be 

inconsistent with the Park’s mission and 

mission-related goals to protect and restore 

natural ecosystems and to practice 

ecosystem management. 

Alternative 1 would not result in any 

changes in the regulatory provisions that 

TABLE 6-28. IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE MANAGEMENT ZONE 

AND MONITORING AT THE TRANSLOCATION ZONE OVER 10 YEARS 

Annual Cost Year 

Personnel Transportation Equipment 

Discounted Cost 

(3% discount rate) 

Discounted Cost 

(7% discount rate) 

2005 $535,000 $75,000 $75,000 $665,049 $640,187 

2006 $535,000 $85,000 $66,000 $646,621 $599,179 

2007 $535,000 $95,000 $68,000 $638,769 $569,776 

2008 $535,000 $104,000 $70,000 $629,937 $540,893 

2009 $535,000 $104,000 $70,000 $611,590 $505,507 

2010 $535,000 $104,000 $70,000 $593,776 $472,437 

2011 $535,000 $104,000 $70,000 $576,482 $441,530 

2012 $535,000 $104,000 $70,000 $559,691 $412,644 

2013 $535,000 $104,000 $70,000 $543,389 $385,649 

2014 $535,000 $104,000 $70,000 $527,563 $360,420 

Total $7,032,000 $5,992,867 (PV @ 3%) $4,928,221 (PV @ 7%) 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 140

apply to sea otters. For a discussion of these 

provisions, see section 6.3.12. 

6.3.11.3 Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary 

Under Alternative 1, sea otters would be 

removed from the existing management 

zone in perpetuity. Therefore, they would 

be permanently prevented from establishing 

range within the boundaries of the Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Because 

sea otters are expected to recolonize only the 

mainland coastline to Santa Barbara within 

the next 10 years (and therefore would not 

be expected within Sanctuary boundaries 

during this period), the effects of Alternative 

1 are effectively the same as under the 

baseline scenario within this 10-year period. 

However, in the long term, it is possible that 

sea otters would attempt to recolonize 

nearshore areas that are within the 

boundaries of the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary. Alternative 1 would 

prevent this recolonization, which appears to 

be inconsistent with the Sanctuary’s mission 

to conserve and enhance the biodiversity, 

ecological integrity, and cultural legacy of 

areas of special national significance. 

Alternative 1 would not result in any 

changes in the regulatory provisions that 

apply to sea otters. For a discussion of these 

provisions, see section 6.3.12. 

6.3.11.4 California Department of 

Fish and Game 

Note: Effects on the recovery of white and 

black abalone and sea otters are discussed 

under “Candidate, Threatened, and 

Endangered Species” (section 6.3.3). 

Effects on existing commercial fisheries and 

the restoration of the abalone fishery are 

discussed under “Commercial Fisheries” 

(section 6.3.4) and “Abalone Fishery 

Restoration” (section 6.3.9). Effects on 

Marine Protected Areas are discussed here. 

Under Alternative 1, sea otters would be 

removed from the existing management 

zone in perpetuity. Therefore, they would 

be permanently prevented from establishing 

range within any of the 12 newly designated 

Marine Protected Areas in the Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Because 

sea otters are expected to recolonize only the 

mainland coastline to Santa Barbara within 

the next 10 years (and therefore would not 

be expected within MPA boundaries during 

this time), the effects of Alternative 1 are 

effectively the same as under the baseline 

scenario within this 10-year period. 

However, in the long term, under baseline 

conditions, it is possible that sea otters 

would attempt to recolonize areas that are 

now designated as Marine Protected Areas. 

Alternative 1 would prevent this 

recolonization, thereby enhancing some 

goals established for the Marine Protected 

Areas but negatively affecting others. 

Preventing sea otters from recolonizing 

these areas would be consistent with the 

goal set for Marine Protected Areas to 

generate fishery benefits through increased 

reproduction and dispersal of shellfish 

larvae and the emigration of large-size 

individuals. However, it would eliminate 

possible benefits to finfish fisheries that 

could result from the presence of sea otters 

and would negatively affect the achievement 

of other goals set for the Channel Islands 

Marine Protected Areas relating to: the 

maintenance of ecosystem biodiversity; the 

protection of the structure, function, and 

integrity of marine ecosystems; the 

protection of marine natural heritage; and 

the provision of recreational, scientific, and 

educational opportunities. With respect to 

the non-consumptive socio-economic goals 

set for the Marine Protected Areas, 

preventing sea otters from recolonizing 

these areas would eliminate any potential 

increase in the quality of non-consumptive 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 141

recreation that would occur as a result of the 

presence of sea otters. 

Alternative 1 would not result in any 

changes in the regulatory provisions that 

apply to sea otters. For a discussion of these 

provisions, see section 6.3.12. 

6.3.11.5 U.S. Navy 

No regulatory changes are associated with 

Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, 

Endangered Species Act consultation and 

permitting requirements for the U.S. Navy 

under the Endangered Species Act, the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, and state 

law would remain the same as those 

described for the baseline. For a discussion 

of these provisions, see section 6.3.12. 

6.3.11.6 U.S. Minerals Management 

Service 

No regulatory changes are associated with 

Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, 

Endangered Species Act consultation and 

permitting requirements for the Minerals 

Management Service under the Endangered 

Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act, and state law would remain the same as 

those described for the baseline. For a 

discussion of these provisions, see section 

6.3.12. 

6.3.12 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

Under Alternative 1, the regulatory 

environment in the Southern California 

Bight would remain unchanged. 

In the translocation zone, with the exception 

of defense-related activities by a military 

department, the consultation requirements of 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

would continue to apply to proposed federal 

actions, and take of sea otters would 

continue to be subject to the standard take 

authorization procedures for threatened 

species under the Endangered Species Act, 

depleted species under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, and fully protected species 

under Fish and Game Code section 4700 and 

4500. With respect to defense-related 

activities, sea otters would continue to be 

treated (for the purposes of consultation and 

incidental take authorization) as a species 

that is proposed to be listed [50 CFR 

§17.84(d)(4)(iv)] under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

In the management zone, the conference and 

not the consultation requirements of section 

7 of the Endangered Species Act would 

apply to actions that may affect southern sea 

otters, and incidental take of southern sea 

otters resulting from otherwise legal 

activities would not be subject to take 

authorization procedures under the 

Endangered Species Act or Marine Mammal 

Protection Act or be considered a violation 

of either Act. As under the baseline, Section 

8664.2 of the California Fish and Game 

Code would allow for incidental take of sea 

otters in the management zone by means of 

specific exemptions from section 4700. 

Our biological opinion on sea otter 

containment, released in 2000, concluded 

that continued zonal management of the sea 

otter population would jeopardize the 

species’ continued existence. Because of 

the potential effects of sea otter containment 

on sea otters found in the parent population, 

consultation under the Endangered Species 

Act would need to be reinitiated and a 

finding of no-jeopardy reached before we 

could proceed with implementation of 

Alternative 1. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 142

6.4 Alternative 2—Implement 

Modified Translocation Program 

with Smaller Management Zone 

6.4.1 INTRODUCTION

Alternative 2 modifies the southern sea otter 

translocation program from its original 

design, defined in 50 CFR §17.84(d). The 

size of the management zone would 

decrease, with its boundaries redrawn to 

exclude San Miguel Island, Santa Rosa 

Island, and the nearshore area between Point 

Conception and Santa Barbara from the 

zone. The new delineation would remove 

CDFG statistical blocks 654, 655, 656, 657, 

688, 689, 690, 711, 712, 713, and the 

western half of block 710 from the 

management zone. This action would not 

increase or decrease projected sea otter 

range expansion compared to the baseline 

within 10 years. Sea otters are already 

expected to reach carrying capacity along 

the coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara (CDFG statistical blocks 654, 655, 

656, and 657) but are not expected to 

recolonize San Miguel and Santa Rosa 

Islands within this period (see section 6.1.4). 

Therefore, there would be no impacts within 

the 10-year period of analysis from 

decreasing the size of the management zone 

except regulatory changes in the area 

excluded from the management zone under 

the new designation. 

Under Alternative 2, translocations of sea 

otters to San Nicolas Island would not be 

reinitiated, beyond moving small numbers of 

sea otters to San Nicolas Island as necessary 

to improve genetic diversity in the colony. 

Instead, sea otters would be allowed to 

remain at San Nicolas Island, and the 

existing colony would be observed, 

protected, and contained. Because this 

action would not detectably increase or 

decrease the San Nicolas Island colony 

compared to the baseline, there would be no 

impacts except in terms of increased 

implementation costs. 

The assumptions that apply to the analysis 

for Alternative 2 are the same as those 

described for the baseline. For a more 

detailed description of the baseline, to which 

each activity is compared, refer to section 

6.2, “Baseline (Status Quo)—The No Action 

Alternative.” 

6.4.2 NEARSHORE MARINE ECOSYSTEM

Alternative 2 would exclude sea otters from 

a smaller management zone than under 

Alternative 1, allowing sea otters to 

recolonize the coastline to Santa Barbara 

and the islands of San Miguel and Santa 

Rosa but preventing any further range 

expansion. Because sea otters are expected 

to reoccupy only the coastline area within 10 

years, community changes under Alternative 

2 are the same as those projected for the 

baseline within this 10-year period (see 

section 6.2.2). Changes at San Nicolas 

Island would also be the same as those 

projected for the island under baseline 

conditions because possible translocations of 

small numbers of animals for the purposes 

of maintaining genetic diversity are not 

expected to have a detectable effect. 

Beyond 10 years, sea otters may attempt to 

recolonize other areas of the Southern 

California Bight. The redefined 

management zone would exclude sea otters 

from most of the Southern California Bight 

but allow them to recolonize the islands of 

San Miguel and Santa Rosa. If sea otters 

became re-established in these areas, the 

nearshore marine environment surrounding 

these islands would be subject to the kinds 

of changes described in section 6.2.2. 

However, maintenance of the modified 

management zone would prevent such 

ecosystem changes from occurring in the 

nearshore areas of the remainder of the 

Southern California Bight. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 143

Significance criteria are not defined for 

effects on the nearshore marine ecosystem 

because of the extent of uncertainty 

involved. 

6.4.3 CANDIDATE, THREATENED, AND 

ENDANGERED SPECIES

6.4.3.1 White Abalone 

Alternative 2 would require maintenance of 

a modified management zone. Sea otters 

would be captured and removed from all 

areas of the Southern California Bight 

except the coastline from Point Conception 

to the city of Santa Barbara and the waters 

surrounding San Nicolas, San Miguel, and 

Santa Rosa Islands. Within 10 years, the 

effects of Alternative 2 are the same as for 

the baseline (see section 6.2.3.1) because 1) 

sea otters are not expected to extend their 

range along the coastline beyond the city of 

Santa Barbara during this period, and 2) the 

translocated colony at San Nicolas Island is 

predicted to persist and to grow at a rate of 

nine percent annually just as under baseline 

conditions. As discussed for the baseline, 

sea otter and white abalone depth ranges 

overlap only marginally. The abalone 

fishery was active along the coastline 

between Point Conception and Santa 

Barbara and at San Nicolas Island, and 

fishery data collected from 1955-1997 

indicate that less than one half of one 

percent of all white abalone landings came 

from these areas (Hobday et al. 2001). 

Because the effects of Alternative 2 on 

white abalone are the same as for the 

baseline within 10 years, these effects are 

not significant. 

In the longer term, maintenance of the 

modified management zone under 

Alternative 2 would afford white abalone 

more protection from sea otter predation 

than the baseline but less than Alternative 1. 

However, because under baseline conditions 

natural sea otter range expansion is expected 

to have only minor negative effects on white 

abalone recovery (see section 6.2.3.1), the 

benefit to white abalone resulting from the 

exclusion of sea otters from the modified 

management zone is expected to be minor. 

To a limited extent, implementation of 

Alternative 2 may benefit white abalone 

recovery; however, it is possible that sea 

otters would find and consume individual 

white abalone in areas outside the modified 

management zone. Therefore, we would 

request formal consultation with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service under 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and 

confer with the California Department of 

Fish and Game if this alternative were 

selected. 

6.4.3.2 Black Abalone 

Alternative 2 would require maintenance of 

a modified management zone. Sea otters 

would be captured and removed from all 

areas of the Southern California Bight 

except the coastline from Point Conception 

to the city of Santa Barbara and the waters 

surrounding San Nicolas, San Miguel, and 

Santa Rosa Islands. Within 10 years, the 

effects of Alternative 2 are the same as for 

the baseline (see section 6.2.3.2). The 

coastline between Point Conception and 

Santa Barbara, which sea otters are expected 

to affect through predation within the next 

10 years, has not been identified as an 

important area for abalone recovery. 

However, San Nicolas Island has been 

identified by the California Department of 

Fish and Game as 1 of 10 key locations for 

the recovery of black abalone (CDFG 

2002c). The sea otter colony at the island is 

predicted to persist and to grow by about 

nine percent annually under baseline 

conditions as well as under Alternative 2. 

Because the effects of Alternative 2 on the 

nearshore marine ecosystem are the same as 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 144

for the baseline within 10 years, these 

effects are not significant. 

Over the longer term, the exclusion of sea 

otters from the modified management zone 

may afford black abalone more protection 

from sea otter predation when compared to 

the baseline but would offer less protection 

than Alternative 1. However, because black 

abalone can maintain reproductively viable 

populations where sufficient cryptic and 

inaccessible habitat exists, and because 

under baseline conditions sea otters would 

enter the Southern California Bight only 

gradually, the benefit to black abalone 

resulting from the exclusion of sea otters 

from the modified management zone is 

expected to be relatively minor. 

Despite these considerations, the effect that 

sea otters may have on severely depleted 

black abalone stocks is uncertain. 

Therefore, we would confer with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service and the 

California Department of Fish and Game if 

this alternative is selected. 

6.4.3.3 Southern Sea Otter 

EFFECTS ON PARENT POPULATION

Alternative 2 would require the resumption 

of zonal management (containment) of sea 

otters and the maintenance, in perpetuity, of 

a modified management zone. Sea otters 

found in the modified management zone 

would be captured and moved to other 

portions of the southern sea otter’s range. 

Within 10 years, Alternative 2 would have 

no effect on sea otters relative to the 

baseline (see section 6.2.3.3). During this 

period, sea otters are expected to expand 

their range along the coastline towards Santa 

Barbara (Appendix F), and the modified 

management zone would allow this range 

expansion to occur unimpeded. Because the 

effects of Alternative 2 on the southern sea 

otter are the same as for the baseline within 

10 years, these effects are not significant. 

However, if range expansion continues 

along the coastline after 10 years, sea otters 

may enter the modified management zone. 

Maintenance of the zone would result in the 

restriction of natural range expansion. The 

modified management zone would eliminate 

about 27 percent of the carrying capacity 

(for sea otters) of California (see section 

6.4.11.1). Alternative 2 would allow sea 

otters more area for natural range expansion 

than would Alternative 1, but like 

Alternative 1, it would require resumption of 

a risky management strategy (removing sea 

otters from a management zone and placing 

them in the mainland range). 

It is not possible to determine precisely what 

effects the maintenance of a modified 

management zone would have on the species 

10 years from now and beyond. Our 

biological opinion on sea otter containment 

(USFWS 2000, included as Appendix B) 

concluded that continuing containment and 

restricting sea otters to the area north of 

Point Conception would jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. While 

the modified management zone would allow 

more area for range expansion compared to 

the scenario evaluated in the 2000 biological 

opinion, maintenance of a modified 

management zone may disrupt behavior 

throughout the range of the species and 

cause the incidental injury or death of sea 

otters removed from the modified 

management zone. Range restriction would 

also increase the species’ vulnerability to oil 

spills, disease, and stochastic events relative 

to the baseline. In the revised southern sea 

otter recovery plan (USFWS 2003), the 

recovery team recommends that the range 

expansion of sea otters be allowed to occur 

naturally. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 145

EFFECTS ON SAN NICOLAS ISLAND COLONY

Alternative 2 would have little or no effect 

on the sea otter colony at San Nicolas Island 

compared to baseline conditions. 

Monitoring of the colony would continue, 

and protective measures in place would 

remain unchanged. Alternative 2 allows for 

the limited translocation of sea otters to San 

Nicolas Island for the purposes of 

maintaining genetic diversity; however, past 

experience indicates that the dispersal of 

translocated sea otters would likely be high, 

possibly negating the intended effect of 

supplementing genetic diversity. 

6.4.4 COMMERCIAL FISHERIES

For a discussion of the regulatory 

environment (including as it pertains to 

commercial fisheries) see section 6.4.12. 

6.4.4.1 Sea Urchin Fishery 

Under Alternative 2, commercial sea urchin 

landings within 10 years would be (1) 

eliminated along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara and (2) 

unaffected at San Miguel and Santa Rosa 

Islands. The sea urchin fishery under the 

baseline is projected to be eliminated along 

the coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara (CDFG statistical blocks 654, 655, 

656, and 657). Therefore, there is no 

additional impact along the coastline 

compared to the baseline (see section 6.2.4.2 

for the commercial sea urchin fishery 

baseline). Because the effects of Alternative 

2 on the sea urchin fishery are the same as 

for the baseline within 10 years, these 

effects are not significant. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize the 

nearshore areas around San Miguel and 

Santa Rosa Islands after 10 years would be a 

function of their demographic rates, food 

supply, and other variables. If sea otters 

recolonized these areas at the densities seen 

in the mainland range for comparable 

habitat, the commercial sea urchin fishery in 

these areas would likely no longer be viable, 

and landings would approach zero because 

sea urchin divers would fish other areas 

where their catch per unit effort would be 

greater. However, there would be no 

additional impact from this expansion, 

compared to the baseline, because sea otters 

are equally likely to colonize these areas 

under baseline conditions. 

Maintenance of the management zone 

southeast of Santa Barbara would prevent 

sea otters from further expanding their 

range. As a result of this management, the 

long-term impacts that would have occurred 

under the baseline (the elimination of 

commercial sea urchin harvests via 

competition with sea otters in recolonized 

areas) would not occur. This benefit is 

likely to accrue gradually over the course of 

many decades, if not hundreds of years. 

6.4.4.2 Spiny Lobster Fishery 

Under Alternative 2, commercial spiny 

lobster landings within 10 years would be 

(1) eliminated along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara and (2) 

unaffected at San Miguel and Santa Rosa 

Islands. The lobster fishery under the 

baseline is projected to be eliminated along 

the coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara (CDFG statistical blocks 654, 655, 

656, and 657). Therefore, there is no 

additional impact along the coastline 

compared to the baseline (see section 6.2.4.3 

for the commercial lobster fishery baseline). 

Because the effects of Alternative 2 on the 

commercial lobster fishery are the same as 

for the baseline within 10 years, these 

effects are not significant. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize the 

nearshore areas around San Miguel and 

Santa Rosa Islands after 10 years would be a 

function of their demographic rates, food 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 146

supply, and other variables. If sea otters 

recolonized these areas at the densities seen 

in the mainland range for comparable 

habitat, the commercial lobster fishery in 

these areas would likely no longer be viable, 

and landings would approach zero because 

lobster fishers would fish other areas where 

their catch per unit effort would be greater. 

However, there would be no additional 

impact from this expansion, compared to the 

baseline, because sea otters are equally 

likely to colonize these areas under baseline 

conditions. 

Maintenance of the management zone 

southeast of Santa Barbara would prevent 

sea otters from further expanding their 

range. As a result of this management, the 

long-term impacts that would have occurred 

under the baseline (the elimination of 

commercial lobster harvests via competition 

with sea otters in recolonized areas) would 

not occur. This benefit is likely to accrue 

gradually over the course of many decades, 

if not hundreds of years. 

6.4.4.3 Crab Fishery 

Under Alternative 2, sea otters are predicted 

to recolonize the northern fringe of the 

previously established management zone. 

Thus, commercial crab landings within one 

decade would be (1) eliminated along the 

coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara and (2) unaffected at San Miguel 

and Santa Rosa Islands. The crab fishery 

under the baseline is projected to be 

eliminated along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara (CDFG 

statistical blocks 654, 655, 656, and 657). 

Therefore, there is no additional impact 

along the coastline compared to the baseline 

(see section 6.2.4.4 for the commercial crab 

fishery baseline). Because the effects of 

Alternative 2 on the commercial crab fishery 

are the same as for the baseline within 10 

years, these effects are not significant. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize the 

nearshore areas around San Miguel and 

Santa Rosa Islands after 10 years would be a 

function of their demographic rates, food 

supply, and other variables. If sea otters 

recolonized these areas at the densities seen 

in the mainland range for comparable 

habitat, the commercial crab fishery in these 

areas would likely no longer be viable, and 

landings would approach zero because crab 

fishers would fish other areas where their 

catch per unit effort would be greater. 

However, there would be no additional 

impact from this expansion, compared to the 

baseline, because sea otters are equally 

likely to colonize these areas under baseline 

conditions. 

Maintenance of the management zone 

southeast of Santa Barbara would prevent 

sea otters from further expanding their 

range. As a result of this management, the 

long-term impacts that would have occurred 

under the baseline (the elimination of 

commercial crab harvests via competition 

with sea otters in recolonized areas) would 

not occur. This benefit is likely to accrue 

gradually over the course of many decades, 

if not hundreds of years. 

6.4.5 AQUACULTURE

Alternative 2 would require a resumption of 

zonal management (containment) of sea 

otters, which may result in the exclusion of 

sea otters from all areas of the Southern 

California Bight except the coastline from 

Point Conception to the city of Santa 

Barbara and the waters surrounding San 

Nicolas, San Miguel, and Santa Rosa 

Islands. 

Within 10 years, the effects of Alternative 2 

on aquaculture operations are the same as 

for the baseline (see section 6.2.5) because 

sea otters are not expected to extend their 

range along the coastline beyond Santa 

Barbara during this period. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 147

Beyond 10 years, aquaculture facilities 

located in other portions of the Southern 

California Bight may benefit from the 

exclusion of sea otters, but these benefits are 

expected to be relatively unimportant for the 

following reasons: 1) in April 2002, there 

were only four registered aquaculture 

operations in the remainder of the Southern 

California Bight (i.e., not in Santa Barbara 

Channel), two of which produce a variety of 

shellfish and finfish, and two of which 

produce exclusively abalone; 2) under 

baseline conditions, sea otter range 

expansion (if it continues to occur) would 

occur gradually over the course of many 

decades; and 3) sea otters are not likely to 

affect abalone or finfish aquaculture 

operations and would likely affect mussel 

operations only locally and episodically. 

There are no effects at San Nicolas Island 

because 1) there are currently no aquaculture 

operations there, and 2) there is no 

difference in management of the colony 

under Alternative 2 and the baseline. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

aquaculture because of the extent of 

uncertainty involved. 

6.4.6 SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY (SEA 

URCHINS) 

Under Alternative 2, impacts to the sea 

urchin processing industry are a function of 

the change in sea urchin landings. 

Alternative 2 would exclude sea otters from 

a smaller management zone than the one 

currently designated, allowing sea otters to 

recolonize not only the coastline to Santa 

Barbara but also the islands of San Miguel 

and Santa Rosa. However, within 10 years, 

sea otters are expected to reoccupy only the 

coastline area. Therefore, there are no 

impacts to commercial sea urchin landings, 

relative to the baseline, and correspondingly, 

the sea urchin processing industry would not 

be affected (see section 6.2.6 for the seafood 

processing industry baseline). Because the 

effects of Alternative 2 on the seafood 

processing industry are the same as for the 

baseline within 10 years, these effects are 

not significant. 

Maintenance of the management zone 

southeast of Santa Barbara would prevent 

sea otters from further expanding their 

range. As a result of this management, the 

long-term impacts that would have occurred 

under the baseline (the elimination of sea 

urchin processing inputs via competition 

with sea otters in recolonized areas) would 

not occur. This benefit is likely to accrue 

gradually over the course of many decades, 

if not hundreds of years. 

6.4.7 KELP HARVEST

Alternative 2 would exclude sea otters from 

a smaller management zone than the one 

currently designated, allowing sea otters to 

recolonize not only the coastline to Santa 

Barbara but also the islands of San Miguel 

and Santa Rosa. However, within 10 years, 

sea otters are expected to reoccupy only the 

coastline area. Thus, the effects on kelp 

abundance under Alternative 2 are the same 

as those projected for the baseline within 

this 10-year period (for a description of the 

relationship between sea otters and kelp 

abundance, see section 6.2.2). Changes at 

San Nicolas Island would also be the same 

as those projected for the island under 

baseline conditions. 

Beyond 10 years, however, sea otters may 

attempt to recolonize other areas of the 

Southern California Bight. The redefined 

management zone would exclude sea otters 

from most of the Southern California Bight 

but allow them to recolonize the islands of 

San Miguel and Santa Rosa. If sea otters 

established their range in these areas, the 

distribution and abundance of kelp would 

likely increase in the vicinity of these 

islands where invertebrate herbivores are 

limiting kelp. However, as a result of 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 148

maintenance of the modified management 

zone, the long-term benefits that may have 

accrued under the baseline (possible 

increase in kelp available for harvest) would 

not occur throughout the remainder of the 

Southern California Bight. 

Significance criteria are not defined for kelp 

harvesting because of the extent of 

uncertainty involved. 

6.4.8 RECREATIONAL FISHING AND DIVING 

Recreational fishing and diving activities 

that may be affected by sea otters include 

lobster diving, abalone diving, and finfish 

fishing. Lobster diving and finfish fishing 

are addressed below. Abalone diving is 

included under “Abalone Fishery 

Restoration” (section 6.4.9). 

6.4.8.1 Lobster Diving 

Under Alternative 2, recreational lobster 

dive trips within 10 years would be (1) 

eliminated along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara and (2) 

unaffected at San Miguel and Santa Rosa 

Islands. Recreational lobster dives under the 

baseline are projected to be eliminated along 

the coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara (CDFG statistical blocks 654, 655, 

656, and 657). Therefore, there is no 

additional impact along the coastline 

compared to the baseline (see section 6.2.8 

for the recreational lobster diving baseline). 

Because the effects of Alternative 2 on 

lobster diving are the same as for the 

baseline within 10 years, these effects are 

not significant. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize the 

nearshore areas around San Miguel and 

Santa Rosa Islands after 10 years would be a 

function of their demographic rates, food 

supply, and other variables. If sea otters 

recolonized these areas at the densities seen 

in the mainland range for comparable 

habitat, recreational lobster dive trips in 

these areas would likely no longer be viable, 

and trips to these areas would likely 

approach zero. However, there would be no 

additional impact from this expansion, 

compared to the baseline, because sea otters 

are equally likely to colonize these areas 

under baseline conditions. 

Maintenance of the management zone 

southeast of Santa Barbara would prevent 

sea otters from further expanding their 

range. As a result of this management, the 

long-term impacts that would have occurred 

under the baseline (the elimination of 

recreational lobster diving in other areas of 

the Southern California Bight recolonized 

by sea otters) would not occur. This benefit 

is likely to accrue gradually over the course 

of many decades, if not hundreds of years. 

6.4.8.2 Finfish Fishing 

Alternative 2 proposes a modified 

management zone, which would allow sea 

otters to recolonize the mainland coastline to 

Santa Barbara and the islands of San Miguel 

and Santa Rosa. Under Alternative 2, 

effects on recreational finfish fishing are the 

same as for the baseline (see section 6.2.8.2) 

over the next 10 years because during this 

period sea otters are not expected to extend 

their range along the mainland beyond Santa 

Barbara. As under the baseline, recreational 

finfish fishing may be enhanced as sea otters 

progressively reoccupy and begin to reside 

year-round along this stretch of mainland 

coastline. 

A healthy kelp forest ecosystem is important 

for a wide range of finfish species harvested 

by the recreational fishery (a discussion of 

the long-term effects of sea otter predation 

on the kelp forest community, including 

finfish production, is given in section 6.2.2). 

However, any beneficial effects associated 

with sea otter range expansion along the 

coastline toward Santa Barbara would likely 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 149

require more than 10 years to become 

noticeable (because the reestablishment of 

giant kelp canopies in areas where sea 

urchin grazing is limiting kelp is expected to 

take at least 10 years) and could occur 

gradually over several decades. Therefore, 

it is not possible to reasonably quantify the 

effects of Alternative 2 on recreational 

finfish fishing. 

Whether sea otters would attempt to 

recolonize other areas of the Southern 

California Bight after 10 years would be a 

function of their demographic rates, food 

supply, and other variables. If sea otters 

became established at San Miguel and Santa 

Rosa Islands, recreational finfish fishing 

may be enhanced, as it would under the 

baseline. However, maintenance of the 

management zone southeast of Santa 

Barbara would prevent sea otters from 

recolonizing the mainland coastline 

southeast of Santa Barbara or any additional 

islands. As a consequence, Alternative 2 

would prevent the possible enhancement of 

the recreational finfish fishery in these areas. 

Effects on recreational finfish fishing at San 

Nicolas Island in both the short term and 

long term are the same as for the baseline. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

recreational finfish fishing because of the 

extent of uncertainty involved. 

6.4.9 ABALONE FISHERY RESTORATION

Within 10 years, the effects of Alternative 2 

on abalone fishery restoration are the same 

as for the baseline (see section 6.2.9), both 

along the coastline between Point 

Conception and Santa Barbara and at San 

Nicolas Island. 

Sea otter range expansion along the 

coastline towards Santa Barbara would 

preclude the reestablishment of abalone 

fishing in this area. Because it does not 

appear that there is any potential for 

reopening the abalone fishery (for any 

species) during the next 10 years, regardless 

of the presence or absence of sea otters (see 

section 6.2.9), effects projected for the 

baseline, as for Alternative 2, along the 

coastline during this time period are 

essentially speculative. At San Nicolas 

Island (CDFG statistical blocks 813 and 

814) sea otters are expected to increase from 

6 percent of carrying capacity in 2004 to 16 

percent of carrying capacity in 2014. 

Abalone populations at San Nicolas Island 

are expected to persist as sea otter predation 

increases. However, densities of large 

individual abalone would likely eventually 

be reduced to a point that would preclude 

reestablishment of an abalone fishery at the 

island. Because San Nicolas Island would 

continue to be occupied by sea otters, it 

would likely be disqualified from abalone 

fishery consideration on the grounds that it 

is not “outside of the sea otter range” 

(CDFG 2002c). 

Whether sea otters would recolonize the 

nearshore areas around San Miguel and 

Santa Rosa Islands after 10 years would be a 

function of their demographic rates, food 

supply, and other variables. San Miguel and 

Santa Rosa Islands are identified as key 

recovery areas for red and black abalone in 

the draft Abalone Management and 

Recovery Plan (CDFG 2002c). If sea otters 

recolonized these areas at the densities seen 

in the mainland range for comparable 

habitat, their presence would likely preclude 

the restoration of an abalone fishery there. 

However, there would be no additional 

impact from this expansion, compared to the 

baseline, because sea otters are equally 

likely to colonize these areas under baseline 

conditions. 

Maintenance of the management zone 

southeast of Santa Barbara would prevent 

sea otters from further expanding their 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 150

range. As a result of this management, the 

long-term impacts that would have occurred 

under the baseline (elimination of the 

possibility that an abalone fishery might be 

reopened in areas that are reoccupied by sea 

otters) would not occur. Thus, restoration of 

an abalone fishery may occur in the future. 

The magnitude of benefit provided by 

Alternative 2 to the restoration of an abalone 

fishery is difficult to determine for two 

reasons: 1) it is unknown whether or when 

an abalone fishery could be reopened even 

in the absence of sea otters; and 2) sea otter 

range expansion that would occur beyond 10 

years if not prevented under Alternative 2 is 

uncertain. Still, it is clear that sea otter 

range expansion would preclude the 

possibility of recreational or commercial 

abalone fishing in reoccupied areas. 

Therefore, the prevention of range 

expansion under Alternative 2 can be 

expected to provide a benefit of unknown 

magnitude (within the modified 

management zone) to efforts to restore an 

abalone fishery. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

abalone fishery restoration because of the 

extent of uncertainty involved. 

6.4.10 ECOTOURISM 

Alternative 2 proposes a modified 

management zone, which would allow sea 

otters to recolonize the mainland coastline to 

Santa Barbara and the islands of San Miguel 

and Santa Rosa. Under Alternative 2, 

effects on ecotourism based on sea otter 

watching are the same as for the baseline 

(see section 6.2.10) over the next 10 years 

because during this period sea otters are not 

expected to extend their range along the 

mainland beyond Santa Barbara. As under 

the baseline, tourism is expected to be 

enhanced as sea otters progressively 

reoccupy and begin to reside year-round 

along this stretch of mainland coastline. 

Whether sea otters would attempt to 

recolonize other areas of the Southern 

California Bight after 10 years would be a 

function of their demographic rates, food 

supply, and other variables. If sea otters 

established range at San Miguel and Santa 

Rosa Islands, ecotourism would be 

enhanced, as it would under the baseline. 

However, maintenance of the management 

zone southeast of Santa Barbara would 

prevent sea otters from recolonizing the 

mainland coastline southeast of Santa 

Barbara or any additional islands. Overall 

impacts are difficult to quantify and would 

not necessarily result in decreased economic 

activity in the modified management zone. 

However, the quality of tourist trips within 

the modified management zone may 

decrease because sea otters would not be 

observed. Effects on ecotourism at San 

Nicolas Island are the same as for the 

baseline (see section 6.2.10). 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

ecotourism because of the extent of 

uncertainty involved. 

6.4.11 FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY 

PROGRAMS

Significance criteria are not defined for 

effects on agency programs because these 

effects and programs are various and cannot 

be meaningfully compared with a single set 

of criteria. For a discussion of the 

regulatory environment, see section 6.4.12. 

6.4.11.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

The effects of Alternative 2 on southern sea 

otter recovery are also addressed in section 

6.4.3.3 (“Southern Sea Otter”). Here we 

address our ability to meet our mandates 

under the Endangered Species Act and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act and give the 

implementation costs of the alternative. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 151

ABILITY TO MEET MANDATE

Under Alternative 2, sea otters would be 

removed from a modified management zone 

in perpetuity. The modified zone does not 

include the mainland coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara or the islands 

of San Miguel or Santa Rosa. Therefore, the 

habitat available to sea otters under 

Alternative 2 would include these areas and 

the translocation zone surrounding San 

Nicolas Island. 

Within 10 years, sea otters are expected to 

recolonize only the coastline to Santa 

Barbara and to increase in number by about 

9 percent annually at San Nicolas Island. 

Because the modified management zone is 

not expected to restrict range expansion 

within 10 years, the effects of Alternative 2 

on the ability of the Service to meet our 

mandates under the Endangered Species Act 

and the Marine Mammal Protection Act are 

the same as under the baseline scenario 

during this time period. 

Whether sea otters would attempt to 

recolonize other areas of the Southern 

California Bight after 10 years would be a 

function of their demographic rates, food 

supply, and other variables. If sea otters 

established range at San Miguel and Santa 

Rosa Islands, their chances of attaining 

recovery and reaching their OSP level would 

be improved relative to today, but the same 

trend would be expected under the baseline. 

However, maintenance of the modified 

management zone southeast of Santa 

Barbara would prevent sea otters from 

recolonizing the mainland coastline 

southeast of Santa Barbara or any additional 

islands in the Southern California Bight. 

San Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands have a 

large area of high quality habitat within the 

40m bathymetric contour. Alternative 2 

would provide additional habitat (relative to 

Alternative 1) to allow for the achievement 

of recovery and OSP, but it would still 

prevent sea otters from reoccupying most of 

the suitable habitat in the Southern 

California Bight. Specifically, the modified 

management zone would eliminate about 27 

percent of the carrying capacity (for sea 

otters) of California. If the estimate of OSP 

is based on the total nearshore habitat of 

California, and if areas that theoretically 

could support large numbers of sea otters in 

northern California (such as the San 

Francisco Bay) were found to be unsuitable 

for recolonization by sea otters, Alternative 

2 could hinder or prevent the achievement of 

OSP because of insufficient habitat. 

The potential effects of the continual 

introduction of sea otters into the mainland 

population on the subspecies as a whole 

have been previously evaluated by the 

Service in a biological opinion (USFWS 

2000, included as Appendix B), in which we 

determined that the continuation of the 

program (which forms the basis of 

Alternative 1) would likely jeopardize the 

survival and recovery of the southern sea 

otter. Although Alternative 2 proposes a 

modified management zone that would 

delay the restriction of range expansion and 

would presumably result in fewer removals, 

at least in the short term (relative to 

Alternative 1), the management requirement 

is essentially the same as that evaluated in 

the 2000 biological opinion. It is unknown 

what the population status will be and 

whether large numbers of sea otters will be 

seasonally entering the modified 

management zone 10 years from now, as 

they were when the biological opinion was 

written, so the specific effects on the 

southern sea otter cannot be predicted. 

However, it is likely that Alternative 2 

would make it more difficult to achieve our 

mandate to bring southern sea otters to their 

OSP level under the Marine Mammal 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 152

Protection Act. Before Alternative 2 could 

be implemented, we would need to reinitiate 

consultation under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act and reach a nonjeopardy opinion. 

The modified management zone under 

Alternative 2 would be smaller than the one 

currently designated. Any sea otters found 

in the areas newly excluded from the 

management zone would be subject to the 

same regulatory provisions that currently 

apply to the mainland population along the 

central California coast under the 

Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, and applicable state laws. 

For a discussion of the regulatory provisions 

that would apply to sea otters under 

Alternative 2, see section 6.4.12. 

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS (10-YEAR PERIOD) 

The change in the regulatory provisions that 

apply to sea otters in the area excluded from 

the management zone under Alternative 2 

may result, in the long term, in increased 

coordination and consultation between the 

Service and other parties regarding activities 

that may affect the southern sea otter. Costs 

resulting from an increased consultation 

workload are not included here because few 

or no activities requiring consultation 

presently occur or are expected to occur in 

the area that sea otters would likely 

reoccupy within the next 10 years. 

Under Alternative 2, new implementation 

costs would result from a resumption of 

activities to support the southern sea otter 

translocation program. Associated costs 

result from expenditures for personnel, 

transportation, and equipment (Table 6-29). 

Based upon past and projected efforts, the 

annual implementation costs would stabilize 

at $635 thousand by 2005 and would sum to 

about $6.4 million over 10 years. The 10-

year discounted costs for implementation 

would sum to $5.4 million (discounted at 3 

percent) or $4.5 million (discounted at 7 

percent). Annual expenditures would 

continue for at least 15 years. 

Table 6-30 shows the estimated 

expenditures for the entire program costs 

over 10 years. Personnel costs to maintain 

the management zone comprise 

approximately 83 percent of annual 

implementation costs. Within the personnel 

costs, the capture teams represent the largest 

expense at about $300,000 per year. The 

capture teams would patrol areas of the 

modified management zone where sea otters 

are likely to be found to ensure that sea 

otters that migrate into the area are removed. 

Most likely, effort would be concentrated 

around San Nicolas Island and the northern 

fringe of the management boundary near 

Santa Barbara. 

TABLE 6-29. PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT 

NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE 2 

Personnel Transportation Equipment 

Program 

Manager 2 Vans Boat 

Maintenance 

Capture 

Teams 1 Tow Vehicle Dive Gear and 

Maintenance 

Transport 

Team 2 Monitor Vehicles Tracking 

Equipment 

Monitoring 

Team Air Charters Training 

Veterinary 

Services Boat Charters 

 Travel Costs 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 153

6.4.11.2 Channel Islands National 

Park 

Under Alternative 2, sea otters would be 

removed from a modified management zone 

in perpetuity. The modified management 

zone would exclude the islands of San 

Miguel and Santa Rosa, allowing their 

eventual colonization by sea otters, but 

would require the permanent exclusion of 

sea otters from the Park’s three remaining 

islands. Because sea otters are expected to 

recolonize only the mainland coastline to 

Santa Barbara within the next 10 years (and 

therefore would not be expected within Park 

boundaries during this period), the effects of 

Alternative 2 are the same as under the 

baseline scenario within this 10-year period. 

However, in the long term, it is possible that 

sea otters would attempt to recolonize island 

coastlines that are part of the Channel 

Islands National Park but are also within the 

modified management zone. Alternative 2 

would prevent recolonization of three of the 

five islands of the Channel Islands National 

Park (Santa Cruz, Anacapa, and Santa 

Barbara Islands), which appears to be 

inconsistent with the Park’s mission and 

mission-related goals to protect and restore 

natural ecosystems and to practice 

ecosystem management. 

Under Alternative 2, a change in the 

regulatory provisions that apply to sea otters 

in the area excluded from the management 

zone under Alternative 2 would occur (see 

section 6.4.12). This regulatory change 

could result, in the long term, in increased 

coordination and consultation between the 

Service and Channel Islands National Park. 

The change would apply only to activities 

that may affect the southern sea otter at San 

Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands if sea otters 

eventually colonized these areas. 

6.4.11.3 Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary 

Under Alternative 2, sea otters would be 

removed from a modified management zone 

in perpetuity. The modified management 

zone would exclude the islands of San 

Miguel and Santa Rosa, allowing their 

eventual colonization by sea otters, but 

would require the permanent exclusion of 

sea otters from the Sanctuary’s three 

remaining islands. Because sea otters are 

TABLE 6-30. IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR MAINTENANCE OF MANAGEMENT ZONE AND 

TRANSLOCATION ZONE OVER 10 YEARS 

Annual Cost Year 

Personnel Transportation Equipment 

Discounted Cost 

(3% discount rate) 

Discounted Cost 

(7% discount rate) 

2005 $535,000 $49,000 $61,000 $626,214 $602,804 

2006 $535,000 $49,000 $56,000 $603,261 $559,001 

2007 $535,000 $49,000 $51,000 $581,115 $518,349 

2008 $535,000 $49,000 $51,000 $564,189 $484,438 

2009 $535,000 $49,000 $51,000 $547,757 $452,746 

2010 $535,000 $49,000 $51,000 $531,803 $423,127 

2011 $535,000 $49,000 $51,000 $516,313 $395,446 

2012 $535,000 $49,000 $51,000 $501,275 $369,576 

2013 $535,000 $49,000 $51,000 $486,675 $345,398 

2014 $535,000 $49,000 $51,000 $472,500 $322,802 

Total $6,365,000 $5,431,101 (PV @ 3%) $4,473,687 (PV @ 7%) 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 154

expected to recolonize only the mainland 

coastline to Santa Barbara within the next 10 

years (and therefore would not be expected 

within Sanctuary boundaries during this 

period), the effects of Alternative 2 are the 

same as under the baseline scenario within 

this 10-year period. 

However, in the long term, it is possible that 

sea otters would attempt to recolonize 

nearshore areas that are part of the Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary but are 

also within the modified management zone. 

Alternative 2 would prevent recolonization 

of three of the five islands of the Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary (Santa 

Cruz, Anacapa, and Santa Barbara Islands), 

which appears to be inconsistent with the 

Sanctuary’s mission to conserve and 

enhance the biodiversity, ecological 

integrity, and cultural legacy of areas of 

special national significance. 

Under Alternative 2, a change in the 

regulatory provisions that apply to sea otters 

in the area excluded from the management 

zone under Alternative 2 would occur. This 

regulatory change could result, in the long 

term, in increased coordination and 

consultation between the Service and 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. 

The change would apply only to activities 

that may affect the southern sea otter at San 

Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands if sea otters 

eventually colonized these areas. 

6.4.11.4 California Department of 

Fish and Game 

Note: Effects on the recovery of white and 

black abalone and sea otters are discussed 

under “Candidate, Threatened, and 

Endangered Species” (section 6.4.3). 

Effects on existing commercial fisheries and 

the restoration of the abalone fishery are 

discussed under “Commercial Fisheries” 

(section 6.4.4) and “Abalone Fishery 

Restoration” (section 6.4.9). Effects on 

Marine Protected Areas (Marine Protected 

Areas) are discussed here. 

Under Alternative 2, sea otters would be 

removed from a modified management zone 

in perpetuity. Therefore, they would be 

permanently prevented from establishing 

range within 6 of the 12 newly designated 

Marine Protected Areas in the Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary. 

Specifically, sea otters would be excluded 

from the Marine Protected Areas at Santa 

Cruz, Anacapa, and Santa Barbara Islands. 

Because sea otters are expected to 

recolonize only the mainland coastline to 

Santa Barbara within the next 10 years (and 

therefore would not be expected within 

MPA boundaries during this period), the 

effects of Alternative 2 are the same as 

under the baseline scenario within this 10-

year period. 

However, in the long term, it is possible that 

sea otters would attempt to recolonize areas 

that are now designated as Marine Protected 

Areas. Alternative 2 would prevent the 

recolonization of 6 of the 12 Marine 

Protected Areas, thereby enhancing some 

goals established for the Marine Protected 

Areas but negatively affecting others. 

Preventing sea otters from recolonizing 

these six areas would be consistent with the 

goal set for Marine Protected Areas to 

generate fishery benefits through increased 

reproduction and dispersal of shellfish 

larvae and the emigration of large-size 

individuals. However, it would eliminate 

possible benefits to finfish fisheries that 

could result from the presence of sea otters 

and would negatively affect the achievement 

of other goals set for the Channel Islands 

Marine Protected Areas relating to: the 

maintenance of ecosystem biodiversity; the 

protection of the structure, function, and 

integrity of marine ecosystems; the 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 155

protection of marine natural heritage; and 

the provision of recreational, scientific, and 

educational opportunities. With respect to 

the non-consumptive socio-economic goals 

set for the 6 Marine Protected Areas from 

which sea otters would be excluded, 

preventing sea otters from recolonizing 

these areas would eliminate any potential 

increase in the quality of non-consumptive 

recreation that would occur as a result of the 

presence of sea otters. 

6.4.11.5 U.S. Navy 

Effects on the U.S. Navy are regulatory. 

Under Alternative 2, consultation 

requirements for the U.S. Navy for actions 

that may affect southern sea otters would be 

the same as those described for the baseline, 

except that the management zone would be 

reduced in size. The U.S. Navy would 

continue to have no requirement to consult 

on actions that may affect sea otters found in 

either the management zone or the 

translocation zone, but actions that may 

affect sea otters found outside the newly 

defined management zone (i.e., along the 

coastline to Santa Barbara or at San Miguel 

or Santa Rosa Islands) would be subject to 

consultation and permitting requirements 

under the Endangered Species Act, Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, and applicable 

state laws (see section 6.4.12). Past levels 

of interaction with sea otters in areas outside 

the current management zone (i.e., north of 

Point Conception), indicate that the 

additional regulatory burden would be 

negligible. 

6.4.11.6 U.S. Minerals Management 

Service 

Effects on the Minerals Management 

Service are regulatory. Under Alternative 2, 

consultation requirements for the Minerals 

Management Service for actions that may 

affect southern sea otters would be the same 

as those described for the baseline, except 

that the management zone would be reduced 

in size. The Minerals Management Service 

would continue to be required to consult 

under section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act and to comply with other applicable 

laws on actions that may affect sea otters in 

the translocation zone. The Minerals 

Management Service would continue to 

have no requirement to consult on actions 

that may affect sea otters found in the 

management zone, but actions that may 

affect sea otters found outside the newly 

defined management zone (i.e., along the 

coastline to Santa Barbara or at San Miguel 

or Santa Rosa Islands) would be subject to 

consultation and permitting requirements 

under the Endangered Species Act, Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, and applicable 

state laws. The additional regulatory burden 

would be negligible because 1) it would 

apply only to the area excluded from the 

management zone under the modified 

management zone designation; 2) the 

physical presence of the oil industry is 

expected to diminish offshore of California 

over the next several decades (MMS pers. 

comm. 2005); 3) all proposed actions that 

may affect other threatened or endangered 

species or marine mammals are already 

subject to consultation and permitting 

requirements under the Endangered Species 

Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act in 

this area; and 4) the regulatory environment 

along the central California coast is identical 

to the regulatory environment that would 

result from implementation of this 

alternative, and requirements for 

consultations or permits related to the 

southern sea otter have been minimal. 

6.4.12 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

Under Alternative 2, the regulatory 

environment in the Southern California 

Bight would remain relatively unchanged. 

In the translocation zone, with the exception 

of defense-related activities by a military 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 156

department, the consultation requirements of 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

would continue to apply to proposed federal 

actions, and take of sea otters would 

continue to be subject to the standard take 

authorization procedures for threatened 

species under the Endangered Species Act, 

depleted species under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, and fully protected species 

under Fish and Game Code section 4700 and 

4500. With respect to defense-related 

activities, sea otters would continue to be 

treated (for the purposes of consultation and 

incidental take authorization) as a species 

that is proposed to be listed [50 CFR 

§17.84(d)(4)(iv)] under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

In the newly defined management zone (the 

city of Santa Barbara to the Mexican border, 

excluding San Miguel and Santa Rosa 

Islands), the conference and not the 

consultation requirements of section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act would apply to 

actions that may affect southern sea otters, 

and incidental take of southern sea otters 

resulting from otherwise legal activities 

would not be subject to take authorization 

procedures under the Endangered Species 

Act or Marine Mammal Protection Act or be 

considered a violation of either Act. As 

under the baseline, Section 8664.2 of the 

California Fish and Game Code would allow 

for incidental take of sea otters in the new 

management zone by means of specific 

exemptions from section 4700. 

In that portion of the former management 

zone excluded from the newly designated 

management zone (Point Conception to the 

city of Santa Barbara, including San Miguel 

and Santa Rosa Islands), sea otters would 

come under the standard protections of the 

Endangered Species Act (for threatened 

species), and the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (for depleted species). Because 

California Fish and Game Code section 

8664.2 specifically defines the management 

zone to include all areas seaward of mean 

high tide subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States that are located south of Point 

Conception, the take exemption provided 

under section 8664.2 from section 4700, the 

state’s fully protected mammal statute, 

would continue to apply to the former 

management zone until and unless section 

8664.2 is amended. With the exception of 

California Fish and Game Code sections 

8664.2 and 4700, the federal and state law 

provisions that would apply in the area 

outside the new management zone would be 

identical to those that currently apply in the 

remainder of the southern sea otter range 

(north of Point Conception). Incidental take 

of sea otters would be prohibited unless 

authorized under the Endangered Species 

Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and 

applicable state laws. Incidental take of 

southern sea otters by commercial fisheries 

could not be authorized under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act because of specific 

provisions applicable to southern sea otters. 

Our biological opinion on sea otter 

containment, released in 2000, concluded 

that continued zonal management of the sea 

otter population would jeopardize the 

species’ continued existence. Because of 

the potential effects of sea otter containment 

on sea otters found in the parent population, 

consultation under the Endangered Species 

Act would need to be reinitiated and a 

finding of no-jeopardy reached before we 

could proceed with implementation of 

Alternative 2.
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 157

6.5 Alternative 3A—Terminate 

Translocation Program; Remove 

All Sea Otters Residing within the 

Translocation and Management 

Zones at the Time the Decision to 

Terminate is Made 

6.5.1 INTRODUCTION

Alternative 3 entails declaring the southern 

sea otter translocation program a failure and 

terminating the program, thereby 

eliminating the management zone and 

translocation zone established through 

Public Law 99-625 and 50 CFR §17(d). 

Sub-alternative 3A would require the 

removal of sea otters from both San Nicolas 

Island and the management zone as 

stipulated in the current regulations at 50 

CFR §17(d)(8). All sea otters remaining 

within the translocation zone at San Nicolas 

Island would be captured and placed with 

the parent population. Reasonable efforts 

would also be made initially to remove sea 

otters from the management zone. 

However, no effort would be made to 

enforce a management zone once these two 

tasks are completed, effectively allowing sea 

otters from the parent population to 

recolonize historic range throughout the 

Southern California Bight. 

This action would not increase or decrease 

the projected sea otter range, compared to 

the baseline, because sea otters are already 

expected to reach carrying capacity along 

the coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara in the next 10 years (CDFG 

statistical blocks 654, 655, 656, and 657) 

(Appendix F). However, the removal of sea 

otters from San Nicolas Island would impact 

the sea otter population compared to the 

baseline, and would, therefore, impact some 

socioeconomic activities around this island. 

The majority of the quantitative impacts, 

relative to the baseline, result from 

implementation costs. 

The assumptions that apply to the analysis 

for Alternative 3A are the same as those 

described for the baseline. For a more 

detailed description of the baseline, to which 

each activity is compared, refer to section 

6.2, “Baseline (Status Quo)—The No Action 

Alternative.” 

6.5.2 NEARSHORE MARINE ECOSYSTEM

Alternative 3A entails declaring the 

translocation program a failure (thereby 

abolishing the management zone and 

translocation zone) and removing sea otters 

present in these zones at the time of the final 

decision. Effects on the nearshore marine 

environment are the same as those described 

for the baseline, except for possible effects 

associated with the removal of sea otters 

from the management zone and 

translocation zone. 

The removal of sea otters from the 

management zone would not have any 

discernible ecosystem effects compared to 

the baseline because 1) sea otters have not 

become established in any parts of the 

management zone except the Cojo 

Anchorage area, which is occupied generally 

on a seasonal basis, 2) sea otters are capable 

of returning rapidly to areas from which 

they have been removed, and 3) ecosystem 

effects occur gradually over extended 

periods of time, in which context a 

temporary fluctuation in sea otter predation 

would likely be undetectable. 

The removal of animals from San Nicolas 

Island would eliminate or greatly reduce the 

colony, probably resulting in minor 

increases in invertebrate prey populations 

within a few years. Any changes to the 

nearshore marine ecosystem (see section 

6.2.2) that would have been afforded by a 

colony persisting at San Nicolas Island as 

projected under the baseline would not 

occur. Elimination of the sea otter colony at 

San Nicolas Island would likely slow sea 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 158

otter recolonization of the Southern 

California Bight and thus would also delay 

associated ecosystem changes throughout 

the area. 

Although we assume here that the removal 

of sea otters from San Nicolas Island would 

result in their absence from the island for a 

period of one or more decades, and that their 

absence from the island would likely slow 

range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight, their removal 

could have unpredictable effects. First, 

some sea otters may return to San Nicolas 

Island immediately, in which case the shortterm effects projected as resulting from the 

removal of sea otters would be diminished 

by some unknown amount. Second, it is 

plausible that sea otters attempting to return 

to San Nicolas Island after removal could 

establish the seed of a colony at San Miguel 

Island or another island, thereby possibly 

shortening the time expected for sea otters to 

establish range in other parts of the Southern 

California Bight. In this case, effects 

described as resulting from a slowing of 

range expansion would be diminished by 

some unknown amount. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

effects on the nearshore marine ecosystem 

because of the extent of uncertainty 

involved. 

6.5.3 EFFECTS ON CANDIDATE,

THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

In the following discussions, we assume that 

the removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island would result in their absence from the 

island for a period of one or more decades, 

and that their absence from the island would 

likely slow range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight. Nevertheless, 

their removal could have unpredictable 

effects. First, some sea otters may return to 

San Nicolas Island immediately, in which 

case the short-term effects projected as 

resulting from the removal of sea otters 

would be diminished by some unknown 

amount. Second, it is plausible that sea 

otters attempting to return to San Nicolas 

Island after removal could establish the seed 

of a colony at San Miguel Island or another 

island, thereby possibly shortening the time 

expected for sea otters to establish range in 

other parts of the Southern California Bight. 

In this case, effects described as resulting 

from a slowing of range expansion would be 

diminished by some unknown amount. 

6.5.3.1 White Abalone 

Effects on white abalone resulting from the 

implementation of Alternative 3A are 

essentially the same as for the baseline (see 

section 6.2.3.1, “Establishing the Baseline 

for White Abalone”) except for possible 

benefits that may result from the removal of 

sea otters from San Nicolas Island and the 

management zone. 

The benefit to white abalone under 

Alternative 3A relates to the potential for the 

removal of sea otters to slow sea otter range 

expansion into the Southern California 

Bight. However, based on our analysis of 

baseline conditions (unrestricted movement 

of sea otters without removal) this potential 

benefit is likely minor. There is little 

overlap between the habitat utilized by sea 

otters and habitat used by white abalone. 

Deep water and offshore habitats provide 

refuge for white abalone from sea otter 

predation. In addition, if white abalone 

make use of cryptic and inaccessible habitat 

as do other species of abalone, this habitat 

can provide another form of refuge even 

where sea otter and white abalone habitats 

overlap. 

Although Alternative 3A is not expected to 

have adverse effects on white abalone at the 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 159

local or species level, it is possible that sea 

otters, unrestricted by a management zone, 

may find and consume individual white 

abalone. Therefore, we would request 

formal consultation with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service under section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act and confer with 

the California Department of Fish and Game 

if this alternative is selected. 

Alternative 3A is expected to have a very 

low beneficial effect on white abalone, 

relative to the baseline, resulting from the 

removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island. This effect is not significant. 

6.5.3.2 Black Abalone 

Effects on black abalone resulting from the 

implementation of Alternative 3A are 

essentially the same as for the baseline (see 

section 6.2.3.2, “Establishing the Baseline 

for Black Abalone”) except for possible 

short-term benefits that may result from the 

removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island and the management zone. 

The benefit to black abalone under 

Alternative 3A relates to the potential for the 

removal of sea otters to slow sea otter range 

expansion into the Southern California 

Bight. However, this potential benefit is 

believed to be minor. In areas of the 

Southern California Bight with sufficient 

cryptic and inaccessible habitat, black 

abalone populations would likely persist and 

have the opportunity to recover in the 

presence of sea otters. In areas with less 

suitable habitat, which were occupied by 

black abalone subsequent to the local 

extirpation of sea otters, black abalone 

would be more vulnerable to sea otter 

predation. 

If sea otters are unrestricted by a 

management zone, predation of black 

abalone is likely to occur. We would 

therefore confer with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service and the California 

Department of Fish and Game if Alternative 

3A is selected. 

Alternative 3A is expected to have a 

beneficial effect of moderate significance on 

black abalone resulting from the removal of 

sea otters from San Nicolas Island. 

6.5.3.3 Southern Sea Otter 

Effects on southern sea otters resulting from 

the implementation of Alternative 3A are 

essentially the same as those identified for 

the baseline with the exception of 1) 

negative effects on individual sea otters 

removed from San Nicolas Island and the 

management zone, 2) possible negative 

effects on the mainland southern sea otter 

population resulting from this short-term 

action, and 3) potential benefits resulting 

from regulatory changes if incidental take is 

affecting sea otters (see section 6.5.12). 

Under Alternative 3A, sea otters are 

ultimately allowed to expand their range 

naturally into the Southern California Bight 

after the removal of sea otters from the 

management zone and San Nicolas Island. 

This scenario enhances the opportunity for 

southern sea otter recovery by allowing sea 

otters to recolonize historic habitat. 

Although the marine habitat in many areas 

of the Southern California Bight has been 

degraded by a multitude of human activities, 

the southern sea otter range has begun to 

expand into this region. Allowing natural 

range expansion over the long term 

maximizes the habitat available for southern 

sea otter recovery, avoids the potential threat 

to the species caused by capturing and 

releasing sea otters throughout the range, 

and avoids the potential for injuring or 

killing individual sea otters removed from 

the management zone. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 160

Alternative 3A would require the removal of 

those sea otters that are in the management 

zone or the translocation zone at the time the 

program is declared a failure. Removal of 

the colony at San Nicolas Island may slow 

the recolonization of the Southern California 

Bight, and thereby slow recovery of the 

species. Capture and relocation efforts also 

inevitably cause stress to the sea otters 

subject to removal and may result in the 

deaths of some animals. In addition to the 

stress imposed by capture and transport, sea 

otters that have learned to forage in preyrich environments may experience 

additional stress resulting from their 

inability to find adequate food in preylimited areas of the mainland range. The 

inability of sea otters to find sufficient food 

could lead to starvation or attempts to return 

to the Southern California Bight. Overall, 

removing sea otters from San Nicolas Island 

and the management zone and placing them 

in the mainland range would likely be 

extremely disruptive, if not harmful, to the 

animals removed, and disruptive also to 

animals in the receiving population. Both 

the displaced animals and the receiving 

population would suffer disturbance to their 

social structure and encounter increased 

competition for food. 

Alternative 3A partially reflects 

recommendations made in the Revised 

Recovery Plan for the Southern Sea Otter

(USFWS 2003). The revised recovery plan 

continues to focus on efforts to increase the 

size of the southern sea otter’s population; 

however, it no longer recommends 

translocating sea otters as a means to 

achieve this goal. Rather, the plan advises 

against additional translocations (USFWS 

2003). Additionally, the recovery team 

recommended declaring the translocation 

program a failure, allowing natural range 

expansion to occur, and allowing the colony 

at San Nicolas Island (although it is small 

and its ability to persist is uncertain) to 

remain at the island rather than capturing 

these sea otters and releasing them in the 

mainland range (USFWS 2003). Alternative 

3A generally implements these 

recommendations, with two exceptions: 1) 

range expansion into the Southern California 

Bight would be temporarily disrupted by 

removal of sea otters from the management 

zone at the time the program was declared a 

failure, and 2) the colony would be removed 

from San Nicolas Island. 

The potential benefit of the reversion to 

“threatened” status for southern sea otters is 

difficult to estimate because its value can be 

realized only in reference to future actions 

that may affect members of the species 

found in the Southern California Bight. If, 

in the future, the incidental take of sea otters 

were shown to be hindering the recovery of 

the species, then the value of the regulatory 

change could be high. Based on current 

levels of activity in the Southern California 

Bight, we would expect that the regulatory 

change, viewed on its own, would result in a 

beneficial effect of low significance on 

southern sea otters. However, because 

Alternative 3A requires the temporary 

removal of sea otters from the management 

zone and removal of the colony at San 

Nicolas Island, overall Alternative 3A is 

expected to have an adverse effect of 

moderate significance on sea otters within 

10 years relative to the baseline. 

6.5.4 COMMERCIAL FISHERIES 

For a discussion of the regulatory 

environment (including as it pertains to 

commercial fisheries) see section 6.5.12. 

In the following discussions of the 

commercial sea urchin, lobster, and crab 

fisheries, we assume that the removal of sea 

otters from San Nicolas Island would result 

in their absence from the island for a period 

of one or more decades and that their 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 161

absence from the island would likely slow 

range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight. Nevertheless, 

their removal could have unpredictable 

effects. First, some sea otters may return to 

San Nicolas Island immediately, in which 

case the short-term effects projected as 

resulting from the removal of sea otters 

would be diminished by some unknown 

amount. Second, it is plausible that sea 

otters attempting to return to San Nicolas 

Island after removal could establish the seed 

of a colony at San Miguel Island or another 

island, thereby possibly shortening the time 

expected for sea otters to establish range in 

other parts of the Southern California Bight. 

In this case, effects described as resulting 

from a slowing of range expansion would be 

diminished by some unknown amount. 

The removal of sea otters found in the 

management zone would have little effect on 

natural range expansion into the Southern 

California Bight. Sea otter densities north of 

Point Conception would likely be sufficient 

to maintain expansion of the population, and 

sea otters moved out of the management 

zone would be capable of rapidly returning. 

Therefore, this removal would result in little 

or no benefit to fisheries. 

6.5.4.1 Sea Urchin Fishery 

Under Alternative 3A, commercial sea 

urchin landings within 10 years (1) would be 

eliminated along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara and (2) may 

increase around San Nicolas Island. If sea 

otters are removed from the managed 

coastline that they currently occupy, we do 

not anticipate the commercial sea urchin 

catch to increase before sea otters move 

back into the area. The sea urchin fishery 

under the baseline is projected to be 

eliminated along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara (CDFG 

statistical blocks 654, 655, 656, and 657). 

Therefore, there is no impact along the 

coastline compared to the baseline. 

Removing sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island may result in a sea urchin harvest 

increase, compared to the baseline, for two 

reasons. First, sea urchin landings would 

not decrease the projected 10 percent as 

projected under the baseline because there 

would be no sea otter population at the 

island. Therefore, landings would not 

decrease the anticipated 634,000 pounds 

from 2005 to 2014. Second, newly recruited 

sea urchins and those sea urchins that 

escaped sea otter predation in the past would 

now potentially be available for commercial 

harvest. This potential increase follows the 

assumption that fishery impacts correspond 

directly to the sea otter’s carrying capacity 

percentage. As of 2004, sea otters were at 

about 6 percent of their estimated carrying 

capacity at the island. Thus, sea urchin 

landings would increase by approximately 6 

percent from the 10-year average of 

1,152,340 pounds. We assume that the sea 

urchin population would rebound from sea 

otter predation in five years.18 We further 

assume that the associated increase in 

landings would be equally distributed across 

five years, so that landings would rise by 

about 1 percent (about 14,750 pounds) 

annually between 2005 and 2009, stabilizing 

to an annual benefit of approximately 

73,750 pounds after 2009 (Table 6-31). 

This landings increase is dependent upon the 

assumption that the catch per unit of effort 

(CPUE) at San Nicolas Island is not already 

at a maximum, so that the existing sea 

 

18 Red sea urchins can reach a commercially 

harvestable size (3.5 inches) in 6 to 8 years (Kalvass 

and Rogers-Bennett, 2001). We assume that landings 

would rebound prior to six years because sea otters 

are unable to reach urchins located in sufficiently 

deep crevices. Therefore, some urchins will have 

survived and will reach a harvestable size in fewer 

than 6 years. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 162

urchin vessels have the ability to increase 

their catch. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

these areas at the densities seen in the 

mainland range for comparable habitat, 

commercial sea urchin fishing in these areas 

would likely no longer be viable, and 

landings in these areas would likely 

approach zero. The removal of sea otters 

from San Nicolas Island may slow the 

movement of sea otters into the southern 

areas of the Southern California Bight. 

Therefore, there may be a slight benefit to 

the sea urchin fishery, compared to the 

baseline, as a result of some delay in sea 

otter predation. 

The maximum non-discounted benefit to sea 

urchin fishing vessels for Alternative 

3A would total $1.3 million. The discounted 

10-year benefit for this alternative would be 

about $1.1 million (discounted at 3 percent) 

or $837,000 (discounted at 7 percent). For 

the regional economic context, which can 

help to put this number in perspective, see 

Tables 4-3 and 4-6. 

On average in the southern California sea 

urchin fishery, 223 vessels participate 

annually, landing 60,200 pounds each 

(Thomson 2001). We recognize that effects 

would not be distributed equally among 

vessels, and that those fishing in areas 

occupied by sea otters would be 

disproportionately affected. However, if the 

increased landings and ex-vessel revenue 

were distributed equally among these 

vessels, then each vessel would have 

increased landings of approximately 5,500 

pounds and increased revenue between 

$3,800 (discounted at 7 percent) and $4,800 

(discounted at 3 percent) totaled over 10 

years. 

TABLE 6-31. SEA URCHIN LANDINGS: BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE 3A 

Year 

Commercial 

Landings 

(no 10% 

decrease at 

SNI) 

Commercial 

Landings 

(increase of 

6% at SNI) 

Total 

Increase in 

Commercial 

Landings 

(Pounds) 

Total 

Ex-Vessel 

Revenue* 

Total 

Ex-Vessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(3%)* 

Total 

Ex-Vessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(7%)* 

2005 11,524 14,750 26,274 $27,850 $27,039 $26,028 

2006 23,047 29,500 52,547 $55,700 $52,502 $48,650 

2007 34,570 44,250 78,820 $83,550 $76,460 $68,201 

2008 46,094 59,000 105,094 $111,399 $98,977 $84,986 

2009 57,617 73,750 131,367 $139,249 $120,117 $99,283 

2010 69,141 73,750 142,890 $151,464 $126,849 $100,927 

2011 80,664 73,750 154,414 $163,679 $133,086 $101,931 

2012 92,187 73,750 165,937 $175,893 $138,852 $102,372 

2013 103,711 73,750 177,461 $188,108 $144,169 $102,318 

2014 115,234 73,750 188,984 $200,323 $149,059 $101,834 

Total 

Benefits 633,790 589,998 1,223,788 $1,297,215 

$1,067,110 

(PV @ 3%) 

$836,530 (PV 

@ 7%) 

Note: Benefits are rounded to the nearest dollar. 

*Ex-vessel revenue is based upon the average price divers received for sea urchins (in shell) from 1994 to 2003, 

which is $1.03 per pound in 2004 dollars. 

SNI=San Nicolas Island 

PV=present value 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 163

As described in Chapter 5, we define levels 

of significance in this supplement by 

viewing projected effects on an entity or 

activity within the regional context of that 

entity or activity. Because Alternative 3A is 

expected to result in an increase in sea 

urchin ex-vessel revenues within the 

Southern California Bight of 1 percent 

compared to the baseline (a total benefit of 

1.2 million pounds over 10 years compared 

to the projected total for southern California 

of 112.7 million pounds), the benefit is of 

low significance (see Table 5-1 for 

definitions of levels of significance). 

6.5.4.2 Spiny Lobster Fishery 

Under Alternative 3A, commercial lobster 

landings within 10 years would (1) be 

eliminated along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara and (2) 

increase at San Nicolas Island. If sea otters 

are removed from the managed coastline 

that they currently occupy, we would not 

expect the commercial lobster catch to 

increase before sea otters move back into the 

area. The lobster fishery under the baseline 

is projected to be eliminated along the 

coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara (CDFG statistical blocks 654, 655, 

656, and 657). Therefore, there is no impact 

along the coastline compared to the baseline. 

Removing sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island may result in an increase in the 

lobster catch, compared to the baseline, for 

two reasons. First, lobster landings would 

not decrease the projected 10 percent as in 

the baseline because there would be no sea 

otter population at the island. Therefore, 

landings would not decrease the anticipated 

21,000 pounds from 2005 to 2014. Second, 

newly recruited lobsters or lobsters that 

escaped predation in the past would now 

potentially be available for commercial 

harvest. This potential increase follows the 

assumption that fishery impacts correspond 

directly to the sea otter’s carrying capacity 

percentage. As of 2004, sea otters were at 

about 6 percent of their estimated carrying 

capacity at San Nicolas Island. Thus, 

lobster landings would increase by 

approximately 6 percent from the 10-year 

average of 37,722 pounds. We assume that 

the lobster population would rebound from 

sea otter predation in seven years.19 We 

further assume that the associated increase 

in landings would be equally distributed 

across seven years, so that landings would 

rise by almost 1 percent (about 345 pounds) 

annually between 2005 and 2011, stabilizing 

to an annual benefit of approximately 2,400 

pounds after 2011 (Table 6-32). 

 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

these areas at the densities seen in the 

mainland range for comparable habitat, 

commercial lobster fishing in these areas 

would likely no longer be viable, and 

landings in these areas would likely 

approach zero. The removal of sea otters 

from San Nicolas Island may slow the 

movement of sea otters into the southern 

areas of the Southern California Bight. 

Therefore, there may be a slight benefit to 

the lobster fishery, compared to the baseline, 

as a result of some delay in sea otter 

predation. 

Thus, the maximum non-discounted benefit 

to lobster vessels for Alternative 3A would 

total about $300,000. The discounted 10- 

 

19 Spiny lobsters can reach a commercially 

harvestable size (3.5 inches carapace length) in 7 to 

11 years (Barsky 2001). We assume that landings 

would rebound prior to seven years because sea otters 

are unable to consume lobsters located in inaccessible 

habitat (deep crevices). Thus, the harvest may 

resume in a minimum time interval. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 164

year benefit for Alternative 3A would range 

between about $191,000 (discounted at 7 

percent) and $246,000 (discounted at 3 

percent). For the regional economic context, 

which can help to put this number in 

perspective, see Tables 4-3 and 4-6. 

On average in the southern California 

lobster fishery, 202 vessels participate 

annually landing 3,700 pounds each 

(Thomson 2001). We recognize that effects 

would not be distributed equally among 

vessels, and that those fishing in areas 

occupied by sea otters would be 

disproportionately affected. However, if the 

increased landings and ex-vessel revenue 

were distributed equally among these 

vessels, then each vessel would have 

increased landings of approximately 190 

pounds and increased revenue of between 

$900 (discounted at 7 percent) and $1,200 

(discounted at 3 percent) totaled over 10 

years. 

As described in Chapter 5, we define levels 

of significance in this supplement by 

viewing projected effects on an entity or 

activity within the regional context of that 

entity or activity. Because Alternative 3A is 

expected to result in an increase in lobster 

landings within the Southern California 

Bight of 0.6 percent compared to the 

baseline (a total benefit of 38,000 pounds 

over 10 years compared to the projected 

total for southern California of 6.1 million 

pounds), the benefit is very low and 

therefore not significant (see Table 5-1 for 

definitions of levels of significance). 

6.5.4.3 Crab Fishery 

Under Alternative 3A, commercial crab 

landings within 10 years would (1) be 

eliminated along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara and (2) 

increase at San Nicolas Island. If sea otters 

are removed from the managed coastline 

that they currently occupy, we would not 

expect the commercial crab catch to increase 

before sea otters move back into the area. 

TABLE 6-32. LOBSTER LANDINGS: BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE 3A 

Year 

Commercial 

Landings 

(no 10% 

decrease at 

SNI) 

Commercial 

Landings 

(increase of 

6% at SNI) 

Total 

Increase in 

Commercial 

Landings 

(Pounds) 

Total 

Ex-Vessel 

Revenue* 

Total 

Ex-Vessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(3%)* 

Total 

Ex-Vessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(7%)* 

2005 377 345 722 $5,760 $5,592 $5,383 

2006 754 690 1,444 $11,523 $10,861 $10,064 

2007 1,131 1,035 2,166 $17,285 $15,818 $14,110 

2008 1,509 1,380 2,888 $23,047 $20,477 $17,583 

2009 1,886 1,724 3,610 $28,810 $24,852 $20,541 

2010 2,263 2,069 4,332 $34,572 $28,954 $23,037 

2011 2,640 2,414 5,054 $40,335 $32,796 $25,118 

2012 3,017 2,414 5,432 $43,345 $34,217 $25,227 

2013 3,395 2,414 5,809 $46,355 $35,527 $25,214 

2014 3,772 2,414 6,186 $49,365 $36,732 $25,095 

Total 

Benefits 20,744 16,899 37,644 $300,398 

$245,827 

(PV @ 3%) 

$191,373 

(PV @ 7%) 

Note: Benefits are rounded to the nearest dollar. 

*Ex-vessel revenue is based upon the average price fishers received for lobsters from 1994 to 2003, which is $7.98 

per pound in 2004 dollars. 

SNI=San Nicolas Island 

PV= present value 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 165

The crab fishery under the baseline is 

projected to be eliminated along the 

coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara (CDFG statistical blocks 654, 655, 

656, and 657). Therefore, there is no impact 

along the coastline compared to the baseline. 

Removing sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island may result in a crab harvest increase, 

compared to the baseline, for two reasons. 

First, crab landings would not decrease the 

projected 10 percent as in the baseline 

because there would be no sea otter 

population at the island. Therefore, landings 

would not decrease the anticipated 3,500 

pounds from 2005 to 2014. Second, newly 

recruited crabs or crabs that escaped 

predation in the past would now potentially 

be available for commercial harvest. This 

potential increase follows the assumption 

that fishery impacts correspond directly to 

the sea otter’s carrying capacity percentage. 

As of 2004, sea otters were at about 6 

percent of their estimated carrying capacity 

at the island. Thus, crab landings would 

increase by approximately 6 percent from 

the 10-year average of 6,350 pounds. We 

assume that the crab population would 

rebound from sea otter predation in four 

years.20 We further assume that the 

associated increase in landings would be 

equally distributed across four years, so that 

landings would rise by approximately 2 

percent (about 100 pounds) annually 

between 2005 and 2008, stabilizing to an 

annual benefit of approximately 400 pounds 

after 2008 (Table 6-33). 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

these areas at the densities seen in the 

 

20 Crabs can reach a commercially harvestable size 

(4.25 inch carapace width) in 4 to 5 years (Parker, 

2001). We assume that crab landings would rebound 

prior to six years because otters are unable to 

consume crabs inhabiting deep crevices. Thus, crabs 

may be harvested in less than 4 years. 

TABLE 6-33. CRAB LANDINGS: BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE 3A 

Year 

Commercial 

Landings 

(no 10% 

decrease at 

SNI) 

Commercial 

Landings 

(increase of 

6% at SNI) 

Total 

Increase in 

Commercial 

Landings 

(Pounds) 

Total 

Ex-Vessel 

Revenue* 

Total 

Ex-Vessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(3%)* 

Total 

Ex-Vessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(7%)* 

2005 63 102 165 $220 $213 $205 

2006 127 203 330 $439 $414 $384 

2007 190 305 495 $659 $603 $538 

2008 254 406 660 $878 $780 $670 

2009 317 406 724 $963 $830 $686 

2010 381 406 787 $1,047 $877 $698 

2011 444 406 851 $1,132 $920 $705 

2012 508 406 914 $1,216 $960 $708 

2013 571 406 978 $1,301 $997 $707 

2014 635 406 1,041 $1,385 $1,031 $704 

Total 

Benefits 3,492 3,454 6,947 $9,239 

$7,625 

(PV @ 3%) 

$6,005 

(PV @ 7%) 

Note: Benefits are rounded to the nearest dollar. 

*Ex-vessel revenue is based upon the average price fishers received for crabs from 1994 to 2003, which is $1.33 

per pound in 2004 dollars. 

SNI=San Nicolas Island 

PV=present value 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 166

mainland range for comparable habitat, 

commercial crab fishing in these areas 

would likely no longer be viable, and 

landings in these areas would likely 

approach zero. The removal of sea otters 

from San Nicolas Island may slow the 

movement of sea otters into the southern 

areas of the Southern California Bight. 

Therefore, there may be a slight benefit to 

the crab fishery, compared to the baseline, 

as a result of some delay in sea otter 

predation. 

Thus, the maximum non-discounted benefit 

to crab vessels for Alternative 3A would 

total $9,000. The discounted 10-year benefit 

for this Alternative would be between 

$6,000 (discounted at 7 percent) and $7,600 

(discounted at 3 percent). For the regional 

economic context, which can help to put this 

number in perspective, see Tables 4-3 and 

4-6. 

On average in the southern California crab 

fishery, 76 vessels participate annually 

landing 15,100 pounds each (Thomson 

2001). We recognize that effects would not 

be distributed equally among vessels, and 

that those fishing in areas occupied by sea 

otters would be disproportionately affected. 

However, if the increased landings and exvessel revenue were distributed equally 

among these vessels, then each vessel would 

have increased landings of approximately 90 

pounds and increased revenue between $80 

and $100 totaled over 10 years (discounted 

at 7 percent and 3 percent, respectively). 

As described in Chapter 5, we define levels 

of significance in this supplement by 

viewing projected effects on an entity or 

activity within the regional context of that 

entity or activity. Because Alternative 3A is 

expected to result in an increase in crab exvessel revenues within the Southern 

California Bight of 0.1 percent compared to 

the baseline (a total benefit of 6,900 pounds 

over 10 years compared to the projected 

total for southern California of 7.7 million 

pounds), the benefit is very low and 

therefore not significant (see Table 5-1 for 

definitions of levels of significance). 

6.5.5 AQUACULTURE

Effects on aquaculture resulting from 

Alternative 3A are essentially the same as 

for the baseline. Although Alternative 3A 

would require the removal of sea otters from 

San Nicolas Island and the management 

zone, the removal of these animals is not 

likely to affect aquaculture operations 

noticeably compared to the baseline. 

Removal of sea otters from the management 

zone would not likely have an effect on 

aquaculture because 1) sea otters have not 

become established in any parts of the 

management zone except the Cojo 

Anchorage area, which is occupied generally 

on a seasonal basis, and 2) sea otters are 

capable of returning rapidly to areas from 

which they have been removed. The 

removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island would not affect aquaculture because 

there are currently no aquaculture operations 

at San Nicolas Island. 

Therefore, just as under the baseline, the 

effects of Alternative 3A within the next 10 

years would likely be a local, episodic 

reduction of mussel densities on offshore oil 

platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel. 

Beyond 10 years, aquaculture operations 

located in other portions of the Southern 

California Bight may be affected by sea 

otters, but these effects are expected to be 

relatively minor. In April 2002, there were 

only 2 registered aquaculture leases in 

Ventura County (producing a variety of 

shellfish and finfish) and only 2 in San 

Diego County (producing exclusively 

abalone). Because sea otter range expansion 

is expected to occur gradually over the 

course of many decades, and because sea 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 167

otters affect only some aquaculture 

operations (and these only at the local scale), 

effects on aquaculture operations overall 

would likely be minor. 

Although we assume here that the removal 

of sea otters from San Nicolas Island would 

result in their absence from the island for a 

period of one or more decades, and that their 

absence from the island would likely slow 

range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight, their removal 

could have unpredictable effects. First, 

some sea otters may return to San Nicolas 

Island immediately, in which case the shortterm effects projected as resulting from the 

removal of sea otters would be diminished 

by some unknown amount. In the case of 

aquaculture, there are no effects at San 

Nicolas Island, regardless. Second, it is 

plausible that sea otters attempting to return 

to San Nicolas Island after removal could 

establish the seed of a colony at San Miguel 

Island or another island, thereby possibly 

shortening the time expected for sea otters to 

establish range in other parts of the Southern 

California Bight. In this case, effects 

described as resulting from a slowing of 

range expansion would be diminished by 

some unknown amount. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

aquaculture because of the extent of 

uncertainty involved. 

6.5.6 SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY (SEA 

URCHINS) 

Under Alternative 3A, impacts to the sea 

urchin processing industry would be a 

function of the change in sea urchin 

landings. Alternative 3A would have no 

impact on sea urchin landings along the 

coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara compared to the baseline. 

However, the removal of sea otters from San 

Nicolas Island would increase southern 

California landings by one percent over 10 

years. Thus, impacts to the sea urchin 

processing industry would likely be low, 

representing a slight benefit to the sea urchin 

processing industry compared to the 

baseline. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

these areas at the densities seen in the 

mainland range for comparable habitat, sea 

urchin harvesting would no longer be viable 

in these areas, and the sea urchin processing 

industry would be required to obtain sea 

urchins harvested from other areas of the 

Southern California Bight. The sea urchin 

processing industry would eventually be 

eliminated in southern California if sea 

otters reached carrying capacity where sea 

urchin harvesting occurs in the Southern 

California Bight and processors were unable 

to obtain sea urchins from elsewhere. This 

long-term projection is equivalent to the 

baseline. 

Although we assume here that the removal 

of sea otters from San Nicolas Island would 

result in their absence from the island for a 

period of one or more decades, and that their 

absence from the island would likely slow 

range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight, their removal 

could have unpredictable effects. First, 

some sea otters may return to San Nicolas 

Island immediately, in which case the shortterm effects projected as resulting from the 

removal of sea otters would be diminished 

by some unknown amount. Second, it is 

plausible that sea otters attempting to return 

to San Nicolas Island after removal could 

establish the seed of a colony at San Miguel 

Island or another island, thereby possibly 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 168

shortening the time expected for sea otters to 

establish range in other parts of the Southern 

California Bight. In this case, effects 

described as resulting from a slowing of 

range expansion would be diminished by 

some unknown amount. 

Within 10 years, Alternative 3A is expected 

to have a beneficial effect of low 

significance on the on the seafood 

processing industry (a gain of 1 percent in 

possible inputs from the Southern California 

Bight). 

6.5.7 KELP HARVEST

Effects of Alternative 3A on the amount of 

kelp available for harvest are the same as 

those described for the baseline, except for 

possible effects associated with the removal 

of sea otters from the management zone and 

translocation zone (for a description of the 

relationship between sea otters and kelp 

abundance, see section 6.2.2). 

The removal of sea otters from the 

management zone would not likely have any 

discernible effects on kelp abundance 

compared to the baseline because 1) sea 

otters have not become established in any 

parts of the management zone except the 

Cojo Anchorage area, which is occupied 

generally on a seasonal basis, 2) sea otters 

are capable of returning rapidly to areas 

from which they have been removed, and 3) 

the return of Macrocystis canopy to an area 

may require a decade or more after the 

restriction of invertebrate herbivores to 

cryptic and inaccessible habitat, in which 

context the effects of a temporary 

fluctuation in sea otter predation would be 

undetectable. 

The removal of animals from San Nicolas 

Island would eliminate the colony, probably 

resulting in minor increases in invertebrate 

prey populations within a few years. 

Removing sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island could impact the kelp harvest at the 

beds that are currently leased around the 

island’s nearshore areas. Any enhancement 

of kelp that would have been afforded by a 

colony persisting at San Nicolas Island (as 

projected under the baseline) would not 

occur, representing a possible slight cost to 

the kelp industry. Elimination of the sea 

otter colony at San Nicolas Island would 

likely slow sea otter recolonization of the 

Southern California Bight and thus would 

also delay possible associated increases in 

kelp abundance throughout the area. A 

slight loss to the kelp harvesting industry, 

compared to the baseline, could additionally 

result from this delay. 

Although we assume here that the removal 

of sea otters from San Nicolas Island would 

result in their absence from the island for a 

period of one or more decades, and that their 

absence from the island would likely slow 

range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight, their removal 

could have unpredictable effects. First, 

some sea otters may return to San Nicolas 

Island immediately, in which case the shortterm effects projected as resulting from the 

removal of sea otters would be diminished 

by some unknown amount. Second, it is 

plausible that sea otters attempting to return 

to San Nicolas Island after removal could 

establish the seed of a colony at San Miguel 

Island or another island, thereby possibly 

shortening the time expected for sea otters to 

establish range in other parts of the Southern 

California Bight. In this case, effects 

described as resulting from a slowing of 

range expansion would be diminished by 

some unknown amount. 

Significance criteria are not defined for kelp 

harvesting because of the extent of 

uncertainty involved. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 169

6.5.8 RECREATIONAL FISHING AND DIVING 

Recreational fishing and diving activities 

that may be affected by sea otters include 

lobster diving, abalone diving, and finfish 

fishing. Lobster diving and finfish fishing 

are addressed below. Abalone diving is 

included under “Abalone Fishery 

Restoration” (section 6.5.9). 

Although we assume here that the removal 

of sea otters from San Nicolas Island would 

result in their absence from the island for a 

period of one or more decades, and that their 

absence from the island would likely slow 

range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight, their removal 

could have unpredictable effects. First, 

some sea otters may return to San Nicolas 

Island immediately, in which case the shortterm effects projected as resulting from the 

removal of sea otters would be diminished 

by some unknown amount. Second, it is 

plausible that sea otters attempting to return 

to San Nicolas Island after removal could 

establish the seed of a colony at San Miguel 

Island or another island, thereby possibly 

shortening the time expected for sea otters to 

establish range in other parts of the Southern 

California Bight. In this case, effects 

described as resulting from a slowing of 

range expansion would be diminished by 

some unknown amount. 

6.5.8.1 Lobster Diving 

Within the next 10 years under Alternative 

3A, the recreational lobster fishery would be 

(1) eliminated along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara and (2) 

improved at San Nicolas Island. If sea otters 

are removed from the managed coastline 

that they currently occupy, we would not 

expect recreational dive trips to increase 

before sea otters move back into the area. 

The recreational fishery under the baseline is 

projected to be eliminated along the 

coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara (CDFG statistical blocks 654, 655, 

656, and 657). Therefore, there is no impact 

along the coastline compared to the baseline. 

Removing sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island may result in an increase in 

recreational lobster diving trips, compared to 

the baseline, for two reasons. First, dive 

trips would not decrease the projected 10 

percent as in the baseline because there 

would be no sea otter population at the 

island. Therefore, recreational diving would 

not decrease an anticipated 285 trips from 

2005 to 2014. Second, recreational diving 

may increase because newly recruited 

lobsters and those lobsters that escaped 

predation in the past would now potentially 

be available for recreational harvest. This 

potential increase follows the assumption 

that recreational fishery impacts correspond 

directly to the sea otter’s carrying capacity 

percentage. As of 2004, sea otters were at 

about 6 percent of their estimated carrying 

capacity at the island. Thus, recreational 

dive trips would increase by approximately 

6 percent from the 9-year average of 521 

trips. We assume that the lobster population 

would rebound from sea otter predation in 

seven years21 for recreational harvest. We 

further assume that the associated increase 

in trips would be equally distributed across 

seven years, so that trips would rise by 1 

percent (about 5 trips) annually between 

2005 and 2011, stabilizing to an annual 

benefit of approximately 33 trips after 2011 

(Table 6-34). 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

 

21 Spiny lobsters can reach a commercially 

harvestable size (3.5 inches carapace length) in 7 to 

11 years (Barsky 2001). We assume that landings 

would rebound prior to seven years because sea otters 

are unable to consume lobsters located in inaccessible 

habitat (deep crevices). Thus, the harvest may 

resume in a minimum time interval. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 170

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

these areas at the densities seen in the 

mainland range for comparable habitat, 

recreational lobster dive trips in these areas 

would likely approach zero. The removal of 

sea otters from San Nicolas Island may slow 

the movement of sea otters into the southern 

areas of the Southern California Bight. 

Therefore, there may be a slight benefit to 

the recreational lobster fishery, compared to 

the baseline, as a result of some delay in sea 

otter predation. 

The benefit to recreational dive trips for 

Alternative 3A would total 518 trips over 10 

years. On average in the southern California 

recreational fishery, there are 22 commercial 

passenger fishing vessels (CDFG 1995-

2003). If the increased trips were distributed 

equally among these commercial passenger 

fishing vessels, and no other vessels entered 

the industry, then each commercial 

passenger fishing vessel would supply 24 

additional trips over 10 years, if there is 

demand for these additional trips. This 

change would represent a slight benefit to 

both recreational lobster divers and 

commercial passenger fishing vessels 

compared to the baseline. 

Alternative 3A would provide the 

recreational lobster fishery with an average 

annual benefit (for the 10-year time frame) 

of about 52 trips. This benefit is less than 

one percent of the annual average of 8,983 

trips for the Southern California Bight (see 

section 6.2.8.1). Therefore, Alternative 3A 

is expected to have a very low beneficial 

effect on recreational lobster diving. This 

effect is not significant. 

6.5.8.2 Finfish Fishing 

The effects of Alternative 3A are the same 

as for the baseline except with respect to San 

Nicolas Island. Although Alternative 3A 

would require the removal of sea otters that 

are in the management zone at the time the 

translocation program is formally declared a 

failure, this removal is not expected to have 

any discernible effects because 1) sea otters 

have not become established in any parts of 

the management zone except the Cojo 

Anchorage area, which is occupied generally 

on a seasonal basis and 2) sea otters are 

capable of returning rapidly to areas from 

which they have been removed. Therefore, 

the removal of sea otters from the 

management zone would have no impact on 

recreational finfish fishing relative to the 

baseline. 

As described for the baseline, the presence 

of sea otters may improve habitat for 

recreationally important finfish and thus 

have a positive effect on the abundance of 

finfish available for harvest. Such changes 

would likely require more than 10 years to 

become noticeable (because the 

reestablishment of giant kelp canopies in 

areas where sea urchin grazing is limiting 

kelp is expected to take at least 10 years) 

TABLE 6-34. RECREATIONAL DIVE TRIPS: 

BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE 3A 

Year 

Dive Trip 

Increase (no 

10% decrease at 

SNI) 

Dive Trip 

Increase 

(increase of 6% 

at SNI) 

2005 5 5 

2006 10 10 

2007 15 14 

2008 21 19 

2009 26 24 

2010 31 29 

2011 36 33 

2012 41 33 

2013 47 33 

2014 52 33 

Total 

Benefits 518 trips 

Note: Benefits are rounded to the nearest trip. 

SNI=San Nicolas Island 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 171

and could occur gradually over several 

decades. A discussion of the long-term 

effects of sea otter predation on the kelp 

forest community, including finfish 

production, is given in section 6.2.2. 

The removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island is generally expected to affect 

recreational finfish fishing negatively 

relative to the baseline by eliminating the 

stabilizing and enhancing effects that a 

persistent sea otter colony may have on the 

kelp beds surrounding the island. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

areas of the Southern California Bight at the 

densities seen in the mainland range for 

comparable habitat, recreational finfish 

fishing may benefit. This long-term 

projection differs from the baseline only to 

the extent that the removal of sea otters from 

San Nicolas Island may slow the movement 

of sea otters into the southern areas of the 

Southern California Bight. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

recreational finfish fishing because of the 

extent of uncertainty involved. 

6.5.9 ABALONE FISHERY RESTORATION

The effects of Alternative 3A are the same 

as for the baseline except with respect to San 

Nicolas Island. Although Alternative 3A 

would require the removal of sea otters that 

are in the management zone at the time the 

translocation program is formally declared a 

failure, this removal is not expected to have 

any discernible effects on abalone fishery 

restoration because 1) sea otters have not 

become established in any parts of the 

management zone except the Cojo 

Anchorage area, which is occupied generally 

on a seasonal basis, 2) sea otters are capable 

of returning rapidly to areas from which 

they have been removed, and 3) abalone 

fishery restoration is expected to require 

decades, in which context effects of the 

removal of sea otters would be undetectable. 

As described for the baseline, within 10 

years sea otter range expansion along the 

coastline towards Santa Barbara would 

preclude the reestablishment of abalone 

fishing in that area. Because it does not 

appear that there is any potential for 

reopening the abalone fishery (for any 

species) during the next 10 years, regardless 

of the presence or absence of sea otters (see 

section 6.2.9), effects projected for 

Alternative 3A, as for the baseline, along the 

coastline during this time period are 

essentially speculative. 

San Nicolas Island is identified in the draft 

Abalone Recovery and Management Plan 

(CDFG 2002c) as 1 of 10 key recovery areas 

for black abalone. Compared to the 

baseline, removing sea otters from San 

Nicolas Island may increase the probability 

that black abalone would reach Criterion 1 

(and possibly even Criteria 2 and 3, at which 

point the population could be considered for 

a reopening of the abalone fishery). 

However, even if sea otters were 

successfully removed, it is possible that they 

would recolonize San Nicolas Island 

through natural range expansion before 

abalone populations have reached the 

fishery consideration phase (Criterion 3), 

which is expected to require several 

decades. In this case, a reopening of the 

abalone fishery would be precluded in this 

area. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 172

areas of the Southern California Bight at the 

densities seen in the mainland range for 

comparable habitat, the restoration of an 

abalone fishery in these areas would not be 

viable. This long-term projection differs 

from the baseline only to the extent that the 

removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island may slow the movement of sea otters 

into the southern areas of the Southern 

California Bight. 

Although we assume here that the removal 

of sea otters from San Nicolas Island would 

result in their absence from the island for a 

period of one or more decades, and that their 

absence from the island would likely slow 

range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight, their removal 

could have unpredictable effects. First, 

some sea otters may return to San Nicolas 

Island immediately, in which case the shortterm effects projected as resulting from the 

removal of sea otters would be diminished 

by some unknown amount. Second, it is 

plausible that sea otters attempting to return 

to San Nicolas Island after removal could 

establish the seed of a colony at San Miguel 

Island or another island, thereby possibly 

shortening the time expected for sea otters to 

establish range in other parts of the Southern 

California Bight. In this case, effects 

described as resulting from a slowing of 

range expansion would be diminished by 

some unknown amount. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

abalone fishery restoration because of the 

extent of uncertainty involved. 

6.5.10 ECOTOURISM 

The effects of Alternative 3A are the same 

as for the baseline except with respect to San 

Nicolas Island. Although Alternative 3A 

would require the removal of sea otters that 

are in the management zone at the time the 

translocation program is formally declared a 

failure, this removal is not expected to have 

any discernible effects because 1) sea otters 

have not become established in any parts of 

the management zone except the Cojo 

Anchorage area, which is occupied generally 

on a seasonal basis, 2) ecotourism activity 

directed specifically at sea otter watching is 

now rare in the management zone, and 3) 

sea otters are capable of returning rapidly to 

areas from which they have been removed. 

Therefore, the removal of sea otters from the 

management zone would not change 

ecotourism relative to the baseline. As 

described for the baseline, tourism based on 

sea otter watching would be enhanced 

within 10 years as sea otters progressively 

reoccupy and begin to reside year-round 

along the stretch of mainland coastline 

between Point Conception and Santa 

Barbara. Overall economic value of this 

tourism is difficult to quantify and would 

not necessarily result in increased economic 

activity. Rather, it would likely manifest 

itself as an added value to other tourist 

draws in the area. 

The removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island is generally expected to affect 

ecotourism negatively relative to the 

baseline by reducing or eliminating the 

possibility of a sea otter sighting at the 

island. Under the baseline, we do not expect 

ecotourism in this area to grow considerably 

(in terms of number of trips) over the next 

10 years as a result of the increased 

abundance of sea otters, but we do expect 

that the quality of recreational trips to San 

Nicolas Island would be enhanced due to the 

better possibility of a sea otter sighting. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

areas of the Southern California Bight at the 

densities seen in the mainland range for 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 173

comparable habitat, ecotourism would 

benefit. This long-term projection is differs 

from the baseline only to the extent that the 

removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island may slow the movement of sea otters 

into the southern areas of the Southern 

California Bight. 

Although we assume here that the removal 

of sea otters from San Nicolas Island would 

result in their absence from the island for a 

period of one or more decades, and that their 

absence from the island would likely slow 

range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight, their removal 

could have unpredictable effects. First, 

some sea otters may return to San Nicolas 

Island immediately, in which case the shortterm effects projected as resulting from the 

removal of sea otters would be diminished 

by some unknown amount. Second, it is 

plausible that sea otters attempting to return 

to San Nicolas Island after removal could 

establish the seed of a colony at San Miguel 

Island or another island, thereby possibly 

shortening the time expected for sea otters to 

establish range in other parts of the Southern 

California Bight. In this case, effects 

described as resulting from a slowing of 

range expansion would be diminished by 

some unknown amount. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

ecotourism because of the extent of 

uncertainty involved. 

6.5.11 FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY 

PROGRAMS

Significance criteria are not defined for 

effects on agency programs because these 

effects and programs are various and cannot 

be meaningfully compared with a single set 

of criteria. For a discussion of the 

regulatory environment, see section 6.5.12. 

In the following discussions, we assume that 

the removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island would result in their absence from the 

island for a period of one or more decades, 

and that their absence from the island would 

likely slow range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight. Nevertheless, 

their removal could have unpredictable 

effects. First, some sea otters may return to 

San Nicolas Island immediately, in which 

case the short-term effects projected as 

resulting from the removal of sea otters 

would be diminished by some unknown 

amount. Second, it is plausible that sea 

otters attempting to return to San Nicolas 

Island after removal could establish the seed 

of a colony at San Miguel Island or another 

island, thereby possibly shortening the time 

expected for sea otters to establish range in 

other parts of the Southern California Bight. 

In this case, effects described as resulting 

from a slowing of range expansion would be 

diminished by some unknown amount. 

6.5.11.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

The effects of Alternative 3A on southern 

sea otter recovery are also addressed in 

section 6.5.3.3 (“Southern Sea Otter”). Here 

we address our ability to meet our mandates 

under the Endangered Species Act and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act and give the 

implementation costs of the alternative. 

ABILITY TO MEET MANDATE

Our ability to achieve recovery and OSP 

under Alternative 3A is the same as under 

the baseline scenario in terms of the area 

available for sea otters to recolonize. 

Alternative 3A (like the baseline and 

Alternatives 3B and 3C) maximizes the 

habitat available to sea otters for 

recolonization and would permit the 

possible eventual expansion of sea otters 

throughout their historic range in the 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 174

Southern California Bight. However, the 

time that would be required for sea otters to 

reach recovery and OSP is unknown. The 

removal of sea otters from the management 

zone would not likely have any discernible 

effects compared to the baseline because 1) 

sea otters have not become established in 

any parts of the management zone except 

the Cojo Anchorage area, which is occupied 

generally on a seasonal basis, and 2) sea 

otters are capable of returning rapidly to 

areas from which they have been removed. 

One potentially important difference 

between 3A and the baseline arises from the 

removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island, which could have unpredictable 

effects on the rapidity with which other 

areas of the Southern California Bight are 

recolonized and, consequently, on our 

ability to bring southern sea otters to 

recovery and OSP. Removal of sea otters 

from San Nicolas Island (if sea otters did not 

immediately return) would likely slow the 

eventual colonization of the Southern 

California Bight because dispersing sea 

otters could come from only the mainland 

range. Overall, the removal of sea otters 

from San Nicolas Island and their placement 

into the mainland range would likely be 

extremely disruptive, if not harmful, to the 

animals removed, and disruptive also to the 

animals in the receiving population. In this 

situation, both the displaced colony and the 

receiving population would suffer 

disturbance to their social structure and 

encounter increased competition for food. 

Individuals from San Nicolas Island, where 

there is abundant prey, may be unable to 

compete successfully in the mainland range, 

where food resources are more limited. 

Moved animals would additionally be 

subjected to the stress of capture and 

transport, which could result in the deaths of 

some individuals. These negative effects are 

likely to delay, to some unknown extent, the 

prospect of recovery and achievement of 

OSP. 

Alternative 3A differs notably from the 

baseline with respect to the regulatory 

provisions that would apply to sea otters in 

the Southern California Bight because the 

management and translocation zones would 

no longer exist. For a discussion of these 

provisions, see section 6.5.12. 

Because of the various effects outlined 

above, Alternative 3A is not as conducive to 

our achievement of mandates under the 

Endangered Species Act and the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act as is Alternative 

3C, but it is far more likely to result in 

achievement of these mandates than are 

either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2. 

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS (10-YEAR PERIOD) 

The change in the regulatory provisions that 

apply to sea otters in the Southern California 

Bight under Alternative 3A may result, in 

the long term, in increased coordination and 

consultation between the Service and other 

parties regarding activities that may affect 

the southern sea otter. Costs resulting from 

an increased consultation workload are not 

included here because few or no activities 

requiring consultation presently occur or are 

expected to occur in the area that sea otters 

would likely reoccupy within the next 10 

years. New implementation costs would be 

incurred under Alternative 3A. These costs 

derive from the removal sea otters from San 

Nicolas Island and the management zone 

and include expenditures for personnel, 

transportation, and equipment (Table 6-35). 

Activities related to the removal of sea otters 

from the translocation and management 

zones are expected to continue for two 

years. After all reasonable efforts are 

expended to remove sea otters from the 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 175

zones, no further maintenance would 

continue. In the third year, only monitoring 

efforts would be implemented. Therefore, 

implementation costs would cease after the 

third year of effort. 

Personnel costs to maintain the management 

zone comprise about 72 percent of annual 

implementation costs. Within the personnel 

costs, capture team represent the largest 

expense, at $300,000 per year. These 

capture teams would patrol the management 

zone and capture and relocate any sea otter 

found within it. Most likely, effort would be 

concentrated at the northern border of the 

management zone boundary near Point 

Conception. 

The following estimated expenditures 

represent the entire program costs over a 10-

year period (Table 6-36). Based upon past 

and projected efforts, the non-discounted 

annual implementation costs would sum to 

about $1.6 million over three years. 

6.5.11.2 Channel Islands National 

Park 

The effects of Alternative 3A are virtually 

the same as under the baseline scenario. 

Alternative 3A would allow sea otters to 

recolonize the Southern California Bight. 

While no effects of sea otters would be 

expected within 10 years, sea otters would 

likely eventually re-establish their range 

within Park boundaries. Alternative 3A is 

consistent with the mission and missionrelated goals of the Channel Islands National 

Park to protect and restore natural 

ecosystems and to practice ecosystem 

management. 

The removal of sea otters from the 

management zone would not likely have any 

TABLE 6-35. PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT 

NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE 3A 

Personnel Transportation Equipment 

Program 

Manager 

2 Vans Boat 

Maintenance 

Capture 

Teams 

1 Tow Vehicle Dive Gear and 

Maintenance 

Transport 

Team 

2 Monitor 

Vehicles 

Tracking 

Equipment 

Monitoring 

Team 

Air Charters Training 

Veterinary 

Services 

Boat Charters 

 Travel Costs 

TABLE 6-36. IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR REMOVAL OF SEA OTTERS FROM SAN NICOLAS 

ISLAND AND THE MANAGEMENT ZONE 

Annual Cost 

Year 

Personnel Transportation Equipment 

Discounted Cost 

(3% discount rate) 

Discounted Cost 

(7% discount rate) 

2005 $535,000 $128,000 $85,000 $726,214 $699,065 

2006 $535,000 $128,000 $56,000 $677,726 $628,002 

2007 $90,000 $21,000 $1,000 $102,496 $91,425 

2008 - - - - - 

2009 - - - - - 

2010 - - - - - 

2011 - - - - - 

2012 - - - - - 

2013 - - - - - 

2014 - - - - - 

Total $1,579,000 $1,506,436 (PV @ 3%) $1,418,493 (PV @ 7%) 

Note: A 10-year period allows for comparison of the alternatives. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 176

discernible effects compared to the baseline 

because 1) sea otters have not become 

established in any parts of the management 

zone except the Cojo Anchorage area, which 

is occupied generally on a seasonal basis, 

and 2) sea otters are capable of returning 

rapidly to areas from which they have been 

removed. The potential difference between 

3A and the baseline arises from the removal 

of sea otters from San Nicolas Island, which 

could have unpredictable effects on the 

rapidity with which other areas of the 

Southern California Bight are recolonized. 

Removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island (if sea otters did not immediately 

return) would likely slow the eventual 

colonization of islands in the Channel 

Islands National Park because dispersing sea 

otters would come from only one direction 

(the mainland range). Generally, however, 

the effect of this alternative would be to 

allow the eventual return of sea otters to the 

islands of the Channel Islands National 

Park. 

Under Alternative 3A, the regulatory 

provisions that apply to sea otters in the 

Southern California Bight would change 

(see section 6.5.12). This change could 

result, in the long term, in increased 

coordination and consultation between the 

Service and Channel Islands National Park 

regarding activities that may affect the 

southern sea otter if sea otters recolonize 

historic range within Park boundaries. 

6.5.11.3 Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary 

The effects of Alternative 3A are virtually 

the same as under the baseline scenario. 

Alternative 3A would allow sea otters to 

recolonize the Southern California Bight. 

While no effects of sea otters would be 

expected within 10 years, sea otters would 

likely eventually re-establish their range 

within Sanctuary boundaries. Alternative 

3A is consistent with the mission of the 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

to conserve and enhance the biodiversity, 

ecological integrity, and cultural legacy of 

areas of special national significance. 

The removal of sea otters from the 

management zone would not likely have any 

discernible effects compared to the baseline 

because 1) sea otters have not become 

established in any parts of the management 

zone except the Cojo Anchorage area, which 

is occupied generally on a seasonal basis, 

and 2) sea otters are capable of returning 

rapidly to areas from which they have been 

removed. The potential difference between 

3A and the baseline arises from the removal 

of sea otters from San Nicolas Island, which 

could have unpredictable effects on the 

rapidity with which other areas of the 

Southern California Bight are recolonized. 

Generally, removal of sea otters from San 

Nicolas Island (if sea otters did not 

immediately return) is likely to slow the 

eventual colonization of islands in the 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

because dispersing sea otters would come 

from only one direction (the mainland 

range). However, the overall effect of this 

alternative would be to allow the eventual 

return of sea otters to the islands within the 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. 

Under Alternative 3A, the regulatory 

provisions that apply to sea otters in the 

Southern California Bight would change 

(see section 6.5.12). This regulatory change 

could result, in the long term, in increased 

coordination and consultation between the 

Service and Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary regarding activities that 

may affect the southern sea otter if sea otters 

recolonize historic range within Sanctuary 

boundaries. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 177

6.5.11.4 California Department of 

Fish and Game 

Note: Effects on the recovery of white and 

black abalone and sea otters are discussed 

under “Candidate, Threatened, and 

Endangered Species” (section 6.5.3). 

Effects on existing commercial fisheries and 

the restoration of the abalone fishery are 

discussed under “Commercial Fisheries” 

(section 6.5.4) and “Abalone Fishery 

Restoration” (section 6.5.9). Effects on 

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are 

discussed here. 

The effects of Alternative 3A are virtually 

the same as under the baseline scenario. 

Alternative 3A would allow sea otters to 

recolonize the Southern California Bight. 

While no effects of sea otters would be 

expected within 10 years, sea otters would 

likely eventually re-establish their range 

within MPA boundaries. Alternative 3A 

would have a positive effect on Marine 

Protected Areas overall. For a full 

discussion of the expected effects of sea 

otters on Marine Protected Areas, see 

section 6.2.11.4. 

The removal of sea otters from the 

management zone would not likely have any 

discernible effects compared to the baseline 

because 1) sea otters have not become 

established in any parts of the management 

zone except the Cojo Anchorage area, which 

is occupied generally on a seasonal basis, 

and 2) sea otters are capable of returning 

rapidly to areas from which they have been 

removed. The potential difference between 

3A and the baseline arises from the removal 

of sea otters from San Nicolas Island, which 

could have unpredictable effects on the 

rapidity with which other areas of the 

Southern California Bight are recolonized. 

Removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island (if sea otters did not immediately 

return) would likely slow the eventual 

colonization of areas designated as Marine 

Protected Areas in the Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary because 

dispersing sea otters would come from only 

one direction (the mainland range). 

Generally, however, the effect of this 

alternative would be to allow the eventual 

return of sea otters to areas designated as 

Marine Protected Areas. 

6.5.11.5 U.S. Navy 

Effects on the U.S. Navy are regulatory. 

Under Alternative 3A, the translocation 

program would be declared a failure, and the 

management zone and translocation zone 

would be abolished. As a consequence, the 

regulatory environment would change (see 

section 6.5.12). 

The change in the regulatory provisions that 

apply to sea otters in the Southern California 

Bight under Alternative 3A could result in 

increased coordination and consultation 

between the Service and the U.S. Navy 

regarding activities that may affect the 

southern sea otter. Under Alternative 3A, 

sea otters would be removed from San 

Nicolas Island, but it is possible that some 

animals would return after removal efforts 

had ceased. To date, we have no evidence 

that defense-related activities have had any 

adverse effects on sea otters at San Nicolas 

Island or in the management zone. As 

mitigation for the effects of an increased 

regulatory burden on the U.S. Navy, we 

would propose to coordinate with the U.S. 

Navy to develop a programmatic 

consultation for activities that may affect 

southern sea otters. Because the U.S. Navy 

is already required to obtain an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act for the incidental 

non-lethal “take by harassment” of other 

marine mammals during missile and target 

launch operations at San Nicolas Island, the 

addition of a programmatic consultation for 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 178

sea otters would likely introduce only a 

minor additional regulatory burden. 

6.5.11.6 U.S. Minerals Management 

Service 

Effects on the Minerals Management 

Service are regulatory. Under Alternative 

3A, the translocation program would be 

declared a failure, and the management zone 

and translocation zone would be abolished. 

As a consequence, the regulatory 

environment would change (see section 

6.5.12). 

In the long term, the change in the 

regulatory provisions that apply to sea otters 

in the Southern California Bight under 

Alternative 3A could result in increased 

coordination and consultation between the 

Service and the Minerals Management 

Service regarding activities that may affect 

the southern sea otter. However, the added 

consultation and permitting requirements for 

actions that may affect sea otters in the 

Southern California Bight would likely 

impose only a minor additional regulatory 

burden on the Minerals Management 

Service for the following reasons: 1) the 

physical presence of the oil industry is 

expected to diminish offshore of California 

over the next several decades (MMS pers. 

comm. 2005); 2) all proposed actions that 

may affect other threatened or endangered 

species or marine mammals are already 

subject to consultation and permitting 

requirements under the Endangered Species 

Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act; 3) 

the regulatory environment along the central 

California coast is identical to the regulatory 

environment that would result from 

implementation of this alternative, and 

requirements for consultations or permits 

related to the southern sea otter have been 

minimal; 4) southern sea otters would not be 

present in most of southern California for 

decades (if range expansion continues to 

occur). 

6.5.12 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

The regulatory environment under 

Alternative 3A would be identical to the 

regulatory environment under Alternatives 

3B and 3C, although the actual effects of 

regulatory changes relative to the baseline 

depend on the presence or absence of sea 

otters in the Southern California Bight (see 

section 6.5.11 for a discussion of possible 

scenarios). 

Under Alternative 3A, as under Alternatives 

3B and 3C, the translocation program would 

be declared a failure and terminated, the 

management and translocation zones would 

be abolished, and the provisions of Public 

Law 99-625 would become inoperative. 

California Fish and Game Code section 

8664.2 would also become inoperative. As 

a result, all activities that may affect 

southern sea otters within the Southern 

California Bight would be fully subject to 

the Endangered Species Act, the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, and California state 

law, including applicable consultation 

requirements and take prohibitions under 

these laws. 

All federal agencies planning activities that 

may affect southern sea otters in the 

Southern California Bight would be required 

to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service 

under section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act and seek authorization for incidental 

take of sea otters under the Endangered 

Species Act and provisions of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. If otherwise 

allowable under applicable state law, 

including California Fish and Game Code 

section 4700, non-federal activities that 

would result in take of southern sea otters in 

California would require incidental take 

authorization from the Fish and Wildlife 

Service under section 10(a)1(B) of the 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 179

Endangered Species Act and section 

101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act. Incidental take of southern sea otters in 

commercial fisheries cannot be authorized 

under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

Therefore, incidental take of southern sea 

otters in commercial fisheries throughout the 

Southern California Bight would be 

prohibited, as it is currently prohibited 

throughout the remainder of the range of the 

species (north of Point Conception). 

Intentional take would continue to be 

prohibited unless authorized, as under the 

current regulations. 

This change in the regulatory environment 

would not be likely to result in substantial 

effects on activities now being conducted 

within the Southern California Bight for 

several reasons: 

1) The current regulatory environment 

along the central California coast is 

identical to the regulatory 

environment that would result from 

implementation of Alternatives 3A, 

3B, or 3C in the Southern California 

Bight. Commercial fishing 

activities, harbor maintenance, oil 

and gas exploration, and other 

human activities are similar in the 

two sections of coastline. Along the 

central coast, requirements for 

consultations and take authorizations 

under the Endangered Species Act 

and Marine Mammal Protection Act 

related to the southern sea otter have 

been minimal, and we would expect 

the same to be the case for the 

Southern California Bight. This is 

because there are few otherwise legal 

activities that result in take of 

southern sea otters and because the 

southern sea otter’s historic habitat, 

although somewhat degraded, is 

essentially intact. 

2) Southern sea otters would not be 

present in most of southern 

California for many decades. In fact, 

we cannot reliably assert that range 

expansion will occur at all. Critical 

habitat has not been designated for 

the southern sea otter and is not 

proposed or required (the southern 

sea otter was listed under the 

Endangered Species Act prior to 

passage of the requirement to 

designate critical habitat). With no 

sea otters present in most of the 

Southern California Bight and no 

designated critical habitat, the 

likelihood that adverse interactions 

between sea otters and human 

activities would occur would be less 

than the likelihood that currently 

exists along the central coast, where 

substantial numbers of sea otters are 

found, and where the regulatory 

environment is the same as that 

proposed under Alternatives 3A, 3B, 

and 3C. 

3) If the translocation program were 

declared a failure and terminated, 

California Fish and Game Code 

section 4700 would prohibit all take, 

as defined and applied under state 

law, of southern sea otters, and the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

would prohibit incidental take of 

southern sea otters by commercial 

fisheries. Nevertheless, commercial 

fisheries in the Southern California 

Bight are unlikely to be adversely 

affected by the change in regulatory 

environment because few fisheries 

will likely interact with sea otters. 

Gill-net fisheries, historically a 

concern for incidental take of sea 

otters, are currently prohibited in the 

nearshore waters of southern 

California and the offshore Channel 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3A 180

Islands where sea otters would be 

found (Marine Resources Protection 

Act, California Constitution Article 

10B). Dive fisheries (sea urchin, 

abalone) are extremely unlikely to 

result in take of sea otters by virtue 

of the methods they employ to 

harvest shellfish. Trap fisheries 

(lobster, crab, live-fish) could 

potentially result in the entrapment 

and drowning of sea otters and thus 

could be affected by a change in the 

regulatory environment. However, 

there are few data to assess the 

possibility of incidental take of 

southern sea otters in these fisheries, 

and therefore we cannot reliably 

anticipate the impact of this 

regulatory change on this segment of 

the commercial fishing community. 

4) Because of potential effects on the 

receiving population of sea otters in 

the mainland range caused by the 

relocation of sea otters removed 

from the translocation zone, we 

would be required to consult under 

section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act before implementation of this 

alternative. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 181

6.6 Alternative 3B—Terminate 

Translocation Program; Remove 

Only Sea Otters Residing within 

the Translocation Zone at the 

Time the Decision to Terminate is 

Made 

6.6.1 INTRODUCTION

Alternative 3 entails declaring the southern 

sea otter translocation program a failure and 

terminating the program, thereby 

eliminating the management zone and 

translocation zone established through 

Public Law 99-625 and 50 CFR §17(d). 

Sub-alternative 3B would require the 

removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island but allows sea otters to remain in the 

management zone. All sea otters within the 

translocation zone at San Nicolas Island 

would be captured and placed within the 

parent range. No effort would be made to 

enforce a management zone, effectively 

allowing sea otters from the parent 

population to recolonize historic range 

throughout the Southern California Bight. 

This action would not increase or decrease 

the projected sea otter range, compared to 

the baseline, because sea otters are already 

expected to reach carrying capacity along 

the coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara in the next 10 years (CDFG 

statistical blocks 654, 655, 656, and 657) 

(Appendix F). However, the removal of sea 

otters from San Nicolas Island would impact 

the sea otter population compared to the 

baseline, and would, therefore, impact some 

socioeconomic activities. 

The assumptions that apply to the analysis 

for Alternative 3B are the same as those 

described for the baseline. For a more 

detailed description of the baseline, to which 

each activity is compared, refer to section 

6.2, “Baseline (Status Quo)—The No Action 

Alternative.” 

6.6.2 NEARSHORE MARINE ECOSYSTEM

Alternative 3B entails declaring the 

translocation program a failure (thereby 

abolishing the management zone and 

translocation zone) and removing only those 

sea otters present in the translocation zone at 

the time of the final decision. The effects of 

this alternative on the nearshore marine 

ecosystem are the same as those for 

Alternative 3A because the removal of sea 

otters from the management zone (evaluated 

under Alternative 3A) is not expected to 

have any discernible community effects. 

The removal of animals from San Nicolas 

Island would eliminate or greatly reduce the 

colony, probably resulting in minor 

increases in invertebrate prey populations 

within a few years. Any changes to the 

nearshore marine ecosystem (see section 

6.2.2) that would have been afforded by a 

colony persisting at San Nicolas Island as 

projected under the baseline would not 

occur. Elimination of the sea otter colony at 

San Nicolas Island would likely slow sea 

otter recolonization of the Southern 

California Bight and thus would also delay 

associated ecosystem changes throughout 

the area. 

Although we assume here that the removal 

of sea otters from San Nicolas Island would 

result in their absence from the island for a 

period of one or more decades, and that their 

absence from the island would likely slow 

range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight, their removal 

could have unpredictable effects. First, 

some sea otters may return to San Nicolas 

Island immediately, in which case the shortterm effects projected as resulting from the 

removal of sea otters would be diminished 

by some unknown amount. Second, it is 

plausible that sea otters attempting to return 

to San Nicolas Island after removal could 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 182

establish the seed of a colony at San Miguel 

Island or another island, thereby possibly 

shortening the time expected for sea otters to 

establish range in other parts of the Southern 

California Bight. In this case, effects 

described as resulting from a slowing of 

range expansion would be diminished by 

some unknown amount. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

effects on the nearshore marine ecosystem 

because of the extent of uncertainty 

involved. 

6.6.3 EFFECTS ON CANDIDATE,

THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

In the following discussions, we assume that 

the removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island would result in their absence from the 

island for a period of one or more decades, 

and that their absence from the island would 

likely slow range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight. Nevertheless, 

their removal could have unpredictable 

effects. First, some sea otters may return to 

San Nicolas Island immediately, in which 

case the short-term effects projected as 

resulting from the removal of sea otters 

would be diminished by some unknown 

amount. Second, it is plausible that sea 

otters attempting to return to San Nicolas 

Island after removal could establish the seed 

of a colony at San Miguel Island or another 

island, thereby possibly shortening the time 

expected for sea otters to establish range in 

other parts of the Southern California Bight. 

In this case, effects described as resulting 

from a slowing of range expansion would be 

diminished by some unknown amount. 

6.6.3.1 White Abalone 

Effects on white abalone resulting from the 

implementation of Alternative 3B are 

essentially the same as for the baseline (see 

section 6.2.3.1, “Establishing the Baseline 

for White Abalone”) except for possible 

benefits that may result from the removal of 

sea otters from San Nicolas Island. 

The benefit to white abalone under 

Alternative 3B relates to the potential for the 

removal of sea otters to slow sea otter range 

expansion into the Southern California 

Bight. However, based on our analysis of 

baseline conditions (unrestricted movement 

of sea otters without removal) this potential 

benefit is minor. There is little overlap 

between the habitat utilized by sea otters and 

habitat used by white abalone. Deep water 

and offshore habitats provide refuge for 

white abalone from sea otter predation. In 

addition, if white abalone make use of 

cryptic and inaccessible habitat as do other 

species of abalone, this habitat can provide 

another form of refuge even where sea otter 

and white abalone habitats overlap. 

Although it is not expected that Alternative 

3B would affect white abalone at the 

population level, it is possible that sea otters, 

unrestricted by a management zone, may 

find and consume individual white abalone. 

Therefore, we would request formal 

consultation with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act and confer with the 

California Department of Fish and Game if 

this alternative is selected. 

Within 10 years, Alternative 3B is expected 

to have a beneficial effect of low 

significance on white abalone. 

6.6.3.2 Black Abalone 

Effects on black abalone resulting from the 

implementation of Alternative 3B are 

essentially the same as for the baseline (see 

section 6.2.3.2, “Establishing the Baseline 

for Black Abalone”) except for possible 

benefits that may result from the removal of 

sea otters from San Nicolas Island. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 183

The benefit to black abalone under 

Alternative 3B relates to the potential for the 

removal of sea otters to slow sea otter range 

expansion into the Southern California 

Bight. However, based on our analysis of 

baseline conditions (unrestricted movement 

of sea otters without removal) this potential 

benefit is believed to be minor. In areas of 

the Southern California Bight with sufficient 

cryptic and inaccessible habitat, black 

abalone populations would likely persist and 

have the opportunity to recover in the 

presence of sea otters. In areas with less 

suitable habitat, which were occupied by 

black abalone subsequent to the local 

extirpation of sea otters, black abalone 

would be more vulnerable to sea otter 

predation. 

If sea otters are unrestricted by a 

management zone, predation of black 

abalone is likely to occur. We would 

therefore confer with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service and the California 

Department of Fish and Game if Alternative 

3B is selected. 

Within 10 years, Alternative 3B is expected 

to have a beneficial effect of moderate 

significance on black abalone. 

6.6.3.3 Southern Sea Otter 

Effects on southern sea otters resulting from 

the implementation of Alternative 3B are 

essentially the same as those identified in 

our baseline analysis with the exception of 

1) negative effects on individual sea otters 

removed from San Nicolas Island and 

possible negative effects on the southern sea 

otter population resulting from this action, 

and 2) potential effects resulting from 

regulatory changes if incidental take is 

affecting sea otters (see section 6.6.12). 

Under Alternative 3B, as under baseline 

conditions, sea otters may expand their 

range naturally into the Southern California 

Bight. This scenario enhances the 

opportunity for southern sea otter recovery 

by allowing sea otters to recolonize historic 

habitat. Although the marine habitat in the 

Southern California Bight has been 

degraded by a multitude of human activities, 

the southern sea otter range has expanded 

into this area. Allowing natural range 

expansion maximizes habitat available for 

southern sea otter recovery, avoids the 

potential threat to the species caused by 

capturing and releasing sea otters throughout 

the range, and avoids the potential for 

injuring or killing individual sea otters 

removed from the management zone. 

Alternative 3B would require the removal of 

sea otters from San Nicolas Island. 

Removal of the colony at San Nicolas Island 

may slow the recolonization of the Southern 

California Bight and thereby inhibit 

recovery of the species. Capture and 

relocation efforts also inevitably cause stress 

to the sea otters subject to removal and may 

cause the death of some the animals. Aside 

from stress inherent to capture and transport, 

sea otters that have learned to forage in 

prey-rich environments may not be able to 

find adequate food in prey-limited areas of 

the mainland range, resulting in starvation or 

an attempt to return to the Southern 

California Bight. Overall, removing sea 

otters from San Nicolas Island and placing 

them in the mainland range would likely be 

extremely disruptive, if not harmful, to the 

animals removed, and disruptive also to 

animals in the receiving population. Both 

the displaced animals and the receiving 

population would suffer disturbance to their 

social structure and encounter increased 

competition for food. 

Alternative 3B partially reflects 

recommendations made in the Revised 

Recovery Plan for the Southern Sea Otter
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 184

(USFWS 2003). The revised recovery plan 

continues to focus on efforts to increase the 

size of the southern sea otter’s population; 

however, it no longer recommends 

translocating sea otters as a means to 

achieve this goal. Rather, the plan advises 

against additional translocations (USFWS 

2003). Additionally, the recovery team 

recommended declaring the translocation 

program a failure, allowing natural range 

expansion to occur, and allowing the colony 

at San Nicolas Island (although it is small 

and its ability to persist is uncertain) to 

remain at the island rather than capturing 

these sea otters and releasing them in the 

mainland range (USFWS 2003). Alternative 

3B implements these recommendations 

except the recovery team’s recommendation 

to allow the colony to remain at San Nicolas 

Island. 

The potential benefit of the reversion to 

“threatened” status for southern sea otters is 

difficult to estimate because its value can be 

realized only in reference to future actions 

that may affect members of the species 

found in the Southern California Bight. If, 

in the future, the incidental take of sea otters 

were shown to be hindering the recovery of 

the species, then the value of the regulatory 

change could be high. Based on current 

levels of activity in the Southern California 

Bight, we would expect that the regulatory 

change, viewed on its own, would result in a 

beneficial effect of low significance on 

southern sea otters. However, because 

Alternative 3B requires the removal of the 

colony at San Nicolas Island, overall 

Alternative 3B is expected to have an 

adverse effect of low significance on sea 

otters within 10 years relative to the 

baseline. 

6.6.4 COMMERCIAL FISHERIES 

For a discussion of the regulatory 

environment (including as it pertains to 

commercial fisheries) see section 6.6.12. 

In the following discussions, we assume that 

the removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island would result in their absence from the 

island for a period of one or more decades, 

and that their absence from the island would 

likely slow range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight. Nevertheless, 

their removal could have unpredictable 

effects. First, some sea otters may return to 

San Nicolas Island immediately, in which 

case the short-term effects projected as 

resulting from the removal of sea otters 

would be diminished by some unknown 

amount. Second, it is plausible that sea 

otters attempting to return to San Nicolas 

Island after removal could establish the seed 

of a colony at San Miguel Island or another 

island, thereby possibly shortening the time 

expected for sea otters to establish range in 

other parts of the Southern California Bight. 

In this case, effects described as resulting 

from a slowing of range expansion would be 

diminished by some unknown amount. 

6.6.4.1 Sea Urchin Fishery 

Under Alternative 3B, commercial sea 

urchin landings within 10 years would (1) be 

eliminated along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara and (2) 

increase around San Nicolas Island. The sea 

urchin fishery under the baseline is projected 

to be eliminated along the coastline from 

Point Conception to Santa Barbara (CDFG 

statistical blocks 654, 655, 656, and 657). 

Therefore, there is no impact along the 

coastline compared to the baseline. 

Removing sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island would result in a sea urchin harvest 

increase, compared to the baseline, for two 

reasons. First, sea urchin landings would 

not decrease the projected 10 percent as in 

the baseline because there would be no sea 

otter population at the island. Therefore, 

landings would not decrease the anticipated 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 185

634,000 pounds from 2005 to 2014. 

Second, newly recruited sea urchins and 

those sea urchins that escaped sea otter 

predation in the past would now potentially 

be available for commercial harvest. This 

potential increase follows the assumption 

that fishery impacts correspond directly to 

the sea otter’s carrying capacity percentage. 

As of 2004, sea otters were at about 6 

percent of their estimated carrying capacity 

at the island. Thus, sea urchin landings 

would increase by approximately 6 percent 

from the 10-year average of 1,152,340 

pounds. We assume that the sea urchin 

population would rebound from sea otter 

predation in five years.22 We further assume 

that the associated increase in landings 

 

22 Red sea urchins can reach a commercially 

harvestable size (3.5 inches) in 6 to 8 years (Kalvass 

and Rogers-Bennett, 2001). We assume that landings 

would rebound prior to six years because sea otters 

are unable to reach urchins located in sufficiently 

deep crevices. Therefore, some urchins will have 

survived and will reach a harvestable size in fewer 

than 6 years. 

would be equally distributed across five 

years, so that landings would rise by 1 

percent (about 14,750 pounds) annually 

between 2005 and 2009, stabilizing to an 

annual benefit of approximately 73,750 

pounds after 2009 (Table 6-37). This 

landings increase relies upon the assumption 

that the catch per unit of effort (CPUE) at 

San Nicolas Island is not already at a 

maximum level, so that the existing vessels 

have the ability to increase their catch. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

these areas at the densities seen in the 

mainland range for comparable habitat, 

commercial sea urchin landings would 

approach zero because sea urchin divers 

would fish other areas where their catch per 

unit effort would be greater. The removal of 

sea otters from San Nicolas Island may slow 

the movement of sea otters into the southern 

TABLE 6-37. SEA URCHIN LANDINGS: BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE 3B 

Year 

Commercial 

Landings 

(no 10% 

decrease at 

SNI) 

Commercial 

Landings 

(increase of 

6% at SNI) 

Total 

Increase in 

Commercial 

Landings 

(Pounds) 

Total ExVessel 

Revenue* 

Total ExVessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(3%)* 

Total ExVessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(7%)* 

2005 11,524 14,750 26,274 $27,850 $27,039 $26,028 

2006 23,047 29,500 52,547 $55,700 $52,502 $48,650 

2007 34,570 44,250 78,820 $83,550 $76,460 $68,201 

2008 46,094 59,000 105,094 $111,399 $98,977 $84,986 

2009 57,617 73,750 131,367 $139,249 $120,117 $99,283 

2010 69,141 73,750 142,890 $151,464 $126,849 $100,927 

2011 80,664 73,750 154,414 $163,679 $133,086 $101,931 

2012 92,187 73,750 165,937 $175,893 $138,852 $102,372 

2013 103,711 73,750 177,461 $188,108 $144,169 $102,318 

2014 115,234 73,750 188,984 $200,323 $149,059 $101,834 

Total 

Benefits 633,790 589,998 1,223,788 $1,297,215 

$1,067,110 

(PV @ 3%) 

$836,530 

(PV @ 7%) 

Note: Benefits are rounded to the nearest dollar. 

*Ex-vessel revenue is based upon the average price divers received for sea urchin (in shell) from 1994 to 2003, 

which is $1.03 per pound in 2004 dollars. 

SNI=San Nicolas Island 

PV=present value 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 186

areas of the Southern California Bight. 

Therefore, there may be a slight benefit to 

the sea urchin fishery, compared to the 

baseline, as a result of some delay in sea 

otter predation. 

The maximum non-discounted benefit to sea 

urchin fishing vessels for Alternative 3B 

would total about would total $1.3 million. 

The discounted 10-year benefit for this 

alternative would be about $1.1 million 

(discounted at 3 percent) or $837,000 

(discounted at 7 percent). For the regional 

economic context, which can help to put this 

number in perspective, see Tables 4-3 and 

4-6. 

On average in the southern California sea 

urchin fishery, 223 vessels participate 

annually landing 60,200 pounds each 

(Thomson 2001). We recognize that effects 

would not be distributed equally among 

vessels, and that those fishing in areas 

occupied by sea otters would be 

disproportionately affected. However, if the 

increased landings and ex-vessel revenue 

were distributed equally among these 

vessels, then each vessel would have 

increased landings of approximately 5,500 

pounds and increased revenue between 

$3,800 (discounted at 7 percent) and $4,800 

(discounted at 3 percent) totaled over 10 

years. 

As described in Chapter 5, we define levels 

of significance in this supplement by 

viewing projected effects on an entity or 

activity within the regional context of that 

entity or activity. Because Alternative 3B is 

expected to result in an increase in sea 

urchin ex-vessel revenues within the 

Southern California Bight of 1 percent 

compared to the landings baseline (a total 

landings benefit of 1.2 million pounds 10 

years compared to the projected total for 

southern California of 112.7 million 

pounds), the benefit is of low significance 

(see Table 5-1 for definitions of levels of 

significance). 

6.6.4.2 Spiny Lobster Fishery 

Under Alternative 3B, commercial lobster 

landings within 10 years would (1) be 

eliminated along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara and (2) 

increase at San Nicolas Island. The lobster 

fishery under the baseline is projected to be 

eliminated along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara (CDFG 

statistical blocks 654, 655, 656, and 657). 

Therefore, there is no additional impact 

along the coastline compared to the baseline. 

Removing sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island would result in an increase in the 

lobster catch, compared to the baseline, for 

two reasons. First, lobster landings would 

not decrease the projected 10 percent as in 

the baseline because there would be no sea 

otter population at the island. Therefore, 

landings would not decrease the anticipated 

21,000 pounds from 2005 to 2014. Second, 

newly recruited lobsters and those lobsters 

that escaped sea otter predation in the past 

would now potentially be available for 

commercial harvest. This potential increase 

follows the assumption that fishery impacts 

correspond directly to the sea otter’s 

carrying capacity percentage. As of 2004, 

sea otters were at about 6 percent of their 

estimated carrying capacity at the island. 

Thus, lobster landings would increase by 

approximately 6 percent from the 10-year 

average of 37,722 pounds. We assume that 

the lobster population would rebound from 

sea otter predation in seven years.23 We 

 

23 Spiny lobsters can reach a commercially 

harvestable size (3.5 inches carapace length) in 7 to 

11 years (Barsky 2001). We assume that landings 

would rebound prior to seven years because sea otters 

are unable to consume lobsters located in inaccessible 

habitat (deep crevices). Thus, the harvest may 

resume in a minimum time interval. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 187

further assume that the associated increase 

in landings would be equally distributed 

across seven years, so that landings would 

rise by 1 percent (about 345 pounds) 

annually between 2005 and 2011, stabilizing 

to an annual benefit of approximately 2,400 

pounds after 2011 (Table 6-38). 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

these areas at the densities seen in the 

mainland range for comparable habitat, 

commercial lobster landings would approach 

zero because lobster fishers would fish other 

areas where their catch per unit effort would 

be greater. The removal of sea otters from 

San Nicolas Island may slow the movement 

of sea otters into the southern areas of the 

Southern California Bight. Therefore, there 

may be a slight benefit to the commercial 

lobster fishery, compared to the baseline, as 

a result of some delay in sea otter predation. 

The maximum non-discounted benefit to 

lobster vessels for Alternative 3B would 

total about $300,000. The discounted 10-

year benefit for this Alternative would range 

between about $191,000 (discounted at 7 

percent) and $246,000 (discounted at 3 

percent). For the regional economic context, 

which can help to put this number in 

perspective, see Tables 4-3 and 4-6. 

On average in the southern California 

lobster fishery, 202 vessels participate 

annually, landing 3,700 pounds each 

(Thomson 2001). We recognize that effects 

would not be distributed equally among 

vessels, and that those fishing in areas 

occupied by sea otters would be 

disproportionately affected. However, if the 

increased landings and ex-vessel revenue 

were distributed equally among these 

vessels, then each vessel would have 

increased landings of approximately 190 

pounds and increased revenue of between 

TABLE 6-38. LOBSTER LANDINGS: BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE 3B 

Year 

Commercial 

Landings 

(no 10% 

decrease at 

SNI) 

Commercial 

Landings 

(increase of 

6% at SNI) 

Total 

Increase in 

Commercial 

Landings 

(Pounds) 

Total ExVessel 

Revenue* 

Total ExVessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(3%)* 

Total ExVessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(7%)* 

2005 377 345 722 $5,760 $5,592 $5,383 

2006 754 690 1,444 $11,523 $10,861 $10,064 

2007 1,131 1,035 2,166 $17,285 $15,818 $14,110 

2008 1,509 1,380 2,888 $23,047 $20,477 $17,583 

2009 1,886 1,724 3,610 $28,810 $24,852 $20,541 

2010 2,263 2,069 4,332 $34,572 $28,954 $23,037 

2011 2,640 2,414 5,054 $40,335 $32,796 $25,118 

2012 3,017 2,414 5,432 $43,345 $34,217 $25,227 

2013 3,395 2,414 5,809 $46,355 $35,527 $25,214 

2014 3,772 2,414 6,186 $49,365 $36,732 $25,095 

Total 

Benefits 20,744 16,899 37,644 $300,398 

$245,827 

(PV @ 3%) 

$191,373 

(PV @ 7%) 

Note: Benefits are rounded to the nearest dollar. 

*Ex-vessel revenue is based upon the average price fishers received for lobsters from 1994 to 2003, which is 

$7.98 per pound in 2004 dollars. 

SNI=San Nicolas Island 

PV= present value 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 188

$900 (discounted at 7 percent) and $1,200 

(discounted at 3 percent) totaled over 10 

years. 

As described in Chapter 5, we define levels 

of significance in this supplement by 

viewing projected effects on an entity or 

activity within the regional context of that 

entity or activity. Because Alternative 3B is 

expected to result in an increase in lobster 

ex-vessel revenues within the Southern 

California Bight of 0.6 percent compared to 

the landings baseline (a total benefit of 

38,000 pounds over 10 years compared to 

the projected total for southern California of 

6.1 million pounds), the benefit is very low 

and therefore not significant (see Table 5-1 

for definitions of levels of significance). 

6.6.4.3 Crab Fishery 

Under Alternative 3B, commercial crab 

landings within 10 years would (1) be 

eliminated along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara and (2) 

increase at San Nicolas Island. The crab 

fishery under the baseline is projected to be 

eliminated along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara (CDFG 

statistical blocks 654, 655, 656, and 657). 

Therefore, there is no impact along the 

coastline compared to the baseline. 

Removing sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island would result in a crab harvest 

increase, compared to the baseline, for two 

reasons. First, crab landings would not 

decrease the projected 10 percent as in the 

baseline because there would be no sea otter 

population at the island. Therefore, landings 

would not decrease the anticipated 3,500 

pounds from 2005 to 2014. Second, newly 

recruited crabs and those crabs that escaped 

sea otter predation in the past would now 

potentially be available for commercial 

harvest. This potential increase follows the 

assumption that fishery impacts correspond 

directly to the sea otter’s carrying capacity 

percentage. As of 2004, sea otters were at 

about 6 percent of their estimated carrying 

capacity at the island. Thus, crab landings 

would increase by approximately 6 percent 

from the 10-year average of 6,350 pounds. 

We assume that the crab population would 

rebound from sea otter predation in four 

years.24 We further assume that the 

associated increase in landings would be 

equally distributed across four years, so that 

landings would rise by approximately 2 

percent (about 100 pounds) annually 

between 2005 and 2008, stabilizing to an 

annual benefit of approximately 400 pounds 

after 2008 (Table 6-39). 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

these areas at the densities seen in the 

mainland range for comparable habitat, 

commercial crab landings would approach 

zero because crab fishers would fish other 

areas where their catch per unit effort would 

be greater. The removal of sea otters from 

San Nicolas Island may slow the movement 

of sea otters into the southern areas of the 

Southern California Bight. Therefore, there 

may be a slight benefit to the commercial 

crab fishery, compared to the baseline, as a 

result of some delay in sea otter predation. 

The maximum non-discounted benefit to 

crab vessels for Alternative 3B would total 

about $9,000. The discounted 10-year 

benefit for this Alternative would be 

between $6,000 (discounted at 7 percent) 

and $7,600 (discounted at 3 percent). For 

 

24 Crabs can reach a commercially harvestable size 

(4.25 inch carapace width) in 4 to 5 years (Parker, 

2001). We assume that crab landings would rebound 

prior to six years because otters are unable to 

consume crabs inhabiting deep crevices. Thus, crabs 

may be harvested in less than 4 years. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 189

the regional economic context, which can 

help to put this number in perspective, see 

Tables 4-3 and 4-6. 

On average in the southern California crab 

fishery, 76 vessels participate annually, 

landing 15,100 pounds each (Thomson 

2001). We recognize that effects would not 

be distributed equally among vessels, and 

that those fishing in areas occupied by sea 

otters would be disproportionately affected. 

However, if the increased landings and exvessel revenue were distributed equally 

among these vessels, then each vessel would 

have increased landings of approximately 90 

pounds and increased revenue between $80 

to $100 totaled over 10 years (discounted at 

7 percent and 3 percent, respectively). 

As described in Chapter 5, we define levels 

of significance in this supplement by 

viewing projected effects on an entity or 

activity within the regional context of that 

entity or activity. Because Alternative 3B is 

expected to result in an increase in crab exvessel revenues within the Southern 

California Bight of 0.1 percent compared to 

the baseline (a total benefit of 6,900 pounds 

over 10 years compared to the projected 

total for southern California of 7.7 million 

pounds), the benefit is very low and 

therefore not significant (see Table 5-1 for 

definitions of levels of significance). 

6.6.5 AQUACULTURE

Effects on aquaculture resulting from 

Alternative 3B are essentially the same as 

for the baseline. Although Alternative 3B 

would require the removal of sea otters from 

San Nicolas Island, the removal of these 

animals is not likely to affect aquaculture 

operations noticeably compared to the 

baseline. The removal of sea otters from 

San Nicolas Island would not affect 

aquaculture because there are currently no 

aquaculture operations at San Nicolas 

Island. 

Therefore, just as under the baseline, the 

effects of Alternative 3B within the next 10 

years would likely be a local, episodic 

TABLE 6-39. CRAB LANDINGS: BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE 3B 

Year 

Commercial 

Landings 

(no 10% 

decrease at 

SNI) 

Commercial 

Landings 

(increase of 

6% at SNI) 

Total 

Increase in 

Commercial 

Landings 

Pounds) 

Total ExVessel 

Revenue* 

Total ExVessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(3%)* 

Total ExVessel 

Discounted 

Revenue 

(7%)* 

2005 63 102 165 $220 $213 $205 

2006 127 203 330 $439 $414 $384 

2007 190 305 495 $659 $603 $538 

2008 254 406 660 $878 $780 $670 

2009 317 406 724 $963 $830 $686 

2010 381 406 787 $1,047 $877 $698 

2011 444 406 851 $1,132 $920 $705 

2012 508 406 914 $1,216 $960 $708 

2013 571 406 978 $1,301 $997 $707 

2014 635 406 1,041 $1,385 $1,031 $704 

Total 

Benefits 3,492 3,454 6,947 $9,239 

$7,625 

(PV @ 3%) 

$6,005 

(PV @ 7%) 

Note: Benefits are rounded to the nearest dollar. 

*Ex-vessel revenue is based upon the average price fishers received for crab from 1994 to 2003, which is $1.33 

per pound in 2004 dollars. 

SNI=San Nicolas Island 

PV=present value 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 190

reduction of mussel densities on offshore oil 

platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel. 

Beyond 10 years, aquaculture operations 

located in other portions of the Southern 

California Bight may be affected by sea 

otters, but these effects are expected to be 

relatively minor. In April 2002, there were 

only 2 registered aquaculture leases in 

Ventura County (producing a variety of 

shellfish and finfish) and only 2 in San 

Diego County (producing exclusively 

abalone). Because sea otter range expansion 

is expected to occur gradually over the 

course of many decades, and because sea 

otters affect only some aquaculture 

operations (and these only at the local scale), 

effects on aquaculture operations overall 

would likely be minor. 

Although we assume here that the removal 

of sea otters from San Nicolas Island would 

result in their absence from the island for a 

period of one or more decades, and that their 

absence from the island would likely slow 

range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight, their removal 

could have unpredictable effects. First, 

some sea otters may return to San Nicolas 

Island immediately, in which case the shortterm effects projected as resulting from the 

removal of sea otters would be diminished 

by some unknown amount. In the case of 

aquaculture, there is no effect, regardless. 

Second, it is plausible that sea otters 

attempting to return to San Nicolas Island 

after removal could establish the seed of a 

colony at San Miguel Island or another 

island, thereby possibly shortening the time 

expected for sea otters to establish range in 

other parts of the Southern California Bight. 

In this case, effects described as resulting 

from a slowing of range expansion would be 

diminished by some unknown amount. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

aquaculture because of the extent of 

uncertainty involved. 

6.6.6 SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY (SEA 

URCHINS) 

Under Alternative 3B, impacts to the sea 

urchin processing industry would be a 

function of the change in sea urchin 

landings. Alternative 3B would have no 

additional impact on sea urchin landings 

along the coastline from Point Conception to 

Santa Barbara. However, the removal of sea 

otters from San Nicolas Island would 

increase southern California landings by one 

percent over 10 years. Thus, impacts to the 

sea urchin processing industry are likely to 

be minor, representing a slight benefit to the 

sea urchin processing industry compared to 

the baseline. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

these areas at the densities seen in the 

mainland range for comparable habitat, sea 

urchin harvesting would no longer be viable 

in these areas, and the sea urchin processing 

industry would be required to obtain sea 

urchins harvested from other areas of the 

Southern California Bight. The sea urchin 

processing industry would eventually be 

eliminated in southern California if sea 

otters reached carrying capacity where sea 

urchin harvesting occurs in the Southern 

California Bight and processors were unable 

to obtain sea urchins from elsewhere. This 

projection is equivalent to the baseline. 

Although we assume here that the removal 

of sea otters from San Nicolas Island would 

result in their absence from the island for a 

period of one or more decades, and that their 

absence from the island would likely slow 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 191

range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight, their removal 

could have unpredictable effects. First, 

some sea otters may return to San Nicolas 

Island immediately, in which case the shortterm effects projected as resulting from the 

removal of sea otters would be diminished 

by some unknown amount. Second, it is 

plausible that sea otters attempting to return 

to San Nicolas Island after removal could 

establish the seed of a colony at San Miguel 

Island or another island, thereby possibly 

shortening the time expected for sea otters to 

establish range in other parts of the Southern 

California Bight. In this case, effects 

described as resulting from a slowing of 

range expansion would be diminished by 

some unknown amount. 

Within 10 years, Alternative 3B is expected 

to have a beneficial effect of low 

significance on the seafood processing 

industry (resulting from an increase of 1 

percent in regional sea urchin inputs). 

6.6.7 KELP HARVEST

The effects of Alternative 3B on the amount 

of kelp available for harvest are the same as 

those for Alternative 3A and differ from the 

baseline only with respect to the removal of 

sea otters from San Nicolas Island (for a 

description of the relationship between sea 

otters and kelp abundance, see section 

6.2.2). 

The removal of animals from San Nicolas 

Island would eliminate the colony, probably 

resulting in minor increases in invertebrate 

prey populations within a few years. 

Removing sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island could impact the kelp harvest at the 

beds that are currently leased around the 

island’s nearshore areas. Any enhancement 

of kelp that would have been afforded by a 

colony persisting at San Nicolas Island (as 

projected under the baseline) would not 

occur, representing a possible slight cost to 

the kelp industry. Elimination of the sea 

otter colony at San Nicolas Island would 

likely slow sea otter recolonization of the 

Southern California Bight and thus would 

also delay possible associated increases in 

kelp abundance throughout the area. A 

slight loss to the kelp harvesting industry, 

compared to the baseline, could additionally 

result from this delay. 

Although we assume here that the removal 

of sea otters from San Nicolas Island would 

result in their absence from the island for a 

period of one or more decades, and that their 

absence from the island would likely slow 

range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight, their removal 

could have unpredictable effects. First, 

some sea otters may return to San Nicolas 

Island immediately, in which case the shortterm effects projected as resulting from the 

removal of sea otters would be diminished 

by some unknown amount. Second, it is 

plausible that sea otters attempting to return 

to San Nicolas Island after removal could 

establish the seed of a colony at San Miguel 

Island or another island, thereby possibly 

shortening the time expected for sea otters to 

establish range in other parts of the Southern 

California Bight. In this case, effects 

described as resulting from a slowing of 

range expansion would be diminished by 

some unknown amount. 

Significance criteria are not defined for kelp 

harvesting because of the extent of 

uncertainty involved. 

6.6.8 RECREATIONAL FISHING AND DIVING 

Recreational fishing and diving activities 

that may be affected by sea otters include 

lobster diving, abalone diving, and finfish 

fishing. Lobster diving and finfish fishing 

are addressed below. Abalone diving is 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 192

included under “Abalone Fishery 

Restoration” (section 6.6.9). 

Although we assume here that the removal 

of sea otters from San Nicolas Island would 

result in their absence from the island for a 

period of one or more decades, and that their 

absence from the island would likely slow 

range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight, their removal 

could have unpredictable effects. First, 

some sea otters may return to San Nicolas 

Island immediately, in which case the shortterm effects projected as resulting from the 

removal of sea otters would be diminished 

by some unknown amount. Second, it is 

plausible that sea otters attempting to return 

to San Nicolas Island after removal could 

establish the seed of a colony at San Miguel 

Island or another island, thereby possibly 

shortening the time expected for sea otters to 

establish range in other parts of the Southern 

California Bight. In this case, effects 

described as resulting from a slowing of 

range expansion would be diminished by 

some unknown amount. 

6.6.8.1 Lobster Diving 

Within the next 10 years under Alternative 

3B, the recreational lobster fishery would be 

(1) eliminated along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara and (2) 

improved at San Nicolas Island. The 

recreational lobster fishery under the 

baseline is projected to be eliminated along 

the coastline from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara (CDFG statistical blocks 654, 655, 

656, and 657). Therefore, there is no impact 

along the coastline compared to the baseline. 

Removing sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island may result in an increase in 

recreational sport diving trips, compared to 

the baseline, for two reasons. First, dive 

trips would not decrease the projected 10 

percent as in the baseline because there 

would be no sea otter population at the 

island. Therefore, recreational diving would 

not decrease the anticipated 285 trips from 

2005 to 2014. Second, recreational diving 

may increase because newly recruited 

lobsters or those lobsters that escaped 

predation in the past would now potentially 

be available for recreational harvest. This 

potential increase follows the assumption 

that recreational fishery impacts correspond 

directly to the sea otter’s carrying capacity 

percentage. As of 2004, sea otters were at 

about 6 percent of their estimated carrying 

capacity at the island. Thus, recreational 

dive trips would increase by approximately 

6 percent from the 10-year average of 521 

trips. We assume that the lobster population 

would rebound from sea otter predation in 

seven years25 for recreational harvest. We 

further assume that the associated increase 

in trips would be equally distributed across 

seven years, so that trips would rise by 1 

percent (about 5 trips) annually between 

2005 and 2011, stabilizing to an annual 

benefit of approximately 33 trips after 2011 

(Table 6-40). 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

these areas at the densities seen in the 

mainland range for comparable habitat, 

recreational lobster dive trips in these areas 

would likely approach zero. The removal of 

sea otters from San Nicolas Island may slow 

the movement of sea otters into the southern 

areas of the Southern California Bight. 

 

25 Spiny lobsters can reach a commercially 

harvestable size (3.5 inches carapace length) in 7 to 

11 years (Barsky 2001). We assume that landings 

would rebound prior to seven years because sea otters 

are unable to consume lobsters located in inaccessible 

habitat (deep crevices). Thus, the harvest may 

resume in a minimum time interval. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 193

Therefore, there may be a slight benefit to 

the recreational lobster fishery, compared to 

the baseline, as a result of some delay in sea 

otter predation. 

The benefit to the recreational lobster 

fishery under Alternative 3B would total 518 

trips over 10 years. On average in the 

southern California recreational fishery, 

there are 22 commercial passenger fishing 

vessels (CDFG 1995-2001). If the increased 

trips were distributed equally among these 

vessels, then each commercial passenger 

fishing vessel would supply 24 additional 

trips annually over 10 years, if there is 

demand for these additional trips. This 

change would represent a slight benefit to 

recreational lobster divers by increasing the 

potential for catching a lobster or increasing 

the number of dive trips taken compared to 

the baseline. 

Alternative 3B would provide the 

recreational lobster fishery with an average 

annual benefit (for the 10-year time frame) 

of about 52 trips. This benefit is less than 

one percent of the annual average of 8,983 

trips for the Southern California Bight (see 

section 6.2.8.1). Therefore, the beneficial 

effect resulting from Alternative 3B is very 

low and not significant. 

6.6.8.2 Finfish Fishing 

The effects of Alternative 3B are the same 

as for the baseline except with respect to San 

Nicolas Island. As described for the 

baseline, the presence of sea otters may 

improve habitat for recreationally important 

finfish and thus have a positive effect on the 

abundance of finfish available for harvest. 

Such changes would likely require more 

than 10 years to become noticeable (because 

the reestablishment of giant kelp canopies in 

areas where sea urchin grazing is limiting 

kelp is expected to take at least 10 years) 

and could occur gradually over several 

decades. A discussion of the long-term 

effects of sea otter predation on the kelp 

forest community, including finfish 

production, is given in section 6.2.2. 

The removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island is generally expected to affect 

recreational finfish fishing negatively 

relative to the baseline by eliminating the 

stabilizing and enhancing effects that a 

persistent sea otter colony may have on the 

kelp beds surrounding the island. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

areas of the Southern California Bight at the 

densities seen in the mainland range for 

comparable habitat, recreational finfish 

fishing may benefit. This long-term 

projection differs from the baseline only to 

the extent that the removal of sea otters from 

San Nicolas Island may slow the movement 

of sea otters into the southern areas of the 

Southern California Bight. 

TABLE 6-40. RECREATIONAL DIVE TRIPS: 

BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE 3B 

Year Dive Trip Increase 

(no 10% decrease) 

Dive Trip 

Increase (increase 

of 6%) 

2005 5 5 

2006 10 10 

2007 15 14 

2008 21 19 

2009 26 24 

2010 31 29 

2011 36 33 

2012 41 33 

2013 47 33 

2014 52 33 

Total 

Benefits 518 trips 

Note: Benefits are rounded to the nearest trip. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 194

Significance criteria are not defined for 

recreational finfish fishing because of the 

extent of uncertainty involved. 

6.6.9 ABALONE FISHERY RESTORATION

The effects of Alternative 3B are the same 

as for the baseline except with respect to San 

Nicolas Island. As described for the 

baseline, within 10 years sea otter range 

expansion along the coastline towards Santa 

Barbara would preclude the reestablishment 

of abalone fishing in that area. Because it 

does not appear that there is any potential 

for reopening the abalone fishery (for any 

species) during the next 10 years, regardless 

of the presence or absence of sea otters (see 

section 6.2.9), effects projected for the 

baseline, as for Alternative 3B, along the 

coastline during this time period are 

essentially speculative. 

San Nicolas Island is identified in the draft 

Abalone Recovery and Management Plan 

(CDFG 2002c) as 1 of 10 key recovery areas 

for black abalone. Compared to the 

baseline, removing sea otters from San 

Nicolas Island would increase the 

probability that black abalone would reach 

Criterion 1 (and possibly even Criteria 2 and 

3, at which point the population could be 

considered for a reopening of the abalone 

fishery). However, even if sea otters were 

successfully removed, it is possible that they 

would recolonize San Nicolas Island 

through natural range expansion before 

abalone populations have reached the 

fishery consideration phase (Criterion 3), 

which is expected to require several 

decades. In this case, a reopening of the 

abalone fishery would be precluded in this 

area. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

areas of the Southern California Bight at the 

densities seen in the mainland range for 

comparable habitat, the restoration of an 

abalone fishery in these areas would not be 

viable. This long-term projection differs 

from the baseline only to the extent that the 

removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island may slow the movement of sea otters 

into the southern areas of the Southern 

California Bight. 

Although we assume here that the removal 

of sea otters from San Nicolas Island would 

result in their absence from the island for a 

period of one or more decades, and that their 

absence from the island would likely slow 

range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight, their removal 

could have unpredictable effects. First, 

some sea otters may return to San Nicolas 

Island immediately, in which case the shortterm effects projected as resulting from the 

removal of sea otters would be diminished 

by some unknown amount. Second, it is 

plausible that sea otters attempting to return 

to San Nicolas Island after removal could 

establish the seed of a colony at San Miguel 

Island or another island, thereby possibly 

shortening the time expected for sea otters to 

establish range in other parts of the Southern 

California Bight. In this case, effects 

described as resulting from a slowing of 

range expansion would be diminished by 

some unknown amount. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

abalone fishery restoration because of the 

extent of uncertainty involved. 

6.6.10 ECOTOURISM 

The effects of Alternative 3B are the same 

as for Alternative 3A. They are also the 

same as for the baseline, except with respect 

to San Nicolas Island. As described for the 

baseline, tourism based on sea otter 

watching would be enhanced within 10 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 195

years as sea otters progressively reoccupy 

and begin to reside year-round along the 

stretch of mainland coastline between Point 

Conception and Santa Barbara. Overall 

economic value of this tourism is difficult to 

quantify and would not necessarily result in 

increased economic activity. Rather, it 

would likely manifest itself as an added 

value to other tourist draws in the area. 

The removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island is generally expected to affect 

ecotourism negatively relative to the 

baseline by reducing or eliminating the 

possibility of a sea otter sighting at the 

island. Under the baseline, we do not expect 

ecotourism in this area to grow considerably 

(in terms of number of trips) over the next 

10 years as a result of the increased 

abundance of sea otters, but we do expect 

that the quality of recreational trips to San 

Nicolas Island would be enhanced due to the 

better possibility of a sea otter sighting. 

The removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island could have unpredictable effects on 

the rapidity with which other areas of the 

Southern California Bight are recolonized, 

but it would likely slow recolonization 

because dispersing sea otters would come 

from only one direction (the mainland 

range). Generally, however, the long-term 

effects of Alternative 3B on ecotourism are 

expected to be the same as for the baseline. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

ecotourism because of the extent of 

uncertainty involved. 

6.6.11 FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY 

PROGRAMS

Significance criteria are not defined for 

effects on agency programs because these 

effects and programs are various and cannot 

be meaningfully compared with a single set 

of criteria. For a discussion of the 

regulatory environment, see section 6.6.12. 

In the following discussions, we assume that 

the removal of sea otters from San Nicolas 

Island would result in their absence from the 

island for a period of one or more decades, 

and that their absence from the island would 

likely slow range expansion into other areas 

(particularly the southern portions) of the 

Southern California Bight. Nevertheless, 

their removal could have unpredictable 

effects. First, some sea otters may return to 

San Nicolas Island immediately, in which 

case the short-term effects projected as 

resulting from the removal of sea otters 

would be diminished by some unknown 

amount. Second, it is plausible that sea 

otters attempting to return to San Nicolas 

Island after removal could establish the seed 

of a colony at San Miguel Island or another 

island, thereby possibly shortening the time 

expected for sea otters to establish range in 

other parts of the Southern California Bight. 

In this case, effects described as resulting 

from a slowing of range expansion would be 

diminished by some unknown amount. 

6.6.11.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

The effects of Alternative 3B on southern 

sea otter recovery are also addressed in 

section 6.6.3.3 (“Southern Sea Otter”). Here 

we address our ability to meet our mandates 

under the Endangered Species Act and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act and give the 

implementation costs of the alternative. 

ABILITY TO MEET MANDATE

Our ability to achieve recovery and OSP 

under Alternative 3B is the same as that 

described for 3A because the removal of sea 

otters from the management zone (required 

under Alternative 3A) is not likely to have 

any discernible effects at the population 

level (see section 6.6.11.1). 

Alternative 3B, like Alternative 3A, differs 

notably from the baseline with respect to the 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 196

regulatory provisions that would apply to 

sea otters in the Southern California Bight 

because the management and translocation 

zones would no longer exist. For a 

discussion of these provisions, see section 

6.6.12. 

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS (10-YEAR PERIOD) 

The change in the regulatory provisions that 

apply to sea otters in the Southern California 

Bight under Alternative 3B may result, in 

the long term, in increased coordination and 

consultation between the Service and other 

parties regarding activities that may affect 

the southern sea otter. Costs resulting from 

an increased consultation workload are not 

included here because few or no activities 

requiring consultation presently occur or are 

expected to occur in the area that sea otters 

would likely reoccupy within the next 10 

years. New implementation costs would be 

incurred under Alternative 3B. These costs 

derive from the removal sea otters from San 

Nicolas Island and include expenditures for 

personnel, transportation, and equipment 

(Table 6-41). 

Estimated expenditures are given in Table 6-

42. Activities related to the removal of sea 

otters from the translocation zone would be 

necessary for the first year. After all 

reasonable efforts were expended to remove 

sea otters from the zone, no further 

maintenance would continue. In the second 

year, only monitoring efforts would be 

implemented. Therefore, implementation 

costs would cease after the second year. 

The estimated expenditures given in Table 

6-42 represent the entire program costs for 

10 years. Based upon past and projected 

efforts, the non-discounted annual 

implementation costs would sum to about 

$848,000 over two years. 

TABLE 6-41. PERSONNEL AND 

EQUIPMENT NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT 

ALTERNATIVE 3B 

Personnel Transportation Equipment 

Program 

Manager 

2 Vans Boat 

Maintenance 

Capture 

Teams 

1 Tow Vehicle Dive Gear and 

Maintenance 

Transport 

Team 

2 Monitor 

Vehicles 

Tracking 

Equipment 

Monitoring 

Team 

Air Charters Training 

Veterinary 

Services 

Boat Charters 

 Travel Costs 

TABLE 6-42. IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR REMOVAL OF SEA OTTERS FROM SAN NICOLAS 

ISLAND 

Annual Cost 

Year 

Personnel Transportation Equipment 

Discounted Cost 

(3% discount rate) 

Discounted Cost 

(7% discount rate) 

2005 $535,000 $116,000 $85,000 $714,563 $687,850 

2006 $90,000 $21,000 $1,000 $105,571 $97,825 

2007 - - - - - 

2008 - - - - - 

2009 - - - - - 

2010 - - - - - 

2011 - - - - - 

2012 - - - - - 

2013 - - - - - 

2014 - - - - - 

Total $848,000 $820,134 (PV @ 3%) $785,676 (PV @ 7%) 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 197

6.6.11.2 Channel Islands National 

Park 

The effects of Alternative 3B are the same 

as those for 3A. Alternative 3B would allow 

sea otters to recolonize the Southern 

California Bight. While no effects of sea 

otters would be expected within 10 years, 

sea otters would likely eventually reestablish their range within Park boundaries. 

Alternative 3B is consistent with the mission 

and mission-related goals of the Channel 

Islands National Park to protect and restore 

natural ecosystems and to practice 

ecosystem management. 

Under Alternative 3B, the regulatory 

environment would change (see section 

6.6.12). The change in the regulatory 

provisions that apply to sea otters in the 

Southern California Bight under Alternative 

3B could result, in the long term, in 

increased coordination and consultation 

between the Service and Channel Islands 

National Park regarding activities that may 

affect the southern sea otter if sea otters 

recolonize historic range within Park 

boundaries. 

6.6.11.3 Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary 

The effects of Alternative 3B are the same 

as those for 3A. Alternative 3B would allow 

sea otters to recolonize the Southern 

California Bight. While no effects of sea 

otters would be expected within 10 years, 

sea otters would likely eventually reestablish their range within Sanctuary 

boundaries. Alternative 3B is consistent 

with the mission of the Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary to conserve and 

enhance the biodiversity, ecological 

integrity, and cultural legacy of areas of 

special national significance. 

Under Alternative 3B, the regulatory 

environment would change (see section 

6.6.12). The change in the regulatory 

provisions that apply to sea otters in the 

Southern California Bight under Alternative 

3B could result, in the long term, in 

increased coordination and consultation 

between the Service and Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary regarding 

activities that may affect the southern sea 

otter if sea otters recolonize historic range 

within Sanctuary boundaries. 

6.6.11.4 California Department of 

Fish and Game 

Note: Effects on the recovery of white and 

black abalone and sea otters are discussed 

under “Candidate, Threatened, and 

Endangered Species” (section 6.6.3). 

Effects on existing commercial fisheries and 

the restoration of the abalone fishery are 

discussed under “Commercial Fisheries” 

(section 6.6.4) and “Abalone Fishery 

Restoration” (section 6.6.9). Effects on 

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are 

discussed here. 

The effects of Alternative 3B are the same 

as those for 3A. Alternative 3B would allow 

sea otters to recolonize the Southern 

California Bight. While no effects of sea 

otters would be expected within 10 years, 

sea otters would likely eventually reestablish their range within MPA 

boundaries. In such as case, Alternative 3B 

would have a positive effect on Marine 

Protected Areas overall. For a full 

discussion of the expected effects of sea 

otters on Marine Protected Areas, see 

section 6.2.11.4. 

6.6.11.5 U.S. Navy 

Under Alternative 3B, the regulatory 

provisions that apply to sea otters in the 

Southern California Bight would change 

(see section 6.6.12). This change could 

result in increased coordination and 

consultation between the Service and the 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 198

U.S. Navy regarding activities that may 

affect the southern sea otter. Under 

Alternative 3B, sea otters would be removed 

from San Nicolas Island, but it is possible 

that some animals would return after 

removal efforts had ceased. To date, we 

have no evidence that defense-related 

activities have had any adverse effects on 

sea otters at San Nicolas Island or in the 

management zone. As mitigation for the 

effects of an increased regulatory burden on 

the U.S. Navy, we would propose to 

coordinate with the U.S. Navy to develop a 

programmatic consultation for activities that 

may affect southern sea otters. Because the 

U.S. Navy is already required to obtain an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act for the 

incidental non-lethal “take by harassment” 

of other marine mammals during missile and 

target launch operations at San Nicolas 

Island, the addition of a programmatic 

consultation for sea otters would likely 

introduce only a minor additional regulatory 

burden. 

6.6.11.6 U.S. Minerals Management 

Service 

The effects of 3B are regulatory and are the 

same as those under 3A. Under Alternative 

3B, the regulatory provisions that apply to 

sea otters in the Southern California Bight 

would change (see section 6.6.12). This 

change could result in increased 

coordination and consultation between the 

Service and the Minerals Management 

Service regarding activities that may affect 

the southern sea otter. However, the added 

consultation and permitting requirements for 

actions that may affect sea otters in the 

Southern California Bight would likely 

impose only a minor additional regulatory 

burden on the Minerals Management 

Service for the following reasons: 1) the 

physical presence of the oil industry is 

expected to diminish offshore of California 

over the next several decades (MMS pers. 

comm. 2005); 2) all proposed actions that 

may affect other threatened or endangered 

species or marine mammals are already 

subject to consultation and permitting 

requirements under the Endangered Species 

Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act; 3) 

the regulatory environment along the central 

California coast is identical to the regulatory 

environment that would result from 

implementation of this alternative, and 

requirements for consultations or permits 

related to the southern sea otter have been 

minimal; 4) southern sea otters would not be 

present in most of southern California for 

decades (if range expansion continues to 

occur). 

6.6.12 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

The regulatory environment under 

Alternative 3B would be identical to the 

regulatory environment under Alternatives 

3A and 3C, although the actual effects of 

regulatory changes relative to the baseline 

depend on the presence or absence of sea 

otters in the Southern California Bight (see 

section 6.6.11 for a discussion of possible 

scenarios). 

Under Alternative 3B, as under Alternatives 

3A and 3C, the translocation program would 

be declared a failure and terminated, the 

management and translocation zones would 

be abolished, and the provisions of Public 

Law 99-625 would become inoperative. 

California Fish and Game Code section 

8664.2 would also become inoperative. As 

a result, all activities that may affect 

southern sea otters within the Southern 

California Bight would be fully subject to 

the Endangered Species Act, the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, and California state 

law, including applicable consultation 

requirements and take prohibitions under 

these laws. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 199

All federal agencies planning activities that 

may affect southern sea otters in the 

Southern California Bight would be required 

to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service 

under section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act and seek authorization for incidental 

take of sea otters under the Endangered 

Species Act and provisions of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. If otherwise 

allowable under applicable state law, 

including California Fish and Game Code 

section 4700, non-federal activities that 

would result in take of southern sea otters in 

California would require incidental take 

authorization from the Fish and Wildlife 

Service under section 10(a)1(B) of the 

Endangered Species Act and section 

101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act. Incidental take of southern sea otters in 

commercial fisheries cannot be authorized 

under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

Therefore, incidental take of southern sea 

otters in commercial fisheries throughout the 

Southern California Bight would be 

prohibited, as it is currently prohibited 

throughout the remainder of the range of the 

species (north of Point Conception). 

Intentional take would continue to be 

prohibited unless authorized, as under the 

current regulations. 

This change in the regulatory environment 

would not be likely to result in substantial 

effects on activities now being conducted 

within the Southern California Bight for 

several reasons: 

1) The current regulatory environment 

along the central California coast is 

identical to the regulatory 

environment that would result from 

implementation of Alternatives 3A, 

3B, or 3C in the Southern California 

Bight. Commercial fishing 

activities, harbor maintenance, oil 

and gas exploration, and other 

human activities are similar in the 

two sections of coastline. Along the 

central coast, requirements for 

consultations and take authorizations 

under the Endangered Species Act 

and Marine Mammal Protection Act 

related to the southern sea otter have 

been minimal, and we would expect 

the same to be the case for the 

Southern California Bight. This is 

because there are few otherwise legal 

activities that result in take of 

southern sea otters and because the 

southern sea otter’s historic habitat, 

although somewhat degraded, is 

essentially intact. 

2) Southern sea otters would not be 

present in most of southern 

California for many decades. In fact, 

we cannot reliably assert that range 

expansion will occur at all. Critical 

habitat has not been designated for 

the southern sea otter and is not 

proposed or required (the southern 

sea otter was listed under the 

Endangered Species Act prior to 

passage of the requirement to 

designate critical habitat). With no 

sea otters present in most of the 

Southern California Bight and no 

designated critical habitat, the 

likelihood that adverse interactions 

between sea otters and human 

activities would occur would be less 

than the likelihood that currently 

exists along the central coast, where 

substantial numbers of sea otters are 

found, and where the regulatory 

environment is the same as that 

proposed under Alternatives 3A, 3B, 

and 3C. 

3) If the translocation program were 

declared a failure and terminated, 

California Fish and Game Code 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3B 200

section 4700 would prohibit all take, 

as defined and applied under state 

law, of southern sea otters, and the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

would prohibit incidental take of 

southern sea otters by commercial 

fisheries. Nevertheless, commercial 

fisheries in the Southern California 

Bight are unlikely to be adversely 

affected by the change in regulatory 

environment because few fisheries 

will likely interact with sea otters. 

Gill-net fisheries, historically a 

concern for incidental take of sea 

otters, are currently prohibited in the 

nearshore waters of southern 

California and the offshore Channel 

Islands where sea otters would be 

found (Marine Resources Protection 

Act, California Constitution Article 

10B). Dive fisheries (sea urchin, 

abalone) are extremely unlikely to 

result in take of sea otters by virtue 

of the methods they employ to 

harvest shellfish. Trap fisheries 

(lobster, crab, live-fish) could 

potentially result in the entrapment 

and drowning of sea otters and thus 

could be affected by a change in the 

regulatory environment. However, 

there are few data to assess the 

possibility of incidental take of 

southern sea otters in these fisheries, 

and therefore we cannot reliably 

anticipate the impact of this 

regulatory change on this segment of 

the commercial fishing community. 

4) Because of potential effects on the 

receiving population of sea otters in 

the mainland range caused by the 

relocation of sea otters removed 

from the translocation zone, we 

would be required to consult under 

section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act before implementation of this 

alternative. 

 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3C 201

6.7 Alternative 3C (Proposed 

Action)—Terminate Translocation 

Program; Do Not Remove Sea 

Otters Residing within the 

Translocation or Management 

Zones at the Time the Decision to 

Terminate is Made 

6.7.1 INTRODUCTION

Alternative 3 entails declaring the southern 

sea otter translocation program a failure and 

terminating the program, thereby 

eliminating the management zone and 

translocation zone established through 

Public Law 99-625 and 50 CFR §17(d). 

Sub-alternative 3C allows sea otters to 

remain at San Nicolas Island and in the 

management zone. No effort would be 

made to enforce a management zone, which 

would allow southern sea otters to 

recolonize historic range throughout the 

Southern California Bight. 

This action would not increase or decrease 

the projected sea otter range compared to the 

baseline. Rather, this action is identical to 

the baseline in all respects except with 

respect to regulatory changes. Even where 

effects do not differ from the baseline, we 

summarize those effects below. For a fuller 

discussion, however, please refer to section 

6.2, “Baseline (Status Quo)—The No Action 

Alternative.” 

6.7.2 NEARSHORE MARINE ECOSYSTEM

The effects of Alternative 3C on the 

nearshore marine ecosystem are the same as 

those described for the baseline. If sea 

otters reoccupied areas of the Southern 

California Bight as predicted, community 

level changes in the nearshore marine 

ecosystem would take place gradually. Over 

the next 10 years, an expanding mainland 

sea otter population would affect 

invertebrate populations from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara, considerably 

reducing their densities and restricting 

individuals to cryptic habitat. Changes in 

giant kelp abundance in this area of the coast 

would likely take a decade or more to 

become noticeable and would occur only in 

areas where invertebrate herbivory is 

limiting kelp recruitment and survival. 

Species dependent on kelp canopy would 

likely benefit from any increases in kelp 

abundance. 

Based on predictions of San Nicolas Island 

sea otter colony growth and assumptions 

relating the number of sea otters to effects 

on invertebrate populations, sea otter 

predation at San Nicolas Island is expected 

to increase by 10 percent over the next 10 

years. This level of predation may not result 

in measurable changes in the nearshore 

marine ecosystem over this period. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

effects on the nearshore marine ecosystem 

because of the extent of uncertainty 

involved. 

 

Whether sea otters would reoccupy other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. Those areas reoccupied by 

sea otters would eventually exhibit the kinds 

of changes described in section 6.2.2. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

effects on the nearshore marine ecosystem 

because of the extent of uncertainty 

involved. 

6.7.3 EFFECTS ON CANDIDATE,

THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

6.7.3.1 White Abalone 

Effects on white abalone resulting from the 

implementation of Alternative 3C are the 

same as for the baseline (see section 6.2.3.1, 

“Establishing the Baseline for White 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3C 202

Abalone”). Just as under baseline 

conditions, natural sea otter range expansion 

may progress into the Southern California 

Bight, resulting in possible sea otter 

predation on white abalone along the 

coastline to Santa Barbara within the next 10 

years. Beyond 10 years, it is possible that 

sea otters would continue to expand their 

range, but it would likely be many decades 

before sea otters reoccupied range in the 

southern portions of the Southern California 

Bight where key recovery areas for white 

abalone have been identified (CDFG 2002c). 

The overall effects of sea otter predation 

would likely be minor, most notably because 

white abalone and sea otter foraging depth 

ranges overlap only marginally, and because 

the highest abundances of white abalone 

occur at offshore banks (Tanner and Cortez), 

which are not known to be utilized by sea 

otters and thus likely provide a full refuge 

from sea otter predation. 

 

Although it is unlikely that implementation 

of Alternative 3C would have adverse 

effects on white abalone at the population 

level, it is possible that sea otters, 

unrestricted by a management zone, may 

find and consume individual white abalone. 

Therefore, we would request formal 

consultation with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act and confer with the 

California Department of Fish and Game if 

this alternative is selected. Because the 

effects of Alternative 3C are the same as for 

the baseline, the impact of this alternative on 

the recovery of white abalone is not 

significant. 

6.7.3.2 Black Abalone 

Effects on black abalone resulting from the 

implementation of Alternative 3C are the 

same as for the baseline (see section 6.2.3.2, 

“Establishing the Baseline for Black 

Abalone). Under the baseline, sea otters are 

expected to expand their range gradually 

along the coastline between Point 

Conception and Santa Barbara and to 

increase in number at San Nicolas Island. 

The coastline between Point Conception and 

Santa Barbara, which sea otters are expected 

to affect through predation within the next 

10 years, has not been identified as an 

important area for black abalone recovery 

because intertidal habitat along much of this 

section of coastline does not support black 

abalone. However, San Nicolas Island has 

been identified by the California Department 

of Fish and Game as 1 of 10 key locations 

for the recovery of black abalone (CDFG 

2002c). 

The effect that a persistent colony of sea 

otters would have on black abalone at the 

island is uncertain, but the fact sea otters and 

black abalone historically co-occurred at the 

island suggests that black abalone 

populations would have sufficient refuge 

from sea otter predation to maintain viable 

populations there. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. The effect that sea otters 

may have on severely depleted black 

abalone stocks throughout the area is 

uncertain, but if sea otters do recolonize the 

Southern California Bight, the process 

would likely occur gradually over the course 

of several decades, allowing time for black 

abalone populations to recover from the 

effects of human harvest and disease in the 

absence of predation pressure from sea 

otters. Ultimately, in areas of the Southern 

California Bight with sufficient cryptic and 

inaccessible habitat, black abalone 

populations would likely persist and have 

the opportunity to recover in the presence of 

sea otters. However, in areas with 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3C 203

insufficient cryptic and inaccessible habitat, 

into which black abalone populations may 

have expanded in the absence of sea otters, 

abalone would be more vulnerable to 

predation resulting from sea otter range 

expansion. 

 

If sea otters are unrestricted by a 

management zone, predation of black 

abalone in the Southern California Bight is 

likely to occur. We would therefore confer 

with the National Marine Fisheries Service 

and the California Department of Fish and 

Game if Alternative 3C is selected. 

Because the effects of Alternative 3C are the 

same as for the baseline, the impact of this 

alternative on the recovery of black abalone 

is not significant. 

6.7.3.3 Southern Sea Otter 

Effects on southern sea otters resulting from 

the implementation of Alternative 3C are the 

same as for the baseline, except for potential 

positive effects resulting from regulatory 

changes if incidental take is affecting sea 

otters (see section 6.7.12). Under 

Alternative 3C, as under baseline conditions, 

sea otters may expand their range naturally 

into the Southern California Bight. This 

scenario maximizes the opportunity for 

southern sea otter recovery by allowing sea 

otters to recolonize historic habitat. 

Although the marine habitat in the Southern 

California Bight has been degraded by a 

multitude of human activities, the southern 

sea otter range has expanded into this area. 

Allowing natural range expansion also 

avoids the potential threat to the species 

caused by capturing and releasing sea otters 

in other parts of the mainland range and 

avoids the potential for injuring or killing 

individual sea otters removed from the 

management zone. 

Alternative 3C reflects all recommendations 

made in the revised recovery plan for the 

southern sea otter with respect to the 

translocation program (USFWS 2003). The 

revised recovery plan continues to focus on 

efforts to increase the size of the southern 

sea otter’s population; however, it no longer 

recommends translocating sea otters as a 

means to achieve this goal. Rather, the plan 

advises against additional translocations 

(USFWS 2003). Additionally, the recovery 

team recommends declaring the 

translocation program a failure, allowing 

natural range expansion to occur, and 

allowing the colony at San Nicolas Island to 

remain at the island rather than capturing 

these sea otters and releasing them in the 

mainland range (USFWS 2003). 

In all respects except the regulatory changes 

that pertain to the southern sea otter under 

this alternative, the effects of Alternative 3C 

are the same as for the baseline. The 

potential benefit of the reversion to 

“threatened” status for southern sea otters is 

difficult to estimate because its value can be 

realized only in reference to future actions 

that may affect members of the species 

found in the Southern California Bight. If, 

in the future, the incidental take of sea otters 

were shown to be hindering the recovery of 

the species, then the value of the regulatory 

change could be high. Based on current 

levels of activity in the Southern California 

Bight, we would expect that the regulatory 

change would result in a beneficial effect of 

low significance. 

6.7.4 COMMERCIAL FISHERIES

For a discussion of the regulatory 

environment (including as it pertains to 

commercial fisheries) see section 6.7.12. 

6.7.4.1 Sea Urchin Fishery 

Effects on the commercial sea urchin fishery 

resulting from the implementation of 

Alternative 3C are the same as for the 

baseline. Along the affected coastline (Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara), the 10-year 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3C 204

landings average is 194,463 pounds. We 

assume that once an area is permanently 

occupied by sea otters, the commercial sea 

urchin fishery would no longer be viable in 

that area. Thus, we assume that sea urchin 

landings along the affected coastline would 

decrease 10 percent (19,446 pounds) each 

year, from 194,463 pounds to 175,016

pounds in 2005 to 155,170 pounds in 2006, 

and so forth to zero landings in 2014. 

Around San Nicolas Island, the 10-year 

landings average is 1,152,340 pounds. We 

assume that the commercial sea urchin 

fishery in this area would decrease by 

approximately 10 percent over 10 years. 

Thus, we assume that sea urchin landings 

from San Nicolas Island would decrease by 

1 percent (11,523 pounds) each year, from 

1,152,340 pounds to 1,140,816 pounds in 

2005 to 1,129,293 pounds in 2006, and so 

forth to 1,037,106 pounds in 2014. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

these areas at the densities seen in the 

mainland range for comparable habitat, 

commercial sea urchin landings would 

approach zero because sea urchin fishers 

would fish other areas where their catch per 

unit effort would be greater. Because the 

effects of Alternative 3C are the same as for 

the baseline, the impact of this alternative on 

the commercial sea urchin fishery is not 

significant. 

6.7.4.2 Spiny Lobster Fishery 

Effects on the commercial lobster fishery 

resulting from the implementation of 

Alternative 3C are the same as for the 

baseline. From the 10-year average, we 

project lobster harvest impacts as a direct 

function of sea otter occupation in each area. 

Along the affected coastline (Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara), the 10-year 

landings average is 29,308 pounds. We 

assume that once an area is permanently 

occupied by sea otters, the commercial 

lobster fishery would no longer be viable in 

that area. Thus, we assume that lobster 

landings along the affected coastline would 

decrease 10 percent (2,931 pounds) each 

year, from 29,308 pounds to 26,378 pounds 

in 2005 to 23,447 pounds in 2006, and so 

forth to zero landings in 2014. Around San 

Nicolas Island, the 10-year landings average 

is 37,722 pounds. We assume that the 

commercial lobster fishery in this area 

would decrease by approximately 10 percent 

over 10 years. Thus, we assume that lobster 

landings from San Nicolas Island would 

decrease by 1 percent (377 pounds) each 

year, from 37,722 pounds to 37,345 pounds 

in 2005 to 36,968 pounds in 2006, and so 

forth to 33,950 pounds in 2014. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

these areas at the densities seen in the 

mainland range for comparable habitat, 

commercial lobster landings would likely 

approach zero in these areas because lobster 

fishers would fish other areas where their 

catch per unit effort would be greater. 

Because the effects of Alternative 3C are the 

same as for the baseline, the impact of this 

alternative on the commercial lobster fishery 

is not significant. 

6.7.4.3 Crab Fishery 

Effects on the commercial crab fishery 

resulting from the implementation of 

Alternative 3C are the same as for the 

baseline. Along the affected coastline (Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara), the 10-year 

landings average is 153,545 pounds. We 

assume that once an area is permanently 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3C 205

occupied by sea otters, the commercial crab 

fishery would no longer be viable in that 

area. Thus, we assume that crab landings 

along the coastline would decrease 10 

percent (15,355 pounds) each year, from 

153,545 pounds to 138,191 pounds in 2005 

to 122,836 pounds in 2006, and so forth to 

zero landings in 2014. Around San Nicolas 

Island, the 10-year landings average is 6,350

pounds. We assume that the commercial 

crab fishery in this area would decrease by 

approximately 10 percent over 10 years. 

Thus, we assume that crab landings from 

San Nicolas Island would decrease by 1 

percent (64 pounds) each year, from 6,350

pounds to 6,287 pounds in 2005 to 6,223

pounds in 2006, and so forth to 5,715

pounds in 2014. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

these areas at the densities seen in the 

mainland range for comparable habitat, 

commercial crab landings would approach 

zero because crab fishers would fish other 

areas where their catch per unit effort would 

be greater. Because the effects of 

Alternative 3C are the same as for the 

baseline, the impact of this alternative on the 

commercial crab fishery is not significant. 

6.7.5 AQUACULTURE

Effects on aquaculture resulting from 

Alternative 3C are the same as for the 

baseline. Therefore, just as under the 

baseline, the effects of Alternative 3C within 

the next 10 years would likely be a local, 

episodic reduction of mussel densities on 

offshore oil platforms in the Santa Barbara 

Channel. Beyond 10 years, aquaculture 

operations located in other portions of the 

Southern California Bight may be affected 

by sea otters, but these effects are expected 

to be relatively minor. In April 2002, there 

were only 2 registered aquaculture leases in 

Ventura County (producing a variety of 

shellfish and finfish) and only 2 in San 

Diego County (producing exclusively 

abalone). Because sea otter range expansion 

is expected to occur gradually over the 

course of many decades, and because sea 

otters affect only some aquaculture 

operations (and these only at the local scale), 

effects on aquaculture operations overall 

would likely be minor. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

aquaculture because of the extent of 

uncertainty involved. 

6.7.6 SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY (SEA 

URCHINS) 

Effects on the seafood processing industry 

resulting from the implementation of 

Alternative 3C are the same as for the 

baseline. Under the baseline (no attempt to 

manage sea otters), changes in the southern 

California sea urchin processing industry 

may occur. The southern sea otter’s range is 

expected to expand along the coastline 

towards the city of Santa Barbara over the 

next 10 years. Sea otter predation is 

projected to reduce the total commercial sea 

urchin harvest in the Southern California 

Bight, and thus inputs to southern California 

sea urchin processing facilities, by 3 percent 

over the next 10 years due to (1) the 

elimination of the commercial sea urchin 

fishery along the coastline from Point 

Conception to Santa Barbara, and (2) the 10 

percent decline of the commercial sea urchin 

harvest at San Nicolas Island. Whether sea 

otters would reoccupy other areas of the 

Southern California Bight in subsequent 

years would be a function of sea otter 

demographic rates, food supply, and other 

variables. Those areas reoccupied by sea 

otters would cease to be a source of sea 

urchin inputs to the seafood processing 

industry, but the magnitude and timing of 

this potential future change is unknown. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3C 206

Because the effects of Alternative 3C are the 

same as for the baseline, the impact of this 

alternative on the seafood processing 

industry is not significant. 

6.7.7 KELP HARVEST

Effects on commercial kelp harvesting 

resulting from the implementation of 

Alternative 3C are the same as for the 

baseline. Sea otter predation on herbivores 

is generally expected to promote the growth 

of dense beds of giant kelp (for a description 

of the relationship between sea otters and 

kelp abundance, see section 6.2.2). 

However, because kelp distribution in areas 

of suitable substrate is not strictly correlated 

with grazing pressure (storms, pollution, 

water temperature, and other factors can also 

limit kelp), the magnitude of impact to this 

industry cannot be reasonably predicted. 

Within 10 years, sea otters are expected to 

reduce invertebrate prey populations only 

along the coastline from Point Conception to 

Santa Barbara and at San Nicolas Island. 

Sea otters would likely have a greater effect 

in the former area, where they are expected 

to reach the densities required to reduce 

populations of invertebrate herbivores 

considerably. However, the reestablishment 

of kelp canopy in areas where it is limited 

by grazing pressure may require a decade or 

more to occur after the reduction of 

herbivore populations (Dayton and Tegner 

1984), and thus no changes in kelp may be 

noticeable immediately. 

The impact around San Nicolas Island is 

likely to be minimal over the next 10 years 

because the sea otter population is expected 

to reach only 16 percent of the estimated 

carrying capacity for the island. Although 

some increased predation on invertebrate 

herbivore populations at the island is 

expected, San Nicolas Island presently has 

extensive kelp forests. The predicted 

increase in sea otter numbers would not 

likely result in noticeable effects, but the 

persistence and density of these kelp beds 

may be enhanced. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. Those areas reoccupied by 

sea otters would likely exhibit a general 

increase in the distribution and abundance of 

kelp where it is limited by invertebrate 

herbivores. 

Significance criteria are not defined for kelp 

harvesting because of the extent of 

uncertainty involved. 

6.7.8 RECREATIONAL FISHING AND DIVING

Recreational fishing and diving activities 

that may be affected by sea otters include 

lobster diving, abalone diving, and finfish 

fishing. Lobster diving and finfish fishing 

are addressed below. Abalone diving is 

included under “Abalone Fishery 

Restoration” (section 6.7.9). 

6.7.8.1 Lobster Diving 

Effects on lobster diving resulting from the 

implementation of Alternative 3C are the 

same as for the baseline. Under Alternative 

3C, lobster fishing trips would be eliminated 

along the coastline from Point Conception to 

Santa Barbara as sea otters gradually 

establish range in the area. Assuming that 

this decrease would be distributed evenly 

across 10 years, lobster dive trips would 

decrease 10 percent (about 1 trip) each year 

from 9 trips (9-year average) to 8 trips in 

2005, and so forth to zero trips in 2014. 

Around San Nicolas Island, the average 

number of annual trips is 521. Using the 

same approach as for the coastline area, trips 

around San Nicolas Island are predicted to 

decrease 1 percent per year over 10 years 

from 521 trips (9-year average) to 516 trips 

in 2005 to 511 trips in 2006, and so forth to 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3C 207

469 trips in 2014. Because the data on 

which this projection is based represent only 

commercial passenger fishing vessels (no 

private dive trips are included), the number 

of dive trips may be underestimated. 

Because the effects of Alternative 3C are the 

same as for the baseline, the impact of this 

alternative on recreational lobster diving is 

not significant. 

6.7.8.2 Finfish Fishing 

The effects of Alternative 3C are the same 

as for the baseline. As described for the 

baseline, the presence of sea otters may 

improve habitat for recreationally important 

finfish and thus have a positive effect on the 

abundance of finfish available for harvest. 

Such changes would likely require more 

than 10 years to become noticeable (because 

the reestablishment of giant kelp canopies in 

areas where sea urchin grazing is limiting 

kelp is expected to take at least 10 years) 

and could occur gradually over several 

decades. A discussion of the long-term 

effects of sea otter predation on the kelp 

forest community, including finfish 

production, is given in section 6.2.2. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

areas of the Southern California Bight at the 

densities seen in the mainland range for 

comparable habitat, recreational finfish 

fishing would benefit. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

recreational finfish fishing because of the 

extent of uncertainty involved. 

6.7.9 ABALONE FISHERY RESTORATION

The effects of Alternative 3C on abalone 

fishery restoration are the same as for the 

baseline. As described for the baseline, 

within 10 years sea otter range expansion 

along the coastline towards Santa Barbara 

would preclude the reestablishment of 

abalone fishing in that area. Because it does 

not appear that there is any potential for 

reopening the abalone fishery (for any 

species) during the next 10 years, regardless 

of the presence or absence of sea otters (see 

section 6.2.9), effects projected for the 

baseline, as for Alternative 3C, along the 

coastline during this time period are 

essentially speculative. 

Over the next 10 years, sea otters at San 

Nicolas Island (CDFG statistical blocks 813 

and 814) are expected to increase from 6 

percent of carrying capacity in 2004 to 16 

percent of carrying capacity in 2014. 

Abalone populations at San Nicolas Island 

are expected to persist as sea otter predation 

increases. However, densities of large 

individual abalone would likely eventually 

be reduced to a point that would preclude 

reestablishment of an abalone fishery at the 

island. If the colony at San Nicolas Island 

persists as projected, the area surrounding 

the island would likely be disqualified from 

abalone fishery consideration on the grounds 

that it is not “outside of the sea otter range” 

(CDFG 2002c). 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonized 

areas of the Southern California Bight at the 

densities seen in the mainland range for 

comparable habitat, the restoration of an 

abalone fishery in these areas would not be 

viable. Whether or when an abalone fishery 

could be reestablished in the absence of sea 

otters is uncertain, but it is clear that sea 

otter range expansion would preclude the 

possibility of recreational or commercial 

abalone fishing in reoccupied areas. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3C 208

Significance criteria are not defined for 

abalone fishery restoration because of the 

extent of uncertainty involved. 

6.7.10 ECOTOURISM

Effects on ecotourism resulting from the 

implementation of Alternative 3C are the 

same as for the baseline. Over the next 10 

years, southern sea otters are expected to 

recolonize the stretch of coastline from Point 

Conception to the Santa Barbara harbor 

mouth, with a median number of 117 sea 

otters residing year-round south of Point 

Conception by the end of the 10-year period. 

Tourism, based on sea otter watching, would 

be enhanced with sea otters residing along a 

coastline accessible by a well-traveled 

highway. Overall economic value of this 

tourism is difficult to quantify and would 

not necessarily result in increased economic 

activity. Rather, it would likely manifest 

itself as an added value to other tourist 

draws in the area. 

The sea otter colony at San Nicolas Island is 

expected to increase by 9 percent annually, 

resulting in an estimated population size of 

79 in 2014. San Nicolas Island is not 

currently an important destination for 

ecotourism (U.S. Department of Defense 

2002) relative to the other Channel Islands 

because of its isolation from other islands, 

its distance from the mainland, and the 

periodic closure of waters for military 

operations. We do not expect ecotourism in 

this area to grow considerably (in terms of 

number of trips) due to the increased 

abundance of sea otters. Rather, the quality 

of recreational trips that do occur at San 

Nicolas Island would likely be enhanced due 

to increased opportunities to see sea otters. 

Whether sea otters would recolonize other 

nearshore areas of the Southern California 

Bight after 10 years would be a function of 

their demographic rates, food supply, and 

other variables. If sea otters recolonize 

other areas of the Southern California Bight, 

ecotourism would likely be enhanced in 

those areas. 

Significance criteria are not defined for 

ecotourism because of the extent of 

uncertainty involved. 

6.7.11 FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY 

PROGRAMS

Significance criteria are not defined for 

effects on agency programs because these 

effects and programs are various and cannot 

be meaningfully compared with a single set 

of criteria. For a discussion of the 

regulatory environment, see section 6.7.12. 

6.7.11.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

The effects of Alternative 3C on southern 

sea otter recovery are also addressed in 

section 6.7.3.3 (“Southern Sea Otter”). Here 

we address our ability to meet our mandates 

under the Endangered Species Act and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act and give the 

implementation costs of the alternative. 

ABILITY TO MEET MANDATE

Alternative 3C provides the best opportunity 

for us to meet our mandate to bring southern 

sea otters to recovery and OSP for three 

reasons: 1) it maximizes the area available 

for sea otters to recolonize; 2) it does not 

require the movement of any sea otters, 

which can have a detrimental effect on the 

individuals moved as well as on the 

receiving population; and 3) it makes 

additional legal protections available to sea 

otters in the Southern California Bight 

(should these become necessary) by 

reverting their status to that of sea otters in 

the mainland range (i.e., threatened). 

Alternative 3C would permit the possible 

eventual expansion of sea otters throughout 

their historic range in the Southern 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3C 209

California Bight. Although the time that 

would be required for sea otters to reach 

recovery and OSP is unknown, Alternative 

3C would likely result in a more rapid 

colonization of the Southern California 

Bight than Alternatives3A and 3B because 

the colony at San Nicolas Island would be 

allowed to remain there. If the colony 

persisted, it could eventually become a 

source of dispersing sea otters. Although 

removal of sea otters from the island (as 

required under Alternatives3A and 3B) 

could result in the attempted return of some 

of these sea otters and the establishment of 

small groups in other areas of the Southern 

California Bight, such as at San Miguel 

Island (thereby possibly increasing the 

rapidity with which other areas of the 

Southern California Bight are recolonized) it 

could also result in the deaths of some 

individuals and overall would be detrimental 

to the colony and the receiving population in 

the mainland range. 

Alternative 3C, like Alternatives 3A and 3B, 

differs notably from the baseline with 

respect to the regulatory provisions that 

would apply to sea otters in the Southern 

California Bight because the management 

and translocation zones would no longer 

exist. For a discussion of these provisions, 

see section 6.7.12. 

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS (10-YEAR PERIOD) 

The change in the regulatory provisions that 

apply to sea otters in the Southern California 

Bight under Alternative 3C could result, in 

the long term, in increased coordination and 

consultation between the Service and other 

parties regarding activities that may affect 

the southern sea otter. Costs resulting from 

an increased consultation workload are not 

included here because few or no activities 

requiring consultation presently occur or are 

expected to occur in the area that sea otters 

would likely reoccupy within the next 10 

years. No implementation costs are 

associated with Alternative 3C. 

6.7.11.2 Channel Islands National 

Park 

The effects of Alternative 3C are the same 

as under the baseline scenario. Alternative 

3C would allow sea otters to recolonize the 

Southern California Bight. While no effects 

of sea otters would be expected within 10 

years, sea otters would likely eventually reestablish their range within Park boundaries. 

Alternative 3C is consistent with the mission 

and mission-related goals of the Channel 

Islands National Park to protect and restore 

natural ecosystems and to practice 

ecosystem management. 

Under Alternative 3C, the regulatory 

provisions that apply to sea otters in the 

Southern California Bight would change 

(see section 6.7.12). This change could 

result, in the long term, in increased 

coordination and consultation between the 

Service and Channel Islands National Park 

regarding activities that may affect the 

southern sea otter if sea otters recolonize 

historic range within Park boundaries. 

6.7.11.3 Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary 

The effects of Alternative 3C are the same 

as under the baseline scenario. Alternative 

3C would allow sea otters to recolonize the 

Southern California Bight. While no effects 

of sea otters would be expected within 10 

years, sea otters would likely eventually reestablish their range within Sanctuary 

boundaries. Alternative 3C is consistent 

with the mission of the Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary to conserve and 

enhance the biodiversity, ecological 

integrity, and cultural legacy of areas of 

special national significance. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3C 210

Under Alternative 3C, the regulatory 

provisions that apply to sea otters in the 

Southern California Bight would change 

(see section 6.7.12). This change could 

result, in the long term, in increased 

coordination and consultation between the 

Service and Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary regarding activities that 

may affect the southern sea otter if sea otters 

recolonize historic range within Sanctuary 

boundaries. 

6.7.11.4 California Department of 

Fish and Game 

Note: Effects on the recovery of white and 

black abalone and sea otters are discussed 

under “Candidate, Threatened, and 

Endangered Species” (section 6.7.3). 

Effects on existing commercial fisheries and 

the restoration of the abalone fishery are 

discussed under “Commercial Fisheries” 

(section 6.7.4) and “Abalone Fishery 

Restoration” (section 6.7.9). Effects on 

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are 

discussed here. 

Effects on Marine Protected Areas are the 

same as under the baseline scenario. 

Alternative 3C would allow sea otters to 

recolonize the Southern California Bight. 

While no effects of sea otters would be 

expected within 10 years, sea otters would 

likely eventually re-establish their range 

within MPA boundaries. In this case, 

Alternative 3C would have a positive effect 

on Marine Protected Areas overall. For a 

full discussion of the expected effects of sea 

otters on Marine Protected Areas, see 

section 6.2.11.4. 

6.7.11.5 U.S. Navy 

The effects of Alternative 3C on the U.S. 

Navy are regulatory and are the same as 

under Alternatives 3A and 3B. Under 

Alternative 3C, the regulatory provisions 

that apply to sea otters in the Southern 

California Bight would change (see section 

6.7.12). This change would likely result in 

increased coordination and consultation 

between the Service and the U.S. Navy 

regarding activities that may affect the 

southern sea otter. Under Alternative 3C, 

sea otters would not be removed from San 

Nicolas Island. To date, we have no 

evidence that defense-related activities have 

had any adverse effects on sea otters at San 

Nicolas Island or in the management zone. 

As mitigation for the effects of an increased 

regulatory burden on the U.S. Navy, we 

would propose to coordinate with the U.S. 

Navy to develop a programmatic 

consultation for activities that may affect 

southern sea otters. Because the U.S. Navy 

is already required to obtain an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act for the incidental 

non-lethal “take by harassment” of other 

marine mammals during missile and target 

launch operations at San Nicolas Island, the 

addition of a programmatic consultation for 

sea otters would likely introduce only a 

minor additional regulatory burden. 

6.7.11.6 U.S. Minerals Management 

Service 

The effects of Alternative 3C are regulatory 

and are the same as under Alternatives 3A 

and 3B. Under Alternative 3C, the 

regulatory provisions that apply to sea otters 

in the Southern California Bight would 

change (see section 6.7.12). This change 

could result in increased coordination and 

consultation between the Service and the 

Minerals Management Service regarding 

activities that may affect the southern sea 

otter. However, the added consultation and 

permitting requirements for actions that may 

affect sea otters in the Southern California 

Bight would likely impose only a minor 

additional regulatory burden on the Minerals 

Management Service for the following 

reasons: 1) the physical presence of the oil 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3C 211

industry is expected to diminish offshore of 

California over the next several decades 

(MMS pers. comm. 2005); 2) all proposed 

actions that may affect other threatened or 

endangered species or marine mammals are 

already subject to consultation and 

permitting requirements under the 

Endangered Species Act and Marine 

Mammal Protection Act; 3) the regulatory 

environment along the central California 

coast is identical to the regulatory 

environment that would result from 

implementation of this alternative, and 

requirements for consultations or permits 

related to the southern sea otter have been 

minimal; 4) southern sea otters would not be 

present in most of southern California for 

decades (if range expansion continues to 

occur). 

6.7.12 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

The regulatory environment under 

Alternative 3C identical to the regulatory 

environment under Alternatives 3A and 3B, 

although the actual effects of regulatory 

changes relative to the baseline depend on 

the presence or absence of sea otters in the 

Southern California Bight. 

Under Alternative 3C, as under Alternatives 

3A and 3B, the translocation program would 

be declared a failure and terminated, the 

management and translocation zones would 

be abolished, and the provisions of Public 

Law 99-625 would become inoperative. 

California Fish and Game Code section 

8664.2 would also become inoperative. As 

a result, all activities that may affect 

southern sea otters within the Southern 

California Bight would be fully subject to 

the Endangered Species Act, the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, and California state 

law, including applicable consultation 

requirements and take prohibitions under 

these laws. 

All federal agencies planning activities that 

may affect southern sea otters in the 

Southern California Bight would be required 

to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service 

under section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act and seek authorization for incidental 

take of sea otters under the Endangered 

Species Act and provisions of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. If otherwise 

allowable under applicable state law, 

including California Fish and Game Code 

section 4700, non-federal activities that 

would result in take of southern sea otters in 

California would require incidental take 

authorization from the Fish and Wildlife 

Service under section 10(a)1(B) of the 

Endangered Species Act and section 

101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act. Incidental take of southern sea otters in 

commercial fisheries cannot be authorized 

under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

Therefore, incidental take of southern sea 

otters in commercial fisheries throughout the 

Southern California Bight would be 

prohibited, as it is currently prohibited 

throughout the remainder of the range of the 

species (north of Point Conception). 

Intentional take would continue to be 

prohibited unless authorized, as under the 

current regulations. 

This change in the regulatory environment 

would not be likely to result in substantial 

effects on activities now being conducted 

within the Southern California Bight for 

several reasons: 

1) The current regulatory environment 

along the central California coast is 

identical to the regulatory 

environment that would result from 

implementation of Alternatives 3A, 

3B, or 3C in the Southern California 

Bight. Commercial fishing 

activities, harbor maintenance, oil 

and gas exploration, and other 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Alternative 3C 212

human activities are similar in the 

two sections of coastline. Along the 

central coast, requirements for 

consultations and take authorizations 

under the Endangered Species Act 

and Marine Mammal Protection Act 

related to the southern sea otter have 

been minimal, and we would expect 

the same to be the case for the 

Southern California Bight. This is 

because there are few otherwise legal 

activities that result in take of 

southern sea otters and because the 

southern sea otter’s historic habitat, 

although somewhat degraded, is 

essentially intact. 

2) Southern sea otters would not be 

present in most of southern 

California for many decades. In fact, 

we cannot reliably assert that range 

expansion will occur at all. Critical 

habitat has not been designated for 

the southern sea otter and is not 

proposed or required (the southern 

sea otter was listed under the 

Endangered Species Act prior to 

passage of the requirement to 

designate critical habitat). With no 

sea otters present in most of the 

Southern California Bight and no 

designated critical habitat, the 

likelihood that adverse interactions 

between sea otters and human 

activities would occur would be less 

than the likelihood that currently 

exists along the central coast, where 

substantial numbers of sea otters are 

found, and where the regulatory 

environment is the same as that 

proposed under Alternatives 3A, 3B, 

and 3C. 

3) If the translocation program were 

declared a failure and terminated, 

California Fish and Game Code 

section 4700 would prohibit all take, 

as defined and applied under state 

law, of southern sea otters, and the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

would prohibit incidental take of 

southern sea otters by commercial 

fisheries. Nevertheless, commercial 

fisheries in the Southern California 

Bight are unlikely to be adversely 

affected by the change in regulatory 

environment because few fisheries 

will likely interact with sea otters. 

Gill-net fisheries, historically a 

concern for incidental take of sea 

otters, are currently prohibited in the 

nearshore waters of southern 

California and the offshore Channel 

Islands where sea otters would be 

found (Marine Resources Protection 

Act, California Constitution Article 

10B). Dive fisheries (sea urchin, 

abalone) are extremely unlikely to 

result in take of sea otters by virtue 

of the methods they employ to 

harvest shellfish. Trap fisheries 

(lobster, crab, live-fish) could 

potentially result in the entrapment 

and drowning of sea otters and thus 

could be affected by a change in the 

regulatory environment. However, 

there are few data to assess the 

possibility of incidental take of 

southern sea otters in these fisheries, 

and therefore we cannot reliably 

anticipate the impact of this 

regulatory change on this segment of 

the commercial fishing community. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Summary and Comparison of Potential Impacts 213

6.8 Summary and Comparison of 

Potential Impacts 

What follows is a summary of the biological 

and socioeconomic effects of each 

alternative evaluated. 

6.8.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 

6.8.1.1 Biological Effects 

Under Alternative 1, sea otters would 

remain at San Nicolas Island but would be 

removed from all other areas of the Southern 

California Bight. As a consequence, 

ecosystem changes associated with the 

presence of sea otters (see section 6.2.2) 

would occur only at San Nicolas Island. 

Should the number of sea otters at San 

Nicolas Island continue to increase, at some 

point we would expect macroinvertebrates, 

like abalone and sea urchins, to be restricted 

to habitat that provides refuge from sea otter 

predation. Macroalgal assemblages would 

also likely change. The exact nature and 

magnitude of ecological change is unknown; 

however, it is likely that the change would 

result in an ecological community more 

closely resembling that which occurred 

naturally prior to the extirpation of sea otters 

from this area of their historic range during 

the fur trade. 

White abalone have been designated as 

endangered, and black abalone are now a 

candidate species. Alternative 1 would 

exclude sea otters from the management 

zone (most of the Southern California 

Bight), thereby limiting the effects of sea 

otter predation on these species as they 

recover. However, the benefits to these 

species of abalone are expected to be of low 

to moderate significance, primarily because 

of the depths white abalone typically occupy 

(which tend to be deeper than sea otters 

usually dive) and because of the ability of 

black abalone to maintain reproductively 

viable populations in cryptic habitat that is 

inaccessible to sea otters (where sufficient 

cryptic and inaccessible habitat exists). 

Southern sea otters would be affected 

negatively by Alternative 1. Starting in 

1998, large groups of sea otters began 

moving into the designated management 

zone from the parent population. 

Alternative 1 would restrict natural range 

expansion into historic habitat and cause the 

disruption of natural behaviors, thereby 

hampering recovery and possibly causing 

long-term, large scale adverse effects to the 

species. The management zone would 

eliminate about 37 percent of the carrying 

capacity (for sea otters) of California. 

Effects on the southern sea otter are 

expected to be adverse and of high 

significance. 

6.8.1.2 Socioeconomic Effects 

Beneficial effects of low to moderate 

significance would accrue to commercial 

(sea urchin, lobster, and crab) and 

recreational fisheries (lobster) as a result of 

the implementation of Alternative 1. 

Beneficial effects of low significance would 

accrue to the seafood processing industry. 

Beneficial effects of undetermined 

significance would accrue to aquaculture 

and abalone fishery restoration. Adverse 

effects of undetermined significance would 

likely accrue to the kelp harvesting industry, 

recreational finfish fishing, and ecotourism 

because of the exclusion of sea otters from 

the management zone. 

Alternative 1 would also affect the programs 

of the Service and other agencies. The cost 

of maintaining the management zone over a 

10-year period is just under $6 million 

(discounted at 3 percent), and it provides 

less opportunity, relative to the other 

alternatives, to meet our mandates to recover 

sea otters under the Endangered Species Act 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Summary and Comparison of Potential Impacts 214

and to bring them to their OSP level under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Under 

this alternative, the Channel Islands National 

Park and Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary would be unable to restore a key 

component of the historic marine ecosystem, 

and the California Department of Fish and 

Game would be hindered in its efforts to 

achieve ecological balance in the newly 

designated Channel Islands Marine 

Protected Areas. The U.S. Navy would 

continue to be exempt from endangered 

species consultation requirements with 

regard to sea otters in either the management 

zone or translocation zone, and the Minerals 

Management Service would continue to be 

exempt from endangered species 

consultation requirements with regard to sea 

otters in the management zone. The existing 

obligation of these agencies to conference 

on actions that are likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the sea otter or, 

should critical habitat be proposed in the 

future, on actions likely to adversely modify 

such proposed critical habitat would 

continue. 

6.8.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 

6.8.2.1 Biological Effects 

Under Alternative 2, the sea otter colony 

would remain at San Nicolas Island, and sea 

otters from the mainland population could 

expand their range naturally along the 

coastline as far as the city of Santa Barbara 

and into the nearshore areas surrounding San 

Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands. 

Maintenance of the modified management 

zone under Alternative 2 would allow sea 

otters to recolonize additional nearshore 

marine habitat in the Southern California 

Bight relative to Alternative 1, but it would 

prevent further range expansion. If sea 

otters expanded their range into the areas 

open to them, the changes described in 

section 6.2.2 would likely occur. In 10 

years, sea otters are projected to recolonize 

the coastline area to Santa Barbara but not 

the islands of San Miguel and Santa Rosa. 

Therefore, all effects expected to occur 

within 10 years are the same as for the 

baseline. 

In areas recolonized by sea otters, 

macroinvertebrates, like abalone and sea 

urchins, would likely be restricted to habitat 

that provides refuge from sea otter 

predation. Macroalgal assemblages would 

also likely change. The exact nature and 

magnitude of ecological change is unknown; 

however, it would likely result in an 

ecological community more closely 

resembling that which occurred prior to the 

extirpation of sea otters from the area during 

the fur trade. 

Alternative 2 would provide white and black 

abalone with less protection from sea otter 

predation than would Alternative 1, but the 

modified zone would cover much of the area 

of the Southern California Bight suitable for 

these species. Alternative 2 is expected to 

provide some benefit for individuals of 

white abalone and possibly local populations 

of black abalone (those not in cryptic, 

inaccessible habitat) in the long term, 

relative to the baseline, but it is not expected 

to provide benefits at the species level. 

Benefits provided by the modified 

management zone are limited because under 

baseline conditions white abalone are 

already protected from sea otter predation, 

to a large extent, by natural refugia (depth, 

offshore banks, etc.), and because black 

abalone can maintain reproductively viable 

populations in the presence of sea otters 

where sufficient cryptic and inaccessible 

habitat exists. 

Sea otters would be allowed under 

Alternative 2 to re-occupy a greater portion 

of their historic habitat than they would be 

under Alternative 1, representing a benefit 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Summary and Comparison of Potential Impacts 215

for sea otter recovery (if viewed in relation 

to Alternative 1). However, the continued 

removal of sea otters from the redefined 

management zone would hamper recovery 

of the species and would also likely make it 

more difficult to bring sea otters to their 

OSP level under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. The modified management 

zone would eliminate about 27 percent of 

the carrying capacity (for sea otters) of 

California. 

6.8.2.2 Socioeconomic Effects 

Shellfish fisheries, both commercial and 

recreational (lobster diving), would likely be 

eliminated in the areas re-occupied by sea 

otters. Changes in the fisheries would likely 

take place over many years or decades, with 

the area from Point Conception to Santa 

Barbara expected to be affected within the 

next 10 years. Effects are the same as for 

the baseline within the 10-year time horizon. 

If in the future sea otters recolonize San 

Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands, the loss of 

these areas would be a greater impact on the 

sea urchin fishery, and possibly the crab and 

lobster fisheries, than loss of other areas of 

comparable size in southern California 

because these islands are important fishing 

grounds. Similarly, recolonization of these 

islands could have a disproportionate effect 

on efforts to restore the abalone fishery. 

Possible long-term effects at San Miguel and 

Santa Rosa Islands are the same as would be 

expected under the baseline but are losses in 

relation to Alternative 1. If sea otters 

continue to expand their range, over time the 

modified management zone would represent 

a benefit (of unknown magnitude) relative to 

the baseline for fisheries located within the 

modified zone because containment would 

occur in that area. Relative to the baseline, 

possible future benefits would also accrue to 

aquaculture, the seafood processing 

industry, and abalone fishery restoration 

within the modified management zone. 

Adverse effects of undetermined 

significance would likely accrue to the kelp 

harvesting industry, recreational finfish 

fishing, and ecotourism within the modified 

management zone because of the exclusion 

of sea otters. 

The effects of Alternative 2 on agencies 

would be similar to the effects of Alternative 

1. The cost of maintaining the modified 

management zone would be about $5.4 

million over 10 years (discounted at 3 

percent). The effects on sea otters (as 

described under “Biological Effects”) would 

hinder our ability to recover the species and 

to bring the population to its OSP level. The 

reduced size of the management zone under 

Alternative 2 would allow the Channel 

Islands National Park and the Channel 

Islands Marine Sanctuary to work towards 

attaining their goal of restoration of the 

marine ecosystem in areas within their 

jurisdiction at two of the five islands they 

manage. The U.S. Navy would continue to 

be exempt from endangered species 

consultation requirements with regard to sea 

otters at San Nicolas Island and throughout 

the redefined management zone, and the 

Minerals Management Service would be 

exempt from endangered species 

consultation requirements with regard to sea 

otters in the modified zone as well. The 

existing obligation of these agencies to 

conference on actions that are likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the sea 

otter or, should critical habitat be proposed 

in the future, on actions likely to adversely 

modify such proposed critical habitat would 

continue. Both agencies would be required 

to consult on activities affecting sea otters 

outside the redefined management zone. 

6.8.3 ALTERNATIVES 3A-3C 

The effects of Alternatives 3A-3C are 

generally similar to those for the baseline 

(status quo). 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Summary and Comparison of Potential Impacts 216

6.8.3.1 Biological Effects 

Under Alternatives 3A-3C, sea otters may 

expand their range naturally throughout the 

entire Southern California Bight. Should 

sea otters expand their range, we would 

expect macroinvertebrates, like abalone and 

sea urchins, to be restricted to habitat that 

provides refuge from sea otter predation. 

Macroalgal assemblages would also likely 

change. The exact nature and magnitude of 

ecological change is unknown; however, the 

change would likely result in an ecological 

community more closely resembling that 

which occurred naturally prior to the 

extirpation of sea otters from this area of 

their historic range during the fur trade. 

Alternatives 3A-3C would not provide white 

and black abalone with the protection of a 

management zone as would Alternatives 1 

and 2. However, as sea otter range 

expansion is expected to occur gradually, 

and as both abalone species have refugia 

from sea otter predation (white abalone in 

deep waters, black abalone in cryptic and 

inaccessible habitat), sea otters are not 

expected to have effects at the species level. 

Because of the ability of white and black 

abalone to make use of these refugia, only a 

portion of each abalone population would be 

exposed to sea otter predation even in 

general areas of the Southern California 

Bight that sea otters eventually reoccupy. 

Sea otters may re-occupy any or all of their 

historic habitat under Alternatives 3A-3C. 

The allowance of natural range expansion 

clearly benefits recovery efforts under the 

Endangered Species Act and the return to 

OSP under the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act. Risks to individual animals subject to 

removal from a management zone (as under 

Alternative 1 or 2) would be eliminated, 

natural range expansion would be 

unimpeded, and the extension of sea otters’ 

range over a larger area would reduce the 

risk that a single catastrophic event, such as 

an oil spill, could cause extinction of the 

species. 

6.8.3.2 Socioeconomic Effects 

Shellfish fisheries, both commercial and 

recreational (lobster), would likely be 

eliminated in areas re-occupied by sea 

otters. Changes in the fisheries would likely 

take place over many years or decades, with 

some localized areas along the coastline to 

Santa Barbara being affected within the next 

10 years. Widespread fishery changes across 

the southern California Bight would be 

gradual, taking place over many decades. In 

the long term, aquaculture, the seafood 

processing industry, and abalone fishery 

restoration would not benefit, relative to the 

baseline, as they would under Alternatives 1 

and 2. 

Under Alternatives 3A-3C, kelp harvesting, 

recreational finfish fishing, and ecotourism 

would be generally enhanced. 

 

Federal activities that may affect southern 

sea otters in the southern California Bight 

would require consultation under Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act. Exemption 

from consultation requirements, as 

authorized under Public Law 99-625, would 

no longer be applicable. The Channel 

Islands National Park and the Channel 

Islands Marine Sanctuary would be able to 

work towards attaining their goal of 

restoring the marine ecosystem in all areas 

within their jurisdiction. 

Commercial and recreational fisheries would 

no longer be exempt from the incidental take 

prohibitions of the Endangered Species Act 

and the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

within the former management zone. 

Instead, the same general provisions that 

apply to sea otters in central California 

would apply to sea otters in the Southern 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Summary and Comparison of Potential Impacts 217

California Bight. While Section 7 and 

Section 10 the Endangered Species Act 

provide means to authorize incidental take 

of sea otters, the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act does not provide means to authorize the 

incidental take of sea otters by commercial 

fisheries. 

Several sub-alternatives are presented for 

consideration should the translocation 

program be formally declared a failure [50 

CFR §17.84(d)(8)]. The actions and impacts 

related to these sub-alternatives are 

summarized below. 

6.8.4 ALTERNATIVE 3A 

Potential impacts of Alternative 3A include 

all of the impacts noted above for 

Alternative 3. Additional effects would 

result from the removal of sea otters from 

San Nicolas Island and the management 

zone. Some sea otters captured and moved 

from San Nicolas Island and the 

management zone may die, and the removal 

of sea otters naturally moving into the 

management zone may have adverse affects 

on the parent population (depending on the 

numbers of sea otters removed from the 

management zone). The removal of sea 

otters from San Nicolas Island could have 

unpredictable effects. Although the 

colony’s removal is generally expected to 

slow but not eliminate range expansion and 

subsequent competition with shellfisheries, 

it is also possible that it could speed 

recolonization because some sea otters may 

try to return and may establish the seed of a 

colony elsewhere in the Southern California 

Bight. Overall, removing sea otters from 

San Nicolas Island and the management 

zone and placing them in the mainland range 

would likely be extremely disruptive, if not 

harmful, to the animals removed, and 

disruptive also to animals in the receiving 

population. Both the displaced animals and 

the receiving population would suffer 

disturbance to their social structure and 

encounter increased competition for food. 

6.8.5 ALTERNATIVE 3B 

Potential impacts of Alternative 3B include 

all of the impacts noted above for 

Alternative 3. Additional effects would 

result from the removal of sea otters from 

San Nicolas Island. Some sea otters 

captured and moved from San Nicolas 

Island may die. The removal of sea otters 

from San Nicolas Island could have 

unpredictable effects. Although the 

colony’s removal is generally expected to 

slow but not eliminate range expansion and 

subsequent competition with shellfisheries, 

it is also possible that it could speed 

recolonization because some sea otters may 

try to return and may establish the seed of a 

colony elsewhere in the Southern California 

Bight. Overall, removing sea otters from 

San Nicolas Island and placing them in the 

mainland range would likely be extremely 

disruptive, if not harmful, to the animals 

removed, and disruptive also to animals in 

the receiving population. Both the displaced 

animals and the receiving population would 

suffer disturbance to their social structure 

and encounter increased competition for 

food. 

6.8.6 ALTERNATIVE 3C (PROPOSED ACTION) 

Potential impacts of Alternative 3C include 

all of the impacts noted above for 

Alternative 3. This alternative would likely 

result in a more rapid reoccupation of 

historic sea otter habitat in the Southern 

California Bight than Alternatives 3A or 3B 

and may accelerate changes in affected 

fisheries. This alternative represents the 

most favorable option for the 

accomplishment of sea otter recovery goals 

because it allows for natural range 

expansion and would likely increase the 

resiliency of the species in the event of a 

catastrophic oil spill or similar event in a 

portion of its range. 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Summary and Comparison of Potential Impacts 218

TABLE 6-43. SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

Impact Topic No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3A 

Alternative 

3B 

Alternative 

3C (Proposed 

Action)

10 

yrs 

Top 

carnivore 

returns to 

area PC to 

SB, increases 

use of habitat 

at SNI; 

invertebrate 

densities 

decrease PC 

to SB and 

slightly at 

SNI 

No return of top 

carnivore; 

invertebrate 

densities increase 

near Cojo 

Anchorage, 

remain same in 

SCB except 

decrease slightly 

at SNI 

Top carnivore 

returns to area 

PC to SB, 

increases use of 

habitat at SNI; 

invertebrate 

densities 

decrease PC to 

SB and slightly 

at SNI (same as 

No Action in 10 

years) 

Top carnivore returns to area PC to 

SB, invertebrate densities decrease 

PC to SB but increase slightly at 

SNI in short-term 

Top carnivore 

returns to area 

PC to SB, 

increases use of 

habitat at SNI; 

invertebrate 

densities 

decrease PC to 

SB and slightly 

at SNI (same as 

No Action) 

Sig. Significance criteria not defined 

Nearshore 

Marine 

Ecosystem 

Long 

term 

Top 

carnivore 

gradually 

returns to 

SCB, kelp/ 

biodiversity 

increases in 

reoccupied 

areas 

throughout 

SCB, 

ecosystem 

enhanced 

Top carnivore 

never returns to 

most of SCB 

nearshore area; 

ecosystem 

enhanced only at 

SNI 

Top carnivore 

never returns to 

much of SCB 

nearshore area; 

ecosystem 

enhanced PC to 

SB and at SNI, 

SMI, and SRI 

but not in 

remainder of 

SCB 

Possible delay in SCB ecosystem 

enhancement from removing SNI 

sea otters; otherwise, top carnivore 

gradually returns to SCB, kelp/ 

biodiversity increases in areas 

throughout SCB, ecosystem 

enhanced (almost same as No 

Action) 

Top carnivore 

gradually 

returns to SCB, 

kelp/ 

biodiversity 

increases in 

reoccupied areas 

through-out 

SCB, ecosystem 

enhanced (same 

as No Action) 

10 

yrs 

Likely 

predation on 

shallowliving 

individuals 

PC to SB and 

slight 

increase in 

predation on 

shallowliving 

individuals 

at SNI; no 

effect at local 

population 

level 

Probable benefit 

to shallow-living 

individuals PC to 

SB but no benefit 

at local 

population level; 

at SNI, same as 

No Action (slight 

increase in 

predation on 

shallow-living 

individuals; no 

effect at local 

population level) 

Likely predation 

on shallowliving 

individuals PC 

to SB and at 

SNI; no effect at 

local population 

level (same as 

No Action 

within 10 years) 

Same as No Action PC to SB; 

probable slight short-term benefit to 

shallow-living individuals at SNI 

from removing SNI sea otters 

Likely predation 

on shallowliving 

individuals PC 

to SB and at 

SNI; no effect at 

local population 

level (same as 

No Action) 

Sig. Beneficial 

effect, low 

significance 

No change, 

not 

significant 

Beneficial effect (very low), 

not significant 

No change, 

not 

significant 

White 

Abalone 

Long 

term 

Predation on 

shallowliving 

individuals; 

no adverse 

effect at 

species level 

Probable benefit 

to shallow-living 

individuals in 

mgmt. zone but 

no benefit at 

species level 

Probable benefit 

to shallow-living 

individuals in 

modified mgmt. 

zone but no 

benefit at 

species level 

Possible benefit to shallow-living 

individuals in SCB from slowed 

range expansion; otherwise, 

predation on shallow-living 

individuals; no adverse effect at 

species level (almost same as No 

Action) 

Predation on 

shallow-living 

individuals; no 

adverse effect at 

species level 

(same as No 

Action) 

Candidate, Threatened, and Endangered Species 

Black 

Abalone 

10 

yrs 

Likely 

predation on 

emergent 

individuals 

and local 

population 

effects PC to 

SB and at 

SNI; no 

adverse 

Probable benefit 

to emergent 

individuals and 

local population 

benefits PC to 

SB but no benefit 

at species level; 

at SNI likely 

predation on 

emergent 

Likely predation 

on emergent 

individuals and 

local population 

effects PC to SB 

and at SNI; no 

adverse effect at 

species level 

(same as No 

Action within 10 

Likely predation on emergent 

individuals and local population 

effects PC to SB (same as No 

Action PC to SB); probable benefit 

to emergent individuals and local 

population benefits at SNI from 

removing SNI sea otters 

Likely predation 

on emergent 

individuals and 

local population 

effects PC to SB 

and at SNI; no 

adverse effect at 

species level 

(same as No 

Action) 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Summary and Comparison of Potential Impacts 219

TABLE 6-43. SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

Impact Topic No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3A 

Alternative 

3B 

Alternative 

3C (Proposed 

Action)

effect at 

species level 

individuals and 

local population 

effects (same as 

No Action at 

SNI) 

years) 

Sig. Beneficial 

effect, 

moderate 

significance

No change, 

not 

significant

Beneficial effect, moderate 

significance

No change, 

not 

significant

Black 

Abalone 

(cont’d) 

Long 

term 

Emergent 

individuals 

consumed, 

local 

population 

effects; no 

effect at 

species level 

Probable benefit 

to emergent 

individuals and 

local populations 

in mgmt. zone 

but no benefit at 

species level 

Probable benefit 

to emergent 

individuals and 

local 

populations in 

modified mgmt. 

zone but no 

benefit at 

species level 

Possible benefit to emergent 

individuals in SCB from slowed 

range expansion; otherwise, 

emergent individuals consumed, 

local population effects; no effect at 

species level (almost same as No 

Action) 

No adverse 

effect at species 

level (same as 

No Action) 

Possible benefit to individuals from protections 

afforded by incidental take provisions 

Possible death or injury to sea 

otters removed (short-term) from 

SNI 

10 

yrs 

Sea otters 

gradually 

expand range 

along 

coastline 

toward Santa 

Barbara and 

increase by 

9% per year 

at SNI 

Range expansion 

restricted; 

possible injury or 

death to moved 

sea otters; rangewide disturbance 

of behavior; at 

SNI sea otter 

colony increases 

by 9% per year 

(same as No 

Action at SNI) 

Sea otters 

gradually 

expand range 

along coastline 

toward Santa 

Barbara and 

increase by 9% 

per year at SNI 

(same as No 

Action within 10 

years) 

Possible death 

or injury to sea 

otters removed 

(short-term) 

from mgmt. 

zone 

Sig. Adverse 

effect, high 

significance 

No change, 

not 

significant 

Adverse 

effect, 

moderate 

significance 

Adverse 

effect, low 

significance 

Beneficial 

effect, low 

significance 

Range restricted; 

approximately 

37% of carrying 

capacity of CA 

for sea otters 

eliminated by 

mgmt. zone 

Range restricted; 

approximately 

27% of carrying 

capacity of CA 

for sea otters 

eliminated by 

modified mgmt. 

zone 

Maximizes opportunity for sea otter recovery and 

attainment of OSP through habitat available and 

possible benefit afforded by incidental take provisions 

(same as No Action except incidental take provisions) 

Range-wide disturbance of behavior; 

possible injury or death to moved sea 

otters; increased vulnerability to oil 

spills, disease, etc. 

Southern 

Sea 

Otter 

Long 

term 

Maximizes 

habitat 

available for 

sea otter 

recovery 

Cumulative 

effects of range 

restriction and 

containment 

would likely 

have long-term, 

large scale 

adverse effects 

on species 

Cumulative 

effects of range 

restriction and 

containment 

may have longterm, large scale 

adverse effects 

on species 

Recovery possibly slowed by 

removal of SNI sea otters 

PC=Point Conception 

SB=Santa Barbara 

SNI=San Nicolas Island 

SCB=Southern California Bight 

OSP=Optimum Sustainable Population level for sea otters 

Sig.=level of significance 

Local population level=Change in population densities of all ageor size-classes in a limited area of the affected species’ range 

Species level=Change in population densities in a substantial 

portion of the affected species’ range that would likely affect its 

long-term survival
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Summary and Comparison of Potential Impacts 220

TABLE 6-44. SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

Impact Topic No Action Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3A 

Alternative 

3B 

Alternative 

3C (Proposed 

Action)

10 

yrs 

Landings from 

PC to SB 

decrease 10% 

per year to 

zero in 2014 

& 1% per year 

at SNI; 

landings in 

other areas not 

affected 

+$2,579,214 

over 10 years 

(representing a 

gain of 3% for 

the SCB sea 

urchin fishery 

as a whole) 

Same as No 

Action within 

10 years 

+$1,067,110 over 10 years 

(representing a gain of 1% for the 

SCB sea urchin fishery as a whole) 

from avoided short-term losses at 

SNI 

Landings from 

PC to SB 

decrease 10% 

per year to zero 

in 2014 & 1% 

per year at SNI; 

landings in 

other areas not 

affected (same 

as No Action) 

Sig. Beneficial 

effect, low 

significance

No change, 

not 

significant 

Beneficial effect, low 

significance 

No change, 

not 

significant 

Benefit to sea urchin fishery of 

unknown magnitude 

Sea 

Urchin 

Fishery 

Long 

term 

Landings 

decrease in 

areas of SCB 

reoccupied by 

sea otters 

No decrease in 

SCB landings 

due to sea 

otters except at 

SNI 

No decrease in 

SCB landings 

due to sea 

otters except 

from PC to SB 

& at SNI 

Landings decrease in areas of SCB reoccupied by sea 

otters (same as No Action) 

10 

yrs 

Landings from 

PC to SB 

decrease 10% 

per year to 

zero in 2014 

& 1% per year 

at SNI; 

landings in 

other areas not 

affected 

+$2,003,107 

over 10 years 

(representing a 

gain of 5% for 

the SCB lobster 

fishery as a 

whole) 

Same as No 

Action within 

10 years 

+$245,827 over 10 years 

(representing a gain of 0.6% for 

the SCB lobster fishery as a 

whole) 

Landings from 

PC to SB 

decrease 10% 

per year to zero 

in 2014 & 1% 

per year at SNI; 

landings in 

other areas not 

affected (same 

as No Action) 

Sig. Beneficial 

effect, low 

significance

No change, 

not 

significant

Beneficial effect (very low), 

not significant

No change, 

not 

significant

Benefit to lobster fishery of 

unknown magnitude 

Spiny 

Lobster 

Fishery 

Long 

term 

Landings 

decrease in 

areas of SCB 

reoccupied by 

sea otters 

No decrease in 

SCB landings 

due to sea 

otters except at 

SNI 

No decrease in 

SCB landings 

due to sea 

otters except 

from PC to SB 

& at SNI 

Landings decrease in areas of SCB reoccupied by sea 

otters (same as No Action) 

10 

yrs 

Landings from 

PC to SB 

decrease 10% 

per year to 

zero in 2014 

& 1% per year 

at SNI; 

landings in 

other areas 

not affected 

+$915,675 over 

10 years 

(representing a 

gain of 11% for 

the SCB crab 

fishery as a 

whole) 

Same as No 

Action within 

10 years 

+$7,625 over 10 years 

(representing a gain of 0.1% for 

the SCB crab fishery as a whole) 

Landings from 

PC to SB 

decrease 10% 

per year to zero 

in 2014 & 1% 

per year at SNI; 

landings in 

other areas not 

affected (same 

as No Action) 

Commercial Fisheries 

Crab 

Fishery 

Sig. Beneficial 

effect, 

moderate 

significance

No change, 

not 

significant

Beneficial effect (very low), 

not significant

No change, 

not 

significant
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Summary and Comparison of Potential Impacts 221

TABLE 6-44. SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

Impact Topic No Action Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3A 

Alternative 

3B 

Alternative 

3C (Proposed 

Action)

Benefit to crab fishery of unknown 

magnitude 

Crab 

Fishery 

(cont’d) 

Long 

term 

Landings 

decrease in 

areas of SCB 

reoccupied by 

sea otters 

No decrease in 

SCB landings 

due to sea 

otters except at 

SNI 

No decrease in 

SCB landings 

due to sea 

otters except 

from PC to SB 

& at SNI 

Landings decrease in areas of SCB reoccupied by sea 

otters (same as No Action) 

10 

yrs 

Local, 

sporadic 

reduction in 

mussel 

densities at 

offshore oil 

platforms to 

the 1-2 

musselproducing 

leaseholders 

in the SB 

Channel 

Slight benefit 

to the 1-2 

musselproducing 

leaseholders in 

the SB Channel 

from absence 

of risk of local, 

sporadic 

clearing of 

patches in 

mussel colonies 

Same as No 

Action within 

10 years 

Local, sporadic reduction in mussel densities at 

offshore oil platforms to the 1-2 mussel-producing 

leaseholders in the SB Channel (same as No Action) 

Sig. Significance criteria not defined 

Aquaculture 

Long 

term 

Sporadic 

losses at 

unprotected 

open-water 

aquaculture 

leases 

Slight benefit 

to aquaculture 

leaseholders in 

mgmt. zone 

from absence 

of sporadic 

losses at 

unprotected 

open-water 

aquaculture 

leases 

Slight benefit 

to aquaculture 

leaseholders in 

modified 

mgmt. zone 

from absence 

of sporadic 

losses at 

unprotected 

open-water 

aquaculture 

leases 

Sporadic losses at unprotected open-water aquaculture 

leases (same as No Action) 

10 

yrs 

Inputs to sea 

urchin 

processing 

facilities from 

PC to SB 

decrease 10% 

per year to 

zero in 2014 

& 1% per year 

at SNI; inputs 

from other 

areas not 

affected 

Possible benefit 

to sea urchin 

processing 

facilities from 

3% increase in 

inputs from 

SCB 

Same as No 

Action within 

10 years 

Possible benefit to sea urchin 

processing facilities from 1% 

increase in SCB landings resulting 

from removal of sea otters from 

San Nicolas Island 

Inputs to sea 

urchin 

processing 

facilities from 

PC to SB 

decrease 10% 

per year to zero 

in 2014 & 1% 

per year at SNI; 

inputs from 

other areas not 

affected (same 

as No Action) 

Sig. Beneficial 

effect, low 

significance

No change, 

not 

significant

Beneficial effect, low 

significance

No change, 

not 

significant

Benefit to sea urchin processing 

facilities of unknown magnitude 

Seafood 

Processing 

Industry (Sea 

Urchins) 

Long 

term 

Elimination of 

inputs to sea 

urchin 

processing 

facilities from 

areas 

recolonized by 

sea otters 

No decrease in 

SCB inputs due 

to sea otters 

except at SNI 

No decrease in 

SCB inputs due 

to sea otters 

except PC to 

SB and at SNI 

Adverse effects of unknown magnitude; elimination of 

inputs to sea urchin processing facilities from areas 

recolonized by sea otters (same as No Action) 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Summary and Comparison of Potential Impacts 222

TABLE 6-44. SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

Impact Topic No Action Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3A 

Alternative 

3B 

Alternative 

3C (Proposed 

Action)

10 

yrs 

Possible 

enhancement 

of kelp 

stability and 

persistence PC 

to SB (may 

require more 

than 10 years) 

and at SNI 

No 

enhancement of 

kelp stability 

and persistence 

PC to SB but 

same as No 

Action at SNI 

Same as No 

Action within 

10 years 

Possible slight loss of kelp 

available for harvest at SNI 

resulting from removal of sea otter 

colony; otherwise, same as No 

Action 

Possible 

enhancement of 

kelp stability 

and persistence 

PC to SB (may 

require more 

than 10 years) 

and at SNI 

(same as No 

Action) 

Sig. Significance criteria not defined 

Adverse effect on kelp harvesting 

industry of unknown magnitude 

Kelp Harvest 

Long 

term 

Likely 

increase in 

kelp available 

for harvest in 

areas 

reoccupied by 

sea otters 

No increase in 

kelp available 

for harvest in 

SCB except 

enhancement of 

kelp beds at 

SNI 

No increase in 

kelp available 

for harvest in 

SCB except 

enhancement of 

kelp beds PC to 

SB and at SNI 

Likely increase in kelp available for harvest in areas 

reoccupied by sea otters (same as No Action) 

10 

yrs 

Lobster diving 

trips PC to SB 

decrease 10% 

per year 

(about 1 trip) 

to zero in 

2014 & 1% 

per year at 

SNI (from 521 

to 469 trips 

per year); trips 

in other areas 

not affected 

Average annual 

benefit of 0.9 

lobster dive 

trips, 

representing 

less than 1% of 

the annual 

average of SCB 

lobster dive 

trips (8,983) 

Same as No 

Action within 

10 years 

Average annual benefit of 52 trips, 

representing less than 1% of the 

annual average of SCB lobster 

dive trips (8,983)

Lobster dive 

trips PC to SB 

decrease 10% 

per year (about 

1 trip) to zero in 

2014 & 1% per 

year at SNI 

(from 521 to 

469 trips per 

year); trips in 

other areas not 

affected (same 

as No Action) 

Sig. Beneficial 

effect (very 

low), not 

significant

No change, 

not 

significant

Beneficial effect (very low), 

not significant

No change, 

not 

significant

Benefit to recreational lobster 

diving of unknown magnitude 

Lobster 

Diving 

Long 

term 

Decrease or 

elimination of 

lobster dive 

trips in areas 

recolonized by 

sea otters 

No decrease in 

SCB lobster 

dives due to sea 

otters except at 

SNI 

No decrease in 

SCB lobster 

dives due to sea 

otters except 

PC to SB and 

at SNI 

Decrease or elimination of lobster dive trips in areas 

recolonized by sea otters (same as No Action) 

10 

yrs 

Possible 

enhancement 

of kelpcanopyassociated 

finfish PC to 

SB but not 

likely 

noticeable 

within 10 

years; possible 

enhancement 

of finfish 

habitat and 

production at 

SNI 

No 

enhancement of 

kelp-canopyassociated 

finfish PC to 

SB but not 

likely 

noticeable 

within 10 

years; possible 

enhancement of 

finfish habitat 

and production 

at SNI 

Same as No 

Action within 

10 years 

Possible decline in kelp-canopyassociated finfish if kelp stability 

and persistence decreases at SNI 

due to removal of sea otters; 

otherwise, same as No Action 

Possible 

enhancement of 

kelp-canopyassociated 

finfish PC to 

SB but not 

likely 

noticeable 

within 10 years; 

possible 

enhancement of 

finfish habitat 

and production 

at SNI (same as 

No Action) 

Recreational Fishing and Diving 

Finfish 

Fishing 

Sig. Significance criteria not defined
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Summary and Comparison of Potential Impacts 223

TABLE 6-44. SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

Impact Topic No Action Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3A 

Alternative 

3B 

Alternative 

3C (Proposed 

Action)

Possible adverse effect on 

recreational finfish fishing of 

unknown magnitude 

Finfish 

Fishing 

(cont’d) 

Long 

term 

Possible 

enhancement 

of kelpassociated 

finfish and 

recreational 

fishing in 

SCB where 

sea otters 

recolonize 

range 

No 

enhancement of 

recreational 

finfish fishing 

in SCB except 

at SNI 

No 

enhancement of 

recreational 

finfish fishing 

in SCB except 

PC to SB and 

at SNI 

Possible enhancement of kelp-associated finfish and 

recreational fishing in SCB where sea otters recolonize 

range (same as No Action) 

10 

yrs 

No effect in 

10 years 

because no 

chance of 

abalone 

fishery 

restoration in 

this time, but 

presence of 

sea otters PC 

to SB and at 

SNI would 

exclude these 

areas from 

possible future 

abalone 

fishery 

consideration 

No effect in 10 

years because 

no chance of 

abalone fishery 

restoration in 

this time, but 

PC to SB 

would not be 

excluded from 

possible future 

fishery 

consideration 

Same as No 

Action within 

10 years 

Probably no effect from removal 

of sea otters from SNI because 

possible abalone fishery 

restoration is expected to require 

decades; most likely same as No 

Action 

No effect in 10 

years because 

no chance of 

abalone fishery 

restoration in 

this time, but 

presence of sea 

otters PC to SB 

and at SNI 

would exclude 

these areas 

from possible 

future abalone 

fishery 

consideration 

(same as No 

Action) 

Sig. Significance criteria not defined 

Abalone 

Fishery 

Restoration 

Long 

term 

Possible 

abalone 

fishery 

restoration 

precluded in 

areas of SCB 

reoccupied by 

sea otters 

Possible 

abalone fishery 

restoration 

precluded at 

SNI but not in 

other areas of 

SCB 

Possible 

abalone fishery 

restoration 

precluded PC 

to SB and at 

SNI but not in 

other areas of 

SCB 

Possible abalone fishery restoration precluded in areas 

of SCB reoccupied by sea otters (same as No Action) 

10 

yrs 

Enhancement 

of ecotourism 

PC to SB and 

at SNI 

No 

enhancement of 

ecotourism PC 

to SB but 

ecotourism 

enhanced at 

SNI 

Same as No 

Action within 

10 years 

Negative effect on ecotourism 

trips to SNI; otherwise same as No 

Action 

Same as No 

Action 

Sig. Significance criteria not defined 

Ecotourism 

Long 

term 

Enhancement 

of ecotourism 

in areas of 

SCB 

reoccupied by 

sea otters 

No 

enhancement of 

ecotourism in 

SCB except at 

SNI 

No 

enhancement of 

ecotourism in 

SCB except PC 

to SB and at 

SNI 

Enhancement of ecotourism in areas of SCB 

reoccupied by sea otters (same as No Action) 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Summary and Comparison of Potential Impacts 224

TABLE 6-44. SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

Impact Topic No Action Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3A 

Alternative 

3B 

Alternative 

3C (Proposed 

Action)

10 

yrs 

-- -$5,992,867 to 

maintain 

management 

zone over 10 

years 

-$5,431,101 to 

maintain 

modified 

management 

zone over 10 

years 

-$1,506,436 

(over 3 years) 

-$820,134 

(over 2 years) 

Same as No 

Action 

Sig. Significance criteria not defined 

U.S. Fish 

and 

Wildlife 

Service 

Long 

term 

Maximum 

opportunity to 

meet mandate 

to recover 

southern sea 

otter under 

ESA and to 

bring its 

population to 

OSP under 

MMPA 

Difficult or 

impossible to 

meet mandate 

to recover 

southern sea 

otter under 

ESA and to 

bring its 

population to 

OSP under 

MMPA 

Would likely 

make it 

difficult to 

meet mandate 

to recover 

southern sea 

otter under 

ESA and to 

bring its 

population to 

OSP under 

MMPA 

Removal of SNI colony would 

have adverse effects on individual 

sea otters and may slow future 

recovery; possible benefit from 

incidental take provisions; 

otherwise, maximum opportunity 

to meet mandate to recover 

southern sea otter under ESA and 

to bring its population to OSP 

under MMPA 

Possible benefit 

from change in 

incidental take 

provisions; 

otherwise, 

maximum 

opportunity to 

meet mandate 

to recover 

southern sea 

otter under ESA 

and to bring its 

population to 

OSP under 

MMPA 

10 

yrs 

No effect within 10 years 

Sig. Significance criteria not defined

Channel 

Islands 

National 

Park Long 

term 

Consistent 

with mission 

and “Park 

Mission 

Goals” to 

protect and 

restore natural 

ecosystems 

within the 

Park 

Not consistent 

with mission 

and “Park 

Mission Goals” 

to protect and 

restore natural 

ecosystems 

within the Park 

Allows Park to 

fulfill mission 

and “Park 

Mission Goals” 

to protect and 

restore natural 

ecosystems in 

two of five 

islands within 

the Park 

Consistent with mission and “Park Mission Goals” to 

protect and restore natural ecosystems within the Park 

(Same as No Action) 

10 

yrs 

No effect within 10 years 

Sig. Significance criteria not defined

Agency Programs 

Channel 

Islands 

National 

Marine 

Sanctuary 

Long 

term 

Consistent 

with mission 

to conserve 

and enhance 

biodiversity 

and ecological 

integrity in the 

Sanctuary 

Not consistent 

with mission to 

conserve and 

enhance 

biodiversity 

and ecological 

integrity in the 

Sanctuary 

Allows 

Sanctuary to 

fulfill mission 

to conserve and 

enhance 

biodiversity 

and ecological 

integrity in two 

of the five 

islands within 

the Sanctuary 

Consistent with mission to conserve and enhance 

biodiversity and ecological integrity in the Sanctuary 

(Same as No Action) 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Summary and Comparison of Potential Impacts 225

TABLE 6-44. SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

Impact Topic No Action Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3A 

Alternative 

3B 

Alternative 

3C (Proposed 

Action)

10 

yrs 

No effect within 10 years 

Sig. Significance criteria not defined

California 

Dept. of 

Fish and 

Game 

(MPAs) 

Longterm Consistent 

with many 

objectives 

outlined for 

Channel 

Islands MPAs; 

adverse effect 

on fishery 

enhancement 

goals for sea 

urchins, 

lobster, crabs, 

and abalone 

Inconsistent with many objectives 

outlined for Channel Islands 

MPAs; consistent with fishery 

enhancement goals for sea urchins, 

lobster, crabs, and abalone 

Consistent with many objectives outlined for Channel 

Islands MPAs; adverse effect on fishery enhancement 

goals for sea urchins, lobster, crabs, and abalone 

10 

yrs 

No consultation requirements under section 7 of ESA 

for actions that may affect southern sea otters in 

mgmt. zone or translocation zone except for actions 

that may jeopardize the continued existence of the 

species 

Consultation requirement for all actions that may 

affect the southern sea otter in the SCB; requirements 

can be met with programmatic consultation 

Sig. Significance criteria not defined

U.S. Navy 

Longterm Same as above Same as above 

10 

yrs 

No consultation requirements under section 7 of ESA 

for actions that may affect southern sea otters in 

management zone except for actions that may 

jeopardize the continued existence of the species; 

consultation requirement for all actions that may 

affect the southern sea otter in the translocation zone 

 

Consultation requirement for all actions that may 

affect the southern sea otter in the SCB 

Sig. Significance criteria not defined

U.S. 

Minerals 

Mgmt. 

Service 

Longterm Same as above Same as above 

Note: All dollar amounts are discounted at 3% 

PC=Point Conception 

SB=Santa Barbara 

SNI=San Nicolas Island 

SCB=Southern California Bight 

OSP=Optimum Sustainable Population level for southern sea otters 

ESA=Endangered Species Act 

MMPA=Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MPAs=Marine Protected Areas 

Sig.=level of significance 
DRAFT SEIS 2005 

Chapter 6: Environmental Consequences Other Considerations Required by NEPA 226

6.9 Other Considerations Required by NEPA 

A. POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE PROPOSED ACTION AND OBJECTIVES OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND 

LOCAL LAND-USE PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS FOR THE AREA CONCERNED. 

The proposed action does not conflict with the objectives of federal, regional, state, and local 

land use plans, policies, and controls. Table 6-43 summarizes environmental compliance for the 

proposed action.

B. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES AND 

MITIGATION MEASURES.

The proposed action (Alternative 3C) has no energy requirements and thus has the greatest 

conservation potential of the alternatives considered. The remaining alternatives have various 

levels of energy requirements (fuel for boats, airplanes, and vans/trucks) associated with the 

monitoring, capture, and transport of sea otters. Of the remaining alternatives, energy 

requirements are lowest for 3B and next-lowest for 3A because these alternatives call for only 

the removal of sea otters from San Nicolas Island and/or the management zone. Energy 

requirements are highest for Alternative 1 and next-highest for Alternative 2, because these 

alternatives require maintenance of a management zone in perpetuity. 

C. URBAN QUALITY, HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES, AND THE DESIGN OF THE BUILT 

ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDING THE REUSE AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES AND 

MITIGATION MEASURES. 

This topic is not relevant to the alternatives under consideration.

TABLE 6-45. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE OBJECTIVES OF 

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS 

Plans, Policies, and Controls Responsible 

Agency 

Status of Compliance 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

United States Code [U.S.C.] §4321 et 

seq.) 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service 

This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) 

has been prepared in accordance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA. The 

preparation of this SFEIS and the provision for its public 

review are being conducted in compliance with NEPA. 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA) (16 Code of Federal 

Regulations [C.F.R.] §1451 et seq.) 

California Coastal Act (14 California 

Code of Regulations [C.C.R.]) 

California 

Coastal 

Commission 

The Service has determined that the proposed action is 

consistent with the policies of the California Coastal Act and 

will complete a Coastal Consistency Determination in 

accordance with the CZMA. 

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 

§1531) 

National 

Marine 

Fisheries 

Service 

(NMFS) 

The Service initiated informal consultation with NMFS for 

effects of the proposed action (Alternative 3C) on white 

abalone in February of 2003. The Service will conclude 

formal section 7 consultation with NMFS for effects on white 

abalone and confer with NMFS for effects on black abalone 

before selection of any of the alternatives under consideration. 

EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (Executive Order 12898, 

59 FR 7629 [Section 1-101]) 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service 

Minority or low-income populations would not be 

disproportionately affected by the proposed action.